Universal's Epic Universe Wish List & Speculation

[youhow2]

There is no correlation between total spending on an IP and theme park visitation. Just like there's no correlation between IP popularity and satisfaction rating of that IPs attraction(s).

It's like saying Walmart is everyone's favorite store because it's the highest grossing retailer.

Right, so that's when it becomes an issue for creative. All it proves is that they have something with a firepowerthat will attract spending. How do they nail it down and extract the most value out of it Where is the money spent on the property ?

Pokemon, the concept as described previously has that potential.

Pokemon's biggest areas are Merch sales and Video Games, So in designing the land it would make sense to look at the property as it is represented in it's most popular media

Pokemon has the potential to target every single audience of gamers, a 3 billion person audience, because the activities within the property appeal to each demo naturally. To compensate in planning to attract and appeal to these different audiences make sense.


I don't know a more powerful pitch than "We build a place where you can immerse yourself in the world of Pokemon become a real Pokemon trainer and compete against other trainers with rides, shows and exclusive merch, you can also try and collect all original 151 through catching them in the wild. Train them for a chance to compete in world class pokemon battle and become a master trainer, just like your childhood dreams"

 

[Legacy]

Considering what people do for completely virtual pokemon with pokemon go... Yeah, hard disagree. "If we ride the fun ride that's fun again maybe we'll get to battle and capture a Gyarados, then I can maybe win a gym badge from winning at the fire gym and be on my favorite youtube show and maybe I can enter the master tournament at the end of the year and we can comeback for free, then I'll be a true pokemon master!"? Also, Those are bad comparisons. I think most of the content would direct guest to one on one battles with each other, or solo or family group experiences. This would be more comparable to how kids sit on youtube and watch other people play games all day, but with the opportunity to partake in said activity themselves. And for every battle that gets posted by one of those influencers online, there's 10's of thousands of kids begging their parents to take them to the parks to play, get "real" pokemon, and have the chance to become the next "Ninja", of Universal's and TPC own proprietary souped-up "IRL" version of pokemon red or blue.

Guest go to parks for rides, shows, attractions and other immersive entertainment. Arguably, the opportunity exist with pokemon to blur the line and propel the type of entertainment found in parks forward in a big way. Also, people independent of parks do everything you speak of, and the avenues which they use to do so make billions of dollars a year and the opportunity to scale an experience to be built in a park exist. Again, you're talking about an IP with better sales than all, period.


So we can disagree based on opinions of what themed entertainment design is in it's current state, but until something like what I'm describing gets built and fails, no grounds exist to dismiss it. The R&D would also be a lot less taxing than you believe considering most of everything would only need to be adapted from existing designs and technology, and then they would use anything developed across multiple parks. The blueprint for successful interactivity exist within the games.

Also, the video game industry has a wider audience and generates more revenue yearly than theme parks, and it's not even close. The demo you'd be targeting would not only be theme park fans, but video game and pokemon fans. The strategy employed would be to take up more market share from the mouse and open up new streams of revenue from new & existing guest, while perhaps creating an app or a pokemon manager game that gets..."Supercharged" (sorry I had to) whenever you visit the parks... That not only serves as a marketing tool, but perhaps even an non parks related revenue stream.

In terms of the economics of building the attraction the amount of additional audience you'd need to attract percentage wise from those audiences to justify my $2 billion land budget number is miniscule at best, needing only 2-3% at most which I believe most would see as a tolerable risk for the potential gain, especially with the power of the IP being the absolute strongest compared to anything else on this planet... Also, people just aren't going to stop going to parks anyways, so the risk is covered unless it fails abysmally and no one shows.

With support of esports and tournaments etc. built into the land and the proper content strategy, you're introducing another stream of revenue that in one or two events (like an HHN or Mardi Gras) a year could make quarterly or even yearly merch for some lesser properties represented on site possibly look like a joke.


I respect your opinion and where you're coming from and all, but the numbers don't lie, and on the surface they absolutely make sense. SNW seems almost like a test run for pokemon.

The numbers for video games and theme parks are different. Just because something is popular, doesn’t mean it can support a different medium devoted solely to it. That’s what I don’t think you get. Pizza is the most popular food in America, but a book store that only sells books about pizza isn’t going to last long.

