So... if mods feel that this thread should be in Streaming Talk, feel free to move it, but I felt it might get more varied responses here in Movie Talk, considering the subject matter.

After reading through the comments in the Why do you choose not to go see a movie in the theatre? thread, I noticed that a lot of people avoid the theatre because of costs, atmosphere, and how much they love their own home theatres.

Right now, if you look at services like Vudu and Amazon Instant Video, there are a small number of "theatrical rentals" that usually range from $6.99 to $9.99. Those are typically independent dramas or comedies, or, more accurately, films that just don't have a huge box office draw. A few examples that I remember seeing listed that were specifically "theatrical rentals" were The Hunter, God Bless America, Side by Side, and Tim & Eric's Billion Dollar Movie. Terrence Malick's To The Wonder and Shane Carruth's Upstream Color are actually getting similar releases as well.

Personally, I think that pricing is spot-on for those types of films, but it would never work for blockbusters like Star Trek, The Hobbit, or Iron Man 3. The price is simply too low (yes, I know... I'm crazy).
What I'm wondering is, how much are you people willing to pay to stream "major releases" in the comfort of your own home at the same time that those films are released in theatres? Quality would be 1080p, 5.1 DD+. No IMAX. 3D may be available. No worse than the typical HDX stream on Vudu, but not up to par with Blu-ray, or 4K projection at the theatre.

My guess is that the studios would want to control such a system so they could charge per viewer using the technology found in the Kinect to track how many eyes or bodies are watching the TV or screen at home. So, if you're all alone, you pay $15. If it's you and your wife, you're paying $30. You and 9 friends? Be ready to shell out $150. Those aren't actual prices, but what I think the studios would try to charge.
I think that type of model would fail miserably.

What I would pay is $30 to $40, irregardless of the number of viewers in my room. 99% of the time, it'll just be me, my wife, and maybe our kid. In my opinion, the convenience, atmosphere, and quality would all be reasonable enough that paying $40 would seem like a deal, and not at all outrageous.

So:
What is the most you would pay to stream blockbusters on their theatrical release day/week?
Bonus questions: What about the first month? Also, should the price be dependent on # of viewers, or a flat-rate with some sort of "fair use" policy?

I think i'd pay $10 or so, around the cost of a regular movie ticket to watch it at home. That would actually probably make me watch movies that I would otherwise be borderline on watching because of the convenience factor.

Yeah, around $10 would be my cutoff too.

$5 - $6 (the price of a movie ticket) here.

$20, since that's the minimum my wife and I spend to go see a movie together. With babysitters and minimal concessions, a night out at the movies is more like $50-60 as it is.

I'd go as high as $20 for a blockbuster. Then we could invite a couple of friends over and make it our own private "blockbuster" event.

But that would imply that there is no such "viewer tracking" system as described in the OP. If they want that, then count me out.

Alternatively, if they went with a model where it is assumed that you will invite some friends over, and they charged $50 or more, the only way I would use it is if I could find enough people willing to split the cost, such that my cost gets back to $15-20.

I wouldn't pay to stream anything.

for convenience i would def. go for $10 if it were on release day.

If anything, the amount of ONE ticket as if I went to see it in the theater would be the appropriate price. It would be madness to expect to implement a Kinect system to scan homes.

I'll still wait for Netflix myself...

I voted "up to $15" but with one big caveate: It better fucking look good. It better look as good as blu-ray. If it looks like most of the "HD" content I pay DirectTV for then I'd rather wait for the blu. It's not about cost or speed. I've got lots of money and patience, it has to look GREAT.

That seems reasonable, and I assume that's how a lot of people do UFC, WWE, or other pay-per-view events that cost $50 and up. I'm amazed that people will pay that much for sporting events on their TV, but not a brand new movie on its theatrical release day. I guess sporting events usually involve a bit more social interaction throughout the program... and they last a bit longer (sometimes)... but I guess it's all about perspective...

