Yh, you aren't exagerating at all. I don't know why people always defaukt to blaming the hardware.

After playing Uncharted on the PS4, and if Horizon or GoW run at mostly 30fps on the PS4 (not even talking about the PS4pro) then IMHO, the problem isn't the hardware but the developers. 

But yh, let's just keep saying the same hardware that can run a pre release horizon at a near locked 30ps can't run TR/DE or throw in any Ubisoft game in here at 30fps....

Yeah. Increasing the clock of the CPU doesn't really improve performance that much. The GPU will improve performance a lot more, but the amount of improvement depends on the games themselves.

Can we say it's the hardware's fault if the game can't run at 60fps?

. Cause I'm sure just like me you probably know that any game can be made to run at 60fps. It all just boils down to what choices the devs make as to what to prioritize on. 

Maybe you haven't figured this out yet, but all devs seem to prioritize eye candy over framerates unless they are making a game that could be negatively impacted by running at 30fps. If the PS4/XB1 were both 6TF GPU consoles in 2013, we will still be seeing 30fps games today. That's just the way it is. And i think that people need to try and understand how it works.

Devs make games for consoles. Primarily cause they make more of their money from that userbase. Now we see those much more powerful PCs running the dsme games at higher rez and/or framerates on PCs.... Then in turn people talk about how weak the hardware is cause they aren't running the games as well as PCs can. When in truth the PCs are only running them better cause the games are all designed to run on consoles. If these consoles have significantly better hardware and the difference between the console and the best PC hardware out there was say about 20%, be rest assured that even those PCs would have a hard time running the games at anything higher than the console defaults. Cause these devs would just pour everything into eye candy.

So no, I'll always blame the devs. 

bumb

But do they need to double frame rate? What if games on PS4 are able to hit 45 or 50fps reasonably reliably? 30fps is the set point because you either go 30 or 60. But just because you set the game at 30 doesn't mean that's the maximum it can achieve.

You are right. In truth there are tons of ways devs can hit 60fps if they really wanted to put in yhe extra work to do it. One popular method is by running physics at 30fps then redrawig the scene at 60fps.

Basically, a game that is already internally running at around 45-50fps but locked down to 30fps for smoothness can easily be pushed to run at 60fps with a 30% boost in CPU power. 

But as he said there is another problem. The devs probably wouldn't use that extra PC power to push for a 60fps refresh rate. They are more likely to throw in more objects on the screen, more light sources or reflections, more gloss generally and stuff.... cUse eye candy (unfortunately) markets itself. You don't have to print a message on a box saying this game looks awesome!!! But you may have to put runs at 60fps on the box. 

We all love 60fps, but the devs know and it's simply true.... eye candy sells games more. The only time a dev prioritizes 60fps is if running the game at 30fps makes it play poorly. 

Sweet. I have Shadow of Mordor but still haven't opened it. So hyped for the pro, I bought a second copy, the GOTY edition today, since it will have Pro support. It's kinda weird, that all these supported games in my backlog will never have been experienced by me on the original PS4, but only on the Pro.

I dont see anything wrong with "the way he put it".  
Anybody imagining 60fps Horizon should get professional help, and his comment does nothing to delude such people more than they are.
Even with less than perfect optimization, I'd have expected Sony to release less demanding scenes that wouldn't trigger frame drops.

Devs would tend to avoid producing game that natively outputs 45-50fps,
because the increased FPS is entirely wasted, and that power used for the (wasted) FPS could be better put to use for graphics, etc.
(and that isn't even arguable, unlike 60fps VS graphics, if it is only 45fps which can't be output on TVs, there is literally no benefit)
Given that, there will be few or none PS4 games which can be boosted to 60 fps by PS4 Pro.
Any games  already achieving 60 fps (on at least semi-consistent basis) would be able to lock that in and have better graphics with Pro.a

It does seem like variable resolution frame buffer, which shrinks instead of FPS dropping, seems getting more common esp. on Xbone,
and honestly that is the most effective means for smooth experience with least impact on play.
Not sure how well that can be used with PS4 Pro's checkerboarding, albeit all it's games  are upgraded PS4 games, so probably OK.

I disagree. I would rather push for the higher resolutions when possible.
Remember even if you only have a 720P TV, you will still see an advantage with 4k resolutions... And when you do get a 4k panel, you can play your old games better than ever.

As for your memory question, you need to keep in mind that the Xbox One, Xbox One S, Playstation 4, Playstation 4 Mini, Playstation 4 Pro do not have 8Gb of Ram used for games. It's more like 4.5-5Gb of Ram, which is a pretty tiny amount.

On the Xbox One Scorpio, if it has the extra memory (I have my doubts, in my opinion it will be 8 or 16Gb) will likely mostly be used for superior texturing which is a memory hog, which is easy to downscale, but with almost twice the memory available for games compared to the other consoles (If it has 12Gb) things are going to be far more detailed.
The PC has been doing this for years, game engines are well tuned to it too.

Not true. Increasing the clock of the CPU can make a stupidly massive difference, depending on how much you clock it by. - If it's only a few hundred Megahertz, then of course the difference will be marginal.

For example, my Core i7 3930K 6 cores/12 thread CPU at stock is 3.2ghz, the i7 6950X is 10 Cores/20 threads at 3ghz.

Once I overclock my 3930K to 5ghz however, I am able to beat Intel's 10 Core/20 thread @ 3ghz in almost every scenario, otherwise the 6950X is faster by a good 40-50%.

I think the issue people have with CPU's is that, it doesn't directly translate to better visuals on screen directly, so they attribute that to only offering marginal improvements.

The CPU shouldn't be holding anything back though in a console, it's a fixed quanitity, it's not like the game will demand twice the CPU resources that are not available, which limits framerates.