Hacker News Reader

Comment by sublinear | Hacker News Reader

> Experiences are what sell new entertainment technologies and Disney owns the IP to some pretty compelling experiences.

This is the refrain of Disney's theme park marketing, but I disagree. It's the fact that people want to say they were there. It's 100% the brand and nothing more. Marketing doesn't have to be, and often isn't, rational.

This is at the absolute core of why theme park experiences sell but VR does not. Nobody cares if you "experienced" something in the comfort of your own home. Until the price of VR comes down to absolute rock bottom prices, there will not be acceptance of "VR experiences" and even so it's still a gamble whether anyone cares enough to buy that to experience on a whim frequently vs plan a vacation around it... I'm pretty sure it's the latter.

View on HN

I am going to sorta disagree. I see your point and I am sure there is some of that. But hands down Disney parks are some of the best parks I have been to. With universal being a very close second. I am also probably never going back (price ratio is wrong and getting worse).

In this case a VR exp would have to feel like going to a park. However, there is something that is missing (or many somethings). You hanging with your friends and family. Now they could also all go get headsets and you hang together. But that seems oddly not the same. Buying that overpriced popcorn and basically 'fair food' is also part of it. Disney would have the best shot at making a park into a game. As most of their rides are 'dark rides'. Basically trains going thru experiences. A fixed park is little more than a carnival but in a fixed location and cleaned up nicely with theming. VR strips out the carnival aspects and is only theming. That strips out part of what you are going for.

I have also been to parks all by myself. That is what wearing a VR headset would feel like. It is not a good experience. You could say 'oh all your friends could get headsets too'. True but at that point you are now looking at similar costs as just going to the parks.

Oh man, this is not correct. As a dad who just went back to Disney after not having gone since I was 11 years old... We made fun of, "the brand" the entire time. All our friends would look down on us for handing over our hard earned money to a pretty gross fascist organization like Disney. We posted pictures, but only of our experiences.

For myself (a sample size of 1) it is all about the magical experiences and memories my child gets from experiencing a fantasy world of fun rides and adventure.

But that is the brand. Even if you visited ironically to prove to yourself that SantaDisney doesn't exist, you still visited.

Brands don't care if you buy them ironically. They only care that you give them money.

Mass indifference would be much more deadly to Disney.

And mass indifference is where most of the the public are with VR. It's fun of a kind, but it's a long way short of a compelling irrational magic.

Even compared to other "magic" products like the iPhone.

Meta have failed to make any magic. I don't think Zuck even knows what magic is.

Apple do know what magic is. But gambling they can inject it into their VR proposition is a risky bet.

My son cried tears of joy after getting off the Cars ride. His childhood imaginary friends were brought to life in such a compelling, thrilling, nostalgic way that he was brought to tears at 15.

He got to build a droid and he went outside and used it to entertain and enthrall another smaller child for 45 minutes.

He got to live, for a day, in an immersive and joyous world he never imagined he could see and touch and be a part of.

Its not irony. I bought the magic DESPITE a poisoned brand.

If it were available in VR I'd buy it in VR.

> It's 100% the brand and nothing more.

What is you basis for saying that?

> Nobody cares if you "experienced" something in the comfort of your own home.

By that rationale nobody would play vide games.

I believe it comes down to the experience. The experience of VR is simply not good enough to attract people.

Tbh as long as there is no easy to use working personal vr suite, then it is not an alternative to experience it by yourself.

Vr is fun but virtual.

Not to be pedantic, but even with a personal VR suite, it's still virtual.

A flight sim, regardless of how sophisticated, is still always going to be of a lesser experience than real flying unless you can actually die in the sim.

I'm not suggesting that an ideal flight sim should kill the player if they crash, but rather suggesting that, as an example, a pilot behind the controls of a real plane that has to make a series of instantaneous decisions when a dangerous situation comes up like engine failure will have been "battle tested" in a very real way where his/her life was literally on the line.

Of course not having to risk your life is also a big advantage of virtual as well.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com