This constant argument about consoles holding the game back are pointless, yes it's a stated fact that they can't compete with a decent PC but so what, they are the largest player base, so as PC we should be somewhat grateful to them as without them DTG wouldn't be making the money they are, and that trickles down to content "that all users" benefit from. We don't live in a black and white world, life is full of compromises, at the end of the day it's the player base that determines how successful a game is not an elite few with supercomputers whining about how their £5k graphics card isn't being used properly because X console has the graphics capacity of a Casio calculator, whether you like it or not we need console players more than they need us.
I used to be a staunch advocate of no licence, no content. But some of the releases in recent times (and some of those to come) have proven me wrong / changed my mind. I would rather have an unbranded Class 350 than none at all. Also quite obviously the GWE Remaster is the best example up to now. As for a spanish route in general, I think there are real possibilites to see many more new countries in the future with the 3rd party devs growing all the time. Who knows what the future holds.
I actually wish all us console players who are constantly getting abused by the PC brigade had the will power and moral fortitude to stop playing and even more importantly stop paying for a few months and then see if the attitude towards us changes a bit when they realise!!
A few years ago, Sam stated that the player base was split almost exactly evenly between PC, Xbox family, and PS family, putting the console base at double the PC base. Then last June, Matt said that the console percentage had shrunk, but only because the PC base has had the bigger slice of a general increase.
I feel with a PC only TSW, Like TSC you could get around a lot of licensing concerns meaning a larger scope of development would open up as the branding will come from a modding/freeware community, similar to Flightsim dot to for msfs/2024. But consoles are a big part of DTG revenue with TSW and because of the way Sony Entertainment are with regards to content being released under their brands (and microsoft gaming for xbox), it is what it is and we'll have to deal with what is available to DTG from a licensing perspective..
The thing about PC vs console is getting boring now. I play on both PS5 and my PC for different gaming styles. PC may be getting a bigger player base now but that could possibly be because quite a few players use the XBox for PC thing.
The Portuguese route is fully branded from the operator, on the video from December it was pretty clear
GWE-R proves it doesn't all need to be! I see Trainsim Classic just got the Mireo BR463 (and will soon have the class 333 fully functional), Amazes me that we can continue to get new payware trains (and scenery) in TSC yet struggle to get those into TSW because of "licensing"!
Then the "hurdles" to get the licence should be lowered. Being representet in a good Sim like TSW is paid advertisement for the companies.
The companies don't think that way. They also think that it is a safety risk if they show up in the sim. Or they don't have the people or time to deal with game development companies
Take a look at this video, where Lukas says that the Xbox S and PS4 only account for 3%. I can't imagine that the other consoles account for 50% or more. Since TSW was actually developed for the PC, it's guaranteed that most DLC will be sold on PC. For some reason, I can't copy the link to this statement. Take a look at 2:06 hours.
It's always a pleasure to have a YT video titled "Look at this amazing crash of this authentic Aventi train" get thousands of views !
Sometimes I have NPCs who throw themselves onto the tracks even though that's not supposed to happen anymore. That's the kind of thing that railway companies don't take kindly to. We forget that for a company to have a chance of granting their licence, the simulator game must be good. It represents them virtually, and if they see that the DLC that concerns them is full of bugs and does not work properly, it gives an indirect image of them to players. Other companies that are not in the game will learn about TSW, and if they see negative things, they will be less likely to grant their licence in the future. It is important to remember that companies have an image to maintain and that even the slightest negative thing that could be associated with their image could cause them to change their minds.
