197 replies to this topic

[yesrushdt]

I'm not a fan of having to pay a yearly fee to play a game online (like I did for TW on Xbox 360 for a few years).  The majority of PC games are free to play online unlike the consoles (which is fair IMO considering how much more expensive PCs are).  I definitely think free online play should continue with the next version of PG. 

 

Microtransaction items like PP courses and balls could continue to be sold and new items like extra golfers, carts, clothing, equipment, etc could be added to the list.  These would all be optional of course and the extra golfers/equipment wouldn't give the player any advantage over  someone with the basic equipment/golfers (it would just be for show).  Many games nowadays use this kind of microtransaction model and I think it's something PP should definitely continue for added revenue.

 

Perfect Parallel could also consider placing ads in the game for additional revenue.  EA did something like this with a number of TW PC games, adding an ESPN sports ticker and ESPN radio updates in the multiplayer lobbies.  I wouldn't want to see much of this during an actual match though, with the exception of maybe signage placed around a tee box much like you see for sponsors during most professional golf tournaments.

[Buck]

I'm not a fan of having to pay a yearly fee to play a game online (like I did for TW on Xbox 360 for a few years). The majority of PC games are free to play online unlike the consoles (which is fair IMO considering how much more expensive PCs are). I definitely think free online play should continue with the next version of PG.

Microtransaction items like PP courses and balls could continue to be sold and new items like extra golfers, carts, clothing, equipment, etc could be added to the list. These would all be optional of course and the extra golfers/equipment wouldn't give the player any advantage over someone with the basic equipment/golfers (it would just be for show). Many games nowadays use this kind of microtransaction model and I think it's something PP should definitely continue for added revenue.

Perfect Parallel could also consider placing ads in the game for additional revenue. EA did something like this with a number of TW PC games, adding an ESPN sports ticker and ESPN radio updates in the multiplayer lobbies. I wouldn't want to see much of this during an actual match though, with the exception of maybe signage placed around a tee box much like you see for sponsors during most professional golf tournaments.

How much would you pay annually for the base game?

And beyond that - fund the game mostly through micro transactions and AD placement, but don't show the ADs to the user too much?
Why would an advertiser want to do that?

[SteadiEddie]

How many tools can you fit in one room. Ewe blokes need to get a life, playing on a puter is  a past time. It ain't real life. Get a grip...

[GoldenBear]

No - hardly have time for one round of PG a week let alone racing and have never played it. I just feel their monthly/quarterly/yearly model and discounted rate values are appropriate for PG.

You are wise to never buy a subscription at iRenting.com.  I call it iRenting because you have to buy each car and track and pay a yearly subscription on top of that.  If you choose not to renew you lose the ability to use any of your paid content hence you are renting not owning said content.  They even have the audacity to charge per half hour of usage if you want to set up a private server.  So indeed they are the biggest rip off of any game in the industry.  Hilarious it is that so many like it there with the flawed physics, poor FFB and lack of a tire model, along with antiquated graphics.

 

This game although cheap in cost to purchase is also a rip off because it is broken in many ways.  I am sure I am not the only one peeved off at buying games only to have them abandoned by the developers when they got tired of fixing bugs and instabilities.  Yet many here seem ready to purchase Perfect Slide 2 in a heartbeat.  They will be the ones upset with themselves when they find they have been fooled again.

[Acrilix]

The ones that really care will be there and those are the best customers anyhow.

 

I really care.

JNPG is my favourite game, but I definitely will not be there the day it goes subscription based.

It will just become a private club for the rich... in that way I guess it will simulate a lot of real golf clubs pretty well, but I won't want to be a part of it.

[Buck]

This game although cheap in cost to purchase is also a rip off because it is broken in many ways.  I am sure I am not the only one peeved off at buying games only to have them abandoned by the developers when they got tired of fixing bugs and instabilities.  Yet many here seem ready to purchase Perfect Slide 2 in a heartbeat.  They will be the ones upset with themselves when they find they have been fooled again.

