But you will not get new games after 1 year, no new worlds to explore, no new plot to unravel, no new mecanics to try. Nice graphics are good, but do they really matter that much to you?

Take all into account that if the graphic leap is not very big we are assuming affordable prices from the beggining, around 300 - 400 dollars including kinect 2.0 or maybe something new from Sony.

Personally i dont care about how much powerful a console is , i bought a wii and i had the chance to get PS3 or Xbox 360 , but later i got Xbox 360 , iam getting now Wii-U now and maybe will get Xbox720 later or PS4 if it is better .

It will cause an outrage and millions of internet suicides....and some real ones...

I personally think this isn't a bad idea, mostly because development cost have gone way too expensive, and I'm sure the cost will be double (Crytek said this, although I can't find the article), if that's the case we pretty much are only going to get Call of Duty, Fifa, AC, etc, and very rarely are we going to see a new IP (in terms of AAA games of course), and that's something I don't want to happen. We will probably reach a point when selling 1m units won't be enough in order to break even (I'm sure that's probably happening right now) and if that's the case a lot of companies will go out of business, only the big guys will remain.

i have a feeling that the ps4 and 720 will have a little beter cpu and video card and with more memory thats it.

Nintendo would benefit greatly, and Sony and Microsoft would crash hard because they would be seen as going back on everything they've said they were. They would become a bad Wii clone in short, and people would say if you're offering the same thing as Nintendo then im just gonna buy Nintendo.

Of course its expensive as hell to produce new consoles with tonnes of graphical power and Sony certainly isn't in a position to make that leap. Microsoft is, but I couldn't say if they would or not. I think they are both gonna keep using the 360/PS3 for another 2-4 years. Its a shitty move, but its better than all their other shitty move choices. Afterall why change whats not broken. 360 and PS3 are still selling just fine.

There would still be a market for games just not as vibrant and diverse. A part of what makes console gaming so good is the competition which forces developers to keep improving.

As far as PC games being developed to suit less powerful consoles that has been the case for a while now anyway. Games are simply designed to be scalable so that in effect the lowest or mid settings on a modern PC would be equivelant or close to the console versions roughly.

If all you care about is power then why don't jump over to PC gaming.

Because I prefer to play on an console but the fun/price between console gaming and Pc gaming is changing a lot.  Battlefield 3 on PC or console is an huge difference not just about graphics but also how with how much you can play it and what you can do in the game.

This isn't even worth discussing since the probability of it happening is zero. Why release a console roughly on par with Wii U? Why not just stick with 360/PS3 since they are more than capable of going head to head with the Wii U, and developers are much more familiar with them.

So you wanted Vita to compete head-to-head with smartphone and tablet gaming? That's a bad idea since its a losing battle.

The Vita is one of the most powerful mobile devices out there for a reason.
1. To distinguish itself from the 3DS.
2. To allow for multiplatform development with PS3 games.
3. To avoid direct comparisons with iOS games since a new iPhone is released every year...iOS gaming would surpass Vita in every single level.(Price, Quantity, Accessibility, Graphics..etc). 

What the Vita offers is console gaming on the go. No one does it better. There is nothing comparable to Uncharted Golden Abyss on the 3DS or the iPhone. First Person Shooters have a lot of potential on the system as well. That is what Sony should focus on, not getting the newest Angry Birds game ported to their system....