Bushnell Launch Pro vs Foresight GC3

[ChetlovesMer]

This thread is to discuss the pros and cons of both the Bushnell Launch Pro and the Foresight GC3. 

I'm strongly considering getting either a Bushnell Launch Pro or a Foresight GC3. As of this moment in time I haven't decided which way I'd like to go. Obviously they are the same hardware, but the way you pay for them varies a lot. 

I'll post some of my thoughts on this a little later on, but for now:

What do you guys think? Anyone else considering one of these? What would make or break your decision? 

 

[jshots]

If I'm not mistaken you can get the fully unlocked software on the Launch Pro with 10 courses for $4k. So hardware and software brings it in under the base GC3 by $500 for basically the same thing, but also you shouldn't have to pay tax for the digital software which would be a significant amount.

I am holding off at the moment though, Uneekor is supposed to be releasing a new product this fall called the eye mini. Similar to the gc3 that sits next to the ball on the ground at a similar price point, possibly with a better software package. 

 

The subscription software move by Bushnell/foresight makes me salty. For that matter the whole sim industry does. Something like foresight locking out the more advanced stats on the lower subscription tiers, its the same f***ing hardware. Or TGC2019 rebranding their xbox game and charging $1000 for it when the best content they have is user generated. Nice to see more competition and lower priced options coming in though. 

[iacas]

4 hours ago, jshots said:

If I'm not mistaken you can get the fully unlocked software on the Launch Pro with 10 courses for $4k. So hardware and software brings it in under the base GC3 by $500 for basically the same thing, but also you shouldn't have to pay tax for the digital software which would be a significant amount.

I don't understand why they have the same thing available at what amount to two prices, even if you order them together through Bushnell rather than buying the Foresight one. Makes no real sense.

4 hours ago, jshots said:

The subscription software move by Bushnell/foresight makes me salty. For that matter the whole sim industry does. Something like foresight locking out the more advanced stats on the lower subscription tiers, its the same f***ing hardware.

I don't really agree here, because it just gives you options. There are some who are happy to spend less up front and subscribe, and others who just want to buy the fully functioning stuff.

Yes, it's the same hardware… but you get to choose which option you want. So… why's that bad? They're giving you an option.

[jshots]

12 hours ago, iacas said:

I don't really agree here, because it just gives you options. There are some who are happy to spend less up front and subscribe, and others who just want to buy the fully functioning stuff.

Yes, it's the same hardware… but you get to choose which option you want. So… why's that bad? They're giving you an option.

It isn't the subscription model alone that bugs me. Its the walled garden and artificial limits. Locking out data points like club path and angle of attack from the $99/$400 subscriptions to the $800. 

Buying the different software and licenses feels to me a bit like going to a used car dealership. 

It would be interesting to know how much of a profit margin these companies are making on the hardware, and how much they spend on developing their software which all looks like it was built in 2010. 

[billchao]

2 hours ago, jshots said:

It isn't the subscription model alone that bugs me. Its the walled garden and artificial limits. Locking out data points like club path and angle of attack from the $99/$400 subscriptions to the $800. 

That’s kind of how software licenses work. You can decide if you want to upgrade to include certain features that other people might not want and are happy to save the extra money. I purchased the Pro Package on my Mevo+ to unlock additional datapoints. Plenty of people don’t want or need those, so they can continue to use the Mevo+ at its base price.

It kind of just sounds like you’re looking for more features for free.

2 hours ago, jshots said:

Buying the different software and licenses feels to me a bit like going to a used car dealership. 

It doesn’t sound to me like that at all. To use your car analogy, it sounds to me like they’re just offering different trim levels. The premium version won’t and shouldn’t cost the same as the base model. Having different tiers appeals to a broader market than simply offering their product only as the premium version.

[TourSpoon]

I recently started looking at these and comparing the 2.  Since this would be a future purchase, its all speculation at the moment, but for an indoor unit that doesn't need a large run (doppler units) these 2 are pretty bang on.  The Bushnell base unit would probably do the trick if it gave you a decent simulated driving range without having the need for a PC Gaming unit. I just want something that can pop-up on an iPad or display and give the base numbers or do a combine with ball flight.

