By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
fordy on 20 June 2013
Edit Thread
LivingMetal said:
fordy said:


You're painting an incredibly simplified scenario. Let me add some points:

1. At the time of WB switching support, HD-DVD WAS the dominant of the two formats (though still an incredibly small amount compared to DVD), both in media sales AND standalone device sales. If WB decided to just suddenly pick and choose ONE format (whereas other companies were indifferent with supporting both formats), the market factors would have pointed towards HD-DVD.

2. And WHY did WB decide to not support both formats in an emerging market, like other studios? They struck a deal with Sony for lower royalties and licensing fees and in exchange for exclusitivity. 

You really don't think that WB just suddenly decided to suddenly support the market trailing one of the two emerging formats for no reason, did you? But what can I expect from the same guy who was openly touting about eviscerating somebody who outlined a security flaw in Sony's system? Yes, I remember you...


1. HD-DVD WAS the dominant format.  Not true.  More studios including WB were supporting Blu-Ray.

2. If WB could have afforded to support two formats then they would have.  But they didn't because the people weren't buying it regardless of any contracts.  Giving you the benefit of the doubt, the contracts just made it sweeter.

And I remember you, too.  Always hating.  :)


Read the reply again. I said HD-DVD was the dominant format in SALES (ie. The things that CONSUMERS have control of), not support. And of course BluRay would have more studio support, after all, HD-DVD was from a pure electronics company and BluRay was from an electronics/media conglomerate. They can use their own marketshare in one market to affect other markets. That's like saying that McDonalds has a bigger lunch menu than IBM.

You're talking about affordability for WB, then READ MY INITIAL reply, in which I explicity stated that HD-DVD was a LOT cheaper in both initial capital and cost to produce media per disc. If cost was an issue to WB, they would have went with HD-DVD. Your statement is false. HD-DVD sales at the time of the announcement were above BluRay sales, but BluRay was VERY slowly catching up (although it was something in the realm of 56% of WBs HD-DVD sales when the announcement was dropped, if I remember correctly). 

If you truly do remember me, then you'd remember that it was me defending somebody who did no wrong against the crowd of haters (including you) demanding this person's head on a pike. Who's the hater, again?