Pricing For Tsw Dlcs! [dtg Answered]

Yeah, most won't.

 

I did say I can't prove it lol. But MS aren't to blame. Plenty of other games go on sale regularly

 

How wasn’t it? Length wasn’t what I was meaning

It had reworked class 101, 08, 47
New class 87 with 8 liveries (4 post launch), multiple of them having different stuff on the front + every single nameplate for them for the time period
New freight and passenger stock with multiple liveries
Lastly probably one of the best timetables for the br era content with the sheer amount of layers and stuff using the default stock

 

I'm not, flight sim has its own issues, but it has real competition and products that cover the whole spectrum of buyers. GA aircraft do not get that expensive, you can spend $15 (Maybe less in a few cases) to $30 and get one that's good at that price, even the highest end GA aircraft though aren't that expensive. A2A stuff sells at $40, and they're the best in GA.

Airliners do get that expensive, but then you have a few cheap options, like the PMDG 737-600, which costs less than high end GA aircraft, and as far as I'm concerned is a steal for the quality that actually provides. Fenix also are solid, given that sells for around $60, and is the golden standard that the other airliners get compared. Even talking more expensive ones the value varies, the iniBuilds A350 comes with multiple variants out the box, which are normally separate purchases for other airliners like PMDG or Fenix.

And if you really want cheaper, there's still options, notably the default Airbus' in MSFS are actually great. There's a few good airliners MS have put out that cost only $20, and go for less on sale, I hear the updated 707 they just did for 2024 is amazing for example. There's a lot of variation in depth and pricing in MSFS, something that just isn't really true in TSW.

 

This is exactly how I feel.
People tend to forget that a fair while ago Dovetail Games insisted that in order to develop content to a high standard, a price hike from £24.99 to £29.99 was the only way forward.....and that quality bump never happened.
Now they're saying exactly the same thing with another hike from £29.99 to £32.99....and if you're a console gamer, that quality bump once again won't happen.

I have no issue with price increases (it's the way of the world nowadays), but until the point arises where Dovetail Games can guarantee that premium routes will have £32.99 levels of quality on consoles, they shouldn't even be contemplating any price hikes. They've already said than no console optimisation is going to happen in TSW7 and blurry texture issues are also being carried forward, so all we're getting is more of the same with no end in sight....but with a 10% mark-up for our troubles!

 

Very disappointing that once again there is no discount incentive for PS customers without PS Plus (or whatever it is called) to preorder.

 

Perhaps you should write to them that you get exactly the same number of kilometers on the same amount of gas, which is unfair. However, the electricity supplier may have a trump card, what if your outlet used to be 230V, and now it's 235V or even 240V. Oh, that alternating current...

 

I'm not really sure what you're trying to say here

 

I certainly feel that the recent prices are high.
While bugs are being fixed, the problem is that issues involving smaller details are being left unaddressed.
・Floating objects in mid-air
・Issues with passenger behavior (crossing tracks, constantly hovering in mid-air, sticking to the cab window of a moving train, etc.)
・Scenarios that cannot be completed due to insufficient instructions
・Missing signals at certain locations
At first glance, these might not seem to hinder actual train operations, but we users enjoy TSW in many different ways. Yet, these issues cause frustration. It feels wrong for a purchased product not to function correctly across the board.
If there are 100 scheduled services in Timetable Mode but only 98 can actually be driven, something is clearly amiss.
If bugs in existing routes were fixed—perhaps during the annual update cycle—wouldn't that help calm everyone's anger?
In other railway simulators I know, bug fixes happen much faster.
I am keeping a close eye on how the developer handles these bugs.

 

Some of these bugs and glitches are hold overs from far older versions of TSW as well. This series is almost ten years old, but there are still things from that original release, such as passenger behaviour, that haven't been fully fixed yet.

 

I also had a little look on Microsoft's marketing site and the information wasn't massively dissimilar. However, as I mentioned in my comment there is an NDA publishers sign with Microsoft, so probably other factors at play as well.

 

Apologies for hijacking the thread,but is there any chance of an update on the issues on consoles,blurry textures crashing,or a timeline of when they might be fixed.Any news is much appreciated.

 

No need to hijack this thread, there are other threads talking about such things:
https://forums.dovetailgames.com/threads/blurryness.98591/
https://forums.dovetailgames.com/th...-absence-of-details-for-console-issues.99160/

 

ok.