Once you start down the subscription path, that just seems like I would eventually just unlock the machine so I don't see going the GC route because saving 5 bills is saving 5 bills. I am not convinced that I would use the simulator to its full potential enough to get my money's worth either,  as I would primarily be looking at ball flight data in practice (without going to the range and hitting range balls). I really don't need all the data points because I am not a teaching pro or fitter, just the ones that would make me a better ball striker. Honestly, if the Mevo + was an optical unit, that would be in my wheelhouse. The radar is not quite as nice and neat for indoor unless you have the room so the Mevo + doesn't make sense for me. I want something for a simple net or screen, either in the house, garage, or even back yard. I did the driving range with the regular Mevo last year, and while range balls can be adjusted for, they don't stack up to using a premium ball. 

At some point, someone will probably have a base unit that would be accurate and provide that solid practice platform that I would want. In the meantime, I will be renting the Trackman bay in the AC when I need to get my data fix. 

[jshots]

3 minutes ago, billchao said:

That’s kind of how software licenses work. You can decide if you want to upgrade to include certain features that other people might not want and are happy to save the extra money. I purchased the Pro Package on my Mevo+ to unlock additional datapoints. Plenty of people don’t want or need those, so they can continue to use the Mevo+ at its base price.

It kind of just sounds like you’re looking for more features for free.

Its certainly how some software licenses work but that doesn't make it a good thing.

Its not about wanting more features for free, its about doing whatever the **** I want with something because I own it. Bushnell, Foresight, etc.. build hardware and then lock it down so that you have no choice but to pay for their overpriced and terrible software. Sad that its so normalized now that people will defend it. You look at it as if you can get a cheaper product if you don't want certain features when the reality is they are charging you extra for something the device you paid a lot for can already do. $800 is absolutely insane for a software unlock, only in the Golf industry.

 

Quote

It doesn’t sound to me like that at all. To use your car analogy, it sounds to me like they’re just offering different trim levels. The premium version won’t and shouldn’t cost the same as the base model. Having different tiers appeals to a broader market than simply offering their product only as the premium version.

IMO it would be more like a car company selling 2 identical cars but artificially limiting your horsepower on one unless you pay a premium and also making it illegal for you to modify the car yourself. 

[ChetlovesMer]

21 minutes ago, TourSpoon said:

I recently started looking at these and comparing the 2.  Since this would be a future purchase, its all speculation at the moment, but for an indoor unit that doesn't need a large run (doppler units) these 2 are pretty bang on.  The Bushnell base unit would probably do the trick if it gave you a decent simulated driving range without having the need for a PC Gaming unit. I just want something that can pop-up on an iPad or display and give the base numbers or do a combine with ball flight.

Once you start down the subscription path, that just seems like I would eventually just unlock the machine so I don't see going the GC route because saving 5 bills is saving 5 bills. I am not convinced that I would use the simulator to its full potential enough to get my money's worth either,  as I would primarily be looking at ball flight data in practice (without going to the range and hitting range balls). I really don't need all the data points because I am not a teaching pro or fitter, just the ones that would make me a better ball striker. Honestly, if the Mevo + was an optical unit, that would be in my wheelhouse. The radar is not quite as nice and neat for indoor unless you have the room so the Mevo + doesn't make sense for me. I want something for a simple net or screen, either in the house, garage, or even back yard. I did the driving range with the regular Mevo last year, and while range balls can be adjusted for, they don't stack up to using a premium ball. 

At some point, someone will probably have a base unit that would be accurate and provide that solid practice platform that I would want. In the meantime, I will be renting the Trackman bay in the AC when I need to get my data fix. 

You bring up some good points. 

I agree with the radar issue. I've tried a couple in my garage and I just don't quite have enough room. So, I too, need to got photo. 

I've borrowed a friends (thanks @Chris Brooks) Skytrak and it worked really well in my garage. I actually really enjoyed using it. It also probably was plenty accurate enough for me.

Having typed that, I'm thinking that rather than spend the $2K on the SkyTrak, I feel like spending $3K on the Bushnell is a good idea. 

15 hours ago, iacas said:

I don't understand why they have the same thing available at what amount to two prices, even if you order them together through Bushnell rather than buying the Foresight one. Makes no real sense.

