Are RIV point charts REALLY that might higher?!

[kboo]

Riv per point pricing during the initial offer with incentives really wasn't that bad. I think some folks around here picked up points at 168 a point after incentives, which isn't far off some of the more expensive resale resorts.

We got it for less.

I can see an argument to be made to buy direct at Riv over resale BCV or even BLT.

I have posted on this before, but we were considering adding more points at BLT via resale or RIV direct, and ultimately ended up going RIV direct. While we do park hop, we tend to do split stays if we are staying a week or more. Having an 11mo advantage at the EP/HS area and not going through the ROFR process (which we've done many times) ended up being worth the slightly extra $. I would rather use fewer points to get BLT LV than my grandfathered resale points (VGF mostly, some BLT) to try to get preferred view RIV.


Also we got a really neat backpack out of it.

 

[The Jackal]

To be fair, your not comparing apples to apples. Those are resale prices vs direct

Let’s compare apples to apples. RIV resale contracts are selling for less then BLT are.

Also the predicted dues at CCV were very close. DVD has a pretty good idea on prices. Don’t expect RIV dues to drop a $1 per point. Might go down a little, but not much.

 

[crisi]

1) Ease of transaction

Resale was pretty darn easy.

2) Ability to stay at "new" resorts

Not relevant if you intend to stay at the BCV

3) prorated maintenance fees in first year

You can do this resale, its negotiable

4) Ability to pay by credit card and earn reward points

None of my cards would come close to the delta in terms of reward value.

5) Access to Membership benefits (which if you don't get an AP, is still 10% off food and 20% off merchandise)

Again, haven't used mine in 15 years

6) Buying late in the use year essentially gets you double points in year 1

Buying a loaded contract does the same

7) Points being available quicker

Plan ahead and this isn't a problem.

8) Lower closing costs

Built into the direct price

9) Ability to book cruises/Disney Concierge

Again, most people never use these benefits. Really not a wise financial choice.

 

[DougEMG]

I'm not suggesting Direct > Resale. I'm just saying its not an apples to apples comparison. Direct pricing for BLT is somewhere around $235 per point, not $135 per point. Whether you personally would get any value out of a direct purchase over resale doesn't change the fact that your not comparing two products where the only differences are location and point charts. It's like comparing a brand new Lexus SUV to a used Corolla. The Corolla may be cheaper, but it's not necessarily a better deal because your really comparing two different products. Yes they are both vehicles and will both get you from Point A to Point B, but there are for more differences than just price and style.

Comparing direct pricing of a sold out resort to direct pricing of an active selling resort isn't an apple to apple comparison either. Disney intentionally prices sold out resorts very high to encourage people to buy at the active selling resort. A better comparison would be looking at the price of resorts when they were in active sales and then adjusting for inflation.

 

[DougEMG]

Doing some research - we have not bought yet - seriously considering Riviera

Playing out some scenarios - see attached points needed for vacations in next year.

RIV POINTS DON'T SEEM MUCH HIGHER?
POLY- VGF - ALAUNI - VGC all see much higher (see picture)

Why are people saying they are higher?!


View attachment 456169

RIV room point costs fall between BLT and POLY/VGF (the highest there are), but have higher MF than either of those 3 resorts. Combine this with a location that is not optimal, it makes the point chart seem expensive. Personally I think it should of had a point chart more in line or slightly lower than BLT.

Now once the resort opens, perhaps people will feel that the resort is on par with VGF and that the Skyliner is as good or better than walking from BWV/BCV and then the point charts won't seem that bad.

I'll certainly give it a try if I can ever get in with using my SSR/OKW points, but for the majority of my trips I rather stay at BWV/BCV and BLT/VGF, but then I am frugal with my points.

 

[rspencer38]

party of 4 any time december 26-jan 6 for 5-6 nights

1) Ease of transaction

Resale was pretty darn easy.

