I keep reading that $150M was paid to Paramount/Dreamworks, but where is the proof? I even believed it, but after the categorical denial by Amir, then who did it? Where did the money come from?

Maybe it never happened! Why cover it up if it did? I would be gloating that I gave a format exclusivity for that much money if I was the CEO of Paramount! $150M for a format for HD DVD exclusivity when HDM is 1% of the total home movie market!. If it is true, why cover it up? It wasn't mentioned in the Paramount press release. It has been speculated, even reported, but you can't say that Paramount was given $150M if you can't say, with proof, who did it. If I was Paramount and it was true, it would be in the press release. If that was true, so what if it pisses off a few BD fans. I doubt they were worried about pissing off BD fan boys, otherwise they wouldn't have made the deal. I'll certainly bet the accountants would have said: great deal! The shareholders would be clapping for the relatively free money!

But there appears (from what I have read) to be no proof of this at all(so far)! Now just imagine for a moment if they WERE NOT paid off and made their decision on plain business economics? Could you imagine the consequences for BD? A neutral studio going exclusive to the competition because their replication costs were less and they believed the competition had better attach rates and long term hardware sales forecasts! Talk about a disaster!

I could be wrong of course, but just telling me that I am wrong and that $150M changed hands isn't enough. I want to know who paid the $$$ and when, on what terms if it is true. Poor BD if it's not!

Contract details are not public knowledge. It could be 50/100/150/200/etc... million or maybe they traded hi five's. Either way, unless a Paramount exec willing to be quoted and NAMED with go on record with the details or the paying party, you'll never know the full details.

I believe the "$150m" figure was actually put out by Sony's press agency, if that helps.

Contract details are not public knowledge. It could be 50/100/150/200/etc... million or maybe they traded hi five's. Either way, unless a Paramount exec willing to be quoted and NAMED with go on record with the details or the paying party, you'll never know the full details.

If you believe Amir, it wasn't MSFT.

I believe the "$150m" figure was actually put out by Sony's press agency, if that helps.

Wrong, It was from an insider at paramount who is very close to the source who choose to remain anonymous according to the article the NYT and 16 other news papers websites etc posted... Gotta love the BS spin, where did you think of that one??? Oh thats right its always Sony's fault..

If I recall correctly the NY Times article cited two anonymous Viacom executives as their source for the $150 million information.

Here is a link to the article.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/21/technology/21disney.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

"But money talks: Paramount and DreamWorks Animation together will receive about $150 million in financial incentives for their commitment to HD DVD, according to two Viacom executives with knowledge of the deal but who asked not to be identified."

It wasn't bribe money. If Paramount were open to taking bribe money, the BDA would have paid them off to stay neutral or go BD exclusive.

The BDA certainly would have coughed up more than the $150 million number their marketing squad fabricated in order to keep Paramount in their corner.

Nope, it wasn't a bribe that convinced Paramount to abandon Blu Ray. There is no logic in a bribe being the reason because the BDA throws money at everything and that could not prevent this from happening.

This is a nightmare for BD no matter which way you look at it, pay off or not it doesn't make a difference. It most certainly is bad news for Blu-ray, period!

I even believed it, but after the categorical denial by Amir, then who did it?LOL. Microsoft gave them $150 million. Amir is not a credible source of information.

LOL. Microsoft gave them $150 million. Amir is not a credible source of information.

Dont be silly!

Amir stated this denial in PUBLIC. If he is lying, MS would be sued to the ends of the earth. Why on earth would he risk MS one billion to hide 150 million? Think it through!

LOL. Microsoft gave them $150 million. Amir is not a credible source of information.

At last a truthfull post!!!! :eek:;)


:rolleyes:

Here is a link to the article.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/21/technology/21disney.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

"But money talks: Paramount and DreamWorks Animation together will receive about $150 million in financial incentives for their commitment to HD DVD, according to two Viacom executives with knowledge of the deal but who asked not to be identified."

Just a quick question...is it possible this money just came out of the HD DVD Forum's slush fund?

Sounds more like a partnership than a "bribe" as the blu-boys spin it.

Just a quick question...is it possible this money just came out of the HD DVD Forum's slush fund?


Slush fund? I think you are confusing HD DVD with the smurfs and their tactics.

LOL. Microsoft gave them $150 million. Amir is not a credible source of information.

And you are? I would believe a man who's job depends on not telling lies to someone that doesn't even use his real name when he posts BS like this. I hope MS sues your ass off!

Just a quick question...is it possible this money just came out of the HD DVD Forum's slush fund?

Sure it's possible. I don't get all this ado over financial incentives. Is there anyone who seriously thinks Sony didn't give financial incentives to some of its exclusive studios? This is business folks, that's how the game is played. There is nothing illegal or unethical about it. Ultimately, do you think that Paramount/Dreamworks would go exclusive just for the money? This is a drop in the bucket compared to future earning potential.

Dont be silly!

Amir stated this denial in PUBLIC. If he is lying, MS would be sued to the ends of the earth. Why on earth would he risk MS one billion to hide 150 million? Think it through!

Amir is factually correct, because Microsoft & Toshiba would have paid the money through their support of the HD-DVD Marketing Group, not directly. So the members of the group collectively pick up the $150m tab, and the DVD Promotions group writes the check.

So when Amir says that MSFT didn't write Paramount a check, he is technically correct. Ask him if MSFT recently committed to pay a ~$150m sum to the HD-DVD promotions group and see if he is willing to officially deny that.

And you are? I would believe a man who's job depends on not telling lies to someone that doesn't even use his real name when he posts BS like this. I hope MS sues your ass off!
Amir is a VP of one small faction of Microsoft's operations. My company has more than 20 VP's of this & that and we're not 1/500th the size of MS. Do you really think any of these guys are privy to the inner workings at the highest level? Uh uh.

Amir is factually correct, because Microsoft & Toshiba would have paid the money through their support of the HD-DVD Marketing Group, not directly. So the members of the group collectively pick up the $150m tab, and the DVD Promotions group writes the check.

So when Amir says that MSFT didn't write Paramount a check, he is technically correct. Ask him if MSFT recently committed to pay a ~$150m sum to the HD-DVD promotions group and see if he is willing to officially deny that.

Actually, Amir categorically denied that as well. He posted a response to that question yesterday.

Okay, I found Amir's denial. Here it is.
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showpost.php?p=11370637&postcount=2367

Sounds more like a partnership than a "bribe" as the blu-boys spin it.

No a partnership is when Sony gives a comany 150 million dollars.

No, no, the real truth is that the 2 Viacom Execs were in charge of the BR side when Paramount was neutral. They said Paramount got paid as the door was hitting on the A$$ on their way out. Since we don't have BR anymore, we don't need you two anymore either. So they decided to spill all to the NYT as they were at Target checking out the endcaps and applying for work there. :P

See I can spread FUD too as BR has done. Show me the money! Then I'll believe it, until then all this is pointless.

And you are? I would believe a man who's job depends on not telling lies to someone that doesn't even use his real name when he posts BS like this.

Then you must trust Amir when he said "I imagine some marketing incentive is put in there based on press articles that came out yesterday. But no one has provided me with a single line item of any contract between Paramount or other companies let alone have it say what money is changing hands."

He says explicitly that he assumes the reports of financial payoof are true, he is just denying that it was MS. Don't BS around like this is "a partnership". Enough people were pissed off within Paramount that they leaked confidential details to the press (unless you think that Amir's non-denial is stronger than several reporters' quotes; they can go to jail for deliberate misinformation).

I don't get all this ado over financial incentives. Is there anyone who seriously thinks Sony didn't give financial incentives to some of its exclusive studios?

I'm with you so far...


This is business folks, that's how the game is played. There is nothing illegal or unethical about it.

