From 240GFLOPS (360, as more powerfull out of two) to 1.84 TFLOPS (PS4), Yeah, LOL indeed.

They did a lot of damage by dragging those ancient consoles until 2013, they should have released a generation in 2009 and then another in 2013. So every 4 years.

So that means November 2017 for "next-gen"

If you think about it from the perspective of the manufacturers, with the sole exception of Nintendo, it was necessary. 

MS and Sony took way too big a hit on hardware during the first 1-2 years compounded by slow first years by both the XB360 and the PS3. With MS, the problem in retrospect appeared to have been more of an issue of OEM parts supply channels and production problems, but the PS3 was clearly hobbled in sales by the high price/value perception. It took the better part of three years for the PS3 to hit its stride software wise and elmininate losses per hardware unit. 

They simply spent too much trying to produce competitve hardware that could use specs as a marketing bullet at a time when technology at the cost of production still couldn't deliver basic 1920x1080p at 30-60fps in most instances. 

Nintendo, of all companies, is the one that should have released an 8th generation console in 2010 (not 2009 as it debuted in 2006; only the XB360 debuted in 2005). Pachter may not get a lot of things right, but I'm willing to give him that one. Nintendo was making a per unit profit on the Wii from debut. It was originally developed to be a $99 MSRP console. Of course the real reason why Nintendo didn't replace the Wii in 2010 is because the platform was hugely profitable, it had a massive install base and Nintendo is notoriously conservative when it comes to the business side of things and a company doesn't kill the golden egg laying goose prematurely if they want to ride out their success. 

The only way we'll see new consoles every 4 years (new platforms rather than incremental updates like the New 3DS or the PS4K) is if manufacturers switch to a smartphone business model in terms of incremental advances in hardware.

The thing is, consoles may be moving in that direction with the use of SoC type processors and a more PC style architecture that is more similar to PCs than ever before. If this is the new trend, then it is very possible to see a new PS or XB every 4-5 years although the performance jumps will be more incremental as they will be dependent upon what a $400 MSRP can buy in OEM components/specs while being sold near cost (slight profit per unit or slight loss) rather than spending massive amounts on R&D to create chipsets and hardware architecture that no one else uses. 

Getting back to the OP, I'm kind of hoping SCE doesn't end up marketing this one as the PS4K although that's so catchy and obvious of a name, it would almost be a missed opportunity if they didn't use it.

But there is no way in hell that this will be a legitimate 4K native rendering gaming device. It is simply not physically possible by the amount of processing power required to render that much data, to sell a piece of hardware at a price that will achieve any type of significant sales as a consumer device.

As it's already been said, the PS4K will play 4K video. At best we'll see some smeary 4K upscaling for games, anywhere from a 50-100% increase in processing power (more if we're being optimistic, depending upon what type of OEM deals SCE brokered with AMD and other OEM parts suppliers), which should translate well to increased performance in existing games, but nothing mind-blowing.

Optimistically, if the PS4K is capable of rendering native 1920x1080 x 2 at 60fps, we have a consumer device that is now perfectly suited for VR resolutions and performance.

If it does play 4K games, they will be upscaled. Let's not count out the chance that the current PS4 model may get an update to allow upscaled 4K games too. Just don't discount it, that's all I'm saying.

I'd say 2k is more likely. But open world games would probably go from 1080p 30FPS to 1080p 60FPS instead.

Edit: random thought.  

I wonder how long until 8k 240FPS will be possible on a VR device that costs under $1000. 

I wonder when 4k 60FPS open world games can be played on a 500$ or lower setup.  

Um whut? Why would they put something as trivial as resolution at the heart of things?

Have you got a standard definition TV?

That's why.

I more meant 3k vs 4k. They'll either go the whole hog (upscaled at least) or not at all. I personally currently lean towards ps4k being about UHD BD playback and beingvthe cheaper UHD BD player in the market than anything to do with gaming. Yea it might offer better frame rates. But the extra demands for that teeny bit of extra in game resolution? Not worth it!

theres no way ps4.5 can play 4k games. NO NO NO NO NO. they would need to SLi the card it has and even then might only hit 40fps.

right now if you want a single gpu you need a titan 4k which is about 1300 dollars for the card alone. So 4k get it out of you mind for gaming for next gen or longer!

ps5 i say has a 50% chance of playing 4k games but probably wont.