Fair points. But I’m also talking about things outside of the resorts and parks, like the boardwalk area for example. Again, I totally get that staying off site saves a ton of money and I don’t blame anyone for choosing that path. But it’s just plain silly to say that anyone gets the same experience staying offsite as they do staying on site. It simply is not true.
I stayed off property once, with teenage kids. It wasn't the same, for sure. I was trying to save money on that trip, and I did.. but yes there's something qualitatively and quantitively different about it. The differences between the two (on and off) may just not matter to some people.
When CEO Chapek met with Disney shareholders they were housed at Four Seasons next to Golden Oak where Chapek met with them. That should tell you something.
I have proven to myself and others that I can and do get to and from the parks quicker then most of the people that stay onsite. I don't have to wait for a bus or get crammed into one with a gazillion other sweaty people. I ride the ferry across Seven seas or the monorail, I can take the gondolas and the monorails if I decide I want to, so in some sense I don't have the same experience, in my mind I have a better one. I don't have to decide 6 months in advance of what I might want to eat half a year later, I don't have to make reservations for second rate food and I don't have to give all my money to one company that doesn't care about me one way or the other. Except for your actual room I have access to everything that you do, I don't have to miss anything if I want to do them and I have done most of the things that there is to do in the place plus more that is only available offsite.
OK, maybe we can end the debate right here. If it cost exactly the same to stay onsite as it does to stay offsite, then nobody on planet earth who is taking a Disney World vacation would ever stay offsite. Literally not one single person.
Same? Exact? Perhaps not. The Boardwalk is a nice resort IMO, but I'm not sure it offers anything more than what can be found elsewhere. For some, staying off site is about saving money. For others, it's a about value. For others yet, it's about a better experience. I've stayed on Crescent Lake more times than I can count. The room designs are becoming more and more sterile and the IG entrance is now a complete cluster each day. Front desk service I received this past April was absolutely horrible, more like what you'd expect from Super 8. If I had to nail down what might be irreplaceable, it would come down to something like the sight of Cinderella's Castle across Seven Seas Lagoon from GF or Poly (but again, we're back to it really being about the parks). Otherwise, everyone seems to be doing it better right now (including USO Resort), which is a total shame. I'm not knocking anyone's particular, personal preference. It's your vaca and I'm sure you go and enjoy it the way you like best. Objectively though. . .
I hear what you’re saying, but if you look back through your post (and what most people cite to as the biggest reason they stay offsite), it basically comes down to money. As I said in an above post, if it cost exactly the same to stay onsite as it did to stay offsite, how many people taking a WDW vacation would choose to stay offsite? There’s your answer.
If you're getting more and more offsite, either due to WDW becoming complacent or other resorts stepping up their game. . . IDK. But it certainly seem to have gotten to the point where I wouldn't necessarily assume that answer. I typically shell out accommodations for 10 each year (extended family gathering). If the cost is the same as you say, I have to ask if we'd have a better time in a very, very nice rental home with tons of room for everyone and our pool for example, or a declining experience in a villa.
Well, if you’re talking about comparing a rental home to a villa room, then we’re not talking about apples to apples.
This is very true. I stayed off-property one time, years ago. It just wasn't the same experience. It felt different. Each time we left property, the Disney bubble was burst... back to reality in a way. I'm not saying you get what you pay for when staying on-site. It's WAAAAYYYY overpriced for the quality you get, but there's something to be said for staying in the bubble. The trip I stayed off-property just didn't feel like Disney. I know that probably seems dumb, but it just felt "off" the entire trip.
Your post sums up perfectly how we feel.
.
Not going to continue this except to say that I wouldn't stay onsite even if it were exactly the same price at the Grand Floridian as Motel 6. I don't go there for the hotels I go there for the parks and I don't think I am alone. Also like I said I have stayed onsite and found it confining and less than hospitable. I couldn't wait to leave. I know the next thing will be that I am not a real fan, but there was a time when I was completely obsessed with WDW. I couldn't wait to go and planned my next trip as I was on my way home from the last one. But I also like to explore other things. I always spent time at Universal, not as much at SeaWorld but did go to some of the other attractions just a few miles away from WDW. I took helicopter rides over WDW and Universal. Something that requires leaving the grounds. I also didn't go to the park everyday, but I would explore the area around or within easy reach of Kissimmee. There is so much to do in that area. But, for now I agree that you need to do what is right for you and I will do the same.
The vacation that you just described sounds great. The only thing is, it’s not a WDW vacation. It’s a vacation that has a WDW component to it. Big difference.Not going to continue this except to say that I wouldn't stay onsite even if it were exactly the same price at the Grand Floridian as Motel 6. I don't go there for the hotels I go there for the parks and I don't think I am alone. Also like I said I have stayed onsite and found it confining and less than hospitable. I couldn't wait to leave. I know the next thing will be that I am not a real fan, but there was a time when I was completely obsessed with WDW. I couldn't wait to go and planned my next trip as I was on my way home from the last one. But I also like to explore other things. I always spent time at Universal, not as much at SeaWorld but did go to some of the other attractions just a few miles away from WDW. I took helicopter rides over WDW and Universal. Something that requires leaving the grounds. I also didn't go to the park everyday, but I would explore the area around or within easy reach of Kissimmee. There is so much to do in that area. But, for now I agree that you need to do what is right for you and I will do the same.
True, but since my first trip from Vermont in 1983 to me it was always a WDW vacation trip albeit not exclusively. WDW was my primary reason for going. From the very first my focus was on WDW, however, also from the first my trip involved far more than just Disney. So different, but not a big one. To me going to just one place and seeing just one thing is the same as having a two hour layover in Atlanta and from that point on claiming to have visited the city even though one never left the terminal. It is just in how we define and structure our vacations.
Yup, I get all that, and like I said what you described seems like a lot of fun. I think this debate has gotten off the rails from what I originally stated though. I was simply pointing out that staying offsite is not “basically the same” as staying onsite. Sure, one way might be superior to the other depending on the particular person and their perspective. But for someone looking for a strictly WDW vacation, if you hypothetically take cost out of it, I’m pretty sure the overwhelming majority of folks would stay onsite. And the reason for that is you get a better overall WDW experience. Anyway, I think we have both beaten the proverbial dead horse here, lol! I hope you enjoy whatever vacations you choose to take going forward, my friend!
No, your not insane nor am I. I just don't think it is worth all that extra cost since I only use the hotel to sleep, it is not a place I spend any time in. Plus it is attached to a whole lot more expense (meals) and makes it more difficult to spontaneously explore the surrounding to areas.UNBELIEVABLE
In fairness, he was not responding to anything you said about extra cost. He was responding to your claim that you would not stay at the Grand Floridian even if it were the same cost as a Motel 6.
