No man, you really didn't got it. If you have a system that is balanced to that GPU of let's say 12TF in PS5 case and 16TF for Anaconda, if you just cut back GPU to 4 TF and keep all the rest the same to have only the GPU being weaker you are making all rest excessive to the GPU you have.
Ok, I'm gonna answer these points then likely leave it at that as I've been in a back and forth with you before and it just turns into an endless game of incoherent rambling and point dodging...
I'm not saying it is impossible to have 4TF and 16TF balanced SKUs, I'm saying that for both to be balanced it won't be just GPU that is 4x weaker. And sorry to burst your bubble, but the weaker system will always hold out the rest, so don't get surprised when Sony 1st parties look much better than most games even on Anaconda, plus having much more going on because they don't have to go for the same ceiling. Even now you would have a hard time finding much games on X1X prettier than SM and GoW running on Pro.
1st up, even if the we say that the components outside of the GPU of Lockhart are relatively overpowered (which I don't think needs to be the case), then that bodes well for the 'ceiling' as the rest of the specs can match Anaconda. What you're essentially saying is that you cannot have 2 setups targeting 2 different resolutions, with the same CPU be balanced. That's just plain wrong....
Switch isn't 4x weaker than X1, sorry to tell you that.
So you agreed that Marketing will tell whatever they can get away without accusing of lie, thanks. And a lot of people do believe on the marketing, if they didn't no one would put that much money on marketing.
Not sure what your point is here - you say the manufacturers have to hit a certain spec to allow them to market that message but at the same time agree that marketing can be BS, which would therefore not require the manufacturer to hit certain specs but instead make shit up. Overall I believe that Switch will be weaker in relation to XB1 / PS4 than Lockhart to Anaconda but even if they're about the same my point stands - they got Doom & Wolfenstein running at reduced resolution which wouldn't be possible if your 'ceiling' analogy held true.
How am I agreeing to your point? Some people can be either big or small amount. Some people find a good deal on what most would say is terrible.
Your head is turning over because you are adamant in believing people won't see as much better proposition to be 3x stronger at only 100 USD more, only 25% outpowered but 100 USD less. That is a very good position for Sony to put themselves in. You said people don't see the difference, and I showed you that even if they don't (your argument, not mine) still 20% of PS4 sales were Pro while perhaps 50% of Xbox were X. That is plenty of people that buy even if there isn't much perceived difference.
It's not 3 times stronger - continued misrepresentation on your part - what is it with this obsession to boil down a console to only one of it's components? And I said that the average gamer wouldn't appreciate the difference, how is that statement in any way at odds with a minority buying PS4 Pro? And do you have a source on 50% of XB1 sales being the X - seems way too high to me.
You wanting to fit a word to a definition you want, doesn't change reality. PS3 at 600 had a lot of people lining up to buy it, X1 at 500 and very bad review had record sales before failing down. Also, non-enthusiast would prefer to just buy the game on what they already have than pay 299 to play the same game on a new system. If they aren't enthusiast about how much it would improve why would they be there buying system on launch, this doesn't make much sense.
As I said before, some people have cash to spend and want the new version of their console to play the new versions of their favourite games. You can be excited about the PS5 & XB2 without caring much about the technical nuances. There are plenty of iPhone users who buy the latest model without caring about what's actually going on under the hood.
So you accept MS won't win, so not sure why you are defending this as a good model. If 4TF is 299, 12TF 399 (PS5) and 16TF is 499 it is pretty obvious from where it comes that for only 100 more you get 3x the experience and on the next 100 more you only get 33% improvement, so the middle machine gets a much easier selling.
You have a very binary understanding of a very complex space. At the end of each gen there isn't a referee who holds up the glove of the guy with most hardware sales and declares a winner. They're businesses with different models and targets. MS doesn't have to sell more units than Sony to move their business forward, their focus is on their online service reaching as many devices as possible (see plans on PC & Switch). Them offering a lower-priced, entry-level system fits this plan perfectly as it promises to sell more systems (and thus subscriptions) than a premium-only model.
And it's hilarious that you frame gaming from 1080 to 4K as '3x the experience' - I think you should be less concerned about others being misled by marketing and look closer to home. It's just such a nonsense comment.
Also, you've just made this price / spec comparison up. Who's to say that Anaconda & PS5 won't be identical performance & price - meaning that MS will match up with Sony but offer a value model in addition...?
If you don't get the problem perhaps you better analyse better your argument before keeping at them. PS4Pro and X1X plays the same games as PS4 and X1 so they couldn't call it PS5 and X2, also it wouldn't be a proper gen jump nor would it be timed away enough to justify a new gen.
As is your habit, you're missing my point. I wasn't suggesting that they literally relabel the current consoles... (come on - really?) What I was suggesting is that if everything is just going to be boiled down to 1080 & 4K then why should Sony or MS bother trying to push the boat out spec wise? What I'm trying to highlight is your comically simplistic framing of a console's perceived value being a reflection of it's output resolution.