They might not add any more but the parks will always have 2 and they will probably swap them between Genie + tier and ILLs based on demand, etc. I can see as soon as Christmas week them switching SDD and MMRR.
Disney needs to move all ILL with low demand to Genie+, and move all Genie+ rides with high demand to ILL, regardless of where the rides are located, or how many ILLs there are. And charge ILLs by exactly how high the demand is. Disney is worried about hurting a park's feelings if it doesn't have enough ILL rides compared to another park, but that worry is unfounded because the parks are different anyway. Some parks have far more rides than others, nobody is judging the parks by how many ILLs they have, or how expensive the ILLs are. If the ILLs are properly assigned, both guests and Disney can get the most out of the system.
You're assuming that high demand Genie+ attractions will necessarily translate to high demand ILL attractions. That's not necessarily the case.
We know, for example, that FEA was always a high demand FP+ attraction. It was one of a few to have limited availability after 60 days. Same with 7DMT. But that's when the price was free. What we saw yesterday is that both of those attractions had near-immediate availability thoguhout much of the day, suggesting that the demand just isn't there to pay for those attractions as a one-off.
We don't know if SDD would actually sell ILL$ at a rate any higher than MMRR. It may, it may not. And if SDD were swapped with MMRR, would MMRR go as fast as SDD for Genie+?
Additionally, there's the possibility that if they swap SDD and MMRR, they'll make *less* money because people will not be willing to shell out extra $$ for Slinky, but they also will decide that Genie+ isn't worth it if they can't get Slinky. That's the balance they have to strike.
It's an interesting modeling problem - they can and will sell more G+ than ILL (and they can support more G+ customers, because there's a wider pool of attractions). But not all attractions will generate the same level of ILL$ revenue because they won't have the same demand. If people decide that G+ isn't worth it because of the attraction list, they won't buy it, and that's potentially a larger loss of revenue than that of one ILL$ attraction.
Let's use math to illustrate. Let's say for the sake of argument that they allocate 50% of an attraction's capacity to LL, and that they've determined that G+ should have enough capacity for each person to go on 4 attractions using LL (for the sake of argument). Now let's say a park has 6 attractions, each with a 1500 pph capacity. That means the park has a total LL capacity of 54,000 in a 12-hour day.
Now, if we allocate 4 attractions to Genie+, that means Genie+ has a LL capacity of 36,000 and the two lightning lane attractions have a LL capacity of 12,000 each. Now let's say that each one is used to capacity.
Genie+ will be sold to 9000 people (assuming 4 attractions per person), for a total of $135,000
ILL attraction 1 is top-tier. Let's say $15 each - that generates $180,000 if sold out
ILL attraction 2 is lower demand - let's say $9 per ILL$, so it could potentially generate $108,000
So that's a total potential revenue of $423,000 for the park per day.
But what if ILL #2 doesn't get much demand? Let's say people aren'lt willing to pay $9 to ride it, and it only sells to 3000 people. Additionally, let's say that people aren't satisfied with the attraction selection of G+ for this park, becasue there's only 4 attractions, and so it only sells to 5000 people.
So now we're talking about a park revenue of $282,000/day, which is a big loss of potential.
Now let's say that if you drop ILL$ #2 to the Genie+ level and don't replace it with anything else. That makes Genie+ more appealing to the average guest, and so more people purchase it. In addition, you've increased your capacity of LL attractions as part of Genie+. So let's say that 5000 more people are now likely to buy G+ as opposed to before because of the addition of ILL$.
Your revenue for the park is now $330,000/day. It's not as high as the potential, but it's higher than your initial configuration of LL$ and G+ attractions.
Obviously this is very hypothetical and not real-world, but I think it illustrates the problem. For example, there may be some people more willing to buy G+ in AK if Everest were included, but aren't willing to buy Everest as an ILL$. Same with Space Mountain or Frozen Ever After. Disney has to figure out what the right balance is, and I bet you anything there will be
a lot of experimentation with different configurations over the next year as they try to figure out the model to maximize their LL revenue. Obviously things like Rise, Guardians, etc will be huge moneymakers for ILL$ - what's less clear is where the revenue optimization is between ILL$ and G+ for the lower-tiered attractions like 7DMT, FEA, TT, SM, SDD, MMRR, and Everest.
