GS:Chip-maker Nvidia didn't want to work with Sony "at the price those guys were willing to pay".
If Nvidia had his stuff inside PS4, then it would be so much more worth... of cause company who dosent get money says that other company stuff is not worth...
Pretty much sums it up that and Nvidia obviously wanted Sony to pay more $$$ for its hardware.
The more Sony spends making the console, the more us gamers would have to pay to get a PS4. Hopefully this means the PS4 will be below $400
And yet $1000 steambox i3 cpu worth it?
When did Valve announce their $1000.00 Steambox?
@Shoddy What do you mean by "i3?" Do you mean Intel's i3 CPU, or was that just a typo? The Piston is made by Xi3 and it's innards are AMD. Also, this Nvidia exec just said that they(Nvidia) deemed the PS4 to be not worth the investment, NOT that it isn't worth the price that Sony is going to be selling it for.
nvidia is only good when their new cards come out, other than that, AMD makes graphics cards as good as nvidia and they are a lot cheaper lol
@ 3GenGames Umm... yes it will be at that price. They are already taking pre-orders at SXSW in Austin, and it's $1,000 for the base model. They're giving $100 off for pre-orders during SXSW, but it's still $1,000. So don't call your detractors stupid, when you're the one who is obviously wrong. http://www.engadget.com/201...
Duh...of course sony didnt want to pay that much and amd won the sweepstakes...with microsoft too. Next gen consoles will need a very particular pricepoint to sell and sony couldnt overpay.
@guitarded77 3GenGames isn't arguing that the Piston isn't $1000, he's arguing that Valve's Steambox will be cheaper--which it most likely will be. Piston is backed by Valve, but it is not the Steambox. Valve will be making their own system with that name.
@guitarded77 That is the unofficial Steambox. There will be another one manufactured by Valve themselves. The problem with the Steambox is it cannot run DirectX 11. Though I'd love if Valve worked on Open GL. If Open GL got more driver support and all pc games were avilable for linux, the Steambox would blow away the competition. Simply because, you cannot beat Linux. You cannot beat the power of open source!
Nvidia is only even saying anything about this because they're being asked, and they're of course going to sound SLIGHTLY bitter because a rival won the contract. And they don't even really sound bitter, they just stated the truth that Sony and them couldn't come to a deal on component cost. It's not surprising at all considering we the gamers made it loud and clear that a $600 console just isn't acceptable. Therefore we aren't going to get expensively integrated PS3 hardware, and Sony has to get good parts at the absolute cheapest price. NVidia really had no chance with at least Sony this gen because of the 2 factors above on Sony's end then multiplied by the fact that AMD is in desperation mode to get money flowing in the door. And there aren't many better ways to get some money flowing into a hardware company than getting a contract with a console manufacturer. It's guaranteed money for about 10 years, and not only did AMD get the contract for Sony's next hardware but also MS's....which is HUGE imo for AMD. That's 20 years worth of huge cash flow for the investment into basically one single design proccess. My only concern is if AMD is taking on too much at once considering their financial situation. I'm keeping my fingers crossed that AMD's desperation mode doesn't result in inferior production.
they make good products but sometimes i get the feeling they are too big for their own ego. They need a good knocking down a peg or two once in a while to keep them grounded. If not, they will continue this trend of making themselves out to be bigger and better than they really are. That kind of company structure cant really be good for business. I dont know if it was greed or if they really thought their chips were worth what they were asking. Obviously MS got out of the deal which lead to the demise of the xbox. Sony is feeling the sting like MS which is probably what lead them to discussions with ATI/AMD. I only have one dislike for Nvidia and that was they were responsible for the demise of 3dfx. But i guess it wasnt all bad as they did (sort of) resurrect the idea of SLI (i know its not exactly the same) that 3dfx had come up with in utilizing multiple video cards to combine the output of a video signal to the screen. I still have my dual voodoo2 pc for playing old school dos/windows games that supported GLide. Ahh...good times.
"they make good products but sometimes i get the feeling they are too big for their own ego. They need a good knocking down a peg or two once in a while to keep them grounded. " Spoken like someone who has no idea of how the pc hardware market works. Nvidia and AMD trade blows CONSTANTLY. It's a highly competitive market. There is no time for huge ego's in their business. My guess is Nvidia didn't want to sell at a loss like Sony will probably be doing again here.
you are right. i have been out of the pc market for several years. But it is like any other market where competition breeds innovation. I remember the days of intel and AMD. AMD was always in Intel shadow on the CPU side. Until AMD beat intel to the 1000MHz goal first. It was a humbling experience for intel. It lead to not only a new drive in their competitive step but also changes to their company as a whole. Changes for the better in the end. AMD helped Intel become a better intel while not inflating their company "ego". I use ego as it just sounds better and is more relatable. you can use a different word if you like but these companies do have ego's that can become so overwhelming that instead of projecting confidence, it projects arrogance. I agree with your last part. Nvidia is about profits (as all companies are) and selling their product at a loss might not have been in their best interest. But now, instead of selling at a loss, they wont be selling at all (to the console market that is). Maybe that is a good thing as they can refocus their efforts on the ever changing PC gpu landscape.
