VR: The end of all Theme Parks?

[Tim]

With all this talk of Virtual Reality it struck me the other day that despite the Theme Park industry eagerly embracing it the technology might well signal the begging of the end.

It all started while playing Planet Coaster. One of the games major improments over previous titles is its integration with Steam workshop. If I desire I can load any game from any other player and instantly be in there Park. Effectively instead of creating elaborate YouTube videos and long picture filled posts I can leave a simple URL and you are free to explore and edit my Park to your hearts content.

You might be wondering what this has to do with VR? Although Frontier haven't announced VR integration with Planet Coaster they have previously developed VR for their other game (Elite Dangerous). VR would be a game changer because (with a few tweaks to the game) it would become entirely possible to visit a park anyone has created as if you are a guest at a real Theme Park. But with a few major perks; you wouldn't have to queue and you could instantly access any Park, no matter where it was created.

Can you see what I'm getting at? Within a few years it could be possible for your average consumer to visit Disneyland (or anywhere for that matter) for a fraction of the cost and without even leaving their living room! Sure they won't "really" be there but once someone develops a decent motion chair and scent machine there wouldn't be much difference. People have already made virtual Theme Parks on Minecraft which they visit with their friends.

Now you might be thinking that even with all this new technology VR won't be better then the real thing... and you'd be right. However let's imagine that the virtual park is good enough that thousands of people decide to take this option. Real Theme Park's will lose revenue and have to compensate by turning to a higher spend market (as most are already doing). Theme Parks become the playthings of the supper rich, pushing more people to buy into the VR equivalent. Eventually the industry "as we know it" collapses.


I've started this topic because I want to know your thoughts on the subject? Is this really the beginning of the end, just another fad or perhaps a brighter new future in which anyone can build the Theme Park of their dreams?

 

[MakoMania]

I think we're a very long way off of a VR experience that can even be compared to anything a real park offers. Besides, VR doesn't allow you to spend time having fun with family & friends, which is a major part of what a theme park experience is.

 

[Towerslover]

I hate the idea very much but I'm sure a small amount of people would like it. It just wouldn't be the same, theme parks offer a sense of escapism - you can't get that in your front room surely. Also no adrenaline, definitely not for me.

 

[Cheese]

VR and some sort of simulator chair just couldn't give you the same sense of cornering on your side at 4G and then being thrown through a zero-G roll, and the main reason for me that wearing VR headsets on coasters as a concept seems like a dead end is that you completely lose the sensation of moving at speed through a real, often painstakingly themed area. I'd like to think that if VR does take off and continue to improve, theme parks will remain popular as a way to experience something that's real (or at least in the sense that although you're not really going to wherever the themed area is supposed to be, you are having real experiences in real surroundings).

 

[Tim]

We are a long way off being able to simulate the thrills of a roller coaster. But I'd argue that If you are after a themed experience we aren't too far off being able to simulate that.

Take "It's a Small World". If you watch a 360 videos through a VR headset you pretty much have the full experience. Plus you have control of the volume

 

[Rowe]

I honestly do not believe VR will overtake the theme and amusement park industry as no matter how advanced and realistic computer graphics become in the VR headsets, they will never be able to fully recreate the tangible park experience of simply being there.

'Visiting' a real world theme park in VR wouldn't be much different to a park walking tour video on YouTube, even if there was a motion chair and scent machine involved, because you wouldn't have that autonomous control to experience whatever you want there. You won't get the same atmosphere and thrills as you would in person, like finding hidden themed areas unknown by most guests, and the same level of socialisation as you would from being there with friends or family. Hell, you wouldn't even get to try the food and drinks!

So to me, VR is another useful device that can enhance the attraction when done properly and to an excellent standard, much like 3D/4D and motion simulators. Remember when they supposedly menaced the industry? The concept of theme and amusement parks have stood the test of time, technology and moments of alleged irrelevance pretty damn well and I doubt the headsets are ever going to change that.

 

[CGM]

I dont think that VR will spell the end of theme parks because ultimitely, humans are social animals. People will still want to go outside and have real life experiences with family and friends.

You have first person shooters that allow you to play against people from across the world in any setting you can imagine, whether it be in space or on a historic battlefield. But paintballing and laser quest are still immensely popular.

Likewise, you can have the best racing sim setup in the world. VR headset, force feedback wheel, motion base etc. You can have laser-mapped recreations of the world's best racetracks and a virtual garage full of the most expensive cars. It doesn't matter. It's nowhere near as fun as a few laps at your local karting track.

