By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Sony - PS4 not worth the cost says Nvidia (Read thread, not title)

theprof00 on 14 March 2013
kain_kusanagi said:
CGI-Quality said:
It's perplexing to think they would title the article that way, since this nViDiA rep doesn't say things in those harsh terms. This isn't against you, Jay, I saw this on a PC website with that title.


It's really only "harsh" if you read it wrong. If you read it from the perspective of a company investing money into R&D with little to no profit it isn't harsh at all. It's just business.

Why are you agreeing with cgi in such a harsh way?



Around the Network
Machiavellian on 14 March 2013
JayWood2010 said:
CGI-Quality said:
It's perplexing to think they would title the article that way, since this nViDiA rep doesn't say things in those harsh terms. This isn't against you, Jay, I saw this on a PC website with that title.


Gamespot was the ones who titled this.  It is basically Nvidia making an excuse for a big loss in my opinion.  Both NeXbox and PS4 will be using rival AMD chips which could potentially lose nvidia over 100m  units sold in the next 5 years


Without knowing what Nvidia is doing and the price point AMD is givng Sony and MS, you cannot state its a lost.  As the guy stated they either go dirt cheap and supply MS and Sony or they do their own thing like project shield, Steambox and other tech they are working on which probably hold better profit margins.



kain_kusanagi on 14 March 2013
theprof00 said:
kain_kusanagi said:
CGI-Quality said:
It's perplexing to think they would title the article that way, since this nViDiA rep doesn't say things in those harsh terms. This isn't against you, Jay, I saw this on a PC website with that title.


It's really only "harsh" if you read it wrong. If you read it from the perspective of a company investing money into R&D with little to no profit it isn't harsh at all. It's just business.

Why are you agreeing with cgi in such a harsh way?

Do you mean disagreeing?



theprof00 on 14 March 2013
kain_kusanagi said:
theprof00 said:
kain_kusanagi said:
CGI-Quality said:
It's perplexing to think they would title the article that way, since this nViDiA rep doesn't say things in those harsh terms. This isn't against you, Jay, I saw this on a PC website with that title.

It's really only "harsh" if you read it wrong. If you read it from the perspective of a company investing money into R&D with little to no profit it isn't harsh at all. It's just business.

Why are you agreeing with cgi in such a harsh way?

Do you mean disagreeing?

>_> One would think maybe that would prompt you to go back and read the two posts, but apparently not.

(for the sake of brevity, Cgi only thinks the purposely misleading title is harsh, but the article is fine, and you agree that if someone is mislead by the title it would appear harsh, but the article is fine)



adriane23 on 14 March 2013

Lol gaming journalism (most journalism nowadays) strikes again.

Though, I'm sure NVIDIA is disappointed MS/SONY didn't offer them more money to produce a GPU for them, their decision not to budge on whatever their price point is for such a project was sound. NVIDIA is in the driver's seat when it comes to GPU development and sales, so they have the leeway to turn down such an offer. AMD on the other hand needed something to keep them going, and in the end, I think AMD is the best fit for consoles even if NVIDIA were to match AMD's price.



I am the Playstation Avenger.

   

Around the Network
TheJimbo1234 on 14 March 2013

Well it is no surprise as AMD own ATI, thus they get a double deal with Sony, where as Nvidia only get the GPU or their odd Tegra chipset.



Netyaroze on 14 March 2013
kowenicki said:

That wasnt really my point.

The guy from NVidia is actually saying there wasn't enough margin for them. Thats fine, its a business decision.

It worries me a little that AMD, already struggling, would go in cheap to win a contract that may backfire if they have gone too cheap.  If they vanish what the hell happens then?


It doesn't matter what happens to AMD both MS and Sony secured the rights on the layout. Remember Xbox 1 ? Nobody who is in their right mind (except MS this one time) would give the rights of their Hardware to another party. Both Chips use AMD Technology but they belong to Sony/MS what happens with AMD is non of Sonys/MS/Nintendos concern.



NeilStrauss on 14 March 2013

that is good, means that Sony is worried about cost, wich is important to their survival, makes me happy.



kain_kusanagi on 14 March 2013
theprof00 said:
kain_kusanagi said:
theprof00 said:
kain_kusanagi said:
CGI-Quality said:
It's perplexing to think they would title the article that way, since this nViDiA rep doesn't say things in those harsh terms. This isn't against you, Jay, I saw this on a PC website with that title.

It's really only "harsh" if you read it wrong. If you read it from the perspective of a company investing money into R&D with little to no profit it isn't harsh at all. It's just business.

Why are you agreeing with cgi in such a harsh way?

Do you mean disagreeing?

>_> One would think maybe that would prompt you to go back and read the two posts, but apparently not.

(for the sake of brevity, Cgi only thinks the purposely misleading title is harsh, but the article is fine, and you agree that if someone is mislead by the title it would appear harsh, but the article is fine)


No, I disagreed with CGI that the title was harsh. I don't think the title is harsh at all. I did say that it could be viewed incorectly to be harsh. My point is that the title is fine.



theprof00 on 14 March 2013
kain_kusanagi said:
theprof00 said:

>_> One would think maybe that would prompt you to go back and read the two posts, but apparently not.

(for the sake of brevity, Cgi only thinks the purposely misleading title is harsh, but the article is fine, and you agree that if someone is mislead by the title it would appear harsh, but the article is fine)


No, I disagreed with CGI that the title was harsh. I don't think the title is harsh at all. I did say that it could be viewed incorectly to be harsh. My point is that the title is fine.

Then you would be objectively wrong.