LOVE or HATE FP+ Anyone's mind been changed ??

[JimmyV]

Not sure if the 'you' here is something you do, or just your commentary on society, so I'm not looking to pick on anyone specific here. I do find that this kind of comment, thinking along these lines, explains some of the differences in opinions/outlook we have on FP+.

The comment above typifies a me first mentality....Keep the money! Yippee!! Right, wrong, indifferent I come out ahead, the rest be darned!!!! Who cares that the cashier has a drawer to count and will have to answer later for the money he or she is short, I win and could care less about anyone else!!!!

Most of the dislikes regarding FP+ seem to stem from the fact that the system limits a few people's ability to maximize FPs as they used to be able to (prevents them from 'keeping the money', if you will), while (indisputably?) making more FPs available to many more guests.

Other guests getting the FP I used to get doesn't benefit ME, it's not a good system for ME. However, that doesn't make it a flawed system.....

But this sort of thing happens all the time in a world of limited resources. Whatever "you" get is something that someone else cannot get. When you go to the Cape May Cafe at 6:00 p.m. and load up on crab legs until you burst, (and I don't literally mean "you". I am not picking on your eating habits, but you know that, right?), do you stop to think that the person with an 8:30 ADR might not get any? Would it be an "improvement" if Disney made you go on line 60 days in advance to reserve your crab clusters, and limited you to two per person? That way, the people who dine late get their share. Would it be an improvement if crab legs were taken off the buffet and delivered to your table, but only one bucket per party? That way, the late comers get what they need. Would it be an improvement if the restaurant moved to a traditional seating system and scrapped the buffet all together and allowed you to order only one serving? People use an inequitable amount of resources every day. But all of a sudden, when it comes to FP+, such inequitable use is a crime against humanity. Yes, it is human nature to think about "me". It is human nature to want more for yourself. Pretty sure wars have been waged over this idea. And when one is paying a lot of money for their vacation, (and I'm not going to toss out a number--), the Machiavellian in all of us comes out even more than in the rest of our lives.

 

[DisneyKidds]

This is a perfect example of how something can be both an improvement and a diminishment.

A duality born purely from the ME perspective. I get more = improvement. I get less = detriment.

Sometimes I forget I'm not on the Rumors and News Board circa 2000, when there were a bunch of us who could discuss things like pricing and park changes in the wider context of what they represented, in terms of fit with Walt's philosophies, in terms of what was right/wrong, good/bad for TWDC, and the future of TWDC, and the survival of Walt's long since forgotten ideals.

Me, me, me, mememe! Hey, I'm guilty too. There are benefits to FP+ for me. Those benefits outweigh the negatives for me. It all balances to a good system for me, just like FP- was, just like the pre-FP days were. I do like to think, however, that I genuinely consider the bigger picture, and I'm glad that a system, one that gives a much larger percentage of guests a much better chance of using and securing FPs, is one that also works for ME on a personal level.

 

[Laketravis]

Would it be an "improvement" if Disney made you go on line 60 days in advance to reserve your crab clusters, and limited you to two per person? That way, the people who dine late get their share. Would it be an improvement if crab legs were taken off the buffet and delivered to your table, but only one bucket per party?

AND raised the price?


.

 

[MrInfinity]

When it comes to FP+, such inequitable use is a crime against humanity. Yes, it is human nature to think about "me". It is human nature to want more for yourself. And when one is paying a lot of money for their vacation, (and I'm not going to toss out a number--), the Machiavellian in all of us comes out even more than in the rest of our lives.

Not following your metaphor w the crab legs. So skipping that.

You've nailed it here. "inequitable use". Is it a crime? No. Of course not. I was so all over FP-. We rode literally tons w it. I didn't care who didn't get to ride. They could have used it for all I care, given that if everyone used it, it would have been as worthwhile as FP+ is now, but -- they didn't. So it was great.

Now, I don't have a problem w that. But from the POV of running a company, selling rooms, and making more guests happy than "just me and you"... I can totally see why D would like more than a sliver of usage. FP+ changes everything. Now so many more people use it, and as a result, it is much less useful for you and I. I don't see that as a problem. I see it as a natural thing D should do.

Yes I get less. No, I'm not happy that I used to be able to pull FPs all day, but now because everyone is, they're gone early, and it's one per guest. But it still makes sense for Disney to do this. And I'm capable enough to squeeze an edge out of any system, as I've found I could do w FP+. It is not impossible to "beat" per se, and still have a wonderful trip. You have to study it for its benefits. Like A&E. Saving 4 hours in a park. How many FP- tickets did you have to pull to save 4 hours in a park. See? When you look at the big picture, it's very useable, and very reasonable to command a good trip with it. It's just... the time savings come from different places than they used to.

Would I ever want to go back to FP-? No. A paper system is terrible. Nobody would ever revert to that. I do believe there's room for improvement in what's out there, but at the same time it's not going to make my trip miserable, or ride three rides then shop. It doesn't work that way. It's still Disney World.

 

[JimmyV]

Not following your metaphor w the crab legs. So skipping that.

