132 replies to this topic

[nightowl]

For the hardcore player, paying 5 bucks may not seem like much.  I don't know.  But for the casual player, it may be a disincentive to purchase the game as a whole.  If they think about factoring in 10 or 20 or 30 licensed course purchases, they may conclude that PG is just too expensive.  Again, I don't know.  I could be wrong.

[sirputterman]

The only reason I used the price point of 4.99 is if you look at any other golf game out there whether on console or pc I think it would be a fair price. Yes like I said 2.99 would be great but especially at this point of developement would it be enough to break even for PP to make licensed courses? That I don't know though. Perhaps a split in the difference of 3.99 would satisfy both buyers (us) and sellers (PP) that is something only PP would know though as far as where  the break even point is. I guess what my point is having a high price point of say 9.99 would discourage a lot of people from purchasing anything including the game.

[MERACE]

Perhaps a better way to do it would be to have user created courses for free but PP could in return offer a good designer that produced say even 5 popular or good courses a discount on Pro Shop purchases. PP wins by having well made user courses for free. Community wins because they have these  better quality courses to enjoy. Designers wins because not only does he get the satisfaction of people playing their courses but also gets a discount to buy more things in the game. PP then wins again because even though the designer is getting a discount he may be using it to buy more items that they wouldn't normally purchase otherwise. A perfect circle of everybody wins or in theory it would be anyways. 

Those designers that do not get the discount due to perhaps a not top quality course would have even more incentive to improve so they too get in on the bonus discounts. Again thus benefiting the members with even more quality courses  and PP with more potential pro shop sales all at the same time.  

This is probably the best marketable solution.   

 

 

-MERACE

[Hickory]

The tree settings need to be turned down, you have maxed them all out and will be drawing a very high number of polygons and you don't have the machine specs to support that. I'd be surprised if you get more than 10fps at those settings.
 
Try turning the settings down 'lol' to ultra high and I'm sure you will get a lot more enjoyment out of the game.

Thank you so very much Mike. I set my graphics to default ultra high; have a much better picture and game runs very smooth with the PRoS activated.
For any interested here's a screenshot:

[bortimus]

Glad you found a solution Hickory.  

 

Another thing to try for even more smoothness is to tone the shadows way down.  I have mine set very very low (50 or less)  but I can run the game at the highest resolution pretty well as a trade-off.

 

Personal preference of course. 

[clubcaptain]

$5 for a very good course ? That's a steal for us in the UK bearing in mind the exchange rate which, at the moment would equate to £3.32.

20 courses would result in an outlay of £66. That wouldn't make me blink.

A big proviso though.

The courses would have to be really good. No point in paying even £3.32 too often if the standard was lacking. How to get around this ? Say a preview version of the course which could be a video and wouldn't necessarily have to be all 18 holes. It let's you make your mind up as to whether you want to make the outlay.

[Trath]

So let's see .... should I buy a burger for 5$ that will make me fat, give me idigestion, and clog up my toilet or ... 5$ for a Golf course that will give me 100's of hours of playing pleasure  ... and help me exercise my wrist ... life's so hard.

 

(sorry about the sarcasm but ja /facepalm)

[Hokodah]

These Devs have put an extreme amount of time, effort, talent and money into producing the best golf game out.  I can`t understand how anyone could expect them to do so without making some profit from it.  How do you expect them to continue making the game better.  The people doing this need to make  a living too.  People complaining about paying a reasonable amount for a course or other downloads will go out to eat and spend much more on an evening meal that  they enjoy only once.  You spend much less than that and you can enjoy the courses and this game over and over. Let`s be reasonable,  as someone stated they are not operating a charity.

[worrybirdie]

The TW model for distributing user designed courses works very well. For those of you not acquainted with it the independent site is http://www.coursedow... of a problem).

As for income stream for the developers ( above and beyond the purchase price), that is a separate issue. I hate DLC (its obnoxious and has the potential to give the advantage to whoever is willing to spend the most money), and would prefer that PP sell you the game for what it's worth (giving EA players credit for what they've already invested, and maybe a discount for loyalty). I'd even prefer a subscription based model over using DLC content (but keep it low). I still think that when this game is truly finished there are a lot of potential buyers out there, and at a rational price ($50?) the income stream shouldn't be a problem. By the time the market is saturated it'll be time to come out with a new and improved version (new graphics engine, etc.) to sell.

[Dazmaniac]

So let's see .... should I buy a burger for 5$ that will make me fat, give me idigestion, and clog up my toilet or ... 5$ for a Golf course that will give me 100's of hours of playing pleasure  ... and help me exercise my wrist ... life's so hard.

 

(sorry about the sarcasm but ja /facepalm)

 

For $5 you get a couple of hours of mucky TV and that might help exercise the wrist, lol.

 

[worrybirdie]

The TW model for distributing user designed courses works very well. For those of you not acquainted with it the independent site is coursedownloads.net.  As it is independent from the game developer and they do not charge for the courses they are able to offer real courses (with the real names) without being sued (Augusta disappeared for awhile, then reappeared. Of course! They're the strictest about their trademark.). The courses on the site vary in quality, but with the help of user ratings and reviews, and the fact that you quickly learn who are the great designers, this isn't much of a problem).

 

As for income stream for the developers ( above and beyond the purchase price), that is a separate issue. I hate DLC (its obnoxious and has the potential to give the advantage to whoever is willing to spend the most money), and would prefer that PP sell you the game for what it's worth (giving EA players credit for what they've already invested, and maybe a discount for loyalty). I'd even prefer a subscription based model over using DLC content (but keep it low). I still think that when this game is truly finished there are a lot of potential buyers out there, and at a rational price ($50?) the income stream shouldn't be a problem. By the time the market is saturated it'll be time to come out with a new and improved version (new graphics engine, etc.) to sell.

