Chad,
1)
A couple of other issues related to development
of new HD courses. While we are not privy to the financial arrangements between
WGT, the course or club, and the golfing organization (such as the USGA or
R&A), some overview of how this works might help WGT members to understand
better how the course development works.
2)
The US Open and British Open venues are oftentimes
extremely private clubs, so that the golf club itself has no interest in
generating greens fees from its cooperation with WGT. But there is a very real
business opportunity, it seems to me, for the leading golf resorts to have their
courses developed in HD for WGT. It is great advertising for their courses, and
you can imagine that lots of WGT members would want to play those courses in
real life. We have a couple of these resort courses in the Trugolf format, but
why not--for example--develop Wolf Creek in full HD? It would be a win/win for
WGT and for the resort operator in a way that would not be true for an
exclusive private club with a long waiting list for membership. Here there
would be just two parties involved: WGT and the resort operator.
3)
A possibly trivial issue, maybe not: How long will
WGT be in "beta"? What does it even mean? Does "beta" have sort of legal
significance? To me, remaining in "beta" for years seems to give the site a somewhat insubstantial or fly-by-night aura that is inaccurate.
4)
New avatars! Not a huge issue, but I see marketing/business
opportunities there for manufacturers of golf-related apparel, with lifestyle
brands like Polo Ralph Lauren, Brooks Brothers or the like.
Thanks!
Zag