Whoops, now you're full of it! It probably isn't illegal (at least, not enough to get a pro-corporate DoJ to look into it), but it's rabidly unethical. Paramount just said "F-you" to the majority of HDM customers while taking a very large "incentives package" to do so. Their statemennts (including "coming soon"' promos in their own BDs) clearly indicated to customers that Paramount was comitting to making Blu-rays (and in fact, their extra money spent to produce higher bit-rate audio and video encodes suggested a slight preference of late). People bought machines and made preorders based upon this comittment, and now Paramount is screwing those customers. I know people who were thinking of the ALREADY ANNOUNCED titles like Top Gun and Face/Off when they made their purchases. I'm sure the numerous "release dates subject to change" weasil-wording protects Paramount legally, but this is easily the least ethical tactic yet in the format wars; I will not be buying a Paramount product for years to come, regardless of who wins this war (otoh, I will buy Universal products, even if I'm not supporting HD DVD any more...Universal did not promise product they then withdrew from customers).


Ultimately, do you think that Paramount/Dreamworks would go exclusive just for the money?

Well, let's trying thinking for a moment...if Paramount simply decided they liked HD DVD better, and hey, maybe pick up some incentives to help promote their new favorite format, they could have simply announced that they were shifting their attention to HD DVD, while still releasing their announced BD titles. This would have provided ample warning to customers, while still putting a lot of weight behind HD DVD heading into the holidays. Instead, they are destroying already pressed BD's that wer to go on sale Tuesday, not shipping a single announced title, and generally making moves that make no sense in terms of customer loyalty, but make perfect sense if whoever paid their "financial incentives" to the tune of $150,000,000 demanded such actions to help make it look like HD DVD sales get better right away (BoG was already preselling better on BD by far...again) and to even out the holiday blockbusters (Transformers and Shrek).

Anyone who pretends that Paramount did this for love of HD DVD, or out of concern for their customers are full of sh!t.

Okay ottscay, I'll back off the ethics bit. You're right, it is unethical for Paramount not to provide announced titles on BD but BD fans should be used to this with Fox (sorry, I couldn't resist). I'm sure there are plenty of disappointed people who were looking forward to the announced titles and that is unfortunate. I do believe however, that Paramount would not have gone exclusive merely for the financial incentives. They studied the situation and determined HD DVD was the better fit for them and the future. I am of course not naive enough to think that the concern for consumers is entirely altruistic. The vast majority of businesses only care about their customers to the degree that it affects their bottom line.

Sony has burned customers in the past with failed formats, you're a fool to buy into a sony format and not expect the possibility of it going pear shaped.

They have the worst track record in the industry when it comes to media formats. Hell even the recent failed UMD format should of been a massive warning sign to most.

Amir is factually correct, because Microsoft & Toshiba would have paid the money through their support of the HD-DVD Marketing Group, not directly. So the members of the group collectively pick up the $150m tab, and the DVD Promotions group writes the check.

So when Amir says that MSFT didn't write Paramount a check, he is technically correct. Ask him if MSFT recently committed to pay a ~$150m sum to the HD-DVD promotions group and see if he is willing to officially deny that.Touche! Maybe with some more Zune deals with Toshiba, too :p

Paid off or not, the content that was previously announced and expected to come isn't coming. That is the bottom line and what sucks for the majority of early adopters. Many of which made purchases based on these expections.

I'm with you so far...




Whoops, now you're full of it! It probably isn't illegal (at least, not enough to get a pro-corporate DoJ to look into it), but it's rabidly unethical. Paramount just said "F-you" to the majority of HDM customers while taking a very large "incentives package" to do so. Their statemennts (including "coming soon"' promos in their own BDs) clearly indicated to customers that Paramount was comitting to making Blu-rays (and in fact, their extra money spent to produce higher bit-rate audio and video encodes suggested a slight preference of late). People bought machines and made preorders based upon this comittment, and now Paramount is screwing those customers. I know people who were thinking of the ALREADY ANNOUNCED titles like Top Gun and Face/Off when they made their purchases. I'm sure the numerous "release dates subject to change" weasil-wording protects Paramount legally, but this is easily the least ethical tactic yet in the format wars; I will not be buying a Paramount product for years to come, regardless of who wins this war (otoh, I will buy Universal products, even if I'm not supporting HD DVD any more...Universal did not promise product they then withdrew from customers).



Well, let's trying thinking for a moment...if Paramount simply decided they liked HD DVD better, and hey, maybe pick up some incentives to help promote their new favorite format, they could have simply announced that they were shifting their attention to HD DVD, while still releasing their announced BD titles. This would have provided ample warning to customers, while still putting a lot of weight behind HD DVD heading into the holidays. Instead, they are destroying already pressed BD's that wer to go on sale Tuesday, not shipping a single announced title, and generally making moves that make no sense in terms of customer loyalty, but make perfect sense if whoever paid their "financial incentives" to the tune of $150,000,000 demanded such actions to help make it look like HD DVD sales get better right away (BoG was already preselling better on BD by far...again) and to even out the holiday blockbusters (Transformers and Shrek).

Anyone who pretends that Paramount did this for love of HD DVD, or out of concern for their customers are full of sh!t.

Do you even understand the meaning of the word "ethical"? How is Paramount's business decision unethical? They promised nothing to you or any PS3 owner. Did you pay anything to Paramount personally to guarantee you Blu-Ray movies for perpetuity? Did Paramount trick you into buying Blu-Ray? Was FOX unethical when they cancelled all of their Blu-Ray scheduled releases earlier this year? There is nothing unethical about any scenario which the raving lunatic fringe of the blu-ray camp seems to think have happened. Businesses sign exclusivity agreements ALL the time. Was it unethical of Apple to declare network exclusivity with AT&T wireless? How much did AT&T pay for that right? Was it unethical of Bank of America to bail out Countrywide mortgage with 2 Billion dollars? According to you, business should be an altruistic function designed to make your life specifically, better. Sorry to inform you, but the real word isnt like that. Go to college, get a business degree and learn how things work.

This petulant fanboy attitude of being upset over Paramount making a business decision is hilarious.

Paid off or not, the content that was previously announced and expected to come isn't coming. That is the bottom line and what sucks for the majority of early adopters. Many of which made purchases based on these expections.

So which is it? BD hardware sales have been entirely predicated on the promise of buying Paramount movies? Are you serious?

This is the risk you take by being an early adopter. Too bad the buy in cost for BD is 2.5 times that of HD DVD.

So which is it? BD hardware sales have been entirely predicated on the promise of buying Paramount movies? Are you serious?

This is the risk you take by being an early adopter. Too bad the buy in cost for BD is 2.5 times that of HD DVD.

lol, calm down. I was serious but read again and respond again without putting words in my mouth (like "entirely") that I didn't say and you'll do just fine. :)

Also, you might want to check the pricing on players and software, your math is quite a bit off (unless you are cherry picking and not comparing MSRP to MSRP) ;)

If you are still confused then I'll respond to any questions tomorrow if I remember (way too many avs notifications lately, lol)

Why do I get the feeling that the majority of posters here think that financial incentives = showing up at the studio gates with a suitcase full of cash?
Financial incentives are much more likely to be in the form of things like co-op advertising (HD DVD players advertised with scenes from a Parmount movie for example) or waiving royalty or production fees. The latter in particular translates into a potentially HUGE benefit for consumers as it actually encourages the studio to release more product, not less.

Also, why are people disregarding the fact that Bell specifically spoke to the fact that HD DVD was easier to work with? In the case of the upcoming Transformers, Paramount was looking at the same situation Warner faced with 300. All these great bells and whistles would be unavailable to the vast majority of Bd owners- so why waste putting them on a disc if they can't be used? And if they aren't on the disc, what encourages others out there to jump into HD if it offers only an equivlent experience to DVD? HD DVD has
1) better hardware price points, that will be in impulse purchase range in 2-3 months
2) fully formed and functional specs for advanced interactive content
3) lower across the board production costs.
4) much higher attach rates

is it really that difficult to see why a studio with a long range vision would commit exclusively to the side offering all that, when a few cost incentives are thrown their way?

