Scorpio can hold that second place lol.

Given how Sony handled the PS4's development they most likely asked developers what kinds of improvements they would want over the launch system. Given the capabilities of AMD's latest GPU tech and potential of the CPU Zen architecture or some mobile version of that I doubt Neo has the level of performance that the rumors state it to (keeping the same core Jaguar CPU architecture never made any sense when they were shooting to improve hardware performance in general).

The very people that have leaked details about Neo prior to Andrew House's confirmation of Neo's existence have also said that Sony has more than one option for this updated PS4.

Leaks of the RX 480's power consumption and performance tests show it to be capable of 5.8Tflops, running on only 100 watts, so with improvements to the CPU architecture in Neo and incorporating this new Polaris GPU Architecture Sony could easily have a 5.8TFlop system, with at least a moderate improvement to the CPU, if not 2+ times the performance of that part in a system the same size as the launch PS4.
If Sony wants to overclock things and the system's case design isn't set in stone then they could build a bigger box and push for 4K in PS4 level games or maybe 1440p at 60FPS, with the RX 480 and a Zen mobile CPU from AMD.

Sony doesn't have to wait, the tech for this could go into production soon and Sony could still meet a Fall 2016 release window.
Given that Microsoft has shown their hand Sony has nothing to really worry about, especially considering the level of games they have coming this year and beyond, the addition of a new, better device is just another platform to run PS4 games to appeal to an even bigger demographic of people.

This kind of shift is sort of expected, isn't it? o.O I mean, it's not new in the console industry. (Well, to be fair, new to Microsoft or Sony, as I don't know enough about Nintendo to make a judgement call.) Draw focus to the positives, whatever they may be, and downplay or deemphasize anything either objectively, subjectively or relatively negative. In situations where either company went from enjoying an advantage in a given area to a disadvantage, that usually resulted in a shift in (ironically) their narrative to compensate.

I've never actually seen 4k in the flesh before so im curious if its really that much better then 1080p with good AA or 1440p, most importantly is it worth the extra power that could be going elsewhere?

I think one thing many are sort of missing here is it's one thing to boast of having more power, and completely another to boast of having more power AND a lower price-point. If MS manages to get the best versions of multiplats without a stupid price, good on them. The US and UK may once again carry MS. I doubt it, and have a strong feeling the next year is going to be downright disastrous for the brand, but I could be super wrong.

This is indicative of a shift that's rather inevitably hit all media, regardless of whether or not Sony was there. Books, comics, television shows, movies and games have generally pushed at whatever limitations were placed on them by broadcasters, publishers, etc and often included darker themes, greater levels of violence, sex, gore, etc. Even if Sony weren't there, somebody else would have filled the void. If not Nintendo themselves, then some other company would have seen an underserved market and capitalized on it while Nintendo ended up pretty much exactly how it is at the moment. =P What you're railing against here is human nature, as opposed to the nefarious acts of any single company.

I mean, honestly, if Sony had vanished off the face of the Earth after, say, the original Playstation, do you really think things would be different? =P

As for which is the 'best,' the term remains subjective, it always has. At the moment, more people seem to like Playstation. They're just as right or wrong as the people who like Nintendo, or Xbox; there's no 'correct' side here, and what's a fun game to one person is going to be a boring, uninspired slog to another. That's exactly why it's always a positive that both sides are getting served by at least ONE platform. Not everyone only wants Nintendo's style of games, myself included. Not everyone only wants the kinds of games you mentioned like Watch Dogs and such. Nintendo's there for you, Playstation's there for me, (though I do also own a Wii U for friend get-togethers) so it's win-win. ^_^

Steam Boxes? do they even exist anymore, I thought after repeated disasterous delays and bad sales they were DOA? I would actually think it is 50/50 if there will be ANY consoles post the next gen. We are simply getting to the point where computing has evolved beyond the need for dedicated console hardware. I would see MS/Sony/Nintendo providing gaming as a service as the future post 2020 -2025 and MS seem to be looking that way too as do Sony.

Edit: a good current story for you on how bad Steam machines are doing. Pretty much how most people without some sort of steam bias expected this to go.  http://www.extremetech.com/gaming/229500-steam-machine-sales-are-abysmal-steamos-may-be-dead-in-the-water

Should read this: http://www.digitaltrends.com/gaming/recore-hands-on/ They compare it to Zelda

Eh, but sometimes the medium just doesn't go in the direction we want to. It's unfortunate when it happens, and honestly I think everyone has some small wish when it comes to where the market would go- ('Down With Sports Games! GO DO IT OUTSIDE! More spaceships!')- but it would be literally impossible to keep everyone happy. =P For every person getting what they want, there are going to be a few who wanted something else, and like any business, most publishers are going to follow the money. Put as delicately as possible, Nintendo has opted to do its own thing with the Wii U and cater only to its traditional crowd, and that hasn't exactly gone... swimmingly, this generation.

