Not really, because I don’t see the Pro as a “significant” upgrade over the PS4/ XB1. Yes, it’s more powerful, just like the X, but the only real difference is resolution/ performance and better textures in the case of the X. Games are still fundamentally the same. I guess it’s semantics, but, to me, significant would be something along the lines of a next gen upgrade, such as the graphical leap from Uncharted 3 to 4. More open level design, bigger environments, gamechanging nechanics, etc.. You won’t see such things on the X over the Pro, or at least not for a while.

 I get that resolution means a lot to some people, but for me it’s not a game changer. Granted I do own a Pro, mainly because I want to play Sony’s top notch exclusives with the best clarity, but if I had to go back to my launch PS4, I’d have no problems. 

I have a PS4, it plays games, I enjoy those games, im happy!

I shake my head at the thought of people who dance around praising the Xbox one X for it's specs and performance like it was the only option, hate to say this but it isn't, both the PS4 pro and Xbox one X have pathetic cpus, the PS4 pro has a low end gpu and the Xbox one X has a mid range you, but the majority of difference is in the additional system memory.

4k on some games with obvious corners cut to attain it (looking at you forza) and a lot of games opting for 30fps? At least I guess this means this intrim generation of pro and x can act as the "tried but failed" attempt at 4k, here's hoping ps5 and xbox two or whatever god awful naming scheme they opt for next time will achieve it.

Just amusing seeing the two sides sling mud at each other, back when PS4 was most powerful, Xbox fans were all yeah but the games are better on Xbox, secret sauce, xbl etc, then Xbox one s released with on-paper better specs though in practice not that great, and you had PS4 owners using the yeah but games defence, then pro released and suddenly yeah but games and yeah but xbl matter more again, and now we have flipped yet again and suddenly graphics are the big thing and most important.

Same shit every single gen, only difference is this gen Microsoft decided that it wasn't doing console only exclusives anymore which makes the generations much easier in my opinion, gaming PC, switch, PS4 and the money you'd normally pump into Xbox can go on you upgrades

And? You can have the most technical marvel of a console, but if you don't have games for it, you got nothing.

I think that's debatable. The PS3 had an obviuos advantage in terms of CPU but only if games were programmed in a very specific way, the 360 had a slighlty better GPU and had fewer RAM restristictions.

It really depends on how you define more powerfull, the PS3 performed better in a few very specific scenarios while the 360 had a slight advantage in most common scenarios.

This feels like a thread a read some many months ago.

360 performed better during the PS3's early life when devs wasn't used to the architecture. Can't debate about the PS3 exclusives though.

4K blu ray player was my only con for the PS4 Pro. Cant cost Sony that much to implement it.

They literally seem to be doing everything right, except making games. This is why people have such a hard time switching to Xbone, where are da gaemz? Think XboneX is worth $500 just to render AssCreed Origins and Wolfenstein in 300p's more, think again.

If they wanto to make a compelling device, we need games we cant get on da Switch and PS4.

I'm fairly sure even late gen 3rd party titles such as GTAV and Tomb Raider 2013 in most cases performed slightly better on 360. I'm not debating exclusives though, in fact as I said the matter is to decide what most powerfull exactly means: best performance on ideal conditions or best performance on most common conditions?

Anyway the gap between the two was very small compared to the gap between Ps4 and X1.