Stop developing new routes and trains, until you fix the major playability problems with existing DLCs. Stop and think about the reputation you're starting to build. I sell enterprise software, and this kind of state would be an inflection point toward bankruptcy. Getting new customers at the cost of incomplete releases is a short term strategy. Guess it helps there isn't much competition.
I agree to some extent, but the DLC is how DTG fund the game. The alternative N3V approach where you either pay a monthly subscription to use Trainz or have to stump up £55 every couple of years for the so called new version, is not a business model I would want DTG to adopt. However I do feel all the recorded long term issues should (save game, night lighting, sound reverb etc.) should have a dedicated section in the roadmap and be addressed each time it is updated, even if the news is “no news”.
would result in Having to pay all the creative staff to do nothing while the technical staff fix the technical issues, which will still take a long time, will result in a serious cashflow issue, a much quicker way to go out of business than a small amount of damage to reputation caused by some imperfections in the current product.
Let’s see, DTG’s business model has sustained the Train Simulator franchise for well over a decade and has funded a substantial growth in the size of the company and though the product is definitely not perfect by any stretch of the term, I feel both TS and TSW are the best of the available choices currently in the market, so I guess I have to disagree with the OP’s take that the approach will only last for the short term… unless a decade is considered short term
Ok, you made some good points. I may have been a bit too harsh in judgement, after some drinks and getting stuck on a penalty stop. I'm not trying to be too negative and do like this game, and see lots of potential. I think you did hit the key point in that these are the best choices in this genre. It's possible to be cynical and knowing there are no choices, focus on more revenue from DLCs than bugs, because customers don't have other options.. so just enough to be better than the 2nd place. I don't really have any reason to doubt that the developers are well intentioned and they do try to make good quality. Now as to decade of business strategy.. they bought and continued development of existing games with an existing user base. Both RailSimulator and then the obsolete Microsoft Flight Simulator X. Considering Microsoft was planning the next generation of Flight Sim, I'm sure they sold this off relatively cheaply. Not sure what kind of future there was with a soon to be obsolete game code, other than pulling some remaining profit from a huge user base and years of mods. After selling a bunch of repacked content and expanding distribution through Steam and XBox, that venture ended after 3 years. I haven't played many versions of the Train Simulator series, and they seemed to have carried on and made additions and improvements. Since this was a stable codebase, their focus was on DLCs and distribution through Steam. Again, this was an existing user base, with no other real options. I won't judge that series as I have no real experience with it. Their first actually new game was Euro Fishing, which was console oriented from the start. Console gaming is where the real profit lies. Less demanding users, large market and no demand for mods. By nature, console games cannot be platform games with an open ecosystem for 3rd parties. With TrainSimWorld, they continued into the 2nd new core.. while utilizing the same methods as before. UnrealEngine opened console market, where the real revenue is. That's the primary motivation of TrainSimWorld. Granted it is more modern and allows more future capability as well. With now having a new immature core to maintain, and DLC sales expectation inertia, they are getting squeezed with limited resources. PC users coming from TrainSimulator have different expectation than new XBox customers. These are more realism focused users than arcade style XBox ones. But there are higher numbers in XBox. I could be wrong, since I don't have the data, but I would guess there are or expect to be more console customers, with more profit, hence higher priority. This allows growth, the magic word in investment. Supporting hardcode PC simulation enthusiasts, is a much lower new user max limiting growth without making choices in new revenue streams. So, point taken. Their strategy may have been correct under previous circumstances. They seemed to have built a business out of acquiring existing code and users, and expanding revenue through Steam and XBox. Is this destined for success.. maybe so, but primarily due to no competition and console users. It's the same reason Microsoft returned to Flight Sim, with XBox releases for the first time, and large potential user base, of less demanding players. I'm glad, because it will give XPlane some healthy competition. I see a PC oriented, platform model as the more appropriate method for detailed realistic simulator games. Developing high quality core platform, enabling and supporting 3rd party addons, and ensuring a healthy ecosystem of content. For trains the hardcore market may not be big enough to have a high enough revenue ceiling to make it worthwhile. The founders would really need to like trains. But I could certainly wish for it.. hence my little New Years wish upon a star.
Well, there certainly were (and are) other options: Run-8, Zusi, Densha De Go, Derail Valley and Trainz just for starters.
I'd replace the arcade Densha De Go with OpenRails, but yes this is true. Each overlap with the feature set but do tend to appeal to different players. Run-8 which I haven't seen before, appeals to the hardcore train simmer. At the expense of top graphics and varied global content. Small company stared by train enthusiast developers from Railworks back in 2009. Actually might get this, as it appeals to me most. Zusi all German, Derail for VR arcade style, and Trains originating from model train modeling and creating your own routes, but more for watching. To me TrainSimulator most defines a simulator which hits all the main points but not overly niche. So let me be fair, and accept that there are other options, but more niche. Also, I don't want to assert that DTG is being lazy due to less direct competition, but allows them to get away with releasing more bugs without losing customers too much. After all, I still find TSW to be the best option for me. Though, thanks for your Run-8 suggestion, maybe not completely. When there are more arcade level players on console, graphics and ease of play and controls is more important than fully and correctly simulating systems and processes. The hardcore sim gamers will be on PC, so a priority has to be made. So they created a bit of a diverging demographic user base, which are impossible to fully please both, so you have to balance and compromise. As with Microsoft FlighSim 2021, they brought in more players at the expense of meeting demands of the more hardcore simmers. Thought in their case, there is a healthy add-on developer ecosystem which will fill in that realism gap, whereas with DTG there isn't as much. The errors we are seeing, suggest that not enough functionality was generalized in the core. Creating a tighter coupling, leading to route details needing fixing with core updates, and traffic logic being implemented in add-ons.. This is my impression but could be wrong, as I don't know the internals. Returning to original brief suggestion of less new content and more work on existing problems.. That was certainly a bit hyperbole, but am suggesting a rebalancing of priorities. If DTG can't sustain itself without constant DLC revenue which is in effect operating as a Ponzi scheme, then they either need investment or they are doing something wrong. Best case they underestimated the challenge of new platform and are trying to keep new release promises at the same time. Or are not able to manage the financial aspects of the business well. I'm looking forward to getting into Sand Patch, and may get Cane Creek and Harlem line. But will also consider Run-8 if the playability frustrations are a consistent presence with all DLCs.
