Tiger Woods PGA Tour 13 Review (360/PS3)

[kbmnm247]

I'm baffled by the submissive attitude to corporations as shown in a few posts here. At what point does the amount of $ that it costs to play the game too much? If $150 isn't too much for one year of a video game then what is?

The problem with the "don't like it, don't buy it" excuse that is given isn't really relevant since EA buys the license and eliminates competition. If I want to play a licensed golf game and a licensed NFL game I have to buy an EA product (I think).

It's just unfortunate for those who play video games as a hobby and not a lifestyle, because $150 for a one year iteration of a video game, that apparently still has bugs that were in prior versions, is laughable.

[choadler]

Quote: Originally Posted by kbmnm247

I'm baffled by the submissive attitude to corporations as shown in a few posts here. At what point does the amount of $ that it costs to play the game too much? If $150 isn't too much for one year of a video game then what is? The problem with the "don't like it, don't buy it" excuse that is given isn't really relevant since EA buys the license and eliminates competition. If I want to play a licensed golf game and a licensed NFL game I have to buy an EA product (I think). It's just unfortunate for those who play video games as a hobby and not a lifestyle, because $150 for a one year iteration of a video game, that apparently still has bugs that were in prior versions, is laughable.

But that is your problem. You don't think it is worth $150, but obviously others do. When people stop paying for DLC and paying the prices, then EA will lower them or stop offering the DLC. If EA buys the license to a sport and for instance the NFL has decided to only give one company the license, whose fault is it? Why aren't people screaming at the NFL for restricting how many company's can make video games? EA is doing what any other business would do, maximize profits. Buying patterns are indicating that people will pay for this content.

Personally I agree with you. I would never spend $150 on one game. I just bought the CE for $35 at Target. But, for someone that plays this game for 150 to 200 hours, I could definitely see them arguing that $150 is nothing. I think paying $13 for a 2 hour movie is absurd. I get far more entertainment value for my hours on video games than at movies.

[kerosene31]

Quote: Originally Posted by kbmnm247

I'm baffled by the submissive attitude to corporations as shown in a few posts here. At what point does the amount of $ that it costs to play the game too much? If $150 isn't too much for one year of a video game then what is?

I find some single player games that take maybe 10-12 hours overpriced at $60. There are lots and lots of these games and nobody ever questions it. Personally, I feel more ripped off by a game that I will finish in a weekend and sell back than a good sports game.

DLC is optional, and it is up to each person to determine if it is worth buying. I will be playing TW13 regularly between now and the Fall until NHL and Fifa come out. I've played at least one round every day since the game came out (usually more). I will easily get my value out of it. I get offended at people who tell me otherwise.

The base game costs $60 and I'm sure you can get plenty of value out of it without the DLC. I wouldn't expect the non-hardcore players to spend that on it, but the option is great for those of us who are.

[DivotMaker]

Quote: Originally Posted by kbmnm247

I'm baffled by the submissive attitude to corporations as shown in a few posts here. At what point does the amount of $ that it costs to play the game too much? If $150 isn't too much for one year of a video game then what is? The problem with the "don't like it, don't buy it" excuse that is given isn't really relevant since EA buys the license and eliminates competition. If I want to play a licensed golf game and a licensed NFL game I have to buy an EA product (I think). It's just unfortunate for those who play video games as a hobby and not a lifestyle, because $150 for a one year iteration of a video game, that apparently still has bugs that were in prior versions, is laughable.

You do not have to spend $150 which is a BS number. I have the CE and every PGA licensed DLC course all for $100. I have played 60 full rounds so far and I have already gotten my money's worth.

If you do not like that EA has no competition, then find a publisher who will compete. This is NOT EA's fault that no one else has exclusive licenses when the very sport that is issuing the license is also granting the exclusive. Why? No one else can compete. If they could, you WOULD have competition.

While there are issues still in the game from previous releases, show me ANY game today that is perfect and does not need a patch? The short answer is there are NONE. Could EA do a better job before releasing? Absolutely! However, show me another publisher who is perfect....yeah, I know....laughable....

[Zalf]

I think a lot of people are mixing up fair and charitable in a free market society. Ea has every right to maximize their profit. YOU decide where the line between profitable and over priced resides. The last two years have been much closer to fair. My main fear is that the learning curve is so steep this year that reviews and sales will push EA even more to the casual side of things.

[kickingguru]

That is a good point Zalf.... EA's poor job of giving the user good information could really make the game take 2 steps back... Hopefully, they see this and do not go the easy route of making it more "Casual"....

[kerosene31]

Last year's game was frustrating because it wasn't customizable enough. This year they have done a great job improving that. Tiger is a game that lots of different types can enjoy. The people who want their 400 yard bombs with spin in the air can enjoy the same game as those of us who want a sim.

[TDAWG89]

Fair score imo.. learning curve is steeper but that makes it even more fun