2) Ability to stay at "new" resorts

Not relevant if you intend to stay at the BCV

3) prorated maintenance fees in first year

You can do this resale, its negotiable

4) Ability to pay by credit card and earn reward points

None of my cards would come close to the delta in terms of reward value.

5) Access to Membership benefits (which if you don't get an AP, is still 10% off food and 20% off merchandise)

Again, haven't used mine in 15 years

6) Buying late in the use year essentially gets you double points in year 1

Buying a loaded contract does the same

7) Points being available quicker

Plan ahead and this isn't a problem.

8) Lower closing costs

Built into the direct price

9) Ability to book cruises/Disney Concierge

Again, most people never use these benefits. Really not a wise financial choice.

1) Direct is definitely easier

2) Is literally one of my top 3 reasons for buying direct

3) Not a deal breaker either way

4) I did receive a ton of reward points but certainly not critical in any decision

5) HUGE for me because gold AP saves me a lot of money. I understand it may not exist forever but for the time being direct DVC was the only way for me to get the AP discount

6) Didn't really impact me as I was a Riviera purchaser so only just received my points

7) People love to use their new purchases instead of waiting, I received my points and used them before most resales would have finalized an agreement.

8) I really cannot comment on whether or not closing costs are built into the cost, is there any proof of this? Either way it's insignificant.

9) I agree that its not the best use of points


I think its clear that not everyone falls into the same category when deciding to buy. I think resale is awesome but I also think direct is awesome. Direct ticked way too many boxes for me not to go that route, next time I'll likely go resale.

 

[Sandisw]

1) Direct is definitely easier

2) Is literally one of my top 3 reasons for buying direct

3) Not a deal breaker either way

4) I did receive a ton of reward points but certainly not critical in any decision

5) HUGE for me because gold AP saves me a lot of money. I understand it may not exist forever but for the time being direct DVC was the only way for me to get the AP discount

6) Didn't really impact me as I was a Riviera purchaser so only just received my points

7) People love to use their new purchases instead of waiting, I received my points and used them before most resales would have finalized an agreement.

8) I really cannot comment on whether or not closing costs are built into the cost, is there any proof of this? Either way it's insignificant.

9) I agree that its not the best use of points


I think its clear that not everyone falls into the same category when deciding to buy. I think resale is awesome but I also think direct is awesome. Direct ticked way too many boxes for me not to go that route, next time I'll likely go resale.

You have put it perfectly. There is not one way to buy a DVC that is right for everyone. The only thing you can say about resale vs direct is that the initial cost for points will be cheaper if purchases resale,

However, that doesn't mean it is the best option for everyone. As you mentioned, those that will use the AP discount will eat into that difference pretty quickly, depending on family size.

Direct is definitely easier and you get use of points much faster. I sold a contract and we closed over a week ago. That contract, and its points are still in my account, so the buyer is still waiting to use them. I added on my Rivera points same day we went to ROFR, over 5 weeks ago, and have already booked 5 trips with those points

I have done both and each time, the choice fit the situation! I know the big draw for BWV and BCV is the walk to the park..but, if you are t going to be able to do that walk, it isn’t a benefit, just like the AP discount isn’t s benefit for someone who isn’t going to use it.

So, one will have to weigh what it costs, points wise, to stay at Rivera over others and I will bet many people will be okay with it because they love the resort enough to make it worth it,

 

[kboo]

4) I did receive a ton of reward points but certainly not critical in any decision

We did too! So much so that bumped us into platinum status for SPG/Marriott. Seems like upgrades at the Swan/Dolphin just made them more appealing too...

 

[Spark65]

RIV room point costs fall between BLT and POLY/VGF (the highest there are), but have higher MF than either of those 3 resorts. Combine this with a location that is not optimal, it makes the point chart seem expensive. Personally I think it should of had a point chart more in line or slightly lower than BLT.

Now once the resort opens, perhaps people will feel that the resort is on par with VGF and that the Skyliner is as good or better than walking from BWV/BCV and then the point charts won't seem that bad.

