Next DVC Price Increase?

[Katie2]

Out of curiosity, does anyone know when the next price increase will occur? Do prices increases usually occur at the end of the year? I would imagine with renderings for Reflections being floated around, Disney will want to sell off DRR quickly. I wonder if that will mean threats of price increases, or increasing the original 14 to corner people into buying Riviera.

 

[Boomatt]

Usually in January-April but it depends on the success of the current resort sales. If you don’t WANT Riviera then buy resale. The direct perks just aren’t worth it anymore.

 

[suebeelin]

I can’t believe people are buying direct at the current prices. Not so long ago, direct prices were what resale prices are going for!

Or maybe I’m a dinosaur bc 2010 doesn’t seem that long ago....

 

[CanadaDisney05]

I can’t believe people are buying direct at the current prices. Not so long ago, direct prices were what resale prices are going for!

Or maybe I’m a dinosaur bc 2010 doesn’t seem that long ago....

I think it depends which property & amount of points your purchasing. For several of the properties, the spread between direct & resale is not as significant as others. I never contemplated going direct, but as I've been looking into this a bit closer, my valuation of the "perks" has increased. Most people focus on the "blue card" perks, but forget/ignore that with the new resale restrictions there is a second, and probably more significant benefit of going direct.

Resale points cannot be used at any future DVC resorts. Right now this is not a big deal because there are currently zero resorts that DVC owners cannot use their resale points at. Soon Riviera will open, and a few years later Reflections will follow. Over the life of the contract 23 to 50 years, there may be many more new resorts that will open and resale purchasers will never get to try any of these. Factor in that in 2042, 5 of the original 14 resorts will fall out of the system. By buying resale, you are really limiting your future use. You really have to determine how much money you truly are saving, especially after things like prorated first year maintenance fees, credit card points on the purchase, automatically getting a loaded contract, and savings on annual passes (even if it's only one time before the perk disappears). Not to mention the pure ease of the transaction.

Imagine if you were offered 50 annual passes (one for each of the next 50 years). You had two options. One would act like a normal annual pass, but cost an extra few thousand dollars upfront. The second option allowed you to go in and walk around all of the parks, and go on all the current attractions, but never try any attraction built from here on out. When an old attraction was replaced, you would not be allowed on the new attraction either. Which would you choose?

 

[MinBz]

We also bought Direct because the price difference wasn’t that significant. Giving up the resale savings (for us) was worth being able to have the flexibility to book future resorts. Some of that missed savings will be made up by taking advantage of the Gold Pass while that benefit lasts. Happy with my direct points but will definitely look at resale again when I add on at another resort that may have more significant savings

 

[cruisin5]

In 2042, many people won't care.

 

[CanadaDisney05]

In 2042, many people won't care.

On the other hand, in 2042, many people will care....

I'm not suggesting you must go direct. You should however take into consideration how the restrictions will affect you based on your personal situation. Many DVC buyers are not 55+. They will likely be continuing to travel well after 2042.

It's also not just a concern for later than 2042 purchasers. In 10 years, there will likely be 3 to 4 new resorts in the system that resale buyers will not have access to.

 

[jerseyduke]

Imagine if you were offered 50 annual passes (one for each of the next 50 years). You had two options. One would act like a normal annual pass, but cost an extra few thousand dollars upfront. The second option allowed you to go in and walk around all of the parks, and go on all the current attractions, but never try any attraction built from here on out. When an old attraction was replaced, you would not be allowed on the new attraction either. Which would you choose?

Not being able to stay at a future DVC resort with resale points does not mean you can not stay at it. (this is the DVC attitude - like all of a sudden cash no longer is valid) They all have cash sides.
How do you know you will even like any future offerings?

I will try Riviera, but only because it is there.

I'd wait for Disney to offer me something I am interested in before committing the money to it.

It's also not just a concern for later than 2042 purchasers. In 10 years, there will likely be 3 to 4 new resorts in the system that resale buyers will not have access to.

I am not anywhere near 100 percent sold on this.

Disney could go with a 'DVC2' at moderate resorts which might not even be part of the current system.

We kind of view DVC as a way to stay at Deluxe resorts spending about what you would on a moderate (give or take - it is just a general concept)

Disney could easily decide they are missing out on sales to a very large group of people that would enjoy moderate accommodations at valueish prices.

 

[MICKIMINI]

I think it depends which property & amount of points your purchasing. For several of the properties, the spread between direct & resale is not as significant as others. I never contemplated going direct, but as I've been looking into this a bit closer, my valuation of the "perks" has increased. Most people focus on the "blue card" perks, but forget/ignore that with the new resale restrictions there is a second, and probably more significant benefit of going direct.

