Is staying on site really worth it?

[DISNEYFAMILYOFFOUR]

Just one word: YES!!!!

Agreed.

 

[OhDonna]

Yes, if you have children/teens.
Otherwise, I think it depends on what you plan to do. I have stayed off site and used the bus system. I thought it was fun and did some non-amusement park exploring. I also went to Epcot (1 day), Discovery Cove, Seaworld, and Universal (2 days) and Universal Haloween.

 

[WIcruizer]

I just have to say something. I have no problem with anyone's preference, and I'm sure I won't change anyone's mind. My only issue is that off-site is being dismissed for reasons that really aren't very logical.

If you love staying on-site because that's your comfort level, I understand. If you just like the idea that you're actually staying at WDW, fine. But I see so many posts about transportation, and I really don't get it. I have a feeling a lot of it is the Disney marketing machine has worked. I have a feeling that off-site to many of you means I Driver, Kissimee, etc.

The resorts just off WDW property all have their own transportation. The better ones are just as reliable as Disney Transportation, and less crowded. So all the advantages of Disney transportation are really a myth.

Now...we have stayed on-site a few times and after the first couple times, we never used the transportation anymore. Standing in lines waiting to get on a bus with kids crying, packed to the gills, sometimes smelly, etc. is not Magic. Much, much easier to jump on a tram, takes you right to your car, and you drive back to your resort in peace- and usually get there before the bus. You return a much nicer room (at least compared to the mods and value.) Bottom line, I think many people make an emotional decision to stay on-site.

And for those of you who have been to WDW multiple times, don't you want to explore more than just WDW? When we go, it's 7-10 days. With a car, we can drive to the beaches, Cape Canaveral, Daytona, etc. And even if we don't, we at least drive around the area, outlet malls, restaurants, Universal Boardwalk, etc. There is so much more to see and do.

 

[jann1033]

logic has nothing to do with it

we stayed off site once and to stay on site is so much easier and to us more fun ( worth it's weight in gold for me when i am at disney ) i would rather stay at a value onsite than an offsite fancy resort( sick i know). it just imo loses something having to drive back and forth ect..we use the disney trans. and never use our car for our whole vacation. maybe that is a bigger deal for us since we live in a rural area and everything is miles away in real life.

so it's all about the magic for me except i won't pay 300 a night for a room anywhere so we stay at non-deluxe( cheapness overrides it in this case since i can stay onsite for less and still get a fine room)

 

[Eric95403]

I can't believe I read every single post on this subject...I never do that. I guess the only reason is because we are staying off-site for the very first time next summer. We own @ Marriott, so I split my room and booked two weeks. We'll try off-site this time around. I do think the transportation offered on-site is over rated. I remember last time I went, standing in a thunderstorm outside MGM for over a 1/2 hr waiting for a bus that seemed to never want to show up. I think I could have walked back to the WL faster. We also just returned from a DCL trip and stopped @ WDW for the day upon our return. We parked @ DTD and used the busses to get around. Even in October the busses were filled...with smelly people who would not stop talking. Very annoying...

With all that said, I am worried about losing some of the MAGIC by not staying on-site. With two weeks in Orlando though, I would actually like to see a little bit of the area and not just the WDW property.

After reading all those posts though, I can see what one poster mentioned ... there are a lot of brainwashed people out there who believe in that Disney Magic...oh wait, I just got off that ship. No wonder why they can get away with charging as much as they do.....

 

[Taratink]

We have done both. I loved both trips. I really like to have the room that an offsite villa provides. The only park that is difficult to get to is the Magic Kingdom when we are offsite. We stayed at the WL our last trip and the kids loved it there. My husband and I got tired of the tight quarters. I will not spend all that $$$ on 2 rooms. I just can't justify it or afford it if we plan to go every year. If I was planning a trip without kids I would definately stay onsite at one of the monorail hotels. It is always nice to try different places on and offsite. I feel disney magic when I watch a disney movie. My Disney magic is always with me. (Wow, What a nerd !)
Tara

 

[Wendy1953]

We too have done both, and now are DVCers'...but all in all, it depends on family size, plans to visit other parks other than Disney, and actual personal preferences. I have stayed outside in some value hotels and high price hotels....on site at the value, moderate and expensive hotels...they all had a clean bed and bathroom to sleep and shower in. If you plan on cutting down on food costs and/or calories - the suites offer flexibility...full size fridge, stove and extra bedrooms. For a family of six, it is expensive enough for tickets, airfare and food, so if it's not within your budget plan to stay offsite, but then you do have the cost of the rental car and parking. I go along with a lot of other posts...it depends on what your preference is...by the way, that's the reason why there are so many on and offsite hotels....everyone's ideal vacation is not ideal to another!

I say ....try both and see what your preference is!

Have a geat vacation whichever way you plan to go!

 

[disneysteve]

I posted here before, but just wanted to add a recent experience. We got back from Disney yesterday. We stayed at Orbit One villas. For those who think being offsite is too far or too inconvenient, consider this. I timed our return from Animal Kingdom. From the front gate, we talk a short walk to our car in the lot - didn't need the tram as it wasn't far enough. From the time we got into our car until the time we parked outside our offsite villa was a whopping FOUR minutes! I'd be willing to bet that you couldn't get to any onsite hotel with the possible exception of AKL in less time and that's assuming that a bus was waiting for you when you left the park.

To be fair, the ride from Epcot or MK is longer, but from AK or MGM, it is quite short, quicker than if you were onsite in many cases.

 

[mickyzzzzz05]

Over the years we have stayed off-site maybe 4 times. Once at the Vistana (sp??) Villas. The other 3 times we were at a regular motel type place. Our first trip we were in a motel about 10 minutes away. After that we started staying on the WDW property for the days we go to the parks.
We like not getting into our vehicle and driving for days at a time. I can think of some times when there were glitches with the transportation system where one of us would say - "It would have been quicker for us to drive!" But we never do - we like having someone else worry about where they are going and the traffic.

We liked the option of having 1 or 2 of us being able to head back to the room for a rest or an early night without the rest of the crew feeling they had to leave the parks until they were ready.

Even now with just the two of us we like staying on property - when I walk away from the van in the parking lot I feel that I am really on vacation.

The couple of times that we stayed off-site I found deals that were almost too good to pass up - we still had a wonderful time but didn't care for the driving and parking part.

Even when I see some of the great deals in the previous posts I am not tempted to stay off-site. I love staying at WDW.

I can certainly understand the viewpoints expressed about the extra room and rooms and I think that is great - just not for us.

As another poster stated - it is an individual choice depending on personal priorities.

If it were a choice between staying off-site or not going - I would stay off-site though!