I emailed Bushnell and asked about this question. I'm awaiting a response. Somebody at my local golf range mentioned they believe the reason it's set up that way is that Bushnell expects you to pay $3K for the unit. Pay $799 for a year of use and then pay $3999 when you've decided you like it. With that being the case, it ends up just about $300 more than the GC3. They expect with inflation the GC3 will go up within the next year to make them about the same. ... This kind of made sense to me. But I wasn't completely convinced.

I think the worse case scenario is you buy the Bushnell, instead of the GC3. Use it for a couple of years at $799 per year. Then inflation hits, the price goes up to $1000 per year and you finally decide just to unlock the whole thing for $4K. 

[jshots]

1 minute ago, ChetlovesMer said:

estion. I'm awaiting a response. Somebody at my local golf range mentioned they believe the reason it's set up that way is that Bushnell expects you to pay $3K for the unit. Pay $799 for a year of use and then pay $3999 when you've decided you like it. With that being the case, it ends up just about $300 more than the GC3. They expect with inflation the GC3 will go up within the next year to make them about the same. ... This kind of made sense to me. But I wasn't completely convinced.

I think the worse case scenario is you buy the Bushnell, instead of the GC3. Use it for a couple of years at $799 per year. Then inflation hits, the price goes up to $1000 per year and you finally decide just to unlock the whole thing for $4K. 

Something I just noticed is that it looks like the GC3 essentials package comes with FSX Play, which is normally a $500 upgrade from FX2020. There is no mention of FSX Play on the Launch Pro site as far as I can tell. 

GC3 Demo Blowout

---

Certified Demo Units.  We've received and certified a limited number of GC3 demo units, and now you can take advantage of big savings. A full suite of...

I just noticed these are available at $6k.

[TourSpoon]

8 minutes ago, ChetlovesMer said:

Having typed that, I'm thinking that rather than spend the $2K on the SkyTrak, I feel like spending $3K on the Bushnell is a good idea. 

I would like to see how they stack up against each other along with system requirements. 

[ChetlovesMer]

4 minutes ago, jshots said:

Its certainly how some software licenses work but that doesn't make it a good thing.

Its not about wanting more features for free, its about doing whatever the **** I want with something because I own it. Bushnell, Foresight, etc.. build hardware and then lock it down so that you have no choice but to pay for their overpriced and terrible software. Sad that its so normalized now that people will defend it. You look at it as if you can get a cheaper product if you don't want certain features when the reality is they are charging you extra for something the device you paid a lot for can already do. $800 is absolutely insane for a software unlock, only in the Golf industry.

If you feel the software is terrible and overpriced, you should be happy you have the option to buy it for $3K and then only use the launch monitor view on the top of the machine. If you want the terrible and over priced software you have to pay $4K more. Think of it this way, there are 2 products. One is a piece of hardware; It costs $3K. The other is a piece of software; It costs $4K (which you can rent if you'd like to for $700 per year). You can buy the hardware and just use it, or you can buy the hardware with the software. If you don't think you are getting good value for your money for the software that's fine. But I promise you there are more engineers and support people working every day on the software than there are on the hardware. The hardware is released and done. The software will require updates as time goes on. Plus more support staff is always required for software. Nobody calls customer support and asks "How do I plug this in?" 

One question:
Would you still be upset if they said you can buy this thing for $7500. Or you can buy it for $3000 now and make payments on it for the next 5 years at $800 per year? 

Either company will let you finance them over 1 to 5 years. Not sure what your payments would be but the option is there. 

[ChetlovesMer]

24 minutes ago, jshots said:

IMO it would be more like a car company selling 2 identical cars but artificially limiting your horsepower on one unless you pay a premium and also making it illegal for you to modify the car yourself. 

BTW - This has been an integral part of John Deere and Caterpillar's business models for years. Lots of the upgrades you can get for your tractors/combines/what-have-you are largely related to lines of code more so than physical mechanical components. You pay for performance. Plus, those software engineers on staff have families and mouths to feed as well. Their work has value and they'd like to be paid for it. 

[billchao]

2 hours ago, jshots said:

Its not about wanting more features for free, its about doing whatever the **** I want with something because I own it.

