Yes. It is a sad sight to see BGW resort to put in a lower key ride to try to raise revenue. The old busch I know would break a few records while doing this
Project 2015: Tempesto
- Thread starter Zachary
- Start date
- Status
The old Busch still added cheap off the shelf rides like Python and Scorpion. This isn't the first time they've added a clone.
I honestly don't see the issue with the coaster being a clone. It's only at a few parks already and it's a fairly unique ride, despite its other shortcomings. It's not like they're adding a coaster that's already at KD or anything.
Everyone's opinion is valid and welcome here! No need to apologize.
Peyton said:
I hope I didn't offend you with what I said. I think you have a very good point, and honestly the coaster does look fun. Yeah, it's going to be there either way, so it's smarter to just enjoy it than bitch about it. Sorry if I came off the wrong way- I certainly welcome your opinion.
Oh no you didn't offend me. I just don't want to offend anyone. I'm just that type of person. Also I'm new to this whole forum thing and just getting the hang of it. I just love all coasters and ride as many as I possibly can. Henceforth the excitement of the new "attraction"
- Feb 17, 2014
- 619
- 448
- 160
This ride is either going to be extremely amazing looking or crappy. Putting two coasters in one spot can look incredible, if only both shared a theme and involved good architecture for their stations. Seeing the plans though, they really missed an opportunity for superb theming.
I could care less if another park has the same coaster or not. My biggest problem with this project is the rushed nature in the planning of this and the location.
Theme parks aren't supposed to place rides closer together than what you'd see at a fair midway.
Theme parks aren't supposed to place rides closer together than what you'd see at a fair midway.
Peyton said:
The old BGW did not have to worry about revenue they were used as an advertising tool for the beer business and as a result operated at a loss many times. As a separate business they HAVE to turn a profit so get over it.
People try to use the "but they have to turn a profit" argument constantly as some sort of silver bullet. Problem is that the park hadn't operated at a loss for a very, very long time. In the early years was it a business that could stand on its own? Likely not. For at least the last two decades, was that still the case? Not in the slightest.
Yes, I do believe that the park is doing fine in that sense; however, just like many other businesses there is this idea that you must cut budgets whenever possible and you must use the cheapest things in order to make the most profit. While I don't doubt their doing fine or even very well, I still feel that the "saving money no mater the cost" theory is very much a driving force for many of the actions the park has taken.
I kind of see this as multiple problems intersecting.
A park has to introduce new product on a regular basis or cycle. It's just the nature of the beast. This is where concept meets innovation meets execution. Tangent: I'd also like to point out, wishing the park would 'go back' is futile; everything changes. Chances are, purists are seeing the park's history through rose colored lenses. There's plenty of stuff during the AB days worth complaining about.
So in thinking about future planning there's a certain amount of risk associated with any new project or endeavor. It's impossible to see the future, however the past is usually a pretty good indicator. Looking at the park's recent history: BGW has made a lot of missteps in the last few years. Verbolten was expensive and didn't move bodies. The Mehtower has been a nightmare. London Rocks seems to be another money pit with little return.
There's also environmental factors like, say, SEAS tanking in general.
From my point of view, the park has painted itself in a corner. They have to do something but their piss poor planning in the past has led up to this moment: a lackluster, cheap roller coaster. Some of you may like it, some of you may hate it. Most agree it's a bizarre addition. But here's what I don't understand and what I feel is the 800 lb gorilla in the room: why are the people who seem to be making all the mistakes rewarded and allowed to make more mistakes?
A park has to introduce new product on a regular basis or cycle. It's just the nature of the beast. This is where concept meets innovation meets execution. Tangent: I'd also like to point out, wishing the park would 'go back' is futile; everything changes. Chances are, purists are seeing the park's history through rose colored lenses. There's plenty of stuff during the AB days worth complaining about.
So in thinking about future planning there's a certain amount of risk associated with any new project or endeavor. It's impossible to see the future, however the past is usually a pretty good indicator. Looking at the park's recent history: BGW has made a lot of missteps in the last few years. Verbolten was expensive and didn't move bodies. The Mehtower has been a nightmare. London Rocks seems to be another money pit with little return.
There's also environmental factors like, say, SEAS tanking in general.
From my point of view, the park has painted itself in a corner. They have to do something but their piss poor planning in the past has led up to this moment: a lackluster, cheap roller coaster. Some of you may like it, some of you may hate it. Most agree it's a bizarre addition. But here's what I don't understand and what I feel is the 800 lb gorilla in the room: why are the people who seem to be making all the mistakes rewarded and allowed to make more mistakes?
ReggaeInMyJeggae said:
See, this is the problem with the park being IPO -- they're not beholden to taste, or upholding any company legacy, they're beholden to the stock holders who, as a group, care about MONEY. So it's not about being rewarded for ideas, it's about who can come up with the cheapest way to make a money-generating SOMETHING. SEAS keeps trying and failing, but that's why we're getting things like Tempesto -- it's cheap and theoretically likely to drive more $$. Why they aren't willing to put money into MARKETING is beyond me, though.
I don't think you should be quick to blame stockholders. If the company didn't move to the stock market, where do you think they'd be right now? The park executives in charge now, would probably still be in charge making the same decisions.
the two are not mutually exclusive. It is possible to innovate and still turn a profit.
Also lets not all jump down the "they turned a profit under AB" rabbit hole. AB had a VERY complex and often spooky financial structure. It has been guessed that they moved money around to show profits where there were none, and absorb debt. Frankly only their accountants and at best the CFO know all the details. Regardless, we can not sit here only looking at quarterly financials and extrapolate the truth.
(Source "Dethroning the King")
I agree with Reggae, there seems to be no accountability. Carl, Scott, and company continue to make mistakes, costly mistakes all the while calling for the "new customer base" ticket. It never comes.
I always tell my people that if they do not make a few expensive mistakes a year they are not trying hard enough. But even with that philosophy there comes a time to cut your losses and find a new approach.
Also lets not all jump down the "they turned a profit under AB" rabbit hole. AB had a VERY complex and often spooky financial structure. It has been guessed that they moved money around to show profits where there were none, and absorb debt. Frankly only their accountants and at best the CFO know all the details. Regardless, we can not sit here only looking at quarterly financials and extrapolate the truth.
(Source "Dethroning the King")
I agree with Reggae, there seems to be no accountability. Carl, Scott, and company continue to make mistakes, costly mistakes all the while calling for the "new customer base" ticket. It never comes.
I always tell my people that if they do not make a few expensive mistakes a year they are not trying hard enough. But even with that philosophy there comes a time to cut your losses and find a new approach.
- Status