NYT: "Universal....Takes Aim at Disney"

[marni1971]

The mummy story is timeless...the ride is a backwards mildly entertaining roller coaster with wooden cut outs and some smoke.

Seriously?

Guess you're not talking about what has been voted best ride in the world??

And one that is an amazingly technically complex attraction?

Can't be USF The Mummy then.

 

[marni1971]

...

 

[Jimmy Thick]

Jimmy Thick is awesome. He always has something to say, he says it in an entertaining manner, and he never insults anybody. He is a gem to this forum.

And I look good in a Speedo.



Jimmy Thick-* Flex *

 

[misterID]

Premium != exclusive or limited

Premium means higher than another or the average.

Ask your dad how much Disney cost vs going to Cyprus Gardens or KSC or Gatorland.. etc.

When WDW opened, it was still pre airline deregulation and before cheap airfare. The tourist was still driven by the road trip... which is why DLR was never the destination for the whole country and they needed to build a east coast park.

MK was still a premium offering compared to other alternatives.

I worked there too, no need for a history lesson.

I saw it. I was there.

This isn't what you were saying before, btw.

Oh, WDW was affordable and geared towards average, middle class families. They had premium packages, but it wasn't a premium destination.

 

[bubbles1812]

So when are you going back?


While the same people want to say this and that about where the Disney company is headed, or how bad the parks are or management, those same people, pardon me while I giggle just enough to fart, those same people keep going to the parks, and, get this, keep spending money.

But wait, they are going to Universal too now you say?

Really?

Are they going to Universal and staying there, because if your going to Universal and not staying at one of their 3 resorts, your not doing it right. Well, considering I can still get a room at my choice of the 3 Universal resorts for tomorrow, I will go out on a limb and say the big dollar spender is visiting Universal, but still staying elsewhere, more than likely a Disney resort.

Disney is losing in this how?

Because Iam taking my hard earned cash to Universal for a couple days, but sleeping on Disney property, but going to Universal for a couple of days and spending it there instead of WDW.

And I have to reply, so?

Just because a few jaded posters on the internet continue to fight the good fight about how WDW has regressed, WDW is getting that new generation of vacation goers who will, after that first trip, become hopelessly addicted to the magic, just like those same people who complain but still go.

Just gotta lurve that marketing campaign which appeals to infants no?


Lets say 18 million people visit the Magic Kingdom, Yes Iam rounding up, no wait, let me, for the sake of argument make this a little more crystal clear.

Lets say 10 million people visit MK. No, lets go even better, just to make prove my point even more.

One million people visit the Magic Kingdom per year. First off, how many of those people are jaded internet posters who complain just to complain? I would fearlessly guess less than one percent. How many of those people are going for the first time? 20, 30%? How many will go back? How many of the jaded will continue to go back?

See the true genuis of what the people marketing the parks just pulled off? Can you?

Disney's reputation is safe, sound, and not changing at all, there is no fire here, noting to look at, keep moving. because when all is said and done, and thought out completely rationally, while people might see how bad the parks have become, how poor management is, how expensive the tickets are, whatever, people will keep coming back, no matter what. Disney don't have to fix anything, because there is nothing to fix. Why?


You're gonna keep coming back.



Jimmy Thick-Yes, you will.

Sigh.:brick: I don't know why I'm going to reply to you considering you seem to have your Mickey Mouse hat pulled down over your eyes. No one was ever arguing they weren't going to come back to Disney. But the more Universal and Disney's other competitors do offer, the more likely they will be pulled away from the Disney Parks. The more Universal offers, the more likely they are going to get people to stay on their property and spend more time at their parts. Harry Potter 2.0 will be very exciting for a lot of people. And I'm guessing they'll finally be willing to give the Universal Hotels a try...or maybe at least stay at a hotel close to Universal.

That was how it worked for my family. We went to Disney for a week when I was 7. The second time, we went when I was 10 and during the week we stayed we went to Universal for a day and had a lot of fun. The last time when I was 13, we blocked off days and stayed at hotel near universal for the first several days of our trip before going to Disney to stay at Disney...time that would have originally been spent fully at a Disney hotel. Finally, the next time we were in Florida, we stayed at the Hard Rock before going to Disney...and you know what? It's a great hotel. We had a lot of fun and I would recommend it to anybody.