I'd still pay up to $40 to watch the new Star Trek at home, even if it's just me and my wife. At $20 each, that's cheaper (and more convenient) than going out, having dinner, paying for the film, paying for snacks, paying a babysitter, etc... plus I'd be watching on my own home theatre screen. That's not to say we'd NEVER go out to see a movie again, as it's nice to get out of the house... but it's not necessary for every "big" film we want to see.

The rest of y'all are cheapskates.

My personal experience is that Vudu HDX is significantly better than typical HD cable (I have Telus HD here in Canada, and it typically looks like ass), but still not quite as good as Blu-ray. I don't want a 30-50GB download... so I'm okay with a minor loss in quality. But I agree... if it looked as bad as my cable TV... I wouldn't pay a dime. But that's my personal preference, of course.

Not buying at all if it's a per viewer tracking system as described by OP. Just seems creepy and wrong.

Without the per viewer tracking I'd pay up to $20

I knee-jerk responded with $10, but thought about it more and I think up to $20 is reasonable. But why do people always factor in concessions/dinner when going out to a movie? Can't you hold off on stuffing your pasty faces for 2 freakin' hours?

It's always been a tradition to sneak in candy and pop into the theater. I just associate movies with food and drink. I do the same at home with TV shows and Blu-rays/dvd.

Yep, I am something of a cheapskate . We buy our movie passes at Costco, bringing our ticket price down to $8. And, while we do try to support the theater by buying some concessions, we never buy their popcorn or candy. We can do far better, both in terms of price and getting just what we want, by "smuggling" those things in.

Besides, those people who can't hold off are still going to want snacks at home during that blockbuster movie. Sure, some snacks will be cheaper than the theater versions, but I would wager that most people end up spending just as much, after buying adult beverages, a large Dominoes pizza, and various other snack items.

I think a more interesting poll would be to see how you would pay for a "Deluxe" movie-going theater experience (akin to what many theaters do with their premiere levels): private balconies with huge leather love seats, free popcorn, free valet parking, no one under 21 allowed, assigned/reserved seating, food you can bring in, etc. For that here, it's $20-$24 a ticket, depending on matinee/3D etc. Worth every penny, but then again I only see a handful of movies a year in the theaters. Usually the BIG ones (Avengers, Dark Knight, James Bond, etc.).

I like movie popcorn and a cold drink. Couldn't you make this argument about any event that serves food? Baseball games? (Can't you just watch the game??)

Have you invented a time machine? Even matinee ticket prices around me haven't been $5-$6 in a decade,

Zero point zero. I'm not interested in streaming current theatrical releases, I like the theatrical experience.

Sadly the time for this has passed. I lived in LA when the Arclight opened and loved it. I always wished my nearby suburb would have a theater like this. Well they remodeled a theater to offer the luxury experience and the presentation is really poor. Poorly laid out auditoriums, thin walls, auditorium not dark enough during screenings. On a technical level it's actually THE WORST theater in my area, but the price is $18 per ticket. They've been open 2 years, I've given them many chances, but they just suck.

Meanwhile, the place is very popular and successful. People have no discerning perception of quality. They're told it's the best and the seats are wide so they assume they are getting the best.

Long story short: Marketing and corporate bullshit have killed the premium theater experience because they realized all they have to do is call it premium and the sheep will pay.

I'd pay $10. I figure the convenience is a plus, but watching it on a much smaller than a theater screen is a minus.

What would be nice is a PPV discount. So if I want to watch it once, it's $10. If I want to watch it twice, it's $20, but if I want to watch it three times, it's $25, four times is $30, five times is $35, and unlimited views is $50. Something like that, which rewards people for multiple viewings.

While I think it's probably worth $15-$20, I wouldn't spend more than $10. If I'm watching from home, I'll probably pick the giant backlog of free stuff (or included in my Netflix subscription) to watch. I don't pay extra to stream more recently released stuff from Sony for $5, so it's unlikely I'm going to pay even more just because it's still in theaters.

20 bucks is my cutoff

$20 would be fair.

Vudu quality still isn't worth paying more than a buck or two for. Don't know how many people actually 'rent' those $9+ movies they have.