You're not wrong, but isn't "consumption" the entire point of every vacation ever? Do you do anything other than consume when you, say, go for a cruise? Road trip across the country? Go be a tourist in a city abroad? What could you possibly get out of a vacation other than "consuming"?

While I agree somewhat with the descriptive aspect of your comment I think you assume a view of humans that is too atomic or individualistic as agenents. No doubt "these people" have "made" consuming a large part of their identity, but this is only half the story.

The reality in which many in the US and maybe the West generally (perhaps elsewhere too) is one in which one's life as an agent is constrained within the bounds of being a consumer. What I mean is people are habituated into expressing their agency as a consumer: Someone or thing offers you something, you "decide" to accept it or reject it. If you don't like what's being offered, you leverage your ability to consume as the means by which you exert power over the producer, i.e., "Make me an offer I like or I'll consumer elsewhere (if I can)".

So, of course people's identities are consumption centered. This is because is what reality is for peoples' everyday life, consumption choices. So people express who they are through the available consumption choices. Think about how people are marketed to, at least in the US. People are slammed with "Your choice" and "have it your way" and "be you" in advertising as if consuming a product is an expression of their respective identities.

Anyway, this is all just to say: The structure of society and the discourse that supports it plays a big role in constraining and guiding how people think and what choices people can even imagine are open to them when making decisions. So not all the responsibility or blame should be focused on individuals, but on large social structures, practices, and discourses.

I guess that is their hobby, consuming the products or experiences and sharing that with others.

They also ruin the experience of trying to take your child to one of these parks.

and even calling the things they consume "experiences" is overselling them

There's nothing wrong with targeting a different ICP from who you were previously.

As a business you in fact have an incentive to target these kinds of identity-driven consumers as they are much more likely to spend more on average than others.

And Disney is shifting their entire GTM as a result, but frankly there is nothing wrong with that - consumer tastes change.

That said, it sounds like you are dismissive of Disney-fanatics when in reality everyone is hypertargeted by their specific subculture. Doesn't matter if your a Tater, a ranked MMO gamer, Boardgame addicts, fantasy football aficionado, CrossFit enthusiast, mechanical keyboard collector, etc.

Rare instance where the use of the "normie" pejorative isn't an insult

I agree, I think it does simply make sense to cater to the customers with the money. If I were starting a business selling products or services to consumers directly, I wouldn't target a customer base that could only afford to buy it once or twice. It wouldn't matter why they have more money, being child free or being a software engineer from San Francisco, I would just figure out their demographic and target them.

You can't scale up the Magic Kingdom, no. But Disney had a pattern going for a while where they opened a new Florida park every 10 years or so: 1971, 1982, 1989, 1998. That probably helped a lot. They've done some small expansions in the existing parks since then, but they're about 20 years behind in adding a new park. I think that's a huge part of the crowding issue now.

(Now Anaheim, there they're kind of hosed. No space to expand.)