There are so many people here claiming they know what Microsoft is thinking and it's just annoying. Doom-mongers need to leave because Xbox is here to stay.

1.Consoles are going nowhere as long as the game creators make games for the consoles.
2.No, my phone wont be powerful enough to power ANY game when consoles are there.

Mobile is approaching the level of horsepower displayed by 10 year old hardware. There isn't a single possibility of mobile chipsets catching up with consoles/PC power wise. It's physics. Let's look just from a GPU standpoint (you can follow the same analysis for the CPU).

A desktop decent GPU costs around US$ 300 (GTX970), is pretty big, uses 250 watts alone and generates tons of heat dissipated by a massive fan. The entire consoles costs basically the same, is pretty big, uses 150 watts and generates tons of heat dissipated by a massive fan. Its GPU packs less power than the one above. In both cases, they are done with the most recent technology. Consoles will of course get outdated, but right now PS4 and X1 back modern GPU architecture (mid end GPUs use downscaled tech from the high end ones).

Forgetting the price issue, a tablet SoC must use around 5w for everything. It can't generate a lot of heat because it doesn't have fans (or have tiny ones) and because generating heat equal using power and that will drain battery. A mobile phone will have to use even less.

Pachter says the BS he does because he doen't know physics. You can't do the same thing that a 150w machines does with 5w unless you pack a massively better technology. Mobile is coming close to PS360 because they use tech that are much newer, but they won't catch up PS4/X1 until their tech becomes way obsolete. That will create a gap of some years. We know that processing power rougly increases around 2 times each 1.5 years, so we can calculate a 6 to 7 years gap to equal GPU power. 

That's a superficial analysis because probably the CPU power on mobile increases slower because of the limitations of the ARM architecture (it is power efficient, not a powerhouse). The memory bandwidth is another are that increases slower (memory wall) and even performance oriented SoCs as the Tegra K1 don't have as much memory bandwidth as the older PS360. The future Tegra X1 is the first mobile headset that will match the 10 year old tech on these consoles.

About the Vita visuals, it must factor in the clever design of the machine. A 540p screen was used because it gives you 4 times less pixels than 1080p and almost half of a 720p frame. Vita also uses a more customized memory solution that gives it a higher bandwidth. It is closer in bandwidth to a Tegra K1, that is a much beefier SoC than the ones used even on current iDevices.

Yeah...I see where you're coming from.  And of all the manufucturers to step away from the console business, I believe Microsoft is probably the closest.  But this guy has been making terrible predictions for quite a while now.  It makes me think that whatever he says is complete bs.  I think he has too much of a vested interest in the outcome of his predictions, both in how it relates to his job, and also probably in regards to his own personal investments.

@etecoon
I think pachter is just an idiot. But even a broken clock is right twice a day.

Regarding console marketplace, see, a company says, how can we make more money on console gaming.

In the past, this was about having a better performing system that then steals gamers, but it's a variety of factors really.
The right games (first party), the performance, the price. All these kinds of things are what get consumers to pick your console. Now, when it comes to making money on the console, even 3rd party games must give a share to the "console maker". So having a console that sells a lot of games, both first and third party, is great.
In time, this became so important that console makers began taking losses on their console in order to ensure that they had all the checkboxes marked. Stronger, faster, better library. This ensured a steady stream of income through consumer sales, even if they took a loss....on both console AND first party games.
Sony, on top of which, was an interesting case because they were involved with cd and dvd production. So, making consoles made even more sense because they had multiple revenue avenues. The more people with cd players, and dvd players, the more chance to make media sales. On top of which, increasing production of these parts helped lower the costs of their standalone products, chips, transistors, media, ROMs, etc.
MS has similar goals as well. Cloud, online gaming, directX. etc.

Am I alone in thinking MS doesn't NEED a console? I don't think so, and I think MS agrees.

Best news ever! It means consoles will never fade away. s2

It seems like a miracle is about to happen and patcher will be right for once.

So you compare RR3 to FM4/GT6 or you think they are "equivalent" ... ok no other questions then ...

Yeah, the great $1 or free games can go up to $60 or more thanks to build in-app purchase options.

Moreover RR is exactly build up on the idea of spending money via in-app "microtransactions".

Either you have to wait few hours till your energy/fuel (or whatever) is charged again or you recharge it for $$$.

Yes it's funy for 1-2 hours, then you have to wait or pay, so if you play it for hours in a row then it cost more than just $1 ;)

So please give me a break, I played this games (RR, CSR Classics, ...) several times on my iphone.

IMO are such racing games just "garbage" compared to console racing games, same as FIFA etc.

From a technical POV though your premise isn't sound per se. The new iPhone (6) has a processor that's closing the gap with the PS3/360 pretty quickly. 

It probably could render something quite close GT6 at say a 960x540 resolution. Note that it drives a display that's higher than 1080p even for a lot of games. 

It wouldn't run on the iPhone 4/5/5c though, which is why devs won't bother just yet. 

The iPhone 7 will probably be capable of visuals fairly on par with GT6. Whether you personally enjoy the games is your own opinion, but I'm talking about visual performance. 

Ok I see, but again the PS3 or X360 were launched: 2005/2006 the iphone6 was launched 2014. So it's nearly a 10 years gap and althoug it's alerady out it does not utilise its capabilities in 100% because the "installed base" of older models is still huge and the devs want to run their games also on the older ones.

So we shall wait till 2017/18 to se how the iphone6 gets full utilised, which means it will be capable to render/play games equivalent to consoles like ps3/x360 which were lunched back in 2005/2006 ?

Don't get me wrong, I think these smartphones are great an have a lot of potential even in terms of gaming,  but I don't understan the disscusion "consoles are dying because the smartphones are such powerful". I hear it already for yeras now, but consoles are still doing well.How does this nearly "10 years gap" in utilisation (parity) endanger consoles ?

Besides it's not an either (consoles) or (smartphones) decision. Why they just can not coexist? Why do "experts" aka Patcher talk always in a manner like there is room only for one of them or "consoles will die" bla bla bla bla ...

As you said it's a personal choice and I prefer console games over mobile games, as long as I can decide by myself it's ok. But if someone (the industry, "the patchers of this word" etc.) will force me to play mobile games instead of console games then I will quit my hobby.

p.s. to much quotes ! :)