If that's true explain the cinema then. 

I've a 42" I sit 3 meters from and there's no way I'd want to be closer. I've got a decent sound system for it and to be closer would just be too intrusive. 

And you can bet that 4k TV owners will most likely have similar set up to mine (TV + External speaker) so I can't imagine they'd want to be closer. In fact the $40,000 entertainment room I saw had the couch a good 4m from the 60" TV. 

Back in the days we played on our NES with some 15" B/W TV. Later we went to 4 Player Splitscreen on a 19" TV. Somehow it worked. No HD, no TVs that were bigger than myself. What's wrong with people who seriously think 50" isn't enough?

Immersion. its pointless comparing Nes Games to the cinema like experiences a lot of games try to replicate now. I personally would Ideally want a 75", eqaully I'm very happy with 40" I've got currently.

But in regards to the OP. Yes, the industry can handle more powerful systems.

Firstly, its much easier for devs to produce good looking games, and at a cheaper development cost too. The price hike starts coming when people start trying to push next gen tech and release title which look more then just current gen games running on high PC settings. But that will be left to the bigger companies like square, Ubi, EA etc. Because of the diminishing returns in graphics, people will be very content with even the worst looking next gen title, giving lessor devs a new lease of life. producing the same amount of assets they do now, but with new graphical tools to play with and make their games look shiny whilst running at 60fps/1080p. Also the advances in Digital content will continue to push indie devs foward.

In regard to console prices, $400-$500 is a reasonable price. The adoption rate next gen will be a  lot stronger then it was with the 360/ps3 because the developers are readying their big guns for launch year. We already know of Watchdogs, starwars1313, Witcher 3, Dragon Age 3, Battlefield 4, Destiny... This line up already shits all over what was available for the 360 in is 1st year and the ps3 in its 1st year.

Wrong. The top GPU in the market (GTX 680/HD 7970) can run game in 4k in max setthing.

No it can't. The HD7990, the most powerful card out there is only able to handle those resolutions. FYI run a game = 60 FPS min and max settings = BF3

Whats required for system to game at 4k? could it possibly be that such GPUs are not built for 4K in mind, as opposed to the inherent cost of  4K support equating to matching the most powerful GPUs in specs and price. Obviously simply beeing able to support a resolution does not mean all games will run at it. 

Well I am thinking about going all out on a PC atm. Geforce Titan in SLI for VR. I want better graphics.

Avatar in 4k and realtime as baseline for all games is the point were I would be satisfied for the moment, I guess. If the Industry breaks down before they achieve that its too bad thats what I want and what I am willing to support with my money.

I just want more then what we currently have. Real AI and Physics that rival weather simulations done by supercomputers. The Matrix is what videogames should evolve into one day. And I am willing to support the Industry along the way aslong as I live.

OP.

- The Wii U itself is cheapers because the dated hardware... the Gamepad puts the things a little high... that's the reason.
- PS4 will have 4k for movies and some PSN games but the standard will be 1080p.
- Dev cost will not change from that generation... the buget will be the same.
- PS4/Next will be MOAR powerful... 8-10x PS360.
- The evolution in graphics will define the next generation.

How on earth did this turn into an argument about 4k and screen sizes?