VR is obviously great for games like Planet Coaster where users want to experience and share their creations. But as for selling virtual theme parks to the mass market, I'm not so sure.

Theme parks have always been limited by the fact they exist in the real world. You can see greater spectacle in films and games. I also have no doubt that given time, you could create a spectacular looking theme park in a VR environment.

However, theme parks are more than just scenery. I don't think you could ever fully recreate the atmosphere in a virtual environment.

The smells of the trees and the plant life, relaxing in a restaurant and tucking into a meal, getting soaked on a rapids ride, seeing a live show, the forces, adrenaline and the sense of speed that you can only get from real rides and experiencing it all with your friends.

I don't see VR matching that any time soon.

I also think it would be selling VR short in some ways. What's the point of having a 3D virtual environment with limitless possibilities if we're just going to recreate things that already exist in the real world?

If I can have my own personal Matrix, I'm not going to be spending all my time riding roller coaster recreations. I'm off to the moon for a hypersonic hoverboard race!

 

[AstroDan]

Europa-Park are soon removing it from Pegasus as it's crippled the capacity.

Hoorah!

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

 

[DiogoJ42]

Those of you who know me will be aware of my "slightly OTT" flight sim set up...

... Does it replace the visceral reality of climbing in to the cockpit of a genuine Beech Baron 58?... No, of course it bloody doesn't. I think that says all that can be said about VR vs "real coasters".

 

[ChristmasPud]

Personally I agree with everything CGM says, VR will never replace the basic principle of themed parks & attractions. Except that there is a fundamental other reason why VR will likely end up taking over a lot of it anyway - because it is so much more appealing for hard-nosed business to do VR, rather than commision big scale theme designs, special effects or physical animations anymore.

It costs probably much less because the technology is generally in high supply from other industries (currently), whereas you'd need to pay more for very specialist or foreign-based firms to design animations for a UK park (most the UK-based design effects engineering studios closed from loss of demand in the 2000s).

It's also much easier to promote because VR is currently being advertised around the globe as the next big thing that's gonna change everyone's lives, whether that's true or not.

And it 'seemingly' comes with none of the high cost of maintenance, production and H&S attachements as practical effects or big construction. [In fact, digital control systems can actually necessitate higher maintenance, certainly moreso than most retro animation control did in decades gone by - but there always seems to be this perception that digital is reliable because it's cutting edge, it's actually much more complicated for use in attractions most the time. So it gets favoured anyway.]

All these reasons I don't necessarily subscribe to and think it's a great shame if things were to become dominated by virtual reality or digital type effects in dark rides. But people said much the same about the very similar changes to the film industry - a CG explosion will never match a real filmed explosion no matter how advanced you get it. But it cost far less - so once a cheaper/easier option was invented, you'd never be able to persuade the budgeteers otherwise.

It always seems to come down to money, unless visitors were to make a decisive choice to support practical animations and real scale theme design. But in the UK, they probably won't make that choice or even realise what they're missing out, certainly not in the numbers needed to persuade the money people to go back to big impressive practical effects & designs.

We've already seen the demise of many things in UK theme parks, like complex animatronics, detailed set designs or big scale theme structures - other than simple cuboid warehouses with painted blockwork on the inside and not much else. Because it's cheaper, and too few people take any notice of it in the UK - despite all they're missing out on. And so businesses see no demand to do things differently. A real shame.

 

[CGM]

Except that there is a fundamental other reason why VR will likely end up taking over a lot of it anyway - because it is so much more appealing for hard-nosed business to do VR, rather than commision big scale theme designs, special effects or physical animations anymore.

Well there's definitely been a push for the technology in the amusement industry - we've seen that. But so far, from what I've seen, the response to it has been pretty muted. Not just from the enthusiast community, but theme park visitors in general. Friends and colleagues I've talked to have been pretty nonplussed by Merlin's VR installations. I just don't think it's what the public wants from theme parks. It's a bit like 3DTV. It had a huge marketing push behind it and was sold as the future of TV, but largely speaking, no one really cared for it.

I also think that pursuing the VR route in the name of cost cutting would be a mistake. Once VR becomes widespread, you're not just competing with other visitor attractions any more. You're competing with mass media and the largest technology firms in the world.

