I hope not. As it is the K-1 is a pretty exceptional value proposition, and that's part of the reason it's been so successful. Ok, so let's assume they cheapen up the build of the K-1. What are they going to cheapen up exactly?
* A slower and louder shutter? That would cost money to develop.
* A 98% coverage, 0.6 magnification viewfinder? That will cost money to develop.
* remove some features from the firmware? That will cost money to develop.
* a cheaper, less good sensor? The saving probably isn't going to be that great.
* replace the mag alloy body with something cheaper? maybe remove the weather sealing? It'll just be panned in reviews.
How about this: instead of wasting development money on a cheap FF camera, why not spend that money on a better AF module and improved shutter speed for a K-1ii, which you can release in two years time? If that ends up at a list price of £1600, and the K-1 drops to £1200, it will end up keeping everyone happy. One of the reasons I like Pentax, is that they don't hobble the capabilities of their lower end cameras. I like the fact that I can still buy a brand new K-3, even though the K-3ii exists. The more expensive k-3ii option represents phenomenal value at its current list price, the K-3 even more so. Given the great reception of the K-1, given that it's a phenomenal value proposition as is, I'd prefer Pentax to simply carry on what they are doing (hell the 645z, whilst out of my price range, still represents great value for money). This is what Pentax do. I like them for it. No, I'd prefer them to invest the money in the areas where they have a little catching up to do, and provide that new technology at a price point that is affordable to those of us who are willing to fund that r&D.