Also- is it just possible that Blu-rays early strategy was based on a presumed quick-kill from the PS3, and as such- all their royalty and production financial incentives were shorter term and about to expire...making production of Blu-ray discs a much more expensive, therefore less rewarding, proposition?

What is the difference if they were paid or not? Business is business. You think that money never changes hands when two companies partner up?

And to BD supporters saying it is unethical, do you think that Sony is above these kind of practices? They have participated in FAR less ethical affairs than financial incentives. (ie. phony movie reviewers, phony web sites, cd's with hidden root kits, etc)

The NY story is crap, they would have to be really high up to know the details and you aren't going to find one stupid exec that would risk his job let alone 2. What would NYT be doing in Hollywood? this must have come in via a phone call (or 2). Bill Hunt probably called them.

When a promotion such as "Five free movies when you buy an HD DVD player" is in effect, those five free movies must be paid for. This is one of the elements of that $150 million in incentives that are part of the Paramount/DWA deal. For instance, there will be HD DVD promotions involving three DWA animated titles: SHREK THE THIRD, BEE MOVIE and KUNG FU PANDA.

It's not like someone rolled an armored car up to Melrose Ave. in Hollywood and heavily-armed guys dragged bags of money out. That's a ludicrous notion.

-E


-E

I believe the "$150m" figure was actually put out by Sony's press agency, if that helps.

Which for some weird reason is exactly the figure the HDDVD promotions group has publicly stated they had earmarked for marketing.

I keep reading that $150M was paid to Paramount/Dreamworks, but where is the proof?
I could be wrong of course, but just telling me that I am wrong and that $150M changed hands isn't enough. I want to know who paid the $$$ and when, on what terms if it is true. Poor BD if it's not!


I'll give you my reasoning as to why I believe there was some sort of payment/deal done.

This was done way too fast for it to be simply a decision based on the econmics of the two formats (disregarding any payment of course).

Blades of Glory was 7 days away from release. Paramount have already invested significant amounts of money both developing and producing this movie on BD. I would expect that the finished product would already be in the chain at this late stage.

Now if they decided that going forward BD simply didn't make financial sense, wouldn't they announce that they'll be going exlcusive in the future and not develop future titles for BD? Why would they cancel a title that they've already spent all that money getting ready for market? Wouldn't you release what you had or would you simply send hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of work to landfill?

It makes no sense to think that they wouldn't try to recoup that investment by selling this title (and any that were close to completion) unless they were paid some form of compensation for it.

At last a truthfull post!!!! :eek:;)


:rolleyes:

'Nother low-post-count blooey checking in...:rolleyes:

Paramount did a deal with HD DVD for exclusive content, I don't think this full split from Blu Ray was intended. Paramount announced going exclusive after Sony leaked the story about the exclusive content. Blame Sony for no BOG on Blu Ray.

1) better hardware price points, that will be in impulse purchase range in 2-3 months

Hardware price is part of the strategy, not a fact based on real lower cost to produce. And strategies may change or get adapted as time goes. Everyone is gonna do promotions to lower prices and allow for impulse purchases this holidays season.

2) fully formed and functional specs for advanced interactive content

An the spin that BD-J doesn't work continues. BD-J is a programing language, more complex than iHD, and therefore more prone to problems. It is also very upgradeable on the final products, and has much more capabilities to be deployed than anything iHD can do right now. And despite the marketing, with the exception of internet access(you can't believe how many people are just waiting to get a dedicated new cable from their computer/modem to the home theater so that they can access content on the internet!! what a novelty...) and PiP(which BD specs allow for more than what HD-DVD can do, and most likely the PS3s will be able to fully support it), BD-J is fully functional on ALL BD players sold, and so such high-value interactive features can be implemented on BD and work on all players. In fact, Toshiba's fixed spec had quite a lot of bugs, and Toshiba's fixed spec is still trying to accommodate a 51GB disc, that will, at least, require a firmware upgrade(something Toshiba's user's should be used to by now...)
3) lower across the board production costs.

This is the only real fact. HD-DVD DISCS are cheaper to produce and more replicators are available.

4) much higher attach rates

Attach rates don't mean anything unless you can determine how many BD players have been sold. And unfortunately for both Sony and the HD-DVD group, the number of PS3s sold don't work instead. You can say all PS3s are BD players in the view of the consumer, and therefore their attach rate is bad, or you can read the research widely publicized about how many PS3 users actually are aware and ready to consume HD content. At the end of the day, BD was selling discs 2:1 and increasing their lead. if Paramount and now Warner just withdraw the BD camp, they are trying to force the figures down, instead of letting the consumers chose what to buy. One can argue that Fox and Disney have been doing the same, and so did Universal, so screwing the customer's ability to choose is fair. I guess it's easier to take it as fair when you're not someone that bought a BD player with expectations of buying BD discs from Warner and Paramount... At least Universal, Fox and Disney have been pretty clear of where they stand from the beginning.(And Fox can release their disks whenever they want to. If they don't, I just buy stuff from other content providers. And Fox has had reasons to not publish, since copy protection was a big reason for them to stay on the BD camp. I guess Paramount and maybe Warner didn't want to see if BD+ actually works, trying to get steam out of the BD train before the Holidays season killed HD-DVD. )

Allan

With all the accounting scandals, it isn't like Paramount is going to cook the books to hide this. If they did receive $150 million extra, it will show up somewhere on their annual report. It may be lumped in with other things, but a $150 million bump for this year over last should be something you can find.

Thanks Allan, I was going to post something similar. I believe Paramount made this switch for the benefit of all HD consumers. This media is only going to be sucessful if only one format is around, and paramount is doing their part to make sure the one they feel is better suited for mass replication wins. If Warner would hurry up and come to the same conclusion, that being dual format is hurting sales not helping, HD media will soon be selling more on one format than they ever did on two.

Paid off or not, the content that was previously announced and expected to come isn't coming. That is the bottom line and what sucks for the majority of early adopters. Many of which made purchases based on these expections.

Exactly right. This is very, very different from a studio like Universal going neutral. This is promised product - effectively shafting people that purchased a Blu-Ray player when Paramount was dishonestly touting neutrality.

Blu-Ray still has the advantage. Yes, there's a silly robot movie that appeals mostly to the PS3 demographic (as coined by all the HD-DVD fans here with a clearly superior taste in movies *cough*).

Some principled consumers will hopefully see this for what it is and deny Paramount their money.

Get over it guys, as a few of the previous posters said, this is business. And $150 million is $150 million.

Do you think Para would have made $150 million over the next 18 months on HDM? Hell no. Any smart business would have done what they did.

I'll give you my reasoning as to why I believe there was some sort of payment/deal done.

This was done way too fast for it to be simply a decision based on the econmics of the two formats (disregarding any payment of course).

Blades of Glory was 7 days away from release. Paramount have already invested significant amounts of money both developing and producing this movie on BD. I would expect that the finished product would already be in the chain at this late stage.

Now if they decided that going forward BD simply didn't make financial sense, wouldn't they announce that they'll be going exlcusive in the future and not develop future titles for BD? Why would they cancel a title that they've already spent all that money getting ready for market? Wouldn't you release what you had or would you simply send hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of work to landfill?

It makes no sense to think that they wouldn't try to recoup that investment by selling this title (and any that were close to completion) unless they were paid some form of compensation for it.

In that case you do not understand how corporations work. There was always going to be a cut off with some titles in the pipeline that would be discarded. Paramount has been very circumspect in what they have put out so far....they were testing the waters clearly.