To entice people out of their houses and to get them to part with a hefty entrance fee, you're going to have to offer something significantly better than what they can experience at home with their VR setups. Slapping some Galaxy Gear headsets on an aging ride won't cut it. You'll be looking to spend some serious money on development costs to stay ahead of the curve, whether that be on fancy motion platform ride systems or ultra-realistic VR.

I think this has already been seen to an extent on DBGT. When I first saw how much was spent on it, I was genuinely taken aback. Where did all the money go!? It's just a fake Underground carriage that slides one way, then back again! You could have built 2 B&Ms for that! I suspect a large amount of that astronomical cost went on creating the digital environment and developing the VR technology to a state that it would work in a ride setting and be convincing enough to satisfy riders.

So I don't necessarily see VR as being an easy way to cut costs and I'm not sure park operators do either. I think it's more of a case of them being intrigued by the technology and wanting to explore its potential uses. That and the marketing opportunities it provides while VR is still a fresh, new, exciting buzzword.

All these reasons I don't necessarily subscribe to and think it's a great shame if things were to become dominated by virtual reality or digital type effects in dark rides. But people said much the same about the very similar changes to the film industry - a CG explosion will never match a real filmed explosion no matter how advanced you get it. But it cost far less - so once a cheaper/easier option was invented, you'd never be able to persuade the budgeteers otherwise.

Many live action films in recent years have chosen to pare back the use of CGI in favour of practical effects. CGI is still there obviously, and many films are still made largely in a green screen environment. However, there is now a movement that puts the emphasis back on physical sets and miniatures rather than digital backdrops and the use of real stunts rather than a reliance on computer-modelled physics.

As an audience, we have been so inundated by CGI in films over the last decade or so that we can now recognise its use instantly. This can pull you out of a movie that you were otherwise invested in. Plus, computer technology being the way it is, today's cutting edge CGI may well look hokey and unrealistic in 5 years' time. So putting CGI front and centre isn't always the best idea and filmmakers are beginning to recognise this. (Also I think there's a contingent of people who are generally just fed up of filming in front of a green wall).

I think we are seeing this in the world of rides too. People are beginning to pick up on Universal's now established formula of 3D screens in front of a moving motion platform. When Spider-man first came along and it was a unique concept, riders were blown away by it, but now it's getting a little tiresome. People are beginning to question why they're paying large amounts of money and waiting in queues for hours just to watch screens. I think there's a desire to see more rides that don't rely on simulator technology and don't require the wearing of 3D glasses.

For me, it's vitally important that rides and theme parks stay largely in the physical realm. There's nothing wrong with the odd simulator, VR based ride or 3D film in a park. It all adds variety to the day. But the idea of shifting the focus of parks onto to media-based attractions is playing against theme parks' strengths in my view. Although there's an obvious layer of artifice with theme parks, in most cases, what you experience is happening before your eyes. It's this aspect that attracts people to parks in the first place and it's important to maintain it. After all, few would travel great distances or pay huge amounts of money to see a film but many do to see a stage show.

 

[ChristmasPud]

I suspect a large amount of that astronomical cost went on creating the digital environment and developing the VR technology to a state that it would work in a ride setting and be convincing enough to satisfy riders.

The money went all over the place on this attraction yet the VR was extraordinarily skimped out on from a technical perspective. The entire back end system was pretty much left to an inexperienced contractor and far from enough time, budget or research offered to make it work. From what I gather there was plenty of warning from other people but the project ploughed ahead regardless, until the inevitable flaws of design and workmanship showed up and caused so much delay (along with other reasons).

So from what I gather, I don't think the VR was the reason it had an astronomical cost. It was a big prototype design with a lengthy gestation period, expensive promotion, lots of fees for Derren's name and lots of overruning, out of control costs. The VR itself had so many corners cut. The cost of technical maintenance in the long term will be what'll hopefully kill off the VR-heavy trend though in future years, though.

So I don't necessarily see VR as being an easy way to cut costs and I'm not sure park operators do either. I think it's more of a case of them being intrigued by the technology and wanting to explore its potential uses. That and the marketing opportunities it provides while VR is still a fresh, new, exciting buzzword.

Unfortunately its where they want to put their money for the time being - it is often inwardly promoted as a more convincing and easier-to-build option than practical effects & big scale designs in the UK. It really isn't, as you point out, but when will this be realised by those with the money?

