25 replies to this topic

[DivotMaker]

The universal objection by the various tours, clubs, lawyers, etc. can be summed up in one word, 'MONEY'. Everyone wants some of it and the world loves litigation.

 

It is not about money to Augusta National. It is about power and protecting the IP.

[bgast1]

What do you mean by protecting the IP? Besides Augusta National is here and I don't actually see any issues other than a designers willingness to put up the course. If I knew how to design courses I would be willing to give it a try but I don't know how to and Course Forge looks like it would have a much to steep of a learning curve for me to tackle it. 

[DivotMaker]

What do you mean by protecting the IP? Besides Augusta National is here and I don't actually see any issues other than a designers willingness to put up the course. If I knew how to design courses I would be willing to give it a try but I don't know how to and Course Forge looks like it would have a much to steep of a learning curve for me to tackle it. 

 

IP = intellectual property. I probably should have used "brand" and brand recognition instead. 

 

They do not want anyone recreating their course and brand without their input and permission.

[StoneComet]

Hi,

 

It should be noted that the old design that is still kind of rambling around is made by the same designers, Perfect Renditions I think, that released the Georgia Pines edition. If I recall correctly there were some frame rate and minor issues with the old one that most likely are addressed in the Georgia Pines edition.

 

Part of the reason PR's version caught the attention of the Augusta National's Committee is that PR was really promoting themselves and their rendition of the first release named Augusta National. One also has to account for the fact that things change. Perhaps in the past Augusta went to their legal counsel and the counsel said that the creators were not profiting off of the rendition and they would most likely lose in court.

 

At some point over the years I'm guessing the powers behind Augusta National went to counsel and said, "find a way". The lawyers then probably argued and actually set precedent that the developers/owners of any golf video game actually increase their potential profit or at least it gives the game more value if a rendition of Augusta is provided, even for free by a third party.

 

Tie in the fact that Mike Jones (one of the developers) is a prolific course designer and that Perfect Renditions seemed to have a close relationship with Perfect Parallel and you can probably see where that leads in a court argument.

 

For heaven's sake there are so many variables here that any comparisons to past events on this subject are not ideal, unless your in court of course.

 

Personal thoughts: I don't play them nor do I have any interest in Augusta National any more. They have shown their #$* over the past decade from my point of view and I don't like it. I have walked the course twice during Practice Rounds leading to the Masters in the distant past, I even caught a glimpse of Tiger on the practice greens, but now it's just a distant memory.

 

Final thoughts: The Georgia Pines rendition is the latest one and it is the one that will receive any updates. If Augusta National runs across any site that still is holding the old rendition. Don't be surprised if you get a letter in the mail. As for other real life courses, take into account, that each golf course entity will react differently. Some will like the free publicity and if it's a poor rendition then they probably believe that those issues will take care of themselves as very few player will play it or even accept in their minds as a good rendition. The negativity in these cases will be directed at the designer not on the real life course. So actually, I think Augusta National makes a mistake here.

 

 

SC 

[M Rose]

Augusta is a whole different animal; they are certainly an aggressive entity. They want 100% absolute control of everything with the Augusta name on it. The quality of PR's rendition (and it is a fine one, IMO) is irrelevant to them; they want it gone because they had absolutely zero to do with its creation.

 

I've released a few high profile real courses and have had no trouble so far, but I don't feel like I'm on anybody's radar. I'm sure Pebble Beach is certainly protective of their own copyrights, but I don't feel the same kind of totalitarian dictatorship mentality that you get with the body that is the ANGC. But Pebble is also not a private club either.

 

Augusta on the other hand is the kind of organization that I believe would be openly looking for "unauthorized" materials, just because that's the way they operate.

[mcthommo]

Also, Augusta National isnt the most interesting course anyway to play- just massively over hyped private members club that happens to host a massively overhyped tournament that somehow got elevated to Major standing even though it has restrictive entrance hurdles.

Or, its one of the best and most loved courses and tournaments in the world and etc. etc. etc.

 

Glass half full or half empty