Will you be buying the PS5 day one?

[PondNewt]

On 04/05/2020 at 6:37 PM, djb5f said:

Who is not accepting cash money??  Retailers prefer cash over credit card so they don’t have to pay the transaction fee.  

 

Not sure if it's the case in other countries but here in the UK right now out of the few shops that are open most are shying away from taking physical cash.  Even petrol/gas stations are encouraging payment by card.  The only place I can easily get rid of my physical money right now is when going food shopping in big supermarkets as there I can pay using the self service checkouts.  It's because it's thought cash is something that may pass on COVID 19.  Hopefully things will have improved a lot by the time the PS5 comes out though so maybe it won't prove to be an issue.    

[Darling Baphomet]

1 hour ago, PondNewt said:

It's because it's thought cash is something that may pass on COVID 19.  Hopefully things will have improved a lot by the time the PS5 comes out though so maybe it won't prove to be an issue.    

 

If we're dealing with this shit by the time the PS5 rolls around, we'll have to have REALLY messed up somehow. So far, locally, I haven't seen anyone specifically not accepting cash, although the idea that they can pass COVID on makes sense, what with all the oils and such they get exposed to.

[AJ_Radio]

On 5/4/2020 at 0:23 AM, Darling Baphomet said:

 

I'd imagine it's largely a generational gap - pop artists are distinctly meant to cater to younger audiences, and they're massively popular among them. Given how well they perform, I don't think it's fair to say they're terrible, they just perform in ways that cater to different sensibilities than yours. I do agree that they're washed out, but that's kind of the problem with commercializing art - it stops being a celebration of the artist and their art, which is what art should be about, and instead becomes a job; and we all know how soulless jobs are.

 

That being said, there's plenty of current artists who I think are incredible but are wildly underrated (one group that's given me some amazing songs has less than 10-20k views on their official songs on Youtube), and I think that's just a problem with, again, the commercialization of music - the truth is, no artist is worth billions of fans. No artist. And by putting these mega-artists on a pedestal where they're borderline worshiped, you do so at the expense of smaller, just as good artists, who will never have their music celebrated nearly as much, not because they didn't try their hardest, and not because of the quality of their art, but just because they were unlucky.

 

But ultimately, you can't really value art, because art is a personal thing. The commercialization of art demands that it be objectively valued, and that process is always going to be one that hurts art in the long run.

 

My problem is they continue to promote Taylor Swift, Justin Beiber and Rihanna, the record labels that signed them in the first place. They suck. Not a single mainstream rapper today comes close to 2Pac, every modern country singer that gets wildly popular now is a piss stain compared to Waylon Jennings.

 

I was a big MF DOOM fan, as a matter of fact I'm still a fan of his. I don't think he's ever pulled more than a couple million hits on YouTube for any one of his songs. Meanwhile somebody like Lady Gaga has pulled hundreds millions of hits on YouTube for years, for essentially bubblegum pop that has no substance.

 

For sports it's different. I personally absolutely hate Lebron James, but there is no question he is among the most talented players of his generation. Same with Tom Brady, the legacy he has built with the New England Patriots is incredible. I don't like him much but I greatly respect him for the longevity and work he's put into his sport. People like that are few and far between.

 

Old rap groups like De La Soul and A Tribe Called Quest saw hip hop as an art. That's what it was for many years. It started becoming commercialized when 2Pac became huge and famous, then after his death a bunch of copy cat rappers tried to emulate his distinct, hard hitting rapping style. They all failed. Jay Z is perhaps one of the richest men in the industry today, but his music lacks substance and integrity. He simply gave up the art to make more money, and that's what the corporate suits want. They don't care about the passion or the quality of the music.

 

I've heard plenty of underground rappers and indie bands in my lifetime that generated better music on a shoestring budget. When you make millions like Lady Gaga and Jay Z, the quality doesn't matter. You got a bunch of idiot fans buying into their music, and that is obviously easier than making a song with heart and passion put into it. Because you're not going to find that with the mega-artists.

