Originally Posted by ECH
In which I never implied nor suggested an accurate $ amount based on economic conditions. I only provided a simple example without explanation of were it was based from. Therefore, what you posting is not only off topic but inaccurate as well. For one, please comprehend the use of th term "example"
An example that is, by your own admission, completely devoid of any economic reality has no purpose. If we're talking cars and I throw out an "example" about you being able to buy a new Mercedes for $5000, what purpose would that serve?
This topic is a worthy one but it has absolutely no point if the economics are not considered because clearly it is the economics and only the economics that will decide this issue at the studio level.
You wrote in the same post above "For every person lost at the ticket counter is it not possible to gain 2 more viewers willing to watch it at home?"
And the reason why your example is flawed is because it doesn't matter if they get 10 million more viewers at home willing to watch if none of them are paying to see the movie.
That is why price point is everything in this discussion. It's the price at which it would make sense for the studios to allow this happen and that price would have to be set to assume group viewing just as boxing PPV events do.
You threw out $8 per view and compared it to 2 people who would go and pay $16 at the box office. As I pointed out, $8 is not a realistic price. But if your example had been $25 for the two people who would pay $16 at the theater, then it would have made more sense because you'd be building in a premium. That is the only way the studios would allow it to happen, if they could make significantly more, not less, money.