Pokémon GO (since you want to speak to its popularity as a reference) has averaged 60 million monthly active users over the last couple of years. Globally. The US is only around 11 million. The current “be a trainer” experience comes in second behind Candy Crush Saga. Eighty-five percent of users play less than 3 hours a day (30% less than 1 hour a day). And you’re proposing an 8-hour experience when only 1.5 million people in America are inclined to spend anywhere close to that much time playing it.

Pokémon Go Revenue and Usage Statistics (2024)

Pokémon Go is an augmented reality mobile game tied to Nintendo’s best-selling Pokémon franchise. Gameplay sees users encountering the eponymous creatures in real-world settings, utilising mobile GPS. Users can catch and train the Pokémon, then battle against other users, mimicking gameplay of...

www.businessofapps.com

As popular as the Pokémon franchise is, enough people are not going to pay $100 a day to LARP it to make it profitable for Universal.

I think people are really underestimating the power of immersive environments experiences with little theming to be incredibly successful. The idea that Pokémon is only a safari ride is really not thinking creatively at all. Look at the success of hagrid. I really don’t think it’s impossible to imagine a variety of rides / roller coasters that allow you to visit Pokémon and be in that world while also populate that with animatronics & sculptures ala hagrid and what’s about to be done with Velocicoaster. A coaster that has you face to face with a fire breathing charizard, could be a hyper coaster with a statue and some queue theming. Also the possibilities are endless beyond coasters to any ride system. There could be a raft ride that takes you through water gym and shows you aquatic pokemon. If you aren’t familiar with the games the barrier of water and learning “surf” is often a core element of the story. Just find it hard to understand why universal wouldn’t seize this opportunity unless the rights are tied up.

Difference between Hagrid and Velocicoaster is that they’re different IPs. One is dinosaurs. The other is fantasy. A dozen Pokémon rides would all be the same aesthetic.

 

[Nick]

We’re STILL talking about a park solely dedicated to Pokémon? I love that some people might be into this, but Universal would never, ever do this. I’m seriously questioning if they’ll even do a land.

 

[youhow2]

The numbers for video games and theme parks are different. Just because something is popular, doesn’t mean it can support a different medium devoted solely to it. That’s what I don’t think you get. Pizza is the most popular food in America, but a book store that only sells books about pizza isn’t going to last long.

Pokémon GO (since you want to speak to its popularity as a reference) has averaged 60 million monthly active users over the last couple of years. Globally. The US is only around 11 million. The current “be a trainer” experience comes in second behind Candy Crush Saga. Eighty-five percent of users play less than 3 hours a day (30% less than 1 hour a day). And you’re proposing an 8-hour experience when only 1.5 million people in America are inclined to spend anywhere close to that much time playing it.

As popular as the Pokémon franchise is, enough people are not going to pay $100 a day to LARP it to make it profitable for Universal.

Soo... You're saying Pokemon would only attract It's "hardcores" to universal? That's a revolving door of 60 million monthly users, world wide that are "hardcore". Your folks who would want to fulfill the fantasy more than anyone else who is casually interested. I don't know about you, but I want that kind of attention on my park or business. That's more than what visits MK in a year engaging with a piece of content on at least a monthly basis. You're saying you could potentially build something that would get 60 million people a month excited about coming? At what percentage would a gain in monthly visitors be worth it to you, and fair to boot?

You can turn pokemon into a land, can't do that with candy crush. Candy Crush is a popular game, but the IP has no strength or established universe that is understandable in the sense of a cultural zeitgeist.

If this theoretical land attracted 1% of those "hardcores" a month, that's 600k people. A month. Is that actually a laughable number to you? That's a BANKABLE number to me, and that's just the cultist! That's 7 million "Hardcores" a year coming just for Pokemon. There are whole parks that don't reach that attendance number on a good year.

In fact, 1% of hardcores visiting a year would not be far off from the yearly attendance of Uni Hollywood. (The property can arguably justify building a whole park, I'm not arguing for that, but remember I did suggest it was possibly one of the only properties that could)

I wonder how many "Hardcores" come for Pottter alone? Apparently, they spend less money on Potter anyways...

Build the game experience into the parks and it is an absolute win based on attracting "hardcores" alone.


Also to be fair even after "hardcores" you must also consider everyone else who will come to experience the offerings casually or as semi engaged patrons based off name recognition and experience quality and nostalgia.