But you don't own the software. You own the hardware. You're welcome do use that however you want. I'm sure it makes for a good paperweight or doorstop.

2 hours ago, jshots said:

IMO it would be more like a car company selling 2 identical cars but artificially limiting your horsepower on one unless you pay a premium and also making it illegal for you to modify the car yourself. 

No, it's not. You seem to be stuck on the physical hardware as the "thing you pay for and own" while completely ignoring the fact that it requires software to run. That software is marketed at different price points with different features.

[jshots]

1 hour ago, ChetlovesMer said:

If you feel the software is terrible and overpriced, you should be happy you have the option to buy it for $3K and then only use the launch monitor view on the top of the machine. If you want the terrible and over priced software you have to pay $4K more. Think of it this way, there are 2 products. One is a piece of hardware; It costs $3K. The other is a piece of software; It costs $4K (which you can rent if you'd like to for $700 per year). You can buy the hardware and just use it, or you can buy the hardware with the software. If you don't think you are getting good value for your money for the software that's fine. But I promise you there are more engineers and support people working every day on the software than there are on the hardware. The hardware is released and done. The software will require updates as time goes on. Plus more support staff is always required for software. Nobody calls customer support and asks "How do I plug this in?" 

One question:
Would you still be upset if they said you can buy this thing for $7500. Or you can buy it for $3000 now and make payments on it for the next 5 years at $800 per year? 

Either company will let you finance them over 1 to 5 years. Not sure what your payments would be but the option is there. 

That is basically exactly where I am at, $3k is getting into affordable territory for me but the software is absolutely not worth an additional $4k and $7500 is just too much still. IMO there is almost no chance that there is more work going into FSX2020 software than the hardware. 

I'm absolutely considering doing exactly what you're saying but I'm really hoping Uneekor dials up the competition with the eye mini this fall. 
 

1 hour ago, ChetlovesMer said:

BTW - This has been an integral part of John Deere and Caterpillar's business models for years. Lots of the upgrades you can get for your tractors/combines/what-have-you are largely related to lines of code more so than physical mechanical components. You pay for performance. Plus, those software engineers on staff have families and mouths to feed as well. Their work has value and they'd like to be paid for it. 

John Deere has been incredibly slimy about the whole thing. Farmers are filing lawsuits left and right against them for their software lockouts and shady terms. Its so anti consumer, money grab, and these launch monitors are doing the same type of thing. Foresight is more and more locking you into FSX software and charging a fortune for it. 

 

6 minutes ago, billchao said:

But you don't own the software. You own the hardware. You're welcome do use that however you want. I'm sure it makes for a good paperweight or doorstop.

No, it's not. You seem to be stuck on the physical hardware as the "thing you pay for and own" while completely ignoring the fact that it requires software to run. That software is marketed at different price points with different features.

The problem is I can't go buy a GC3 and install my own better software on it. They more or less have a monopoly on it so Instead of making good sim software that can compete on its own, they just make it the only thing you can use. A good consumer friendly company would make a monitor that was more like a game controller that could be used with any software and just spit out data. I think competition will get it there eventually but its gonna be a while. 

[ChetlovesMer]

1 hour ago, jshots said:

IMO there is almost no chance that there is more work going into FSX2020 software than the hardware. 

I'm not trying to pile on. But I promise you, that you are wrong about this. Hardware is simple. Get proper components put them together. Once that job is done, move on to the next design. Software is not simple. It has to work across multiple platforms, it has to be constantly updated. It has to be constantly supported. The company I work for has 4 software people for every 1 hardware person. But that really doesn't matter. Again, if you don't feel their software is worth $4k then don't buy it. 

1 hour ago, jshots said:

That is basically exactly where I am at, $3k is getting into affordable territory for me but the software is absolutely not worth an additional $4k and $7500 is just too much still.

If a Tesla cost $3K everyone would own one. Today the market cost for this technology is $7500. You obviously feel that's too much. That's fine. Don't buy it. 5-10 years ago, the only option like this was the GCQuad and it was $20K. In five years, perhaps it will be much less. You can always wait. In the late 1970's my family got a microwave oven. It was just under $900. Which is equivalent to about $3700 in today's money. Wait a few years the price of the technology often goes down. Eventually the same may be true of personal launch monitors. 

