Simple enough premise. Let this be a thread dedicated to the stupid crap Pachter says. I'll get the ball rolling:

http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2013/02/04/business/sony-expected-to-beef-up-playstation-4-to-keep-consoles-in-the-game/#.UTu9XtavbTr

Shadow Fall is nice & all but a) 30 fps and b) not hyperrealistic...

Of course if Pachter has made good calls, feel free to post them, but I feel they'll probably be very few...

What did he say about Killzone?

EDIT ... Well, his words in that article may be hyperbolic, but it doesn't seem beyond the realm of possibility. Killzone is a launch game, after all. Plus that was only the first video. We still have to wait and see the final product.

As of now KZ is an unfinished launch title using half of the system's RAM. This is like the least of what the system can do in relation to realistic graphics and it still looks spectacular.

I can't really ding him on that one. He explained to Keighley that he had said that it could run at 240 fps but still thought they'd target 30 fps. He also claimed that he never used the word "hyperrealistic".

Plus, from what we've heard, Killzone was only using 1.5 GB of RAM and Sony's own developers were kept in the dark on the final specs.

Reaaaaaaally? Source? That would be crazy. This probably means they were low-balling with the other specs as well, maybe not as dramatically but still... 

Just a rumor, I don't know where it originated. If not true, just chalk it up to "Shit GAF says."

The original PS could run 240 fps....It's purely down to graphics for framerates showing the man has no idea about hardware or software which is quite worrying.

I assume he said something about the level of graphics re: 240 fps. He's just claiming that "hyperrealistic" was not the word he used.

http://www.gamechup.com/michael-pachter-clarifies-ps4-hyperrealistic-games-240-fps-comment/

The guy has no idea what frames are used for. Films are 24 fps standard. Games are 30 fps for consoles, 60 for PC, but the latter is purely down to hardware and settings. For example Limbo may be locked at 30 fps, but if devs wanted, they could have it rendered at 100 fps due to the low requirements. If the PS wanted to, it could render Pong at 240 fps as it's so simple.
Stating a console "could" render games at a certain frame rate is retarded as its redundant. If he had said 60 fps will be the new standard, that would make a lot more sense. As it stands his comment shows he doesn't understand the hardware he is apparently anaylsing. 

"I'll eat my hat"

Few Pach-Attacks later, he eats baked hat cookies.