i didn't know the 3ds could pinpoint the locations of fiends on maps which is what "near" is...

furthermore why don't you talk about nintendo copying ar gaming from sony for the 3ds or the fact that the concept for the wiimote wasn't started by the nintendo but by datasoft who made the first motion wand ( the le stick )for consoles like the atari 2600 and comodore  years ago...

lol its funny when nintendo fanboys say other companies copy but don't even understand that nintendo gains a lot of undue credit for things other companies implemented first

Implementing something first is only meaningful if saw some level of success and people knew about it ...

A large portion of products we're now seeing being released to some success were initially dreamed up in the 1960s and 1970s, implemented in a primitive fashion dozens of times to very limited success, conventional wisdom develops about what "people want", and eventually one company breaks the rules and implements this concept again (most likely without knowing its origins) and is amazingly successful.

For example, while Apple introduced the iPad in 2010 and Steve Jobs was proclaimed as a "Visionary", Bill Gates introduced the Slate PC in 2002 (essentially the same product) to limited success, and the concept has its origins in a paper written by Alan Kay at Xerox in 1968 which described the Dynabook.

The reason Steve Jobs at Apple gets credit is based on the difference between innovation and invention. From Wikipedia:

An improvement on an existing form or embodiment, composition or processes might be an invention, an innovation, both or neither if it is not substantial enough. According to certain business literature, an idea, a change or an improvement is only an innovation when it is put to use, is accepted by users and effectively causes a social or commercial reorganization

The reason Nintendo gets credit for introducing something is because they were the company that brings forward an improvement that is "is accepted by users and effectively causes a social or commercial reorganization"

I don't get the hate from the bold part, he's just saying they don't have any new tech they could put on the ps4 as of right now other then shinier graphics, by new tech a mean something like 3d or motion gaming

Then I guess the PS4 won't be much stronger than the Wii-U.

from what i understand form his post hes reffering to the orignator of the idea not the company that brought it to mainstream appeal and im just making the point that if thats the case then hes woefully ignorant of how the tech used in gaming today was introduced to gaming in the first place...

the big 3 that we speak of in gaming today have brought their own unique ideas, but for the most part they have built upon technological foundation made by companies like atari and sega... one example is how people believe nintendo brought analog sticks to gaming which is nonsense, for example atari had that on their consoles back in the 80s... it just annoys me when i see people giving credit where its undue and disregarding the companies who really deserve that credit

Totally agree.  Most of this PR bashing comes from interviewers making questions so that the execs can bash other companies.  It's the quickest way for gaming sites to get hits fast from fanboys.  Console fanboys have always been the quickest source for hits in the gaming media.

Personally, I could care less what company execs have to say about each other.  What they do for me as a gamer is alot more important than what they say.  Most of the time, I ignore threads that have "<insert company name> PR guy says this"

Alright Jack, good way to try to keep your fans happy. He is spinning this to keep fans buying PS3's and to try and save face after Nintendo delivered a crushing blow at E3 without even showing a single game. I mean this is the first time in history I recall a company taking E3 without showing a single title.

Fact is Sony lost billions on PS3 and only in the past two or so years has Sony began to turn a profit off of the hardware. Sony wants to make more of its money back before releasing another console. Also Sony knows that if they launch PS4 at a loss they will probably have a repeate of the situation with PS3 initially. I bet Sony has some pretty powerful stuff in R&D but don't want to unviel it yet because it would cost too much.

Its funny Jack just said what tons of fanboys are saying all over the web right now. PS3 is as good as it gets and you can't do much better. Well CryTek already said Crysis the first game could not be played on PS3 it just wasn't powerful enough. Now EA says BattleField can't be played on consoles without being dummed down. Fact is as EA said their aren't many 1080p 60 frames a second games on the consoles, because they have a hard time handling it. The realistic graphics found on PC's are just far superior to that of the five year old PS3.

As for WiiU Miyamoto stated its games will be 1080p right out of the box. I also heard 60 frames a second will become the norm on WiiU. Then consider developers say WiiU is 50% more powerful then PS3 and the final kits aren't even out yet IBM hasn't finished their chip. So WiiU could be even more powerful then that. EA also said that WiiU could handle BattleField3 now they were probably refering to the PC version based on comments from Nintendo about 1080p resolutions and 60 frames a second capabilities.

I have a 1080p TV, I want to see a console that takes advantage of my TV's higher resolution. Based on those specs alone PS3 will be in a run for its money. PS4 will come when Nintendo starts to make money. I'm guessing 2013 after Microsoft and Nintendo both get their consoles on the market.

Jack is in complete denial, probably pissing his pants right about now. If Sony wanted to out do Nintendo they would need a pretty expensive and powerful machine. One I doubt Sony has and even if they have this powerful technology do they want to sell their console at a loss again.

I don't believe Nintendo brought analog to gaming. I do believe there's a massive difference between a joystick and a thumbstick though.

Just imagine your dualshock controller with two massive joysticks instead of thumbsticks, and then try and imagine controlling them at the same time as using the face buttons or triggers, which is what thumbsticks enable you to do, whereas you need your entire hand for a joystick...

Much like the famous Sony flightstick that pre-dated the dualshock. You're not going to get two of those bolted on to your dualshock either.

They may have come first, but they sure as hell wouldn't have worked as well on modern controllers if they'd stayed the same as those early iterations.

With the information we know about Wii U, he is actually just stating the obvious.

- A tablet controller and marginal upgrade of graphics is not enough of a threat to justify releasing a new Sony console at this point.

The thumbstick concept was started and made mainstream in its first embryonic form by Intellivision's thumbwheel and evolved to the first proper thumbstick with Colecovision's controller.