197 replies to this topic

[Buck]

Since we are talking about the viability of a PC, non Sim, version of Perfect Golf 2 and whether or not we normal users would make sense for Trackman to pursue it would seem like a Poll is in order here.

 

I’m trying to analyze this from an objective point of business reality and I’m having a hard time constructing a viable outcome that requires or even benefits much from having a normal 3C/Mouse/RTS-C PC and/or Console version of the game.

There are some community and course design eco system benefits of it we can come up with.

But those same benefits have large downsides on the software support and bug fixing and testing implementation side.

 

Additionally, this segment of gamers (normal, non Sim hardware users) have shown themselves to be somewhat frugal and price sensitive, at least based upon conversations about pricing here in the past.

 

So - we have the poll.  

 

Regardless of how they would break up the payments (monthly/quarterly/annually at once), vote for how much you would be willing to pay for Trackman Perfect Golf 2 each year.

 

Assumptions would be:

 

The game is well supported with regular updates, feature improvements and bug fixes (quarterly or better).

This cost would not include any paid DLC courses beyond a core pack (like the game is now).

Licensed DLC course purchases would be one time expenses and the 3rd party course community would continue to exist and be available as it is now.

 

I have vacillated several times now on my own vote - but I've settled on $10/mo I think

​I would be a buyer for probably upwards of 20 officially licensed courses, but that pricing seems hard to get a sense of, especially as it is likely negotiated on a course by course basis.

[DoGgs]

No idea what you mean when you say each year, i don't have a sim setup so i'm only interested in a one off payment and possible DLC in future, just like any other steam game...either way lets just say 20-40 great british pounds.

[Buck]

No idea what you mean when you say each year, i don't have a sim setup so i'm only interested in a one off payment and possible DLC in future, just like any other steam game...either way lets just say 20-40 great british pounds.

 

I mean you'd pay an annual fee for access to the core game/courses and its continual updates.

It would be Software as a Service (SaaS) basically.

 

SaaS is rapidly becoming the norm and has tremendous benefits on the developer side as they can plan and budget for features, improvements, staff and development time and resources.

 

 

I see you voted for $20-40 and you're saying you'd pay that one off.

Honest question for you - How long do you expect the developer to give you updates at that purchase price?

 

None? 

Just release and that's the game (like old Disc based, pre internet, days?)

 

One major one a few months after release and that's it?

Or what would be your consumer expectation around that part of things?

[✠ davef ✠]

60/100 no more then a c-note

[✠ davef ✠]

if tracman was smart they would put a question up something  like

this to gauge where the money is at, the time of logging onto the game 1 time

non repeating question. i bet you they might be surprised but to get a good number from the forums just won't work

to many people play and never come into the forums here.

good idea to show em some of what they could be making i would say a small % anyway.

[Buck]

60/100 no more then a c-note

 

Thanks Dave - I re-jiggered the tiers after this comment of yours and I agree that $100 might be a barrier for some, so the new tiers reflect that.

Sorry if that screwed anyones early votes

[Jimbo63]

I mean you'd pay an annual fee for access to the core game/courses and its continual updates.

It would be Software as a Service (SaaS) basically.

 

Why should a game need continual updates, it should be right before they release it, or is this too much to ask for? I also think that you need a one-off payment box in your list, as none of the boxes cover what I would be willing to pay.

[Buck]

Why should a game need continual updates, it should be right before they release it, or is this too much to ask for? I also think that you need a one-off payment box in your list, as none of the boxes cover what I would be willing to pay.

In an ideal world, software should be feature complete and bug free at launch.
In practice it never is. 

Software is better if it gets ongoing updates and feature releases.
Bugs happen - things change - we want developers that are funded in a way that incentivizes continual improvement (recurring revenue).
 
I didn't include a one off payment as I don't believe that has shown itself to be viable for this particular game so far.
 
Plenty here were unhappy with how PG1 features and updates had tapered off and PG2, if it was coming before Trackman came along, was, by all indications, going to be a completely new payment all over again.

Ultimately, if you're advocating for a one off payment, but done every year for a new game, we are talking about similar amounts of money annually, but just delivered differently and in a way that makes it more useful for a developer to budget and plan.

The worst part about one-off's or annual releases is that developers feel compelled to feature stuff a bullet point list to create a new sale, and that leads to rushed and unpolished results (see EA games every year right now - just check their forums and you'll see)

[bgast1]

I am not a huge gamer so I don't know what the norm is today. I don't do multiplayer. I would rather just pay for the game one time. I could be wrong but didn't EA Sports Tiger Woods basically come out with a new game every year. So if you kept up getting each years version. It would be about $40.00 a year. I don't know how many people are playing this game, but if there are enough then I think whatever they would charge as a one time charge for the game should be sufficient. Keep upgrading during the year then come out with a new version annually. It would keep both sides honest. Make the upgrades good enough to keep people buying the upgrade and if the upgrades aren't worth it then people won't buy it.  Personally, I think I would rather see a VR version that is realistic and easy to play. 

 

Edit: It looks like someone posted this idea while I was typing.

