241 replies to this topic

[DoGgs]

Acrilix, on 23 May 2016 - 11:50 AM, said:

This is not the same at all. If you had an old version of TW you could still use it after the new version came out to play your old courses on. With JNPG this is not going to be possible. Once the paid update comes, if you don't pay you will lose every user course you have acquired/created.

I think it is the same, even though you could still use the old tiger woods, how many people would actually go back? not many i wager.  E.A churned out the same game year after year and had the cheek to charge us full price for what was a few tweaks and updated roster, seems its ok for the big companies to do it, just not the smaller ones who rely on it.  You will prob find that a DLC upgrade will be reasonable in price, and i will have no problem supporting that, after all improved content is always a positive.

[Volker]

I like the good information from the developers and I like what they are planning. It is fair to pay for a big upgrade, as many people buy the same game f. e. from EA with just a new year in the name again and again.

PP does excellent work and spent so much in the development of this game. They deserve to get paid fairly.

[olazaboll]

Question : If I was a designer , and I release my course for download at OGT . After 3 months or so , for some reason, I dont want my course to be public any more. I assume I can ask OGT to pull it of the boards ,,, and if they do ...would then someone claim that they are not getting something that they "paid" for anymore ? 

[mebby]

One source of confusion I have is how user created content is distributed.  Currently, PP does nothing in regards to course distribution.  OGT is doing 99% of it at the moment.  So it seems odd to me that PP would attach their revenue stream to these assets.   I guess you could say that the user created content isn't possible without Course Forge so this is just another way of monetizing Course Forge but if that's the case then I tend to lean towards the subscription based model where things were very cut and dry.  You pay and get access to everything.  You don't pay and you get access to official courses and purchased content only.

 

There might just be some pieces of the puzzle that we do not know yet.

[JoeF]

Acrilix, on 23 May 2016 - 6:10 PM, said:

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.

 

PP's announcement would only deny the ability to play user made courses (that the player does not own) to those people who no longer wish to support the games' advancement.  If they don't like the game or don't play often enough to make it worth their while to purchase a major update they lose that ability.  Shouldn't be any sweat off their noses since they obviously aren't that into the game.  They still own the game, the content that came with it and any content they purchased should they get the urge to play a round.  They are not being forced to purchase anything, just as I wasn't forced to purchase the season mode and to say they are is simply not true.  I made a choice not to purchase the season mode and to be excluded from playing the courses created with the included themes.  People will have the choice to upgrade and retain access to all user made courses or not.  It will be their choice to support the game or not and they can "vote" with their money as to whether they like it or not.  

 

It's really not much different than losing usage/playing privileges at whatever golf club you may be a member of when you stop paying your annual membership dues.  

[nightowl]

Is this the reason CF has not yet been released to the general public?  The developers needed to decide how CF (and user-created courses) would be tied to the revenue model? 

[Buck]

nightowl, on 23 May 2016 - 7:42 PM, said:

Is this the reason CF has not yet been released to the general public?  The developers needed to decide how CF (and user-created courses) would be tied to the revenue model?

In the notes it said it has to do with legal stuff surrounding artwork sharing (like trees)

[Sliceapottomus]

New model has my support...!!!!!!! I for one am not going to go on about symantics.......... for what that is worth... What ever the pricing model is ,dlc, monthly, yearly, even Life time membership (hmmm interesting.. stock options?..lol) I will figure out the options provided and what I need the game for, then let my credit card do the rest... Thank You  Andrew And Mike for all the crap you have to deal with.. Most of us do appreciate the effort...

[nightowl]

Buck, on 23 May 2016 - 7:43 PM, said:

In the notes it said it has to do with legal stuff surrounding artwork sharing (like trees)

But it apparently hasn't been enough of an issue to keep 50+ user-created courses from being released.  So, I'm left to wonder.

[olazaboll]

An idea ... if dev's want to go the middle way.:

Once the new paybale version is relased, Course Forge get an update as well , that make courses from the current PG/CF version compatible with each other. This means you can play "old" user courses on "old" versions of PG ... but not new ones .

This resembles the transisition of APCD from 1.1 to 1.05 and the Links MOD 1.06 to 1.07 ..even though fees were not involved ..but they might have been if the original developers had stayed in the game ...

[Greensboronclion]

I was never under the impression that the 20 bucks I paid was all it was ever going to be and you get what you pay for.  That 20 bucks has really given us a lot so far and they are in the business to make money and I trust they will be fair and DLC is how they will make their money.  I am with others who would just rather have a monthly or yearly fee of say 5 dollars a month to be able to play user made courses and never had the issue that a lot of people had with the season pass but hey that's just me.  I also bought the ball and Bethesda and will buy more courses when available and we all have the choice to do that and even now that the game is released for what $35 that is really low compared to some of the other junk on the market.  Last thing I have to say is why not wait till the Dev team lets all know what is going on before we all jump to conclusions as we really don't know where its going till then.

[nightowl]

olazaboll, on 23 May 2016 - 7:48 PM, said:

An idea ... if dev's want to go the middle way.:

Once the new paybale version is relased, Course Forge get an update as well , that make courses from the current PG/CF version compatible wich each other. This means you can play "old" user courses on "old" versions of PG ... but not new ones .

