By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Sales Discussion - Warner paid 500$ to be BR exclusive !!!

iclim4 on 06 January 2008
Onimusha12 said:

 

iclim4 said:
Onimusha12 said:

Desperate moves like this are not new to Sony and the other companies invested in Blu-Ray. This is to be expected and explains quite clearly the recent resurgance in Blu-Ray exclusivity. Either way, more money in the hole, wonder if Sony and their constituants will ever see a profit

Onimusha12 said:

I'm perplexed as to why you call my posts trolling when they're far more constructive and relevant than most of yours. Unlike you I've also never been banned for my actions so I really don't see you in a position to lecture.

You're also the one exagerating, not I, I bashed no companies, merely pointed out their behaviors as being typical and responded to the winings of people in this thread which I see you made no attempt to address for the very reasons you allegedly chose to single out my posts. It would appear you've painted your own bias here.

 

yes what you are doing is considered trolling, though you are bordering between being a troll and being plain guillible. there is no proof that BDA actually paid off warner and your stating it as if it were fact. warner joining blu-ray is a very logical step. Warner said that they  wanted to choose only one format and that they would let the consumer decide.
blu-ray has been outselling HD-dvd by 2:1.
which side would warner choose?

Trolling you say? I never said the rumor was true, just that I made a comment on the assumption of its likelihood. I'm aware of the other factors that may have played a part and don't discount them, but don't make me apart of your back n' forth pissing contest when all I did was interject to comment on the likelihood. If what I did was trolling then God help the rest of this forum.

What happened was I made a comment that got under the skin of a couple short tempered fanboys and they called troll on me, and given the history of the accusers on this forum their motives and credibility should be more than obvious to anyone not wearing blinders while riding the said bandwagon.


well you might want to reword your comments then since it seemed like you were stating it as fact.
plus guess what? BDA isnt only sony, its like you have a vendetta against Sony.

 "Either way, more money in the hole, wonder if Sony and their constituants will ever see a profit"

you were trying to take a cheap jab at Sony.
of course you would get under some sony supporters skin.

and name calling? Really?

you just called DMeaisterJ a fanboy...

hmm... since i considered what you did trolling, that would also mean
your calling me a fanboy wearing blinders participating in a back n' forth pissing contest.

yeah indirect name calling is the same as name calling.

its a simple discussion, calm down...

 




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------                         iclim4 - "The Friends Thread changed my life!" (Pervert Alert!)                                            Tags? 

Around the Network
misterd on 06 January 2008
Smidlee said:
Onimusha12 said:
Smidlee said:
Onimusha12 said:
When DVD came out, people were eager to adopt a digital format that wouldn't decay over time and could be navigated without fast forwarding or rewinding. DVD was a break through in convenience.

HD Formats just offer a prettier picture if you have an HD-TV. You'll forgive the consumer if they're not as motivated to begin rebuilding the library they've spent the last ten years building.

Actually the thing that sold DVD over VHS was the fact you could put a lot more on a DVD (extras). Guess what, even in HD you can put more on Blu-ray than on DVD. Again you don't have to rebuild your library when Blu-Ray players can play DVDs.


And how do you figure that? Considering extra features and bonus content  didn't even have a nitche until well after DVD was established I think we can handily call your reasoning the well wishing of someone who wants to believe HD formats will recieve the same warm welcome.

Well I'm only going on by what the experts said on world news of why DVD was one of the fastest selling product ever. The very first dvd movie I remember renting had extras.

 


The first DVDs had such wonderful extras as menus, chapter stops, alternate languages and subtitles. No suprise that DVD didn't take off immediately. The first DVD I recall making a big splash was The Matrix, which was the right movie to come along just as the players were hitting mass market prices, and that was loaded with extras. The best DVDs in the early days were New Line's, which were lower priced than some studios (several had $30 or more as the MSRP), and often jammed with extras (see Blade or Austin Powers). I firmly believe that it was those DVDs that drove the format's success, not the picture quality or the ability to skip around the film.



misterd on 06 January 2008
Renar said:
misterd said:
epsilon72 said:
In response to news article: Well duh, of course they were paid off! Companies don't usually make bottom line hurting decisions out of "the goodness of their hearts".

 

Eps, supporting both formats was hurting their bottom line. The HiDef war was supressing support from both consumers and retailers. Having to tailor the same titles to 3 differnet formats increases production costs. It encourage WB to flush money down a blind alley by developing a hybrid disc (compatable with BR and HDDVD), which it had to abandon because no other studio was willing to support it (I think Paramount had signed on, but pulled out when they contacted to be HD exclusive).

