Also, when you play with a real golf ball it begins to lose compression and eventually becomes less playable.
I'd be willing to understand the low durability here with explanations such as, cover is worn or cut, but to say it's because golf balls lose compression is silly. I'm not saying they don't lose compression, but saying that they don't lose it as fast as they were out here.
I found this in a Golf Digest article a few minutes ago. When asked "How long should a golf ball last?"
In short, a lot longer than you can likely keep hitting it and finding it.
Ball cores are commonly designed to withstand at least 100 strikes at 125 miles per hour before cracking. That's seven rounds of Tiger-like drives.
Of course, the cover will often go first, especially if you have a steep angle of attack or fresh grooves or tend to rely on cartpaths for extra distance. But these minor scuffs won't affect performance. "As long as the cover is relatively smooth, maybe a little paint missing, you're fine to play it," says TaylorMade's Dean Snell. Still, our testing showed that a serious scuff could cost you six yards on a tee shot.
A urethane cover's durability comes from being soft with an elastic memory. Ionomer covers are more durable because they're firm.
I think more would understand if the ball was "taken out of play because the cover had been too scuffed up" or something to that nature.
But, I do understand that ball sales is the one major factor keeping the game "free".
I still think the ball durability meter should be in numbers of hits left like the putter/shot pal. Besides, wouldn't a golf ball that was hit with a slower swing speed last longer than one hit with a faster swing? Shouldn't that make the golf ball durability here change according to the meter speed? Would perhaps help sell slower metered clubs?