That is a bad assumption to make. TSW was developed for PC and console and I don’t think you can guarantee most DLC is sold to PC players from the fact the developers make it on PC. And… He was talking about the expert 101 specifically and said it’s not the same for normal DLC. I would suggest that the expert locos probably do sell less on consoles overall and the expert loco prices are such that people who still haven’t upgraded to current consoles are unlikely to ever buy them, but for normal DLC there is no evidence that console players buy less DLC than PC players when combined. You’ve made a very bad assumption with no evidence. I can well imagine that all consoles combined account for more than 50% of DLC sales. Console players do buy lots of DLC, you can see that from the feedback threads here and all the bug reports. TSW has many more console players than PC players. They would have to buy significantly less DLC each for it to drop below 50% of the total. It’s not just a PC game. Not all enthusiasts play on PC either, that’s a myth. From reading this forum for years, I have spotted that some PC players have narrow spheres of interest and only buy content from their country or their preferred time period. There are many who still also play TSC and only buy JT’s content in TSW, as an example. Some PC players are extremely fussy. That’s not all PC players though. Similarly not all console players just buy the base game. They buy lots of DLC too. I’m one such player and there are many of us spending a lot of money. TSW is the only console train sim and lots of us are lapping up the content. Well, normally we are. DTG are currently scrambling to fix the issues on consoles by improving memory management and texture sizes. They are doing that because console players are currently buying less DLC and they want them spending as normal again. They want me spending again. We will be when it’s fixed.
If the game was insanely popular, then they would pay. But it’s not something that the demand doesn’t outweigh the supply, so they are the ones asking for DTG to pay. That’s just how it works.
I suspect a lot of the licences are a fairly fragile relationship too. Just look at Caltrain, we will never know exactly what happened there but to lose the right to put branding on existing content bought and paid for by customers was fairly extreme. Then there’s the whole MTA situation, happy to licence MN and LIRR (though the latter with the subsequent insistence on cab changes and safety systems on) but still hold out the big no, no for the NYC Subway. Though the waters slightly muddied now by Metro Rivals, with its thinly disguised representation of the NY system. Oh and don’t forget SBB too, who were initially happy as testified by Luzern to Sursee but have since slapped a big no on the process. Though at least they didn’t insist on removal of the route from sale or debranding.
Especially when it could have been a win-win to have an overhauled electrified version of the route with the new KISS units as a publicity tie-in. And indeed the same applying to future MN routes, it seems.
I’ll quote what Matt said to you a few years ago on this subject and has also repeated a couple of times since, just to refresh your memory… “LIRR/MN and the NYC Subway are all the same underlying operator, it's all MTA. While we have license to use the branding, they provide no access or reference (we can't even get authorisation to visit the line and get photographs from the platforms etc so anyone going would be at risk of transport police finding them very suspect indeed given what we take photos of!). Something like the LIRR and MetroNorth lines are predominantly overground so you can get a lot of it from easier photography and google maps etc - underground stuff is another challenge entirely and not one person on the team feels confident at delivering it to the standard people expect. Doesn't mean we aren't constantly looking to try and make it a possibility, but, it's a background thing to see what we can build up.” - DTG Matt It’s access, not the license. Also, Metro Rivals is a fictionalised version of the subway and not nearly up to the level of detail and accuracy required for TSW.
I can imagine in many instances, for that kind of thing, DTG might have to fall back on video and photography from Urbex enthusiasts. Or if they were to do, say, the Amtrak Hudson tunnel they could, for example, make use as a reference some of the photography work and accompanying maps provided from documentary producers and authors in the 1990s such as anthropologist Teun Voeten who spent time among the homeless population living in it before Amtrak restored services on the line.
The problem is that if the MTA discovers that DTG's information comes from illegal sources, they could revoke their licence.
This would be why I suggested the best option may be documentarians with existing published works. Modelling areas as they are seen in various published films and photography books would be using legitimate sources as references as well as in a transformative manner which does not infringe the copyrights of those film producers or photographers.
Oh I know all that, but there's always the chance things could change or as Princess above points out, possible ways around it. So long as the information is legally in the public domain there's not much MTA could do about it. Just DTG seem too timid to take a chance and, yes, Metro Rivals does grind the gears a bit over the situation sticking up a large raspberry to those of us wanting NYC Subway in the game.