Come on man. You're helping me make my case.

 

[PerceptiveCoot]

EDIT: @youhow2, I understand your belief that Pokémon deserves a massive presence given how much money it makes. Many members of the forum disagree. Ultimately, given the course of the conversation over the day, we are at an inextricable impasse on this issue, especially considering that all of our thoughts, unbeknownst to us, only help your case. Irrespective of my current lack of interest in this conversation, I would like, with your permission, to move onto a different topic, such as what kind of Pokémon rides you would like to see, if Pokémon does indeed come to the third park. You mentioned some great ideas for rides in previous posts and paragraphs. If not, given the scope of the investment you are advocating for, perhaps your full thoughts on Pokémon would be better served by a separate thread within the miscellaneous Universal Orlando section of the forums. There, you could more fully discuss the proper scope of Pokémon in the parks, explore where such lands should be constructed, and further justify why Pokémon deserves this unprecedented investment.

 

[highdefrex]

We’re STILL talking about a park solely dedicated to Pokémon? I love that some people might be into this, but Universal would never, ever do this. I’m seriously questioning if they’ll even do a land.

Don’t know what planet you’re living on, but ooooobviously Universal is planning on tearing down all their parks and rebuilding/rebranding them as Pokémon World parks. Duh.

 

[Legacy]

Soo... You're saying Pokemon would only attract It's "hardcores" to universal? That's a revolving door of 60 million monthly users, world wide that are "hardcore". Your folks who would want to fulfill the fantasy more than anyone else who is casually interested. I don't know about you, but I want that kind of attention on my park or business. That's more than what visits MK in a year engaging with a piece of content on at least a monthly basis. You're saying you could potentially build something that would get 60 million people a month excited about coming? At what percentage would a gain in monthly visitors be worth it to you, and fair to boot?

You can turn pokemon into a land, can't do that with candy crush. Candy Crush is a popular game, but the IP has no strength or established universe that is understandable in the sense of a cultural zeitgeist.

If this theoretical land attracted 1% of those "hardcores" a month, that's 600k people. A month. Is that actually a laughable number to you? That's a BANKABLE number to me, and that's just the cultist! That's 7 million "Hardcores" a year coming just for Pokemon. There are whole parks that don't reach that attendance number on a good year.

In fact, 1% of hardcores visiting a year would not be far off from the yearly attendance of Uni Hollywood. (The property can arguably justify building a whole park, I'm not arguing for that, but remember I did suggest it was possibly one of the only properties that could)

I wonder how many "Hardcores" come for Pottter alone? Apparently, they spend less money on Potter anyways...

Build the game experience into the parks and it is an absolute win based on attracting "hardcores" alone.


Also to be fair even after "hardcores" you must also consider everyone else who will come to experience the offerings casually or as semi engaged patrons based off name recognition and experience quality and nostalgia.


Come on man. You're helping me make my case.

*sigh*

You really think all 60 million users around the world are going to Universal every year? Every five years? Ten years? You think the 1.5 million “hardcores” in the US are able to afford an annual trip to Universal? Universal Orlando has an annual attendance of 10 million (which aren’t unique visitors, because it’s basically every ticket swipe, but it’s the number we have). That number is only 3% of the US population (the unique number is closer to 1%). But let’s say 5% of the US hardcore number attends. That’s only 75,000 people. In a year. The global number would be even smaller. Even if 50% of the hardcores in America went every year, it would barely put the park in the top 25 attended parks in the world. And you think that’s worth Universal’s ROI? You really think Comcast wants that in their portfolio? The numbers are far less impressive when you look at the bigger picture.

The vast majority of people don’t want to LARP. Most people don’t want to attend a park dedicated to a single IP. Theme parks are designed to cast the widest net possible. They design stuff for casuals, but intended to keep hardcores happy. The casuals are the important factor. Not the fraction of a fraction.

 

[PerceptiveCoot]

You know, I'm kinda bummed that the Ministry drop tower rumor didn't pan out .