I'll certainly give it a try if I can ever get in with using my SSR/OKW points, but for the majority of my trips I rather stay at BWV/BCV and BLT/VGF, but then I am frugal with my points.

I am really lost with " the location is not optimal" line and I am not singling anyone out either because a lot of people use it. Please clarify what is optimal CCV- hardly, SSR - beyond hardly, AKV- so far off the beaten path can't even use the term hardly.

Each resort has a uniqueness too it and location can hardly be use to describe it but they all have a hint of something that brings people to want to stay there and just like BWV and BC they have a lot of reasons not to want to stay there small rooms, bad parking etc. I have stayed at the Fields of Green and if you want to talk about downfalls that property is in the Poly, GF area and difficult location is being nice.

The continued posts about the downfalls of a resort that hasn't even opened boggles the mind given that other resorts have their share. I have taken the Gondola to the Riviera pretty easy and drops you at Epcot's back door so pretty good location if you ask me. Now lets hear all the Gondola breaks down people have you ever had the monorail break down?? have you ever got stuck out in bay lake on the Poly boat I have ! Transportation is not 100% never will be .. does your car ever break down get stuck on the side of the road yes?? Really?

All told I still see those same people who refuse to buy or accept the resort for what it is clamoring to stay there it just boggles the mind.

 

[Brett Wyman]

I can’t speak for the non-Florida resorts, but I think it’s more about perceived value vs literal point totals. A lot of people view VGF and Poly as “premium” locations (on the monorail, VGF is supposed to be Disney World’s flagship resort, etc). The same folks don’t think RIV merits similarly high point costs because its location isn’t as directly close to parks and it’s right next to a moderate hotel, etc.

This is 100% how I feel and why I think Riviera is priced too high.

 

[CanadaDisney05]

For me the location is a huge negative when looking at the price; I can buy BLT for $130-150 per point depending on the variables with a cheaper/comparable point chart, way cheaper MF and can walk to MK in 3 minutes. How will they convince me to part with much more money to buy at Riv? I don't know how they can but while the resale restrictions are in place I'll never even consider buying there regardless of how nice it is.

1) Ease of transaction

Resale was pretty darn easy.

2) Ability to stay at "new" resorts

Not relevant if you intend to stay at the BCV

3) prorated maintenance fees in first year

You can do this resale, its negotiable

4) Ability to pay by credit card and earn reward points

None of my cards would come close to the delta in terms of reward value.

5) Access to Membership benefits (which if you don't get an AP, is still 10% off food and 20% off merchandise)

Again, haven't used mine in 15 years

6) Buying late in the use year essentially gets you double points in year 1

Buying a loaded contract does the same

7) Points being available quicker

Plan ahead and this isn't a problem.

8) Lower closing costs

Built into the direct price

9) Ability to book cruises/Disney Concierge

Again, most people never use these benefits. Really not a wise financial choice.

Context is important. The Apples to Apples comment was in response to the post above by Soap_1984. I am in no way suggesting that one should opt for Direct over Resale as a default. I'm just suggesting that saying Riviera offers nothing of value because you can buy BLT for $140 PP resale vs $188 PP at Riviera doesn't make sense.

1) Riviera direct purchase comes with direct benefits (not just the blue card). Whether you personally will take advantage of them or not is not relevant to the overall discussion of whether the cost/point chart is too high for the average buyer.

2) Riviera has 50 years left on the contract vs 40 years for BLT

3) BLT is ideal for going to MK. However, it's location is pretty bad if you want to visit HS or Epcot. Riviera is ideal for going to HS or Epcot.

4) As others have mentioned, the MF at Riviera were most likely intentionally made high to avoid any large jumps in the first few years. In a few years, the delta between RIV MF and the avg resort MF probably won't be too large. But this is just a guess.

Comparing direct pricing of a sold out resort to direct pricing of an active selling resort isn't an apple to apple comparison either. Disney intentionally prices sold out resorts very high to encourage people to buy at the active selling resort. A better comparison would be looking at the price of resorts when they were in active sales and then adjusting for inflation.

