241 replies to this topic

[JCat04]

Sorry, but that doesn't get my vote.  

 

Nor mine... excellent point Joe!

[Dazmaniac]

Many folks were put off buying JNPG because there was a season pass that would need to be purchased to play user created courses.

 

This then got removed, so folks who bought JNPG were able to play user created courses at no extra cost. The PP community was a happy place.

 

Now the extra cost to play user created courses is being broached again, but this time seems like it is non negotiable and to carry on having future access to the likes of Downland, Wells Hollows, Abbotsley, Bellerive etc. players will have to pay for and download the 'milestone updates'.

 

Many people will have bought the game because the user course charge was removed, now it seems it will return.

 

As it stands, I'll more than likely buy the DLC, especially if the updates are indeed 'milestone' reaching but I can fully appreciate why some folks are disappointed with the announcement.

[Buck]

I want them to make money and keep developing the game.

That said this is actually getting really confusing.

I'm starting to wonder if going back to the "pay five dollars a month for everything" model might be better?

[tlvx]

I read that news excerpt to be directed at pirates if the game.

If your game is outdated, it can be pirated.

That said; on second glance, they've got to find a way to distinguish between veteran users, and pirates. Instead of punishing anyone that has legitimate software by downgrading it.

This shouldn't be all that difficult. Either a user is logging in to Steam with a legitimate account and a legit product key, or not.

Upgrade or Downgrade? Sounds like a false choice.

Servers should keep working for older versions of a game, for at least a few years. They need to outline their plans, in that regard.

[Harvester]

I just wish they'd hurry up and put out these DLCs so I can buy 'em.  

[remers]

I read that news excerpt to be directed at pirates if the game.

If your game is outdated, it can be pirated.

That said; on second glance, they've got to find a way to distinguish between veteran users, and pirates. Instead of punishing anyone that has legitimate software by downgrading it.

Upgrade or Downgrade? Sounds like a false choice.

Servers should keep working for older versions of a game, for at least a few years. They need to outline their plans, in that regard.

I'm glad it wasn't just me thinking that too then and was the reason why I asked a dev to step in to clarify but others were in no doubt about the wording and how clear it was stated. Perhaps I just couldn't beleive that this hornets nest was being poked again at this stage.

[Armand]

Joe, I sort of agree with your post - PP should proceed with updates that may leave behind older features/aspects of the game.  However, for courses, there is no way that PP is going to convert/tweak all the user-designed courses to work with newer versions of the game.  Surely, they'd require (at the very least) the original designer's permission to tweak their course.  Ultimately, I believe the designer would have to decide whether to update their course.

 

However, making users pay for an upgrade to re-gain access to user-designed courses (or other previously purchase DLC) seems to be taking advantage of the course designers' work and the course designers themselves.  I would hope that course designers might be (heavily?) subsidized or afforded other incentives to obtain new/DLC versions of the game (I don't believe it should be called DLC; it's simply a new version of the game, say JNPG 2 or JNPG '17, that has to be purchased).

 

Would previous version of the game still work when the newer/DLC versions are released?  I think PP would do well to devise a method where players could continue to play the old version of the game, including the user-designed courses.  Be that offline mode (which you currently can't play user-designed courses - so that would have to be 'fixed') and/or perhaps some sort of limited online capabilities.

[Acrilix]

I don't have a problem with paid DLC, as I stated during the Season Pass fiasco. I've bought the Calliber ball and I've bought Bethesda.

I do have a problem with free courses being suddenly taken away from people though, unless they pay up for an update (that many will have no clue about when they purchase PG - certainly no one who bought it before this week!) and there's no way that I'll ever be creating another course for such an abhorrent system.

[mebby]

For me personally - I'm fine with what they've announced.  I was also fine with the season pass idea.  I know they need to make money to continue to develop the game.

 

But I think the waffling of direction is causing issues or at least raising some issues that need to be addressed.  To me, it sounds like it's still going to cost money to keep user created content available to use in the game.  There may be other things tied to it (like major upgrades) but the point is that at one point in time it was going to cost money to play user created courses (subscription model) and then user created content was going to be free (where we are today) and now we're back to a position where it's going to cost money to continue playing user created content following major updates.  So... at the end of the day, it's going to cost money to play user created content at some point during the life of the product.  So only the cash flow timing has changed - the income to PP is still tied to user created content (at least partially).

 

For me - I'm fine with the subscription based model and I'm fine with the new model (that changed everything and nothing at the same time).  I might feel differently if I were a course designer.  So I think those concerns need to be addressed and I'm sure that PP will do that.

[wim1234]

Here we really go again, and lotsa speculations.

I just wait and see what happens, clear is any course i buy form pp themselves will keep playable, so there is no loss.

And oh yes, quite a few ppl will not buy the game if they see this, well such is life. ( those are not the real golflovers i bet).

And whether this is a viable strategy, no one knows, the future will tell.

What if suddenly you need a way stonger puter to run this game? Then i have had loads of fun with it.

[Jacob Gyro]

It has nothing to due with compatibility (at least at the moment), it has do with denied access if you do not buy the next DLC. If you have ever tried to play off-line. you will see that you can play the PG installed courses but not the user created courses. So, what will happen is once a new DLC comes out you will not be able to access the user created content anymore. Not because of compatibility but because of denied access.

Why not just make a great DLC without the threat of cutting off access to the user created content if we don't buy the DLC.

This tactic will only hurt reviews as well as future sales.

Myself, I will probably purchase the DLC's because I really do like PG but I don't like this tactic. It just seems wrong.

[Buck]

I have completely reversed my position from many months ago and now support the idea of an ongoing monthly season pass that you subscribe to and just "get everything".

