To me, what he is saying is: "ok, there already exist two HD machines on the market who had all the impact to themselves. Now, with Wii U, Nintendo will fail to impress gamers in general because HD has already been done."
This is true. But now, it`s only one side of things, because PS4 and Xbox 720 will still be in HD with better graphics. So, in a sense, if HD won`t work for Wii U, it won´t work for Sony and Microsoft`s new consoles as it did with Xbox 360 and PS3.
Will they be that much powerful to still impress? No one knows. Personally i think they won`t. I see it, as many have pointed out, as PS2>GC>Xbox.
About Nintendo Wii U`s power, i read in an article where some devs think that it will have 50% more processing power than PS3 and Xbox 360 - http://www.industrygamers.com/news/wii-u-is-actually-50-more-powerful-than-ps3---report/
Pachter`s mistake continues to be that "power" sells consoles. PS2 and Wii weren`t the best and just look at their sales.
"Pachter says he believes Microsoft and Sony will continue to reduce the price of their consoles going forward, and if the Wii U is too expensive compared with those alternatives, it could be in for trouble."
That didn`t stop both PS2 and PS1 to be generation leaders despite having cheaper consoles on the market when they arrived.
This is what people like you don't get: 50% is not enough! The ps3 is litterally 10 times more powerful than the PS2 and the PS2 was 10 times more powerful than the PS1. THe dreamcast on the otherhand was only about 2-4 times better than the previous generation and look what happened: it sold a mediocre amount of consoles until the real heavy hitters launched and it was destroyed.
The Wii U will not sell well because it isn't that much stronger than the current gen and it will be weaker than the next gen competition.
To those that bring up the controller as an example of how it may succeed, keep this in mind: Nintendo has basically alienated third parties, and what do third parties make? Oh that's right, most of the HD games.
P.S. LOL at Ghost Recon Online. A port of an already free PC shooter doesn't count!
If the Wii U was only 50% more powerful than the PS3 in the same way that the PS3 was 10 times as powerful as the PS2, how can the Wii U render a tech demo which is as impressive as anything that has been released to the HD consoles at 1080p @60fps while also rendering to a controller that has a decent resolution (probably) at 60fps?
edit: Similar quality graphical output while rendering 5 times as many pixels = 50% improvement?
OMG so many things to respond to:
1.) Outputing on two displays doesn't take double the power. Oh and the PS3 could output on two two HD screens since launch. Actually my netbook can too lol.
2.) Really you think the PS3 doesn't have 1080p games at 60fps? IT DOES! While few and not that great, they do exist; and let's say the Wii U can do it too with all of the best games, that really is only about 50%.
3.)Compare Killzone 3 to Killzone 1. Then compare the Wii U's tech demo to the PS3 and 360's first tech demos. Really you think the difference between the two consoles is that big? LOL!
4.) So where is this 5x the pixels thing? 1366x728 = 720p, so the Wii U, can do somewhere around 3000p? Cool have fun finding a TV with that!
1) Actually, when you're rendering two viewports it does require double the processing power. The PS3 could theoritically support multiple displays but never did because the processing power required to output two viewports is effectively the same as doubling the framerate at the same resolution.
I was half wrong. The PS3 was meant to do this but can't quite how I said it. However Sony has just announced a 3D TV for the PS3 that allows the PS3 to double render on the same screen so you can only see your own screen when playing with a friend...SAME THING! http://playstationlifestyle.net/2011/06/07/a-closer-look-at-the-ps3-3d-tv-split-screen-gaming-redefined/
2) The PS3 games that are in the same league as the Wii Tech demos all run at (or below) 720p@30fps ... If the PS3 had the processing power to display these games at 1080p@60fps why don't they output at that resolution?
I was probablly not clear enough, the PS3 does output this high on some games like Wipeout HD but most games don't because it limits how much can be put on screen. I wasn't saying the PS3 is as powerful, I'm saying it isn't far off.
3)The Wii U demos are what Nintendo has been able to do with the system without the years and millions of dollars required to get the graphics of Killzone 2, and these are on par or better than the best of what the PS3 has provided; do you honestly believe that Nintendo won't be able to do more with the system after they invest more time and money into developing their softare technology?
OMG you are litterally saying what I said you guys are saying. Looking like Killzone 2 now, ISN'T GOOD ENOUGH for a new console. Yes they will get better but they won't be as big a difference as KZ1 had to KZ2. Uncharted 1 was a launch window game, and that looked good. Compare that to Uncharted 2, that's how much better the Wii U will get (Not a huge deal).
4)1080p @60fps requires 4 times the pixels as 720p @30fps, the rumoured resolution of the tablet screen is greater than 50% the resolution of 720p and at 60fps requires (at least) the same number of pixels as 720p @30fps.
1.) I did the math and yes it is 4 times the pixels a second, but that doesn't make the console 5 times better. Only time will tell if it can also put 100+ intellegent ennemies onscreen like th PS3 can in Resistance 2.
2.) Mark my words, that tablet will be at or less than 720p or less. Oh and that 720p is a long shot unless you want to spend $100+ dollars for it.
Owned? All you did was demonstrate your own ignorance.