But even if people are staying at a Disney Hotel and just going to Universal...that's still lost revenue for Disney. That's one less piece of merchandise bought that day, one less snack/drink/meal, one less admission ticket paid. Eventually all those "one less" things add up to a whole lot of money. Which comes back to the point of this thread...Disney is eventually going to have to do something to avoid that loss of revenue. To avoid people saying: "Well Universal just put in this new spectacular ride and Disney is the same old same old." Yes, they are putting in NFE...but none of what they are putting in is really revolutionary for the most part. One new ride and restaurant does not pull people back. A whole new area? With groundbreaking technology? Yeah, that pulls people in. And as we've been told by insiders, Disney IS unnerved and freaked out by Universal's new success. This is not something we're just speculating about on a thread. Before, they were the dying park down the way. If your competitor is dying then yes, I can see the "king" getting complacent and not feeling the need to offer new things. When your competitor is dying, there is really no incentive to improve. But now, Disney's competitors have way more momentum and creativity going and most importantly, money!...look at how this train ride, which could have just been a train ride, is going to (hopefully) pan out. It's going to instead be an E ticket ride that might seemingly reach new boundaries in ride technology.

 

[GLaDOS]

I just want to point out that a lot of posters here seem to be judging Universal Orlando on its prior ownership and management team.

Things are very, very different now. The decision making process is being done by people invested in these parks, and it shows. yes, there was definitely a bad period last decade. But Disneyland had that same bad period and now has emerged better than ever. I think you'll see something very similar with Universal happen over the next few years.

 

[flynnibus]

Though it still felt like you were making the argument earlier in the thread that Disney was not originally marketed towards the middle/lower classes families. But that's the thing. It was affordable for those groups as we've talked about between the pricing of the hotels and the pricing of the parks back then in today's standards. Yes, even lower groups...they might have had to save a bit for it but it was still affordable, it wasn't out of reach

Disney has always (and still is) marketed at the atomic family of america. They aren't ultra high end. They aren't bargin. They target the stereotypical family and upsell to a premium experience... and in turn charge a premium price.

That's the key point that keeps getting lost in all the pricing arguments. Disney has never EXCLUDED those middle class families - but that doesn't mean the middle class families could afford it like they can afford their weekly groceries.

The thing people skew in these discussions is FREQUENCY. Affordability is depend on frequency. You can afford 20k for a car.. because you expect to only do that every 5-10 years. You can't afford 2k for your weekly groceries because you do it weekly. Mortons Steakhouse is premium priced. It doesn't mean people can't afford it, but they aren't likely to eat there every week

You said you went to WDW 3 times by the time you were 13. If you don't live in FL/AL/GA.. I'd say that's pretty damn good -- even for people who did grow up in the 70s/80s/90s. The vast vast majority of people don't vacation at WDW as frequently as the fanbase online would. The fans online are not representative of the population at large.

The challenge becomes these people who are accustomed to going so frequently, mainly because of circumstances that allowed it (location, etc) act like EVERYONE has their vacation habits and as soon as their vacation style becomes less affordable to maintain, they act like EVERYONE is excluded because you can't go 3-4 times a year anymore.

Is Disney becoming more expensive? Hell yes. Does that impact how frequently people can go? Hell yes. Does that mean Disney is turning away from that atomic family? Not necessarily. You can shift to 'bigger experiences' in leiu of 'small frequent ones' as a business model too. The risk is swinging big may also lead to bigger misses.

Some businesses seek volume at all costs.. some seek maximizing what they get from the volume they have or target. The race to the bottom (make it so everyone can afford it) isn't the only business model and often leads to failure. And no, it's not just about 'greed' either as people often want to throw out.

Disney is becoming out of reach to that group entirely but even more, its becoming out of reach to many in the middle class as well, the prime group Disney, I feel, as always been advertising to...most families now have to save for a good amount of time before they can go. I went 3 times before the age of 13...I'm almost positive that would not have happened if I was that same age now. We're a middle of the road middle class family and even a "cheap" Disney vacation for my whole family would still be in the thousands of dollars.

Frequency is the key point. I spent over 8k on a DCL cruise last year. That's more than 2x I spend on any other vacation in the last 15 years. But I also don't plan on taking a DCL cruise for every vacation I take. I don't think DCL is 'excluding' me because I can't afford to cruise every year. I have to save.

If your expectation of frequency is skewed.. your expectation of affordability will be as well.

Now some people believe everyone SHOULD be able to goto WDW 2-3 times a year. For those people.. I say open your horizons

 

[bubbles1812]

Can I just say Flynn, that even though we are disagreeing on things...and I still disagree with what you are saying, haha...I think fosse76 describe how I feel aptly below, I think we are having a pretty darn good discussion in this thread. And that goes for everyone else participating too. Sorry, but this is one of the few threads where I haven't seen tons of negativity...I like seeing the excitement that people have for Universal but also the excitement at the possibilities that this could eventual spur Disney to do more...which I would dearly love.