 

1 hour ago, jshots said:

John Deere has been incredibly slimy about the whole thing. Farmers are filing lawsuits left and right against them for their software lockouts and shady terms. Its so anti consumer, money grab, and these launch monitors are doing the same type of thing. Foresight is more and more locking you into FSX software and charging a fortune for it. 

This is off topic, but what you are referring to really isn't the same thing. The lawsuit you are talking about is that John Deere currently only licenses diagnostic tool software to "Authorized" John Deere repair centers. They recently trimmed back the number of "Authorized" repair houses by about one-half. This has far more to do with John Deere trying to only authorize repair centers that use genuine John Deere parts. The lawsuit you are referring to is about who should be allowed to repair John Deere equipment. It has absolutely nothing to do with farmers paying for upgrades to the performance of their equipment. 

 

1 hour ago, jshots said:

The problem is I can't go buy a GC3 and install my own better software on it. 

You could always build your own. It's only 3 high-speed cameras and a computer. 

 

1 hour ago, jshots said:

They more or less have a monopoly on it

This couldn't be further from the truth. Again, I'm not piling on. But there are bunches of launch monitors on the market today. 

1 hour ago, jshots said:

A good consumer friendly company would make a monitor that was more like a game controller that could be used with any software and just spit out data. 

I have to assume this line is a joke. So, I'll joke right back: A good engineering friendly consumer would just buy the software that an entire team of people have developed. 😁

I had a college buddy who went to work for Sony in the 90's. Sony sold the PlayStations at a loss. Because they knew it would be no good to anyone without the software (i.e. games). Sony made all the Playstation money on selling games not consoles. What you are suggesting is that Bushnell or Foresight sell just hardware and let somebody else do the software. Why would anyone do that?

Look, I get it. You want the thing to be cheaper. It's not. If you want one you pay $7K to 8K-ish. Or you pay $3K and then rent the software for $800 per year. What they are doing isn't immoral. It isn't "slimy". They have to sell the thing at a price point at which they make a profit. Otherwise their employees can't feed their families. I have lots of friends and co-workers who are software engineers and/or software support people. These people do a job, provide a product and need to be paid for their efforts. 

I think its actually interesting that they chose to market it with two different payment methods. Option one, buy the hardware and the software. Option two, buy the hardware, rent the software. 

Most people have no problem paying more than a grand per year for television service or internet. Should I tell my internet provider, "Look I bought your damned box, now give me my internet for free!"? Again, I can promise you every internet provider has way way more people working on the software than the hardware. Those people again do valuable work and provide a product. They've earned a paycheck. 

1 hour ago, billchao said:

You're welcome do use that however you want. I'm sure it makes for a good paperweight or doorstop.

Actually, Bill from what I've read I think it will spit out the numbers shown on the top of the launch monitors even without the software. So, it does have some use. Like a camera version of the Swing Caddie SC300. Just not connected to a PC or tablet or what ever. But I digress. 

Edited July 21, 2022 by ChetlovesMer
type-o

[iacas]

7 hours ago, jshots said:

It isn't the subscription model alone that bugs me. Its the walled garden and artificial limits. Locking out data points like club path and angle of attack from the $99/$400 subscriptions to the $800. 

Buying the different software and licenses feels to me a bit like going to a used car dealership. 

It would be interesting to know how much of a profit margin these companies are making on the hardware, and how much they spend on developing their software which all looks like it was built in 2010. 

@billchao answered this one pretty well.

4 hours ago, jshots said:

Its certainly how some software licenses work but that doesn't make it a good thing.

Let's be clear that this is your opinion… it's not a fact that this is a "good" or "bad" thing.

It's just the way they're choosing to do business.

4 hours ago, jshots said:

Its not about wanting more features for free, its about doing whatever the **** I want with something because I own it.

You own the hardware. If you want to write your own software to interface with it, go for it.

4 hours ago, jshots said:

Bushnell, Foresight, etc.. build hardware and then lock it down so that you have no choice but to pay for their overpriced and terrible software.

As is their right. They aren't tricking you into buying the hardware.

