I'm not talking about the video and if you scrolled through the article you would have noticed the cut backs they had to make.

Then, if you scrolled, you should have noticed that part, right?

Update: Brian Karis, senior graphics programmer at Epic Games adds some more insight in the comments below, explaining some of the more obvious differences - particularly in terms of the very different lighting schemes. At the technical level, the two demos are closer than it seems:

"The biggest changes actually came from the merging of two separate cinematics, the original Elemental and the extended Elemental we showed at PS4's launch event. Each had different sun directions and required some compromises to join them. This resulted in some major lighting differences that aren't platform related but were due to it being a joined cinematic. Another effect, in the original you could see the mountains through the door where in the merged one we made the view through the door white since the mountains outside were no longer the same. Same deal with the mountain fly by. The old mountain range doesn't exist in the new one. These changes from the merge make direct comparisons somewhat inaccurate.

"Feature wise most everything is the same, AA resolution, meshes, textures (PS4 has tons of memory), DOF (I assure you both use the same Bokeh DOF, not sure why that one shot has different focal range), motion blur.

"Biggest differences are SVOGI has been replaced with a more efficient GI solution, a slight scale down in the number of particles for some FX, and tessellation is broken on ps4 in the current build which the lava used for displacement. We will fix the tessellation in the future."

Yeah and you also read the part where it says the Direct X API 11 is very mature whilst the PS4 tools and API are in their initial stages of development. It was scaled down as they understand the capabilities thus far. This means as they further open up the power of the PS4 more will be able to be found.

Scroll down to the end of the article and read the update part:

Update: Brian Karis, senior graphics programmer at Epic Games adds some more insight in the comments below, explaining some of the more obvious differences - particularly in terms of the very different lighting schemes. At the technical level, the two demos are closer than it seems:

...

Feature wise most everything is the same, AA resolution, meshes, textures (PS4 has tons of memory), DOF (I assure you both use the same Bokeh DOF, not sure why that one shot has different focal range), motion blur.

Biggest differences are SVOGI has been replaced with a more efficient GI solution, a slight scale down in the number of particles for some FX, and tessellation is broken on ps4 in the current build which the lava used for displacement. We will fix the tessellation in the future

So basically, the older PC demo used a different dynamic global illumination system, the sparse voxels one, which has been cut from UE4 since and replaced with a static GI, and the two demos differ in how assets and lights are set up. At this point the biggest differences become a reduced number of particles and buggy tessellation for the lava.

I'm sure PS4 versions of UE4 games will be somewhat toned down when compared to end of 2013 high-end gaming rigs, but a side-by-side comparison is not that useful unless a PC version of the exactly same demo on same version of UE4 is provided. And even that won't be incredibly useful to evaluate how real games will look like. We need demos where CPU, i/O etc are stressed appropriately.

UE has always been a pragmatic solution, not an exotic one. I'm pretty sure if the WIIU sells enough, we'll see Epic coding a proper rendered aimed at it, maybe with a slightly different name for marketing reasons.

Exactly and they also stated that they haven't even figured out the true power of the PS4's tools and APi compared to the Direct X 11. This means theres plenty of time to see other developers outshine Epic in their findings of how to use the power of the PS4.

To be frank, I don't know how much "true power" you can find by digging closer to the bare metal as we're speaking of an architecture that is much more well known than say, that of the PS3 or 360 in its infancy.

You can probably pull out some nice tricks that give you a minor edge versus a higher level API, but that's not a job for a general purpose, cheap-ish engine as UE wants to be.

Deep customization is probably something only first party teams will indulge in... as raw baseline performance advances it makes less and less economic sense in multiplatform efforts.

I was thinking first party would take advantage of it the most. Not just them but other companies. Epic doesn't exactly have the best looking games but they sure do try. Could be my taste vs the art direction of their demos.

This is a business decision. Clearly, more supported platforms make an engine harder to maintain and the probability of bugs increases. Or in other words: development costs increasing. If the engine is built for multiplatform (and UE4 should have done this) the costs involved should be low, but they are existant. If Epic assumes, that WiiU don't get many UE-driven games to begin with (more often used by western devs, that are not so hot for Nintendo-platforms), then it seems the simple question of not getting enough royalties to make porting worthwile.

As I said before, it would be clever if Nintendo pays for the port.

This. And you can be sure Epic will port itself, if customers of Epic/UE sell their UE3-games a lot on WiiU and also want to sell UE4-games. But this is unlikely, that's why Epic didn't made it for WiiU in the first place.

Also, so far are barely any UE4-games, so it is not a big deal for now.