It is an apples to apples comparison for someone who is deciding to buy into DVC today, which is really the basis of the discussion. If I wanted to buy DVC today, I don't have the option of going back 10 years and paying for BLT at the direct prices 10 years ago. I either pay resale prices today and deal with the restrictions, or pay direct prices today.

 

[Soap_1984]

Context is important. The Apples to Apples comment was in response to the post above by Soap_1984. I am in no way suggesting that one should opt for Direct over Resale as a default. I'm just suggesting that saying Riviera offers nothing of value because you can buy BLT for $140 PP resale vs $188 PP at Riviera doesn't make sense.

1) Riviera direct purchase comes with direct benefits (not just the blue card). Whether you personally will take advantage of them or not is not relevant to the overall discussion of whether the cost/point chart is too high for the average buyer.

2) Riviera has 50 years left on the contract vs 40 years for BLT

3) BLT is ideal for going to MK. However, it's location is pretty bad if you want to visit HS or Epcot. Riviera is ideal for going to HS or Epcot.

4) As others have mentioned, the MF at Riviera were most likely intentionally made high to avoid any large jumps in the first few years. In a few years, the delta between RIV MF and the avg resort MF probably won't be too large. But this is just a guess.



It is an apples to apples comparison for someone who is deciding to buy into DVC today, which is really the basis of the discussion. If I wanted to buy DVC today, I don't have the option of going back 10 years and paying for BLT at the direct prices 10 years ago. I either pay resale prices today and deal with the restrictions, or pay direct prices today.

I love how everyone talks about apples to apples it's just a cliché now used to excuse an opinion at this point. Based on what people are saying you can never compare anything.

I am comparing. There are decisions that have to be made; you cannot have everything. How can you compare riviera to anything if it costs a different amount, has a different location etc.?

Let me address each one of your points:

1) you are assuming the buyer does not already have direct benefits, and you are assuming the buyer is going to go twice a year to actual get some real value out of the direct benefits (the AP is the only benefit worth anything). The cost of riviera skyrockets even higher with the high points chart if you are going twice a year. If you have 4 kids, sure you save money with the AP but you need over 300+ points at Riv to go twice a year for two 7 day trips (which you don't need at many other resale resorts);
2) great and it's worth almost nothing if I die in 20 years, lose my job, don't want to go to Disney anymore or am unable, need to move etc etc. If you are planning on getting a ton of value and giving from the age of80-90 then good for you, in the case of Riv that has no tangible value to most people other than resale. I am not personally layering in assumptions about my kids etc 40 years from now when I'm 70 years old. It has some value, I have no idea what that value is, if you look at resale prices, I don't see a clear correlation between contract length and what people are willing to pay, since initial sale many contracts have increased in price in the resale market, so it isn't a huge factor for many people buying resale;
3)riviera is not more ideal for going to HS and epcot than BWV or BCV which you can stay at if you buy BLT.
4) OK so how does this matter at all to me when I go to pay? It's $2 more I don't care why it's $2 more. So they stay the same for a year then go up 3-4%? As you said, the contract is 50 years long why would I care about 1 year of no increases?

If you're dying to stay at Riv then yes you have no choice. But again, how can you be dying to stay at Riv every year for your entire life before it's open? I start from very simple assumptions, if you like Riv and want it by all means go ahead and buy it. I do agree you can't throw a blanket over every individual buyers circumstances, but you can provide options for people who don't want/ pay $188 per point and get a very similar (or some might argue better) experience at another resort depending on what you value. With your response you can never compare anything. I personally already have points I can use at Riv, will someone be getting enough owning Riv to pay $50-80 more per point and also have to buy more points than they would basically anywhere else? All you are losing by buying resale is the chance to use points at Riv and as I stated, there are other options location wise that are better. Sure it isn't an exact comparison but nothing ever is

 

[Soap_1984]

I am really lost with " the location is not optimal" line and I am not singling anyone out either because a lot of people use it. Please clarify what is optimal CCV- hardly, SSR - beyond hardly, AKV- so far off the beaten path can't even use the term hardly.

