Does it get old arguing with the "Onsite Only" crowd?

[BigredNole]

I understand and completely get what the onsite only people say. I was definitely like that. But some of them are so adamant, that they will argue no matter how wrong they are.

I get it all the time when people ask where we are staying at WDW. When I tell them we are staying offsite, they almost gasp. When I tell them how much I pay, they simply say Disney is better. Honestly, Disney resorts are not better than offsite. At best, they are an even comparison. When you make completely valid discussion points, they go off on the "It's Disney". It's not, it is a $5,000-$7,000 savings for a week long vacation. Then they say they paid no where near that when they spout of they spent only $3,000 at the GF in a studio room. When you ask they the price of a 2BR unit, they say they didn't need that much space.

I don't know. It just gets to me. I know some of these people have far more money than I do. So much so that $3,000 to them is like me spending $250. But still, it gets old.

 

[Beer Me]

If I needed the space of a two bedroom suite I would stay off site as well. As it is a regular room works for me. Location/ease of transportation and other perks are more important to me than living space so on site wins for me.

But I'm definitely not going to argue! That would be silly. We all have our individual wants, needs and preferences.

 

[RossK]

I suppose it depends on what you're looking for. I don't think there's any right or wrong.

You can absolutely get much higher "five star" hotel experiences offsite - unquestionably, and at a similar rate to Disney. BUT, it isn't Disney, and that's the crux really. I have done both offsite and onsite stays, at both WDW and Disneyland Paris. What surprised me was that DLP is nowhere on the scale of WDW, and its much easier/quicker to escape to an off-site property quickly, so I stayed offsite there. Recently I got a very good rate at one of the onsite properties, so I did it once and it was incomparable. Not because the DLP hotel was amazing (it wasn't), but you just feel far more immersed in Disney and you can completely forget about the 'real world'. That might not matter to some people, but I personally find that worth paying for. But I would agree, the Disney hotels are not anywhere near a five-star standard.

 

[msb578]

I was going through this a couple days ago. We stayed at Bonnet Creek for the first time last month and I'm already on a wait list to go back next year.

I was doing some comparing between renting at DVC vs Bonnet Creek (I'm not in a position to look at buying right now). After staying in the beautiful 2-BR unit, we'll never go back to a regular hotel room.

For our dates, where Bonnet Creek is in Value Season and DVC is in a high season (I forget the exact name)- seriously, DVC costs about 5 times more for the same space (this is an unscientific estimate). Someone will argue with me about paying for parking and car rental... well, we all agreed we'd never go back to the buses again. And they'll say I can't live without the DDP. We got to dine at bluezoo because we weren't tied to the plan, and it was amazing.

We did, maybe, miss out on 7DMT because of being offsite. My kids rode Big Thunder instead and enjoyed it. We lived- lol.

 

[Mackenzie Click-Mickelson]

I've never stayed on-site but will be in a few months. Before it was usually coming to WDW from my step-grandmother's house a little more than an hour away from Orlando. In 2011 when my husband (then boyfriend) and I went we stayed off-site at a place with free shuttles to both WDW and USO but we still had a rental car. It's been something I've always wanted to do-stay on site- and I did say back then in 2011 that when we came back (I knew we would just didn't know when) that I wanted to stay on-site.

That being said I completely understand and have seen it numerous times on many threads. Everyone has different needs, different wants, finances/willingness to pay X, etc. but sometimes others don't take that into account and instead make the case for on-site no matter what. But even being on-site I've seen people say I'd rather be off-site than stay at a Value or I would only stay at Deluxe or Mod, etc so yeah on-site isn't the end for room location arguments.

 

[danielocha30]

I have done both, and is true off site is way cheaper, is the way to go when is a trip with a big group, I do hate the driving and parking which is the only way to stay offsite is having your own car, no way I use offsite park shuttles they are a joke!, so when people ask me if is better offsite or onsite it comes to whether you will have a car or not, just the shuttles are a deal breaker for me, with no car, on site is the way to go!

