I would agree that there is a diminishing return on production.  The fact is, that you can already get a tablet(razer) with a good to great display screen and more powerful than both the PS4/XB1.  The concern about displays is not really existing.  Most if not all tablets/smartphones can output in high def to a tv.  Tablets/smartphones have bluetooth capabilities, that will allow the use of compatible controllers(maybe even a PS3/PS4) if they want.  Power/battery is not a concern either.  Just plug your tablet/smartphone in while using it as a console.  Intel/AMD are really focusing on the smaller and less power consuming processors now.  THey are just competing with one another anymore, as most tablets/smartphones don't even use their processors at all.  So they have the financial capability to put 10's of billions into this area to really get the advancements to continue. 

It might be 3-5 years before a cheap enough tablet can compete with the PS4/XB1, or it could be just 2-3 years.  If it happens sooner, it really only ends the need for the consoles.  It won't replace them to the core gaming community at that point anyway.  But, within 2-3 years after that, why would any big company bother with a new console when there won't be a need to produce a stand alone system?  The capabilities of then pre-existing tablets/smartphones with adequate power will eliminate the need to produce a console.  I do believe that there will probably be one more console generation, but I doubt it will include all 3 companies.  I would guess that the market will only really need 1 console buy then(5-6 years from now).

I would agree that there is a diminishing return on production.  The fact is, that you can already get a tablet(razer) with a good to great display screen and more powerful than both the PS4/XB1.  The concern about displays is not really existing.  Most if not all tablets/smartphones can output in high def to a tv.  Tablets/smartphones have bluetooth capabilities, that will allow the use of compatible controllers(maybe even a PS3/PS4) if they want.  Power/battery is not a concern either.  Just plug your tablet/smartphone in while using it as a console.  Intel/AMD are really focusing on the smaller and less power consuming processors now.  THey are just competing with one another anymore, as most tablets/smartphones don't even use their processors at all.  So they have the financial capability to put 10's of billions into this area to really get the advancements to continue. 

It might be 3-5 years before a cheap enough tablet can compete with the PS4/XB1, or it could be just 2-3 years.  If it happens sooner, it really only ends the need for the consoles.  It won't replace them to the core gaming community at that point anyway.  But, within 2-3 years after that, why would any big company bother with a new console when there won't be a need to produce a stand alone system?  The capabilities of then pre-existing tablets/smartphones with adequate power will eliminate the need to produce a console.  I do believe that there will probably be one more console generation, but I doubt it will include all 3 companies.  I would guess that the market will only really need 1 console buy then(5-6 years from now).

this is false, show me this tablet thats more powerful then ps4.

Razer gaming tablet, google it.

I did and your wrong, its not even close.

How do you make that assertion?  What is it lacking compared to the PS4?  It has an I7 processor with 8 gb of RAM and a 2 GB nvidia graphics card...  How is that weaker than the PS4/XB1?

it has a weaker gpu and has ddr3 memory which is horrible for 1080p gaming

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-razer-edge-review

"Comparisons with other handheld devices are perhaps unfair given the Edge's vastly higher price-point. For the sake of giving the device a better run for its money, we take the current holy trinity of FPS titles - Metro: Last Light, Crysis 3 and Battlefield 3 - and see how far each can be pushed visually before the 30FPS target is challenged. Before beginning our capture tests, we update the Nvidia drivers to version 320.18, and make sure each game outputs at the tablet's native 1366x768 resolution.

To kick off with the most rigorous stress test of the three, Crysis 3 forces DirectX 11 API features on even the lowest settings, with parallax occlusion mapping enabled across the board. As a result, drops to 20FPS are a common sensation on the medium preset during the rainy Post-Human stage, which is where we have to make the biggest sacrifices. Opting for the lowest common preset is the only way forward, alongside low-resolution textures, and FXAA. In the end, this gives us the most level response from one level to the next, and 30FPS holds up for even the jungle stages.

Metro: Last Light, meanwhile, fares much better for sticking to a more linear design. The game's cavernous, indoor environments are richly detailed with some of the most detailed textures we've seen in a shooter. Razer's Edge pulls of medium settings with ease, and in conjunction with normal motion blur and FXAA hits between 30-40FPS. As a preventative measure, tessellation is turned off to avoid choppy playback when walking through the crowds in Bolshoi or Reich levels. Similarly, no advanced PhysX settings are possible at an acceptable frame-rate, though the default physics model still impresses with chip damage to walls."