Opinion: Pay to Play is Not a Con

[Tyler V]

$25 doesn't just sound like a lot, it is a lot! I can't imagine there are a lot of takers at $25. I would think the owner would recoup his money a lot quicker by charging $10 and getting 50 people per day then charging $25 and getting 10 people per day.

I've wondered about that thought process too - I for one would likely play the course more if it cost less to play, or if the fee got you in for the whole day instead of one round.

 

[Monocacy]

Now THAT would be a good pay-to-play price!

I dunno - who carries pennies around these days?

 

[Pevio]

While I agree with most all of this, and I think the OP is off base, I do have one small quibble.

DGCR is better at reviews because there is a certain standard that the reviews are held to. uDisc ratings and reviews are similarly "valid opinions", but they are rightly viewed as less informative than DGCR's. Encouraging a certain kind of review, and care in making that review is part and parcel of what DGCR does.

But, in this case, the idea of P2P as a potential negative is completely consistent with how reviews are done here, and that's born out by how many DGers considering playing at a course would consider it a negative. I'd also say that it's inconsistent to dock points in the rating merely for it being P2P, but YMMV.

And this was the point I was trying to make - maybe I could have made that clearer in my OP. P2P can bring both good things and bad things, including valid things to say in a cons section, but P2P in and of itself isn't reason to adjust a rating. It's just means to an end, and since the details of P2P will be in Course Info (as mentioned several replies ago), I don't feel the need to point it out in my reviews.

 

[Rastnav]

And this was the point I was trying to make - maybe I could have made that clearer in my OP. P2P can bring both good things and bad things, including valid things to say in a cons section, but P2P in and of itself isn't reason to adjust a rating. It's just means to an end, and since the details of P2P will be in Course Info (as mentioned several replies ago), I don't feel the need to point it out in my reviews.

Many people find P2P a negative, in and of itself. You don't have to acknowledge that in any review you make, but it doesn't change the fact that it's a common complaint. There isn't anything incorrect about acknowledging that simple fact. Maybe some day P2P will be the norm, or at least those courses may be exceedingly common, but that isn't the case today. It's relevant information for the bulk of the DG community.

My point about course ratings is, I believe, different than yours. If one is considering a P2P course, you'd want to know how good it is irrespective of what you'll pay, so you can decide if you want to pay to play it.

 

[Steve West]

$25 doesn't just sound like a lot, it is a lot! I can't imagine there are a lot of takers at $25. I would think the owner would recoup his money a lot quicker by charging $10 and getting 50 people per day then charging $25 and getting 10 people per day.

Perhaps someone who has enough land to create a private course is not really interested in getting their money back, and is more interested in making sure everyone who plays really wants to be there and appreciate it.

 

[Doofenshmirtz]

My issue in Milwaukee is that P2P doesnt keep the foot traffic down. All the courses have been packed everyday after work to the point where there are groups of 20+ on some holes. Its getting nuts out there.

Those courses are obviously not charging enough.

 

[Doofenshmirtz]

Time and time again, I see pay to play courses receiving flak in the cons section due to them being pay to play. Sometimes someone says, "It's a great course, I'm probably willing to pay $10 to play it." Other times, they say, "It's a mediocre course, no way should it cost $10 to play."

I think this is garbage.

You have a remedy. Downvote any review that lists P2P as a con. Of course, that is only necessary if your other remedy, to start a thread complaining about it, doesn't bring you the peace that you seek.

 

[mojorooks]

DGCR is better at reviews because there is a certain standard that the reviews are held to. uDisc ratings and reviews are similarly "valid opinions", but they are rightly viewed as less informative than DGCR's. Encouraging a certain kind of review, and care in making that review is part and parcel of what DGCR does.

But, in this case, the idea of P2P as a potential negative is completely consistent with how reviews are done here, and that's born out by how many DGers considering playing at a course would consider it a negative. I'd also say that it's inconsistent to dock points in the rating merely for it being P2P, but YMMV.

I believe P2P would even itself out. A P2P course might be better maintained which would raise the review up in other locations.

2 courses closest to me, Winstrom and Paw Paw. Paw Paw is on an old golf course and is definitely the better designed of the two. I love playing it early spring, but the soil is extremely fertile and it gets overgrown quickly and gets unplayable. I play Winstrom all the time. It's maintained but its on sandy soil so doesn't get overgrown fast. If Paw Paw charged $5 a person to keep the grass trim and briars down (they get 6ft high!) I would probably play it more.

 

[DavidSauls]

If a free course decides to convert to P2P, with no other changes -- not better maintenance, or smaller crowds -- is that a negative change? If so, it seems to me the P2P is a "con".

Sure, in many cases the P2P means a better course -- in which case, it could be a pro.....or at least, the pros outweigh the cons.

I also think it's false to assume a "con" reduces the rating. I may list something as an advisory to people who may care, but for myself, I don't care, or it's a minor matter, not enough to change the rating.

