I think in one sense, I'd take the lower price. I play match play almost exclusively. I always have. I think
Tom had a really, really point about the effect of match play and the value of conditioning in the latest Fried Egg video.
In another sense, however, I think it's a false dichotomy. I would rather have a course focus and care about efficiency and value over luxury and conditioning. This is where I'm at loggerheads with the vast majority of course raters.
That is to say, as much is I like sand scrapes, I'm prefer if all vanity bunkers were pretty much gone. An aiming bunker could just as easily be an aiming native area, and it'd cost nothing to maintain. I'd rather just keep the money if it's not a resort. If a bunker isn't strategic, I'd rather it be native in general, but I'm a bit of a tree hugger.
Green speed is the other obvious one for me. I'd rather play a greens that roll at 8, with big, gnarly contours, than a muted version of the same green running an a quick 12. It's going to be cheaper to maintain, and it's probably going to drain better.
Lastly, and this one is the one that really gets under my skin... overseeding Bermuda is just the stupidest thing in the world as far as I'm concerned. The dormant grass vastly cheaper to maintain, it's a better playing surface except in some very specific instances, and I think it's honestly really beautiful.
So, yea, I don't think it's one or the other, but I'd rather golf be more accessible to more people, and that means making it as affordable as is practicable.