Forums

Legend Tier - Par if your Lucky

• DaveHeathcote 90 Posts

  Wed, Nov 3 2010 7:38 AM

  This is rapidly becoming a debate on economic philosophy, but I think in essence we are in vociferous agreement.

  Yes, increasing customer base is a way forward but as many (like us) enjoy the benefit playing for free there is a significant lag effect before WGT can start charging more for advertising on the site as a result of high traffic, and also relies on advertiser being willing to pay more. They are clearly trying a valid marketing strategy of trying to maximise revenue from those who are happy to spend credits that they have either bought or earned through offers. From what I have read, they have not been averse to changing pro shop prices as they learn from experience what the right balance is of cost charged vs sales achieved.

  Personally, I think a workable handicap system would open up a big revenue stream as they could then have handicap ready-go type tourneys which, in theory, everyone had a equal shot at winning, not just the top legends and TMs. Perhaps also increase the number of non-virtual items available to purchase with your credit winnings and at a lower price, e.g. $10 iTunes voucher for 2000 credits?? Having to get to 165k credit to covert into anything other than virtual equipment means it's a total irrelevance for most people. Not sure what the legal issues are round this, may be why they can't/don't do it already.

• YankeeJim 25,827 Posts

  Wed, Nov 3 2010 8:25 AM

  DaveHeathcote:

  They are clearly trying a valid marketing strategy of trying to maximise revenue from those who are happy to spend credits that they have either bought or earned through offers.

  Something that is easy to miss with financial discussions about this site is the fact that the CEO funded the startup with money he made on another enterprise. I believe it had something to do with video gaming/games and he made a filthy amount of money on the sale-something like 90 million (don't quote me there but it was a lot.) Andyson did some of his typical great research a while ago on this and it should lead you to believe the guy has his poop in order and knows where he's going.

  While the growing pains literally pain us sometimes I would think it's all part of the learning curve and WGT doesn't appear to be under gross amounts of pressure to perform~ yet. There are some excellent ideas running around about how to make money, make it fairer, level the field, etc., etc. I would be very surprised if they were all new to WGT. In other words, they have their vision and will get it in their own sweet time. The problem is it isn't fast enough for us addicts.  :-D

• BriRock 148 Posts

  Wed, Nov 3 2010 8:44 AM

  YankeeJim:

  In other words, they have their vision and will get it in their own sweet time. The problem is it isn't fast enough for us addicts.  :-D

   

  THATS THE DAMN TRUTH!!!

• jbenny11 863 Posts

  Wed, Nov 3 2010 8:55 AM

  Wet blanket alert!!!! WGT is not as solvent as you would believe. A little bird told me this.

• andyson 6,415 Posts

  Wed, Nov 3 2010 11:50 AM

  YankeeJim:

  Something that is easy to miss with financial discussions about this site is the fact that the CEO funded the startup with money he made on another enterprise. I believe it had something to do with video gaming/games and he made a filthy amount of money on the sale-something like 90 million (don't quote me there but it was a lot.) Andyson did some of his typical great research a while ago on this and it should lead you to believe the guy has his poop in order and knows where he's going.

  Thanks for bringing my  name into this YJ!  May I call you Jimmy? 

  Anyway, various sources say Cheng and Nelson worked at WagerWorks which sold to IGT for $90M, This source said "they sold their previous company." But either way, owning it or working there( thru stock options) they, no doubt in my mind, both got a chunk of money.  And after splitting up the $90M amongst partners and other shareholders, then paying taxes on it they each got at least a dollar, buck, three eighty  out of it. ($1.38)

  As far as the CEO having his poop in order here's a quote from another article on the management team's background:

   

  Golf Practice-zine:

  Their management has some serious street cred when it comes to the business of electronic gaming. YuChiang Cheng, co-founder and CEO of World Golf Tour, worked for IGT/WagerWorks, a company that is a major player in the development of back-office business systems and console games for casinos and gaming sites. Inspired by the huge success of the online gaming franchise, World of Warcraft, Cheng formed World Golf Tour in June of 2006 with co-founder Chad Nelson.  Nelson, also worked at IGT/WagerWorks and helped create 70 games games for the PC and gaming industry. Mr. J.F. Prata, is the former Vice President of Product Development at Electronic Arts (EA)and while there helped develop one of my favourite games, Sim City and Tiger Woods PGA Tour.