I think Nvidia should re-assess there perspective seeing as MS, Sony and Nintendo decided to pass them by. I mean certainly there has to be money to be made with one of those three. As a consumer i'd prefer AMD to have the business so i'm happy with the result. AMD can use all the help it can get to stay competitive with Nvidia and Intel. It wouldn't benefit the consumer in any way for either of those two to hold monopolies on either of there markets.
nVidia, butthurt much?
Yeah the title is very misleading and fishing for hits. What the Nvidia person said was that it wasn't worth the price Sony was offering to do business, thus it wasn't worth the "opportunity cost" which is different than just "cost". Opportunity cost is an economics term describing the things you give up for the choices you make. If Nvidia does business with Sony and Microsoft, the opportunity cost is not being able to do business with other companies since you only have so many resources. Other companies who aren't catering to whiny gamers who aren't willing to pay more than $500 for a new consoles will be able to offer more money to Nvidia for chips since their customers are willing to pay more, like PC owners.
Long story short is that Sony's numbers have been in the read for years and had to make cuts somewhere.
@ shoddy : You made the common mistake of a person that doesnt know anything about PC's by calling the computer the CPU. The CPU is the Central Processing Unit Chip inside the computer.
Says the company who's GPU competition was used in the system...
Even if NVidia wanted that business they are at a disadvantage. With AMD you can get an x86 CPU and GPU integrated on the same die, Nvidia can't do that as both big x86 manufacturers have their own GPUs and aren't likely to work with them on such a project. The only possibility for Nvidia getting the console business was if Sony went with an ARM CPU.
I'm glad it turned out this way. Especially with Nvidia's overheating issues...
@ Omni-Tool : what overheating issues? I have a gtx680 with almost a year and its never once overheated.
I worked for HP laptop tech support from 2009 til 2011. There were overheating issues with faulty Nvidia chipsets with laptops and other products manufactured between 2005 til 2010. The next Nvidia chipset that would be used in next gen consoles would be that of laptop design. Small and integrated to the mainboard. Sources: http://www.topclassactions.... and the 1000s of repair orders I had to setup for these freakin' pieces of crap Nvidia passed off as quality work.
I've had all high end Nvidia GPU's with the psat five years and not one GPU had overheating issues. I also had a Laptop with an Nvidia GPU in it for two years and it never overheated even during gaming. Alsi I worked in a computer shop for three years from 2008 - 2011 and we never had anybody come in with an overheating Nvidia GPU. I also know it was you Omni-Tool that disagreed with me but its a fact that my GTX680 never overheated.
It's hit or miss with the GPUs. I had 2 250gts hooked up in sli. One got so hot that it melted a few of the transistors and resistors off. The other was perfectly fine and I still use it. You have a 680 or whatever that hasn't overheated, good for you. I didn't disagree with you. It was usually the low end models that were affected anyways. The cheap ones. I am surprised however that you did not receive any from the manufacturers listed in the lawsuit while working in a PC shop. Was it local? And did you actually get any business? I'm only asking because all the local PC shops around here have all went out of business.
Yes it was a local PC Shop here in Ireland and we didnt have any of those overheating GPU's. The shop shut down two years ago because the recession hit the owner hard , but we were getting lots of business up to a year before the shop closed when people just couldnt afford computer services anymore.
nVidia had always been rip offs...they overcharge everyone. Microsoft cut production of original xbox 7months before launch of xbox360 because of issues with nVidia. I read article 2 years ago about why PS3 was still more expensive, it claimed nVidia was still pricing its GPU higher for a 5 year old chip at the time. Nvidia lost a lot of money not putting thete chips in next gen systems. A console remains static for 5-9 years. During its cycle, it would have been better to make money than not make money at all. Both Ps4/720 are likely to have AMD chips and both consoles are likely to sell 150-190 million combined. That is a huge profit for AMD in the long run. How can nVidia not claim its not worth the cost. They are just money hungry biatch. AMD profit for 2013 should increase, too bad nVidia has lost gaining any profit from next gen. AMD is the bigger winner here, devs will now be comfortable with AMD chipsets and maybe drivers for there PC GPU will be better supported than nVidia's.
two words... Sour grapes!
this is how i see it. The ps4 is rumored to be one of the last gen of consoles, making its potential sales up to 150 million plus! maybe even 200 million consoles sold over its life span. If Nvidia made a single dollar of profit, it would be a cool 200 million. Realistically, your looking at way more then a single dollar. so multiply 5 bucks gives u a billion. To turn down such an offer is in my opinion retarded.
Nvidia is just stubborn. I guess they'd like to do their own stuff. Well, we'll see how much Project Shield will cost, and how their next gen Tegra performs. Tegra3 was the one and only - and eventually got spanked by pretty much every other ARM chip. But they sure talk a lot...and never show.
@GrizzliS1987 let's use your numbers of PS4 selling 200 million units and Nvidia making 1 dollar of profit on each. 200 million dollars over 10 years is really not much money, nVidia makes 100-200 million dollars in profit every quarter! http://www.engadget.com/201...