[Megathread] Playstation 4 Pro.

[Jtbrig7390]

"Native 4k/30fps Skyrim Remaster"


Personally I am looking forward to the Playstation Pro. The hardware boost is nice and other little benfits are as well such as streaming to my PC at 1080p. They also confirmed you will be able to stream on twitch at 1080p if u like doing that.

More HD space is nice as well and the performance boost games will get is a major plus. There is benefits for those with just a 1080p tv (Like myself) and those with 4k. There is some games like TLOU that will be running native 4k and some doing the checkerboard setup to get a near native 4k image up from like 1440p.

Will you be getting a Playstation Pro?

[Rorke]

Complete waste of 400 US dollars.

[dope_danny]

Waste of money. I own a ps4 and don't own a 4k television. If i wanted to spend money on slightly better games i would upgrade my pc. I'm not voting with my wallet for 2 year incremental console generations nor do i have any interest in VR or 4K in the future. Its a redundant hardware when my current PS4 is not some years out of date dinosaur trying to catch up.

[Tech614]

2 year

That's not how math works. The PS4 came out November 2013. Not that I don't agree with most of your post, just not sure where you're trying to claim 2 years when it's been 3, and the PS4 is still very much relevant and will maintain relevance. There will never be any pro exclusive games, so it's still the same generation that was launched 3 years ago.

[Zephyr Storm]

From what little I've seen/heard from the early reviews and play tests, it sounds like this thing really isn't worth it. It's great for someone who doesn't have a PS4 yet but would like to get one, but is basically pointless for anyone who already has a PS4.

It sounds like this thing has just enough power to make things look a bit better in some games, but not enough power to truly take advantage of 4K TVs (the thing it's being marketed for). Sony probably should have waited a bit longer in order to put some more power under the hood of this thing. As it stands, it's just a beefed up PS4 that sometimes still struggles to attain what Sony claims it can do. Not sure what the point of this thing was in the first place......and don't say VR.....VR has a long way to go and is still nothing but a gimmick/tech demo thing right now, regardless of what most people think.

[Jtbrig7390]

From what little I've seen/heard from the early reviews and play tests, it sounds like this thing really isn't worth it. It's great for someone who doesn't have a PS4 yet but would like to get one, but is basically pointless for anyone who already has a PS4.

It sounds like this thing has just enough power to make things look a bit better in some games, but not enough power to truly take advantage of 4K TVs (the thing it's being marketed for). Sony probably should have waited a bit longer in order to put some more power under the hood of this thing. As it stands, it's just a beefed up PS4 that sometimes still struggles to attain what Sony claims it can do. Not sure what the point of this thing was in the first place......and don't say VR.....VR has a long way to go and is still nothing but a gimmick/tech demo thing right now, regardless of what most people think.

It can do what Sony claims, it all depends on how the developers handle it. Watch the video's I provided above.

To be clear not trying to come off as someone defending it. Its all different strokes for different fokes and I personally don't mind getting one. Ill put my Ps4 in the bedroom and this one in the living room.

There is benefits to using it at 1080p as well. Once again it all depends how developers handle it. As for people bitching about it coming out 3 years after the Ps4...So what.

The average life span of consoles (before last gen) was 3-5 years. This mid gen boost will keep Ps4's around longer because Sony has done stated games will be made for both with no exclusives to the Ps4 Pro.

I personally will get a lot of use out of the new features and upgrades.

[Gratlim]

Based on the first reviews I've seen it doesn't fix low framerate from existing "enhanced" games. 20-30 stable fps is bad in my opinion, especially when the promise of the first gen ps4 was 1080p 60 fps. Not bying the pro because even if it look nicer on 4k TV (don't have), it performs badly. With the Scorpio out next year I am pretty sure we will get a ps5 quicky after that. Investing in a ps4 pro sounds like a waste of money unless you do not own a ps4 from before.

And I say that as a proud owner of a PSVR that I actually love.

[Jtbrig7390]

Based on the first reviews I've seen it doesn't fix low framerate from existing "enhanced" games.

What games are these? Because each patched game I have read about has fixed the frame rate. Titanfall 2 being a example of that. The only games that will improve is the patched ones and atm there is like only 30.

Also I don't think first gen ps4 ever promised 1080p/60fps.

[Zeta333]

It can do what Sony claims, it all depends on how the developers handle it. Watch the video's I provided above.

To be clear not trying to come off as someone defending it. Its all different strokes for different fokes and I personally don't mind getting one. Ill put my Ps4 in the bedroom and this one in the living room.

There is benefits to using it at 1080p as well. Once again it all depends how developers handle it. As for people bitching about it coming out 3 years after the Ps4...So what.

The average life span of consoles (before last gen) was 3-5 years. This mid gen boost will keep Ps4's around longer because Sony has done stated games will be made for both with no exclusives to the Ps4 Pro.

I personally will get a lot of use out of the new features and upgrades.

And we will see how it compares to xbox's mid generation console.

[Jtbrig7390]

And we will see how it compares to xbox's mid generation console.

Don't see how this has anything to do with the topic at hand but yes we will see. What worries me the most about the XboxOne Scrop is what its price tag could be.

IMO if its higher then $400 it won't do well at all. But that's a different topic for a different thread.