 

That's precisely why a rental/subscription model makes sense.

If things are fixed addressed as one would like, you simply unsubscribe and are done and not out a large up front purchase price.

 

Of course over time you'd be out money - but I personally find the incentive structures best aligned with a simple ongoing subscription.

Obviously opinions vary, as this thread has shown a hint of.

[GoldenBear]

I'm going to quote GoldenBear on this one, as he said it before I did (I think) - "Why would anyone buy a revamped product from a maker that refused to fix or get working properly their first product?" GB.

 

The promise of a PG2 coming out in the near future is great.  I think we've all see some of the advances in turf technology, and all of what's possible with the graphics (from TV coverage).  But if the same bugs and lack of features are still present in PG2, why would any consumer (new or long time PC golfer) spend money for  a product that has less features than LINKS2003 (15 years older)?

 

On the flip side of that argument - if Andrew would log onto this site and make a general statement as to "this is the state of our progress", then he would have my attention.  What's been fixed (Wind, plugged shots, splash shots, career mode).  If I had these details, I might be the first in line to give PP my $60 (going rate for a fully working game).

 

There you go, Buck.  You can buy my allegiance for $60 - but you better be damn good.

The only way I would purchase Perfect Slide 2 is if there was a guarantee that ALL the bugs in the game were completely fixed.  The fact that PP cannot even make a working 3 click meter for all users (something accomplished in all other pc golf games over 10-15 years ago) tells me the coder is not good enough nor up to the task.

[Buck]

I really care.

JNPG is my favourite game, but I definitely will not be there the day it goes subscription based.

It will just become a private club for the rich... in that way I guess it will simulate a lot of real golf clubs pretty well, but I won't want to be a part of it.

 

"Caring" isn't binary in this case.  It's a spectrum and the pricing would show whether one cares enough to pay or not.

 

I understand - It's a struggle for many people as lots of software is going to subscription models.

For some types of software it's just the way it is now.

 

It won't be for everyone, no question.  

You'd likely still have TGC if you'd prefer to just pay once. (and then again for TGC 2020 and 2021 and who knows..)

Or perhaps an old game that was pay once and "here is the game".

 

The point is...

Whether they get it out of you monthly or yearly, the expectation should be to spend at minimum $40-60 per year.

 

I just prefer to have it ongoing and have them need to continually earn my business and be incentivized to develop and fix the game quickly.

 

Look what happened here.  They have our money.  They appear to be done with PG1.

If we all were mass unsubscribing as a result, they'd have a reason to fix things - but they don't as there isn't another penny waiting for them if they do.

[GoldenBear]

lol - John, I'm just another user my friend..

 

Honestly, I just think the reality is that the pricing will be more than many may care to pay if there is a PG2 for PC.

I'm totally ok with it and I'm absolutely ok with losing many of the original customers.

 

The ones that really care will be there and those are the best customers anyhow.

 

You have to do what you have to do if you're PP/Trackman IMO.

Buck, first a developer MUST show and make a fully working game with almost no bugs BEFORE they dare consider increasing the price.  This is what PP has failed to do, show a stable game where new bugs are not popping up as they are now.  I am sure some others have the same lack of confidence in PP's coding abilities that I have.  Why would anyone want to pay even more for more of the same old thing?

[Buck]

Buck, first a developer MUST show and make a fully working game with almost no bugs BEFORE they dare consider increasing the price.  This is what PP has failed to do, show a stable game where new bugs are not popping up as they are now.  I am sure some others have the same lack of confidence in PP's coding abilities that I have.  Why would anyone want to pay even more for more of the same old thing?

 

 

The answer is simple.  No upfront cost for the game and simple ongoing subscription model.

Then if you don't like the offering, unsubscribe and leave.  

 

That way they can show you, straight away and on a continual basis, that they are up to snuff.

 

It's the least upfront financial risk for the customer, but it has a higher reward potential for the developer = great incentives for both!

[GoldenBear]

How many tools can you fit in one room. Ewe blokes need to get a life, playing on a puter is  a past time. It ain't real life. Get a grip...

