FP + What we know and what we want to know

[Sammie]

I don't believe that anyone is taking the position that the company spent a billion dollars just to keep a few of us from riding TSMM five times per day.

Instead, I believe that they were building the nextgen/mymagic+/magic band system to do many things that tend to serve the bottom line. The development of nextgen allowed them to also fix some things that weren't quite right, but never really rose to the importance of deserving their own big change. One of these was FPs.

FP supposedly wasn't working in practice the same way that it was conceived. The few tweaks that were made over the years never really got it to where it was conceived to be. Rolling it into nextgen allows a more sweeping change to be made that might allow it to be 'fixed' once and for all.

Of course, this is all just speculation.

I would say your speculation is very close to the mark.

 

[mousermerf]

I would say your speculation is very close to the mark.

Very much so...

People seem to be missing that FP+ is the small part of the whole NextGen project. however it's the part where people are getting those noses bent out of shape because Disney is implementing the rules it wants to get guests to behave the way they want.

I dont begrudge anyone for doing what they were allowed in the old system, but the new system is what Disney wants.

 

[dadddio]

Fixes!

We need more FIXES!

You keep saying that like it's a bad thing The reality of it is that every change that they have made since day one has been a 'fix'. There is nothing wrong with continually trying to improve.

 

[dadddio]

Absolutely, FP+ could have been done for various reasons, no question. But, imo, it's primary reason is revenue.

Every decision that every company makes is about revenue, or more technically, profits. Not that there's anything wrong with that.

I have no doubt that Disney is keenly aware of how guest satisfaction ties into profits.

 

[dadddio]

You realize the same people ignoring a printed obvious actual policy are the same one arguing the validity of a "policy" they believe that was never in print..?

What do you mean 'was never in print'? Here it is:

 

[DougEMG]

I think we can now just dispense with all the arguments about what did and didn't qualify as abuse. It is irrelevant now, much like the debates on late FP returns and whether it was a "policy" or a "procedure" or a "guideline" or whatever.

The new system is coming. It puts an end to practices that some believe were abuse and others don't, but no matter what it is coming to an end.