[Buck]

So if you kept up getting each years version. It would be about $40.00 a year. I don't know how many people are playing this game, but if there are enough then I think whatever they would charge as a one time charge for the game should be sufficient.

 

Keep upgrading during the year then come out with a new version annually.   It would keep both sides honest. 

 

So if they keep upgrading Version X all year right up until they ask for a new purchase for Version Y...

Who's going to buy Version Y and why would they?  

 

Version X just got updated all year with everything that's in Version Y

 

The answer is always the problem with that model - They hold things back from X to create things to sell to you as "new features" in Y (which sucks).

 

You create a scenario where developers are spending time creating hoops to get customers to jump through to create a new purchase.

That's valuable time that could be better spent with ongoing development work on the core version all along.

 

I don't know why you'd be worried about keeping both sides "honest".  

If they charge monthly or quarterly and you're unhappy, you can simply quit the game and "poof" - their revenue from you is gone.  

Nothing keeps them more honest than that possibility at any time.

[✠ davef ✠]

some folks just don't want a game to evolve which is total BS

i bet some would be happy as hell for life if they could play the one we have now forever, never getting better

just the same ol game sure would be fun ,not.lol

then ya want top notch graphs but only want to pay once

dont work without money.

[Buck]

I'm a little surprised with these results so far..

Nobody will pay $0.27/day ($100/year) for this game we all are so passionate about (I thought...)?

 

 

I'm not even a heavy user of PG1 at all and I'm up over 1,000 hours now over 3 years

So I'm at about 333 hrs/year.  Peg me @ $100/year and I'm paying $0.30/hour

 

Thirty cents per hour - That's stunningly great value!

What can you get in life that provides this much fun for 30 cents an hour?

 

(And we have users who have played double/triple/even more than my amount of time played so far!)

[DoGgs]

When you say updates do you mean addons that improve the base game or just basic patches that fix issues and improve physics,  if you mean updates in the form of DLC then yes i would go for that, i'm not interested in paying a subs each year, like i said i don't own a sim setup.

[Buck]

When you say updates do you mean addons that improve the base game or just basic patches that fix issues and improve physics,  if you mean updates in the form of DLC then yes i would go for that, i'm not interested in paying a subs each year, like i said i don't own a sim setup.

 

I mean both, as one.  The problem with separating those two concepts out is you don't actually want that as a user.

 

If the developers are having to worry about where their next check comes from with a user base that's niche and non-mainstream (golfers), they will have no choice but to hold features and updates back so they have something to charge for next year.

 

Basically all development work after "release" has to start right into earning the next check on a feature release/update the following year.

 

This is literally the exact thing we bitch about with a developer like EA.  

Users hate it - Rightfully so - But there's no way to run a business short of worrying about how to get paid again.

[DoGgs]

I would be prepared to pay a bit extra if they wanted to hold back a career mode as DLC, or possibly pay a small annual subs if it really helped to push the game forward. This is why i have no interest in TGC 2019, they put a promo vid out for TGC 2 saying in depth career mode ( total lie ) now they say improved career mode for 2019, well if it was so in depth to begin with, why the need to be improved.

[Buck]

I would be prepared to pay a bit extra if they wanted to hold back a career mode as DLC, or possibly pay a small annual subs if it really helped to push the game forward. This is why i have no interest in TGC 2019, they put a promo vid out for TGC 2 saying in depth career mode ( total lie ) now they say improved career mode for 2019, well if it was so in depth to begin with, why the need to be improved.

 

I understand your frustrations...

 

It sounds like a great argument for an ongoing subscription model, where anytime the developer goes in a direction you don't like, you can relatively quickly (monthly/quarterly) stop paying them and supporting a business/game that you think is bad or not fulfilling it's promises to you, the customer. 

[Buck]

@Dogs:  

 

Would you be willing to just keep up with inflation?

Links 386 Pro had a retail, one-off, price of $60 in 1992 - That's $107 today, adjusted for inflation...

 

Would you pay $110-ish for a one-off PG2?

[MERACE]

I understand your frustrations...

 

It sounds like a great argument for an ongoing subscription model, where anytime the developer goes in a direction you don't like, you can relatively quickly (monthly/quarterly) stop paying them and supporting a business/game that you think is bad or not fulfilling it's promises to you, the customer. 

 

I really don't see that a subscription service model is necessary for a developer to keep the lights on or incentive to release ongoing updates.  They just need to price the game appropriately ($50-$70).

 

The biggest problem that I had with EA's yearly release model was that you had to repurchase the DLC golf courses each year. 

 

 

-MERACE 

[mebby]

Single releases just aren't worth it for a developer.  Either annual releases or a subscription model is needed.  It's up to the developer to figure out a way to continue to add the right amount of value (either through subscriptions or annual releases) but it's already been proven than a single release just isn't going to cut it.

 

Think about it as if YOU were the developer.

[Buck]

I really don't see that a subscription service model is necessary for a developer to keep the lights on or incentive to release ongoing updates.  They just need to price the game appropriately ($50-$70).

Why did you choose $50-70 as "the right amount"?
Are you suggesting annual releases at that #?

Are you ok with with paying more for online multiplayer and no updates or additional features until $50-70 again in the future at some point?