There is no proof that money was paid and if anything shows Par#mount did their due diligence and came to a decision...stop buying into the BDA FUD machine which is in damage control mode...and grasping at straws.

When you think about it, 150 million isn't that much to a movie studio. Hell, that's the budget of one summer blockbuster. Regardless, a move like this is something every early adopter should be prepared for. Otherwise, maybe early adoption isn't for you.

I think Paramount did it for the $150 million -- plain and simple. That's a lot of money even for a movie studio. It's probably more profit than they'll make on the sale of HD-DVD or BR discs.

Read this interview with the Paramount CTO. I think he give a bunch of lame answers that clearly show that this decision had nothing to do with technology or consumers and everything to do with dough-ra-me.

Paramount CTO interview (http://www.macworld.com/news/2007/08/22/paramount_hddvd/index.php)

When you think about it, 150 million isn't that much to a movie studio. Hell, that's the budget of one summer blockbuster. Regardless, a move like this is something every early adopter should be prepared for. Otherwise, maybe early adoption isn't for you.
Exactly, pretty much chump change to these companies. Let's put it in perspective - Bill Gates wrote Jobs a check for 110 million at a party.....from his personal account.

Not a huge amount of money by corporate standards.

Is there any proof at all that Blades of Glory BD discs were even pressed? Did any reviewer get one?

Exactly, pretty much chump change to these companies. Let's put it in perspective - Bill Gates wrote Jobs a check for 110 million at a party.....from his personal account.

Not a huge amount of money by corporate standards.


No, but I am sure that it is more than the whole HDM market has made in profits since inception. Mayber a couple times over. /shrug

Amir is factually correct, because Microsoft & Toshiba would have paid the money through their support of the HD-DVD Marketing Group, not directly. So the members of the group collectively pick up the $150m tab, and the DVD Promotions group writes the check.

So when Amir says that MSFT didn't write Paramount a check, he is technically correct. Ask him if MSFT recently committed to pay a ~$150m sum to the HD-DVD promotions group and see if he is willing to officially deny that.

Finally some one who understands! If anyone paid $ to Paramount it was the HD DVD Promotion Group. So it was probably a combination of MS, Toshiba, Universal (funny), HP, NEC and others. Sure MS may have provided the bulk of it.

To all low post count noobs with ID's created since the Paramount/Dreamworks annoucement.

Perhaps the forum over at www.blu-ray.bomb would be more sympathetic to your eyes. Over there you can talk about how many stars you earned on guitar zero playing Wille Nelsons "Blue eyes crying in the rain"

Or you can discuss under which rock you found the sneaky boots in your latest role playing game.

There really isn't much here for you ... really.

BD's Worst Nightmare . . . . $149 MSRP A3 HD DVD player.

Exactly right. This is very, very different from a studio like Universal going neutral. This is promised product - effectively shafting people that purchased a Blu-Ray player when Paramount was dishonestly touting neutrality.

Blu-Ray still has the advantage. Yes, there's a silly robot movie that appeals mostly to the PS3 demographic (as coined by all the HD-DVD fans here with a clearly superior taste in movies *cough*).

Some principled consumers will hopefully see this for what it is and deny Paramount their money.

This is the price paid for being an early adopter. There are no guarantees in life. Most people had to be aware of the uncertainty in the market when purchasing hi def players and movies. May not be fair but that is life.

Personally I think some people need to grow up. Welcome to the corporate world. If there was incentives or not is just all speculation and if there was I would of paid more. Sony should be the last one questioning there ethics and values given there past and present. The truth of the matter is what is done is done. The format war can go either way and it can go no way only time will tell. Everything can change overnight in a format war as we just witnessed. Paramount did what was in there best interest for there company nothing more nothing less. The way I see it is Sony got slapped in the face with its own game, claiming the format war was over and it stung a little. Get Over It!

Whoops, now you're full of it! It probably isn't illegal (at least, not enough to get a pro-corporate DoJ to look into it), but it's rabidly unethical. Paramount just said "F-you" to the majority of HDM customers while taking a very large "incentives package" to do so. Their statemennts (including "coming soon"' promos in their own BDs) clearly indicated to customers that Paramount was comitting to making Blu-rays (and in fact, their extra money spent to produce higher bit-rate audio and video encodes suggested a slight preference of late). People bought machines and made preorders based upon this comittment, and now Paramount is screwing those customers. I know people who were thinking of the ALREADY ANNOUNCED titles like Top Gun and Face/Off when they made their purchases. I'm sure the numerous "release dates subject to change" weasil-wording protects Paramount legally, but this is easily the least ethical tactic yet in the format wars; I will not be buying a Paramount product for years to come, regardless of who wins this war (otoh, I will buy Universal products, even if I'm not supporting HD DVD any more...Universal did not promise product they then withdrew from customers).
.[/QUOTE]


Sony promised me full 1080p support on the PS3 with a wide diversity of 1080p games that were light years beyond what the XB360 could provide, so far all I've seen on their end is one big F-you and the complete inabilty to deliver on their own promises. Should I stop supporting Sony because of this fact?

People seem to forget Toshiba has IP in standard DVD and has deep pockets from those royalties. This deal could have been something like waiving the royalties on DVD and HD DVD until it reaches point $X.

I wouldn't be surprised if not $1 changed hands, and the incentive consists of future marketing considerations as mentioned earlier, with values that could reach the numbers thrown out. I completely doubt those numbers anyway, as they could have been made up, as someone else said, by two disgruntled Viacom troops who staked their future on BD.

BD's Worst Nightmare . . . . $149 MSRP A3 HD DVD player.



Pfft, Fox or Disney going neutral would be MUCH worse than that.

I wouldn't be surprised if not $1 changed hands, and the incentive consists of future marketing considerations as mentioned earlier, with values that could reach the numbers thrown out. I completely doubt those numbers anyway, as they could have been made up, as someone else said, by two disgruntled Viacom troops who staked their future on BD.



I wouldnt be surprised if $150 million did change hands. /shrug

People who blame Para for taking the cash= non realistic
People who think they didnt take any cash= non realistic

My opinion is, if money did change hands, that wasn't the major reason for switching to HDDVD exclusivity. The interview with Paramount CTO Alan Bell is pretty revealing in the major reasons for the change. But to play devils advocate, if could be those reasons plus the money.

I think the real key to the reason is in the vague retraction from Michael Bay. He said that he uninformedly exploded when he heard the news and that he denied doing TF2 because of it. But he then retracted his statements and apologised for them after he spoke with Paramount execs and they showed him "the reasons" for the switch, as well, as after a viewing of 300 on HDDVD and what was capable with this format.

Again, there were no specifics other than Bay now understood what Paramounts decision was made on. But I can't see him saying "oh, ok, they gave you $150 mill, good enough reason for me, I like HDDVD."

It's more like "I see what you mean, it's easier and more cost effectifve here, and prices are coming down there, and with BD we have to do this and that and it is more difficult and expensive".

Maybe the $150 mill is a thank you, or some funding for a facility upgrade, some funding for additional software people...but the money is purely speculation. Sure it may have changed hands, but what for is again, completely speculation.

Paid off or not, the content that was previously announced and expected to come isn't coming. That is the bottom line and what sucks for the majority of early adopters. Many of which made purchases based on these expections.



That's true. Paramount should still release the titles previously announced. I feel bad for BD only guys.

I find the moral outrage over a possible Paramount deal amusing.

This type of deal-making has been around since before these formats even launched. One would have to be very, very, very naive to think that the HD DVD and Blu-ray groups have had no such back-room deals until now.

I don't have a dog in this fight, but I think some of you guys are missing the point. HDM sales aren't going to driven by platform this fall, they're going to be driven by the sales of high-definition televisions. (Does anybody know, for example, how many PS3s are hooked up to standard-def TVs? Might explain a lot.)