[Tech614]

Based on the first reviews I've seen it doesn't fix low framerate from existing "enhanced" games. 20-30 stable fps is bad in my opinion, especially when the promise of the first gen ps4 was 1080p 60 fps. Not bying the pro because even if it look nicer on 4k TV (don't have), it performs badly. With the Scorpio out next year I am pretty sure we will get a ps5 quicky after that. Investing in a ps4 pro sounds like a waste of money unless you do not own a ps4 from before.

And I say that as a proud owner of a PSVR that I actually love.

20 fps, such hyperbole. There are very few games on the base PS4 that ever sniff that low. Of course people still act like Assassins Creed Unity is the norm when it was a rushed piece of shit optimization wise on everything it's on.

[DarkAmbient]

I own a PS4 with a 1080p television and don't see the point in spending my money on a Pro. Even if my PS4 breaks down I'll just buy another cheap one instead of a Pro.

[Jtbrig7390]

20 fps, such hyperbole. There are very few games on the base PS4 that ever sniff that low. Of course people still act like Assassins Creed Unity is the norm when it was a rushed piece of shit optimization wise on everything it's on.

Only games I can think of that dipped that low was.

1) Bloodborne when you Co-Oped and moved though a fog wall.
2) Until Dawn
3) Lichborn Battlemage (was shit on all platforms).

So ya like you said hyperbole. IMO its almost like people didn't watch the video's I posted above.

[Gratlim]

20 fps, such hyperbole. There are very few games on the base PS4 that ever sniff that low. Of course people still act like Assassins Creed Unity is the norm when it was a rushed piece of shit optimization wise on everything it's on.

30 stable and going down to 20 ish is no hyperbole. That is my experience on ps4 first gen with some my games. Seen on The Witcher 3, Bloodborn for example.
Of course other games run much faster like Doom for ex. But most run at 30.

Edit: I am NOT talking about the pro. But fist gen.

[Jtbrig7390]

30 stable and going down to 20 ish is no hyperbole. That is my experience on ps4 first gen with some my games. Seen on The Witcher 3, Bloodborn for example.
Of course other games run much faster like Doom for ex. But most run at 30.

Edit: I am NOT talking about the pro. But fist gen.

Well this is a thread about pro not first gen and you said.

Based on the first reviews I've seen it doesn't fix low framerate from existing "enhanced" games. 20-30 stable fps is bad in my opinion,

Implying there is games on the pro that has been patched hitting 20fps.

Yes most run at 30 and most are a stable 30. Only a handful of games dropped to 20fps or less. Witcher 3 before patched didn't tank under 20fps but at rare moments and now its near stable 30 after patch's. Your comment is pointless because once again you implyed that the pro had games patched that was dropping under 20fps.

Edit: Also only time Bloodborne dropped under 20fps was at fog gates and when you did full max group Co-Op on bosses. That has also been fixed with patch's.

[Tech614]

Witcher 3 only dropped in the marsh and it was broken code on CDPR's end and they even admitted to it when the blood and wine patch fixed it.

So yea, one entire area of the Witcher 3 dropped down to 20 fps, while rain was active. Like 5% of the map that needs rain to be up to drop it, but not hyperbole. Sure thing bro.

The games that aren't a stable 30 or higher on the PS4(let alone pro) are a minority, not the majority like the bullshit you where trying to claim.

Bloodborne also had 0 fps issues in actual single player combat or even 1v1 pvp or 2 player coop. It was when 3 or more players was on screen that the framerate dropped. Like learn the definition of hyperbole if you don't want to be called on it. I can select a random ps4 game from my collection and chances are it won't have many drops, or drops near 20 fps at all.

[Jtbrig7390]

Updated the OP with a video showing skyrim running native 4k/30fps on Ps4 Pro.

Its one of two games I know of that is confirmed native 4k, The other being The Last Of Us.

[Poppincaps]

Based on the first reviews I've seen it doesn't fix low framerate from existing "enhanced" games. 20-30 stable fps is bad in my opinion, especially when the promise of the first gen ps4 was 1080p 60 fps. Not bying the pro because even if it look nicer on 4k TV (don't have), it performs badly. With the Scorpio out next year I am pretty sure we will get a ps5 quicky after that. Investing in a ps4 pro sounds like a waste of money unless you do not own a ps4 from before.

And I say that as a proud owner of a PSVR that I actually love.

That is not up to Sony. It is up to the developer and whether they want to target 60 or not. And in most genres, developers will always go for high graphical fidelity that can impress people in trailers over 60 fps which has been shown to not truly influence sales.

[Jtbrig7390]

That is not up to Sony. It is up to the developer and whether they want to target 60 or not. And in most genres, developers will always go for high graphical fidelity that can impress people in trailers over 60 fps which has been shown to not truly influence sales.

See this is why ill support both Ps4 Pro and XboxOne Scrop because its finally a step for console users to get choice. Want to run Rise of Tomb Raider at 60fps fine but you lose some graphics. The 4k shit is just a bonus for those who have it. I been saying for awhile there should be a toggle for 30fps (max-ish graphics) or 60fps mid graphics.

The hardware in both the Ps4 Pro and XboxOne can provide this and finally push dev's into giving us that choice.

[Gratlim]

Didn't know Bloodborn and the Witcher was patched and that they fixed framerate issues. Might go back to them.
But really, no need to be aggressive. Jesus.