Why should it? That's like saying, you buy a 1080p James bond movie. Then UHD Blu-ray players get released 6 months later. And MGM tells you gey those of you that bought the 1080p Blu-ray gets a UHD Blu-ray copy of the movie for free too. But you can only use it on a UHD Blu-ray player tho. Then everyone that got the 1080p movie gets upset. 

Makes no sense.

The update to uncharted in your example is free to everyone. However, the console you have is at its limit. The best way that console can run that game is at 1080p@30fps. The 1080p@60fps isn't some locked out on disc dlc feature that they are keeping away from you just cause they want you to pay more. No. You have it. but to use it. you need to have a more powerful box. Don't understand why this is a problem. 

Ok. let me understand something. You are OK playing a game at 1080p@30fps. As long as it's not possible to play the exact same game @60fps on a box more powerful than yours?

The truth is maybe we are reaching a point of diminishing returns with visuals, so the whole old concept of "maximizing a hardware" like wringing a spong for every little bit of horsepower may be antiquated.

If you're a developer and you max out a 10-20 Teraflop machine (talking about PS5/XB2) ... you're likely talking about have to spend $100+ million just to make the game (not including marketing costs).

These are budgets that will begin with match/outpace Hollywood blockbuster movies, and if one of those games flops it will be enough to sink a lot of publishers. It will also mean that only a small number of games get greenlit.

To be honest I think when you look at this gen we're getting games that sufficiently look realistic in pretty much any type of art style you want to make with monstrous scope.

Therefor maybe more incremental upgrades for people who are willing to pay a little more depending on their personal taste is simply a more sensible upgrade path from now on, rather than forcing devs to have massively higher dev costs every 5-6 years with an enormous jump in processing power.

That model was never going to work forever if we're honest about it. Even in the "yeah but the Wii was different" ... well yeah, there's nothing stopping additional controllers from being released, it's not exactly pro-consumer to force people to pay $250-$300 extra to basically just play with a new $60 control scheme; you don't need a new hardware config just for that.

 If "the box more powerful than mine" is an Xbox One, or a PC, or even a PS5 then no, I wouldn't have a problem with that because those are different devices entirely. If the more powerful box is a mid-generation speed bump hardware change to the console I already invested in, then yeah, I've got a problem with that.

Sony is fracturing the PS4 user base with this move, plain and simple. The old PS4 owners (henceforth known as 40million beta testers) are now at a disadvantage to to late and or repeat adopters who buy the new "better" version. 

Hypothetically, any multi-player game on PS4 will now give PS4+ players an advantage because they will have framerate and performance improvements that the PS4 beta testers won't have. 

What if they call it PS5 with full forwards and backwards compatibility and say it's a new generation?

Also if better visuals and performance give players an advantage why aren't console players demanding hardware upgrades because apparently they're having a suboptimal experience at the moment.

depends on execution

I believe it will make no difference.  Will it make a difference to the 5% that talk about this stuff in forums, probably but the majority of the install base really do not care about 60fps.  Hell, I do not care about 60fps to purchase a new PS4 at this time.  Now if you say the new PS4 can do 4K at 60fps then you are talk my kind of talk but the current 4.5 specs is really just a decent performance bump which I can easily ignore.

According to his posts, the answer is clearly no.

Are you not tired that your opinion as a game developer doesn't seem to be taken into account in these discussions ? :)

It's not about it being new tech or not. It's about the likelihood that there will be exclusive features, games and dlc for the PS4 Neo/PS4.5/PS4K.

There's plenty of people that think that wouldn't be the case but what happens if the PS4 whatever-it's-called doesn't sell as well as sony would like it to? That's rhertorical btw.

Some might ask "Oh why wouldn't it sell well?". With no exclusive games and no exclusive content, people have almost no reason to buy a upgraded PS4. 

"For the better graphics". No, that's not good enough.

Sony could easily change their mind on exclusive content/games for it to incentivize consumers into buying it. 

Fear mongering? No. It's a matter of probability. As much as i like sony, I'm not blind to them being a company trying to make money and grow. If a product doesn't sell as intended, it will either be dropped/discontinued or change to whatever might sell better. Anyway, I kinda agree on something with ya, people should  wait til a upgradeable PS4 is confirmed before debating this stuff too much. 

Yet another soundwave post proving he has no understanding of how game development works.