Look at New 3DS, we already see developers utilizing the upgraded specs just performance and graphical improvments. http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2016-nintendo-3ds-vs-new-3ds-face-off

In theory the primary focus is optimizing the game for the original CPU and GPU as they do now. For new specs which would be running the same architecture, they should be able to raise graphics settings without ruining performance kinda like a PC game. Perhaps I am over simplifying the process but we already see it happening with New 3DS.

If for some reason utilizing the new specs is too difficult (expensive) for some developers, they can simply optimize their game for old specs so the entire audience has access to their game. Many indie games for example don't need the extra power unless they wanna push 4K or something like that.

Maybe I make it seem too simple but you're making this a bigger problem than it actually is.

Of course, the guy who has hands on experience making console video games for decades, and has empirical evidence he is successful at it knows absolutely nothing about what it takes to make console video games vs, PCs, what the technical challenges are, what the advantages of having locked hardware specifications are, and whether or not "scalable hardware" actually means in terms of increasing the time, money and effort it will take to handle this new specification. He doesn't know shit about that obviously.

But an anonymous guy on the internet does because PCs games do it. It's just that easy!

If you don't understand why this guy is saying what he does then you do not understand how console video games are made, and why they're made the way they are. Try it some time. Go work at a console video game studio and talk with people that actually work on console video game engines and optimization and pick their brains, and figure out why they're working so hard. Try and get a sense of why they're are people in the studio burning the midnight oil to reduce their memory footprint by 8 MB, and are practically crying with happiness when they hit that goal.

Then go to work on a PC team, and watch the minimum spec creep higher and higher and higher as development goes on. Maybe then you'll realize why they're fundamentally different.

PC isn't the same because there is so much different PC hardware.

I mean when PC games release people complain it doesn't support Nvida hardware, ATI hardware, Intel hardware, g-sync, dual GPUs, new versions of Windows, old versions of Windows, etc.

Maybe upgraded consoles would be more like putting games on iPhone 5 and iPhone 6.

You want to use the new 3DS as an example? Really? A device that has been out for over a year and less than 5% of the games that have come out for it since actually take advantage of the hardware, and the most of the ones that do are first-party Nintendo or Nintendo-published games? The new 3DS is a perfect example of why this concept desn't work!

See that part where you mention how it's too expensive for some developers so they'll just develop for the old spec. That's the problem! That's exactly what will happen for about 95% of games, because why bother putting in the extra time and effort when there's nothing to gain?  This makes owning hardware with addtional processing power completely and utterly pointless for 95% of uses as it is quite literally offering the exact same experience as the lower spec.

So why should Sony, MS, or anyone bother in the first place? This is why if there is a "PS4K" it probably won't offer additional processing power for games in the way you imagine -  because it makes no sense. It'll probably play 4K blu-rays though.

Well yeah, consoles are a great value when compared to a gaming laptop when it comes to - gaming. But obviously somebody who buys a gaming-capable laptop has non-gaming priorities they want to address or they would've otherwise built a gaming desktop (or bought a console) for a much lower price. As you noted it seems like the limitations are specifically caused by your choice of hardware being a multi-purposed laptop that can be used for dedicated gaming (among other things) but wasn't made to excel at it. It also doesn't help that even theoretically the 740m isn't up to snuff to the GPU in the XBO. If we were comparing apples to apples (say an r7 260x, r7 260, or GTX 750 TI) then the performance issues wouldn't have arose, because the form-factor is a desktop designed for gaming, something much similar to the typical console form-factor. 

The assumptions of a decent dedicated (console-level) GPU and two fast CPU cores (at a minimum) aren't really that bad of assumptions for a game like Elite Dangerous. That is what most people have for dedicated gaming machines. And as you noted, it isn't that the developers couldn't optimize the game for your form-factor, it is just that they chose not to, probably because they didn't see a large benefit of doing so. 

