That situation is quite different, the 3DS and new 3DS are the same price, same resolution. And the faster cpu is only actually used for 1 game. It looks like developers are all opting out!  There are tons of other features to make it a better device, yet upgrading for the power increase is kinda pointless. The faster cpu was likely cheaper to make nowadays than the old one and was probably needed for the enhanced 3D display. Faster download and loading times are also a plus. It's a replacement like a slim version, the 3DS is no longer available here. (Only New 3DS XL)

Adding a premium PS4 with newly designed APU won't be sold at the same price. For one, the sales expectations will be slashed in half, means less overall profit to absord the R&D, factory retooling, and stocking multiple skus costs. It can't replace the old model like a cheaper slim version as putting the price back up to $400 is a bad move.

What makes more sense. A slim version, shrink the existing apu, draws less power, smaller psu, bigger hdd, sell for less at decent profit. Or update the existing apu with faster gpu, same size box, same psu, bigger hdd, sell for same price, start back at 0 profit.

The resolution will be the same or else it will need more memory, you can't simply render the same games at higher resolutions without running into trouble.
Developers won't bother with updated textures etc, see new 3DS, and that will also lead to needing more memory and longer load times.

So what's left, locked 30 fps instead of a few frame drops. Going to 60, hmm that's extra effort for QA. Now you've got to test is everything still works allright at double the fps. Yet for multiplats with PC that support 60 fps it might be possible.

Sony slashes its profits, developers are faced with making sure their games run on both sets of hardware, stores have to stock more skus and educate their customers, existing owners feel like they got an outdated console, all for a small percentage of games maybe running at 60 instead of 30? It doesn't make sense.

Edit: Actually there are some things that run better on new 3DS

http://www.thebitbag.com/hyrule-warriors-legends-runs-better-new-3ds/140712
Destructoid recently released a PSA about Hyrule Warriors Legends, stating that it “runs like garbage” on the old 3DS.
http://www.gameinformer.com/b/news/archive/2016/03/09/nintendo-explains-why-snes-games-will-only-run-on-new-3ds.aspx

Sounds great!

See here is the problem with your reasoning. Your reasoning requires a fundamental misunderstanding of how console games are made vs. PC games. You just see PC as "the right way" and ignore all of the benefits of owning and developing for one specific hardware specification. By creating multiple versions of the same console you do multiple things:

You add confusion to the consumer base who mostly are looking for an easy and affordable solution to gaming. Prospective buyers now how to wonder just how compatible their games could be and if they're at a disadvantage in multiplayer because they own the less powerful version of a console. Currently when you buy a PS4 that is the only PS4 you need to buy to know for a fact that you will have the optimal experience on that console for all PS4 games that have been released or will be released. No worrying about anything else. You are taking that from consumers, and that will piss them off greatly.

Now add developers. See when developers create console engines the optimize them and continue to optimize them for that specific hardware spec. "Coding to the metal" as you said. However, also remember that any changes to that engine to accomodate extra hardware resources adds bloat to that engine, which means that games on the lower spec will fundamentally not run as well as it would run on an engine that was optimized for that specific hardware specification. This is a huge advantage to consoles that you are effectively removing. This is the main reason why a console will run a game better than a PC with the exact same specs. PC engines are a lot more bloated than console engines as a result. This will always be this way as long as consoles one one specific hardware specification. While it's true that most third party engines aren't as "to the metal" as first party ones, the fact remains that any subsequent engine changes will make these engines far more bloated than their earlier counterparts.

On top of that, currently console game developers optimize things like AI, 3D models, animation rigs, lighting effects etc run run within a specific resource budget. With very few exceptions they always, and I do mean always develop these things to the lowest common denominator, the weakest console. That's why when you see games for PS4 and X1 the main different between them isn't shaders, or higher res models, the biggest differences is almost always frame rate. That's because the rendering process is really easy to scale. Almost everything else does not work on a "slider" like it does in PC games because it takes far more resources to do it that way.

Also consider - PC games don't have any kind of certification process. Besides steam, but even then the certification process is a joke compared to consoles. With consoles games have to be certified by Sony, MS and Nintendo to meet a minimum standard before it can be printed on discs and sold on their digitial stores (I know some games still come out buggy as shit but that's not the point). The point is, because of this, there is significantly more testing that needs to be done on console games. Every hardware specification has to be tested. During development, many competent studios require that every single change that is submitted to the mainline of the application pass battery of automated tests that must be demonstrated to have passed those tests before it can be submitted. On the last multip-platform game I worked on (PS4/X1) Spending 5 minutes fixing a typo in a menu resulted in 45 minutes of testing before your change could be submitted. If both Sony and MS released ".5" versions of the PS4 and X1, you would effectively be doubling the time this process takes for every single change that is submitted into the system. Every one. On top of that, In the final testing stages of a game (after it has "gone gold"), I have seen testers have an array of literally every type of PS3 with different internals Sony has ever released, and run the game on each just to make sure that there are no hardware specific bugs. Of course, this is harder to find, which is why you will occassionally hear of a game that has a crash if you run it on X model of PS3. There is absolutely zero doubt making this change would increase development costs for every single PS4 game developer.

So you're right, PS4 games could adopt the PC model of game development with "sliders" and shit. But that comes at a cost of poorer performing games. It comes at a cost of increased development costs for everyone developing and maintaining a game engine. It comes at an increased cost to game developers who now have to test for extra hardware specifications. It comes at a cost of consumer confusion who just want the simplest game experience possible. It comes at a cost of Sony developing the new hardware, dev kits, test kits, educating developers etc. There are so many added costs you are completely glossing over.

