what that's dumb they should of did this love touch pad but screen would of been way better. even if you not playing portable. everyone that played on wiiU know what I mean. glad steam is going to have it.

Cause they have Vita and don't want to kill it by implementing this feature. This feature should just remain optional not mandatory. Remote play is good enough interaction between PS4 and Vita. Also, Sony knows that any device that has LCD drains and requires a lot of power. Gaming for 2-3 hrs is not sufficient enough for most people especially hard core gamers.

I think a second screen would make a great replacement pause, inventory & stats screen. Some hud elements need to be viewed at all times such as ammo count or timer count downs but there are specific times within certain games where the second screen can work quite well.

Fighting games certainly won't play well with a second screen in-game but if the screen is decent enough you could perhaps use that for all the menu options such as match type & character selection while having all the nice flashy animations on your tv. Maybe if you're hosting a large team you could use it for hot-swapping between characters.

Yet everyone is creating second screen apps for other devices.

Good, controllers are expensive enough as it is, and i agree it can be distracting, though that's not ALWAYS the case.

I'm glad they chose to drop it, I don't like looking down, then up, then down, then up etc.
It strains my eyes & I wouldn't get to enjoy what was happening on the big screen as much.

i think if developers want to implement second screen they should just have an optional vita functionality for it. i liked in guacamelee having the map on the screen at all times. thats all that it was used for and thats all that it needed

Good choice. However, there is one game that will make the Wii U's tablet completely worth it.

Pokemon Snap 2. :D

Good choice especially if you have or are considering the psvita.. So we still get both if devs take advantage, we'll I do anyway since I already have a vita and just waiting for the 15th..

Sony backing out of promised features, typical.

When did Sony promise a touchscreen??? The only promise that I remember, controller-wise, was that it was an improvement in every way on the old DS3 and people would be surprised by how good the DS4 felt.

Good decision besides that's what the vita is for ;)

O, it's good they did not do that, but in the picture Sony is drawing of other developers, where exactly do the second screen elements come from then, or did they not ask Ubisoft and other tripple A publishers or did they want their own apps and not be forced to use the DS4? It's kind of a weird statement, especially when looking at games like CoD or Watch_Dogs, etc..

This is another example of Nintendo's error of not consulting developers when making the Wii U. "Developers didn't like the idea of having players divert their eyes from the main screen during gameplay"

Yeah, a touch screen just wouldn't have worked as well as a touch pad. Let me break it down:

1) In order to make the visual aspect of a touch screen worthwhile, they would have to do something with it that would require players to actually look down at the touch screen.
2) Looking at the touch screen would require players to not look at the main screen, their TV.
3) The touch screen would have to be significantly bigger in order to replace the TV, thus making it more expensive and energy draining.

A touch screen might also be less durable than a touch pad.

It would have been silly of them to put a screen on the controller.

That would just take away a reason for people to buy the Vita.

I really think a LOT of people would not like the 2 screen idea, anyway.

Touch screen is an unwanted gimmick. Good job.

I think it'd be a good option to have. It doesn't need to be for in game things either. For example choosing a play in sports, or re-doing your strategy on the fly so the 2nd player can't see.

Strategy things in racing and shooters work too, heck you could have perks pop up and select them for Call of Duty.

I understand the issues with "diverting your eyes" but I still think it would be some good options, hopefully some things are implemented with Vita.

I'm so glad they made the right decision in the end. I was saying it here for weeks before the controller was actually released that my biggest fear for these new systems would be a screen on the pad. When I play I tend to turn out all the lights and even cover up any lights on stuff like the wireless hub in my living room, just so I can be fully immersed in the world the game is taking me to, having some little screen right under my eyes while playing would have been the worst most distracting thing for me.

I don't want a touchscreen on my DS4 controller, that's one of the reasons I bought a Vita.
Just like I don't like playing games on my phone, so I have a Vita for that.
It's good to have options.
Multiple technologies can coexist people!

This could've potentially made the Vita TV hub thing compatible with all games instead of just select games.

I find it interesting how everyone is saying that this was a "good move" on Sony's part.

Now, I wonder; let's say they DS4 did include a touchscreen - what would the reaction be?

smart glass??!!anyone??
sonyfanboy:
-Oh!! glad they didnt put that screen on ds4, i hate to distract when i play games,
-not to mention that a second screen is a gimmick!
-yeah, nintendo takes a 150$ just to replace a controller, shhhht, thats a looot of money for a gimmick!!
-hopefully we have a VITA for that!!
-it works wonderfull as a second controller
-besides spending 650$ on a console with a second controller, if it comes from sony is nothing cause they re here cause they love us gamers and evberything they do is awesome!!!

Man I called it.

Sony in typical fashion is letting down it's customers as launch creep closer.

Spin.

Cost > all other excuses.

Same reason they dropped the camera.

The PS Vita should have been the controller.

Sony dont need to add a touch screen to the dual shock 4 they got the vita

Touch pad is more than adequate. The goal is immerse players into the game... make us forget about the controller and focus on the action. Good gameplay and a good device can make that happen.

Dualshock 4 running on PS3 with battlefield 4 http://www.youtube.com/watc...

thank goodness they scrapped that idea. I cant imagine the price of controllers had it carried on.

this will make web browsing on a console way more usable. the thumbstick cursor control is frustrating. hopefully they use it for that.

The screen would have been too small to have really been useful. A touchpad is better for this reason, and also for costs and battery life.

Good, who wants to pay a hundred bucks for a second controller.

I am sure it was the COST and battery life.

I am not a fan of the WIIU, but I can see games that require alot of MAP's or RPG elements use the touch screen.