Also, your last sentence made me laugh. I love Disney but even I don't think I'd want to be there 2-3 times a year, unless I were a local with an annual pass. Absence makes the heart grow fonder and every time I'm back to Disney, the absence I've been gone has made it that much more special when I'm there. And it's true, there are things beyond Disney. I've had one vacation top the ones at Disney in my favorite vacations all time rank and that one had nothing to do with Disney. It instead involved seeing our beautiful country (National Parks! Seriously I think everyone needs to see some of them in their lifetime)

 

[fosse76]

A very good explanation. I think it distinguishes nicely between 'premium' and 'exclusive'.

He's re-defining his argument, not explaining. Flynnibus has been arguing that Disney's hotels weren't marketed toward the middle class because they haven't been reasonably affordable. However, with a little research, other posters have located the price structure of Disney's hotels, and I converted them into today's dollars. They charged back then for the Poly what they now charge for a moderate hotel (and in peak season, a Value). While affordability is subjective, no one argues that the moderates are definitely marketed to the middle-class. This means that as a whole, Disney has always marketed to this demographic. The Deluxes, however, is their way to encroach on the middle class. As they increase prices further and further away from that pricing scheme, it's clear that it will become harder and harder for middle class families to afford a trip. How can they justify charging the same price for a VALUE that they once equivalently charged one of their Deluxe resorts???

 

[flynnibus]

I worked there too, no need for a history lesson.

I saw it. I was there.

This isn't what you were saying before, btw.

Oh, WDW was affordable and geared towards average, middle class families. They had premium packages, but it wasn't a premium destination.

I've been saying the same thing - you just want to put your own interpretation of my words instead of reading what I've said. Premium != exclusive. Premium != the most expensive.

WDW has been the pinnacle of what a child wants to do for decades in this country. The idea of 'going to Disneyworld' is a treasured prize and continues to be.

If it were so highly desirable... why aren't people going all the time? Because going all the time was never affordable for the vast majority. For most people it has been a 'special treat'.

I'm sorry locals don't feel like they can hit WDW like their local mall hangout or monthly treat anymore. That's never what it's been to the wider audience. People have and had, to save to make those trips. And it's not like people didn't do ANYTHING inbetween those trips.. they continued to do recreational things. They just couldn't afford to do Disney all the time.

Is that getting harder? Yes, because Disney's prices have been climbing quite rapidly while most people have not experienced the same kind of boom in their discretionary spending. But that doesn't change that Disney has always been a product priced above most other family recreational options. And hence, a PREMIUM priced product.

Disney has never sold on being the cheapest or being common. They have always tried to DIFFERENTIATE themselves as above the pack and charge accordingly... using the differentiation as the justification.

 

[baymenxpac]

Sigh.:brick: I don't know why I'm going to reply to you considering you seem to have your Mickey Mouse hat pulled down over your eyes. No one was ever arguing they weren't going to come back to Disney. But the more Universal and Disney's other competitors do offer, the more likely they will be pulled away from the Disney Parks. The more Universal offers, the more likely they are going to get people to stay on their property and spend more time at their parts. Harry Potter 2.0 will be very exciting for a lot of people. And I'm guessing they'll finally be willing to give the Universal Hotels a try...or maybe at least stay at a hotel close to Universal.

That was how it worked for my family. We went to Disney for a week when I was 7. The second time, we went when I was 10 and during the week we stayed we went to Universal for a day and had a lot of fun. The last time when I was 13, we blocked off days and stayed at hotel near universal for the first several days of our trip before going to Disney to stay at Disney...time that would have originally been spent fully at a Disney hotel. Finally, the next time we were in Florida, we stayed at the Hard Rock before going to Disney...and you know what? It's a great hotel. We had a lot of fun and I would recommend it to anybody.

