Spirited News, Observations & Thoughts IV

[flynnibus]

I can't produce any documents, just like any insider here doesn't produce any documents. But to say that Spiderman or the Incredible Hulk or any of those characters have not been on a slot machine or video style gaming machine before Disney bought Marvel is incorrect.

But it's just as incorrect to use the claim that past use enables current use. That's just not how IPs are licensed in the amusement industry... nor just about anywhere (The Lucas/Kenner deal reminds everyone to not do that anymore )

 

[MattM]

But it's just as incorrect to use the claim that past use enables current use. That's just not how IPs are licensed in the amusement industry... nor just about anywhere (The Lucas/Kenner deal reminds everyone to not do that anymore )

I don't disagree with that.

 

[Magenta Panther]

How many people viewing this thread really give DAMN about Marvel characters on slot machines?

*crickets*

Thought so. MattM, how about you lay off trying to one-up WDW1974 so this thread can go back to being about any news or info he can offer? Thanks.

 

[Lee]

To what moral stance have they cloaked their oppostion?

That they are a family friendly company that opposes gambling.

That's right. Could, possibly...all words to describe that nobody really knows what Disney can and cannot do with contracts that were made before the deal with Marvel. To apply the logic, as the OP did, that Disney can control all Marvel characters should apply to Universal as well. It does not in that case. And it does not here.

Seems like you are missing the point.
Disney has been and is actively, currently, signing deals with gaming companies.
I'm not talking about iron-clad, non-expiring contracts that they inherited like with Uni.

 

[flynnibus]

Disney has been and is actively, currently, signing deals with gaming companies.

Correction: A Disney subsidiary... that is operated as an independent division. That has many things that do not align with the image nor actions of all other Disney divisions.

This reminds me of a recent battle in our area... The fight was over building a new hospital. Now who would you think was the biggest opposition to building the hospital? Were they motivated by the idea that hospitals are bad... they create noise... they create traffic...? No, the biggest opponent of the project was another medical company.. that didn't want the competition. Was that their advertised agenda? Of course not. But it was their reason.. solidified by the fact they later promised their own hospital for the area.

The point? Where do you see Disney opposing gambling? In all 50 states? Or just where it would impact their interests???

 

[alphac2005]

dont want to turn this into an avatar thread but if 3D was "the only" reason for success of avatar how come it set home sale records for Blue Ray/DVD? could it be maybe a lot of people liked the movie?

again i apologize for this derail

Re-read what I posted because I clearly don't state that "the only" reason is 3D. The industry is trying to figure out how much of the success is attributed to 3D, though. It was one of the significant reasons of the sales, not the only. Not just regular 3D, but IMAX screenings, the whole use of new motion capturesque CGI, a whole assortment of things. An orgy of technology was at play here and one thing that many noted was that the story wasn't all that good, but the imagery was amazing. That will get a lot of theater seats filled.

I'll answer very quickly, I don't have all the answers. People in my former industry don't have all the answers and they're desperate to figure it out. One of the reasons that they're doing three sequels is to spread the cost out in-case things don't go so well, which gets the production costs down significantly, and even if the films end up at the lower side of their projections, can still be financially successful. As for home DVD and Bluray sales, the most obvious answer is that most that saw it said that it was stunning to look at, so even absent 3D, it isn't a far stretch to think that those same people would want it in their home library. Amazing visuals and audio are what Bluray is designed for. Top films from the theaters nearly always turn into top sales for home use, so if you figure Avatar had a ton of seats filled worldwide, it's no stretch to figure out why it sold so well at home.

 

[Bolna]

I sometimes wonder whether the same people who think that a company like Disney can do whatever they want because it is good for their business would think the same if it were not a company, but an individual person acting that way. Really an interesting question whether we believe that ethics apply in a business-consumer relationship to the same level as we would expect it in a person-person relationship.

 

[flynnibus]

I don't disagree with that.

Then stop claiming this is an issue of 'existing contracts'

 

[wogwog]

Nextgen park bench with an avengers wrap? lol

That leaves out Florida then. Disney has all but banned benches from the MK. Can't have banded lemmings sitting down and not spending. The Disney method is catch and release after banding.

 

[MattM]

Then stop claiming this is an issue of 'existing contracts'

I would. But in this case it is correct.

 

[MattM]

That they are a family friendly company that opposes gambling.

Seems like you are missing the point.
Disney has been and is actively, currently, signing deals with gaming companies.
I'm not talking about iron-clad, non-expiring contracts that they inherited like with Uni.

I've always seen the line that Disney and universal and SeaWorld are anti-gaming in Orlando b/c they've worked hard to make it a family friendly destination. I've never seen anything saying that they are opposed to gambling in and of itself away from Orlando.

They would even settle for gaming coming to Florida so long as it doesn't come north of Miami-Dade county because nobody really cares what happens down there anyway. They'd prefer that it didn't, but they would deal.

 

[baymenxpac]

to those who are defending the gambling thing: why?

at the very least, it's brand dilution: slapping trademarked likenesses on things that aren't consistent with your company's public image. at the very most, it's a poorly-veiled attempt to market gambling to children. i don't get why it's hard to figure out.

