Yes, I would have.

I would also have gladly paid €200 more for a "PS3 1080p" and/or a "Xbox 1080" model in the past (so all PS3 / 360 games in native 1080p instead of 720p) and/or a "Wii HD" model (so all Wii games in native 720p instead of PAL/NTSC).

All these remastered versions show how these games should have looked in the first place.

But I'm totally aware that the majority of console gamers thinks otherwise and that making compromises in fidelity to keep the entry costs low is very important to establish a fast growing hardware base.

The expensive model shouldn't be the only model, but I love the idea of a standard and a premium model giving the customers the choice. If the standard preset of a game is good enough for them, they save some money. But if you are willing to spend more money, you can play the same games in higher resolution and/or with better anti-aliasing and/or better textures/shadows/FX.

PS4 games look good enough for me tbh.
Not even halfways through the gen, and you know game dev's are still getting better at makeing use of the hardware.

Higher price would not be a good thing imo.

No matter how powerful consoles are they'll have the same problem: monthly fee to play online, more expensive games and not upgradable. So no i'm ok with my ps4 for the exclusives (i don't care they release the Neo i'll just stick to the ps4 version of exclusives) and PC for third parties.

No. $400 is really the maximum I'll pay for a console. I have my PC for any other reason. The power is fine. Companies and consumers just want to keep pushing graphics that are going past the consoles limitations. Even when 4k etc becomes a norm. Power won't be enough, still. Because people keep wanting MOAR!.

Because of the power differences, the stronger versions won't get catered to properly.

Basing it mostly on manufacturing costs... Adjusted for inflation this was Sony's cheapest console yet, and if it weren't for the initial bundling with Kinect or the gamepad, the Xbox1 would have been microsoft's cheapest to manufacture as would have been the Wii U for Nintendo... I'm currently having trouble finding my source (one that had conveniently listed the consoles on one page) as this has come up many times in the past, but if we just look at the last handful of consoles, their release prices, and the inflation since then, it's rather clear that this has been the cheapest generation yet.

Really, it's more than a little sad that these conoles were incapable of handling 60fps 1080p. I think even the casual observer would note that the leap from the last gen to this one has been perhaps the least significant of any generational transition yet.

No I've been very happy with what both PS4 and Wii U have offered as both consoles play host to some stunning looking games.

Nope :P

i can live with the power we get from games today. A stronger console would be neat, but it isn't needed

Probably compared to the power of their predecessors. The performance jump from PS1 to PS2 or from PS2 to PS3 was much bigger than from PS3 to PS4 (which is inevitable with growing complexity and limits in power consumption).

But even compared to PC GPUs available at console launch, the console performance gains have slowed down. In 2005/2006 the Xbox360 and PS3 easily beat a $600 GPU (GeForce 7800 GTX) by raw power. In 2013 the PS4 barely reached a $200 GPU (GTX 660) and the Xbox One was even below that:

More power would have been better. Would happily have paid a few hundred extra for twice the power with more modern technology.