Why would you assume Nividia is talking about the retail price of the PS4 for consumers? It has no retail price and is not available to consumers yet.

Assume? I don't need to assume anything when I read an article. That is what the article is for, to tell me something.

I'm taking it exactly as it is worded, 'the ps4 is not worth the cost'. I don't know how they know the cost, it is the article's job to explain it.

The very next line is a rewording of the title "... hardware being used in the playstation 4 due to 'opportunity cost'" Which is what I said a regular title would read like.

Furthermore, the article is pretty clear that Nvidia was talking about both consoles, "we had to look at the console business as an opportunity cost..."

"...in the end, you only have so many engineers and so much capability, and if you're going to go off and make chips for Sony or Microsoft, then that's probably another chip you're not making in other parts of your company"

I'm sorry kain, but spun title is clearly spun to get hits, as CGI agrees. The article, as you said, is just business as usual. The title however, is anything but straightforward. After all you understand yourself that this concept of spinning titles to sound better it just 'business as usual'.

When you read the headline you jumped to a conclusion based on nothing and assumed the worst. There is no reason to believe that Nvidia is saying that the retail price of the PS4 is not worth it to consumers. You assumed that was the purpose of this thread. I did not jump to that conclusion. I assumed it was a business deal and when I read the article I found it to be correct.

The title may be designed to get hits from people who assume the worst, but it's not actually saying anything bad and therefore not worth getting worked up about.

People complain about headlines all the time. I don't get it. They are just headlines. If a writer is cleaver enough to write a headline that catches the eye while being technically accurate I don't see a problem with that.

Wow kain. I've never seen someone so able to agree yet insist disagreement. You say "while technically being accurate" directly implies that you KNOW it's phrased in a way that seems different. Lmao. You are hilarious.

Funny PR guy is funny.

It's like you want me to say the opposite of what I mean so badly that you are rejecting reality and substituting your own.

Reading it wrong makes you wrong not the writer of the headline. You jumped to conclusions based on nothing. You assumed the worst. That's not the writer's fault, it's yours. Anyone upset over this headline is overly sensitive to the subject. It's clearly NOT talking about retail cost or consumer value. You added that in with yourself.

Get well soon, kain.

I'm not the one experiences fevered headline hallucinations and acting obtuse about it. That's you. You jumped to a conclusion that nobody has a legitimate reason to jump to. Reading it wrong makes you wrong. I'd love to hear you explain how my reading it right was wrong.

but they're not doing bad.

You don't even know what we were arguing about kain. Continuing it is not something I'd find entertaining.

Ps: I never said your interpretation was wrong, just that the idea that your interpretation is the clearest one is wrong. You even admit to this by saying a title that is still technically right is not misleading.