 

[Mackenzie Click-Mickelson]

I have done both, and is true off site is way cheaper, is the way to go when is a trip with a big group, I do hate the driving and parking which is the only way to stay offsite is having your own car, no way I use offsite park shuttles they are a joke!, so when people ask me if is better offsite or onsite it comes to whether you will have a car or not, just the shuttles are a deal breaker for me, with no car, on site is the way to go!

Honestly I didn't like the shuttles that were at our hotel-they were fine but I found I didn't like them as much as I would have hoped. It was more the times that was the issue and the fact that we always felt like we were in a hurry to get outside to the parking lot to the shuttle point in time. I know it wasn't advertised but ours shared with another one to go to Universal (didn't share at all to go to WDW). We were picked up something like just after 7am and didn't get to Universal til just at opening (which was at 9am) or a little after because we had to drive to the other hotel to pick up people there. I know we ended up driving (we also had a rental car) to WDW twice I think and I know Universal once or twice.

 

[jsmla]

I go to WDW at least four times a year fairly equally split between on and off site. I don't really get involved in those discussions and tend to run when people start getting nuts but I do have a bit of beef about some of the die hards.

I get it, you luuurv onsite. You'd rather eat beans and rice all year, work 30 hours of overtime a week and sell your first born* than stay/dine offsite. Go you. Enjoy your vacation, you've definitely earned it.

My question is why (and I totally respect your right to do so, BTW, just truly don't get it) do you even come onto this board? I tend to stick to those relevant to my own situation. What's in it for you other than the (baffling to me) "fun" of argument and shooting down others? Does it make you feel better about your own decisions if you make others feel like their trip is somehow not good enough?

I will never buy into DVC, the value is not there for us, but (until right now) it has never occurred to me to go onto that forum and point out what a losing proposition DVC can be for many.

*sarcasm (and I swear this is the only board where I feel the need for footnotes, yet another complaint about the DIS. I feel like Crabby McCrabberson today.)

 

[bluezy]

I understand and completely get what the onsite only people say. I was definitely like that. But some of them are so adamant, that they will argue no matter how wrong they are.

I get it all the time when people ask where we are staying at WDW. When I tell them we are staying offsite, they almost gasp. When I tell them how much I pay, they simply say Disney is better. Honestly, Disney resorts are not better than offsite. At best, they are an even comparison. When you make completely valid discussion points, they go off on the "It's Disney". It's not, it is a $5,000-$7,000 savings for a week long vacation. Then they say they paid no where near that when they spout of they spent only $3,000 at the GF in a studio room. When you ask they the price of a 2BR unit, they say they didn't need that much space.

I don't know. It just gets to me. I know some of these people have far more money than I do. So much so that $3,000 to them is like me spending $250. But still, it gets old.

What makes "them" wrong and you right????? Frankly, I don't care where anybody stays. Actually, I'd love for everyone to stay off site so that the prices of the onsite resorts start to drop because they can't keep them at capacity. What works for one family doesn't work for another family. It doesn't mean one is wrong and one is right. We always stay onsite (though my husband and I have both stayed off site when we were younger and vacationing with our families). The standard rooms or suites (at AoA) are fine for us. I'm not going to cook or do laundry or spend a lot of time hanging out in the room while we're on vacation -- all we need are beds, TVs, and bathrooms. If we were staying for an extended amount of time (more than 2 weeks), we would look into offsite options. We've never paid rack rate for a room at Disney (well, except for the time we got free dining which saved us more money than the room discount on that trip) but we also know that we could definitely save money by staying off site. But we're not vacationing at Disney to save money. We *save* our money to afford the vacation we want. Taking a vacation but having to worry about how much money we're spending isn't appealing to us. We're willing to pay extra for the atmosphere, convenience, and just "staying in the bubble". My husband works a very high-stress job and prefers to completely remove himself from the real world when we vacation. We drive 16 hours to Disney and prefer not to do any driving once we get there. While we're comfortable with our teenagers coming and going to the parks on their own while we're staying on property, that's something we wouldn't be comfortable with if staying off property. There are a lot of reasons that staying on property is right for our family and staying off property would be wrong. That doesn't mean it's the same for everyone. There is no blanket "right" or "wrong" in this discussion. It's what works for each individual family.

