And people still have delusions that the PS4 Neo (or whatever it will be called) will somehow pull off 4k gaming?
And still be affordable lol. One dude on here seemed to think the "Xbox One Two" could be 4x more powerful than the Xbox One and be sold for $499US..... LOL.
It's called wishful thinking, likely paired with a general ignorance of contemporary semiconductor industry developments with regards to graphical and general processing performance.
It would probably be useful if users/consumers considered hardware specs with respect to available technology based on source/manufacturer (it's all coming from AMD currently, so there is no mystery voodoo techno magic going on; we know what they have been working on) and the cost of said hardware.
It becomes even simpler when you have a general MSRP target, at which point it's a simple matter of what does $399 (or $499 or whatever) worth of MSRP end product buy in specs based upon current available hardware. Unless one is assuming the manufacturer is significantly subsidizing hardware costs for the consumer by offering an end product at a much lower MSRP than BoM cost to the manufacturer, it's a pretty straightforward answer with a decent amount of wiggle room performance-wise for custom chipsets tailored by AMD for their client, whether that's MS, SCE or Nintendo.
So yeah. If someone is expecting $1500 worth of performance, either a company is selling an overly expensive (for a general consumer market) console that can only be sold to a limited market, or they are giving it away at a severe loss per unit to their company, which simply isn't a viable business model post 2008.
I would argue that the success of the PS4 has demonstrated that the MSRP sweet spot is $399, assuming the hardware performance is industry leading, maybe even just highly competitive. It's a tough sell to convince consumers to pay more or the same price for less performance without a perceived brand/platform tax being levvied, which few are willing to pay.