So the thing about increasing tv resolution is that in order to perceive increased screen resolution, you have to sit a certain distance from the monitor. This is why retina display is actually higher definition than "high definition" and because you're holding it within 2 feet of your face and you're using it to view intricate symbols like letters. That said, you can't appreciate the same difference in resolution on a 50 inch screen that is 6 feet in front of you. The minimum viewing distance of tvs is greater than a computer or tablet monitor, so the maximum appreciable number of pixels is lower/].
So the point of saying all that is that the minimum screen size you need in order to appreciate 1080p versus a mere 720p is 50 inches. 50 inches is a large monitor. The minimum screen size you need for a 4k television is 80 inches. These are huge tvs. So the underlying question here is not really "Should we get excited for 4k?" Its, "Should we get excited for 80-100 inch tvs?" Should we?. Before I bought my HDTV I had a 27 inch giant block. So it was awesome. I'm not really that thrilled about the prospect of managing a gigantic piece of self supporting furniture now just for slightly increased resolution.
So it is true that since 1080p happened you can actually sit closer to your tv and not get eye strain, and actually enjoy the immersion of it. But, there's only so close you can get before you're not actually looking at the entire screen. Going back to Apple the reason they are able to weave around the competition is because they don't just push specs for arbitrary technological advancement. They call their high res screen the "Retina Display" because they literally design it around the practical applications of the technology.
That said, I am not surprised that the Razers Edge Windows 8 tablet and Nvidia Android shield Handheld are the thing people are talking about coming out of CES. One point you guys may have missed on the later though (based on what I read anyway) is that the streaming requires a particular level of Nvidia GPU. So its not exactly as universal as one might hope. What I have been saying about handhelds for months is that "dedicated" handheld are not going the way of the dodo. Proprietary handhelds are going the way of the dodo. To Xav's point about emerging console-like content on Android, the value of those kinds of games on Android, is that any hardware manufacturer can license the operating system, and thus give software developers an endless variety and number of devices to sell on.
That said, the idea that the Razers Edge inspired in me is the notion of a totally consolidated Playstation 3 or Xbox 360 tablet. I don't just mean a branded tablet. I mean a tablet with console hardware in it. As console makers transition into the next generation they need a way to keep their current platforms relevant, without making them cannibalize the PS4 and Xbox 720. We saw the PS2 distract from the PS3's early years, and we saw Microsoft just slam the door shut on the first Xbox. Sony faces an additional threat next gen in that there is no way I can imagine (*bearing in mind I am not an engineer hah) that they can reverse engineer compatibility from the PS4's purported AMD architecture, to the PS3's proprietary Cell architecture.
That said, it would be a pretty fantastic disruptive product if they could fit that PS3 tech behind a super high res 7-10 inch tablet screen, and say add a couple gigabytes of RAM to give the hardware more functionality as an App device.