Ya, PS4/720 are gonna need to look pretty much real in order to impress anyone anymore. The graphics jump from gen to gen has been pretty big every time, aside from Wii which focused on more realistic controls, but PS and Xbox are gonna have to be indistinguishable from real life in order for it to be the next big thing. Graphics are already really good, especially if devs take the time to narrow down every little detail, and add more to that. With that, I don't think devs are gonna even want to use that real of graphics and push the next consoles to the max. They're already are having trouble with Wii U tech, and it's only 40%-50% more powerful than 360/PS3. Sure, the cell processor was never used by alot of companies in the PS3, but I feel like Pikmin 3 already kind of looks like the Uncharted series, it's just a different environment to look at, and that's one of Sony's big games that they work on to make as perfect as they can. The textures are what make me think they look similar. Nintendo was never into pushing polygons and pixels anyway, making simplistic character models, and not trying to simulate realistic environments so obviously like PS and Xbox. They already take 2-4 years to make top notch games, and make sequels fast because they already have the main textures and models done that they just reuse, so I can only imagine how long it will take to create a game using every single once of power from a new console, when people can't even figure out how to use current slightly better tech they can try to develope for now...

Pay to play COD online... Crap analyst is really crap

The problem with playing Call of Duty online is it's a community and if there's only four people playing it on the Wii U it's no fun. Nobody in their right mind would buy a Wii U and say 'I'm going to play Call of Duty.' That's like saying 'I gave up Facebook, and it's Google+ now'.”

Miiverse clearly indicates more than four people playing it online.
Quite a few people I know who bought their Wii U specifically to play COD ( who dont want/own xbox/ps3/pc)

Pachters track record makes his ramblings amusing to read, but that's about it

@Hyrule Yeah I have been playing it a fair bit lately and always get straight into full rooms within the blink of an eye... Pachter obviously hasn't 'ANALYSED' WiiU COD online and again makes a wild judgement based on no real fact

When has Pachter ever been right. The reason most people buy CoD is for the online. Not to mention a lot of people are paying for XB Live. Then to pay more money for a game that's sits on my shelf collecting dust? I'd go out and get halo. It's way more fun anyway. But what do I know, Patcher is the pro here.

No. Nee. Non. Nein. Nie. Não. Nage. _{I could go on.}

Pachter is a irrelevant troll, who cares what any analyst says.
Wii is a failure, yet there is one or two in almost every house in America.
Wii U is going to be a failure and its been selling out without a major Nintendo release.

Truthfully, the job of an analyst isn't to be correct in his predictions. It's to be a cynical advisor, and that's a good thing.

As a games writer, I don't find myself agreeing with a lot of what he says, but that's because I view things from an industrial perspective. For example, I say, "the Wii U will get a significant increase in third-party support because it's not as uncompromising towards traditional gaming as the Wii was." But as an analyst, Pachter would say, "following the Wii's performance, the possibility of third-party support on the Wii U is [insert negative statement here]", and he is fully within his rights to do so. Nintendo is a company that takes many uncertain risks with their consoles, and until they visibly become successful, Pachter's job is to ensure that investors don't take uncertain risks with their capital.

He doesn't need to be right to be a good analyst. He reads the business proceedings of the industry as bluntly as they appear, and that is why he is an analyst.

Well the investors that take his advice would be very sad pandas

It's too early to say, given that the Wii U is in a very vulnerable position. It's instigated the next generation all by its lonesome, and it'd be rather folly to invest in something of its situation right now.

Even more to the point the PS4/720 isn't out yet so the numbers of that argument simply don't add up. It's an argument for the success of the first console of a generation or an argument for why people won't upgrade. It's not an argument for the failure of the Wii U in the face of competition from the other "next-gen" consoles.

The argument for the need for community is also pretty interesting. MiiVerse works pretty well last I checked, I'm not sure I'd stop using that community so I could start talking to the four people who still use PS Home

I'm not talkin' about the WiiU... I mean his career as a whole has been brandishing the big 'keep away from Nintendo stick' maybe the investors might break that stick and take a plunge into the unknown and leave Pachter behind to be eaten by the zombies this time

@MadAussieBloke: I was referencing his advice, actually. But maybe they should try that in case the Mayans are actually right.

Honestly, I don't see graphics getting any better, and think graphics have kinda gotten as good as they can in terms of consoles. Maybe a PC or Mac can do better, but I haven't seen graphics better than console systems ever regardless of whether they can or not, which is usually the argument. I think we've seen close to the best graphics possible on consoles already, so I don't see it getting that much better than what they are now. I'm probably wrong, but you can't say you seen something you haven't...

You're wrong. Period. Why can't they get better with better hardware? You know technology always improves right? You really don't think the quality of all those Blizzard cutscenes can't be done in game? Better hardware will result in better graphics. It's really simple and to think we have peaked is really wrong.

@SCAR392: So you think a PC maybe could do better but not a console? Couldn't a new console just keep trying to match PC tech?

That's the thing though, consoles just use essential parts in PC that are used to run games on a PC. I hope Sony/Microsoft make better graphics for their next console for sure, but that doesn't mean they will, or even can. I think there will be a point where graphics top out, because you can only get the game to look 'so real' anyway. Same thing goes for GTA 4. The game could have had better graphics, but couldn't support a huge world as well as support the best graphics possible at the same time. What was the problem with that? The graphics card or the proccessor? I know all that stuff works together, but is there anyway they could have made that game look any better with what they were given? Technology is all the same in that sense. Consoles are made up of PC parts, custom or not, to get your game on screen. Whatever jump in graphics they make, I'm sure it will be enough to add more polygons and more realistic textures, but there's a limit. You guys already said no to graphics being indistinguishable from real life from PS/Xbox for their new console, so you want graphics that look almost real? I don't get it, I thought everyone was trying to get the most realistic graphics they could...

If someone was given the best computer possible in existence, and all time, who's to say they could make a game that was 'realistic' looking?