Q4 is going to be a record for HD TV sales. And Paramount wants to be sure the reference video shown on all those screens in big box stores causing all those ooos and aaaahs is Transformers, and not Spidey 3.

There's your "promotional consideration." Do you think Sony Entertainment would let a deal like be cut at Spidey 3's expense? Don't think so.

And that, to me, is the ultimate weakness of Blu-Ray. Not the technology, but the old problem of the operating system provider also being in the software biz (see Microsoft vs Everybody). Sooner or later, Sony's not going to be able to resist the temptation to give their movies just a leetle bit extra help, and then it's say goodbye to Disney and Fox.

Sony's top to bottom business model has its advantages, but as you say, it also has its disadvantages.

Sony can most definitely leverage their catalogue (such as Spidey) for a significant advantage in the war. OTOH, Microsoft and Toshiba do not compete against the studios whereas Sony does, which obviously makes some of the studios very uncomfortable with Blu-ray.

Do you even understand the meaning of the word "ethical"?

"ethical - conforming to accepted standards of social or professional behavior"
- thefreedictionary.com

How is Paramount's business decision unethical? They promised nothing to you or any PS3 owner.

I've never owned a PS3; your assumption here is as wrong as the rest of your post.

Did you pay anything to Paramount personally to guarantee you Blu-Ray movies for perpetuity? Did Paramount trick you into buying Blu-Ray?

I paid Paramount several times, for Flags of our Fathers, Letters from Iwo Jima, etc. And each one came with a "Coming Soon" insert and set of trailers, informing me (as the consumer) that several more excellent Paramount titles were coming to Blu-ray. Now to be fair I actually bought my Panny BD player for other studios (because Paramount was neutral and I already had an HD DVD player) so I wasn't personally "tricked" into it, but I have several friends who actually pre-ordered Top Gun, the Jack Ryan Collection, Face/Off, and Transformers the day they bought their players (those people did buy the PS3).

What if at Cedia Paramount said they were kidding, that they are actually pulling all of their HD DVD titles they have announced, and going back to Blu-ray? I'd be elated, but I wouldn't pretend like they weren't screwing you and other HD DVD owners in the process (especially ones who ran out and bought a player after this announcement). It is unethical to announce products (in this case products that can entice customers to buy expensive hardware to use their producst on) and then pull them (even destroying already paid for disks!).

They could have simply said they liked HD DVD better and would not be announcing any more titles for Blu-ray; this would have given warning to everyone, and not screwed those who had already pre-ordered their movies. But then Blu-ray would still have been kicking the snot out of HD DVD sales, which MSFToshiba couldn't have, so instead the $150,000,000 deal requied them to stop immediately, to pull BoG disks already in the shipping docks and destroy them, and to cancel all preordered disks (including those already in production).

That is unethical.

Was FOX unethical when they cancelled all of their Blu-Ray scheduled releases earlier this year?

Sheesh, the HD DVD fanboys have been telling us it was unethical for months now, and what a joke of a company they were for doing it. Do I really have to answer that? At least Fox only delayed their annonced titles, and presumably they didn't take a payoff (sorry, "incentives package) to do so. Their paranoia is delusional and wrong, but not vindictive.

Businesses sign exclusivity agreements ALL the time. Was it unethical of Apple to declare network exclusivity with AT&T wireless? How much did AT&T pay for that right?

Their exclusivity was bought up front, no customers spent money on announced products that were withdrawn. Look, I'm not criticizing Universal, Disney, etc. Of COURSE exclusivity deals happen all the time. But it IS normal for companies to provide a grace period after an announced transition so that current customers are not left out in the rain.

Here's a fun challenge for you: Try to find an ACTUAL analogy, rather than some stupid "the iPhone is exclusive" BS. Find a single example of a company going exclusive a year after their product was released, and make sure your example has no grace period to help current customers migrate (if they choose) to the new platform. Then see how people reacted to it.

According to you, business should be an altruistic function designed to make your life specifically, better.

WTF? Of course not. There is a difference between making money ethically and doing so unethically though. Are you saying we should remove child-labour laws because they only serve an altruistic purpose? I am saying that companies should not pull already announced products in order to collect large incentives packages. The HD DVD cartel could have bought off Paramount last year when customers had not yet bought into either format, but they mistakenly thought their stupid strategy of lower priced hardware with less movies could work; now they are so desperate that they had to buy immediate exclusivity, existing customer's be damned.

Sorry to inform you, but the real word isnt like that. Go to college, get a business degree and learn how things work.

That's funny in so many ways I can't tell you, except perhaps to point out that I have several degrees. And am an executive in a business. And have published several scientific and technical papers. But whatever...why let facts get in the way of your ad hominem attacks...you don't bother with facts anywhere else inyour post, so why ruin your perfect record :rolleyes:

Edit: I am not claiming anyone should believe me because of my background; like every other post at AVS, my post should live or die on its facts and internal reasoning, I was just offering up a bit about my background to counter the pointless ad hominem attack levelled against me.

Selling obselete players with demo discs touting internet interactivity is unethical.

Your friends should have bought an HD DVD player for these specific titles. They can still do that. It's a smarter move than buying a game machine that got more firmware releases than actual game releases.

Pfft, Fox or Disney going neutral would be MUCH worse than that.

So what are the odds of YOUR worst nightmare happening . . . compared to mine?

Selling obselete players with demo discs touting internet interactivity is unethical.

Your friends should have bought an HD DVD player for these specific titles. They can still do that. It's a smarter move than buying a game machine that got more firmware releases than actual game releases.

ROTF . . LMFAO!

And you are? I would believe a man who's job depends on not telling lies to someone that doesn't even use his real name when he posts BS like this. I hope MS sues your ass off!

Right because amir and m$ is in the buisness of facts.

Amir and the rest of the army of hd-dvd insiders are here for one purpose... Viral marketing. The only difference then tradiontal marketers is they tell you who they are. But it does not change why they are here.

I'll give you my reasoning as to why I believe there was some sort of payment/deal done.

This was done way too fast for it to be simply a decision based on the econmics of the two formats (disregarding any payment of course).

Blades of Glory was 7 days away from release. Paramount have already invested significant amounts of money both developing and producing this movie on BD. I would expect that the finished product would already be in the chain at this late stage.

Now if they decided that going forward BD simply didn't make financial sense, wouldn't they announce that they'll be going exlcusive in the future and not develop future titles for BD? Why would they cancel a title that they've already spent all that money getting ready for market? Wouldn't you release what you had or would you simply send hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of work to landfill?

It makes no sense to think that they wouldn't try to recoup that investment by selling this title (and any that were close to completion) unless they were paid some form of compensation for it.

+1

People bought machines and made preorders based upon this comittment, and now Paramount is screwing those customers.

Could you please provide a link to Paramount making a blood oath to show undying loyalty to BR until the end of time, for better or for worse, regardless of whether BDA's promises ever come true or not?

If not, then this business decision is no more or less a broken promise than any other. By your logic, I should not be buying Paramount titles because they shafted me by dropping VHS in favor of DVD after I invested in a VCR.

Fact: studios only have one committment - to protect their own interests
Fact: each person buying either format knows that there is a war going that could result in changing allegiances.

Anyone who bought a BR player thinking otherwise has only themselves to blame for any disappointment felt at this time.

Another fact: we both know that if Paramount had gone BR exclusive, you would not be here speaking ill of Paramount on principle, threatening to boycott them for the sake of protecting the interests HD DVD owners who bought equipment and pre-ordered Paramount titles.