 

This isn't the case of it being this simple, speaking as a dev.

 

Factorio as an example is in fact more support for the idea that sales are more a matter of a publisher-side decision than a platform-side one, since the devs have an official policy that their game never goes on sale.

 

Not really.
All it means is that one dev doesn't like to do sales.
That says nothing about how easy or difficult it is to push a sale on the platform.

 

It does say the platform holder cannot force you to, though. As if something like that needed to be said. The publisher says no sales, there are no sales. I assume this is very basic stuff in the contract, since the publisher could always choose to revoke the store's rights to host it if they tried to..

 

I guess. I never really thought that was a thing though. I always figured it was up the publisher to have sales.... but only at the convenience of the platform. (Kind of like how Steam encourages their regular themed sales)
I looked at it more as a "both sides must agree for a sale to happen" logical argument arrangement.
The publisher has to say "I want a sale" and the platform says "here's the available windows we are doing sales in."
Also I highly doubt the platform is going to lower their cut in a "sale", all the loss is going to have to be eaten by the developer.
If anyone has actually gone through this process with one of the major platforms it might be helpful to the conversation though, as we can only go on guesses without having seen the actual agreements.

 

Best we have to go on as an indicator are the statistics on websites that track sale histories for a platform, where indies tend to get about 4 sales a year on xbox, AA studios' stuff tends to be 5-6, and AAAs more like 7. From which we can probably infer they have an easier time negotiating with bigger publishers where the platform and the publisher both have dedicated staff for that.

 

I believe with Xbox depending on how big your studio you get a set amount of Tokens which you can then go onto the

But that contact has to approve the sale as well so MS does in end have final say.

You have to pitch your sale to the content.

If there is another publisher or tentpole sale for games not in your category during the dates requested you can be denied.

So not every date is available and your restricted to certain slots.

 

Somehow I can justify (for myself) to spend EUR 40 on a good and interesting route. While I think the qualtiy needs to be better and more stuff should be included with routes, the amount of time I spend on a route, can justify the price. But this is not the case for every route, there are a lot of routes just not worth the price of 36 or 40 EUR for me personally. Especially not when it means I have to buy other routes to get some layers or a loco DLC. For example Five Cirle Line, I think the route concept is fine and the included train ok, however to see some different trains, you need Scotrail Express and I have zero interest in that route and train. You can also buy the class 158, but that costs you another 16 euro. So in the end, for me this route is not worth the 36 or 40 EUR price tag. I also can't remember a good sale on Xbox for this route, so I never bought it and probaly never will, unless it's dirt cheap.

This brings me also on the price tag of 18 or 20 EUR for loco DLCs. First of all, I really need to like the base route, secondly I also need to like the loco DLC itself. So in the end, the chance I will spend 18 - 20 EUR is small, because most of the time it's not worth it for me. This 18 - 20 EUR is also already half the amount to spend on my next route, so one loco for half the price of a complete route is just poor value for money.

If I look at the TSW7 pre-order prices, I can justify to spend 45 EUR for the standard edition, it gives me 2 interesting routes to play (I don't play any US stuff), however spending 72 EUR for the luxe edition just feels not right, the total package price exceeds the amount of money I want to spend. This is a feeling of not being worth the money for me, but also the fact I'm almost never play ICE services and I have more interest in the class 331 then in the class 333. So maybe I will buy the class 333 and the ICE4 in the future with a good discount, just to make the routes complete.

So in conclusion, raising the prices, most likely mean I will even buy less stuff for full price then I already did. Or, I will not buy it at all, because the price tag just feels to high for what you get and additional content is needed. The question is, will DTG earn extra money because of the higher price tag, or are they gonna loose sales, because people are gonna wait for discounts. There is a very thin line what feels like a fair price and what not and then we even didn't talk about what people can spend with the raising prices for everything.

 

That’s exactly what bothers me about a lot of DLCs.
If I buy Route A, do I then have to buy DLCs B, C and D as well, so that Route A has everything it needs, and so that the route is better stocked with trains and carriages?

And that’s why I find these annual new releases from TSW so annoying, because most of the new customers DTG attracts through them aren’t even aware of the whole issue with the nested DLCs.

