The future with new resorts and restrictions

[Girlstar30]

So here's my random thought of the day for those that want to chime in So I think Riv is obviously a success because it is a beautiful resort, with skyliner transportation, delicious food, spacious and luxurious rooms, and elegant artwork, it really does appeal to many. It is such a gem to those of us that love it that we are willing to buy direct into this resort knowing that it has resale restrictions and the value can plummet in the coming years. Im sure we've all second guessed this choice before deciding that purchasing here is what we want to do.

Now, to the point, I would never even consider buying direct Riv if it wasn't so fabulous to me. Do you think that Disney can pull this off with all of with their future resorts? Meaning, can all of their future resorts be so appealing that people will look the other way at the obviously less desirable restrictions that these future contracts will be having and purchase direct?

Or will people be further driven to purchase resale in the coming years, thwarting Disney's plans to handicapp resale? The answer for me is no, they wont be able to successfully pull this off with every resort or else why would they bundle poly island tower together with the old poly contract, making it more desirable for some Disney is smarter than I am so i dont know. This also excites me for a potential fire sale in the future at a "less desirable" resort. I know, i know im not going to go there again. I just couldn't let the day pass without another Disboard convo

 

[Sprinkles&Sprints]

FOMO is strong…ask the many of us who thought/swore we’d only buy resale…and now have both. So I tend to believe that there will always be buyers who want direct even with restrictions. I also believe that most buyers don’t go in with the intention that they’d sell…so restrictions might not play as big of a consideration at the point of purchase.

 

[kanerf]

We will soon know when Lakeshore Lodge opens.

 

[Girlstar30]

Hmmm got this in the mail today, never have gotten it before... how do they know im shopping

 

[AstroBlasters]

So here's my random thought of the day for those that want to chime in So I think Riv is obviously a success because it is a beautiful resort, with skyliner transportation, delicious food, spacious and luxurious rooms, and elegant artwork, it really does appeal to many. It is such a gem to those of us that love it that we are willing to buy direct into this resort knowing that it has resale restrictions and the value can plummet in the coming years. Im sure we've all second guessed this choice before deciding that purchasing here is what we want to do.

Now, to the point, I would never even consider buying direct Riv if it wasn't so fabulous to me. Do you think that Disney can pull this off with all of with their future resorts? Meaning, can all of their future resorts be so appealing that people will look the other way at the obviously less desirable restrictions that these future contracts will be having and purchase direct?

Or will people be further driven to purchase resale in the coming years, thwarting Disney's plans to handicapp resale? The answer for me is no, they wont be able to successfully pull this off with every resort or else why would they bundle poly island tower together with the old poly contract, making it more desirable for some Disney is smarter than I am so i dont know. This also excites me for a potential fire sale in the future at a "less desirable" resort. I know, i know im not going to go there again. I just couldn't let the day pass without another Disboard convo

My guess is that a restricted 50 yr Yacht Club would sell just fine…. even with a RIV level point chart….

It’s all about location, quality of materials, and theming.

 

[pzw90]

I just couldn't let the day pass without another Disboard convo

I gotta commend you on the near 400 posts in two weeks, quite impressive actually

 

[Sandisw]

Honestly, I think that they will be able to sell them becaue after a while, new buyers won't know anything different, then a product that has resale restrictions on it.

I never thought I would buy RIV....because of them...and then I visited...and fell in love. Realized that restrictions aren't a big deal because I have gone in to every purchase considering buy in cost as sunk...meaning, if I do have to sell, anything I get back is a bonus.

So, I not only have RIV direct, but some resale RIV as well because I want to be there each and every trip...I do split stay so having VGF is a great co-pilot to have for my trips!

And, I think this will happen with the new resorts as the come along...people will decide that this fits for them, and that there are enough ones locked from resale to make spending extra worth it.

Right now, its RIV, VDH, and CFW...so not a huge loss for new resale buyers, but add in the new VLL (which most certainly will have them) and any future new projects, and all of a sudden, you have quite a few that you can’t access.