[Dazmaniac]

The TW model for distributing user designed courses works very well. For those of you not acquainted with it the independent site is coursedownloads.net.  As it is independent from the game developer and they do not charge for the courses they are able to offer real courses (with the real names) without being sued (Augusta disappeared for awhile, then reappeared. Of course! They're the strictest about their trademark.). The courses on the site vary in quality, but with the help of user ratings and reviews, and the fact that you quickly learn who are the great designers, this isn't much of a problem).

 

As for income stream for the developers ( above and beyond the purchase price), that is a separate issue. I hate DLC (its obnoxious and has the potential to give the advantage to whoever is willing to spend the most money), and would prefer that PP sell you the game for what it's worth (giving EA players credit for what they've already invested, and maybe a discount for loyalty). I'd even prefer a subscription based model over using DLC content (but keep it low). I still think that when this game is truly finished there are a lot of potential buyers out there, and at a rational price ($50?) the income stream shouldn't be a problem. By the time the market is saturated it'll be time to come out with a new and improved version (new graphics engine, etc.) to sell.

 

So what were the courses you got for TW from coursedownloads? Were they not DLC?

 

It's an acronym for Dowmloadable Content. It doesn't always mean it comes at a price.

 

I appreciate you have an issue with paying for your downloads, but I'm sure there will be free content too, or does your dislike of DLC stop you from downloading the free courses?

 

It has become a regular part of gaming these days. Games get released with stock content. Then some developers offer season passes which gets you the next several months content at a discounted price, or you can wait for each pack to get released separately and pay for them individually and also there will often be some free content for you to download to add to your game.

 

Racing games are common for it. Just look at Forza 6, DriveClub, Project Cars, Assetto Corsa, RaceRoom Racing Experience to name but a few. All of them releasing more content after the games have been released, some of it free, but often via season pass or pay per pack.

[worrybirdie]

Sorry Daz, I should have been clearer. The shortcut DLC when used by game developers and reviewers so often means "pay to play" that I had forgotten that DLC could be free. Of course I have no objection to free DLC. That is the purpose of the website I mentioned in my OP.

[Crow357]

Yeah, nothing is free.  Look at Train Simulator.  There's so much add on content for it, you'd spend $3,000 if you bought all of it.  So, what you do is buy what you want, look out for sales, buy bundles, things like that.  That's an extreme example of paid dlc, but every game does it.

 

I also play Elite: Dangerous.  They're coming out with paid dlc for planetary landings.  It has to be paid dlc or we'd never see anything updated.  It's the same exact thing with PG.  You want updates and be able to play the latest courses?  You'll have to pay for it if you do.

[bortimus]

I think it deserves clarifying that the developers have stated there will be no "pay to win" or buying an advantage with equipment or attribute upgrades.

Every time there is a conversation about buying courses, this gets thrown in and people get upset.

Two totally different issues.

[worrybirdie]

Yeah, nothing is free.  Look at Train Simulator.  There's so much add on content for it, you'd spend $3,000 if you bought all of it.  So, what you do is buy what you want, look out for sales, buy bundles, things like that.  That's an extreme example of paid dlc, but every game does it.

 

I also play Elite: Dangerous.  They're coming out with paid dlc for planetary landings.  It has to be paid dlc or we'd never see anything updated.  It's the same exact thing with PG.  You want updates and be able to play the latest courses?  You'll have to pay for it if you do.

Crow, I also play Elite: Dangerous, and have pretty much decided against buying the new content. What they charged for the original game was high, and I resent how high the price on the "planetary content" is. They don't even give you much of a break for having bought the original game in the first place. And though paid DLC has become more common (can you say World of Tanks?), it gratefully isn't the only model out there.

[mebby]

I'm just ready for the flood gates to open up! I think Mike's directional comment regarding pricing was good enough. It'll be what it's gonna be and then supply and demand will make any corrections as we move on.

[slouis]

I still have TW 08 installed and have downloaded many user created courses.  Since I got Perfect Golf I haven't played TW08.  I think it is entirely reasonable to charge for licensed courses because there must be some sort of compensation to the real golf club for allowing Perfect Golf to use the real name of the course. 

You can't compare TW to PG because the sales of the TW series is in the millions  which dwarfs the sales of PG.  EA is a huge company that puts out everything from John Madden to NHL Hockey.  I can only imagine what they paid Rory McIroy to put his name on their latest PGA golf game and to the other included players to use their name and likeness in their golf game.  That's like saying that a mom and pop corner grocery store should use the same sales model as Safeway.

The developers of PG deserve the support I can give them by buying licensed courses.  It is the best and most realistic golf game I have owned even in it's early access form.  I have never owned a PC game where the developers participate in a forum on a daily basis and actually listen to users when it comes to bugs, suggested improvements and explain features and concepts of the game.  I paid a measly $22 CAD for PG and have played over 100 hours which works out to 22 cents an hour!

[worrybirdie]

Maybe with the right model, and enough positive buzz, PG in its finished version CAN compete with TW's old sales. As you pointed out, the people at PG are great, and light years better than the monsters at EA Sports, which will be a big selling point. Licensing fees aren't necessary if the courses are completely not for profit. And I don't care if they have a golf star's picture on the splash screen.

[Dazmaniac]

If PP were to sell licensed real courses via DLC, prices still TBC, they would be no different to what Access did back in the early 90's with Links 386 Pro.

Only difference was Access released them on floppy disks, lol.