If you feel the need to place blame for not having access to Paramount HD titles on your current equipment, then consider some of the public promises that the BDA has made that have not come true. For specific exhibits, I would refer you to CES 2007 coverage. Then consider that if those kinds of outrageous claims were made in PUBLIC, what kinds of broken promises may have been made in PRIVATE with the studios?

It is not reasonable to expect any studio to remain loyal to any format regardless of that format's backers to be able to keep their end of agreements or to achieve their promised performance and marketshare. Paramount is not worried about a handful of early adopting PS3 owners. They're worried about the general public who they hope to see replace their entire DVD library with HD media over the next decade.

Good luck with your boycott.

I'd be elated, but I wouldn't pretend like they weren't screwing you and other HD DVD owners in the process (especially ones who ran out and bought a player after this announcement). It is unethical to announce products (in this case products that can entice customers to buy expensive hardware to use their producst on) and then pull them (even destroying already paid for disks!).

They could have simply said they liked HD DVD better and would not be announcing any more titles for Blu-ray; this would have given warning to everyone, and not screwed those who had already pre-ordered their movies. But then Blu-ray would still have been kicking the snot out of HD DVD sales, which MSFToshiba couldn't have, so instead the $150,000,000 deal requied them to stop immediately, to pull BoG disks already in the shipping docks and destroy them, and to cancel all preordered disks (including those already in production).
.
I agree that it was pretty harsh, but I disagree as to the "whys". I can't imagine that if Paramount was being courted (in the power position) they would allow these terms, terms that would annoy people. They had the power position, they would use it. It's simply not enough money, it's a single mid level picture. It would seem to me that someone/group in the BDA seriously PO'd the Paramount execs. Annoyed them to the point where they said "screw you, we're gone....as of THIS minute".

It would also account for shock level of the announcement.

Originally Posted by methos75
People bought machines and made preorders based upon this comittment, and now Paramount is screwing those customers.

exactly, just as if I were to buy into HD DVD for Universal titles to only find out a 5 weeks later they were dropping HD DVD support altogether, stop producing previously released titles and cancel all future Universal titles.

Right because amir and m$ is in the buisness of facts.

Amir and the rest of the army of hd-dvd insiders are here for one purpose... Viral marketing. The only difference then tradiontal marketers is they tell you who they are. But it does not change why they are here.
So, Amir stating that he's the VP of Microsoft and is directly involved in HD DVD doesn't count as identification then?

The irony in your statement is thick, considering that's a lot more identification than several of the Blu-ray insiders here are willing to provide.

P.S. What was the name of that Blu-ray viral marketing campaign again? ;)

exactly, just as if I were to buy into HD DVD for Universal titles to only find out a 5 weeks later they were dropping HD DVD support altogether, stop producing previously released titles and cancel all future Universal titles.

See 4 posts above.

My recommendation to you would be to join methos in the Paramount boycott.

exactly, just as if I were to buy into HD DVD for Universal titles to only find out a 5 weeks later they were dropping HD DVD support altogether, stop producing previously released titles and cancel all future Universal titles.

Luckily Universal in on the HD Promotional Group Board, so we do not have to worry about that. And now HD DVD can rely on Paramout for a couple years too!

See 4 posts above.

My recommendation to you would be to join methos in the Paramount boycott.

I love this idea. All the BR fans should boycott Paramount for the next 18 months. Do buy ANY BR discs from them. That'll show 'em!

Maybe methos could boycott Universal too!

exactly, just as if I were to buy into HD DVD for Universal titles to only find out a 5 weeks later they were dropping HD DVD support altogether, stop producing previously released titles and cancel all future Universal titles.
Exactly my point - the question is why? The money stated isn't nearly enough, goodwill costs far more. Business deals are generally amicable - why was this one not?

I find the moral outrage over a possible Paramount deal amusing.




It's actually kind of sad. Littering CES 2007 with false claims and posting fake fan websites was "all's fair in love and war," but now Paramount's decision is "unethical" even though the details of the deal and other reasons for switching may never be fully known to the public.

There's nothing more awkward and embarrasing that an adult throwing a tantrum.

You Blu -folks are a laugh riot. It is so hypocritical to keep bringing up all these unenthical questions when your master ( Sony ) is probably the worst offender in that department than anybody. So please give it a rest, your all starting to look silly.

Aren't these parties involved worried about how their business decision may affect the company's stocks, aren't they answerable to their major shareholders? Especially when it came as a shock to almost everyone who was not directly involved in the decision-making process...

I don't think money, if any, was the main consideration/attraction for this totally "sudden" switch in support. They must have decided that if by this timeframe, certain objectives or aims were not met, they would carry out a different course of action. They've to be answerable to their shareholders for the total switch in support, and they probably have something significant to back them up (non monetary) in front of the shareholders. If money was the main consideration, weren't the shareholders have wanted BDA to fight it out with the HD group to get more monetary gains, since BDA enthusiastically wants to end this war.

I think it is not surprising to have an organisation where not everyone moves in the same direction as the guy at the very top wanted. So one can have different versions of the so-called "truth" or the incomplete truth being leaked from the organisation.

This was done way too fast for it to be simply a decision based on the econmics of the two formats (disregarding any payment of course).

Blades of Glory was 7 days away from release. Paramount have already invested significant amounts of money both developing and producing this movie on BD. I would expect that the finished product would already be in the chain at this late stage.I don't understand what you mean about "too fast"...do you think Alan woke up on Saturday, called his executive buddies and said "You know what would be really funny guys? Let's drop Blu-ray on Monday! That would be hilarious."...sure...:rolleyes:...just because it wasn't leaked doesn't mean it hasn't been in the works for a while. A deal like this doesn't happen overnight. Just because the BDA modus operandi has been to "plan" by the seat of their pants doesn't mean that's Paramount's methodology. Paramount played with Blu-ray for a year and decided that there are far too many issues to roll it out past the early adopters stage. As a studio, I can see their concerns.

Just look at how Paramount started shuffling release dates recently (and never had previously...certainly not most announced titles), Star Trek only on HD DVD/DVD combo (announced in January at CES!).

If you meant "too fast" as in "I didn't see this coming" they you're right about that. I know I'm not the only one so very entertained by the reaction on the other side.

HD DVD Player: $250
HD DVD Discs: $20-30
Blu-ray reaction to Paramount/DreamWorks: Priceless

So what are the odds of YOUR worst nightmare happening . . . compared to mine?


There are not varying degrees to "worst". Worst is an absolute. Or are you actually stating that a player for $149 would be worse than Disney going neutral? I doubt that.

Of course players will be $149, but BR players won't be that far behind.

"LOL. Microsoft gave them $150 million. Amir is not a credible source of information."

And a so called anonymous source is reliable?

Hey I have an anonymous source at WB that says they are going exclusive tomorrow.

Do I win a cookie now?

Sadly this anonymous source is usually wrong and has zero credibility and is a format cheer leader, but I'm stating he is anonymous so it must be true.

I don't understand what you mean about "too fast"...do you think Alan woke up on Saturday, called his executive buddies and said "You know what would be really funny guys? Let's drop Blu-ray on Monday! That would be hilarious."...sure...:rolleyes:...just because it wasn't leaked doesn't mean it hasn't been in the works for a while. A deal like this doesn't happen overnight. Just because the BDA modus operandi has been to "plan" by the seat of their pants doesn't mean that's Paramount's methodology. Paramount played with Blu-ray for a year and decided that there are far too many issues to roll it out past the early adopters stage. As a studio, I can see their concerns.

Just look at how Paramount started shuffling release dates recently (and never had previously...certainly not most announced titles), Star Trek only on HD DVD/DVD combo (announced in January at CES!).

If you meant "too fast" as in "I didn't see this coming" they you're right about that. I know I'm not the only one so very entertained by the reaction on the other side.