All told I still see those same people who refuse to buy or accept the resort for what it is clamoring to stay there it just boggles the mind.

It has similar point charts and you can't walk anywhere and costs more per point than any resort. They built the skyliner because the resort is in a bad location. Slapping the skyliner in reduces your time to two resorts so I agree it is better than many others, but it also costs way more.

It is funny that you don't see the distinction between wanting to stay somewhere one time to try it vs spending tens of thousands and committing to stay there for 50 years. To me if you are attacking that then would you not feel even more outraged by people who have bought it without ever staying there? How can you commit to 50 years in the face of never having set foot in the place and paying all that money etc etc and talk about how great it is never having experienced it even once? Is that not more questionable than people questioning it but saying they'll try it once? People make decisions and then come here to give their opinions on why, that's why these boards exist.

People are listing reasons they don't want to buy Riv just like those who bought it say why they think they will like it. If you love HS and epcot then it is a good resort. It looks really nice to me. But it is expensive, it isn't the best location to any Park and so I can see people making other choices when buying.

I don't think anyone is saying it's a horrible resort or the location is so terrible, but when you have multiple resorts (most of which are cheaper) that you can walk to the parks, or have monorail access which, to me, I prefer over a gondola hanging from a string, then yeah I can see people looking at the alternatives and saying they may prefer somewhere else.

 

[CanadaDisney05]

I love how everyone talks about apples to apples it's just a cliché now used to excuse an opinion at this point. Based on what people are saying you can never compare anything.

I guess the point is what are we discussing? Are we discussing whether you personally should buy Riviera or whether they will be able to sell out Riviera at an acceptable pace based on all of the attributes?

I am in no way arguing that you should buy Riviera if it doesn't fit your parameters. I am not even arguing that Riviera will sell at an acceptable pace based on its attributes. I'm just suggesting that because Riviera doesn't fit your specific criteria, doesn't mean that the average DVC buyer won't find value in it.

1) you are assuming the buyer does not already have direct benefits, and you are assuming the buyer is going to go twice a year to actual get some real value out of the direct benefits (the AP is the only benefit worth anything). The cost of riviera skyrockets even higher with the high points chart if you are going twice a year. If you have 4 kids, sure you save money with the AP but you need over 300+ points at Riv to go twice a year for two 7 day trips (which you don't need at many other resale resorts);

1) Blue Card Benefits ≠ Direct Benefits. I gave a list of direct benefits that are not Blue Card Benefits. Again, whether these fit your specific criteria is irrelevant to the discussion. It only matters if the average buyer cares about them.
2) While it will take twice as long to recover the cost, the 51 week rule allows even those families that travel once a year to take advantage of the AP discount.

2) great and it's worth almost nothing if I die in 20 years, lose my job, don't want to go to Disney anymore or am unable, need to move etc etc. If you are planning on getting a ton of value and giving from the age of80-90 then good for you, in the case of Riv that has no tangible value to most people other than resale. I am not personally layering in assumptions about my kids etc 40 years from now when I'm 70 years old. It has some value, I have no idea what that value is, if you look at resale prices, I don't see a clear correlation between contract length and what people are willing to pay, since initial sale many contracts have increased in price in the resale market, so it isn't a huge factor for many people buying resale;

I'm not going to argue this point. I'm not a restrictions apologist. I personally didn't consider Riviera for this exact reason myself. But again, does this affect the average buyer?

3)riviera is not more ideal for going to HS and epcot than BWV or BCV which you can stay at if you buy BLT.

Only for the next 22 years. The next 18 years of your BLT contract will not get you access to anything close to those parks.

4) OK so how does this matter at all to me when I go to pay? It's $2 more I don't care why it's $2 more. So they stay the same for a year then go up 3-4%? As you said, the contract is 50 years long why would I care about 1 year of no increases?