 

[jsmla]

It's not about right or wrong-that's waaaay too subjective.

Totally made up scenario:

Budget Board

Newbie posts:
First time at WDW
Must go in summer (Dad's a high school teacher)
4 young kids
Limited income (Mom stays home with the kiddos)

This family cannot afford onsite without serious financial consequences. It would be seriously irresponsible for them to spend that kind of money. My reply is:
-Drive
-Offsite condo
-Stay away from the Disney eateries as much as possible-spend your $ on special treats like Mickey bars, not extravagantly overpriced* theme park food.

This sort of thing is inevitably followed by a barrage of posts telling the OP all about how crappy it will be if they head down such a crazy path. Often there will be replies insinuating that this family has no business going to Disney at all if onsite is not in the budget. This family should wait and skimp on every other aspect of their lives to save until they can afford a Disney resort and 3 meals a day in a WDW restaurant. Forget that the oldest is now 32, you got to stay at Riverside!

 

[BigredNole]

What makes "them" wrong and you right?????

Never said either was right. Just that whenever I do get in a discussion, turns to argument, that the only fact they can provide is "It's Disney". Just gets extremely old.

But to each their own. I am at the point of just saying as I always do "Enjoy your trip".

 

[ArwenMarie]

I think it's a lot about transportation. Some people do not want to drive around Orlando. Then onsite is the only choice.

For those who are ok with driving, then offsite becomes an option.

 

[ArwenMarie]

This family should wait and skimp on every other aspect of their lives to save until they can afford a Disney resort and 3 meals a day in a WDW restaurant. Forget that the oldest is now 32, you got to stay at Riverside!

I agree, I don't get that line of thought. I would rather go, even if it means I stay offsite and pack a lunch, than not go. The park tickets provide enough "Disney"

 

[jsmla]

I think it's a lot about transportation. Some people do not want to drive around Orlando. Then onsite is the only choice.

For those who are ok with driving, then offsite becomes an option.

Unless you can't drive it's not a matter of no other option. It's a matter of personal preference. I don't like to drive but I'd rather drive at WDW than not drive at home.

For a great number of visitors onsite is simply not affordable no matter how much Disney math one employs. I sometimes wonder how many families have cancelled or run into debt because they were so thoroughly convinced that offsite is just too awful to contemplate.

 

[Mackenzie Click-Mickelson]

I think it's a lot about transportation. Some people do not want to drive around Orlando. Then onsite is the only choice.

For those who are ok with driving, then offsite becomes an option.

Technically that's not exactly true. You can get transportation from the airport to your hotel and stay at a hotel off-site that has shuttles that take you to WDW and Universal. Honestly we always get rental car because we like to but if you saw my earlier comment on this thread, in 2011 we stayed off-site but the hotel had shuttle transportation to both WDW and USO. We could have easily taken transportation from the airport to the hotel and then only relied on the shuttles. Plus around the hotel was touristy shops plus a few places to eat like McDonald's, etc within walking distance and breakfast was included at the hotel.

 

[Mackenzie Click-Mickelson]

What makes "them" wrong and you right????? Frankly, I don't care where anybody stays. Actually, I'd love for everyone to stay off site so that the prices of the onsite resorts start to drop because they can't keep them at capacity. What works for one family doesn't work for another family. It doesn't mean one is wrong and one is right. We always stay onsite (though my husband and I have both stayed off site when we were younger and vacationing with our families). The standard rooms or suites (at AoA) are fine for us. I'm not going to cook or do laundry or spend a lot of time hanging out in the room while we're on vacation -- all we need are beds, TVs, and bathrooms. If we were staying for an extended amount of time (more than 2 weeks), we would look into offsite options. We've never paid rack rate for a room at Disney (well, except for the time we got free dining which saved us more money than the room discount on that trip) but we also know that we could definitely save money by staying off site. But we're not vacationing at Disney to save money. We *save* our money to afford the vacation we want. Taking a vacation but having to worry about how much money we're spending isn't appealing to us. We're willing to pay extra for the atmosphere, convenience, and just "staying in the bubble". My husband works a very high-stress job and prefers to completely remove himself from the real world when we vacation. We drive 16 hours to Disney and prefer not to do any driving once we get there. While we're comfortable with our teenagers coming and going to the parks on their own while we're staying on property, that's something we wouldn't be comfortable with if staying off property. There are a lot of reasons that staying on property is right for our family and staying off property would be wrong. That doesn't mean it's the same for everyone. There is no blanket "right" or "wrong" in this discussion. It's what works for each individual family.