  Other articles/references on WGT:

  Jan. 24, 2008 http://money.cnn.com/2008/01/16/technology/online_golf.fortune/index.htm
  

  April 17, 2008 http://www.usatoday.com/money/smallbusiness/2008-04-15-survival-strategies_N.htm

  June 16, 2008  http://www.portfolio.com/culture-lifestyle/culture-inc/sports/2008/06/16/World-Golf-Tour-Game
  

  Oct. 6,2008 http://techcrunch.com/2008/10/06/world-golf-tour-hits-hole-in-one-with-rich-multiplayer-flash-game/

  Aug 25, 2009  http://pc.ign.com/articles/101/world-golf-tour-impressions

  Recent:

  WGT is an ExitGames Development Services Client

  World Golf Tour on Wikipedia
  

  
  

  
  

• YankeeJim 25,827 Posts

  Wed, Nov 3 2010 12:48 PM

  andyson:

  Thanks for bringing my  name into this YJ!  May I call you Jimmy? 

  Andy reminds me of the State Farm agent that you get when you sing the jingle "...State Farm is there with ___________."  and they bring you whatever you wish for. Give him 1/2 a thought somebody's interested and he becomes a walking Wikipedia. Evidence above, nice.

  Call me anything you like, brother Andy, except late for dinner!  :-D

• redraven0013 14 Posts

  Wed, Nov 3 2010 3:20 PM

  someone in the higher up please tell me , why my avg. is staying the same after 5 rounds?

• YankeeJim 25,827 Posts

  Wed, Nov 3 2010 5:10 PM

  redraven0013:

  someone in the higher up please tell me , why my avg. is staying the same after 5 rounds?

  With the new way averages are figured your above average rounds are not going to affect it. In your case it won't change unless you shoot below 69.96, your current average. Near as I can tell the drop is related to the number of strokes below your average you shoot.

  In your case, for instance, if you go out and shoot a 69 your average should drop to about 69.94. If you were to shoot a 68 it probably drops to 69.88. A 35 wouldn't move it because that's above your average but shoot a 34 and it probably drops to about 69.88.

  This is all my own WAG but I'm basing it on my own TM experience. It seems to be very predictable and consistent so far. Using my own average, 66.1, if I shoot a 33 (66) it will drop .02 to 66.08. If I shoot a 32 (64/65) it will drop .08 to 66.02. A 30 in a recent RG changed my average (at the time) from 66.50 to 66.36. It doesn't seem to be linear, based on that. JMO

• bartjones 72 Posts

  Wed, Nov 3 2010 6:12 PM

  YankeeJim:

  With the new way averages are figured your above average rounds are not going to affect it. In your case it won't change unless you shoot below 69.96, your current average. Near as I can tell the drop is related to the number of strokes below your average you shoot.

  Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't the overall result of the new system that the distribution of players among the various tiers will remain far more static than it was under the old system? I mean, under the new system there will considerably less change in averages and therefore far less movement of players upward into more difficult tiers?

• DaveHeathcote 90 Posts

  Thu, Nov 4 2010 4:50 AM

  New 'average' score is now based on best X ranked scores (X not disclosed) shot in your current tier.  Therefore, any score worse than your Xth best should have no effect.  Any score better than your Xth score should lower your 'average'.  Clearly, scores below your 'average' will have a larger effect but even scores above your average could lower it (albiet very minimally) if they are better than your Xth best and so bump this score for a slightly lower one.

  Regarding tier progression, could argue it will promote this in the long run.  Firstly, eliminates ability to sandbag by posting high scores to couteract a low one and so protect average in old 'best 10 from last 14' system.  Also, if X=20, shooting 20 good scores in 100 rounds will result in same average as shooting 20 good scores in 25 rounds.  In old system, the latter would have resulted in a far lower average than the former as the 80 bad rounds would have far more effect than the 5.

  Averages will clearly be far more stable in the new system and you won't get the rapid rise and fall you used to, but I think this is a good thing.  They really ought to rename it though as 'average' is clearly not the correct description any more.

  Far more discussion on this in 'New Average Scores' thread.