The point I was suggesting is that in two or three years, RIV MF may not look so high compared to the other resorts. Then from that point on, the MF should increase at a similar rate to all the other resorts. So like you said, the high MF really only matters for the first few years.

Of course this is all theoretical and can prove to be untrue.

If you're dying to stay at Riv then yes you have no choice. But again, how can you be dying to stay at Riv every year for your entire life before it's open? I start from very simple assumptions, if you like Riv and want it by all means go ahead and buy it. I do agree you can't throw a blanket over every individual buyers circumstances, but you can provide options for people who don't want/ pay $188 per point and get a very similar (or some might argue better) experience at another resort depending on what you value. With your response you can never compare anything. I personally already have points I can use at Riv, will someone be getting enough owning Riv to pay $50-80 more per point and also have to buy more points than they would basically anywhere else? All you are losing by buying resale is the chance to use points at Riv and as I stated, there are other options location wise that are better. Sure it isn't an exact comparison but nothing ever is

See the bolded part. This is not true. By buying resale, you are also losing the option of staying at Reflections, the new Disneyland DVC, and anything else they decide to build over the next 40 years, which could include new revamped BCV and BWV in 2043.

For me the location is a huge negative when looking at the price; I can buy BLT for $130-150 per point depending on the variables with a cheaper/comparable point chart, way cheaper MF and can walk to MK in 3 minutes. How will they convince me to part with much more money to buy at Riv? I don't know how they can but while the resale restrictions are in place I'll never even consider buying there regardless of how nice it is

I'm not saying that you can't compare BLT resale to RIV direct. But your post above suggesting that RIV really shouldn't be considered because you can buy BLT for much less is disregarding all of the qualitative differences between the two contracts, and only factoring in some of the quantitative measures. Its cherry picking RIV's weaknesses to prove a point without factoring in it's pros.

 

[DougEMG]

I am really lost with " the location is not optimal" line and I am not singling anyone out either because a lot of people use it. Please clarify what is optimal CCV- hardly, SSR - beyond hardly, AKV- so far off the beaten path can't even use the term hardly.

Each resort has a uniqueness too it and location can hardly be use to describe it but they all have a hint of something that brings people to want to stay there and just like BWV and BC they have a lot of reasons not to want to stay there small rooms, bad parking etc. I have stayed at the Fields of Green and if you want to talk about downfalls that property is in the Poly, GF area and difficult location is being nice.

The continued posts about the downfalls of a resort that hasn't even opened boggles the mind given that other resorts have their share. I have taken the Gondola to the Riviera pretty easy and drops you at Epcot's back door so pretty good location if you ask me. Now lets hear all the Gondola breaks down people have you ever had the monorail break down?? have you ever got stuck out in bay lake on the Poly boat I have ! Transportation is not 100% never will be .. does your car ever break down get stuck on the side of the road yes?? Really?

All told I still see those same people who refuse to buy or accept the resort for what it is clamoring to stay there it just boggles the mind.

Agree that CCV/BRV/SSR/OKW/AKV are all not optimal locations for me. For me personally, I prefer to stay at location that I can walk from, hence BLT/BWV/BCV are my preferred resorts. I also like to stay at VGF because of the resort itself and I can live with the location. RIV might fall into the same category as VGF where I like the resort and can live with the location, but I won't know that till it opens.

None of that changes the fact that a lot of people, myself included, think the point chart is a little high.

 

[Lumpy1106]

Context is important. The Apples to Apples comment was in response to the post above by Soap_1984. I am in no way suggesting that one should opt for Direct over Resale as a default. I'm just suggesting that saying Riviera offers nothing of value because you can buy BLT for $140 PP resale vs $188 PP at Riviera doesn't make sense.

...

2) Riviera has 50 years left on the contract vs 40 years for BLT
....