This resembles the transisition of APCD from 1.1 to 1.05 and the Links MOD 1.06 to 1.07 ..even though fees were not involved ..but they might have been if the original developers hadn´t stayed in the game ...

Not a bad idea. Regardless, I'll be upgrading each chance I get.  I do feel concerned about more casual PG users.  It will be a rude awakening for them if, after purchasing the game and playing user-created courses, suddenly those same courses are inaccessible.  I know the argument can be made that none of those courses were "purchased" in the original game purchase.  In this case, one can be right and wrong at the same time -- wrong in the sense that the more casual user will feel cheated.  Again, it will not affect me.  But I think it could potentially damage PP's rep.

[frank70]

It's tricky. Gone are the days of a new game in a cd case every year. And still there is a need of ongoing revenue. I would think that a lot of costumers and potential customers are rather old - at least for gamers. So this new world of DLC and microtransactions is something new and uncommon for them. Some feel alienated or even cheated by this pricing model. Young guys are buying apps or other stuff online all day long. They are used to it.

And still i think that after the “season pass“ drama, the new strategy again rubs a lot of guys off - by taking something away from customers. It simply is this way - you could play number x courses and if you don't buy the update the courses are gone. All other explanation “that the courses were never owned“ are just semantics. I don't say it is in any form unfair - there is still enough left to play and i will certainly buy the update. The human psyche would recept it way better though, if the DLC offers so much more content, that most of the guys WANT to buy it , not in a way HAVE to buy it. Put some courses in that you can't get without the update (Muirfield, Royal Troon), or clubs, shafts or ball.

Don't put pressure on someone to lose something - give them as many reasons as possible to buy something. We don't know exactly yet, what a “major update“ would contain. I firmly believe that it will be worth the money. But communicatio overall could be a bit better.

[trailblazergolf]

im with ya frank---keep it simple !!-----i i need to buy a course then i'll buy it don't need a bunch of explaining crap--

[trailblazergolf]

just don't make the game a complicated mess --ok

[frank70]

It seems that we - the PG customer base - is really difficult to handle. I for myself found the season pass not that bad of an idea and would have paid for it (and that would have been simple). But i could in some way foresee the public reaction and that this pricing model would rather hurt the reputation of the game.

I don't know: it's tough for the devs. There has to be revenue coming in via updates. Otherwise they have to release a new game every other year. Won't save us customers money and would divide the customer base as well. Maybe some of us are simply to stubborn :-) .

[sirputterman]

Sigh here we go again... I have stated before that I have no issue with supporting the game but this back and forth on pay of user made courses then not paying for them and then back to paying for them really ticks me off. The perception it leaves is not a positive one in my books whether it's intentional or not by PP this has the feeling of the old bait and switch scheme. Pay for them, not charging for them and back to paying for them. 

When the season pass issue was brought up it seemed like PP decided against charging for user made courses, now it seems like they have changed their mind again. Oh I know we aren't paying for user made courses but for the updates in order to be able to play user made courses  spin it anyway you want it all boils down to the same thing. Realistically how many people would  continue to play if not for having new courses?  User made courses are the life blood of any golf game and PP knows it. No one is going to play for any amount of time without new courses.

This is what is going to upset people more then anything I think. If your going to do something then do it or do not but not this back and forth flip flopping.  

The question I have to ask is how often would these "major updates" be? Once a month? once every  6  months? Once a year? How much will the updates cost? This will obviously also effect on how many will be  willing to pay for the upgrades. I mean if it was once a year and 50- 60 bucks then realistically it would be like buying a new game and I don't think many would object to that. However if it was once every 3 months or every 6 months unless the update price was fairly low people may not be so keen on this.

I just wish they would come up with a marketing plan and stick to it. Sorry just because they are not a big name game company that doesn't let them off the hook in this regard as far as I'm concerned. In fact I think it may even be more imperative to be concise in what revenue model they are going to use simply because with big names like EA or whatever if they miff off a few customers then no biggie where as PP can not really afford that kind of hit.

I think PP needs to come flat out and state what the pricing point is going to be and how often these "major updates" are intended and the sooner they do so the better. If your going to release the information that there is going to be changes then you should also be stating exactly what the costs and time schedule of those changes  are in the same breath. Again not doing so just opens the whole thing up to speculation and that is probably not ideal for receiving positive  results.

Oh and as far as if you decide not to update in the future you lose the ability to play all of the course you have obtained up to that point should still be available to play. This idea that you must  update or poof all of  sudden those course that you have paid for ( again say it anyway you want this is what it amounts to) are rendered useless just doesn't sit right with me. If I decide to buy x amount of updates and then leave it at that why should all of a sudden the ability to play what I have paid for disappear? Sorry that doesn't seem fair to me.

[maxie]

So if the guys at OGT are hosting a tournament with a user made course only those with the update will be able to participate in it? I have no issue at all supporting the game i will be buying.Just dont want to log into the lobby and find 10-15 players

[mebby]

I agree with both Frank and sirputterman.

This population is hard to please. And PP isn't doing themselves any favors waffling back and forth on this issue.

[sandybunker]

I hope it doesn't have a detrimental effect with the online element if it ends up split because there's people playing different builds.