 

[youhow2]

*sigh*

You really think all 60 million users around the world are going to Universal every year? Every five years? Ten years? You think the 1.5 million “hardcores” in the US are able to afford an annual trip to Universal? Universal Orlando has an annual attendance of 10 million (which aren’t unique visitors, because it’s basically every ticket swipe, but it’s the number we have). That number is only 3% of the US population (the unique number is closer to 1%). But let’s say 5% of the US hardcore number attends. That’s only 75,000 people. In a year. The global number would be even smaller. Even if 50% of the hardcores in America went every year, it would barely put the park in the top 25 attended parks in the world. And you think that’s worth Universal’s ROI? You really think Comcast wants that in their portfolio? The numbers are far less impressive when you look at the bigger picture.

The vast majority of people don’t want to LARP. Most people don’t want to attend a park dedicated to a single IP. Theme parks are designed to cast the widest net possible. They design stuff for casuals, but intended to keep hardcores happy. The casuals are the important factor. Not the fraction of a fraction.

I understand how you are interpreting the data... But I'm not certain that's how it would work out or how you would properly forecast the numbers.

Also, let's cut out the hyperbole, If I did in fact say I want them to build a whole park dedicated to Pokemon, I've attempted to clarify several times now. Let me try again:

I think Pokemon has the substance to carry a substantial portion of a universal park and be a bigger anchor with more dedicated land than Potter. I base this on the strength of it's earning power over the past 24 years based on it's merch and video game sales compared to potter. I believe emulating the games as a part of the attraction, the land, like Potter with the wands, or SNW with the app and the bands would make it a more powerful edition, not less. I wholeheartedly believe the property could support more than a billion dollars in development cost, up to 2.5bn, and it would make sense to spend that amount with the proper content strategy built into the land.

I believe the content strategy, the programming of the land should directly emulate the games and the ride attractions should support the interactive activities, but be standalone.

----

1% of the total global number of monthly players and their families attending once annually might not be far off from the actual global annual draw of such a land. That's saying 1% of 60 million people (the monthly player base) can afford one annual trip, which for speculative purposes I think is a fair argument, and certainly many more would be able to afford a once in a lifetime. This is only based on the monthly draw of one game underneath the Pokemon IP, which is a testament to it's strength.

That amount of draw alone, based on a single game and nothing more would be quite remarkable, and if the land were standalone, the attendance based on that number alone would put it in the top 25 most visited parks annually, right underneath Universal Hollywood. But arguably, the draw would be more.

Creating an activity you can come back again and again and always get something new out of is something that has been being pursued more heavily in the industry in recent years. Repeat engagement is an important factor in designing any kind of land.

I think based on the relative strength of the IP in question, based on it's total revenue compared to other Ip's who's expansions have been wildly popular (potter, star wars) and it's total monthly users of the game, emulating the game in a park expansion, throwing the kitchen sink at it is not out of the question, and should be encouraged.


Again, for reference, Pokemon is a property only a year older than Potter, but has doubled it's earnings in Video games and merch sales alone. It is the highest grossing IP of all time, period. It has a substantial universe and a lore that would lend it well to becoming the next "mega land" (i.e Potter, SWGE, SNW), and perhaps the property used to push themed entertainment to the next level of immersion.

 

[Legacy]

I understand how you are interpreting the data... But I'm not certain that's how it would work out or how you would properly forecast the numbers.

Also, let's cut out the hyperbole, If I did in fact say I want them to build a whole park dedicated to Pokemon, I've attempted to clarify several times now. Let me try again:

I think Pokemon has the substance to carry a substantial portion of a universal park and be a bigger anchor with more dedicated land than Potter. I base this on the strength of it's earning power over the past 24 years based on it's merch and video game sales compared to potter. I believe emulating the games as a part of the attraction, the land, like Potter with the wands, or SNW with the app and the bands would make it a more powerful edition, not less. I wholeheartedly believe the property could support more than a billion dollars in development cost, up to 2.5bn, and it would make sense to spend that amount with the proper content strategy built into the land.

I believe the content strategy, the programming of the land should directly emulate the games and the ride attractions should support the interactive activities, but be standalone.

----

1% of the total global number of monthly players and their families attending once annually might not be far off from the actual global annual draw of such a land. That's saying 1% of 60 million people (the monthly player base) can afford one annual trip, which for speculative purposes I think is a fair argument, and certainly many more would be able to afford a once in a lifetime. This is only based on the monthly draw of one game underneath the Pokemon IP, which is a testament to it's strength.

