I think the recent spate of budget attractions is primarily due to wanting to keep cash to expand and build the new park.
For example, from what I understand the area for F&F is huge, yet mostly under-utilised. This suggests either poor planning, or the original idea which was green lit was scaled back so much that they had no option but to make the carbon copy of Hollywood’s version to meet the deadline.
Also it sounds more and more likely that nintendoland isnt coming to universal studios at all. It would, however, slot right in as a land in a new park.
The Mangement are therefore left in a dilemma. Either stop building new rides altogether, and be accused of having no ideas and becoming stale while the new park is being developed behind closed doors (and lose attendance). Or, build something each year to keep people talking about the parks and want to come back more often.
People forget that this is a business. It is there to make money. Why build a $1bn state of the art attraction which brings additional revenue of $100m per year, when you can build a $300m average attraction which brings $50m additional revenue per year? Yes it’s not the best for us as fans and the end consumer, but business wise it makes sense.
To Management money talks, and by spending less on new attractions now they can invest more heavily into the new park.
Not or saying I agree or disagree with the strategy, just that I understand the commercial rationale behind it.