kavvz:
Wutpa:
kavvz: new fancy stuff
Can you define "new fancy stuff" in this context for me?
I was thinking that if the game is on Steam, they can very easily charge a fee for it and if they're going to charge a fee (not saying they are), that one would think the game would have something new and exciting offered that would entice players to pay for it -- beyond what we have and are used to now with the PCEA version.
I missed the ananswer in that, It was a golf game you needed golf clubs and balls. You could add odd stuff if you wanted but it gave you no real advantage over those that didn't have it. Pay to "be better" will, I suspect, only work so far.
So how much would a fee be to replace paying $55 for a driver, $47 for irons, $50 for a putter etc and then the regular $9 for balls (two sleeves a week = $936 a year)? $60 a year was mentioned as what another game charges, maybe not quite enough? Or are you meaning a fee and still buying equipment?
Back in 2015 someone (Fatdan I think) copied this article to a thread, this is part of it and the bold is mine.
San Francisco-based WGT creates high-definition virtual sports simulations, with realistic imagery based on actual photographs that makes you feel like you’re really stuck in a sand trap at the St Andrews golf course in Scotland. WGT got its start on the Web and on Facebook, where it found a lot of golf fans who wanted to socialize with each other. They didn’t mind that the 3D graphics weren’t fast-action like realistic video games such as Electronic Arts’ packaged PGA golf games. Over time, WGT added a ton of courses and official licenses, and it retained a small, but loyal and rich, audience.
Who do you think are finding the change to a gamers game difficult? I know you're an example of a "loyal and rich" player that's not, but generally it is this group. So the "loyal and rich" golf fans are going to be replaced with gamers and your idea is to charge a fee, good luck with that. Generally they are going to need much bigger numbers from this shift to make up for the demographic change.
I don't get why wgt are ignoring this group (for example ask if uel is to be retained and you'll be ignored, ask if the duck hat goes with the crockodile shoes and the answer will come swiftly).
Some light reading from wiki:
The free-to-play model has been described as a shift from the traditional model in the sense that previously, success was measured by multiplying the number of units of a game sold by the unit price, while with free-to-play, the most important factor is the number of players that a game can keep continuously engaged, followed by how many compelling spending opportunities the game offers its players. With free games that include in-game purchases, two particularly important things occur: first, more people will try out the game since there is zero cost to doing so and second, revenue will likely be more than a traditional game since different players can now spend different amounts of money that depend on their engagement with the game and their preferences towards it. It is likely that the vast majority of players are playing for free and few are paying money, such that a very tiny minority ("whales") pay the bulk of the income. Up to 50% of revenue comes from 0.15% (15 in 10,000) of players ("white whales") in one report.[34][35] It is not unlikely for a very few players to spend tens of thousands of dollars in a game that they enjoy.[25]
I suspect that the numbers for this game will be a bit different, because of the "loyal and rich" golf fans, but the new game will be more as described.