PS4 Pro locked at 30 FPS?

Hmmm....alot of technical specs and terminology bein' thrown around. Ultimately tho...i wondered why Sony released the Pro which really isn't that much of an upgrade? I mean graphics look slightly better and i get the performance options, but for me there is very little for me to consider an upgrade. I have the vanilla ps4 and for me this gets the job done.

Maybe the same can be said of the Scorpion? tho, i hear that this is a more substantial upgrade?...What stands out here is that it has true native 4k ability. Still even with that both MS and Sony remind of those add-ons back in the day Sega developed to beef up the graphics capabilities of the Genesis back then?...can't remember exactly, but my point is that i really don't like when companies create these consoles while we are still in the mist of the current console generation. Either wait and create a fledged successor or don't create one at all.

Of course it's all preference, (and i'm not mad at folks purchasing either product) but for me personally i can't be bothered with upgrading to either the scorpion or Pro, when their true successors will probably be on the horizon again in a few years in the form of PS5 or Xbox 2? That's a funny one there since you had the 360 before that which was higher than Xbox1....marketing mechanics i guess tho...

Dear lord the PS4 pro has and is native 4K. It depends on the content and game, as far as the Scorpio goes they stated all games will be native 4K like what has been said in this and many other threads that will be a hard task to achieve. Until that console is released we don't know truly if everything running at it will actually be native 4K.

Some people wont mind but for me it's not even a contest. Games running at 30 FPS just feel too sluggish for me, and I notice it significantly more in a fast paced action games.

I would much rather play a game at 1440p with 60 FPS than have it look prettier in 4k but only run at 30 FPS. Hell, I would take 1080p at 60 over 4k at 30k.

I don't honestly expect everybody to care as much as I do, but it's that much of a difference to me.

That's because the GTX 1080 isn't powerful enough to maintain 60 fps at 4K. That card can barely maintain 30 fps at 4K, and as always mileage may vary depending on the game and how well optimized it is. The only card that realistically can get almost 60 fps at 4K is the GTX Titan Pascal, which is well over $1000 and not affordable for most consumers. That being said, it's very likely the GTX 1080 Ti, which should be revealed next week at the GDC, will be close and perhaps even better than the GTX Titan Pascal. It may be able to hit the 60 fps at 4K, but probably won't be able to maintain it consistently depending on what's happening in the game.

Regardless, the point is 4K simply is not a reality for consoles and won't be for quite some time due to the price barrier. It's still far too expensive for PC gaming, so expect another year or so before even the PC gaming crowd can run 4K games at 60 fps. I'd expect a few more years after that point for consoles, and we are just talking about native 4K at 30 fps, not even 60 fps. That's the nature of gaming though. Consoles are never on par with PC gaming. They are always playing catch up, which is perfectly fine because consoles are supposed to be the cheaper, affordable option.

The enjoyment of games can depend heavily on how fast or slow it is. For example, 30 fps Street Fighter would be a horrible experience. Timings would be off, moves would be sluggish to pull off, and so on.

Stuff like that is the reason why people prefer games that rely heavily on timing, like Devil May Cry, Tekken, and so on, to have faster framerates.

Haven't played Nioh personally, but with its gameplay being timing based like the Soulsborne games and Ninja Gaiden, I'd think it'd benefit from an extra 30 fps. Something like Uncharted, or GTA, or even Mass Effect, while more enjoyable, aren't as reliant on 60fps.

Thanks for all the info, everyone! I bought a PS4 Pro and a LG 65 inch with 120HZ native and 240hz capabilities, HDR plus Dolby Vision (among other things). I bought a HDMI cable that supports 120hz to 380hz since ps4 pro HDMI stock cable doesn't support that high.

Everything is beautiful on it, even playing 2-3 year old+ games with the upscale. I think it was worth it since I didn't have a PS4 to begin with.

MEA having abilities to push further on the ps4 pro, I know I'll be amazed.

We had the "30vs60 FPS" debate and now we've gotten into "The eye can't see past X". This thread is now complete =P

The main issue you run into with such statements is that your perception can be trained. PC Gamer has a pretty solid article on the whole "what can the eye see up to?" thing here: www.pcgamer.com/how-many-frames-per-second-can-the-human-eye-really-see/. The guy who wrote that even spoke to various professors who research the limits of Human vision to get the scientific angle of this debate.

What's interesting is that one of the professors noted "If you’re working with gamers, you’re working with a really weird population of people who are probably operating close to maximal levels," in respect to our ability to see framerates. This is specifically because all of that gaming we do is essentially acting as training for us being able to better spot rapid movements and changes in vision including framerate changes. It's noted that action game specifically, are very good at training this ability.

Now what the professor in that article does note is that for the average person once you hit 90Hz then it starts to drop off in being able to notice differences but trained people could go higher. It's suggested that you could potentially notice a visual artefact at as high as 500 FPS.

The article writer also talks to other professors, one of which advocated that that after 24Hz while you will be able to tell the difference you wont be any better at the game because of the brain's ability to process visual information that it can act on.

In other words 60 FPS might look and even feel smoother in gameplay, but it wont actually improve our reaction time within the game itself meaning that the preference for 60 is purely a cosmetic thing.

Many people keep saying that, forgetting that you really don't need all the settings on max to get good results. No, they are perpetuating the internet myth that only a $2000 PC can run 4K, so how in the world would consoles be able to...

Except, it's not a myth that essentially only a $2000 gaming PC can run games a 4K with 60 fps at maximum settings (in truth there is no GPU on the market currently that can actually do that)... Also, consoles obviously aren't capable of native 4K or running most games at 60 fps. Consoles have almost always been locked to 30 fps. Perhaps you aren't aware of it right now, but 4K gaming at 60 fps hasn't become the norm for PC gaming yet. We are nearing the end of the tunnel, but we aren't quite there yet.

I still like the Pro, and it's still better than any console available.  Not worth it if you already have a ps4 and no money, but I only paid $60 difference to upgrade to mine.  

Hey, greetings, you PC experts. If I buy an SSD and install MEA on that with my day one Xbox One, is that going to speed up load times?

Edit - Cyonan, nice input in this thread btw.  Taught me a thing or two I didn't know.