It is not as simple as you think it is.

All for what? So the less than 5% of HDTV owners with 4K capable HDTV might buy a PS4.5 assuming they don't already own a PS4 and assuming they feel the difference is signifcant enough to upgrade. Seems like a huge risk for such miniscule reward.

The day consoles effectively turn themselves into locked down PCs is the day the vast majority of that console's consumer base will abandon them. People play on consoles because they want a "pick up and play" gaming experience. Any complications to that piss that consumer base off.

Wrong. There's 1080p and UHD. UHD != 4k.

1080p = 1920x1080px

UHD(advertised as 4k by Sony and other TV manufacturers) = 3840x2160px

4k = 4096x2160px.

4K TV's are NOT 4K, they are UHD and work at 3840x2160. This is NOT 4K.

@topic

I call BS. It makes sense if it's a 2019 release. Anything sooner than that it's a bullet in the foot.

Well looks like for the first time I'll be going all in on PC only if this is a 2-3 year upgrade plan or shorter. Usually I get Sony and Nintendo's consoles but...

The thing some of you probably need to realize is unlike PC this will be "buy a whole new console" every 2-3 years likely. Meaning the cost to play on PC will now be much more encouraging for those who play console only because they think it's cheaper. Now consoles are going to rack up costs possibly rivaling the costs for a gaming PC in no time at all. Buying 400 USD consoles every 2-3 years VS upgrading your graphics card only on PC for the next 5-7 years and possibly more given CPU's wont be making huge break-throughs any time soon meaning you will only need to upgrade the GPU for a very long time.

Given it now seems both Sony and Microsoft may be doing this confirms even more that Microsoft will probably leave the console space in a few more years and simply offer their own "steam box" platform running windows... or rather just regular manufacturer PC's. lol

Here we go....So now this is something that all 3 manufacturers are rumored to be thinking about. No like.

Context, dude. It's about performance and UHD and 4K are virtually the same from a performance standpoint.

What we would need is a resolution that is actually in between like WQHD, but I don't know many TVs who support it or are properly able to scale it. That's why I said for TVs there is nothing in between 1080p and 4k.

I'm confused by your first round of points?  Are we making the assumption that people wouldn't pay for a more expensive model PS4? They happily payed more for the 3DS XL which sold so well it made the old 3DS redundant, people paid more for DSi, 1TB PS4, Xbox 360 Elite etc. And my point about Nintendo being happy with the new 3DS was in response to people suggesting that introducing a new model will sabotage the systems profitability. Clearly there is more to be considered then a linear production line. Producing the new 3DS XL is seemingly more expensive for Nintendo then the original 3DS XL and even more so then the 2DS but it rejouvinates their hardware sales which compensates for the somewhat reduced profit margins. ALso Nintendo not only still sell the 3DS XL, they also sell the 2DS too? Surely they're sabotaging their profitability?

How do store owners explain the difference between the 2DS, 3DS XL and NEw 3DS XL?  How do they store those different SKU's, what about when there were like 4 different PS3's  SKU in shops at once? Again we're acting like kind of thing is brand new and unheard of, Its not lol. 

What would also make  sense is that sony simultaniously push for a PS4 slim to replace the current model  whislt also openning a new market with an even beefier machine just as Nintendo did with the 3DS but to better effect (in like 2017/18).
 
In regards to the amount of support it will recieve, 1st party is a given and the playstation home consoles (unlike the Nintendo handheld) are based on high performance specs (relative to consoles) and so are the games. Furthermore the developers on 3DS are completely different from those on home consoles and the expectation too. 3DS's development cycle is more often then not exclusive to the 3DS, most PS4 games already have higher spec versions running on PC with scalable textures and what not. You can't extrapolate on how the 3DS was utilised by devs to determine how a new PS4 might fair, the markets are very different. No one knows for sure whether this will recieve support, we didn't know for the Wii, PS Move or the upcoming Playstation VR. That really shouldn't be the basis on why it will or won't happen. I don't think people should be worrying about developers having to put  in extra work, its never stopped anyone from anticipated a brand console generation with a whole new generation of graphics (something which has actually made studios bankrupt themselves).

Again I don't even want it to happen this generation and I'm not sure it will, but people seem to be bending over backwards to project really rigid logic on why it can't happen (probably because they don't want it to happen). Phil Spencer literally said he see's as the future, do people on here feel they're more informed then him? I'm sure its more viable then people are giving it credit for. Ideally the generation hardware would be built with it in mind of course and it seems the PS4 isn't.

http://www.nintendolife.com/news/2015/12/intriguing_nintendo_patent_points_to_supplemental_computing_device_and_cloud_resources_for_a_gaming_system

Just a patent/

But it references a supplementary computing device to increase game performance. This application of upgradable hardware here is pretty agreeable since its just an add on.

That didn't exactly work out for the wii u. The wii's success didn't carry over. Sure, PS4 slim will definitely sell but not a PS4.5 that could be considered a next gen system. 

HAHAHHAHA what a kotaku click BS!!!!!! first is 100% we see a new ps4 and it call it ps4 slim! if has the ability to play on 4k nice but first we must find the games that for now struggling to have 1080p. why 4.5 is not  developers kit for upcoming 4.5 firmware update?