By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
TheBigFatJ on 05 January 2008
Edit Thread
Played_Out said:



Paramount didn't deny the payoff at all (although I highly doubt it came from MS). They just wouldn't confirm the exact figure:

http://www.dvdfile.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=6279

"Viacom (Paramount’s parent company) CEO Philippe Dauman was specifically asked about the financial deal later in the day. He didn't deny the payoff, but added, “I won't comment on that number."

Warner have explicitly denied it. If it was true, the standard line for businesses to take is: "no comment".

What I don't understand is why those who came up with this BS didn't think of a more realistic number. $500m to make a sound business decision???? Just too far fetched.

You think 500 million is far fetched? Consider that the home video market is worth 50 billion over the next decade then look at that tiny little 500 million number again. *Assuming* that BD can fully supplant DVD, it would likely be a 50 billion dollar payoff on a 500 million dollar investment. Owning Warner/Fox + Paramount and Universal would have all but assured that HD-DVD would be the HD format. The opposite has all but assured BD will be the HD format.

This is worth way, way more than 500 million. Sony potentially lost an order of magnitude more than 500 million putting BD into the PS3. It's been a very expensive investment for Sony, which is why it is one they could not afford to lose. The stakes are high -- so high that 500 million for victory is *easily* a no-brainer.

@DMeisterJ: BD wasn't winning. Whoever got the vast majority of the studios would 'win'. Win being fairly subjective, because they'd still need to get adopted after ousting the rival format. Having less than 0.006 of the sales vs less than 0.004 of the sales for home videos isn't really winning anything, is it?  Neither format had 1/100th of the home video market for 2007, so how could either have a significant lead?