Topic: So I looked at a picture of the PS4

It works differently for software. Apparently you aren't aware that FIFA 13 on Wii and Wii U were FIFA 12. That kind of piss poor quality and neglectfulness isn't acceptable on ANY platform.
As for COD, Activision needs to do something better.
People buy the games thinking they will be good, because of the good experiences they had with prior games of the same franchise. When nothing changes or improves, people start to wonder where their money is going.
I think Activision and EA will start making better games, but that really has nothing to do with any of the game systems' hardware, which is what this discussion is about.

So those games on the consoles they meant to be on aren't the best even though they sell the best, because your personal opinion of them differs, but when something else sells the best, that makes it the best because your personal opinion agrees with the sales?

@Jaz007
EA had no reason to skimp the Wii and Wii U versions of FIFA. It makes EA look like s***.
A good game selling well is better than a bad game selling well. It's pretty obvious why, because the company will sell more games if it's good, with more potential sales in the future based off older title success/familiarity.
Now there are people out there with a crappy game that sold decent. That gives a legitimate reason for Wii/Wii U owners stop supporting EA on Nintendo consoles.
Everything was fine FIFA wise, until 2013. EA chose the wrong time to bail Nintendo platforms, IMO.

You forget that the Wii U has the option for off-TV play. This is immensely useful for when your refugee monster overlord sister wants to watch TV while you want to play games.

PS4 has off TV play as well provided you give Sony $250.

That's more like the Vita adds off-TV play, though. And that renders TC's point about the GamePad adding an extra cost kind of moot.
Here the PS4 is going to be $549. I'm not going to spend that, and the money for a Vita, to use a feature that a $430 Wii U can do.
Sure, I tend to buy both the home and handheld consoles every gen, but the Vita doesn't have nearly as much support as the 3DS, but then again the Wii U will probably have less third-party support than PS4...

I think SOny has done a better job with indie creator's. I think nintendo has done okay but with their Thrid

@Sony_70
Your first video is broken. How is Sony going to guarantee these will be playable on the Vita? Nintendo can guarantee everyone has a GamePad, and the games shown in the videos could be on other platforms.
Not to mention, that the announcement of Nintendo Web Framework got 1000 different independent companys' attention.
Even the Wii U can do those games, and they'd have the benefit of the GamePad, as well.

Unlike the 3DS/Wii U the Vita/PS4 share alot of the same hardware and system architecture. Its why most indie games announced are touting having Crossplay features. AS far as using the Vita for offscreen remote play its built into it and the PS4. The devs don;t need to do anything but they can remap buttons if they want too.

Yes, but how are they going to guarantee the actual cross features will be used? They already are having trouble selling the Vita as is, and they aren't doing anything to improve the situation.
How do you know 3DS and Wii U don't have inherent similarities? We've already seen Monster Hunter connect on both consoles. Smash Bros. was confirmed to have cross play, and Pokemon is bound to have some sharing capabilities with the Wii U.
Hell, my brother stored tons of his DS Pokemon in Pokemon Ranch, and even Maboshi's Arcade allowed a downloadable version to be played on a DS.
The difference is having benefits from both platforms used in unison, vs. just making both of the platforms identical.
The Wii U can get alot of the benefits of cross play without a 3DS on the GamePad, but that doesn't count unique 3DS connectivity out.
Even if we don't get an account system for Nintendo systems, Pokemon and Smash Bros are still going to have the same features as it would with an account system.

Actually there's a lot of games that use crossplay or cross-buy between PS3 and Vita. Playstation All Stars, Guacamelee, Limbo and many others. It's a nice feature and good value.

I just looked and there's hardly any. Like 15 or something, and it doesn't give enough reason to buy a PS Vita.
There's a difference between remote play, and cross play.
Wii U can already do remote play without another system.
http://www.gamespot.com/knack/videos/gs-news-ps4-games-to-req...
Watch the video. They are requiring remote play. Unless they sell a PS Vita to every single PS4 owner, developers are going to be wasting alot of time/money getting a feature for their games that will mostly go unused.
The biggest appeal of a console is to guarantee consumers that they are getting the full experience.
With PS Vita acting as the Wii U GamePad and the 3DS at the same time, everyone that doesn't have a PS4 or a Vita(depending on which one they already have), will always be missing part of the game.

With the Australian RRP ATM I could probably scrounge together enough components to build a half decent gaming PC for the price of the XBone. I'm talking CPU, GPU, MoBo, RAM for $598AU with a 7850, 8GB DDR3 and an i5 4430. Admittedly I would probably want to spend something closer to $1000AU and get shiny new SSDs and case but it's an interesting point anyway. Especially when it would provide free online play and people are talking about getting Vitas for off-TV play.

The PS4 demo on the other page was nice but I don't think it's as revolutionary as the poster is making it out to be. There are only two significant things in that demo that aren't in the Wii U MiiVerse demo with non-specific. Downloading the game from your phone and sharing gameplay videos. Neither of these things are PS4 exclusive ideas. Being able to download the game in part is, AFAIK, a PS4 exclusive thing but it isn't THAT big a deal. Especially when the selling point of the PS4 at this point is used games..........

I think people are underestimating how big 4K will be and how quickly it'll become a part of the TV market. 6-10 years for full adoption maybe but not to become "commercially viable". Sets already exist, standards are being rewritten. Sets already exist at prices enthusiasts would be willing to pay but not have to take out a loan for. In three years they'll be about the same as LED backlit screens were in 2010. In ten years we'll probably be talking about 4K OLED screens.