 

[Girlstar30]

Honestly, I think that they will be able to sell them becaue after a while, new buyers won't know anything different, then a product that has resale restrictions on it.

I never thought I would buy RIV....because of them...and then I visited...and fell in love. Realized that restrictions aren't a big deal because I have gone in to every purchase considering buy in cost as sunk...meaning, if I do have to sell, anything I get back is a bonus.

So, I not only have RIV direct, but some resale RIV as well because I want to be there each and every trip...I do split stay so having VGF is a great co-pilot to have for my trips!

And, I think this will happen with the new resorts as the come along...people will decide that this fits for them, and that there are enough ones locked from resale to make spending extra worth it.

Right now, its RIV, VDH, and CFW...so not a huge loss for new resale buyers, but add in the new VLL (which most certainly will have them) and any future new projects, and all of a sudden, you have quite a few that you can access.

This is so true. I think after Covid was a good example of what people will accept. Things got more expensive with less value and people know and are upset, but now we kind of just accept what we can because what is the alternative. Not going anywhere? And yes three new resorts in 6 years and I'm committing to this for 45 years, best believe it's worth it to me to get into direct somewhere. We just stayed at a non disney hotel for Valentines day and we were appalled with the no Disney service, cleanliness, and amenties I think we've been spoiled for life.

 

[Brian Noble]

Do you think that Disney can pull this off with all of with their future resorts?

Sure they can.

Timeshare is a product that is sold, not bought*, and almost no one buys a timeshare planning to sell it. Heck, most buyers have no idea what the resale market looks like. Timeshare is also an aspirational purchase--you are buying, in part, an affordable way for your family to take better vacations. Most people aren't thinking about what happens when they don't want to do that anymore, because who doesn't want to take better vacations?

If you need further evidence: the only difference restrictions make to someone buying from the developer is that the resale value is lower than it would otherwise be. The resale value on most other timeshares is dimes on the dollar--if not pennies. That doesn't stop developers from selling them.

--------
*: I know that sounds weird here in the DVC corner of DISboards, but it is true. Very few people woke up with a well-researched plan to buy DVC today, but a fair number will sign on the line which is dotted before their head hits the pillow tonight. When my rescission window closed on my recent purchase, I sent a note to my Guide: "I hope I was the easiest commission you'll make all year."

 

[Girlstar30]

Sure they can.

Timeshare is a product that is sold, not bought*, and almost no one buys a timeshare planning to sell it. Heck, most buyers have no idea what the resale market looks like. Timeshare is also an aspirational purchase--you are buying, in part, an affordable way for your family to take better vacations. Most people aren't thinking about what happens when they don't want to do that anymore, because who doesn't want to take better vacations?

If you need further evidence: the only difference restrictions make to someone buying from the developer is that the resale value is lower than it would otherwise be. The resale value on most other timeshares is dimes on the dollar--if not pennies. That doesn't stop developers from selling them.

--------
*: I know that sounds weird here in the DVC corner of DISboards, but it is true. Very few people woke up with a well-researched plan to buy DVC today, but a fair number will sign on the line which is dotted before their head hits the pillow tonight.

We got a stern warning from my friend's grandma (Marriott timeshare owner) not to buy a timeshare because the "dues keep going up and then you can't get rid of the damn thing" I told her Disney was a different animal. I'm still in shock when I see those bcv prices with 18 years left comparable or even worth more than some contracts with way more time left. Only Disney. They are masters at creating FOMO and demand.

 

[Brian Noble]

"dues keep going up and then you can't get rid of the damn thing"

The first thing is true. For Marriott (and most hotel-branded systems) the second is not. Marriott will take them back, and you might get a few dollars for selling it on the open market. If the underlying thing one owns has some value (meaning: ongoing costs are less than market rents) then it is fairly easy to find someone who will adopt it. It might cost a few dollars, but that's peanuts.