Strange Dave that you like this post considering it was rude and you called me out on being rude in one of mine.  You are not consistent in your moods are you? 

[GoldenBear]

That's precisely why a rental/subscription model makes sense.

If things are fixed addressed as one would like, you simply unsubscribe and are done and not out a large up front purchase price.

 

Of course over time you'd be out money - but I personally find the incentive structures best aligned with a simple ongoing subscription.

Obviously opinions vary, as this thread has shown a hint of.

Why should we have to pay more just to have a developer make a game properly?  Is this not their job?  What job allows the employees to charge more money so the employer can expect the job done right?  Remember, PP is the employee and we the employer.  Come Perfect Slide 2 I am firing PP. 

[✠ davef ✠]

guess i was right there's that dingleberry,just a hanging in there.

[Buck]

Why should we have to pay more just to have a developer make a game properly?  Is this not their job?  What job allows the employees to charge more money so the employer can expect the job done right?  Remember, PP is the employee and we the employer.  Come Perfect Slide 2 I am firing PP. 

 

Pay "more"? 

I just mean "pay them at all".

 

PG1 is done.  PG2, if it exists for PC, will be a new purchase decision.

 

With that in mind, I personally just prefer a low entry price (by subscription) that would allow us to evaluate exactly your concerns about their commitment to fixing/updating the game.

 

If you're saying the PG1 situation means you'll never do anything with PG2 no matter what at any cost or pricing model, what are they supposed to do to win you back?

I don't understand what you want from them.

[Sliceapottomus]

I really care.

JNPG is my favourite game, but I definitely will not be there the day it goes subscription based.

It will just become a private club for the rich... in that way I guess it will simulate a lot of real golf clubs pretty well, but I won't want to be a part of it.

that is a bit short sided .. what in the sam hill is wrong with paying $ X / month Times 12 versus  a 1 time  12 month  payment  for a year. If it goes to subscription base then it's your loss not ours.

[Sliceapottomus]

Why should we have to pay more just to have a developer make a game properly?  Is this not their job?  What job allows the employees to charge more money so the employer can expect the job done right?  Remember, PP is the employee and we the employer.  Come Perfect Slide 2 I am firing PP. 

can't wait for that to happen.... might be the best day in my life since my divorce

[RobV]

that is a bit short sided .. what in the sam hill is wrong with paying 5 / month versus 60 bucks a year. If it goes to subscription base then it's your loss not ours.

Huh??  How is it his loss?   If people don't want to pay for the game, then there is no loss.    Consequently, if masses decide NOT to purchase PG2 and the funds are not there to support it, quite frankly, it will be your loss.     

[Sliceapottomus]

How? Let me tell you, some one saying they would buy the game at 60 for a year.... and then say they wouldn't for 5 $ a month is ludacris.... if it was up to me I would allow for either to make both party's happy.... and he is the one that brought up the loss part of it quite frankly if price isn't an issue but how one chooses to pay for it keeps them from what they would enjoy then yeah quite frankly it is their loss...

[Buck]

How? Let me tell you, some one saying they would buy the game at 60 for a year.... and then say they wouldn't for 5 $ a month is ludacris....

I also don't understand this.

I think people in the "pay $60 once" camp are approaching this from the older world of a game that you buy and it's yours and you can play it forever.

The problem is that this game is basically already not in that world as it's really incomplete and feature lacking (multiplayer/3rd party courses) without the always online connection.

The way it's built and designed and functions, it's perfectly set up to be a recurring subscription model piece of software.

[Acrilix]

How? Let me tell you, some one saying they would buy the game at 60 for a year.... and then say they wouldn't for 5 $ a month is ludacris.... if it was up to me I would allow for either to make both party's happy.... and he is the one that brought up the loss part of it quite frankly if price isn't an issue but how one chooses to pay for it keeps them from what they would enjoy then yeah quite frankly it is their loss...

 

Where did I actually mention 'loss' or a willingness to pay $60 a year?