Rory McIlroy PGA TOUR Trailer - Golf Without Limits

[pietasterp]

Quote: Originally Posted by brandon27

Ha, thanks. I hate talking about it from a business standpoint, but I think we all have to remember video games are a business. Big business actually. It's not just something simply made for our own pleasure how we see fit.

The thing is, I'm not sure that 'conventional business wisdom' is accurate here. Theoretically you're correct: the focus-group tested mentality and "appeal to everyone" approach should, in theory, attract the broadest swath of consumers.

However, it's not clear to me that the actual data bears that out. The 2 biggest (by far and away) selling sports titles are essentially "sim" titles: Madden and NBA2K (no jokes about Madden not being sim...take that to the other forum ). Even for what's rapidly becoming more of a 'niche' sport, MLB the Show does phenomenally well on a single platform. In fact, I can think of vanishingly few examples (in sports gaming, anyway) where the "appeal to everyone" approach works particularly well.

The golf market may be smaller now (even that's not clear to me, given that the overall pie of gamers is much much larger now than it was in the heydey of golf games in the 90's), but that doesn't automatically mean 'appealing to a broader demographic' (if that's even possible) is the proper solution. Presumably, at least as many 'hardcore' golf fans will be turned off by the dilution of the product as non-golf fans will be turned on. If it were as simple as that, why isn't there a successful arcade NFL or NBA style game on the market (or, why aren't NBA-Jam style gameplay modes incorporated into NBA2K)?

TL;DR: I'm not saying you are wrong, but until/unless the actual data bears out that this "appeal to everyone" approach results in an appreciable difference in profitability for the franchise (although compared to what baseline is up for debate), you can't simply state that this approach is correct. We'll see. But in my experience, "appeal to everyone" = "appeal to no one".

[ManiacMatt1782]

Except you are limited to under 15 courses and only 8 real ones. Inexcuseable for a 60 dollar release from a major publisher. I just don't see how consumers are expected to pay 60 dollars for this. The value is simply not there.

[ImTellinTim]

Quote: Originally Posted by ManiacMatt1782

Except you are limited to under 15 courses and only 8 real ones. Inexcuseable for a 60 dollar release from a major publisher. I just don't see how consumers are expected to pay 60 dollars for this. The value is simply not there.

And this is why it's important to pay attention to what the move to this not being a yearly title entails when making a decision on the value of the game.

If they have some kind of subscription after the new, free stuff they are promising to get new courses, you could be right. If they up the number of courses to a good level for free, it could be worth it in the end. Unfortunately, I think this means that a price drop won't be coming any time soon. Might have to make that $60 decision before we have all the info.

[DivotMaker]

Quote: Originally Posted by Chairman7w

Very true, can't argue with that at all, good post. My problem with it is that I think of the development time and money that went into that crap (a battleship crashing? Really?) and I think of the real courses that could have taken up that time instead. If they didn't take the time to make space golf (or whatever's going on there) they could have added a dozen more real courses, and golfers. But I understand that doesn't change your point, they have to try and appeal to the widest possible audience. But the selfish side of me hates it. Sigh... Oh well, first world problems, right?

The people who developed those arcade modes are not course artists. RM does not have an unlimited Dev budget the likes of which you see with CoD, Madden, FIFA, etc. I can promise you, they had all hands on deck for this and I think they may surprise us with the DLC content that is available at or shortly after launch, both free and paid.

[brandon27]

Quote: Originally Posted by Chairman7w

Very true, can't argue with that at all, good post. My problem with it is that I think of the development time and money that went into that crap (a battleship crashing? Really?) and I think of the real courses that could have taken up that time instead. If they didn't take the time to make space golf (or whatever's going on there) they could have added a dozen more real courses, and golfers. But I understand that doesn't change your point, they have to try and appeal to the widest possible audience. But the selfish side of me hates it. Sigh... Oh well, first world problems, right?

I agree, believe me, I'd much rather see the weird golf stuff gone too, but I dont think that's possible for them to do given what I had already mentioned.

I also don't think the creation of those other modes really took away from course development time. There's probably two separate departments there working on courses/environments, versus working on gameplay.

I know the course selection at launch sucks, but theyve stated there's continuous DLC to come and that it's not an annual release, so there's more to come, and I think alot of folks are probably going to sit this out until they see just what that is.

Personally, I've said this all along, my decision will be made based on how I feel about the game after getting a few rounds in through the EA Access preview.

[Chairman7w]

I shall await your reports with baited breath!

Quote: Originally Posted by brandon27

Personally, I've said this all along, my decision will be made based on how I feel about the game after getting a few rounds in through the EA Access preview.

[Golfsprince]

I love where the game is going. They're trying to appeal to players of all ages.

I think the way grown people react over 2 fantasy courses (the other 2 are fictional) is as childish if not more childish than how people think this game will be.

I enjoy the nice blend and I'm someone who also loves the real courses, etc like you guys but I think the reaction is pretty silly.

The Golf Club is already a sim (Love it by the way) and I don't want Rory PGA to mirror that. Idk about y'all but I personally enjoy variety in my golf games.

Plus, I think there is a lot for hardcore players to enjoy and nobody's forcing you guys to play the fantasy stuff.

To me, it adds to the fun and challenge because fantasy courses are very unpredictable and you have to work your way around the design. Plus, they'are gorgeous courses surroundings wise.

All that being said, I would absolutely love to see "fictional" courses based on real world courses that EA has zero chance to get into the game like National Golf Links, Chicago Golf Club, Pine Valley, Cypress Point, etc.

If they replicated those courses as fictionals, then I would seriously jump for pure joy.

Imagine playing replica holes of Pine Valley's 5th, Cypress's 16th or Chicago's 10th?

My Gosh that would be epic!

Oh, and Kehlis, Emerald Dragon is the course, it's one of my favorites in the series and in my opinion is capable of being a real course (That would be awesome).

One more thing. Pietaster, NBA 2K15 is definitely not sim Lol. It's a 3-point shootout and half the 3's drop.

I mean, 7"3' Centers who can drill three's like Ray Allen or Craig Hodges? Not realistic. If the shot meter is in the "green" , it's money every time. Lol.

Also, you can play as a mascot in My park, also not realistic Lol.

I still enjoy the 2K series however

[OnlookerDelay]

[moved to correct thread]