4 hours ago, jshots said:

Sad that its so normalized now that people will defend it.

I'm a software developer. Should I just offer Analyzr for free because someone bought a Mac? Apple, BTW, offers its OS for free… but sells subscriptions to music and other services. Are they evil because you can't watch movies on your computer unless you also pay for AppleTV (or Netflix, etc.)?

4 hours ago, jshots said:

$800 is absolutely insane for a software unlock, only in the Golf industry.

Not remotely accurate. Hell, I've seen $10,000 to software unlock some things. Not in the golf industry.

The FlightScope Xi/Xi+/Xi Tour was the same hardware. What differed across the price range? The software. Ditto for the Mevo+/Pro Package, as Bill noted.

1 hour ago, jshots said:

That is basically exactly where I am at, $3k is getting into affordable territory for me but the software is absolutely not worth an additional $4k and $7500 is just too much still.

To you.

1 hour ago, jshots said:

IMO there is almost no chance that there is more work going into FSX2020 software than the hardware.

Sounds like a guy who hasn't written/developed/maintained software, perhaps…?

1 hour ago, jshots said:

The problem is I can't go buy a GC3 and install my own better software on it.

Who says?

And if they've locked it down… that's their right, right? They're not tricking you into thinking you can run "jshotsGC3.exe" and then, after finishing the transaction, saying "BTW just joking bro!"

1 hour ago, jshots said:

A good consumer friendly company would make a monitor that was more like a game controller that could be used with any software and just spit out data. I think competition will get it there eventually but its gonna be a while. 

 

Ummmm, thing is, there are hardware solutions like that out there.

The Mevo+ works with this thing, for example: 

Awesome Golf

All that said, I don't think this is the type of discussion Chet was looking to have here, so maybe we should all sort of respect his desire(s) for this topic (or at least clarify them so he can get the discussion he'd like to have?).

[ChetlovesMer]

4 minutes ago, iacas said:

All that said, I don't think this is the type of discussion Chet was looking to have here, so maybe we should all sort of respect his desire(s) for this topic (or at least clarify them so he can get the discussion he'd like to have?).

I think this discussion has clarified one thing beyond a shadow of a doubt. If I want one of these fully featured, I will have to either:

1 - Pay $7500-ish.

2 - Pay $3000-ish and then rent the software for $800 per year. 

In truth, I'm thinking the first option may be better for me. 

I'd be anxious to hear what others think, but here's my thought. 

If I just buy the software rather then rent it. I don't have to worry about the software going up in price. What if two years from now it's $1000 per year. Then two years later maybe $1500 per year. (Possible exaggeration, but I think you get my point.) Plus, my guess is I will use this for more than 5 years. From what I've seen and read the software is either buy it, or rent it. It doesn't look like there's a rent-to-own option. They WILL however allow you to finance the whole thing, so maybe that's kind of the rent-to-own option. 

I'm still not sure.

[Darkfrog]

7 minutes ago, ChetlovesMer said:

I think this discussion has clarified one thing beyond a shadow of a doubt. If I want one of these fully featured, I will have to either:

1 - Pay $7500-ish.

2 - Pay $3000-ish and then rent the software for $800 per year. 

In truth, I'm thinking the first option may be better for me. 

I'd be anxious to hear what others think, but here's my thought. 

If I just buy the software rather then rent it. I don't have to worry about the software going up in price. What if two years from now it's $1000 per year. Then two years later maybe $1500 per year. (Possible exaggeration, but I think you get my point.) Plus, my guess is I will use this for more than 5 years. From what I've seen and read the software is either buy it, or rent it. It doesn't look like there's a rent-to-own option. They WILL however allow you to finance the whole thing, so maybe that's kind of the rent-to-own option. 

I'm still not sure.

Are you looking at camera based system because you don't have space for a radar like Mevo+? If it were me, I would just pay the $7500 for all features up front, but that is a tough pill to swallow. Luckily the way my yard is set up, and  having decent weather year round in CA, I can get away with the ~20 ft space for the radar system. At some point my wife and kids will probably want to reclaim some of the yard real estate I have taken over for golf practice, and I will need to move my practice area into our free standing garage, or basement, which would mean I need a camera system.