Person who has an 8:30 ADR is the same as the person who tries to book a headliner 30 days out with no tiering.
Crab legs (which are the most popular item at Cape May), can run out. People who dine early are in "all you care to eat" mode and can wipe out the supply. And it does happen. People with later ADRs are paying the same price for the buffet, and when they arrive, they find that there are no crab legs. They are not happy. People who dined earlier used up the supply. Same as FP without tiering. People with early booking windows would wipe out the supply of the most popular attractions. Disney now allocates Fast Passes. It could just as easily allocate crab legs. Yet people never seem to complain about the inequity of popular buffet items. They just accept their fate that if they dine late, they get what they get. These same people expect to walk into Epcot at 4:00 and get a FP for Soarin'.

 

[Laketravis]

Sorry, but suggesting that anyone who spends thousands on a vacation should accept less in return so that others who have spent thousands as well don't get stuck with even less is the silliest defense of a theme park ride rationing system I've ever heard.

....They are choosing to make 3 guests happy w the same # of rides that you used to consume yourself. That's life. They're right to do this. That's not great for you. But it is great for a lot more people than you. And frankly... You're still going. So it's not all that bad even for you.

You skipped over the crab leg example because it was convenient to do so but the principles are the same. You're describing the essentials of a socialist economy, not a ride rationing system in a capitalist economy. When I get my government vouchers in the mail to go to WDW free of charge along with instructions on how to pick my 3 FP's (and only 3 so that everyone else derives equal benefit) then I might agree with you. But as long as anyone is paying for a vacation that is not subsidized by anyone else, there is no reason to expect them to accept less for the benefit of anyone else they are not paying for.


.

 

[JimmyV]

A duality born purely from the ME perspective. I get more = improvement. I get less = detriment.

Not a novel concept. A vacation is supposed to be a pleasurable experience. As such, the id kicks in to hyperdrive and the super-ego goes on vacation, as it were.

 

[MrInfinity]

You're describing the essentials of a socialist economy, not a ride rationing system in a capitalist economy. When I get my government vouchers in the mail to go to WDW free of charge along with instructions on how to pick my 3 FP's (and only 3 so that everyone else derives equal benefit) then I might agree with you. But as long as anyone is paying for a vacation that is not subsidized by anyone else, there is no reason to expect them to accept less for the benefit of anyone else they are not paying for.

If you liken "wanting to offer a good experience to all guests instead of a great experience to some guests and nothing to others" socialism, then go for it! You're still purchasing the product, so you don't seem to mind. And technically, you can ride Soarin all day if you want. Just.. if someone else hasn't gotten to ride it at all (and they wanted to and so pulled a FP to it) you have to wait for them to go once, before you get more.

If you want to go twice before they go once, make your case as to why you should be able to.

And how wonderful you've now likened FastPass to both socialism and capitalism in the same post.

You call FP- capitalism. that is, you're calling Fast Passes a resource, and saying the consumer who is the fastest or best can get the most. But. You're wrong. FP slots are not for sale to the fastest bidder. Only your admission to Disney is. Once you buy it (which you seem willing to do) you get what you bought. And Disney has every reason to use it's rides to sell as many admissions to other people also willing to pay (like you).

 

[Laketravis]

Sometimes I forget I'm not on the Rumors and News Board circa 2000, when there were a bunch of us who could discuss things like pricing and park changes in the wider context of what they represented, in terms of fit with Walt's philosophies, in terms of what was right/wrong, good/bad for TWDC, and the future of TWDC, and the survival of Walt's long since forgotten ideals....

I actually enjoy reading that board; even though there are contributors who have extremely solid and contrasting opinions they discuss them in a very respectful manner and share a lot of good information in the process.


.

 

[Laketravis]

See... you're likening FP distribution to capitalism. that is, you're calling Fast Passes a resource, and saying the consumer who is the fastest or best can get the most....

Nope. Not at all. I'm not likening FP distribution to anything. I'm pointing out that in a capitalist economy one can express their dissatisfaction for a product or service they pay for and not receive a socialist explanation that the basis of their dissatisfaction is so that others can derive equal benefit.


.

 

[MrInfinity]

Nope. Not at all. I'm not likening FP distribution to anything. I'm liking the fact that in a capitalist economy one can express their dissatisfaction for a product or service they pay for and not receive an explanation that the basis of their dissatisfaction is that so others can derive equal benefit.

And that, is where your angst should be directed. While you sit there with your AP and have two trips planned to the World.

 

[Laketravis]

And that, is where your angst should be directed. While you sit there with your AP and have two trips planned to the World.

There is no angst involved here on my part, I'm simply responding to your suggestion (again) that anyone who pays thousands of dollars for a vacation should expect to receive less so that others can receive more.

Now, you might have a point once the Shanghai Disney park opens (built in part with profits from WDW) and your suggestion might be considered appropriate in a predominantly communist/socialist country if those guests start to complain.

But not here.


.