Derren Brown's Ghost Train proves this as well, though to VR's credit - it is itself a very poor example of what a VR attraction can potentially do. But I still believe the ride's best points are its illusions & trickery, which are unfortunately so glossed over without much real showmanship, other than an actor here or a screen there telling you stuff rather than letting the experience unfold for itself, that it has little effect. Compare it to Hex, a much simpler illusion/atmosphere type dark ride, yet so much more effective, purely because of its theatrical timing and fun drama, and no actors in sight.
__________

I truly hope we see a balance in the future with real effects, animation & scenic architectural designs - that would be brilliant. But there is currently little to no interest in spending the right money on that stuff in the UK industry, so we end up with steel boxes and shipping containers most the time.

Interesting you say how the film industry is returning to practical effects more and more, it certainly employs a lot of animatronics and pyrotechnics on big expensive productions, but often only where the teams have an agenda to use those methods over CGI. Whereas currently in UK parks, there's much more of an agenda to use promotable technology and to only put the money towards those projects - so until that attitude goes away, I can't imagine much change sadly!

I also fully agree that too-perfect CGI and too over the top virtual-looking effects just end up jading the viewer - nothing will beat a brilliant practical effect or a great illusion. And I think this is even truer for theme parks where you're right there in the middle of it all.

 

[CGM]

I can't claim to have any inside track on the project so I can't know for sure but I think that many would be surprised just how much money it takes to develop a 3D film of the type used in DBGT.

Commissioning a one-off, 3D high definition movie that has to completely surround the viewer and work with relatively new VR technology cannot be cheap. Particularly the scenes towards the end where you are rapidly moving through a very detailed cityscape that has to hold up to scrutiny when the viewers choose to freely look around it. You're looking at thousands of hours of 3D modelling and a lot of computing power required to render it.

They also had to develop quite a bit of new technology for DBGT such as the ability to realistically capture the performance of live actors and then place them into a VR environment. That will have definitely eaten up costs.

Plus there's the fact that Figment Productions are pretty much the go-to people when it comes to VR in theme parks. So when you approach them saying you want to develop a new ride system around a VR technology that has never been used on a ride before, they can pretty much charge whatever they want for their services. It's not like Merlin have many other options.

Even with the rights to the Derek Brown IP, even with the custom ride system, the building and theming, the extensive marketing campaign and assuming there were issues with the planning and construction that needed to be fixed. I can't see that accounting for anything like £30 million. It's a ridiculous figure when you consider what the ride actually does. You could build Fury 325 for that and still have 6 million in change! I can only assume that a large chunk went into the development and implementation of the VR.

Of course, should they want to make another dark ride along the same lines, it would probably be a fair bit cheaper because they've already invested in the development of the technology.

 

[ChristmasPud]

Plus there's the fact that Figment Productions are pretty much the go-to people when it comes to VR in theme parks. So when you approach them saying you want to develop a new ride system around a VR technology that has never been used on a ride before, they can pretty much charge whatever they want for their services. It's not like Merlin have many other options.

I've not known any project to work like this where the contractor charges whatever they want (especially throughout Merlin's history!), but I'm open to the idea that actually the VR cost a great amount more than it seemed.

Although ideally it needed even more development and higher grade of back-end design as well as better front end results to make it remotely worth it, in my opinion. It is also completely affordable for a company the size of Merlin it has to be said.

I think this all proves how VR is often mistaken to be infinitely more worth an investment than any core theme design features, in the UK industry. So much is always being strangled out of budgets when it comes to scenic design, effects or structures in all Merlin projects, with so many ideas cut or cheaped out on, yet a VR attraction becomes their most inexplicably expensive project ever.

Every thing comes down to saving money, bad marketing and getting the biggest buck return, even if it means using second hand shipping containers, putting everything on a dull flat concrete surface and thinly spreading effects - as we've seen in most their projects for years. Bear in mind how big the company is, building entire parks in foreign countries year on year, and you see this isn't just budget cutting out of necessity, it's out of policy. It's also been going on for many years.

They've chosen recently to spend so big on VR - and still not much else, and certainly not on general attraction scenic/AV maintenance in the long run (because they see that as giving zero return on their investment, therefore no budget is allocated, which is a completely naive and worrying way to run any park).

So I really hope this attitude changes from the top down in the future. Only then will VR & simulation fads die down. I'm sure it can be used effectively and sparingly but, as with all technology, only when the attraction requires it. Whereas with Derren Brown, just to get the project green-lit it was dependent on it having VR shoe-horned in, and I think that kind of policy is the root of all Merlin's design problems really!