Now, if ongoing costs are not less than market rents, then it is a failed resort. And those do happen, but it's relatively rare, especially with point-based systems.

 

[Brian Noble]

I am a happy owner of five different non-DVC timeshare weeks*. Three of them would be easy to re-home tomorrow, and likely at no cost. The other two are at a resort that is in the process of closing down, but it's been messy for a variety of reasons that aren't worth getting into here. I would feel bad giving it to someone else. In the meantime, I'm happy to use the points from those two resorts to book vacations.

Given that I paid net nothing to acquire them, I will not mind if I have to give them away or even pay a few bucks to dispose of them. I have no real skin in the game.

-----
*: And, I am in the process of re-homing one of them now, but that's also a longer story.

 

[Girlstar30]

The first thing is true. For Marriott (and most hotel-branded systems) the second is not. Marriott will take them back, and you might get a few dollars for selling it on the open market. If the underlying thing one owns has some value (meaning: ongoing costs are less than market rents) then it is fairly easy to find someone who will adopt it. It might cost a few dollars, but that's peanuts.

Now, if ongoing costs are not less than market rents, then it is a failed resort. And those do happen, but it's relatively rare, especially with point-based systems.

We did stay at a Marriott timeshare room one bedroom now that i think of it, I believe it was called cypress harbor or something like that, a few years ago and it was really nice! We were impressed because we're not used to staying in big rooms like that, I remember we got covid and thought thank God we got this big room to have to be quarantined in it really does make a difference!

 

[Brian Noble]

We booked an exchange into Cypress Harbour a few years ago in a 2BR. The units are quite nice, though the 2nd bedroom is a little awkward if you need the pull out.

If you haven't stayed in DVC Villas yet, you will find that as villas they are generally not as nice as the better timeshares in Orlando. For example, one of my pet peeves is that NONE of the dining tables are appropriately sized in a 2BR. The 2nd Gen resorts (SSR, BRV, BCV, and BWV) are among the worst offenders.

 

[Girlstar30]

We booked an exchange into Cypress Harbour a few years ago in a 2BR. The units are quite nice, though the 2nd bedroom is a little awkward if you need the pull out.

If you haven't stayed in DVC Villas yet, you will find that as villas they are generally not as nice as the better timeshares in Orlando. For example, one of my pet peeves is that NONE of the dining tables are appropriately sized in a 2BR. The 2nd Gen resorts (SSR, BRV, BCV, and BWV) are among the worst offenders.

The rooms have to be nicer at the other ones because they are missing ️

 

[Brian Noble]

The problem with Pixie Dust addiction is that you build tolerance over time.

 

[Girlstar30]

The problem with Pixie Dust addiction is that you build tolerance over time.

I think so! Since we're from Cali we got tired of Disneyland and now we're all about WDW

 

[atthebeachclub]

My guess is that a restricted 50 yr Yacht Club would sell just fine…. even with a RIV level point chart….

It’s all about location, quality of materials, and theming.

Take my money.

 

[AstroBlasters]

I think so! Since we're from Cali we got tired of Disneyland and now we're all about WDW

Heresy

 

[tjkraz]

Or will people be further driven to purchase resale in the coming years, thwarting Disney's plans to handicapp resale? The answer for me is no, they wont be able to successfully pull this off with every resort or else why would they bundle poly island tower together with the old poly contract, making it more desirable for some

The most obvious answer to the "why" question for the poly is that bundling them together gave Island Tower a 2066 end date, meaning the longest ownership buyers get is 41-42 years vs the 50 year standard for any "new" resort. In 2066 the two will still be neatly linked together rather than having two associations in perpetuity.

I think the current mixture of restricted and non restricted resorts works because it gives buyers options, regardless of how strong their feelings are regarding the restrictions. If the 2040s and 2050s roll around and Disney tries to restrict every resort, it could seriously damage the perception / value of the product. But I don't think current leadership is the least bit concerned about that because it won't be their problem.