I for one don't really like buying a system when it's new, and I'm quite happy to stick by my old systems. I've mentioned this in the past, but I really bought the Wii too soon, when I was still using my PS2 and was and still am happy to play my PS2. When they're cheap enough though, I eventually make the transition. I'll do that with the PS3, just wait.

People always want new things. So even if we reach the point where graphics look real, we'll soon expect it in 3D and all sorts of things. Instead of 60fps we'll want 120fps (Though I don't the eye really detects the difference). And as our TVs get larger, we'll want Ultra High Definition - 7680 × 4320 pixels. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultra_High_Definition_Video.

I think generations will get longer because eventually there may be little point in going from say the PS4 to the PS5 like you said, because the improvements may be too little if released to soon to warrant the purchase. But, we always manage to come up with some new technology all the time that everyone wants, so who knows.

Realism needs to come in simulating the environment and finding unexpected new ways to increase immersion, like the Wii does with the controller waving.

To everone saying that graphics wont matter next gen,not everyone cares about 1 thing in the systems,like there are people who like the PS360 and not Wii cause of the graphics,the only reason were reminded how "good"this gen graphics is cause the Wii,were constantly reminded how good the PS360 graphics are,as soon as console comes with updated tech ppl will buy it

Assassins Creed was a good example of what just can't be accomplished on Wii. I think that's what he was getting at. When will graphics reach the point where there's no room/need/desire for improvement.

You can't say we're there already. Casuals never cared in the first place, but I doubt any serious gamer would buy a Wii 2 in 2012 without some kind of upgrade.

I say at the very least 2 or 3 unless Sony and MS start going the Nintendo route, more realistic 3 generations, 2160p @ 120FPS and real 3D in games like they were showing at CES will require a lot out of the box.

As I see it, very soon we will reach a point where the cost of software development, rather than hardware limitations, will hinder any serious graphical improvements. From that point on, graphics will improve on an ongoing basis - mainly with new advances in efficient coding and implementation of graphics. For Khuutra's scenario to become economically viable, we need a lot more than just improvements in processing power.

I suspect that even with the dawn of the text generation, we will reach the point when developers realize cutting-edge graphics are not the best way of making "the best game possible" (which, let's face it, is a large factor in why many developer's support of the HD consoles - and I can certainly understand that; why settle for less when you can have more? I suppose, Sky Render would lecture me about the market not caring for this - after all, some games do not even need graphics - but as always there's the creative aspect as well - which, by the way, is why NES graphics were fucking insufficient) nor is it the best way to increase sales.

I was making a point - I don't want photorealism so much as I want scale, which games can't do yet.

I think scale may be more economically viable than photorealism, anyway.

Yes, I see. Well, like you, I merely wanted to prove a point - perhaps I should have gone with the example in the OP, but it's too late now.

Myself, I'm much more interested in animation and artistic design than photorealism. As a student of game design, I feel that if I can only make the player see and experience the world as I want to portray it, then I am happy. As for scale, I like it in a PoP kind of way, but I tend to get overwhelmed by a 'too-large' open world, so I'm not so keen on that.

Still, my point stands - technology isn't the only thing standing in the way of graphical improvements in games. People are clearly content with today's level of graphics, and so am I in most cases. As long as that remains true, standards for graphics in games will inevitably level out.

Granted. Standards for graphics leveling out over time is inevitable - but there is a certain segment which will want things improved in ways which can only be facilitated by greater tech anyway.

I think we'll see a greater movement toward artistry in games next generation, if that matters. The current pace of "graphical improvement" isn't going to be sustainable for another ten years.

Sometime between the release of the N64 and the release of the previous generation consoles we hit a point where everything that exists in the real world or we can imagine could be represented using real-time computer graphics and be recognised by most people. At this point in time we hit a threshold where the practicality of improving real-time computer graphics for communication purposes was very limited.

Now, the OP seems to be heavily centered on when people won’t see much of the benefit of further processing power put towards graphics. If you look at how graphics improved over the past 10 years (from Half-Life to Crysis) and then project a similar improvement over the next 10 years we will have easily passed a point where the typical person will have difficulty seeing any further improvement in real-time computer graphics.