Resale points cannot be used at any future DVC resorts. Right now this is not a big deal because there are currently zero resorts that DVC owners cannot use their resale points at. Soon Riviera will open, and a few years later Reflections will follow. Over the life of the contract 23 to 50 years, there may be many more new resorts that will open and resale purchasers will never get to try any of these. Factor in that in 2042, 5 of the original 14 resorts will fall out of the system. By buying resale, you are really limiting your future use. You really have to determine how much money you truly are saving, especially after things like prorated first year maintenance fees, credit card points on the purchase, automatically getting a loaded contract, and savings on annual passes (even if it's only one time before the perk disappears). Not to mention the pure ease of the transaction.

Imagine if you were offered 50 annual passes (one for each of the next 50 years). You had two options. One would act like a normal annual pass, but cost an extra few thousand dollars upfront. The second option allowed you to go in and walk around all of the parks, and go on all the current attractions, but never try any attraction built from here on out. When an old attraction was replaced, you would not be allowed on the new attraction either. Which would you choose?

I just hope DH and I make it to 2042! I remember when we first bought OKW in 1996 we had a good laugh about 2042...not so much anymore...

 

[cruisin5]

Not being able to stay at a future DVC resort with resale points does not mean you can not stay at it. (this is the DVC attitude - like all of a sudden cash no longer is valid) They all have cash sides.
How do you know you will even like any future offerings?

I will try Riviera, but only because it is there.

I'd wait for Disney to offer me something I am interested in before committing the money to it.


I am not anywhere near 100 percent sold on this.

Disney could go with a 'DVC2' at moderate resorts which might not even be part of the current system.

We kind of view DVC as a way to stay at Deluxe resorts spending about what you would on a moderate (give or take - it is just a general concept)

Disney could easily decide they are missing out on sales to a very large group of people that would enjoy moderate accommodations at valueish prices.

Does the DVC AP allow someone to book a room using the AP discount?

Disney like to use the word "deluxe" when describing DVC, not sure how they can apply that at the moderates.

 

[jerseyduke]

Disney like to use the word "deluxe" when describing DVC, not sure how they can apply that at the moderates.

Why would they have to? It is just marketing. I could easily see a DVC 2.0 at the moderates. DVC is done to operate at around a 95+ percent occupancy, which is higher than hotel rooms tend to be.

 

[Disneykate605]

Yes, the DVC gold annual pass allows you to book a room with an AP discount.

 

[Bing Showei]

I think it depends which property & amount of points your purchasing. For several of the properties, the spread between direct & resale is not as significant as others. I never contemplated going direct, but as I've been looking into this a bit closer, my valuation of the "perks" has increased. Most people focus on the "blue card" perks, but forget/ignore that with the new resale restrictions there is a second, and probably more significant benefit of going direct.

Resale points cannot be used at any future DVC resorts. Right now this is not a big deal because there are currently zero resorts that DVC owners cannot use their resale points at. Soon Riviera will open, and a few years later Reflections will follow. Over the life of the contract 23 to 50 years, there may be many more new resorts that will open and resale purchasers will never get to try any of these. Factor in that in 2042, 5 of the original 14 resorts will fall out of the system. By buying resale, you are really limiting your future use. You really have to determine how much money you truly are saving, especially after things like prorated first year maintenance fees, credit card points on the purchase, automatically getting a loaded contract, and savings on annual passes (even if it's only one time before the perk disappears). Not to mention the pure ease of the transaction.

Imagine if you were offered 50 annual passes (one for each of the next 50 years). You had two options. One would act like a normal annual pass, but cost an extra few thousand dollars upfront. The second option allowed you to go in and walk around all of the parks, and go on all the current attractions, but never try any attraction built from here on out. When an old attraction was replaced, you would not be allowed on the new attraction either. Which would you choose?

Something I would suggest factoring into your calculus... 36 years is a long time and things change.

What if the exchange for new resorts that enter the system 10 years from now changes, and your ability to use your SSR points in the way you are planning to use it now changes accordingly?

Over the years, trends have changed where people 14 years ago were sold one product (SSR, namely) with the ability to trade into any studio, on any resort, at any time of year. In practice this was absolutely true. But that has since changed, and while it remains technically true today, and can still be used by guides to sell points today, it doesn’t take long for a new owner to discover the fallacy of this “flexibility.” For CCV owners this bleeds over into home-window studios now.

If you’re being thoughtful about not saving money in the short term (buying resale instead of direct) given the long term implications. I’d suggest you take it a step further and not buy the value entry and actually look at a resort you would enjoy being at. At the end of the day, a 30-day home booking advantage is the only real guarantee you have of future-proofing your buy. Who knows? That resale contract at BLT may prove to have more long term value than a direct contract at SSR.

Buying direct does not afford you any extra long-term protections. Disney does not “look out” for direct buyers in any meaningful way once they sign on the dotted line. Once you buy those direct SSR points, you’ll be treated exactly as any resale SSR owner who bought pre-2019, with respect to booking those new resorts. If you’re buying direct today to use at non-existent future resorts tomorrow, that’s one reality you should factor in.