 

[MrInfinity]

There is no angst involved here on my part, I'm simply responding to your suggestion (again) that anyone who pays thousands of dollars for a vacation should expect to receive less so that others can receive more.

Now, you might have a point once the Shanghai Disney park opens (built in part with profits from WDW) and your suggestion could make sense in a predominantly communist country if those guests start to complain.

Yes yes can't forget to liken it to socialism, capitalism, and communism all at once. So should we interchangeably refer to systems of government with social / economic systems? In all fairness, you have yet to liken it to a monarchy, or a monopoly. Which I'm sure you plan to. Or why not Feudalism? Heck you could call the parks city-states, and the kiosks - lords. And the guests, peasants... who must appease the kiosks for their well-being. They must wait to speak to them, and hope to be granted access to sustenance (pixie dust) with the full understanding that they are likely to be cast away to work the fields -- or shop.

I still fail to see your connection between "paying thousands of dollars for a vacation" and your expectation that you deserve to get more or less than another guest. You should get what you purchase. Access to the park. Beyond that, it is up to Disney how it wants to market its ride passes. Period. If you don't like how they're leveraging them, don't buy the number of them that you're willingly agreeing to buy.

But not here.

You know... if you make an argument... here... and follow it up with "but not here". You've still made the argument... here.

 

[Laketravis]

I still fail to see your connection between "paying thousands of dollars for a vacation" and your expectation that you deserve to get more or less than another guest..

Perhaps it's because you misread my comment and fabricated your own version of my expectations. My comment was:

"Sorry, but suggesting that anyone who spends thousands on a vacation should accept less in return so that others who have spent thousands as well don't get stuck with even less is the silliest defense of a theme park ride rationing system I've ever heard."

To which you disagreed.


.

 

[Dr Gevil]

A duality born purely from the ME perspective. I get more = improvement. I get less = detriment.

Sometimes I forget I'm not on the Rumors and News Board circa 2000, when there were a bunch of us who could discuss things like pricing and park changes in the wider context of what they represented, in terms of fit with Walt's philosophies, in terms of what was right/wrong, good/bad for TWDC, and the future of TWDC, and the survival of Walt's long since forgotten ideals.

Me, me, me, mememe! Hey, I'm guilty too. There are benefits to FP+ for me. Those benefits outweigh the negatives for me. It all balances to a good system for me, just like FP- was, just like the pre-FP days were. I do like to think, however, that I genuinely consider the bigger picture, and I'm glad that a system, one that gives a much larger percentage of guests a much better chance of using and securing FPs, is one that also works for ME on a personal level.

I actually enjoy reading that board; even though there are contributors who have extremely solid and contrasting opinions they discuss them in a very respectful manner and share a lot of good information in the process.


.

Well what would it take to get them over here for awhile? Would Capitalist, Socialist, or Communist negotiations work best?

 

[BugsDaddy]

I am not sure about the argument that FP+ "takes" from one group to give to another group understanding that both parties have theoretically paid the same for equal access to the same resource. FP+ attempts to fix a perceived failure of the old system (by some) where fast passes were not equally distributed to all guests and some guests could use their knowledge of the system to gain an advantage. So, "taking" in this case could also be seen as leveling the playing field. Righting a wrong. Regulation. Regulation isn't always horrible and de-regulation (the old system) isn't always grand. In this case, I think FP+ is now benefiting a larger portion of guests than FP- ever did or could. I cannot prove that. Just a theory.

 

[Laketravis]

 

[JimmyV]

FP+ attempts to fix a perceived failure of the old system (by some) where fast passes were not equally distributed to all guests and some guests could use their knowledge of the system to gain an advantage.

Emphasis on "attempts". The people who are not getting A&E FP+ 60 days in advance at 12:02 a.m. are not really seeing how this is any different than not getting a TSMM FP- at 11:30 a.m.. There is no "equal distribution" of these new FPs, and guests are using their knowledge of the system to gain an advantage. (Specifically, make sure you are on line at midnight and try booking your later days before trying to book your first days). Which only goes to prove that no system is going to be perfect. No system is ever going to give every person every ride. It is just a matter of how much "inequality" are we willing to live with. Under FP-, it was more than it is under FP+. To some, the "old" inequality wasn't a bad result. To others, things were becoming untenable.

 

[cakebaker]

... So, "taking" in this case could also be seen as leveling the playing field. Righting a wrong. Regulation. Regulation isn't always horrible and de-regulation (the old system) isn't always grand. In this case, I think FP+ is now benefiting a larger portion of guests than FP- ever did or could. I cannot prove that. Just a theory.

That's how I see it. The old system favored a group
Of super users to the detriment of other guests. The super user may not care, but the other guests did and disney most certainly cared. But when that reasoning is presented , it's usually met with "yeah, but that's not why they did it".

 

[Lisa loves Pooh]

That's how I see it. The old system favored a group
Of super users to the detriment of other guests. The super user may not care, but the other guests did and disney most certainly cared. But when that reasoning is presented , it's usually met with "yeah, but that's not why they did it".

Apparently Disney decided to listen to complaints and guest reviews. Shocker.