This probably needs to go into the suggestions forum alongside considering as to whether you are able to financially prop the company up Until such time you feel they are commercially able to release dlc again. Personally I'm more or less happy that a lot of things are already in hand on the roadmap and that the release of more dlc (or independent route games, however you look at them) keep people in a job so they can continue to produce.
Dovetail have seperate teams with different expertise. Bug fixing is one of them, route and loco building are other ones. There are also a lot of people on console who don't wish to go ahead and get a pc just for TSW - just a thought. The only reasons I haven't moved from Xbox to PC are that my PC would give me a lesser experience and that I would have to rebuy my collection. I'm sure many others are in a similar situation, or don't have a pc to begin with. There is already a mix of arcade and simulator anyway; you can turn safety systems on and off as you please on most trains, the HUD can be enabled/disabled, to have more simple or realistic experience. Most routes are playable. In their current state. There may be issues with safety systems and whatnot, however until it's fixed it's just something we all have to deal with. There are three factors at hand that I know of, which play into this: 1. Diagnosing - Dovetail's teams have to be able to replicate and understand the issue. 2. Priority - More "minor" bugs are sidelined for the major ones. 3. Fixing - The fixing of the issue can take time, like the Xbox sound issue, for example. 4. Testing & Release - There can be (as there has been for months now) a huge testing Backlog, delaying releases significantly. - Worth noting that new DLC take priority there. I'm all for dovetail looking at a focus on bug fixes, however, is it really practical?
This is a standard process for software development. The development process it cyclical and branched. First, every software company I worked at, the teams were arranged by functional grouping of the function. Front end, back end, and here modeling, physics, etc.. There isn't a specific bug fixing team, but is usually left to the developer of that area to fix their own code. Besides that, you plan teams around the purpose and goals not the other way around. Planning to devote time to that is part of the balancing choices. Too little new stuff and just perfecting what you have will make things stagnant, but you do reach a satisfactory level of quality. It's never 100%, and actually shouldn't be. In terms of customer feedback, I've worked with both sales and post sales with software customers. This feedback is the primary method of judging your progress and direction. These factors you describe are correct. But it's all just part of the process and every development team deals with these normally. When you say putting more focus may not be practical, it's like putting the cart before the horse. You organize your teams to achieve goals and decide on priorities and resource focus as needed. Putting a developer on bug fixing tasks for a couple weeks, on pause from their new stuff, is not a problem. It happens all the time. I've done it myself as well. It's all about judgment of how to balance the focus. There is no practical problem with even temporarily fixing more bugs on releases. This is why I'm a bit frustrated, because software is not like a car factory where you can't change processes. Software developers don't like working at companies that don't give them enough time to feel satisfied with the work they complete. Additionally, I'm hoping it's not the business pressure driving it too far forward, without bringing up the rear. And I hope their bug count to new release count ratio gets a little lower. IMO Let me also say, I know I've been focusing on all the negatives. And it's because I understand how it works, that I say these. But yes, I continue to play and will continue to enjoy the game. As to playability, it's a bit subjective, but yes, you can finish the scenarios. To me, it's about how much an issue takes me out of the simulation mindset. I don't want to have to deal with the "game", and would rather have fewer systems and processes implemented than broken ones. I still find the immersion great with the routes I played in TSW. Finally, I realize there isn't an absolute allowed bugs level. I just made a little suggestion for a little New Years gift of dedicated bug fixing. I wasn't actually expecting that to happen. They have plans and things I don't know about. As one of you said here, I'll actually try to engage more properly in the suggestions forums and file or check bugs through proper channels.
All things considered, the only real way, as far as I can tell for content to be launched with better overall polish is for them to be in development longer. I feel that the only way to do that whilst maintaining the same (or greater) cash-flow is to have multiple teams working on more content concurrently, to allow each piece to stay in development longer without slowing the release schedule, which is what DTG are moving towards. Something else to consider is that the more money DTG make from TSW2, then the more resources they can allocate towards endeavours that do not necessarily generate profit such as the preservation crew. Though the only I would suggest that the only way to reliably make more money in this business is to sell more.
And that apparently is exactly what DTG are doing now, for precisely that reason. Matt in the last or last but one stream said that they now have two, not one, route-building teams, working in tandem, and that Sherman Hill and Dresden-Chemnitz were in development concurrently, a first for TSW. He said, specifically, that one reason for doing this is that the longer a route spends in development the more it 'matures.' If one leaves out added staff (which in actuality DTG have hired), consider the difference between having ten people who develop Route A beginning to end over X weeks, and then turn to Route B and develop it in X weeks; and having two teams of five developing A and B in parallel over 2X weeks.