Both the PS4 and Wii U are incredibly indie friendly. Both of their indie trailers had a lot of content... as opposed to MS who was making a thing about Minecraft. They're about on par on that one, I don't think it's worth arguing about.

@skywake
I agree with the 4K part. The thing is, is that people interested in a 4K compatible device or even the 4K displays themselves, will search out things to take advantage of the said features. There is a difference, but it's not as noticeable as SD to HD, IMO. BTW, I ended up finding an article that states 4K upconversion reassigns 1080p pixels to fit the screen with a success rate of up to 90%.
A 4K bluray player won't be taken advantage of without a 4K TV, and basically any current surround sound receiver won't pass the 4K signal through without modification. I'm thinking at this point, if 4K TVs are ever affordable, that I'll be able to just upgrade the HDMI port on my receiver to pass a 4K signal. That's literally the only difference between 4K compatible recievers and HDMI 4.1a receivers, besides the extra wattage which doesn't matter as much.
It would still be risky kinda. I have no clue how I can upgrade an HDMI 4.1a to HDMI4.whatever 4K requires. If it saves me $500 to do so, you can bet I'm gonna be online searching on how to upgrade HDMI ports. Even if I mess up, there's 4 other HDMI ports.

EDIT: So just keep in mind that the HDMI port may be the only "wall" in getting 4K from any above average PC.
EDIT: I just looked it up, and this only applies to 1.3 and below versions of HDMI. My surround sound receiver technically can already support 4K passthrough.
EDIT: Last edit, I swear... This brings me to the conclusion, that Wii U will technically be able to support 4K photos and video, by using the CPU and GPU to render the extra processing needed for the other 75% of pixels available on 4K displays.
So Wii U can play a movie or show a photo in 4K, but not a video game. That's what I think anyway.

You couldn't be more wrong. The PS Vita uses a four core variant of the same CPU and GPU used in the iPad 2 and iPhone 4S (which both use a dual core version)

Speaking of the Vita, it's most impressive game is Uncharted (a launch title) and no game developer since has bothered to put that much time into making another game that looked nearly as we'll.

The Vita just isn't selling... Too high of a price and the cost of proprietary memory cards (which one is required to use the system at all) and the games are not flowing as Sony had hoped. I have quite an investment when I imported my Vita from Japan along with a 32GB memory card, and a couple games. I bought plenty from PSN and if you think I'm full of it, my PSN username is the same as my handle here.

I had bought the system hoping for some great games and the best of the batch I can count on a single hand. Even worse, the original PSP is outselling the Vita in Japan.

I also bought a 3DS as well, and even with the few games I have for it, keep me coming back. LoZ OOT 3D is my guilty pleasure and I love that game, I refuse to quit till I have every last item. My only dislike is the 3D simply doesn't work for me. I'm blind in one eye so I get a bit better battery life since I don't use the 3D feature. I long wish for a Metroid title for the 3DS and it would sell like mad.

In the handheld world, Nintendo has it covered hands down for years now by doing more with less. My favorite Nintendo handheld of all time was the Game Boy Advance. A system that in SP+ form (backlit display) was essentially one of the best game systems since the days of the old Nintendo vs Sega battles in Jr. high

I was a Sega nut, but the NES couldn't be ignored.

Back to my point, even if Sony tries to market the Vita as a second screen for the PS4, it will be clunky as the Vita is badly in need of a price drop and I can cut my losses on it. I keep it for Ys games for the PSP and other classics and I do love the OLED display but it is lower resolution than the Wii U Gamepad.

The Game Pad being a standard included device, means developers can take advantage of it without having to write and translate x86 to ARM code while on the Wii U, data is pushed and received in real time with a dedicated WiFi signal and real time encoding done by the GPU via Open CL or similar technology used by Apple and other video card manufacturers using the processing power of the video chipset to aid in faster computation.

Sorry for the long post but it makes men nuts when people guess randomly to defend their product choice and once that has been done, the automatic disdain for any competitor must be upheld for no reason at all.

@SCAR392
HDMI 1.4 does 4K but only at 30Hz and HDMI 2.0 supports 4K at 60Hz. The latter hasn't been officially released yet so there's no way to be "4K ready". Unless you have Display Port which does support it and has for quite a while

lol dont be a homer. hds are cheap yep but ps4 is vheaper. i have the ps4ordered and delivered to my house on release date for less than i paid for the wii u and hd. like the wiiu but any1 who buys a wiiu now instead of the ps4 if they only can have 1 needs their head examined.

MY question is why do you keep downplaying and ignoring actual tangile use cases, yet have your hopes pinned on some imaginary Nintendo tech. Sakurai already confrimed that cross play won't be apart of smash.

Being able to buy used games is one of the selling points. That doesn;t account for people who plan o go mostly digital or plan to consume alot of digital goods. Its not big of a deal but that seemless transition that's been show in the PS4/One user interface shows how .

No one is underplaying 4K. Were jst disputing Scar's opinion that a company can;t be in more fields at a time. LIke you even said 4K won;t be a big deal until the next console generation. But irrc the PS4 can support 4K content.

Keep in mind that the $400 version is the cheapest version, so there's no telling what kinds of specs it'll have.