If they put a phone in the Vita then I would buy it.

@sodapoppimpski: I wasn't referring to graphics being displayed. I was referring to the console. Everything is in the TV so you should not need a special console, or need a patch in the game for HDR rendering of games. This should be built into the game. Video playback is different because standard blue ray movie itself does not have the full dynamic range so it needs to be remastered. Also you can compensate for limited dynamic range in illustrations and take full advantage of what is available on the display. With videos you have to take what nature supplies and alter it to fit the limitations of the display. The result is that most games will not see as large an improvement as you see in movies, and it may not impress you at all.

@jerjef: Streamed 4K, digital download 4K, and 4K BR are identical. You may be streaming HD and 4k upscaling, which is better, but still slightly worse than true 4K.

@sodapoppimpski: I have 300mbps service and my PS4 currently streams at 164mbps so I do not want or need a 4K player or have any use for the discs. I'm just saying it should be an option for those that choose this. i am not judging it other than I don't want to pay for something I will never use. As such you would have the option of getting a nicer 4k player than the one packaged in the console if you wish, and you could use with other components.

@heydink: yes it applies to video images. it is similar, but it should never be necessary on a computer generated image or illustration.

@sodapoppimpski: Yes HDR for TV applies to video images, not photo images, and certainly not generated graphics which should never need such processing. A computer generated image should have this built into the image.

This is all marketing hype. TV manufacturers need to market these features so people feel a need to buy new TVs.

Photo images look slightly better on my 4K monitor, but graphic illustration are hardly different. I can notice them on my 65" TV if I stand close enough. We have reached the point of diminishing returns on resolution for TVs requiring 4 times the bandwidth to get a very slight visual improvement for only some media.

HDR is even less since graphic images should never need HDR. HDR is meant to render photographs so that there are no overexposed and underexposed regions on a photo so that it looks closer to what the eye sees, by interposing images taking at different exposures. This should never be needed on computer generated images or videos and is not even applicable for games.

I would prefer that console manufacturers invest in faster frame rates, VR capability, more powerful AI, faster more durable networking, better servers, and faster streaming - things that could actually make games play better, rather than trying to make them prettier.

@heydink: HDR will have no affect on games. HDR is about high dynamic range imaging for cameras so that the image is more like what the eye sees eliminating under and overexposed areas of an image. Games are graphic images not photographs and the compensation is designed into the image. You will only notice this on older movies and on photo images, or poorly illustrated games.

@heydink: HDR will have no affect on games. HDR is about high dynamic range imaging for cameras so that the image is more like what the eye sees eliminating under and overexposed areas of an image. Games are graphic images not photographs and the compensation is designed into the image. You will only notice this on older movies and on photo images, or poorly illustrated games.

@nayce54: very little difference unless you have a 60" screen and stand close to it.