The problem is that it appears like DTG are the gatekeeper of if you can even release content for TSW, in TSC you can run your own store and you don’t need to use proprietary tools for development. The tools need to be opened up completely so third party developers can develop and distribute their own content without DTG (presumably) and Steam/Microslop/Sony both taking a cut. So personally I’d argue that the biggest thing holding the sim back is DTG, not licensing.
I could see a community-made SimuGraph that anyone could use and modify. Something that could be called ‘OpenGraph’, an open source alternative.
Perhaps the contract contains a clause stating that DTG cannot issue a route without MTA's permission. Even if you issue a route based on information from open sources, but without the owner's company's permission— They may have the right to prohibit the use of their brand even on older products. It's unlikely that DTG wants that.
This is, IMO an argument built on a false premise. Licensing isn't holding anything back. DTG focus on the US/UK/Germany because those countries have the strongest sim following and sell the best. They're not making Spanish high speed lines because they know they're likely to sell more copies of Munich-Augsburg than Madrid-Toledo.
Pretty sad for a game that wants to be called Train Sim World, you might say. We're forced to rely on third-party services to get other countries; I wonder if these routes are selling well, DTG will perhaps try to focus on countries other than UK/US/GER
Ouais, mais tu sais, le W de TSW, c'est surtout par rapport au fait de pouvoir se balader (contrairement à TS où t'étais scotché au siège conducteur). The W in TSW is mainly for the ability to walk around.
They have a base and relationship in those countries. If they had people on the ground in other countries, then it’d be easier to source the content needed to create a route. It’s easier to go the 3rd party route when those people are actually located in the region and can get the source material much easier. The licensing part is just on DTG to work with the rail company and approve putting it on the trains and such.
I also wonder if the routes made by third parties In other countries, this might count as obtaining a license for DTG (in addition to the third party who do the route), or is it only for the third-party team? For example, the Portuguese route where one can see the logo of fertagus
That's not how it works for railroads. Car branding in games works as a form of advertisement because many people need to use cars/trucks but they have an immense amount of choice in which ones they purchase. Once cost and budget are accounted for, there's still a huge number of ways people can make choices based on performance, safety, and appearance, some of which can be demonstrated in games. Car companies also derive all or nearly all of their revenue from sales. Railroads are very different. People don't decide whether or not to take the train to work or to visit other places by how much fun a train is to drive or how it sounds. They decide based on whether it's cheaper, faster, and or more convenient than commuting by car or bus or traveling by car, bus, or plane. Sure some people like being able to take their time traveling and taking in the view, but when the average worker only gets a week or two of PTO a year, you don't really have time to spend an extra day or two on the train for long distance trips. Commuters in Canada don't see DB in game and go "Ooh! I should start taking DB trains!" because they're not in Germany. Someone in Germany is already taking DB if DB meets their commuting needs. The majority of people who commute or travel by train would not have their decision influenced by being able to ride or drive it in a game...that's just us railfans and let's face it: we're a small community and we're already taking the trains as much as we're going to. Even if it did result in a small bump in sales, most railroads are state or government run and only have a portion of their revenue coming from the farebox. So many aren't trying that hard to increase ridership beyond posters and single day events. And freight it really is only valuable to them as a PR move. The companies that hire freight train space only care about where the train goes and how much it costs. Compared to the perceived liability or risk licensing could bring to operators and just straight up paid time to lawyers to negotiate contracts, there's not a huge value add. Some government agencies even prohibit using paid employee time (especially costly ones like lawyers) or resources on anything that isn't related to directly operating or expanding rail operations. So no day out with Thomas for operators in those cities or states. I don't really care whether or not something has branding. I'm on PC so mods will quickly fix that. The only reason I still come out on the side of licensing is that licensing is more than a brand and logo. It's access to railroad property, permission to record sounds, accurate physics info and advice from engineers, rights to use accurate PIS designs, etc. We've seen what happens to US freight because the Class 1s only give branding and no other support--the sounds are wrong, the cabs are set up wrong, the physics are off, schedules and operations are inaccurate, and train systems aren't always simulated properly because DTG had to guess and take creative liberties. That's what I want from licensing. I can take or leave the branding.