 

[COProgressFan]

I've always seen the line that Disney and universal and SeaWorld are anti-gaming in Orlando b/c they've worked hard to make it a family friendly destination. I've never seen anything saying that they are opposed to gambling in and of itself away from Orlando.

They would even settle for gaming coming to Florida so long as it doesn't come north of Miami-Dade county because nobody really cares what happens down there anyway. They'd prefer that it didn't, but they would deal.

Disney is vehemently opposed to gaming in Florida, anywhere. Even in the Miami area. I'm not sure how you've missed it but this has been widely reported and covered in major news outlets in the last year or so.

It has nothing to do with any supposed family friendly image of central FL, but more to do with the fact that they do not want another major resort area draw in Florida competing with their interests. A major gaming destination would have effects statewide, whether it came to Tampa, Miami, Orlando or Jacksonville.

It's as simple as that.

 

[flynnibus]

to those who are defending the gambling thing: why?

at the very least, it's brand dilution: slapping trademarked likenesses on things that aren't consistent with your company's public image. at the very most, it's a poorly-veiled attempt to market gambling to children. i don't get why it's hard to figure out.

Do you feel Wizard of Oz is an equally bad version of 'brand dilution' to have WoZ not only on slot machines, but in redemption machines as well?

 

[GoofGoof]

Let's use a simple example at Bay Lake Tower (BLT) vs. the Contemporary.

We have a family that wants to vacation annually during February break in a Deluxe Resort. They want to stay in a Magic Kingdom View room at either BLT or the Contemporary. They can pay cash every year or buy DVC.

Because it's during Spring Break, WDW rarely offers "Room Only" discounts. They don't need to; WDW is very popular during Spring Break. In 2014, a Magic Kingdom View room at the Contemporary costs $5337/week or $762/night. (For one ordinary hotel room!) Even if by a stroke of good fortune they somehow manage to score a 30% "Room Only" discount for Spring Break, it's still $534/night!

Incrementally, it costs Disney about $30/night to service that one room. With or without discount, Disney is making a boatload of money off that family in just one week (either $5127 or $3528, depending on whether they were able to obtain a "Room Only" discount.).

Instead, that family decides to take the DVC plunge and foolishly agree to pay Disney's ridiculous direct price of $165/point for BLT. It's going to take 183 points to stay in a comparable room at BLT, or a purchase price of $30,195. Disney is making some serious money off them without even a single stay.

After that, Disney collects an annual Maintenance Fee (MF) of $4.50/point. For 183 points, that's $824, a fraction of what the cash room costs and an even smaller fraction of what they paid upfront. So, even if you want to pretend that half the MF is "profit" (which it's not), Disney is making hundreds on DVC MF vs. thousands on a cash room vs. tens of thousands on the initial DVC purchase.

So, to your point @GoofGoof , DVC's profits are heavily frontloaded. With DVC, Disney sacrifices long-term profits for short-term profits.

Good suumary. Exactly what I was trying to say. I wonder how much of the low deluxe room occupancy problem is the result of canibalization by DVC. We could already be seeing some of the negative impact of taking those short term gains.

 

[MattM]

Disney is vehemently opposed to gaming in Florida, anywhere. Even in the Miami area. I'm not sure how you've missed it but this has been widely reported and covered in major news outlets in the last year or so.

It has nothing to do with any supposed family friendly image of central FL, but more to do with the fact that they do not want another major resort area draw in Florida competing with their interests. A major gaming destination would have effects statewide, whether it came to Tampa, Miami, Orlando or Jacksonville.

It's as simple as that.

I know what the newspapers say. I also know what they are willing to compromise on if it comes down to that.

 

[rodmansju]

No, I don't see a Spirited V.

And nothing, to my knowledge has changed, for both Disney and UNI.

There will be a Disney announcement (definitely Anaheim, but likely Florida as well) in the next six weeks or so.

just curious, but since Marvel can't exist in WDW but can in DL...any chance that Disney would do Marvel rides for DL and let WDW have the good Star Wars fare? surely as big an IP as SW is, they won't allow full exclusivity to the one park...just thinking along the lines of having a few attractions that are unique to one park (like how a lot don't want to see cars land in DHS, keeping it just for DCA).

either way...looking forward to announcments...

 

[ChrisM]

How many people viewing this thread really give DAMN about Marvel characters on slot machines?

*crickets*

Thought so. MattM, how about you lay off trying to one-up WDW1974 so this thread can go back to being about any news or info he can offer? Thanks.

No one. Which is why 74 should have left this particular line of attack in the can. None of us give a damn.

 

[WDWDad13]

No one. Which is why 74 should have left this particular line of attack in the can. None of us give a damn.

he tries too hard sometimes to throw extra gas on a fire he's already started haha

 

[danlb_2000]

I would. But in this case it is correct.

Is it? From this article:

http://epublicgaming.com/index.php?...-instant-games-&catid=30:us-lottery&Itemid=30

"Alpharetta, GA – November 16, 2011 – MDI Entertainment, LLC, a subsidiary of Scientific Games, has reached an agreement with Marvel Entertainment, LLC, to offer instant lottery games featuring characters and themes from the widely anticipated film “Marvel’s The Avengers,” due for release on May 4, 2012"

This was about a year after Disney acquired Marvel so this was not a contract that existed pre-Disney.