I always hesitate to jump into these threads as I know few (if any) people will agree with me here, but this really comes off as whining.
I just don't like that enthusiasts are gatekeeping environmental improvements with arguments like, "I like souvenirs," "It's corporate cost cutting," and "The app is hard to use."
What most of these arguments boil down to is, "My convenience in an unnecessary leisure activity is slightly reduced and therefore I do not like it." Furthermore, it comes off as concern trolling and a "WON'T SOMEONE THINK OF THE CHILDREN GP?!?!" The irony here being that many people on this board look down the GP at that. My assertion is that theme parks are a high carbon activity and even small gains like this matter. As the US grid is now 40% clean energy and continues to improve, we have a chance to decarbonize even a small part of the theme park experience, and we were going to go there eventually anyway.
Reductions in our carbon footprint should be supported, even if we don't like the reasoning. I'm sure people will lambast this as greenwashing, but Universal has done things like make trams electric, which, even if fiscally motivated, I don't think anyone can argue as a bad move. We don't even have an idea of how much carbon this saves, so the criticism that printing out brochures is not a big deal are not necessarily founded in some sort of factual basis, and all we have to look at is our own individual experience. For all we know, Universal could have done a survey (and we know how they love those) and asked if people prefer the app.
Is this a defense of the app? Not really. I don't think it's the greatest app in the world either. However, I think it's important to examine our privilege in this respect when we partake in a leisure activity and make a small sacrifice that is not *really* that big of a deal.