Instead of narrowing the argument to validate a ridiculous PR brag, one should take a look a the full spectrum of what is a PC & why PC gamers play on them, then maybe, one would see that it's pretty obvious that this "PS4 pro to compete with PC" bragging is nothing more than empty PR talk!!!

Well, they are doing a great job, because for the first time since I started gaming on PlayStation, I see no reason to build a PC. I built a PC in 1999, 2004, and 2012 due to PS1/2/3 all starting to feel dated. Knowing I am not going to be tempted into a $1500 - $2500 PC build again is a pretty good feeling for me. And, yes I know I wouldn't have to spend $1500 - $2500, but I always go to far when I build a PC.

I'm saying they don't offer performance in relation to the price. If you have followed the PC discussion here many members have expressed how they feel the GTX 1070 is very expensive. Especially compared with what the 970 offered in last gen. Not to speak of the 1080 which is crazy expensive. Like you say, many people have decided to wait, because they're sitting with ther 970s, 290s and 980s realizing that the performance increase with the new GPUs just isn't worth the cost. And what you'll get on screen will not look dramatically better.

I'm asking for a sense of proportions.

There's a big difference if a high-end PC (GTX 1080) is 4 times faster than the console you're playing on (PS4) or if it's twice as fast (PS4 Pro). That's the point of Mr House when he talks about PS4 Pro competing with PC - the gap is not necessarily eliminated, but it's much smaller now. He didn't say "beat" PC, he says "compete".

For many people it is about how big the gap is. The question of how much better will PC gaming look? There are definitely going to be a lot of people who think "oh, the Playstation 4 Pro is almost on par with these cheap gaming PCs for $600-700, and it's no longer an ocean of difference like it was compared with a regular PS4, so I think I'm gonna stay in the Playstation echosystem especially since it's only $400".

I have owned a R9 290 since early 2014 and I've waited for a long time for the 14nm GPUs, but since I'm an AMD guy I will wait for Vega. I expect it to be on par with a GTX 1080, but I also feel that it won't be that huge of an upgrade I would like it to be for $600 (less than twice the performance of a 290), and I also feel that it won't totally "blow away" the PS4 Pro. It just doesn't.

Even compared with the next best PC GPU, that still costs over 800 freaking Euro where I live (over $900), the Playstation 4 Pro looks very very nice.

With how you told us ages back on how you did your web browsing anf other daily activities on your console, I honestly don't think you'll ever want to touch a PC or desktop in general ever again, not the way you describe it at least.

I'm not really the kind of guy who is glad he doesn't have to build a PC though. I actually love the idea of making up a new spec for my future rigs, ones that don't have to cost the near 2k and beyond. 

Again... he's not saying it's to appeal to every PC gamer, but to those who contribute to a mid-generation slump.  lawl indeed at all the strawman arguments.  Reasons to own a PC are not up for debate.  It's also OK to own both a PC and a console, and game on the one that gives you the better experience.

The only thing up for debate about what the Sony exec has said is wether or not Sony's data showing there is a mid-generation slump due to graphics quality is correct.

The PS4 Pro also is of course coming out with PSVR.... and will be competing with PC VR rigs, where 4 TFLOP is considered minimum for PC VR.

The only argument Sony provided is "look power & kinda 4K", which can even compete with PC, if you had the other benefits of PC, I can only laugh at comedy PR saying "we compete with PC", if you want I can indulge you, yes Sony is competing with PC & they are losing on all fronts!!!

They are completely consistent with what he actually said:

"We wanted to keep those people within our eco-system by giving them the very best and very highest [performance quality].
So the net result of those thoughts was PlayStation 4 Pro – and, by and large, a graphical approach to game improvement.”

In relation to the price? Why are we talking about price? Andrew House didn't say anything about the price. They said the "highest performance and highest visuals." And the only thing thats expensive about the 1070 is the terrible valued founders edition.

http://wccftech.com/nvidia-geforce-gtx-970-official-msrp-299-nonreference-models-retail-329349/

https://www.google.ca/search?q=1070+msrp&oq=1070+msrp&aqs=chrome..69i57.2638j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

970 MSRP is $329

1070 MSRP is $379

Unless you get a founders edition which no one is gonna get cause its stupidly priced and doesn't offer anything. There are plenty of other editions to choose from. And yea, he said compete but he also said it "We wanted to keep those people within our eco-system by giving them the very best and very highest [performance quality]." He didn't say, for $400 or similary priced PC. He said the PS4Pro will give the people who are looking to upgrade to PC For the Highest Visuals and Performance which its not good at either. If someone is looking to PC for the best performance, PC has it. I have no idea what does price have to do with anything considering he didn't say anything about the price. 

You do realize that a $250 1060 beats the Pro handly right? Its not exactly hard to Google and look at the performance numbers and see that the ps4Pro is compromising even at 1080p where as with PC, you get maxed settings, 1080p, 60fps. And those looking to upgrade knows about the PC prices as well as the performance numbers.

And how does it not "blow away" the ps4 or is twice as fast as a Ps4Pro? The ps4 can't even do 1080p 60fps max settings that a 970 can do with RoTR. And a 1080 more than doubles than framerate of the 970. Did you even do any research before posting your comments?

Prices for products is different everywhere you go. In some places its cheaper, in some places, its more expensive. It is silly to even compare "Oh where I live its blah." The most solid pricing comparison is to compare the MSRP and in the US cause thats where majority of the prices seem to happen.

Its not much of a competitor with PC unless it gets the popular PC games.

Most PC gamers I talk to generally aren't really playing the same stuff as console gamers.

The issue is that compared to PC's hardware, its not exactly impressive. It can't even do 1080p 60fps max settings with RoTR while a 970 can... The Devs them selves have 3 settings. 1 is high visuals but at 30 fps, the other is 4k but much lowered visuals, maybe slightly higher than ps4's settings and high performance which also isn't max settings. Where as a 970, it can do 50-60fps on RoTR at 1080p max settings. Look at my other posts if you want proof where I put benchmarks on it.

Don't get me wrong, ps4Pro, for $400 is reallyyyyyyyyy epic value and the techniques it uses for upscaling is quite interesting and awesome. But it is not impressive against PC hardware (but of course, PC hardware costs more).