At InfoComm this past June, just about everyone wanted to visit the new Las Vegas Sphere and experience it for themselves. One integrator even hosted a party there. The Sphere has quickly become one of the most talked-about attractions on the Strip, drawing attention for its futuristic design and cutting-edge technology. Whether you’re passing by and catching its massive LED displays or stepping inside for the advertised “immersive” experience, the Sphere is meant to impress. And just the other day, Abu Dhabi’s Department of Culture and Tourism announced that their city in the United Arab Emirates will be the home for a second Sphere location. But is this $2.3 billion spectacle really the future of entertainment, or is it more of a high-tech gimmick? While the outside certainly dazzles, the inside feels overhyped, especially when compared to similar attractions like Disney’s Soarin’, which has been creating emotional and immersive experiences for over two decades. In the end, I believe the Sphere’s interior fails to live up to its grand promises, leaving visitors with a sense that it’s all flash and little substance.

What Is Soarin’? A True Immersive Experience

To understand why the Las Vegas Sphere feels underwhelming, it’s helpful to compare it to Disney’s Soarin’, a hang-glider simulator attraction that debuted in 2001. Located first in Disney California Adventure and then other Disney parks, Soarin’ takes guests on a simulated flight over breathtaking global landscapes. The ride combines motion, scents, wind and a panoramic screen to make visitors feel like they’re truly soaring over some of the most beautiful places on Earth. The result is an emotionally engaging, immersive experience that has continued to captivate audiences for more than 20 years.

Unlike the Sphere, which boasts about its advanced technology and massive screen, Soarin’ focuses on creating a human connection. It’s not just about what you see; it’s about how the experience makes you feel. By using a blend of simple yet effective storytelling elements, Soarin’ leaves visitors with a sense of awe that the Sphere, despite all its technological bells and whistles, struggles to match.

The Two Faces of the Sphere: Exterior vs. Interior

The Sphere is essentially two attractions in one: an exterior marvel and an interior disappointment.

From the outside, the Sphere is undeniably a stunning addition to the Las Vegas skyline. Its LED-covered dome transforms into a variety of mesmerizing displays — everything from lifelike basketballs to pulsating artistic designs. As a visual landmark, it fits right into the extravagance of the Strip, drawing tourists and locals alike to marvel at its glowing facade. If the goal was to add something new and exciting to the already glitzy Vegas landscape, the Sphere has succeeded. It’s become a must-see attraction.

But that’s where the success ends. Step inside, and the experience shifts from awe-inspiring to disappointing. After long lines at security (looking not for anyone’s safety but instead to remove any carried-in food and drinks) and then waiting for up to an hour in a holding pen, attendees of “Postcard from Earth” are shepherded into an atrium to look at the various, very dated, 1970s animatronics and play with the few “avatar creation” stations for a long, long while. Basically, people are held there until they decide that they’re hungry or thirsty enough to be willing to buy $7 sodas, $15 slices of pizza and $18+ beer and liquor. Only after yet another half-hour of standing around and spending are the attendees then allowed to sit-down in seats to see the film.

And then, the promise of an “immersive” experience within the Sphere doesn’t hold up under scrutiny. While it boasts a 16K LED screen, a highly advanced audio system (unless you remember Sensurround which sort of makes it a “so what”) and wind fans that blow on the seats during simulations, these technological feats feel hollow and cheap without a meaningful narrative or emotional hook (compared to the Disney ride). Unlike Soarin’, which carefully blends visuals, sound and motion to create a cohesive and emotionally resonant experience, the Sphere’s interior feels more like a tech demo against a film that can best be described as a weird, futuristic, dystopian, ecological warning. It overwhelms the senses with its sheer size and precision but lacks the emotional core or audience resonation that makes great entertainment truly immersive.

Tech Over Substance: Where the Sphere Misses the Mark

The Sphere’s interior has been hailed as the most advanced entertainment experience in the world, with its massive screen wrapping around visitors and spatial audio designed to immerse every attendee. The technology is impressive, no doubt. However, technology alone doesn’t guarantee a successful experience. In fact, the Sphere’s over-reliance on tech often detracts from its ability to engage audiences on a deeper level.

The Sphere, when the film “Postcard from Earth” is shown, feels more like a sensory assault than a thoughtful, engaging narrative. You’re bombarded with visuals and sound, but it all lacks the heart that makes for a truly memorable experience. As for being a concert venue — eh. Sure, big-name musical acts will get good money playing in Vegas, but people would attend those acts if they were playing on a street corner. The big screen with video graphics is nice, but it’s as necessary as serving cheesecake after chocolate cake — it didn’t need to be that over the top to attract an audience.

The Dolan Effect: A Disconnect from What Audiences Want

Much of the Sphere’s shortcomings can be traced back to its leadership. The man behind the project, James Dolan, is no stranger to controversy. Best known for owning the New York Knicks and Madison Square Garden, the Dolan family has a reputation for pursuing high-profile, high-cost projects that don’t always align with what the public actually wants. His approach to the Sphere feels no different. From the start, it seems the focus was on creating something that would be technologically groundbreaking rather than something that would genuinely resonate with audiences.

Dolan’s style often prioritizes his vision over everything else, and that’s evident in how the Sphere turned out. Among the heavy marketing of the Sphere as a revolutionary experience, there were also early reports of internal turmoil, including the firing of two executives overseeing the project. This hints at deeper issues within the Sphere’s development​. It’s a reflection of that team’s usual output — boasting about being grandiose while also being insanely expensive and disconnected from the core of what makes entertainment meaningful.

Is Over-The-Top Really Better In AV?

The Sphere’s focus on size and technology begs the question: Is bigger always better? In the case of immersive entertainment, the answer seems to be no. The Sphere’s interior experience feels more like a sampling of unmixed technology than a well-thought-out piece of entertainment. It’s all about how many pixels they can pack into a screen, how much the chairs can rumble, and how many senses they can stimulate at once. The Sphere feels like an experiment in excess, impressive in the moment but forgettable once you walk out the door.

In the end, the Las Vegas Sphere is a tale of two attractions. The exterior, with its glowing LED facade, has earned its place as a new Vegas icon. But the interior, which was supposed to be the main attraction, falls flat. For all its technological innovation, the Sphere’s inside experience lacks the heart and soul that make immersive entertainment truly impactful.

The Sphere is fun to look at, but once the novelty of its impressive exterior wears off, the overhyped inside experience won’t be enough to keep audiences coming back. Bigger doesn’t always mean better. In the case of the Las Vegas Sphere, my advice is to enjoy it from a distance. Just like any other really big screen, the closer one gets, the worse the experience becomes.