I also think the prices for TSW2, TSW3 and TSW4 DLCs are simply too high. How can it be that DTG is still selling TSW2 or TSW3 routes or locomotives at the same price as back then?
Some of these DLCs are already 4 to 6 years old, so DTG should really be offering them at a lower price, rather than still charging the price from 5 years ago today.
Because, in my view, that’s really just a rip-off!

 

An excellent (imo) example of this would be something like the NEC: New York to Trenton - A TSW2 era route, with some of the oldest and un-updated content and still on sale for $44.95 aud, right next to the Morristown Line for $10ish more (and also has an ALP and coaches) or even the glossop line, which despite being the birthplace of the guard mode idea *still* doesnt have it OR updted suspension on the MGP Class 323.

 

And as console player, if you finally got all the needed routes for the layers, it turns out you have blurry textures.

And indeed, the older routes and loco DLCs should have a permanent price drop. I still can't forget about the BR 1442 (Rapid Transit) needed for Leipzig - Dresden, 30 EUR for a broken route, with a broken outdated train. I said it already before, but for Dresden - Leipzig they should have included an updated BR 1442 with the route. The way they did it now and with the price of Rapid Transit, I would indeed call this a rip-off. Another example is static stock, for the Dutch route, you need RSN + BR155 add-on, just for a few freight wagons on the sidings near Haren, I would call that a rip-off too. Those wagons just should be included with the route.

 

ny-trenton is a TSW3 era route

 

There is an argument to be made that its value hasn't decreased over time, though. Northern Transpennine from TSW2020 is largely the same as Northern Transpennine today (except for a few Preservation Crew updates), so you'd be getting the same content regardless of when you bought it.

If there are game-breaking and unfixable bugs, however, that's a different story. (I think there's a scenario on Tees Valley Line that can't be completed) and may be worth a temporary drop in price. Since you can't play as much as you would have been able to previously.

 

It's pretty normal, games are getting cheaper when they are older. Same applies to books, movies and music for example. Also, when routes can be cheaper at a sale, why not lower the price permanently? Those routes are simple not up to today's standards anymore and yes a lot of routes still have (game-breaking) bugs.

 

To be fair, Run 8 have the same pricing policy - none of their older stuff is discounted and made worse by the fact they never have any sort of sale offers.

 

I don't think this policy is smart, because you have the early adopters, paying full price. After that, sales will decline and with a lower price you will attract other buyers, who otherwise just don't spend money (full price) on your product.

 

Depends on the type of stuff, some older stuff is more expensive than the newer stuff and the opposite
One of the book series I like is like this where the “newest” is the most expensive, the rest series costed £10 but this has been 80 to 160 for years

 

I've argued for a long time that older content should be delisted from sale and added to the core package on a regular schedule. Maybe 5 years from original release?

So, for example, TSW7 would include all content from TSW2 and before, TSW8 would be the same up through TSW3, etc.

It would make the process of buying DLC more inviting to newcomers- I'd wager there are quite a few potential buyers who really like a particular TSW7 route, but look at the layer requirements and are like, "nah, I'm not spending $200 on 5 old routes I don't really want just to get the full experience."

It should theoretically also improve performance by reducing the total number of DLC mounted at any given time. My quick count has something like 40 DLC released prior to TSW3 launch.

The only downside for players that I can see would be an increased file size for the core game.

 

There are many issues with this. It would indeed increase the size of the core game and force players to have a huge download that could easily contain a lot of gigabytes of routes they just don’t want. Players who only want German routes don’t want to be forced to have their storage taken up by lots of UK and US routes they will never play. That’s a big problem on consoles more than on PC where storage is unlimited and it would quickly get out of hand.

It would also reduce DTG’s income. It would also reduce third party developers’ income. By quite a lot, too. I think there would even be a fair few people who would just let their game get bigger and bigger with the free older DLC getting folded into the core each year and never actually buy anything. They’d be five years behind the curve but they would have an almost totally free train sim with a lot of very playable content, the content other players had to spend hundreds or even thousands of pounds, dollars or euros to buy.

As it is now, players do buy all that old content and the growing number of old DLCs for newer players to binge buy, either at full price or in sales, is a big part of the business model. It would be madness to just give away all the old content.

 

Nonsense, games get well over 100GB's for mainstream titles, I think Call of Duty actually gets over 200 in a few entries recent entries. The idea people would turn down FREE content just for storage space is just silly, I have probably around half the TSW DLC and last I check it was just about 300GB's You could easily remain under 100GB's with a more curated set of DLC. And if you included routes with a lot of layer reuse that would actually help a lot, since you would not need to include certain locomotives all the time, since you could pull them from the core content included.