That amount of draw alone, based on a single game and nothing more would be quite remarkable, and if the land were standalone, the attendance based on that number alone would put it in the top 25 most visited parks annually, right underneath Universal Hollywood. But arguably, the draw would be more.

Creating an activity you can come back again and again and always get something new out of is something that has been being pursued more heavily in the industry in recent years. Repeat engagement is an important factor in designing any kind of land.

I think based on the relative strength of the IP in question, based on it's total revenue compared to other Ip's who's expansions have been wildly popular (potter, star wars) and it's total monthly users of the game, emulating the game in a park expansion, throwing the kitchen sink at it is not out of the question, and should be encouraged.


Again, for reference, Pokemon is a property only a year older than Potter, but has doubled it's earnings in Video games and merch sales alone. It is the highest grossing IP of all time, period. It has a substantial universe and a lore that would lend it well to becoming the next "mega land" (i.e Potter, SWGE, SNW), and perhaps the property used to push themed entertainment to the next level of immersion.

And what I’m trying to tell you is that the market interested in that “next level of immersion” you’re proposing (with level grinds and an expectation to spend hours upon hours and up-charges to maximize that interactivity) is not actually large enough to justify the costs, infrastructure, or space you want. By every metric, that would not drive enough guests.

Regardless, this argument doesn’t matter. The best you’re going to get is a safari e-ticket, 2/3 flat-rides (Pokémon carousel, especially), an Ollivander’s-type “starter selection” store, and various Pokémon GO-style interactives. That’s what it will be, because that is what casuals want. And you can say Universal *should* do more, but if the numbers indicate that more won’t be profitable, then No, they shouldn’t do more.

 

[youhow2]

And what I’m trying to tell you is that the market interested in that “next level of immersion” you’re proposing (with level grinds and an expectation to spend hours upon hours and up-charges to maximize that interactivity) is not actually large enough to justify the costs, infrastructure, or space you want. By every metric, that would not drive enough guests.

Regardless, this argument doesn’t matter. The best you’re going to get is a safari e-ticket, 2/3 flat-rides (Pokémon carousel, especially), an Ollivander’s-type “starter selection” store, and various Pokémon GO-style interactives. That’s what it will be, because that is what casuals want. And you can say Universal *should* do more, but if the numbers indicate that more won’t be profitable, then No, they shouldn’t do more.
[/QUOTE]


I like how assertive and absolute you are, but it doesn't mean you are right. Look, I've made a case based on the data we have that the potential draw does justify such an expansion with that "next level of immersion", and just because you make the point that you believe a style of attraction I advocate for would not fit within average guest tolerances doesn't mean you are right. The whole SNW is testing how much interactivity guest can handle right now. I guess we will find out just how high those tolerances are when we get more reviews out of Japan, and hear more on how Nintendo's and Universal's relationship transpire over the next few years, and The Pokemon Company, etc. But I think it's laughable in of itself to suggest that UC and Nintendo didn't do R&D and prototype and test the mario stuff before build a giant land.


Is it just me, or does no one on these boards besides remember how almost the whole of the U.S collectively lost their minds playing Pokemon Go aka "real life pokemon" in 2015? If I remember correctly it was a global phenomena too, Kids, teens and adults running around, crashing servers. News stories on driving while playing pokemon go,etc. Property owners fighting to get the locations removed. The whole draw of "playing real life pokemon trainer", It can be done better in a more controlled setting...A Theme Park.

Maybe the world will lose their collective shorts again and book trips to Universal.

Regardless, this argument doesn’t matter. The best you’re going to get is a safari e-ticket, 2/3 flat-rides (Pokémon carousel, especially), an Ollivander’s-type “starter selection” store, and various Pokémon GO-style interactives. That’s what it will be, because that is what casuals want. And you can say Universal *should* do more, but if the numbers indicate that more won’t be profitable, then No, they shouldn’t do more.

Pokemon's merch sales alone eclipse the entire strength of Potter's IP total revenue twice. The size of it's game sales is more than any segment of Potter's total take. I'm speculating on how they can tap into each revenue stream through interactivity, events, esports, etc. You at the least must admit, there is an opportunity there... And that speculative opportunity is bigger than potter. Atleast 3 times as big in fact.

