I believe someone already stated this but the difference between Nvidia and ATI/AMD is that Nvidia is looking to make a profit. You cannot fault Nvidia if they did not want to make a chip for the price the console makers were offering. You have to understand that MS, Sony and Nintendo is going to look for the absolute lowest cost they can get their chips. They want to own the tech and be able to manufacture their chips as well. The cost of RD compared to the license they would get for the chips probably did not pay out enough for everything that goes into development. As noted by the article, Nvidia only have so much bandwidth so if they are doing something that is very high cost development but low cost return, then its probably not worth it.

On the other hand people keep talking about how ATI/AMD parts come cheaper and was able to meet the cost the console makers were willing to pay. The problem is that ATI/AMD has been bleeding money for years and if this another situation where they are not pricing a profit from these endevors just to get market share, who knows if that will pay off.

Yes, its great for gamers that ATI/AMD goes low ball but it doesn't look like its good for them. Will be very interested to see if ATI/AMD does become profitable since their tech is all of the consoles. At least for the last gen it did not do them any good being in the 360.

You misunderstood the clearly not retail headline.

Then you misunderstood my first post.

Then you misunderstood my reply to yours. I tried to say it in a nice way by seeing it from your "misleading" side, but again you took that to mean something else.

You've since willingly refused to see reason.

You are right about one thing. There is no argument. There's you jumping to conclusions and me pointing it out. I wish you could see the light, but sadly you can't get past your initial misinterpretations.

I deal in facts, so I have no need to be as vague as your above post.

1. CGI said that the title was harsh, and clearly not the implication nvidia meant.
2. Kain responds that it is only harsh if you read it incorrectly, because the content is fine.
3. Prof says that Kain sounds like he's trying to disagree with CGI, but is actually agreeing.
4. Kain responds that Prof must mean disagreeing.
5. Prof says that CGI's opinion is that the content is fine, but the title misleadingly harsh, and that Kain's opinion is that the content is fine, but the title only harsh if one was mislead by the title.
6. Kain disagrees, saying that there was disagreement, specifically, disagreement that the title was harsh, though could have been mistakenly understood as harsh.
7. Prof says Kain would be objectively wrong in that disagreement.
8. Kain responds that the only misunderstanding would be if the reader jumped to a conclusion.
9. Prof retorts that he is simply reading the English, and that no assumptions were required.
10. Kain asks why would I assume Nvidia is talking about the price.
11. I restate that no assumptions were made, the literal translation supports the message that I've called misleading. Says misleading titles are a common thing. Restates that title was intentionally misleading.
12. Kain assures Prof that [Prof] made an assumption about the meaning "Ps4 not worth the cost", other than the literal translation. Says "IF A WRITER IS CLEVER ENOUGH TO WRITE EYE-CATCHING HEADLINES THAT ARE ALSO TECHNICALLY ACCURATE, THERE IS NO PROBLEM"
13.  Prof says that quoted sentence directly implies that the title was cleverly misleading and that Kain is now again agreeing though thinking himself in disagreement.
14. Kain then says if Prof read it wrong, that is Prof's fault, and doesn't mean the title was misleading. Calls prof feverish and delusional. Insists that Prof jumped to a conclusion other than the literal translation.

Again, there is no argument here, Kain. Just facts. Facts that say you've been calling the the title misleading and not-misleading at the same time. The definition of misleading is to be intentionally misdirecting.
{evidence 1} In (6) you say "the title could be mistaken for something else".
{evidence 2} In (8) you say that the misunderstanding would lie in the reader making an incorrect assumption based on the wording.
{evidence 3} In (12) Kain says that if a writer is clever enough to trick the reader but simultaneously tell the truth, then it is not misleading.

You have 100% called the title misleading, yet refuse to specifically use the word misleading, using your own incorrect definition of the term.

Case closed.

IGN wrote an article on this and titled it "Why Nvidia Isn't Powering Playstation 4". Would that Gamespot had done the same.

Theres no way Nvidia will outsell AMD once their chips come out. The sales boost will be massive now that everyone is using AMD.

Good grief man.
I don't think I've ever seen anyone go to such lengths to intentionally misinterpret another's words as you have.  What I've said is so simple that I'm actually impress that you've been able to reverse its meaning. I'm starting to think you are just being contrarian.

Let's start over. Forget everything you and I have said on the subject so we can stop arguing about semantics and get back to the point.

Ok? I'll start.

I say the headline is fine and anyone that finds it sensational is jumping to the wrong conclusions. What do you say about that? And please don't tell me in length again why you think I've been saying anything else.

Just for fun, I'll make it even simpler.

Title no hurt me. Why title hurt you? J/K ;)

That's belitteling! Where's the fun in that?

It's not belitteling. It was a joke. Maybe I should have put a little smiley face next to it. I'll fix it so it's more jokey.

Even my joke is missinterpreted. ;)

But last gen they provided just the GPU for XB360 and Wii, this time they provide a GPU for Wii U, an APU for XB720 and one for PS4, and those APUs, stripped of MS and Sony customisations, are just the APUs AMD wants to sell for PCs too, so this time it will be able to obtain bigger economies of scale, further increased by the fact that being on PC and two 8th gen consoles, AMD's APU will become a sort of reference platform for mid-low range gaming PCs, ensuring it a longer shelf life.

I think it is purposely written to be more sensational than it actually is.

Saying "PS4 is not worth the cost", is different from saying "manufacturing for consoles was seen as an opportunity cost".

The two say very different things. The OP title, CAN be interpreted as the latter, but it takes a big leap to get there because it leaves out important information.

Now, to answer your second really eye-rollingly belittling question, the title no hurt me. I was making a joke that you and cgi pretty much have the same point of view, with the only difference being you were criticizing cgi.

So we're starting over, is this going to repeat itself? I imagine your response is simply going to be "if you were (careful to not use the word misled) mistaken, that is your fault". I don't see a resolution to this, Kain. It's very straightforward.