I wonder if the numbers back this assumption up, though? To me, this reeks of almost all laughably transparent corporate attempts to "be hip" and "appeal to the kids" that mostly fail, because it's hard - albeit not impossible - to focus-group manufacture cool (whatever unquantifiable thing 'cool' even is....).
If there is any evidence that the game is improving, say, sales to under-21 year old individuals, while simultaneously not losing 30+ year olds (who have most of the disposable income at this point) for a net-gain in revenue, than I guess this would make sense. But from an anecdotal point of view, does anyone honestly think that a 15-year-old that otherwise has no interest in golf whatsoever would suddenly start to give a golf game serious consideration because it has Battlefield courses and a "Night Club" (whatever the f* that is)? To me, this logic just makes no sense whatsoever and can only have been cooked up in some C-suite by an over-50 Ivy MBA...
I mean, this line of thinking extended to anything else would just be ridiculous. It's like saying, "Now I know teenagers have no interest in derivatives trading, but if we got Taylor Swift to ring the bell at the NYSE, I'm sure they'd all start flooding into the market in droves!!!".
I wonder if they do, though (vis-a-vis my above rant)? To me, it seems like if you're interested in non-sim golf, there's "Hot Shots" and "Mario Golf". It's a pretty narrow market. As the only officially-licensed golf game, the focus should be pretty much exclusively on sim. I think the people that are interested in the casual games and the sim games are non-overlapping groups, and it's futile to think you can capture both simultaneously.