Bob Iger says no to VR in Disney Parks

  • Thread starter Deleted member 107043
  • Start date
D

Deleted member 107043

Original Poster
D

Deleted member 107043

Original Poster
Interesting how he's so technology-first but not in the realm of VR.

VR is ubiquitous in the "real world", so unless WDI can do something unique with it I don't see why Disney would need it for the parks. I love the things he says about creating tangible worlds that are alive and immersive, and I'm intrigued by the augmented reality tech he talked about.
 

dweezil78

Well-Known Member
Interesting how he's so technology-first but not in the realm of VR.

He's just saying no to it in the parks and I'm happy to hear that. Disney is great at creating real environments -- VR is just a simulation of that. The whole idea of VR is that I can (someday) go to Disneyland at home in my underwear. If I'm going to take the time to get dressed and drive there though, it better not be virtual!!! :D

Parks-wise, the only place I think VR makes sense is in an Innoventions type setting as part of a brand experience.
 

lazyboy97o

Well-Known Member
No, but it's a perfectly fine mandate. Like "pick up gum on the street, pronto!"
It is not perfectly fine. The story and experience should drive the technology choices. Banning a tool because one person is uninterested is an arbitrary limitation that serves no purpose.
 

Phroobar

Well-Known Member
The problem with VR headsets is no one can figure out how to properly put them on and synchronize them quickly. Ride load time would dramatically increase if everyone had to put on VR headsets. At Magic Mountain they use VR headsets on the Revolution roller coaster. The load time for that ride was slow to begin with but making workers help you put on and sync the VR headsets takes forever and ultimately takes away from the coaster experience. That ride's wait time has nearly tripled because of them.
 

britain

Well-Known Member
It is not perfectly fine. The story and experience should drive the technology choices. Banning a tool because one person is uninterested is an arbitrary limitation that serves no purpose.

Look, he's essentially saying the technology isn't ready yet. It's clunky, anti-social (meaning, you can't really look at and laugh with the other people in your party) and operationally inefficient. I'm sure when those problems are solved it can be considered.
 

lazyboy97o

Well-Known Member
Look, he's essentially saying the technology isn't ready yet. It's clunky, anti-social (meaning, you can't really look at and laugh with the other people in your party) and operationally inefficient. I'm sure when those problems are solved it can be considered.
"He’s ordered his team not to even think about it." is not how one would describe "the technology is not yet where we would want it do be."
 

dweezil78

Well-Known Member
It is not perfectly fine. The story and experience should drive the technology choices. Banning a tool because one person is uninterested is an arbitrary limitation that serves no purpose.

Agreed -- but VR is a tool that eliminates the need for physical world building, which if you're a company like Disney who creates really immersive physical environments, use of it would pretty much be a cop out and a way to save a lot of $$$.

It is incredible tech, don't get me wrong. I own an Oculus Rift and I love it. But companies like Six Flags use it BECAUSE it is a cheap alternative to real-life theming. And good for them, for the purposes of making an old roller coaster more exciting, it works well enough. But I expect more from Disney and honestly cannot think of a single instance where I'd want it as part of an attraction.

For the few rides it could potentially benefit (the Goofy's Sky School type attractions), I'd much rather see those ripped out and replaced with something more up to the standards of the park than "plussed up" with headsets.

Now if Disney gets in the business of selling park-like VR experiences for the home, I'd be all over that in a heartbeat!
 

mickEblu

Well-Known Member
It is not perfectly fine. The story and experience should drive the technology choices. Banning a tool because one person is uninterested is an arbitrary limitation that serves no purpose.


My knee jerk reaction is that it's a tool that should be maybe not banned but used very sparingly. I could see a slippery slope where it's used. Disney sees demand because of the novelty of it and start putting it in attractions it doesnt need to be. As I'm sure it's a lot cheaper than building physical sets and AAs.

With that said I feel like something like Goofys Sky School would be 10x better with VR. Imagine being in Goofys cartoon world flying on a plane dodging birds all over the place. That's an example of taking something lightly themed and making it better. As opposed to what I fear would be Disney cheaping out and using this tool on E tickets.

EDIT: I swear I wrote my post without seeing @dweezil78 s first.
 

lazyboy97o

Well-Known Member
Agreed -- but VR is a tool that eliminates the need for physical world building, which if you're a company like Disney who creates really immersive physical environments, use of it would pretty much be a cop out and a way to save a lot of $$$.

It is incredible tech, don't get me wrong. I own an Oculus Rift and I love it. But companies like Six Flags use it BECAUSE it is a cheap alternative to real-life theming. And good for them, for the purposes of making an old roller coaster more exciting, it works well enough. But I expect more from Disney and honestly cannot think of a single instance where I'd want it as part of an attraction.

For the few rides it could potentially benefit (the Goofy's Sky School type attractions), I'd much rather see those ripped out and replaced with something more up to the standards of the park than "plussed up" with headsets.

Now if Disney gets in the business of selling park-like VR experiences for the home, I'd be all over that in a heartbeat!
My knee jerk reaction is that it's a tool that should be maybe not banned but used very sparingly. I could see a slippery slope where it's used. Disney sees demand because of the novelty of it and start putting it in attractions it doesnt need to be. As I'm sure it's a lot cheaper than building physical sets and AAs.

With that said I feel like something like Goofys Sky School would be 10x better with VR. Imagine being in Goofys cartoon world flying on a plane dodging birds all over the place. That's an example of taking something lightly themed and making it better. As opposed to what I fear would be Disney cheaping out and using this tool on E tickets.

EDIT: I swear I wrote my post without seeing @dweezil78 s first.
Lots of tools can be misused, that does not mean you outright reject them. Why not ban roller coasters? They work alone and Disney right now Disney is building a roller coaster in a field.
 

dweezil78

Well-Known Member
Lots of tools can be misused, that does not mean you outright reject them. Why not ban roller coasters? They work alone and Disney right now Disney is building a roller coaster in a field.

All he's saying is that he doesn't want to use tools which block the real world view. Instead, they're focused on augmented reality vs. virtual reality. Sure, "banning" may be extreme -- but he's not saying no to this type of tech. He's just making the argument that, for their business, AR is additive to the experience while VR simply replaces it and is pointless when you're in the business of creating themed physical spaces.
 
D

Deleted member 107043

Original Poster
Agreed -- but VR is a tool that eliminates the need for physical world building, which if you're a company like Disney who creates really immersive physical environments, use of it would pretty much be a cop out and a way to save a lot of $$$.

Having watched a handful of World of Avatar videos it's pretty clear that Disney is doubling down on delivering fully immersive experiences, and my takeaway from Iger's remarks is that VR is kind of a lazy way to handle experience design, at least for Disney. Iger seems to be insisting on more tactile (ie; "real") environments rather than digital ones, and apparently he's willing to spend the money if it makes sense to do so.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

disney4life2008

Well-Known Member
Having watched a handful of World of Avatar videos it's pretty clear that Disney is doubling down on delivering fully immersive experiences, and my takeaway from Iger's remarks is that VR is kind of a lazy way to handle experience design, at least for Disney. Iger seems to be insisting for more tactile (ie; "real") environments rather than digital ones, and apparently his willing to spend the money if it makes sense to do so.

I do not follow that logic. Isnt FP+ 100 percent digital?
 

Register on WDWMAGIC. This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.

Back
Top Bottom