Obligatory I'm not a lawyer first of all. It likely depends on each country's copyright law. In the US, it would generally have to be in the written contract for DTG to also have the licensing. If the contract only grants licensing to a third party company incorporated apart from and not a subsidiary of DTG, DTG would not have that license. They'd need to negotiate their own contract. The details may differ state to state though. Some states have some wild departures on contract law.
This is a big reason we don't see branded content from Japan except by Japanese developers. The JR companies are notorious for only granting licensing to non-Japanese companies at extortionate rates. There's also definitely people here in the US that wouldn't work with a British company out of personal principle. Some places don't allow a government agency to sign a contract with a foreign company which is part of why companies like Siemens and Alstom have to build plants here before they can solicit contracts to work on rail projects funded by state or federal money.
MTA is in a particularly powerful position in a post 9/11 NYC. You can get a lot of things handwaved legally especially in NYC if you claim security. The 1st amendment protects freedom of the press in any space open to the public or on government property open to the public, yet PATH is able to ban any type of photography or video in PATH stations or of PATH trains and you will be asked to leave or ticketed, and could potentially be detained and questioned before eventually being released by PAPD or NYPD counter-terror division if you're caught taking pictures and videos of them without approval. No one afaik has successfully beat them in court over it.
In the UK you can very much pick & choose which rail company you travel with, there are people who even opt to fly into mainland Europe & back into the UK. Even outside of the UK, it’s usually possible to opt to rent a car or take a long distance bus etc. Railways have a huge worldwide need to advertise, even companies like DB, which is exactly why they do. Whether advertising is a factor in putting a their brand in game is obviously something for debate, but to say rail operators don’t need to advertise is (for lack of a better word) nonsense. With TSW we’ve seen multiple operators make use of being featured, Amtrak from the US being one & LNER for the UK being another.
What I meant was that even if DTG somehow miraculously obtained the materials needed for construction, perhaps there is a clause in the contract with MTA that the route cannot be released without the company's permission. They simply don't want a metro route to operate. They'll justify it for safety reasons, as it's a tense time. Penalties for using the brand are spelled out in the contract (we're just guessing, none of us have seen it).
I voted "no". If it was a choice between getting my favourite UK and French routes and traction in TSW without branding or not getting them at all because a small section of the player base doesn't like unbranded traction and stations. Then I'll vote for unbranded every single time. It shouldn't stop DTG from trying to get official partner releases though and from a selfish point of view, the area in which I live was serviced by TOCs who were reluctant to enter licencing deals with DTG. Hopefully now they're run by the DfT/GBR shadow operators we will see a few routes that DTG and other developers have wanted to do but were difficult to make without the co-operation of the operators.
Yeah, I live on the ECML and for several of the journeys I take, I usually have an option of taking LNER, Transpennine, Crosscountry, even Lumo. Different rolling stock, ever so slightly different journey times, different stopping patterns, different onboard amenities, and notably different prices if you prebook with a specific operator. Or of course, if I want to pay a bit more for flexibility I can get a ticket that works on all operators. Now, if I want a trip on some of the other branches nearby, I'm pretty much stuck with Northern as they have a monopoly on anything east-west.
We lost any hint of competition back in 2004 when First Great Eastern, Anglia Railways and the Liverpool Street side of WAGN all became "One" (later "National Express East Anglia"). It made a mockery of Privatisation which was originally intended to provide competition. After 8 years of poor reliability, dirty trains and a shortage of suitable rolling stock (anyone remember the 3 car Class 170 London to Ipswich stoppers?) Greater Anglia proved to be a significant upgrade on National Express and now its one of the most reliable TOCs in the country. But "competition" for most of East Anglia was in very short supply.
