Your argument still makes no sense. You're right that most PS3s sold were slims or super slims, but they were the same specs as the original PS3s (not more powerful in any way). But, that's because they were cheaper. Keep in mind, these consoles actually had less features than the release PS3, and the vast majority of PS3 owners did not care. So why did you make the logical jump that most PS4 sales now should be PS4 Pro sales and Not PS4 Slim sales? You need to look at the numbers . So far, PS4 Pro has an estimated sales of 1-1.5 million units world wide since release. In that same time, the PS4 Slim has sold well over 6 million units. That's about 80% of PS4 sales since the PS4 pro was released, and it's reasonable to think that number might decrease over time as a large chunk of the current userbase that already had a PS4 might have already upgraded to the Pro. It wouldn't surprise me at all if going forward the PS4 Pro represents less than 10% of PS4s sold. The dust is already settling on the PS4 Pro, and the results aren't industry changing in any meaningful way. In fact, i wouldn't be surprised at all if MS saw the response to the PS4 Pro and actually scaled back the hardware to make the price point more affordable. It appears the demand just isn't there.
I'm not saying the Pro is the best selling SKU now and it has zero chance of doing so in less than 2 years. I agree that pricing is the top factor, but you have to consider that old tech ends up beign overpriced. I bought a GTX650 in 2013. It costed 1/3 of what a PS3 costed at the time. The PS3 ran Crysis 3 at 720p, less than 30fps and settings lower than "low" on PC. My budget GPU ran the same game in "high" to "ultra" settings, 1080p and 30 to 40 fps. There's a point where you can't reduce the cost of old tech and newer tech simply starts to win in both performance and cost. I'm cosidering that, in some years, the regular PS4 may not be capable of reaching lower prices and the difference to the Pro may be less than 50 bucks, if any at all. In this scenario, it could become the top SKU. Sony itself said that their intentions were to avoid gamers jumping ship to PC late gen, when consoles don't have the C/B benefit any longer.
Again, you seem to be harping on the idea that the vast majority of gamers care enough about performance to be willing to pay extra for it. I wholeheartedly disagree with that concept. The numbers just do not indicate that this is true, or has ever been true. People buy consoles for the games you can plan on them, not necessarily how well they play. Need I remind you that the PS2 was by far the weakest console compared to the Xbox and Gamecube and had the weakest, poorest performing ports, and that system is the highest selling console of all time, and dominated in third party sales. By your logic Xbox should have crushed the PS2, yet we see the opposite of that.
If you look at X1, gamers are just getting a slightly lower pixel count, but perfectly playable games. When the gen is over, the previous console becomes an aftertought and it gets sub-HD/20fps horrible next-gen ports. You are also thinking about PS4 as the option that costs 150 dollars more. If the difference was just 50, how many people would simply buy it?
Yes, the PS3/Xbox360 era was 7 years long, and people were buying less games from 2008 onwards. Are you forgetting that 2008/2009 was the depths of an economic recession, with people losing their jobs and their homes left and right? Entertainment always takes a hit during a recession. You'll also notice a decrease in box office movie sales, sports tickets sales. etc. during that time, as people had less disposable income. It's not that people were neceessarily bored with the hardware, it was that they couldn't really afford to buy as many games as they used to. Because of that Sony and MS decided to extend the lives of those consoles because they new they would be releasing new hardware into a global economy that couldn't really afford that. A PS3 Pro wouldn't have made any impact in that. If anything it would have made Sony more tepid to make the PS4 Pro as the PS3 pro would have been a clear and obvious disaster. Speaking from experience, the PS3 was hard enough to develop for, adding a new specification to hardware that was already difficult to optimize would wouldn't have yielded games that would have been able to take advantage of it without a significant investment from the development teams in both manpower and development time. The hardware and development tools really were not there yet.
You have a point here with the crysis. I'm using a "PS3 Pro" as an example, I know Sony wouldn't keep throwing money in hardware that was a total disaster.
As for what devs want, you'd be shocked how much of an influence they actually have over Sony and MS in terms of what hardware is released and how soon it's released. Many of the respected studios around the world (Both first and third party)have a pretty big influence in shaping the final specifications of consoles.
They are consulted because an easier platform to develop means lower dev costs and that makes the higher-ups happier. However, they don't have voice to decide which one will get games or not. If the PS4 was hell to develop for but still had the sales advantage it has today, devs would still support it more than other platforms. They can't say "hey, I don't want to develop for this thing" for their bosses. The Wii didn't had the specs anybody wanted, but devs still had to do miracles to put modern games on it. They even tried to put Arkham Asylum on it.
P.S. My PS4 would randomly freeze every week or so. I suspected it was a hard drive failing so I replaced it with no change to the performance. I never did get an error code out of it.
Ok, so it seems to be a different issue than mine. I managed to solve it before using some combination of full restore + game reinstall, but I forgot the exact steps I did to solve the problem. Anyway, I will try a full restore without backing up the games (just the saves) and see if it solves it.