 

[CanadaDisney05]

Not being able to stay at a future DVC resort with resale points does not mean you can not stay at it. (this is the DVC attitude - like all of a sudden cash no longer is valid) They all have cash sides.
How do you know you will even like any future offerings?

I will try Riviera, but only because it is there.

I'd wait for Disney to offer me something I am interested in before committing the money to it.

This is true. Cash prices are always an option. Just keep in mind, in 10, 15, 20, 40 years, it may not just be Riviera/Reflections. You MAY only have access to half, or 1/4 of the resort options out there. Who really knows.

I am not anywhere near 100 percent sold on this.

Disney could go with a 'DVC2' at moderate resorts which might not even be part of the current system.

We kind of view DVC as a way to stay at Deluxe resorts spending about what you would on a moderate (give or take - it is just a general concept)

Disney could easily decide they are missing out on sales to a very large group of people that would enjoy moderate accommodations at valueish prices.

Who really knows. This could be possible. But if I were betting (which is essentially what we are doing), I'd bet on the side that DVC continues down it's current path rather than veering in a complete different direction.

It is important to note that your personal situation is not everyone's. For some people, the difference between direct & resale is huge because they are purchasing some of the resorts with a large spread & and buying a high number of points. For others, they are buying at the cheaper resorts with a much smaller quantity of points. The difference becomes much more minimal.

Just as an example, as I am currently weighing my options, the difference in price between direct & resale is about $4,000 USD on 150 points at SSR. If I went with 75 direct & 75 resale, the difference goes down to around $1500 USD. These differences are based on my own personal situation and are not necessarily applicable to everyone. We are 30, which means in 2054 when the contract expires, we will only be 65. So we are a good candidate to actually use the contract until the end. For $1500, its a no brainer to atleast get the 75 points direct. My current debate is whether the $2,500 premium is worth it on the second contract. Probably not, but a consideration.

 

[jerseyduke]

This is true. Cash prices are always an option. Just keep in mind, in 10, 15, 20, 40 years, it may not just be Riviera/Reflections. You MAY only have access to half, or 1/4 of the resort options out there. Who really knows.



Who really knows. This could be possible. But if I were betting (which is essentially what we are doing), I'd bet on the side that DVC continues down it's current path rather than veering in a complete different direction.

It is important to note that your personal situation is not everyone's. For some people, the difference between direct & resale is huge because they are purchasing some of the resorts with a large spread & and buying a high number of points. For others, they are buying at the cheaper resorts with a much smaller quantity of points. The difference becomes much more minimal.

Just as an example, as I am currently weighing my options, the difference in price between direct & resale is about $4,000 USD on 150 points at SSR. If I went with 75 direct & 75 resale, the difference goes down to around $1500 USD. These differences are based on my own personal situation and are not necessarily applicable to everyone. We are 30, which means in 2054 when the contract expires, we will only be 65. So we are a good candidate to actually use the contract until the end. For $1500, its a no brainer to atleast get the 75 points direct. My current debate is whether the $2,500 premium is worth it on the second contract. Probably not, but a consideration.

Everyone's situation is different of course, and I would not eliminate buying Direct. I would just be very leery of factoring future resorts as a benefit.

Of course it is all just speculation, as that is all we can do about the future, but DVC might have to start getting creative.

1. The value and moderate resorts are HUGE - the All Stars is like the 2nd largest resort in the US (when treated as one). There is a ton of people out there who, because of the financial aspect, have no interest in DVC, it is just too expensive. Now maybe if 10K could get them a room at POR for the next 50 years........That is a lot of people Disney is not getting their hooks into.

2. I think it would be hard for Disney to put up a new DVC property that does not have a non bus mode of transportation to at least one park now. They haven't since AKL. Prime DVC Resort location is running out. And they are not going to be able to keep raising Direct prices, and sell some resort that requires you to take a bus to any and all parks at 200+ a point.


Of course a 6th gate would solve issue number 2. (Yes, 6th, Disney Springs was the 5th 'gate')

 

[CanadaDisney05]

Something I would suggest factoring into your calculus... 36 years is a long time and things change.

What if the exchange for new resorts that enter the system 10 years from now changes, and your ability to use your SSR points in the way you are planning to use it now changes accordingly?

Over the years, trends have changed where people 14 years ago were sold one product (SSR, namely) with the ability to trade into any studio, on any resort, at any time of year. In practice this was absolutely true. But that has since changed, and while it remains technically true today, and can still be used by guides to sell points today, it doesn’t take long for a new owner to discover the fallacy of this “flexibility.” For CCV owners this bleeds over into home-window studios now.