What the casuals want? The casuals are going to go anyways cause it's going to be cool. I don't think you can speak for the casuals everywhere.... There were loads of casuals losing their mind playing pokemon go... And for the record, 60 million unique global users monthly is laughably more than any "hard core" game franchise does in a month, especially after 5 years.

If that's what they built, it'd be a shame. You don't go status-quo when you are fighting for market share. They need to do something that is going to get more new, unique guest, but also forcibly yank some away from Disney.

I think you are wrong, and if you aren't for whatever reason, it'd be an opportunity wasted.

 

[Legacy]

I like how assertive and absolute you are, but it doesn't mean you are right. Look, I've made a case based on the data we have that the potential draw does justify such an expansion with that "next level of immersion", and just because you make the point that you believe a style of attraction I advocate for would not fit within average guest tolerances doesn't mean you are right. The whole SNW is testing how much interactivity guest can handle right now. I guess we will find out just how high those tolerances are when we get more reviews out of Japan, and hear more on how Nintendo's and Universal's relationship transpire over the next few years, and The Pokemon Company, etc. But I think it's laughable in of itself to suggest that UC and Nintendo didn't do R&D and prototype and test the mario stuff before build a giant land.


Is it just me, or does no one on these boards besides remember how almost the whole of the U.S collectively lost their minds playing Pokemon Go aka "real life pokemon" in 2015? If I remember correctly it was a global phenomena too, Kids, teens and adults running around, crashing servers. News stories on driving while playing pokemon go,etc. Property owners fighting to get the locations removed. The whole draw of "playing real life pokemon trainer", It can be done better in a more controlled setting...A Theme Park.

Maybe the world will lose their collective shorts again and book trips to Universal.



Pokemon's merch sales alone eclipse the entire strength of Potter's IP total revenue twice. The size of it's game sales is more than any segment of Potter's total take. I'm speculating on how they can tap into each revenue stream through interactivity, events, esports, etc. You at the least must admit, there is an opportunity there... And that speculative opportunity is bigger than potter. Atleast 3 times as big in fact.

What the casuals want? The casuals are going to go anyways cause it's going to be cool. I don't think you can speak for the casuals everywhere.... There were loads of casuals losing their mind playing pokemon go... And for the record, 60 million unique global users monthly is laughably more than any "hard core" game franchise does in a month, especially after 5 years.

If that's what they built, it'd be a shame. You don't go status-quo when you are fighting for market share. They need to do something that is going to get more new, unique guest, but also forcibly yank some away from Disney.

I think you are wrong, and if you aren't for whatever reason, it'd be an opportunity wasted.

A hotel stay on a star cruiser that gets attacked by the First Order is cool, but the experience is still not something most people are going to actually want to do. Even massive fans of Star Wars.

And, yeah, Pokémon GO was huge when it launched. Then, less than 7 months after launch, it’s daily user count dropped 83%. What that says is that even if this LARP land is swamped in the first three years, after eight years, after the hardcores have experienced it a couple of times, the land is likely going to see the overall interest drop drastically.

There’s a fine line in the interactivity that works in a theme park. It has to be kinetic, requiring active movement by the guests (shooting aliens, throwing/blocking fireballs). Non-interactivity typically fails (Spaceship Earth). It also has to be brief. Interactivity is a lot more taxing than just riding something. Men in Black wouldn’t work if it was twenty minutes. It would be exhausting, and pulls guests away from everything else for too long (and a static guest isn’t profitable).

Pokémon is a passive, non-kinetic interaction; guests simply tell other things what to do, rather than doing it themselves. You’re also proposing extended interactivity, which can wear guests out. Because the guests aren’t sitting at home anymore. They aren’t in a car. They’re walking around in the sun. Waiting in lines (to push a few buttons). Wrangling kids. Making any sort of interactivity integral to the overall experience when all most people want to do is sit down and ride a ride is a good way to piss them off.

 

[Nico]

You know, I'm kinda bummed that the Ministry drop tower rumor didn't pan out .

I honestly forget where we stand with this. I remember the drop tower concept was rumored back when the EU concept art *ahem* dropped (because fireworks covered the prospective show building). Since then we have learned that it’s more based on the original series than FB. Is the tower completely out?

 

[Cup_Of_Coffee]

Here’s the entire issue:

If I’m on vacation, and DONT want to do an interactive game, I can still go to that park. If it’s all Nintendo? That limits my options.