Anyway, my tastes are pretty broad, as I enjoy my narrative-focused games as well as my mechanically-fun-but-narratively-shallow titles. Hell, I loved playing Nidhogg competitively and it is one of the simplest videogames I've ever played. xP And I loved Thomas Was Alone and that's all about the emotional journey of geometrical shapes. So with the exception of a few genres like sports, most racing and military shooters, I'm actually pretty content. (: I think I'd get bored if all the games I played were JUST adventure games, JUST roleplaying games, JUST serious, JUST colorful, whatever. I like to mix it up! :3

I might go play some Nom Nom Galaxy later. xP

A few errors in your judgement.
1) That Scorpio will be running games at 4k@60fps. - We haven't even seen it in action.
2) That an AMD GPU can be compared to an nVidia GPU on Teraflops alone. - It can't.
3) That Teraflops is a denominator for gauging the complete performance of a graphics chip. - It's not.
4) That a certain amount of Teraflops is required for 4k to begin with. - You can have less Teraflops and still be faster than a GPU with more.

The Neo is likely to loose in the performance stakes if these early indications are anything to go by, but that's not a bad thing, Microsoft and Sony are at their best when they are constantly competing hard.
Both flounder when they become complacent in their lead. Aka. Competition is a good thing.

It will also give the Xbox some advertising boost, it's constantly ridiculed in comparison video's.

It will be managed with simpler games just fine. But with the added power comes increased graphical fidelity, which means 4k/60fps will become less of a "thing" as the generation prorgesses.

"Best games" is a personal and subjective opinion. There is an old saying of "One mans treasure, another mans trash". - The Playstation for instance has zero good games for me as it's games library tends not to suit my tastes.

Or have overhyped it to an insane degree that they will likely be let down. :P

I think 1440P/Quad-HD is likely going to be the target, there is still a benefit for 4k owners and it can be downscaled to 1080P for benefits to 1080P gamers... Whilst still allowing for an ample increase in general fidelity.

Developers, especially multiplatform developers already downscale/downgrade their games for technically lesser platforms when they port games from the PC to Console. - Most Frostbite powered games are evidence of this with the console versions being 720P/900P and high-equivalent settings rather than Ultra, so it's not really going to change the landscape much in terms of optimization.

I do agree that people using Teraflops as a way to compare different GPU's is simply stupid, there is so much more to rendering games than the floating point performance a chip offers.

With that said... A Nintendo console that is twice the power of a regular PS4 will have superb graphics indeed, especially bolstered by Nintendo's fantastic Art direction.

It's funny because a large portion of the Wii U's game library is exclusive, yet that has proven not to drive console sales to any great degree.
Are exclusives really important? Sure they are. But I think 3rd party is more important... And if Microsoft can entice PC devs over to the Xbox, then they will be onto a winner.

Steam box isn't a thing.
The abuse of Flops on this forum as a denominator for gauging performance seriously needs to end.

Scorpio isn't a replacement for the current Xbox One, it's meant to compliment it.
It allows for a higher more premium tier of hardware, a Halo product if you will, even if it doesn't sell in massive quanitities, it will still win news cycles, comparison videos to draw attention to the Xbox Platform and away from competitors.

I know right? Go back a few years and it was all about the GDDR5's.
Before that it was all about the Cells.

I don't think people realise you can have a graphics chip that is 1Tflopbeat a chip that is 2Tflop.

Best practice would be to match the console chips as close as you can with PC desktop chips and then compare them in benchmarks.

There is allot of assumptions in there.

For starters... You are assuming there is a linear increase in processing when you linearly increase resolution, it's not, some tasks require the exact same amount of processing, bandwidth, caching etc' regardless of resolution.
Other tasks require-orders-of-magnitude more.

When you increase your resolution if you have a bottleneck somewhere in your GPU, such as cache or geometry processors, then that can hold you back when you bump up your resolution and the load increases.

Scorpio is set to be a little faster than the RX480.

Scorpio will likely be retained as a more expensive premium product along side the Vanilla Xbox One though, they can keep it at the same price point and throw more Hard Drive space or games into the mix.

These things take a long time, you can't just change your mind at the last second to react to the competition, chip development takes many months/years and the need for multiple re-spins and significant R&D, these are semi-custom chips remember.
Zen won't be happening for that very reason.
Jaguar/Puma/Puma+ is the only choice for the Neo and Scorpio.

The abuse of Teraflops as a way to compare performance needs to end, it's not accurate.

It's a massive difference, absolutely massive.

Is it worth the power? That is really up to the individual.

For some people there will literally be zero difference between 720P, 1080P and 4k even if their monitor/tv supports 4k. - Why? Because the human eye has a limited amount of capability to perceive detail over distance.
If you have a moderate sized television and you sit a fair distance away, then chances are, you will not notice a single difference.
If you have a massive TV and sit fairly close to it, the difference is more pronounced.