At the end of the day, they're a timeshare operated by a public company who spend a lot of time worrying about current balance sheets. So I have a tendency to cynicism.
They it should not have been built IMO. But they sold SSR, they could have sold THV as well.
I'm not an optimist or a pessimist, I'm a realist. But there has to be a certain amount of trust in the timeshare for me to be willing to participate, this would have put them over that line.
DVC should only be building units that will sell to new owners.
I doubt they purposefully built it with the idea of changing the points later though I wouldn't be surprised if they discussed the "What if" scenario which is a big difference in my book even if the outcome is the same.
All they have to do is create resorts they can sell. They sold SSR with a bazillion points and a less desirable resort than than the rest at WDW (though it's a fine resort in it's own right). And they will use the other resorts to sell the new ones as they should.
IMO it's irrelevant what they said since the POS and common sense says otherwise. But it likely was true at that time. Plus the reality is that most of the guides don't have a good feel for the actual workings of the system, just how it's supposed to work.
20 rooms out of 300k owners isn't fair to the overwhelming number of Poly owners only buying enough points for studios.
And so we've come full circle to the title of the thread. What you say worked just fine even five years ago when something was normally open at the 7 month window, somewhere, most of the time.
Yes.
And thus comes to the point I've made a number of times over the years and one I think many (if not most) DVC owners don't know emotionally even if they do know it intellectually. When we buy in we're not buying DVC in general, we're buying a specific resort with rules, competition for home resort reservations and exchange rules. Reservations at non home resorts are technically, and in reality, an exchange. Often you see recommendations to buy where you want to stay but even then there are no guarantees on availability even day one 11 months out. Thus is the nature of a points system. It has changed over the years, it had to, and it will continue to evolve. But those that are informed AND put in the planning and effort will generally be rewarded even where others fail. One truly needs to consider the variables including the worst case scenarios when buying in even up to the possibility that the parks could close some day. Another point I've made over many years is that DVC has enjoyed unprecedented availability after the reservation window has opened, FAR more so than other similar timeshare systems. Thus it is just moving more to where it really should have been to start with IMO.
i wanted to address this point independently. IMO it really doesn't matter though we can throw around guesses as to whey they did it and what they truly intended. They did it the way they did and they are selling the points. In reality, only those that buy at the Poly have a true vote and they voted when they bought or when they sell. The rest of us can chose to stay there or not based not the applicable factors. I've said before that it seems strange to me to have such a skewed setup but it doesn't hurt me or other owners and system options that aren't too far off (lower) in demand are always good. IMO they missed a tremendous opportunity to create something that worked in the footprint but was more than a normal DVC studio such as a true functional mini kitchen unit and sell more points in doing so.
Agreed. That 2nd bathroom is big enough to put a W/D in the corner. Since they don't offer options besides bungalows with w/d, adding those in would have solved a big complaint about not having 1BR and 2brs.
