That's part of the point. What would happen if a gimped version sells for $400 and a fully realized one for $500? Is the price point really making the console more accessible, if the later outsells the former? It happened before with consoles priced both cheaper and more expensive, after all.

Besides, I don't think I quite get your PS3 argument. The difference between 400 and 500 matters, but between 500 and 600 suddenly doesn't, anymore... because it crossed an arbitrary threshold of expensiveness, beyond which people can afford to shell out more money?

Anyway, that discussion is moot. Market analysis nowadays is much more advanced, complex and deep than it was 10 or 15 years ago. Sony and MS should know what they need to do (and how to price their stuff) better than any of us can argue.

I think that the Xbox One could have been successful at 500$ back in 2013 - but it would have needed to perform better than the PS4 (without going too far, a faster CPU + GPU combo, and memory fast enough to feed them).

Let's say it would have come out with enough CPU power to run games that are 1080p 30FPS on the PS4 close to locked 60, with similar details.

All in all, I think that if the games are back-and-forward compatible they should price the new consoles like the "PRO" consoles, maybe even a little more, I'd rather spend more on something I want, than less on something I'm lukewarm about.

History has shown this to be correct repeatedly.  Base SKUs over $400 struggle every time.  And, while inflation is a thing, it simply hasn't been a factor in gaming.  In many respects, this hobby costs less than it ever has.  So, I see no reason to believe that $499 will magically work better this time.

I don't know about America, but wage increases over the last 20years have been WAY slower than inflation in Australia.

People aren't spending money on luxury items that they do not need on a daily basis.

Pretty much this.  While I feel a lot of us gaming enthusiasts would be fine dropping that on a new console, we have to remember that we are the vocal minority when it comes to overall sales.  Growing up, I never got new consoles until they were two years old and they dropped in price.  Even the PS3 was on hold until MGS4 came out.

Now that I am set in my career, sure now I get them out of the gate.  But it was not until the PS4 and Switch that this became the case for me.  I plan on getting the PS5 out of the gate regardless of the price, but I highly doubt most people will pay anything over 400 for another console, let alone 500.  If consoles go up too much, I will just finally make the plunge and get a gaming PC as cheaper hardware has always been a selling point for consoles in general as well.

I think this pretty well nails it. And, considering the fact that at least Microsoft is rumored to be developing two SKUs, I think they understand this.  It is possible to have both a premium device for the enthusiast, and a lower price device for the mass market. We're seeing it right now, with both Xbox and PlayStation.  I am nearly certain it will continue in the next generation. The only question is will there be two versions available at launch, or will one come a bit later

The difference matters in the sense that a decently equipped $400 console sells well, while a poorly equipped $500 one doesn't. Gimped versions rarely sell well.
The lowest priced amongst the at least decently equipped versions is usually the best seller. BTW, for its price, the $600 PS3 didn't sell too bad, its sales became bad for Sony because they were launch versions PS3 main sales, while the gimped and expensive entry level sold poorly. If those sales were instead in addition to a higher selling entry level, then total sales would have been good enough.
About your last point, I totally agree.

And you fail to mention with your example, that Monkey Island was a success by selling over 100k copies, while GoW sold 5M copies. That is 50 times more sales, and in a shorter amount of time, too. And yet both are about equal size of hits for their time.

Also, those 270 were not all the time on the project, as it includes everything from 2D artists, 3D artists, Programmers, Musicians, and so on. Some were only on the project for a couple months before moving on the next project in line.

Videogame development has become much more expensive, no doubt. But the market grew bigger even faster. Selling one million copies of a game, outside of Mario or Tetris, was exceptional until the late 90's. Nowadays, only selling a million would most of the time be considered a massive flop, unless it's an indie title.

Lastly, You fail to acknowledge what was in the box of a videogame at the time. What is nowadays sold as special or limited editions were the normal editions in the heyday, especially on PC.

Oh boy... I remember some games having manuals that were hundreds of pages long...

These alone would probably cost about 10$ in production... and that's just the tip of the iceberg.

So yeah, the games were more expensive, but you got much more with them. Might want to compare the price of the games back then with the special editions today, and then you'll see the price didn't really drop all that much.