The controller price would have been high as hell.

Nintendo should have made the same decision...

next gen is not pushing around a cursor through menu after menu after menu..

edit: nevermind, I'm an idiot. Btw, touchscreen will cost oodles of money.

Yeah and if they did a touchscreen everyone would have praised and loved Sony for their innovative blah blah. ;-)

I own the wii u since one year and the touchscreen is simply great. Browsing the web, typing, maps & inventory, off TV. It's amazing actually.

Man, if that had of been on the Xbox One, there woulda been a whole lotta shit talking on the Sony Cheerleaders part. But it's ok, Sony can do stuff like that, cause they love us gamers and they never lie.

I'm a big advocate on a touchscreen display on controllers... you dont have to make game gummicks and whatever, if you gave me a customizable touch screen that at a touch of a button let me access my friends list, favorite website, took a picture of the room, invited friends to my current game, accessed my achievements/trophys list... etc, etc... I think that would be fantastic on whatever console... it is a mistake by not including this functionality by both companys... though i think in the lifetime of the consoles it'll come to both

Copy Nintendo then. No they went that route with the Move, and that had even more precise technology than the Wii. It didn't help much. Better they came up with their own idea. Sounds reasonable enough.

Besides cost, power usage, and implementation I see many ways how a screen on the controller would benefit greatly over no screen. It would even be better if it was a touch screen even more possibilities. In the end I would take a reworked design that enhances interaction over muscle memory.

A second screen you can pull up menus in online matches without obstructing the view, and many other multitasking choices. The only reason I see them not doing it is because of the Vita compatibilities depending on what the second screen was used for when only using the Vita without a TV.

I absolutely 100% fully support the PS4 having a touchpad rather than a touchscreen. In fact even a touchpad seemed to me to be a nice gesture- it's something to counteract the fact that the Move is not everyone's idea of having a natural controller experience.

Having a touchscreen could have just have increaed the cost of the PS4 slightly and unnecessarily confused matters when the Vita could serve to do touchscreen. Yes, it's in Sony's interests not to harm their handheld division but it also makes life easier for everyone including the gamer.

It would have been a silly over try for the PS4 to have bothered with a touchscreen. You can sometimes put everything but the kitchen sink in a console and no only do your best intentions end up getting mostly unused but developers may feel like they have to shoehorn in some touchscreen mini game just to have that as a 'feature'.
The PS4 has enough potential, on its own or with the Vita, not to have to do that. The message has been clear- it's about making life much easier for developers and yet coupling that solidly good graphics in the console with the most raw power, sharing gameplay and indie games as well. It doesn't need to be a pseudo WiiU to try to win that argument, the PS4 is supposed to be intuitive - you shouldn't have to look at your controller unless you really want to via your Vita. There's time for touchscreens on the controller in future if required but it was never useful to the ethos of the PS4 to add this in to the pan. And if it was only going to be a small touchscreen it's Dreamcast VMU territory- some love it but it still feels like it should always be regarded as a bit niche.

Sony should have went with the offset analog sticks. I always hated the PS DS controllers for FPS. I get hand fatigue using my PS3 DS when playing shooters, everything else it works great.

Christ almighty I thought it said Touch pad

Wuchang is great. Nine Sols didn’t have a physical copy so I never played it but I’ve heard good things so I will check it out. I stopped playing sports games many years ago when before the card dlc’s or whatever they’re called.

Last comment… ):

Great month for others, but not me. Hate soccer and soulslikes. Maybe Nine Sols is good.

🫡 it was fun while it lasted, N4G.

FC26!

I hated that he died. The game was good but you never want to see a character you can relate or enjoy to die off like that. We wanted more Joel not less. Still a really good game but that part will always sit poorly with many

I really didn’t mind his fate. It was the way it was executed was the problem

Not gonna lie, I think they made a big mistake. I mean I like a big unimaginable shock moments as much as the next person. It was just too soon though. If you’re going to kill off the main character you need a solid back up that people love just as much to carry the weight of the loss. If you’re setting it up for a trilogy then he really should have died at the end of 2 or half way through 3.

Who cares, that was like 6 years ago.

I don't mind the story, I think it is interesting in its own. But I would much prefer it stays as a story between Joel and Ellie (And I don't hate Abby, but it just feels like a third wheel when I play the game, feel like it is not a story about her). Joel can live with the consequences in a different way than just get killed off, his emotional conflicts between him and Ellie, Abby and everyone else would have a lot of interesting stories to tell, not any less than just get killed off.

So we as players, who controlled Joel in the first game, can get immersed and feel the guilt with him, instead of getting angry that he got killed.

TLOU Part 2 was a great game, but the entire game made me mad

Personally I liked that they killed off Joel, his death scene was great. The story was good and how revenge drives a person. The last quarter of the game was dumb after Tommy told Ellie where Abby was located. She leaves the farm goes in an arduous trek killing many more people along the way. Finds Abby in a cage releases her they fight, Ellie gets two fingers bitten off, and suddenly she doesn’t want to fight and kill Abby anymore, lets her leave with a warning even though she was the one losing the fight. Why go the rough all of that hassle just to let the focus of your hatred just leave. Should have stwyed home with Diana and keep all her fingers intact. Still a great game with a good story and I liked Abby I saw no reason for all her hate.

They could have killed Tommy and made it a revenge story with Joel and Ellie going after Abbie.

ND was trying so hard to make me sympathize with Abbie and it just wasn't working. I just don't understand how you make a "revenge is bad story" while having me mow through hundreds of NPCs just to get to the main culprit and just...not finish the job. Druckman is a terrible story teller.