But even if people are staying at a Disney Hotel and just going to Universal...that's still lost revenue for Disney. That's one less piece of merchandise bought that day, one less snack/drink/meal, one less admission ticket paid. Eventually all those "one less" things add up to a whole lot of money. Which comes back to the point of this thread...Disney is eventually going to have to do something to avoid that loss of revenue. To avoid people saying: "Well Universal just put in this new spectacular ride and Disney is the same old same old." Yes, they are putting in NFE...but none of what they are putting in is really revolutionary for the most part. One new ride and restaurant does not pull people back. A whole new area? With groundbreaking technology? Yeah, that pulls people in. And as we've been told by insiders, Disney IS unnerved and freaked out by Universal's new success. This is not something we're just speculating about on a thread. Before, they were the dying park down the way. If your competitor is dying then yes, I can see the "king" getting complacent and not feeling the need to offer new things. When your competitor is dying, there is really no incentive to improve. But now, Disney's competitors have way more momentum and creativity going and most importantly, money!...look at how this train ride, which could have just been a train ride, is going to (hopefully) pan out. It's going to instead be an E ticket ride that might seemingly reach new boundaries in ride technology.

this post exactly.

i was (and still largely am) very disney loyal. that said, last summer i went to universal for the first time since 1994. my wife and i went to islands of adventure only, just to see harry potter. we were in the middle of a 10 night stay on disney property, but we drove to universal, spent half the day at islands of adventure, and came back. disney lost a half day of revenue from me that they never would have if not for the WWOHP. when phase 2 opens, we're going back. maybe still only to do the harry stuff. but now we'll buy a combo ticket and spend the better part of the day there. now they didn't just lose my breakfast money, they lost lunch and are in danger of losing dinner. and that's me, a dude who has been going to disney twice a year since 1988 and had been to universal only once.

is this anecdotal? yes. but it still says something that by 2014, i will have been at universal twice as much as i had been in the previous 20 years.

and also, i can't take an argument seriously when one says "your" when he means "you're."

 

[bubbles1812]

WDW has been the pinnacle of what a child wants to do for decades in this country. The idea of 'going to Disneyworld' is a treasured prize and continues to be.

If it were so highly desirable... why aren't people going all the time? Because going all the time was never affordable for the vast majority. For most people it has been a 'special treat'.

I would even argue that this is not necessarily the case. For some children, Disney is the pinnacle but definitely not all. I've known 5 year olds who would rather go to the pool than Disney or grandma's house for a week. It was for me. I was one of those kids. But it wasn't for my brothers. After I'd say, our second trip, they probably would have been perfectly fine with never going again. That's not the case for all kids certainly (as evidenced by this forum), nor is that a bad thing. But even if we'd never gone to Disney, my brothers would have perfectly fine with it. I am sure there are others on this forum who have experienced the same thing.

And it's not always so highly desirable either. Plenty of people that can afford it just choose to go elsewhere. I'm not saying it's necessarily affordable for all of say, just the middle class, for the purposes of this discussion but again, there are plenty of people who just have no desire to go.

 

[fosse76]

So when are you going back?


While the same people want to say this and that about where the Disney company is headed, or how bad the parks are or management, those same people, pardon me while I giggle just enough to fart, those same people keep going to the parks, and, get this, keep spending money.

But wait, they are going to Universal too now you say?

They are. And anyone with at least one brain cell and first grade math can tell. Universal has seen a MASSIVE increase in attendance and revenue. However, Disney hasn't benefitted much from it (at least not noticeably).
Those people have to be coming from somewhere.

Really?

Yes. Really.

Are they going to Universal and staying there, because if your going to Universal and not staying at one of their 3 resorts, your not doing it right.

Ummm...I never stay at any of the three resorts, yet they still let me into the parks. And even with me paying for the unlimited two-park express pass, I still pay less than what I would be paying nightly at one of the three hotels. Plus I can still walk to the parks.

Well, considering I can still get a room at my choice of the 3 Universal resorts for tomorrow, I will go out on a limb and say the big dollar spender is visiting Universal, but still staying elsewhere, more than likely a Disney resort.

Not relevant. Universal isn't a large resort, so people don't feel the need to stay onsite to the same degree people see a Disney vacation.

Disney is losing in this how?

Because Iam taking my hard earned cash to Universal for a couple days, but sleeping on Disney property, but going to Universal for a couple of days and spending it there instead of WDW.

That's exactly right. Some are even cutting their Disney vacations short and going to a hotel near Universal.

And I have to reply, so?

To a Company like Disney, that is a loss. Disney views this as money that would have been spent at Disney. And it's not chump change. Even in actual numbers, Universal saw a bigger increase in guests than Disney has had in years (not overall attendance, I am talking additional guests). If Potter hadn't been installed at Universal, those numbers wouldn't exist. That money would have stayed at Disney.

Just because a few jaded posters on the internet continue to fight the good fight about how WDW has regressed, WDW is getting that new generation of vacation goers who will, after that first trip, become hopelessly addicted to the magic, just like those same people who complain but still go.