If you’re being thoughtful about not saving money in the short term (buying resale instead of direct) given the long term implications. I’d suggest you take it a step further and not buy the value entry and actually look at a resort you would enjoy being at. At the end of the day, a 30-day home booking advantage is the only real guarantee you have of future-proofing your buy. Who knows? That resale contract at BLT may prove to have more long term value than a direct contract at SSR.

Buying direct does not afford you any extra long-term protections. Disney does not “look out” for direct buyers in any meaningful way once they sign on the dotted line. Once you buy those direct SSR points, you’ll be treated exactly as any resale SSR owner who bought pre-2019, with respect to booking those new resorts. If you’re buying direct today to use at non-existent future resorts tomorrow, that’s one reality you should factor in.

Good writeup. For others, these are very important points. For my personal situation, it's not too big of a deal for a couple of reasons.

1) Ideally, the goal of us buying DVC is to "sleep around". We don't like the idea of going to the same resort year after year. It doesn't matter which one it is. But being stuck at SSR here and there is not an issue for us. We actually like the resort and the proximity to Disney Springs.

2) The difference in purchase price (atleast on the first 75 points) is pretty negligible given our unique situation. Again, this is different for everyone. The second 75 points is really where the debate is.

3) You are correct. We don't know where the DVC program will go in the future and it would be silly to pay a huge premium based on some assumptions that have a pretty good likelihood of not coming true. However, on a 35 year contract, if the difference in price is "minimal" it may be worth it to bet on the side that things stay fairly similar (or atleast grandfather in previous direct contracts as they have in the past).

4) We generally travel in high point seasons, but have flexibility within the season. While these can shift, I think it's fairly unlikely that summer will ever be a "low" point season. High point seasons tend to drive DVC members away.

5) Absolutely worst case, things aren't going as we had hoped, we can always sell. There would likely be some loss, but nothing that would change our lives in any kind of dramatic way.

 

[CanadaDisney05]

2. I think it would be hard for Disney to put up a new DVC property that does not have a non bus mode of transportation to at least one park now. They haven't since AKL. Prime DVC Resort location is running out.

Getting a bit off topic here, but the speculation is interesting. This is just my own personal opinion, but I think the Skyliners will prove to be very successful, and it will be relatively easy to add these across property. I also wouldn't be surprised if they eventually (probably not very soon) add DVC locations at the France and Asian parks.

Again, these are not things that should be banked on when making any kind of large decision. But these are the types of things that should be considered when weighing the options, especially if the difference is minimal.

 

[Brett Wyman]

I can’t believe people are buying direct at the current prices. Not so long ago, direct prices were what resale prices are going for!

Or maybe I’m a dinosaur bc 2010 doesn’t seem that long ago....

I agree. I think current direct prices are insane.

 

[ray3127]

Great discussion with valid points all around. I also think the limitations of resale points for future resorts is an issue that isn't brought up enough in these discussions. But I also see the argument that it might not matter much in practice. As for this....

Not being able to stay at a future DVC resort with resale points does not mean you can not stay at it. (this is the DVC attitude - like all of a sudden cash no longer is valid) They all have cash sides.

Yes, this is the DVC attitude, and truth be told I cannot imagine paying cash rates for anything Disney-related anymore. The sole exception is the Disneyland Hotel for it's unique place in Disney history, the pools, lack of DVC alternatives on site, and the high cost of our VGC points... if we run out of those, we aren't buying more, so we can augment w/DLH.

But if I'm in a situation to pay cash at WDW, I'm more inclined to consider buying more points than paying out of pocket... not sure if that's rational or not. But the $$$ I drop on a moderate hotel for a week is a nice down payment on a new chunk of points. The points have forever changed my mentality, for better or worse.

While technically cash is an option, in practice it just isn't for me (and others, by the sound of it). I enjoy your posts @jerseyduke, just wanted to share my thoughts on this one issue.

 

[ray3127]

Great discussion with valid points all around. I also think the limitations of resale points for future resorts is an issue that isn't brought up enough in these discussions. But I also see the argument that it might not matter much in practice. As for this....

Yes, this is the DVC attitude, and truth be told I cannot imagine paying cash rates for anything Disney-related anymore. The sole exception is the Disneyland Hotel for it's unique place in Disney history, the pools, lack of DVC alternatives on site, and the high cost of our VGC points... if we run out of those, we aren't buying more, so we can augment w/DLH.

But if I'm in a situation to pay cash at WDW, I'm more inclined to consider buying more points than paying out of pocket... not sure if that's rational or not. But the $$$ I drop on a moderate hotel for a week is a nice down payment on a new chunk of points. The points have forever changed my mentality, for better or worse.

While technically cash is an option, in practice it just isn't for me (and others, by the sound of it). I enjoy your posts @jerseyduke, just wanted to share my thoughts on this one issue.

To rephrase... One of the main reasons I purchased DVC was to avoid paying cash. Ergo, the "DVC attitude" of cash not being valid.