It's easy to say, "I would've paid another 1000 euro for a better camera".
But for Ricoh Imaging to make and profitably sell such a camera, that's another story. They'd have to develop a faster AF; to update the electronics (faster processor, more RAM, faster card writes etc.); to complete the lens line to a reasonable degree. And they'd need to persuade us to buy (which might imply marketing).
Think about it: the K-1 as it is, was a high resolution camera at entry level prices; that made people "forgive" it's lower performance and less sophisticated AF. Ricoh Imaging managed to compete on their strengths, instead of directly competing with Canon/Nikon feature-by-feature.
But a 3000 euro K-1? People would expect it to compete directly with the D850. If they can do it, that would be nice... but, is there any point in complaining that they didn't do it already?
Besides, saying is one thing - buying another. Sure, there are people I trust they'd do it (especially those with recent high-end Pentax purchases).
But there's a keyword that makes me immediately doubt it:
Sony. And here it is, the "requirement" that Pentax would match the A7III in performance, and also
on price. That camera is $2000.
So our friend here isn't willing to pay a cent more for a higher performing K-1.