And if storage space needs to remain low, there's ways of allowing certain content to be selectively installed, MSFS already does this. That said, again, ideal the base content should be stuff with enough layer use possible that you'll actually want to keep them installed.

Statements like this reminds me of MSFS2020 and people complaining that including a high fidelity earth would kill scenery makers, which proved to be very wrong. MSTS2 has similar complaints back in the day, even though that never came out I don't think it's unfair to assume that the World of Rails would not have pulled that off with 2009 tech either.

At the end of the day, content in this game should be getting bigger and better overtime. In the same way including a actually decent A310, 20, and 30 hasn't killed PMDG or Fenix, including older content really shouldn't hurt this game including old routes that are no longer selling much anyways.

DTG's actions do not support this, old content gets abandoned constantly be them for years at a time. Routes that did get updated usually also had some other circumstances that was driving new sales. GWE & WSR are the closest exceptions, and are great, but they're only in that state because Liam wanted to do them. No indication that those really would've been financial success if they actually had to earn money.

The fact they have to sell a reskin of a 37 to fund something like NTP really suggest the revenue from new sales of existing routes themselves must be poor. If WSR did well on its own DTG would be remastering routes left and right just to drive backlog sales, but they aren't. Having routes like Sand Patch & Northern Trans-Pennine as base routes (Meaning to the level of being included with the free starter pack) would actually drive a lot more revenue. Since people would actually have content they could try the game in earnest on, as opposed to training center which is just a glorified demo.

 

Run8 is different in a sense that they have a relatively limited collection of stuff that they maintain and keep close to their modern standards. So if someone buys an old DLC now, it's not really outdated so the devs can also still charge a full price for it.

 

For me, they don't have to give away older DLC for free. I also don't want them to include all this old content in the core of the game, as it increase loading times and used storage.

I prefer they include updated versions of excisting trains with newer routes, so they match todays standards. The same goes for freight wagons, just include them with routes, so you don't have to rely on old routes, you actually don't want to buy or not want to have installed.

The worst is when you need an old loco add-on, so you first need to buy the old route and then the loco add-on itself.

So in conclusion, I prefer to see updated old trains included with newer routes, so you buy a more complete package and don't have to use outdated stuff. If they want to continue the layer mess situation, at least lower the price of this old stuff.

 

Most games come with base content, you can't buy ATS without Cali, Nevada, and Arizona, you can't buy MSFS without the base aircraft and world either. And honestly, those games are better off that way, you have a common point of reference for certain things that all other content pulls from. Third parties have standard foliage and aircraft systems they can pull from that they can just use with their aircraft and scenery. That both helps on development time and system resources, it takes less time to develop systems, and it saves on space since you actually don't need multiple copies for every add-on.

On the use of old content, there's a obvious solution, actually update content older than two months old, The games I mention have done that, they're not just letting base game content rot. And I will point out, if they didn't have to do all this nonsense with making separate versions for each route and having to QA those they'd probably have time to update things like the Sand Patch versions of those engines. Which in turn benefits both the people who want that route, and any route that uses its engines afterward. The way things are adds a ton of bloat that overtime makes updates for singular routes less and less likely.

 

There is one big difference between MSFS, ATS/ETS and TSW. MSFS and ATS/ETS are massive open world games, while TSW is a "small" world per route.

Because of this open world, those other games have a different approach. It's actually a plus for TSW, you can just install the starter pack (core) + one route and you can drive that route, without the need to install stuff you don't want.

The only thing I want to see for TSW is a more complete package, so routes are even more standalone.

 

This whould be really great for straighting out all that clutter of "10x the same trains but each of those has different quality / issues / features and you have to remember which has what" - then, if one gets an update / fix, it applies globally and not just this specific iteration of that train from this specific route.

 

I'm not sure why it's a plus for TSW because by playing just one route as and when you fancy, all you're really doing is installing the game in smaller chunks over a greater period of time. Also, if it's a storage saving process then I own everything bar a couple of paint scheme packs for ATS and last time I checked it weighed in at around 47gb (which isn't a huge amount nowadays) and when I want to choose a journey I don't have install anything else, I just start the game and the entire map is mine to use with no more more location or asset loading.
Sure, I still encounter loading screens when entering my garage, visiting a repair shop or using fast travel, but considering the infrequency of those events it's hardly an inconvenience having to wait 30 seconds every few hours.