Not if fake tree limbs and utility lights keep falling on them they won't.

The rest of your post is nonsense. But this needs addressing.

Disney's reputation is safe, sound, and not changing at all, there is no fire here, noting to look at, keep moving.

That's what you think. Disney is relying on nostalgia now as a sole means to increase its bottom line. So the families coming have that nostalgia. The new people don't, and if they don't experience the parks as others once have, they'll have no need to come back. Their children won't develop any sense of nostalgia and therefore won't bring their children, and on and on. So while in the short term Disney is fine, at some point they won't be. And they will have out-priced their actual demographic, the middle class.

because when all is said and done, and thought out completely rationally, while people might see how bad the parks have become, how poor management is, how expensive the tickets are, whatever, people will keep coming back, no matter what. Disney don't have to fix anything, because there is nothing to fix. Why?

Did you just say there is nothing to fix?? Really?? I've only been going for 6 years, and in that time stuff that wasn't working back when I started (though I didn't know anything was broken) is broken now, moreso.

You're gonna keep coming back.

For now. I myself have decreased the number of trips I am taking, and actually am spending more time at Universal.

 

[flynnibus]

He's re-defining his argument, not explaining. Flynnibus has been arguing that Disney's hotels weren't marketed toward the middle class because they haven't been reasonably affordable

No - that wasn't what I said at all.

I said.. and I quote

No, those properties were primo priced back then too. WDW opened as a RESORT - not just theme parks. Disney world has always been a premium priced vacation

The hotels were premium priced back then too. If they weren't, why would anyone bother staying in a road side motel in Kissimmee when you could have stayed in the South Pacific of the Polynessian?? The properties opened with marinas, beaches, pools. Are those all considered basic amenities or something in your book? How exactly are you calling these properties average in offerings and prices to the alternatives back then?

The comparison to today's dollars in inflation is irrelevant. The comparison is between relative offerings of the time. If you want to have a meaningful comparison over periods of time for affordability, you should use 'weeks pay' comparisons.. where you compare income vs expense. Inflation metrics are not sound comparisons of affordability.

It seems you are hung up on what 'premium' means and I've outlined that just a few posts ago.

Premium is not a definition based on affordability. It is a relative measure between products/offerings.

While affordability is subjective, no one argues that the moderates are definitely marketed to the middle-class. This means that as a whole, Disney has always marketed to this demographic

That statement makes no sense. How does a company's product range today.. define what the company has always done? That is the most flawed logic I've heard yet.

Using that logic.. since Disney now sells hiking, and trips to Egypt... they've always targeted the national parks and globe trotting audiences?

And the introduction of the moderates and values did not push UP what the Poly/Contemp/etc were already. The moderates and values simply put Disney designed properties into bands below what they were already selling. As Disney's offerings grew, they further differentiated their offerings, and in turn pushed their prices up for Deluxes. They had to make room in the pricing along with enough differentiation in pricing. If you priced POR $10/night cheaper than Poly... who in their right mind would chose POR? Such issues usually create artificial price increases because there is only a limited amount of space BELOW your current pricing.

What Disney marketed to as their property.. and what hotel ranges they offered are related, but do not define each other. Disney initiately targeted the higher end hotels, negotiated with partners for lesser priced offerings, and walked away from the bargin offerings.

In the 90s... with increased competition in the area and a greater to extend the vacation and hence.. spending.. Disney expanded the parks, and expanded the bubble they wanted to control to include the mid and lower tiers of accommodations.

How can they justify charging the same price for a VALUE that they once equivalently charged one of their Deluxe resorts???

Simple.. poor comparisons and demand. Inflation metrics alone are a horrible basis of affordability comparisons. Demand for certain products does not track the same as the CPI.

Disney hasn't changed it's market focus... simply it's pricing and how big of a net it intends to throw. Disney's offerings in WDW in general have not gotten more upscale (tho they offer niches for that).. they've simply filled in below what they already had. Are they more expensive? Yes. Are they growing in cost faster than other things? Yes. Has it changed how affordable a Disney vacation is? I'd say yes. Has it changed their target audience? Nope. Has it changed their positioning of themselves as a premium product? nope.

 

[flynnibus]

I would even argue that this is not necessarily the case. For some children, Disney is the pinnacle but definitely not all. I've known 5 year olds who would rather go to the pool than Disney or grandma's house for a week

And some kids would rather play in a box than go ride a bike. It's not one size fits all forms of entertainment.. but if you sample over a large audience (which is what you always do with generalizations) is there are trends.

