Now we know why devs hate Wii U.

I have a Wii U, and its not a bad device, aside the trigger being digital instead of analog, but my main issue is that it feel unnecessary. Base on its limitation ...what more can you do with it?

The man is right. Taking your eyes off the action to look at something else just isn't an attractive prospect. We developed HUDs for that reason.

This was probably the right call for Sony, especially if its teams and partners could envision no worthwhile ways to use a touchscreen. Or at least no worthwhile ways that would justify the cost.

Although clearly Sony sees some future in touchscreen features, or it wouldn't advertise the PS4-Vita combo as such.

Let me just add lastly that a touchscreen controller, like the one Nintendo manufactures, can be used in more ways than just looking down at a map or inventory and "distracting" the player. It allows for asymmetrical multiplayer, five-player local multiplayer, easy Internet browsing, etc.

I myself don't understand touchscreen on Wii U controller. It is technically impossible watch both TV and touchscreen at the same time. So I'm sure using touchscreen distracts from gaming, not adds to gaming. If somebody says that you can watch both at the same time then I would say that he lies. If touchscreen works even if you don't ever even watch touchscreen on controller, then it would be fine.

Edit. At least with dual-screen portables both screens are near each other and at the same distance. On console, controller screen would be 1-2 feet away and TV 10 feet away from eyes. That means, it requires a lot more work to focus your eyes on both screens continuously (not at the same time because it can't be done).

Good. Integrating a screen into a controller will not only bumps up the cost (more parts and expensive components).. but, adds yet another proprietary control method on top of standard controls. Which means that it will instantly get ignored by the majority of devs working on the platform, or have features already present in games to be shoehorned in another way.

I get dual/touch screens for portables.. but for home consoles, it should be left alone. Way more trouble than for what its worth.

Um ok the back touch pad on the Vita is a gimmick as much as the Wii U touch screen. 

awww a lot of agreements on this move... i remember when they announced this people yelled "innovation" but since they dropped it... it is now a gimmick...

I think they did want it, but it was a mix of cost, development challenges and value. The Wii U gamepad has zero latency - it's actually quicker than the interaction on the TV. This has marveled a lot of tech people who analyzed the system. Getting that up and running on PS4 probably would have been a challenge in the time frame between when they saw it displayed for Wii U and when they wanted to ship PS4. Cost is obviously huge since they knew they couldn't do a $600 system again. And really, every Playstation has essentially been a more powerful version of the one before and the market likes that, so is there really a value in a touch screen for Sony?

Personally I would have enjoyed if Sony (or Nintendo) made a system a little weaker than PS4 and with a small touch screen on a Wii U Pro controller type interface as a standard controller for all players on the system. Would have been cool if sold between $300 and $400.

Also, I think Sony really should have thought harder about the thumb stick position. The low placement is not ergonomic, no matter how used to it PS gamers are.

Oh?  When did they announce a touch screen controller?  Remember Touch Screen and Touch Pad are two different things.