 

I’ve got to disagree with you on that again.
If a new user buys TSW 7 now – let’s say the Deluxe version –

And then if they want to drive the German route from Nuremberg to Würzburg, they certainly won’t get much enjoyment out of it. Because they’re missing about 10 to 20 layers, which are then also missing from the route.

And if they’re not familiar with the layer system at all, how many times do you think they’ll drive this German route?
Because it’ll basically be almost empty of trains and carriages.

 

The reason for this, per Matt a while back, is that if a single loco "module" was used, then any change to that loco would have to be tested in every route it touched. Keeping each route a self-contained ecosystem prevents that need. Basically, seems like DTG had to make a six-of-one choice, and this is the decision they made. With the increased number of third party routes and unpredictability of those parties' future participation (or even existence), that seems like the right call now.

 

For that reason I said I want to see more complete packages. So less layers, more complete routes. Those old trains from TSW, TSW2020 and TSW2, really need some updates anyway, lighting, sounds, PIS and suspension for example.

Including the old stuff without updates in the core does not solve the problem, but including updated versions with new routes does. If I see how much disk space TSW is already consuming, I don't own all routes, I have not installed any US route and have only installed 2 routes from the pre TSW3 era. So if they include more trains with a route, there is no need for installing old DLC for only layers and the core of the game stays small.

 

Your point about new players not understanding the layering system is right on the money imo.

I'm a pretty hardcore player in that I buy almost all the DLC and follow the game pretty closely on the forums and elsewhere and I don't totally understand how layering and substitution work. I'm not convinced the devs themselves completely understand it- watching the preview streams, when questions about layers come up it's very often answered with, "well i THINK so", or, "we'll need to double-check that".

So I can't even imagine how bewildering it is to a completely new player.

 

I remember him saying this and I still don't really understand how the answer makes any sense.

Shouldn't the underlying physics or rules of the game world be identical from route to route? So why would a change to an individual component on a loco need to be tested so granularly?

Like, for a completely made-up example, let's say the game-wide GP-38 model has it's HP tweaked slightly- shouldn't that change play out indentically across every route that it appears on? They all use the same values for force of gravity, rolling friction, adhesion, etc. They all use the same system for generating ambient temperature, precipitation, wind, etc.

Or are those things really not consistent across TSW? And then, isn't that just a poor design that leads to continued poor design?

All I know is when I go to drive certain trains, and there are literally a dozen copies and I have to try to remember which one is the "good" version, I get really annoyed with the game.

 

I get what you mean but at this point with all the layers ect. it's save to say the routes are anything but self-contained ecosystems.
"then any change to that loco would have to be tested in every route it touched" - I actually think, they should be.

 

Go drive a newer loco with suspension on MSB and you will be seasick. They added new stuff to the game, changed stuff like PIS, lighting and so on, so not everything is that well compatable. To be honest, I think it was better when they ended the game after the TSW2 era and made a fresh start with TSW3. The older trains needed for newer routes, could be ported over with new stadards and you never have to lool back.

 

I would point out IL-2's way of doing things, which is basically that the DLC's are just tokens to access the content. The game has everything downloaded, and when you fight or fly on maps you don't own you still get to use and see them as seen fit. For the record, other multiplayer games are similar when they do paid content, it is not worth the hassle of dividing up player bases for these games for the sake of space and a few bucks.

Now as for DLC in single player, the way that works is you need to own the maps, so in that regard it is more strict. But the actual AI uses the full set of planes, so again, even aircraft you don't own still appear as they should. Realistically that is probably what DTG should do, the maps don't matter so much. But they should make the core trains freebies that everyone has, so that all routes can pull from the same sets of trains, and benefits from updates when they happen.

 

There are many versions of adhesion, lighting, PIS, dispatcher, etc ... Each route keeps the version there was at the time it was made (with the exception of remasters/preserved routes).

 

Yeah, that all makes sense. I'd still maybe argue those are things they should have anticipated since the business model for train sims (MSTS, Railworks, TSW, etc) has always relied on an ever expanding collection of DLC add-ons, so it's not exactly a new problem.

I also wonder what would have happened if the original TSW2 release (without support for prior content) had gone forward. Would things be better or worse now? We'll never know