No, a Disney vacation isn't for everyone. Some would rather be hiking in the woods then immerse themselves what they feel is a horde of crazed children and chuck e cheeze all around them.

One has to assume that the type of entertainment is compatible with the audience you are talking about to start with.. before anyone even worries about $$.

 

[misterID]

I've been saying the same thing - you just want to put your own interpretation of my words instead of reading what I've said. Premium != exclusive. Premium != the most expensive.

WDW has been the pinnacle of what a child wants to do for decades in this country. The idea of 'going to Disneyworld' is a treasured prize and continues to be.

If it were so highly desirable... why aren't people going all the time? Because going all the time was never affordable for the vast majority. For most people it has been a 'special treat'.

I'm sorry locals don't feel like they can hit WDW like their local mall hangout or monthly treat anymore. That's never what it's been to the wider audience. People have and had, to save to make those trips. And it's not like people didn't do ANYTHING inbetween those trips.. they continued to do recreational things. They just couldn't afford to do Disney all the time.

Is that getting harder? Yes, because Disney's prices have been climbing quite rapidly while most people have not experienced the same kind of boom in their discretionary spending. But that doesn't change that Disney has always been a product priced above most other family recreational options. And hence, a PREMIUM priced product.

Disney has never sold on being the cheapest or being common. They have always tried to DIFFERENTIATE themselves as above the pack and charge accordingly... using the differentiation as the justification.

You're totally changing your argument. :lol:

It was affordable for people to go multiple times a year. No, tourists couldn't treat WDW as a mall, because, yes, they had to save for a vacation, and more went into it than that. Locals went all the time.

You're kind of going all over the place now.

 

[flynnibus]

You're totally changing your argument. :lol:

It was affordable for people to go multiple times a year. No, tourists couldn't treat WDW as a mall, because, yes, they had to save for a vacation, and more went into it than that. Locals went all the time.

You're kind of going all over the place now.

No, but I'll keep it simple for you.

Premium is not a definition based on affordability. It is a relative measure between products/offerings.

Disney has always positioned WDW as a product above the average... has never been in a race to the bottom for pricing.. and has priced themselves above the competition all along.. hence charging a PREMIUM for it.

Show me a period where Disney was charging under what it's competition was?

There is DISCOUNT and PREMIUM... Disney has always charged the latter.

 

[Captain Chaos]

this post exactly.

i was (and still largely am) very disney loyal. that said, last summer i went to universal for the first time since 1994. my wife and i went to islands of adventure only, just to see harry potter. we were in the middle of a 10 night stay on disney property, but we drove to universal, spent half the day at islands of adventure, and came back. disney lost a half day of revenue from me that they never would have if not for the WWOHP. when phase 2 opens, we're going back. maybe still only to do the harry stuff. but now we'll buy a combo ticket and spend the better part of the day there. now they didn't just lose my breakfast money, they lost lunch and are in danger of losing dinner. and that's me, a dude who has been going to disney twice a year since 1988 and had been to universal only once.

is this anecdotal? yes. but it still says something that by 2014, i will have been at universal twice as much as i had been in the previous 20 years.

and also, i can't take an argument seriously when one says "your" when he means "you're."

And that's just you... Think about the millions who are doing the same thing... heck, some of us take more than 1 day out to visit Universal because we see the value in their parks... I've spent less and less time in Disney and now spend more time in Universal, SeaWorld and other area in and around Orlando... there is a whole lot to do out there... Only the addicts who need their pixie dust fix can't see it... Or refuse to...

 

[whylightbulb]

Well, if it was ultra-realistic, they wouldn't have that problem. It's the lack of exact synchronicity that is the problem, as real life doesn't have any delay between our visuals and movement under most circumstances.

Exactly. We tried single layer video and it caused motion sickness. It was determined that synch. between motion and video was not the cause in this case. What we are working on now is extremely labor intensive and technically complex and will make for a very realistic experience. The results based on early tests are stunning. let's hope the support, financially and otherwise, continues as it has so far.

 

[flynnibus]

Just think how screwed Disney would be right now if they didn't have DME so fully entrenched?

The trouble of how hard it is to get from Disney to other locations and the ability to condition their userbase into using it.. during a period of lull in the competition is WDW's biggest business move of the decade.

If things were on a level playing field... places like Aquatica, USO, etc would be doing so much better. They are definately having to swim upstream.. but their increased offerings, and their bundling are slowly chipping away at the wall Disney was successfully able to put around their guests with DME.