HD DVD Player: $250
HD DVD Discs: $20-30
Blu-ray reaction to Paramount/DreamWorks: Priceless


Too be honest, there is really little proof that movies like Blades of Glory were even coming to BD, this could of been a long planned screw job that all parties involved have been planning for a while, and annoucements of future releases just a cover for what was actually planned.

What I don't understand is why so many people would think it's specifically MS that would give Paramount money.

^ Because the belief is that

MS has the monetary resources = high probability that it did it, if it did happen... Plus the whole lot of related conspiracy theories coming in & circulated in every forum possible.

But this totally simplifies the situation and therefore do not make sense, because BDA can do the same thing if history is any indication. Then there will be no end in these monetary offers from both sides, if an offer was made from both sides.

Too be honest, there is really little proof that movies like Blades of Glory were even coming to BD, this could of been a long planned screw job that all parties involved have been planning for a while, and annoucements of future releases just a cover for what was actually planned.

I knew it! And that strange car always parked down the street? I think it's registered to Bill Gates. They are watching you. They are probably reading your posts right now! If you do not respond we'll know why.

I love this idea. All the BR fans should boycott Paramount for the next 18 months. Do buy ANY BR discs from them. That'll show 'em!

Maybe methos could boycott Universal too!


Why am I being mentioned, I think some how my post have been swerved, because I have nothing against this Paramount move, I own both formats so I am not afftected at all. In a way Ithink it funny after all the premature HD-DVD is dead news from Sony, that a swerve was pulled on them.

people that follow amir words like they are from some higher power need to wake up.
I also never said I doubted who he was. I pushed for people to question his motives. No VP of Ms has pure motivations. He is obviously here for a reason. Just like anyone that works for the blu-ray camp. If you cannot see that Amir would do/say anything that would help his side, you are blind.

And as for all those that accuss people for working for x,y,z start by showing us some proof instead of just putting that red herring around someones neck.

The hypocritcs are heavy on both sides of the issue. As a blu-ray fan, i see it on the blu-ray side.

I see very few hd-dvd people taking a higher ground then what they are accusing the order side of doing.

See 4 posts above.

My recommendation to you would be to join methos in the Paramount boycott.

Can't really boycott something they decided not to offer. Might as well tell me to boycott Universal, it would be just as effective. I have boycotted titles of by them already for being lower quality than I want (Mission Impossible movies for example) to spend money on. They are cutting blu-ray fans off for whatever political reason, not the other way around.

If they come back one day, I'll buy what I want as usual.

There are not varying degrees to "worst". Worst is an absolute. Or are you actually stating that a player for $149 would be worse than Disney going neutral? I doubt that.

Of course players will be $149, but BR players won't be that far behind.

Minimum 2X the price. And will they be the mythical profile 1.1 players? Or will they be the S300 - the most crippled of all the BD players ever sold SID?

WTF, who said I was boycotting Paramount? I already have Blades of Glory preordered and will get Transformers on Amazon as soon as I am able. I am not boycotting anyone, where is this coming from?

WTF, who said I was boycotting Paramount? I already have Blades of Glory preordered and will get Transformers on Amazon as soon as I am able. I am not boycotting anyone, where is this coming from?

lol, I don't know. I've been getting people trying to put words in my mouth more often lately than normal.

WTF, who said I was boycotting Paramount? I already have Blades of Glory preordered and will get Transformers on Amazon as soon as I am able. I am not boycotting anyone, where is this coming from?
Dude, I owe you an apology. Sorry, I just picked up on what someone else said. Sorry.

Although you did come up with the ....

Too be honest, there is really little proof that movies like Blades of Glory were even coming to BD, this could of been a long planned screw job that all parties involved have been planning for a while, and annoucements of future releases just a cover for what was actually planned.

Did you ever find Elvis? He is still alive you know.

well its possible, you never know how far the rabbit hole goes. Its as far off as any one else's wild conspricay theories around here, and like I said, I think it would be funny as hell if Paramount set Sony up.

BD's Worst Nightmare . . . . $149 MSRP A3 HD DVD player.

Then all those people that can't afford an HDTV would rush out and by a Toshiba? Ain't gonna happen.

Bad news for BR, I think its bad news for consumers, all HDM consumers, and of course especially BRD owners. All HDM consumers becuase I beleive that it is going to make mass adoption of HDM more un likely

I also think it shows a certain lack of class to gloat on news like this, because actually HD DVD users are not getting anything you didn't already have. BRD users lose, true. Its like cheering when someone who you don't want to win misses a putt at a golf tournament.

To answer the OP question:
Why doesn't Paramount list the $150 million payment in the press release? They can't, it would violate anti-trust laws. It's the reason the whistle blowers are anonymous, they don't want to be witnesses in legal proceedings against there own company.

Anti-trust laws BTW are there to protect you as a consumer. They prevent Brand X from paying money to supermarket chains to only carry Brand X to the exclusion of every other brand.

If true, and I don;t see any other logical explanation for this move, I have no doubt the will try and hide the money trail, and if its one thing studios are good at, it's hiding money.

That's true. Paramount should still release the titles previously announced. I feel bad for BD only guys.

Would you say the same thing if Univeral went BD only? Do you feel "bad" for all folks still waiting the nonexistent Fox releases. I feel bad for people who get laid off, not for early adopters.

Can't really boycott something they decided not to offer. Might as well tell me to boycott Universal, it would be just as effective. I have boycotted titles of by them already for being lower quality than I want (Mission Impossible movies for example) to spend money on. They are cutting blu-ray fans off for whatever political reason, not the other way around.

If they come back one day, I'll buy what I want as usual.

True. If someone from Paramount actually produces a work of art worth seeing, I'll acquire it via other means or rent the DVD. I'll buy Blu-Rays from Sony, Disney, Fox, MGM and Warners.

Bad news for BR, I think its bad news for consumers, all HDM consumers, and of course especially BRD owners. All HDM consumers becuase I beleive that it is going to make mass adoption of HDM more un likely

I also think it shows a certain lack of class to gloat on news like this, because actually HD DVD users are not getting anything you didn't already have. BRD users lose, true. Its like cheering when someone who you don't want to win misses a putt at a golf tournament.

To answer the OP question:
Why doesn't Paramount list the $150 million payment in the press release? They can't, it would violate anti-trust laws. It's the reason the whistle blowers are anonymous, they don't want to be witnesses in legal proceedings against there own company.

Anti-trust laws BTW are there to protect you as a consumer. They prevent Brand X from paying money to supermarket chains to only carry Brand X to the exclusion of every other brand.

If true, and I don;t see any other logical explanation for this move, I have no doubt the will try and hide the money trail, and if its one thing studios are good at, it's hiding money.


That is true to a point, but one fact is over-looked, as long as the stipulation remains in writing that Speilberg's films can go to both formats, it isn't a true anti-trust case because on paper Paramount isn't pledging full exclusvity to HD-DVD.

Why doesn't Paramount list the $150 million payment in the press release? They can't, it would violate anti-trust laws. It's the reason the whistle blowers are anonymous, they don't want to be witnesses in legal proceedings against there own company.

Anti-trust laws BTW are there to protect you as a consumer. They prevent Brand X from paying money to supermarket chains to only carry Brand X to the exclusion of every other brand.
FUD - quite apparent you don't even remotely understand anti-trust laws.

Anti-trust laws BTW are there to protect you as a consumer. They prevent Brand X from paying money to supermarket chains to only carry Brand X to the exclusion of every other brand.

So you admit Sony should be investigated for their deal with Target, right?

True. If someone from Paramount actually produces a work of art worth seeing, I'll acquire it via other means or rent the DVD. I'll buy Blu-Rays from Sony, Disney, Fox, MGM and Warners.


ROFL, are you serious? Why are you so in love with a piece of plastic shaped in a circle?

FUD - quite apparent you don't even remotely understand anti-trust laws.

