VR in Theme and Amusement Parks

[GA-MBIT]

The trend definitely seems to be on a downturn as of late with more rides removing their VR components, or VR ride concepts being scrapped entirely. However, it was only 2 years ago that Universal was planning adding a VR attraction to USF to replace a live theatre attraction, only a few years before that Magic Kingdom was considering a similar move, and that Seaworld pulled the trigger with their Kraken rollercoaster for a short time.

Does VR have a place alongside other simulator type attractions? Do VR coasters work? Is the tech ready yet for a theme park-level experience? Will amusement parks like Six Flags take advantage of the concept more often than higher budget theme parks? Did COVID-19 kill any startups that could've supplied resources for these types of attractions like The VOID, or even kill the general public's appetite for public Virtual Reality?

 

[Mad Dog]

The VR never seemed to live up to it's hype and expectations in amusement/regional/theme parks. I was glad USO cancelled it in the Studios. It held little interest for me.

 

[belloq87]

I have never been interested in VR in a theme park setting. Seems like an excuse to avoid building a "real" attraction to me.

 

[Mad Dog]

I have never been interested in VR in a theme park setting. Seems like an excuse to avoid building a "real" attraction to me.

Yeah, I'm glad it's close to dead. If it succeeded early on, we'd probably be stuck with a lot of lazy attractions.

 

[Nick]

Yeah, I'm glad it's close to dead. If it succeeded early on, we'd probably be stuck with a lot of lazy attractions.

Y’all are forgetting about Mario. Sure it’s Augmented Reality, but it’s still putting on a headset, etc.

I think it’s more alive than you guys seem to think, it will just come once the technology is further evolved. Right now we’re really still in the early stages of developing and seeing where VR can take us and how small we can make it.

The image below is a current, consumer VR headset that does anything you would want it to mostly. It is TINY. Something like a Potter wand ride could definitely be possible down the line.

 

[TheUniC6]

I shared this over on the more general VR forum, But Disney has patents for glasses free VR and an augmented reality simulator. For the latter there are no current plans to use it in the parks.

Disney Files Patent for Glasses-Free VR Attraction - WDW News Today

Disney has filed a patent for a possible AR or VR attraction that would not require guests to wear 3D glasses or other headgear.

wdwnt.com

Disney Patents Virtual World Simulator: Augmented Reality Without Headsets

Disney has been granted the patent for a "Virtual World Simulator." Here's what you need to know about it and what it might mean for future WDW visits.

www.wdw-magazine.com

 

[agentj]

Don"t really know how well it will be accepted, but Europapark has a VR "attraction" (not ride) that is really cool. Yullbe is a separate
attraction with an additional charge which allows you about a half hour to explore worlds and activities. Its not at all light weight equipment.. You don a helmet, vests and gloves with your party and enter a enclosed room. It is so believable your mind forgets its really not real. I think Mack, who owns Europapark , is testing as to its acceptance with the GP. We found it novel and fun.

 

[Rhian]

Y’all are forgetting about Mario. Sure it’s Augmented Reality, but it’s still putting on a headset, etc.

Part of the reason I think it doesn't hit the same as a VR "ride" is because if you don't use the headset you still have a very well-made dark ride. There are some scenes where something is obviously missing (bone fish scene comes to mind) otherwise what the headset is bringing to the ride isn't much. Not saying it isn't a key component to the Mario Kart experience, but it does seem that the interactive part of the ride some people could do without.

That said there's also a good argument to be made for the Spider-man ride too. While that ride also heavily leans on immersive sets though there are definitely some key moments that wouldn't feel the same without the visual effects the goggles bring.

In both cases you still see the physical space around you. Sitting in a room on a motion base (which is also what the Potter VR ride amounted to) is a good experience for a mall or tourist shop; for a higher-tier park it feels cheap. Blending screens with sets or using VR well tend to give a much more rewarding experience at the end of the ride than something you could more or less replicate at home, and something I'd expect at Disney or Universal-level parks nowadays.

I think it’s more alive than you guys seem to think, it will just come once the technology is further evolved.

I don't disagree with your premise but I'm not sure if major theme parks are where it'll flourish. We go to parts to see the physical spaces we can't see elsewhere. It's sad Universal pulled the Potter VR project as it would have been interesting to see how well they could pull it off but maybe they saw limitations which would've made a subpar experience?

I mean if they pulled it just to reattempt it again in a new way later I'd absolutely love to see it. Between that or a ride with real show scenes though I'd still probably go for the ride.

We found it novel and fun.

Would you do it more than once if it was included in your park admission? 30 minutes is great as a guest but awful for throughput.

 

[Nick]

Part of the reason I think it doesn't hit the same as a VR "ride" is because if you don't use the headset you still have a very well-made dark ride. There are some scenes where something is obviously missing (bone fish scene comes to mind) otherwise what the headset is bringing to the ride isn't much. Not saying it isn't a key component to the Mario Kart experience, but it does seem that the interactive part of the ride some people could do without.

That said there's also a good argument to be made for the Spider-man ride too. While that ride also heavily leans on immersive sets though there are definitely some key moments that wouldn't feel the same without the visual effects the goggles bring.

In both cases you still see the physical space around you. Sitting in a room on a motion base (which is also what the Potter VR ride amounted to) is a good experience for a mall or tourist shop; for a higher-tier park it feels cheap. Blending screens with sets or using VR well tend to give a much more rewarding experience at the end of the ride than something you could more or less replicate at home, and something I'd expect at Disney or Universal-level parks nowadays.


