You know it's possible to run battlefeild 4 on a Geforce GTX 7800 right? I don't know why anyone would want to do that. but it's possible. 

I also think you may not understand how RAM is used in games. And why or how important bandwidth is. 

I hope this doesn't happen.

First that's a high end card and a 2013 game, and is that how you expect games to run on the base model when the second iteration comes into full use?
Anyway how does it run coupled with a core 2 duo processor and 1 or 2GB DDR2 system ram.
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/500-gaming-machine-2007-edition,1681.html

Forwards compatiility with restrictions will become a big problem going forwards. Hence a new gen to cut ties and start fresh.
PC can always dial up the minimum specs, which that 2007 gaming pc doesn't meet btw for Battlefield 4. What can an iterative console do?

It sounds nice in the short term, simple upgrade, smooth performance, maybe better resolution or AA on a bunch of titles. Yet at what cost to future games development does that little extra graphics come.

If all these rumors turn out to be true I really hope it's a one off thing because of problems with making a slim for the current hardware. Then a new console in 2020 or so with new 16 core processor, 16GB ram or more etc. A real upgrade, not hampered by having to be feature compatible with NEO. BC fine, FC no.

Err... yes? What which? They are concordant.

People want to buy games, not new consoles all the time.

Oh... and assuming you know how its going to be is your first mistake. Look at the new 3DS as the example.

Anyways, you picked up on something i said wich was the worst case scenario, where all manufacturers dd this but consumers didn't embrace it. I don't think thats gonna happen. I think consumers won't embrace this practice and Microsoft will gain from this tirade of greed from Sony, just as they have in the past. It will be the perfect ammo to use at E3.

If the bolded part is true, then no new gen would ever have been validated as long as games still come to the older one. 

That aside, I don't know where ur coming from demonizing Sony for doing this. In the short term it really makes no difference what so ever. All they have to do at E3 is say:

"here is the PS4+. The world's first sub $400 UHD Blu-ray player. And it has the added benefit of upscaling all ur games to output at 4k and with the extra power we put in to support 4k upscaling for sull support of 4k TVs you get benefits if you are playing on a 1080p TV too." 

And that's it. everyone will cheer and that will be all. Updated console for 4k, new box and new price point. if you want the 1080p console it's still there to buy and oh....price drop on that one. 

You would be really reaching if you think Sony will market this as anything more than that. 

And MS is one to talk..... they did make the elite controller didn't they? But go ahead thinking this is some sort of herculian PR fuckup. You will be grossly disappointed. 

Because all this aside, this could also really just be a one off mid gen revison. same way they have always revised their consoles every generation. Just that when shrinking the chips, they probably realized that it would be cheaper or they stand to make more if they made it more powerful and increased the price of the "premium" console and slapped on a 4k monicker. everyone already expects to pay more for 4k. 

What do you think of my proposal that future PS4 games will use less graphical features and as such will need less optimization. That time saved could be spent on optimizing the PS4k version.

Well personally I don't care at all for motion blur and dof effects, nor bloom, even FXAA and temporal AA can go away, and especially chromatic aberation. Of course all this stuff is there to make it all seem more detailed that it really is.
I understand why console games don't have settings for all that, but sure if the base version needs to cut some of those imo useless effects to recoup time lost from maintaining and testing the NEO version, I'm all for it :) Yet that would be wishful thinking on my part, devs are not going to risk not having the same look on both versions. The effects are just going to look a bit worse on the base model if anything.

Your summation on Developers suddenly in 2 years not optimizing for the current install base while the PS4.5 gains more market share I believe really does not pan out correctly.  Case in point would be games produced on the PS3/Xbox360 compared to the PS4/Xone.  There are plenty of case where both versions are developed for each platform and the older version holds up pretty well to the current because by that time, the toolsets and process flow for developing games are more mature on the older system.

I believe one of the big problems with a lot of opinion is that a lot of people really do not understand development of games.  The reason the Older systems still perform great while usually the new system have issue is because of developers familiarity with the devices, toolsets and resources used for developing their engines for the games are more refined and process flow better tuned for faster development.  Since the 4.5 and the original really do not have that big of a difference, there really isn't a big risk that the older system will not be tuned just as well as the faster system.  If anything, you will have developers give user the ability to turn off features for better performance or they will automatically tone them down based on the console selected.  This is still a hundred times better then how the PC ecosystem works with hundreds of different GPU and CPU options.

It's interesting, but I don't see it ever turning into every console they make from now on will be able to run every game. I'm sorry, but I don't see the ps4 being able to run a new game 10 years from now.

So the day after PS4+ launches and Naughty Dog releases a patch for Uncharted 4 to run at 60fps in single player _only on the PS4+_ will you still feel it'll make no difference whatsoever to the 40mil owners of the 'old' PS4?