This is just my opinion but I didn't get the impression the OP meant staying off-site is right and staying on-site is wrong. I was envisioning more of everytime the OP (or others for that matter) say something it's countered with a pro to staying on-site and comes off like the only correct way to do Disney is to stay on-site. My mind was going more to what @jsmla described in the scenario.

 

[Klayfish]

Does it get old arguing? No, because like someone else said...I don't really care. That's not meant to be a terse response, it's just how I feel. On site or off is just personal preference. It's not a "right or wrong" argument. All of the "pros" that people list for staying on-site would be a huge "con" for me. Relying on Disney bus? No way, no how. Disney food? No thanks. Small hotel room? Not for our family! The "bubble"? Why limit it to WDW property...seems confining to us? But that doesn't mean my way is the right way by any stretch of the imagination...the only one it's right for is DW and our kids. For someone else, our vacation style would be a nightmare, and I get that.

I'm happy to discuss the options and give my input as to why we do what we do, but at the end of the day, I don't care what someone else does or thinks of what we do.

 

[jsmla]

If you really want a fight mention public transportation as an option!

Like I said, I stay offsite about half the time. I also enjoy the occasional adult beverage or two. I take Lynx ($16/week) from my offsite condo ($300/week) with my packed lunch ($2) in tow. That way I can afford all of those pricey and yummy adult slushies (I'm not spending on a $100/night room or $15 on salads) and avoid a DUI while I'm at it.

Don't think I'd recommend Lynx for a young family but we didn't drink much anyway back when the kids were young so driving wasn't a problem. Seriously, I can't be the only person at Disney whose backside isn't too precious for public transportation. You'd think Lynx was a 1963 school bus full of gangsters headed to Sing Sing the way some carry on.

 

[wilkeliza]

I always say do what is best for you and your family. For me and mine it is onsite at which ever place we are staying. That is mostly because I don't want to have to drive most trips and I don't want to have to rely on the public transportation or shuttles from most off site locations. However if that is what works best for you and even saves you that much money then I say go for it! We have been pretty tempted to try four seasons that is on property but with out all the perks but it doesn't really save much.

 

[jsmla]

I always say do what is best for you and your family. For me and mine it is onsite at which ever place we are staying. That is mostly because I don't want to have to drive most trips and I don't want to have to rely on the public transportation or shuttles from most off site locations. However if that is what works best for you and even saves you that much money then I say go for it! We have been pretty tempted to try four seasons that is on property but with out all the perks but it doesn't really save much.

But your offsite option is the Four Seasons, obviously for your family it's not a matter of being able to afford to go at all. Not everyone is in such a cozy financial position.

We were very, very, very lucky to inherit my parents' hand me down travel trailer when they bought a new one after retiring. My kids camped at Ft Wilderness every year 1989-2000 so we were onsite. If we hadn't camped we would have certainly stayed offsite.

Their dad (the tow driver of campers) bailed on Disney once they became teens and we began combining offsite with stays at the Values. I found the Values pretty uncomfortable with two teens and wasn't crazy about losing my fridge and kitchen but did like the freedom it gave the kids to come and go without me along. I don't do 2:00 AM!

Now that I'm mostly solo and can please myself I'll stay on or off depending on the circumstances.

So, I really don't have a foothold in either camp. I just find it frustrating that so many on the DIS have so little understanding or compassion for those of more modest means. A lot of folks truly don't have the choice.