+1

Then all those people that can't afford an HDTV would rush out and by a Toshiba? Ain't gonna happen.

There are currently 54 million HDTV's with another 8 million to be added by 12/31/07.

Ain't going to happen? You hope it ain't going to happen is what you really meant if you favor BD.

ROFL, are you serious? Why are you so in love with a piece of plastic shaped in a circle?

I give up. Because it's Blue?:rolleyes:

That is true to a point, but one fact is over-looked, as long as the stipulation remains in writing that Speilberg's films can go to both formats, it isn't a true anti-trust case because on paper Paramount isn't pledging full exclusvity to HD-DVD.

And that may be the loophole if there is litigation, who knows.

And that may be the loophole if there is litigation, who knows.

lol

I knew it! And that strange car always parked down the street? I think it's registered to Bill Gates. They are watching you. They are probably reading your posts right now! If you do not respond we'll know why.

Priceless!:D

I knew it! And that strange car always parked down the street? I think it's registered to Bill Gates. They are watching you. They are probably reading your posts right now! If you do not respond we'll know why.

:):D

^ Because the belief is that

MS has the monetary resources = high probability that it did it, if it did happen...

Nonsense. MS's gaming and entertainment division is struggling to break even as it is.

Nonsense. MS's gaming and entertainment division is struggling to break even as it is.

Oh yeah?

Microsoft currently has 21 BILLION DOLLARS cash in the freaking bank, and ZERO debt:

http://finance.yahoo.com/q/ks?s=msft


Sony has 2.9 billion cash in the bank, and 10 BILLION DEBT! lol

http://finance.yahoo.com/q/ks?s=sne


Explain that one.

FUD - quite apparent you don't even remotely understand anti-trust laws.

Are you attacking me or my statement? I gave an example of anti trust that pertains to the issue under discussion. I stand by that statement as an example of anti-trust.

If you want to discredit what I said with reason and fact, feel free.
So... why is the example I stated not an example of anti-trust ?

I think it was Oscar Wilde who said:
"Never get into a battle of wits, if you are only half equipped"

Are you attacking me or my statement? I gave an example of anti trust that pertains to the issue under discussion. I stand by that statement as an example of anti-trust.

If you want to discredit what I said with reason and fact, feel free.
So... why is the example I stated not an example of anti-trust ?

I think it was Oscar Wilde who said:
"Never get into a battle of wits, if you are only half equipped"

Is this your "statement" on anti-trust as it pertains?

Quote:
Originally Posted by methos75
That is true to a point, but one fact is over-looked, as long as the stipulation remains in writing that Speilberg's films can go to both formats, it isn't a true anti-trust case because on paper Paramount isn't pledging full exclusvity to HD-DVD.

And that may be the loophole if there is litigation, who knows.

Are you guessing or do you know that such a loophole exists? What about the "who knows" statement?

Oh yeah?

Microsoft currently has 21 BILLION DOLLARS cash in the freaking bank, and ZERO debt:

http://finance.yahoo.com/q/ks?s=msft


Sony has 2.9 billion cash in the bank, and 10 BILLION DEBT! lol

http://finance.yahoo.com/q/ks?s=sne


Explain that one.

I'm not disputing that MS doesn't have the money. My point is that MS would not spend that kind of money on a whim what with the Gaming and Entertainment division strugging as it is. They do have shareholders to answer to, you know? They would have to get something for it in return. What does Paramount have to offer? Doesn't it make more sense that, if there was such a deal made, that Toshiba would be involved? Toshiba is a $53B company with plenty of resources also. And, Toshiba has a much bigger stake in the war than MS.

I think it was Oscar Wilde who said:
"Never get into a battle of wits, if you are only half equipped"
Are you attacking me or my statement? I gave an example of anti trust that pertains to the issue under discussion. I stand by that statement as an example of anti-trust."
The statement, what else? Though I do love the irony of -
I think it was Oscar Wilde who said:
"Never get into a battle of wits, if you are only half equipped"
Anti-trust laws BTW are there to protect you as a consumer. They prevent Brand X from paying money to supermarket chains to only carry Brand X to the exclusion of every other brand.
Too bad it's a) untrue, b) happens all the time. Though in the case of supermarkets they just pay for preferential treatment. If it were an anti-trust issue how would one ever explain -

- Intel paid much of Dell's advertising cost in return for Dell using their CPUs
- Home Improvement giants Lowes & Home Depot pay for exclusivity. Example: find Husky products @ Home Depot, you don't. Find Ryobi or Rigid products @ Lowes...once again you don't.

Anti-trust (in the US) deals with price fixing by manufacturers. This requires collusion on on the part of the manufacturers, they need to agree to maintain a certain price. A single manufacturer can indeed set a given price - the Supreme Court just recently backed this up.

Cr*p, now I've violated the rule :D

Is this your "statement" on anti-trust as it pertains?

Quote:
Originally Posted by methos75
That is true to a point, but one fact is over-looked, as long as the stipulation remains in writing that Speilberg's films can go to both formats, it isn't a true anti-trust case because on paper Paramount isn't pledging full exclusvity to HD-DVD.



Are you guessing or do you know that such a loophole exists? What about the "who knows" statement?

Not a guess, no , hence the "who knows".

The statement, what else? Though I do love the irony of -


Too bad it's a) untrue, b) happens all the time. Though in the case of supermarkets they just pay for preferential treatment. If it were an anti-trust issue how would one ever explain -

- Intel paid much of Dell's advertising cost in return for Dell using their CPUs

Actually, Intel is being investigated under anti-trust laws in both the EU and the US for "deals" with Dell (among many other computer makers) for excluding AMD as a CPU supplier.

WTF, who said I was boycotting Paramount? I already have Blades of Glory preordered and will get Transformers on Amazon as soon as I am able. I am not boycotting anyone, where is this coming from?

Oops, that was me that started it. Look at post #57. Your quote didn't work out. Whoever's rant against Paramount you were quoting came across as your own words.

The statement, what else? Though I do love the irony of -


Too bad it's a) untrue, b) happens all the time. Though in the case of supermarkets they just pay for preferential treatment. If it were an anti-trust issue how would one ever explain -

- Intel paid much of Dell's advertising cost in return for Dell using their CPUs
- Home Improvement giants Lowes & Home Depot pay for exclusivity. Example: find Husky products @ Home Depot, you don't. Find Ryobi or Rigid products @ Lowes...once again you don't.

Anti-trust (in the US) deals with price fixing by manufacturers. This requires collusion on on the part of the manufacturers, they need to agree to maintain a certain price. A single manufacturer can indeed set a given price - the Supreme Court just recently backed this up.

Cr*p, now I've violated the rule :D

Well, looks like someone has proved that they have no clue what anti-trust laws are. Bravo. Look it up next time champ.

What I don't understand is why so many people would think it's specifically MS that would give Paramount money.

Because they like to believe that anything that seems to keep HD DVD afloat kills the prospect of HDMs becoming a standard.
This is ultimately predicated on the belief that there is no how, no way that HD DVD can eventually become the standard based on its own inherent strengths- only that it can spoil or completely destroy Blu-rays annointing.
You see, there are people that believe that the only possible HDM standard is blu-ray and if that doesn't happen- then HDM on disc, will never, ever supplant dvd.

I believe the "$150m" figure was actually put out by Sony's press agency, if that helps.

Oh, you mean the Sony Enquirer....yes that makes sense to me now.:confused:

Well, looks like someone has proved that they have no clue what anti-trust laws are. Bravo. Look it up next time champ.Anti-trust (in the US) deals with price fixing by manufacturers. This requires collusion on on the part of the manufacturers, they need to agree to maintain a certain price. A single manufacturer can indeed set a given price
This is very much a part of the antitrust body of laws. What are you talking about aka??