If there was really a net profit in supporting both format, WB would not have been the only studio still in this position.


 Yes, I can see supporting both formats would be hurting their bottom line.  But as long as they and Paramount hold out as HD-DVD, they are hurting the BR studios bottom line  by making the market smaller and split.  Thus movies that might ordinarily get bot by a consumer would not if they went down the HD-DVD path.   So, I can see a game of 'chicken' developing.  Who will / did blink first?  Who really needs to be sure that BR succeeds?  

Did Warner go hat in hand to the BR folks, saying "We see the error of our ways.  You're right, and we deserve to paid whatever you want to charge us for BR royalities"?

Or is it more likely that the BR folks, while pretty sure they could win, didn't want the format war to drag on for who knows how long.  And to get it wrapped up this year, customers under 1 format, less confusion over which one to upgrade to, that the BR folks told Warner, "You know, we really like you.  And for our friends, we have a special royality rate."

Basically as dschumm and a few others have said, no cash payoff like the Paramount deal included.  Just a better deal for Warner than otherwise would have happened. 


Again, if you believe the rumors that started 12/31, both sides were offering the money to WB. Warners had no reason to go "hat in hand" to BluRay - they needed Warners as much if not more. That doesn't mean that Warners WAS paid off, but they certainly didn't have to take a crappy deal from BR either. Odds are good both BR and HDDVD had been in constant contact with Warners for months, and doing all they could to "persuade" them to come to their format. That's the nature of the business. It made some sense for Warners to wait and see how this holiday went, and the results were unmistakable, so they could finally tell BR that they were ready to deal.



jphuff on 07 January 2008
starcraft said:
I fully expect that all of the PS3 fanboys who blasted Paramount for taking a bribe to go exclusive will now come into this thread and blast Fox and Warner for doing the same to an even greater and more pathetic extent.........not.

 Starcraft-  The difference is that BD was and is outselling HD-DVD by a fairly wide margin (even given the fact that totals for both were negligible in the overall scheme of things) so it made far less sense for a company like Paramount to give up their neutrality, much less go to HD-DVD exclusively.  As is abundantly clear by now anyway, the $500 million rumor is just that, "rumor" and has been denied by Warner anyway so it makes no difference.  We'll truly see of course, once Warner releases their next financial report as IF it was true, it will be listed there.

 Frankly, the way sales of movies have been going for a long time now, there was no reason for any studio to go HD-DVD exclusive.  There was LITTLE reason to go BD exclusive as well due to the small sales numbers overall, but at least there was the reason of clarifying the market position in the hope of giving consumers confidence in picking one side or the other and thereby hopefully stimulating sales.  That's the reason Warner has given for their move so at least their decision was backed by some sound logic, not just a few dollars.  This move by Warner really puts Paramount in the position of finding no chair as the music stops.  Unless they have an escape clause, their next 18 months or so seem awfully lonely, at least in the HD movie sales side.  I'm not sure when Universal's contract is up, IF they actually have one, but now it wouldn't surprise anyone if they do the same thing Warner has.

 Over the past few months, I would have been really surprised if ANYONE switched sides to exclusivity.  If anything, I would have expected some companies to go neutral to see where the sales led.  Fortunately, or unfortunately depending on your view, the sales skew that was being witnessed was enough to convince the BD studios to stay where they are and was enough to convince companies like Warner and NewLine to cut short the money they were losing on producing both HD formats.  Hell, EITHER way it went it IS better for consumers that the studios pick just one format.  There's not enough advantage in either format to justify keeping them both around. So hopefully we'll have 100% solidification behind BD now, end the confusion and see if and how fast the HD media market can pick up to a significant level when compared to the SD market.  Obviously, that will take some doing, but removing the confusion among consumers by making sure they don't hesitate in purchasing HD technology for fear of picking a loser is the first logical step in that direction.

For the record, yes, I think Paramount made the wrong move.  The reason is that it only would have extended the confusion and the war.  If Warner had stayed neutral, that would have been fine by me and if any BD only studio had gone neutral, that would have made more sense to me as well.  Going exclusive to the side that was consistently losing in media sales however had the ring of being a move only driven by one-time payment money and only hurt consumers by stretching out the confusion.  Technically of course, ANY exclusive studio going neutral would have done the same thing.  Going neutral in adding support for BD however, would have made business sense since it was outselling HD-DVD.  Again, going exclusive to the side being "whipped" in sales however....not a convincing move when you announce that you're doing so in support of consumers.  Especially when most consumers just wanted to war to be over so they could pick a side without getting a headache or ulcer. :)