| Kasz216 said: bbsin.... why do you think the Blu-ray liscense is steeper? Everything i've heard suggests it's a lot less then DVDs and that's a reason companies are pushing HD sales... becuase the DVD lobby had movie companies and DVD manufactuers over a barrel when it came to liscenses. http://news.cnet.com/8301-10784_3-9874317-7.html?tag=nefd.lede
|
I believe the royalties are steeper because the technology is far more advanced than DVD. There are many codecs, security and BD-live that the format's business model wouldn't be practical to the BODs if it weren't that high. After all, it's those 18 companies that put in all those resources for promotion, features and research, do you think they would do so much if their cuts were less than that of DVD? As a matter of fact, I think BluRay would have defeated HDDVD much faster if it weren't for the licensing fees being so high, it could be another reason why the technology itself is still pretty expensive. Also, the top members of the BDA are either providers of technology, promoters or top movie studios. BluRay essentially already had all the pieces on the top to succeed, lowering the licensing to get more supporters that were already going to join doesn't make any sense, to me atleast.
The way the entire HDDVD v BluRay war panned out made it seem like the BDA snuffed out HDDVD and forced every other company to chose it as the only option. At that point it would either be join BDA and earn some/little money or don't join BDA and get nothing.