[Darling Baphomet]

20 minutes ago, Spaz said:

I was a big MF DOOM fan, as a matter of fact I'm still a fan of his. I don't think he's ever pulled more than a couple million hits on YouTube for any one of his songs. Meanwhile somebody like Lady Gaga has pulled hundreds millions of hits on YouTube for years, for essentially bubblegum pop that has no substance.

 

Well, I mean, again, I think that's essentially a difference in what substance is to you. That bubblegum pop is clearly enough for a lot of people. I think it's decent music - Lady Gaga definitely isn't one of my top artists, but I have appreciated the rare song from her. I think the thing is, our current generation is one that's struggling. A lot. We have unprecedented amounts of mental health issues (or at least - diagnosed ones, I suspect older generations just shut up and pretended they were normal) and a lot of people come to music for comfort or inspiration. That gives way for cheery, lighthearted songs that can distract you from your concerns. I listen to a mix of punk (including folk punk), what you'd probably consider bubblegum pop, and some power metal / similar hard stuff - all music that I feel empowers or otherwise motivates me.

 

20 minutes ago, Spaz said:

I've heard plenty of underground rappers and indie bands in my lifetime that generated better music on a shoestring budget. When you make millions like Lady Gaga and Jay Z, the quality doesn't matter. You got a bunch of idiot fans buying into their music, and that is obviously easier than making a song with heart and passion put into it. Because you're not going to find that with the mega-artists.

 

The thing is, though, to Lady Gaga's fans, she produces good music. Good enough for them, anyway. I think a lot of us have the idea of the masses as this shambling mob that's inherently less-than and unable to dictate their tastes for themselves. Lady Gaga's success is proof only that she's managed to anticipate the needs and desires of an incredibly large group of people. If we want to look at a commercialized artist's success, I think we first have to look at the conditions and attitudes that brought them to success.

 

Also, people really weren't designed to manage the level of super stardom that some people have obtained in our day and age. Humans are able to process, what, under 200 or so meaningful connections? When hundreds of millions of people look up to you for inspiration, I think some of your individuality gets lost in that process. You stop really being a person so much as you are just an icon.

 

Ultimately, it comes down to taste, which isn't something that can be policed, and popular artists do scratch that itch for a lot of people, especially younger ones. I'd agree that Lady Gaga and such have gotten more attention than they deserve, but not because they're bad artists - they are decent ones - but rather just because they've hit the jackpot with an amount of fame that no single artist should have, and as such, in comparison, it seems like other artists are being robbed. But that's just how fame works. It's winner takes all.

Edited May 6, 2020 by Darling Baphomet

[AJ_Radio]

17 minutes ago, Darling Baphomet said:

Well, I mean, again, I think that's essentially a difference in what substance is to you. That bubblegum pop is clearly enough for a lot of people. I think it's decent music - Lady Gaga definitely isn't one of my top artists, but I have appreciated the rare song from her. I think the thing is, our current generation is one that's struggling. A lot. We have unprecedented amounts of mental health issues (or at least - diagnosed ones, I suspect older generations just shut up and pretended they were normal) and a lot of people come to music for comfort or inspiration. That gives way for cheery, lighthearted songs that can distract you from your concerns. I listen to a mix of punk (including folk punk), what you'd probably consider bubblegum pop, and some power metal / similar hard stuff - all music that I feel empowers or otherwise motivates me.

 

Bubblegum Pop generally doesn't carry a lot of substance.

 

What I'm talking about is not only enjoying the beats and the rhythm, it's also understanding the lyrics and the message they're sending. The reason I suspect MF DOOM doesn't get that many hits is because hip hop that delves into the experimental realm is something only a few people understand. That's primarily why De La Soul and A Tribe Called Quest never became hugely popular, the lyrics in their songs were too complex for most people to understand. I suspect also, especially before the days of the internet, you needed to have that certain background with you to get a better understanding.