Instead, I could skip Nintendo and head over to Dragons for a show then Monsters for a beer and to meet Frankie. Sometimes I wanna be more lazy and not play lol.

Now, not doing a Pokemon land or ride would be a colossal mistake, though. If we don’t see a Pokemon ride from Universal to me that says more about the future of theme parks, they’d be ridiculous to not invest in this if they’ve gotten approval. Look, I want more Dreamworks in the parks but you can’t tell me that’s a big priority over Pokemon, wouldn’t be smart business.

A whole park on it? No, people already think SNW is a park in itself, don’t confuse the public any more.

 

[MurphyJoe]

Pokemon's merch sales alone eclipse the entire strength of Potter's IP total revenue twice. The size of it's game sales is more than any segment of Potter's total take.

The difference here is Potter is magical fantasy in a modern setting which immediately makes it accessible to people who've never read a Potter book or seen a Potter film. Even non-fantasy fans have the background knowledge due to the tropes used in the series to have some idea about its universe. Pokémon, at the level you're suggesting, would require visitors to already have an investment in the property to make visiting worthwhile, along with the money and time to do so. From a development and management perspective, if something laser focused like a Poké park happened, it would be more Disney Quest than Epic Universe. Themed games and experiences designed for 2 to 4 hour visits. Something which attracts families in the evening or afternoon for one day of their trip and enthusiastic locals mainly on the weekends.

 

[GAcoaster]

No company will build an entire park around a single IP unless the own it outright. If you don't own it there's too much that can go wrong with a licensing deal or some external force driving it into a ditch. It's way too big a gamble.

 

[Alicia]

No company will build an entire park around a single IP unless the own it outright. If you don't own it there's too much that can go wrong with a licensing deal or some external force driving it into a ditch. It's way too big a gamble.

Not to mention you want to appeal to as many people in the family as possible. Theme parks should offer something for everyone, especially major parks. Families spend the most money, bring the most people, and are willing to travel the farthest distances.

Well-rounded parks have the best longevity. Niche parks are risky.

I haven’t been following this conversation, but I will say, just because there’s enough material in an IP to make a whole park doesn’t mean it’s a good business decision.

 

[Legacy]

Or to dedicate a third of a park to a single IP. People tend to forget Diagon is one of 8 lands in Studios and one of 7.5 lands in Islands. Nintendo is set to be one of 5 lands on EU. More importantly, they’re on the smaller side. To think Universal is going to to make an IP they don’t own the largest land they’ve done, with more infrastructure requirements than anything they’ve done before is asinine.

 

[OhHaiInternet95]

Or to dedicate a third of a park to a single IP. People tend to forget Diagon is one of 8 lands in Studios and one of 7.5 lands in Islands. Nintendo is set to be one of 5 lands on EU. More importantly, they’re on the smaller side. To think Universal is going to to make an IP they don’t own the largest land they’ve done, with more infrastructure requirements than anything they’ve done before is asinine.

I agree that they wouldn't make it anywhere near the largest land they've done, but the "they don't own" part is irrelevant, considering how much they love using licensed properties (in stark contrast to Disney). It's striking how little of Universal consists of properties they own.

@Alicia : Yes, being well-rounded is the most important thing for a park, in both properties and in ride type.

@GAcoaster : Why people calling themed lands "theme parks" irritates the bejeezus out of me.

 

[Legacy]

I agree that they wouldn't make it anywhere near the largest land they've done, but the "they don't own" part is irrelevant, considering how much they love using licensed properties (in stark contrast to Disney). It's striking how little of Universal consists of properties they own.

I’d say it is relevant. It’s easy to point at IoA and Potter and say “it’s all licensed” (JP aside). But that’s ignoring that Universal didn’t have NBC, Dreamworks, or Illuminations in their stable. Simpsons and Potter were picked up in the mid-aughts. In the past ten years, however, Nintendo is the only new licensed attraction to get any sizable investment. Sanrio got a store. Everything else is either maximizing an older license (Potter/Simpsons) or “in house” (Transformers, Kong, Tonight Show, Despicable Me, SLoP, Jurassic Park, Bourne). Look at Beijing. Apart from Potter, everything is in Universal’s portfolio. That’s a drastic difference from 20 years ago.