I understand the frustration though. I don't understand the fascination manufacturers have with putting i7's in high-end laptops, but skimp out on a decent mobile GPU, especially when people who buy a laptop with a dedicated GPU (and optimus) probably are doing so because they're interested in gaming and don't have to worry about power consumption when gaming because they'll likely have the laptop plugged in rather than running on battery (wasn't that the point of optimus?) 

Overall though I don't think your problems are caused by PC not having console level optimization, but rather a divergent form-factor not having the same level of optimization of a console form-factor. A standard desktop PC will likely be suited for gaming much better than a laptop. 

Well yeah of course it would. It would means developers would have to spent more time making it so their games run depending on that model you are playing the game on. I don't see a point in making an upgraded model. Nobody trusts companies when it comes to it anyway because like Sony, they do a shit job of supporting their own products as it is unless it's selling extremely well. They would probably be like Nintendo with the New 3DS and not make enough use of the new hardware to make it worth the purchase. New 3DS isn't too bad tho because it's affordable anyway and it has improvements outside of gaming, but for everyday people, it probably isn't worth it for them. I don't really think I would trust Microsoft either with an upgraded model.

I've used New 3DS as an example that it can be done. Lets be honest, the New 3DS audience doesn't really care about graphics and performance as much the 8th gen console gamers. So there is less incentive to use New 3DS specs. Nintendo and Capcom are the few developers that push 3DS specs. While many developers push X1 and PS4 specs.

Not all developers have to use the new specs, but I'm sure many would. Especially if it could be done simply. Many don't know but a lot of games used the N64 expansion likely because it was easy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nintendo_64_accessories#Expansion_Pak

Frankly, its possible instead of doing a price cut they could instead put a considerably more powerful CPU and/or GPU in newer models. As long as the new specs are there and easy for developers to use them, they will be used. At the very least it would be interesting experiment.

The percentage of console gamers that care enough about graphics to upgrade the console for that is very small too. Even among the hardcore enthusiasts that visit sites like these, 67% is still fine with 720p and probably more don't care whether their multiplats run slightly worse on XBox One.

A price cut will do more for the user base than an upgraded model. Bigger userbase more games with bigger budgets.

An upgraded model is not the same as a $50 expansion pack, and even for that price the amount of games that used it is actually quite low, about 16%. I skipped the games that required it back then, never used it.

Games are a lot more complex nowadays, no longer running fully from memory and limited by a lot more factors all working together. Even if you increase CPU/GPU/RAM and memory bandwidth, you're still stuck with streaming the data fast enough to keep up. Pretty much you'll need a whole new balanced machine and convince developers that the extra work somehow pays off.

I think a relatively large number would upgrade if the the performance and visual differences were signficiant. If many don't want to upgrade, that's fine too as all games should support the original hardware.

You do know the expansion pack was was released near the tail end of the N64's life, right? So 16% of library using it is actually not bad.

If the specs boost is easy to use than developers will use it. They shouldn't be forced to use it either. It would be an intersting experiment with low risk.

Tail end? N64 released 1996, expansion pak 1998, gamecube 2001, last n64 game 2002.

Low risk is debatable. If few people upgrade and the average consumer prefers the cheaper model, then that's a big loss for Sony, which will make the ps5 less ambitious. Plus there seem to be as many people ready to abandon or switch consoles if this goes through. And what stops Sony from releasing a ps4.5 only game to boost sales, Nintendo got away with it.

It's a catch 22. If the spec boost is moderate, people won't care for the difference and ignore the upgade and so will most developers.
If the spec boost is really noticeable, the price will be a deterrant and developers are faced with extra work for no extra profit.

In both cases games will likely still be optimized for the base model and the new model will be under utilized as a result. That's fine for a $50 expansion pack, kinda shitty for a $399 console. A profitable 299 slim, then 249 slim will grow the user base much faster, generating more profit for everyone. A 399 refresh will have a dampening effect.