You Should Get What You Pay For, and Vice-Versa
With some sort of advanced "pay for play" system, not only would it mean striving for more attractions and higher quality in attractions, and people NOT paying for attractions they will not experience, it could also help solve certain other issues.

Some people ask "Why don't they just combine California Adventure and Disneyland Park into one park?" The answer is: Main Gate Revenue. That becomes a pointless argument with a "pay for play" system, and so does the fact that both of those parks costs the same to enter, but aren't the same value in the eyes of most guests.

When the number of people choosing to ride an attraction dips to a certain point, thereby lowering revenue for that attraction, management will likely do one or more things in response, neither of which is "nothing" or "close the attraction and leave it there - closed." Disney might improve the attraction somehow to get more people interested again. Disney might lower the price to ride that attraction. Disney might replace the attraction with another one.

But how would the "pay for play" work?

FastPass machines are already located throughout the parks. Certainly it would be possible to add machines to issue and "refill" paper or plastic cards that grant unlimited access to attractions or any number of customized combinations of access. The system could be much more convenient and customizable than the old coupon system. You could be warned in your own language about the safety restrictions for certain attractions. Annual passports would not need to go away. Disney could still offer discounts to locals, or maybe paying a higher rate could give you an earlier FastPass.

Plastic card-tickets could even be used again at a later date (as unredeemed coupons were), or given as gift certificates, or if they are personalized, they could be used for a corporation-wide frequent-customer program.

I believe a system like this would not only make the parks more profitable, it would increase guest satisfaction and increase the likelihood of seeing more attractions on the level of Pirates of the Caribbean.

Maybe I'm just dreaming. But I think something has to be done. Parks that are almost fifty years old are unlikely to consistently produce twenty percent growth, and Disney sees little incentive to add expensive new attractions and keep older attractions open if such actions can't be directly proven to increase main gate revenue enough to provide a high enough return on investment.

It sure would be nice to hear, "Oh, that ride is closed? Oh well. I guess we'll spend our credit at another one, like that one they just added that new part to."

What do you think?