This can actually be a good thing depending on your age. if you are 20, then yes, those additional years are very relevant and valuable. I am in my 50's and frankly 40 years is plenty, 50 is a burden I don't want to pass along to my kids. Sure, they could sell it, but by then RIV will be in that last-10-year window we are all dreading and they may not get much for it if they can sell it at all.

 

[CanadaDisney05]

This can actually be a good thing depending on your age. if you are 20, then yes, those additional years are very relevant and valuable. I am in my 50's and frankly 40 years is plenty, 50 is a burden I don't want to pass along to my kids. Sure, they could sell it, but by then RIV will be in that last-10-year window we are all dreading and they may not get much for it if they can sell it at all.

I agree actually. I'm in my early 30's and went with SSR because it was the longest contract I was willing to take. I didn't want the burden in my 70s and 80s of owning a contract with maintenance fees. If I get to that point and still want to own a contract, I can buy a 10 year Riviera contract then.

Having said that, theoretically in 40 years, a 10 year Riviera contract should hold more resale value than a zero year BLT contract.

 

[DougEMG]

4) As others have mentioned, the MF at Riviera were most likely intentionally made high to avoid any large jumps in the first few years. In a few years, the delta between RIV MF and the avg resort MF probably won't be too large. But this is just a guess.

Are they even allowed to do this, isn't it suppose to be based on actual costs or estimates for new resorts? Given that they have multiple resorts with known costs they should have very accurate estimates for initial MF.

Having high initial MF would be a negative for selling, do you think this is out weighted by having lower increases for the first couple of years?

 

[CanadaDisney05]

Are they even allowed to do this, isn't it suppose to be based on actual costs or estimates for new resorts? Given that they have multiple resorts with known costs they should have very accurate estimates for initial MF.

Having high initial MF would be a negative for selling, do you think this is out weighted by having lower increases for the first couple of years?

I don't actually know. I'm basing this on what I've read on this board. Considering everything is a guess because the resort has not opened yet, it seems reasonable that they can follow this path. Didn't they run into a problem at Aulani where they did the opposite? Had the dues lower initially to help with sales. Then once the operation began and the expenses were higher, there was a huge jump. This caused some sort of legal issue and that's why their are subsidized Aulani contracts out there?

It's one of those things. No matter what you do, your guessing. It's better to be conservative and overestimating at the beginning to build a nest egg, and then create a positive surprise for owners when their resort's fees don't change much vs underestimating and then having the fees jump by 15% for two straight years.

 

[DougEMG]

It has similar point charts and you can't walk anywhere and costs more per point than any resort. They built the skyliner because the resort is in a bad location. Slapping the skyliner in reduces your time to two resorts so I agree it is better than many others, but it also costs way more.

It is funny that you don't see the distinction between wanting to stay somewhere one time to try it vs spending tens of thousands and committing to stay there for 50 years. To me if you are attacking that then would you not feel even more outraged by people who have bought it without ever staying there? How can you commit to 50 years in the face of never having set foot in the place and paying all that money etc etc and talk about how great it is never having experienced it even once? Is that not more questionable than people questioning it but saying they'll try it once? People make decisions and then come here to give their opinions on why, that's why these boards exist.

People are listing reasons they don't want to buy Riv just like those who bought it say why they think they will like it. If you love HS and epcot then it is a good resort. It looks really nice to me. But it is expensive, it isn't the best location to any Park and so I can see people making other choices when buying.

I don't think anyone is saying it's a horrible resort or the location is so terrible, but when you have multiple resorts (most of which are cheaper) that you can walk to the parks, or have monorail access which, to me, I prefer over a gondola hanging from a string, then yeah I can see people looking at the alternatives and saying they may prefer somewhere else.

To me, the main target market for RIV is someone that is young and will get to use most of the 50 years on the contract so the resale value doesn't matter that much and that want an EPCOT/HS resort.

I'm definitely not in that group. I won't be able to use 50 years and my daughter might not even use 50 years which means I will be selling eventually, so resale value matters. I also already own at BWV so I don't need another EPOCT/HS resort.