 

Lady Gaga being mega popular is no different from Britney Spears back in the day. I understood Britney Spears music back when I was 12 years old.

 

Country is another genre that has become mega popular, but like Pop it delved in the realm of sacrificing substance to generate more hits. Florida Georgia Line is complete shit to me. Can't stand their music at all. Yet they're mega popular. One reason... more people in America understand them better. Especially little kids, which is their primary audience.

 

17 minutes ago, Darling Baphomet said:

Also, people really weren't designed to manage the level of super stardom that some people have obtained in our day and age. Humans are able to process, what, under 200 or so meaningful connections? When hundreds of millions of people look up to you for inspiration, I think some of your individuality gets lost in that process. You stop really being a person so much as you are just an icon.

 

That isn't new. That's always been the case.

 

Realistically you will have at most, 20 - 50 real meaningful connections with other people. For somebody like Lebron James, the millions of fans are no different than you and I. We don't know all of their personal details, and we don't need to, because that's private and confidential.

 

The price of fame is something many people simply don't understand. I will always consider Michael Jackson to be one of the most talented we ever had. But somebody who has reached that pedestal and stature isn't without their share of problems. For Michael, he had a tremendous amount of problems. He was isolated. He couldn't communicate like a regular human being because he never truly grew up. His Neverland Ranch raised a lot of suspicion. I've watched documentaries on Michael and it was quite sad how his level of fame affected him.

 

You have to wonder if Elvis Presley and Michael Jackson would still be alive today if they had not reached worldwide stardom, to the point where it affected them both mentally and physically.

Edited May 6, 2020 by Spaz

[TENCHU_REPPA]

 

A few years after release... YEP 

[royal642award]

I'm planning on buying it the first day it comes out. 

[VanDeaM]

I bought a PS4 5 months after launch in April 2014 for 350$, Then I sold it for 225$ in 2016, when they announced the Pro and bought a Pro at launch for 370$. in November 2019 I sold the launch Pro for 225$ and bought the Death Stranding Pro for 300$. I'm ok with how my timeline turned out this generation and can easily see it repeating with the PS5. So I will be getting a Playstation 5 within the first 6 months again (assuming Covid-19 shortages aren't severe).

Edited May 6, 2020 by VanDeaM

[tjoe1bkhjtqxm]

Of course I'll buy it at D1

[Paleblood]

I actually can't see any reason not to. I'm a huge tech nerd, and for that alone it's a Day 1 purchase for me.

[CaptainPicco]

I tend to have a rule when it comes to buying a new console which is there has to be a game I'm interested in for every £50 ($62) of the consoles price. So if the console releases at £350-400 (probably wishful thinking) then there would need to be around 7-8 games on launch I'm interested in for me to consider picking up day 1. Otherwise, I'll wait and see.

[Gone Fishing]

.

Edited September 14, 2020 by Fragtaster

[Alayaes]

Absolutely not. I see no reason to own one yet until a few good games come out for it.

 

With it being backward compatible, the moment when I buy it will probably be when Gamestop gives a good trade-in bonus for the PS4 Pro. Until then I'm going to wait for a more robust, proven library.

[Stanners316]

I got my PS4 on release day. I remember the psn store had Contrast which I really enjoyed, but nothing else that appealed, and the choice was minor to say the least. 

Reliability wise, my PS4 is still going strong (touch wood) with lots of use so I wouldn't be too concerned opting for the PS5 on release day in that regard. I think the key is to keep a close eye on the titles that'll be available day 1 or soon after and then I'll see whether I'm tempted enough for a release day purchase.

[AJ_Radio]

7 hours ago, Fragtaster said:

 

Firstly, great list! 

 

And yes, my birthdate is wrong apparently. I edited my bio when I was drinking and made myself slightly younger it appears. Probably didn't want to be called boomer when arguing with somone. Usually I keep my age private. The date is correct, but the year is wrong. Was born in 81. I'm not quite 40, but I always add a year and roundup when I play the 'older than you' card.  