I don't disagree with your premise but I'm not sure if major theme parks are where it'll flourish. We go to parts to see the physical spaces we can't see elsewhere. It's sad Universal pulled the Potter VR project as it would have been interesting to see how well they could pull it off but maybe they saw limitations which would've made a subpar experience?

I mean if they pulled it just to reattempt it again in a new way later I'd absolutely love to see it. Between that or a ride with real show scenes though I'd still probably go for the ride.


Would you do it more than once if it was included in your park admission? 30 minutes is great as a guest but awful for

There’s no doubt Universal pulled the VR attraction due to current limitations, but the technology is making leaps so fast that my point is in a decade there’s no telling where it will be at and it’s not impossible that it will be suitable for a theme park environment.

With Mixed Reality becoming as good as it has and still a ways to go, you could still do an attraction that flashes between the virtual world while still implementing physical sets.

 

[OrlandoGuy]

Y’all are forgetting about Mario. Sure it’s Augmented Reality, but it’s still putting on a headset, etc.

I think it’s more alive than you guys seem to think, it will just come once the technology is further evolved. Right now we’re really still in the early stages of developing and seeing where VR can take us and how small we can make it.

The image below is a current, consumer VR headset that does anything you would want it to mostly. It is TINY. Something like a Potter wand ride could definitely be possible down the line.
View attachment 19968

If an attraction leverages a direct-to-consumer home good, is it really worthy of being considered an attraction? A common criticism of Shrek 4-D was that you could replicate the experience at home…how is this any different?

 

[Nick]

If an attraction leverages a direct-to-consumer home good, is it really worthy of being considered an attraction? A common criticism of Shrek 4-D was that you could replicate the experience at home…how is this any different?

You're missing what i'm saying entirely. I'm not saying that it would be anywhere near the same. We're talking years down the line, but I was simply showing how small a VR device can be. Imagine those themed to Quidditch goggles and instead of it being a rather plain attraction that has poor throughput and is something that could be experienced at home, there could be an actual ride system used where it flashed between a virtual world and the real world or there could even be a part when you are prompted to "remove" the goggles.

I'm not talking about a VR attraction like Potter or Wreck-It Ralph were supposed to be. I'm talking about what the future could look like in terms of implementing the technology, which results in experience you can only have at a Universal park and could not replicate with VR at home.

 

[UniversalRBLX]

People go to theme parks to experience things they can't at home, or somewhere close to home. I do think AR goggles can have a presence in the parks, but that's the most I see happening. People love the physical lands/buildings, just look at everyone who turns the corner and sees Diagon/Hogwarts for the first time.

I think MK is the closest we'll ever get, doubt we ever see a full-VR goggle-only experience implemented into the parks.

Imagine the looks on people's faces if you told them they were going on a magical flying tour on a broomstick through Hogwarts before throwing them into a dark room with a VR headset lol

 

[TheUniC6]

You're missing what i'm saying entirely. I'm not saying that it would be anywhere near the same. We're talking years down the line, but I was simply showing how small a VR device can be. Imagine those themed to Quidditch goggles and instead of it being a rather plain attraction that has poor throughput and is something that could be experienced at home, there could be an actual ride system used where it flashed between a virtual world and the real world or there could even be a part when you are prompted to "remove" the goggles.

I'm not talking about a VR attraction like Potter or Wreck-It Ralph were supposed to be. I'm talking about what the future could look like in terms of implementing the technology, which results in experience you can only have at a Universal park and could not replicate with VR at home.

I would prefer if they had attractions had physical sets with glasses free VR implemented in some form. Disney has patents for such a thing and I would Universal would find another to do so as well. That sounds like it could be something that could be not replicated at home.

 

[Rhian]

Is it still considered VR if you're not wearing glasses or looking at it through your phone? In the context of the theme park ride wouldn't that be more of a new kind of projected effect or even a new twist on projection mapping?

There’s no doubt Universal pulled the VR attraction due to current limitations, but the technology is making leaps so fast that my point is in a decade there’s no telling where it will be at and it’s not impossible that it will be suitable for a theme park environment.

With Mixed Reality becoming as good as it has and still a ways to go, you could still do an attraction that flashes between the virtual world while still implementing physical sets.

That almost sounds like what MK is now. If you're on an attraction that's moving through sets then VR wouldn't feel as gimmicky. My view is that a VR ride on a stationary base is a step below a ride like MM or Fallon.

I think one thing holding it back is that a lot of VR experiences are designed for a personal experience or for very small groups. They're meant for you to go wherever you want and look where you want when rides are meant for you to look somewhere specific as a large group. Trying to tell a story while guests could look anywhere except close to where you might need them could bring in some additional challenges too including needing to create all of those areas virtually.

To your idea though, something like a Tower of Terror ride between each floor would be interesting mixed in with VR moments. Personally I think VR has to be an enhancement to a ride (something more than staying in place) but not the focal point in the same way a ride vehicle would be.

It's definintely a tech that requires out of the box thinking if you're going to make an attraction with it that wouldn't be more suited for a mall kiosk or local fair and convince guetes it's worth the wait in line.

Imagine the looks on people's faces if you told them they were going on a magical flying tour on a broomstick through Hogwarts before throwing them into a dark room with a VR headset lol

The benches in FJ are more convincing and you see the kuka arm more often than you should.

 

[TheUniC6]

Assuming they are able to scale glasses free VR to the parks, what types of attractions should get it? Should it only be the E tickets or could D to C tickets get it as well?

 

[Tobias]

Did COVID-19 kill any startups that could've supplied resources for these types of attractions like The VOID

This is what hurts the most, by all accounts The VOID was something that honestly took good advantage of the technology and showed what you can do in a really fun way. Losing it was a major bummer to themed entertainment to say the least.