 

[Doofenshmirtz]

If a free course decides to convert to P2P, with no other changes -- not better maintenance, or smaller crowds -- is that a negative change? If so, it seems to me the P2P is a "con".

If it is a private course who's owner decides to start trying to recoup some of his/her expenses on, then thinking of that change as a con reeks of entitlement to me.

 

[DavidSauls]

If it is a private course who's owner decides to start trying to recoup some of his/her expenses on, then thinking of that change as a con reeks of entitlement to me.

What if it's not a private course?

 

[autocrosscrx]

If it is a private course who's owner decides to start trying to recoup some of his/her expenses on, then thinking of that change as a con reeks of entitlement to me.

I can't help that someone built a disc golf course on their own dime and made it available for me to play.

 

[DavidSauls]

Or, if a private course doesn't charge a fee, is that a "pro"?

 

[autocrosscrx]

Or, if a private course doesn't charge a fee, is that a "pro"?

Sure. Unless it isn't.

 

[Doofenshmirtz]

I can't help that someone built a disc golf course on their own dime and made it available for me to play.

Nor can you read and comprehend very well.

 

[Doofenshmirtz]

What if it's not a private course?

I'm on edge here. Are you going to give us the answer?

 

[autocrosscrx]

Nor can you read and comprehend very well.

I got a free 60 day trial of YouTube TV. Then the trial period was over and I found the price to far exceed the value that I received from the product.

I don't feel that I'm in any way entitled to their pay service for free, but the price certainly is a con and I certainly can't recommend it to others in good faith when I can receive other comparable streaming services for a lower price or even for free.

 

[BillFleming]

I got a free 60 day trial of YouTube TV. Then the trial period was over and I found the price to far exceed the value that I received from the product.

I don't feel that I'm in any way entitled to their pay service for free, but the price certainly is a con and I certainly can't recommend it to others in good faith when I can receive other comparable streaming services for a lower price or even for free.

This is the point I was making earlier...and my opinion.

You tried the service when it was free....so you have a baseline of what you get from it. Then they wanted to charge you and you, using the baseline value, determined the value (return on investment) wasn't worth what you would receive.

That's how I feel pro/con of Pay for Play courses should be rated....don't rate it a con JUST because you have to pay....rate it based on the value received for that cost.

If a reviewer rates a course based on cost only, without ever playing it...that's unfair...the rater hasn't truly reviewed the COURSE they've only reviewed the cost.

When I see a course review that says- Con: Cost. I look to see why....did the reviewer say it wasn't worth the cost? Did they say the fee is obviously not going to course upkeep/maintenance? Or did they just say - Con: Cost. If their only thing is that it cost money, but no other reason, I'll ignore that Con.

 

[DavidSauls]

I'm on edge here. Are you going to give us the answer?

Answer to what?

Here's my take. In most things, everything else being equal, low cost is better than high cost, and free is better than low cost.

That's a different formula than whether the item or activity is worth the cost. It may be. it may be a bargain at the cost.

It's also a different formula than whether the entity is entitled to charge. If it's entitled to charge and does so, that's fine, but not as good as if it's entitled to charge, but doesn't.

No difference for disc golf. If a disc golf course that charges a fee, has a "free weekend", that's a bonus. Correspondingly, if a free course then charges, that's not.

I can think of a private course that doesn't charge, but limits attendance. You need a reservation -- you can't just drive up anytime you want. It's part of the deal of the course being available, at all. Would I call that a "con"? Yes -- and I did, in my review. It's less convenient. But would I fault the owner? No -- I'm he.

Same with P2P. It's not as good as free. It might still be a great deal for the chance to play the course, it might be completely justified by the course owner, it might have benefits in course maintenance and crowd control that outweigh it's drawbacks. But in the realm of pros & cons, it's still a con.

 

[Rastnav]

One con to Pebble Beach or Pinehurst #2 is that they charge much more than other (ball golf) courses. The local par 3 course charges much less compared to other courses in the local area, which is a pro.

Would I rather play Pinehurst than the local par 3? Dang skippy, I would. Is Pinehurst "worth it"? It very well may be, but it doesn't really matter to whether I'm going to assess that it's quite expensive to play there and see that is an item in the "negative" column when I'm choosing where to play golf next time.

Cost compared to the typical or average cost of a particular amenity is a standard part of assessing or reviewing that amenity. That's true no matter how "worth it" the amenity is. Disc golf is currently nearly always free to play, so P2P is going to frequently go in the con column. Does that mean there is no future in P2P courses or that they are damned to forever be regarded as lowlife courses? Are private property owners not supposed to set up P2P courses. Of course not. Every course is a mix of all its elements, and I for one hope we get more P2P courses, and that they are successful.

Sheesh folks, a course having something in the negative column isn't some criminal indictment.