 

And I'm always changing my online accounts, especially after a few beers. Can't ever leave anything alone.

 

Age doesn't matter to be honest.

 

DSPGaming is proof somebody can be a temper tantrum child, and he's around your age. I don't need to tell you that we got people in my country well in their 70s who can't act their age. Pretty sad, but that's just the way it is.

 

Back in 2008 - 2010 I used to hide or lie about my age because people would tell me I was a kid who didn't know anything. Fact is I was a kid that didn't know much. Now I don't even try to tell anyone I'm older or younger.

[You]

Pretty sure both PS5 and XboxX are gonna be delayed due to the recession that is about to happen worldwide.

The record breaking number of sales recently on all platforms and games being given away for free, I've probably got a backlog to last me until 2025!

 

[Gunnz-TT]

day 1

[fsluca]

Gonna buy the Xbox first probably in 2021 then the ps5 2023-2024, ps4 can keep me going for awhile

[Xaiyeon_Ikigai]

Nah, I'll probably wait, I'll just upgrade my PC MasterRace. I'll wait until Sony realizes the PS5 and the mandatory service isn't actually viable (rising unemployment, who will have money to buy, plus jobs will continue to shrink). Probably then will come in and buy a PS5 Pro, haha.

[CB7Tuner91]

The way Sony has handled the promotion and communication with the PS5 it's a hard pass for now for me. Plus on top of that every next gen game for the first few years arent gonna look or play much different than the PS4. I highly suggest waiting and making them earn your purchase.

[SantaMonicaZero]

I'll never buy one. Probably will never see one. I have never seen a PS1 and barely a PS2. It bothers me the way Playstation is going next gen and I cant support them after the PS4. I'm moving to mainly Xbox.

But, I will stay on PS4 indefinitely!

When it comes to games, I can wait for a PS6 lolol.

I wish all games from 2021 plus are next-gen only, for those on new systems because I remember wanting that for PS4 in 2014.

On 1/12/2020 at 4:43 PM, DamagingRob said:

I won't. Probably do the same as Daiv. We bought the same PS4. Have plenty on the PS4 to keep me busy for a long time.

Absolutely. I have more PS4 games to play to last years. Been on PS4 since 2013.

On 1/12/2020 at 4:54 PM, Black54Ninja said:

Definitely not!  I've already decided that the PS4 is my last that I'm willing to pay for a console!

FACTS right here! Same.

[Darling Baphomet]

49 minutes ago, CB7Tuner91 said:

Plus on top of that every next gen game for the first few years arent gonna look or play much different than the PS4. I highly suggest waiting and making them earn your purchase.

 

I disagree on that. It has an immense boost in processing power, SSD means instant loading, and even the PS4's early exclusives - namely Infamous and Killzone - were absolutely gorgeous. Even if the difference is only 60fps instead of 30, imagine God of War or Horizon in stable 60fps. That being said... there won't be many exclusives for the first year or two, anyway, so you'll probably be fine waiting for a bit.

[SantaMonicaZero]

On 1/12/2020 at 6:37 PM, pot1414 said:

I'm still on ps3 lol...

Good for you. I'll still be on PS4 when PS6 releases. You're not alone.

[Starcade_Legend]

Question: would the ‘not on Day One’ ers alter their decision if there was a Day One trophy?  Just looking to hear responses...?

[Eraezr]

Not sure. At this point it's looking more probable I'll be buying it Q3/Q4 2021 or even 2022 - but that can change to Day 1 depending on the official unveil. Price is not a big issue for me, but rather PS4/PS3 backlogs.

 

There's still so much we don't know yet about the PS5, everything it's going to bundle with, the commercial model for PSVR(2?) and hardline confirmation on backwards compatibility. A lot of people have written off that PS3 back compat is a dead dream after the GDC presentation which was intended for devs only and not us consumers, but I'm still wondering why Sony found it necessary to have Nvidia engineer(s) visit their HQ for undisclosed reasons (PS3's undervolted, under-engineered GPU was made by Nvidia).