It just seems much more straightforward and easy to understand what you get or don't get.

The same amount of money is probably coming out of people's pockets anyhow so perhaps it's better to have everybody on one paid tier the gets them what they want and they understand what they get?

[Bob5453]

This tactic will only hurt reviews as well as future sales.

 

I have 170 games in my Steam library, what if they all wanted to start charging me some sort of extra fee to continue playing them the same way as I can today. This will definitely kill their Steam rating and I would probably change my review when/if it happens. 

[ArcadeHack]

What is being called milestone updates was always going to be a tough row to hoe for Perfect Parallel.  I'm of the opinion that if you do offer something that adds or changes a game feature significantly enough, it should come with a cost.  I'm not sure it should render something you were able to use before inoperable though.  Let's say for example that PP made 3-D rough textures available as DLC, and you had to pay $5 to access it for all courses that use it going forward.  It shouldn't make the user created courses already in existence, that don't and can't use 3-D rough anyway, inoperable to those who don't purchase the milestone DLC.  OTOH, I can see where it would make future user created courses that did use the milestone update 3-D, off limits to people who did not purchase milestone 3-D DLC.

 

It's too easy to get our panties in a wad over something we don't yet fully understand but are willing to speculate upon.  I'm not going to get worked up over $5 to $20 bucks here and there if it keeps JNPG up to date with where a JNPG 2 new release edition would have been anyway two years down the road anyway.  I don't see this as a shakedown by PP.  They're trying to outline the basis for a business model that will keep them going with an acceptable ROI.  At least they're being up front about it.

 

 The part i bolded in green is what caught my interest. It seems as PP doesn't really have an outline to the model. Looks as though they are just making the model up as they go along. More power to PP and i hope they succeed with JNPG. I for one will probably support them financially as long as the product is good as its not about the money to me. Ive wasted more on a night going to see a "bad movie" than i have this game. The money i have invested into this game has given me many hours of enjoyment so far and i hope for many more to come.

[JoeF]

I don't have a problem with paid DLC, as I stated during the Season Pass fiasco. I've bought the Calliber ball and I've bought Bethesda.

I do have a problem with free courses being suddenly taken away from people though, unless they pay up for an update (that many will have no clue about when they purchase PG - certainly no one who bought it before this week!) and there's no way that I'll ever be creating another course for such an abhorrent system.

 

Yet you don't have a problem with the fact that I can't play your Binyon Peak, McGonangall GC or Lovelace Bay courses because I didn't purchase the TGC update.  You didn't stop making courses for TGC when you knew that access would be limited to only those who paid.  Seems slightly hypocritical. 

[nightowl]

 The part i bolded in green is what caught my interest. It seems as PP doesn't really have an outline to the model. Looks as though they are just making the model up as they go along. More power to PP and i hope they succeed with JNPG. I for one will probably support them financially as long as the product is good as its not about the money to me. Ive wasted more on a night going to see a "bad movie" than i have this game. The money i have invested into this game has given me many hours of enjoyment so far and i hope for many more to come.

BBM:  This is what makes me concerned:  the clumsiness of their decision-making.  It's not the first time, either.  PG is the best game on the market, IMO, even though it's missing some features and refinements.  I'll continue to support the game.  But, by gosh, the team seems to shoot themselves in the foot every so often.

[axe360]

I just don't think the game and  user made courses in the 2016 year, should work every year going forward. Maybe only in OFFLINE but not ONLINE.

Libraries for Stock and User courses, should be updated every year, otherwise you will just buy the game one time and get access for free, forever.. No way to make money there..

I think you should have to purchase the game for the year we are in and it wouldn't work ONLINE unless you do..Like buying a new disc..

 

What do I know though..

[HaHo1]

I don't reckon PP need to clarify anything as some are suggesting.  What I read was pretty clear and that is in order to guarantee a revenue stream they will restrict access to user made courses for those who chose not to purchase specific feature driven DLC.  They understand that the majority of people want to be able to play on user made courses and by doing this they remove the risk of PP not being able to fund future development.  I respect the upfront and honest message and am satisfied that they will price it as reasonably as they can.

 

I can't see PP allowing a situation to occur where course designers need to pay to access their own creations, however once Course Forge is released and the number of designers grows exponentially perhaps they might, after all they aren't charging for the tools.

[Acrilix]

Yet you don't have a problem with the fact that I can't play your Binyon Peak, McGonangall GC or Lovelace Bay courses because I didn't purchase the TGC update.  You didn't stop making courses for TGC when you knew that access would be limited to only those who paid.  Seems slightly hypocritical. 

 

I stated my opinion on HB's forum at the time about them attaching themes to their season mode. In the end, like many people I bought the DLC because every new course required it, and I wanted new courses. PP's announced scenario will deny people courses that they already have at the moment.

There is a vast difference between buying DLC to get access to additional courses, and being forced to buy DLC just to re-acquire the courses that you already had.

[JCat04]

 The part i bolded in green is what caught my interest. It seems as PP doesn't really have an outline to the model. Looks as though they are just making the model up as they go along. More power to PP and i hope they succeed with JNPG. I for one will probably support them financially as long as the product is good as its not about the money to me. Ive wasted more on a night going to see a "bad movie" than i have this game. The money i have invested into this game has given me many hours of enjoyment so far and i hope for many more to come.

 

It's a dynamic model; they have to change with the times.  I want to see them succeed because I want to see this franchise, which is producing the most enjoyable golf game I've ever played, stay afloat.  I recognize that as someone who ain't afraid to part with a dime, I'm not a good barometer for judging how the general market will react to decisions like this.