Just wanted to tease out a bigger discussion on a topic that was touched on in the 'Disconnected/unfinished Routes' thread - what are the perceived current limitations of route building as we understand them? Length (in either actual miles or track miles), number of maximum units that can be used (AI or playable), etc. etc. What makes a route suggestion currently reasonable vs unreasonable? I realise there could be a range of answers to this, so for example: I'd love to see South London Network from TSC appear in some iteration here - we have the units, for the sake of argument DTG still has the Southeastern license, and the length is similar to/shorter than a lot of the current routes. Would this kind of route in TSW be able to handle the amount of traffic though? So beyond further LAMPOIL-ing, what physical properties would draw the line? I'll add that I am in no way a route builder or indeed interested in building one - for me personally, this is more for my own understanding or to guide any future suggestions I may make in the future to stop them from being wildly off the mark in terms of feasibility.
Thing is, it's a more complex equation than length on its own. A skilled route builder could, in theory, probably knock out the Far North Line from Inverness to Wick (161 miles) in more or less the same time as it takes to do London to Brighton. But while such a route, set in the more interesting loco hauled period, might appeal to people like me, three trains a day in each direction plus a bit of freight isn't a strong selling point. Take that same 160 miles and transport it into the south of England and/or the Midlands and it would be something like Paddington to Swansea which is going to take far longer to build.
I think also hardware limitations maybe. I don't know. But believe that would be a factor and sheer manpower. You would need a lot of people dedicated. Which means maybe crunching.
Number of stations too. Because you can walk around in TSW, you need a lot more detail. You also need more NavMesh or whatever the UE equivalent is (ie places NPCs and the player can walk). The lighting system within stations is also completely different.
I think it's ultimately a combination of factors (some already mentioned) with any of them being a limitation depending on the nature of the route: - Length just in terms of how much track to build - Number of services and trains to include - Number of stations - The complexity of the tracks and signalling (there's just a big difference between a 4 track and a 2 track line) - Scenery seems to have been cited a lot in recent discussions particularly in the context of the Mildmay line announcement and the problems with WCMLS. Big difference between having to model complex and varied urban scenery rather than being able to use the same grass and tree assets for miles and miles driving through the countryside.
This is where the community can come together and improve the game. Out there, there must be people who are good at some of the following, but are not good in other areas • Track Laying • Train Modelling • Station Modelling • Scenery • Timetable Creation • Signal Placing • Scenario Creation Now what we need is for those people to come together and between them create the routes and trains that people want. We have seen what can happen, with the ‘One man bands’ coming on board as 3rd Parties, such as Mildmay Line and the Esk Valley line, and people like Fawx being involved with new timetables from DTG like the updated WCML one. I’ll be the first to admit that whilst I can start creating timetables in the Editor, I don’t get very far with them, as something invariably goes wrong along the line, and trains get stuck, and wouldn’t be any good in the other areas, but I’d be willing to give it a go with others and try and get a timetable for an EP or a new route out there.
It's been said before that theoretically, they could build a 200 mile route if they really wanted to, but there are other factors involved that limit that. A 30 mile route in an urban landscape requires more detail than a 30 mile route in open countryside.
I remember around the time GWE came out, Matt said they could've taken it all the way to Penzance, "but we'll see you in 10 years"
Limitation is the DTG shareholders. They set a release date deadline for content, and any developer who disagrees gets fired... So they keep their mouth shut and rush the DLC out on the date ordered. Colonel Failure (used to work for DTG) talked about this in one of his recent ETS2 YouTube videos.... But don't ask me exactly which video it was, it was a while back so you'll have to watch them yourself to find it.
Is it those same shareholders that then sometimes delay releases? I think I watched all of those videos, but don't remember him referencing this. While I don't want to believe it, that cry for help on the East Coast Mainline in the cafe that sold the 'DTG all-nighter' coffee...
Length = time. "2 miles a week" is what one dev says was the target for moderately developed rural lines- that goes exponential in an urban setting, and doesn't include stations and switchyards which are extremely labor intensive. So, yes, in theory we could have 100 mile routes. If we can accept one release every year and a half.
I fear you are right, but routes like this are part of the railway network and should be represented in my opinion. You would think from TSW releases that the average UK route was urban and electrified.
They exist. Just most players won't buy them. They've done their market research and are making what sells. Before someone says it again, note that we're talking TSW in particular, which has a much different player base focus than TSC. TSW player tastes tend to skew modern and urban. So that's what is generally made. Time is also a limitation. Claiming it's because "there's not a good save feature" (not getting into that), players say they don't want routes they can't do in one (short) sitting. Bottom line is the "limitation" on longer routes is the player base mostly not wanting them. Shap is an exception.... and not made by DTG. Just Trains is taking the risk there, not DTG.
Most likely because, unless a third party steps in, that's all they'll get. DTG never gave the BR Blue market (or any market that doesn't scream modern) a chance. They released the last BR Blue route in TSW2, and it would've stayed that way had JT not joined as a 3rd party, which happened 2 TSWs later, and even then they're only producing one route per year.
Which BR blue route was released in TSW2? I only know of Northern Transpennine and Tees Valley Line from TSW2020.
Spirit of Steam was released for TSW2. Does that count as BR blue? NTP and TVL were definitely Preserved Collection.
That isn't altogether true wrt Germany, where Bremen and LFR are set in the past, and the 111 and 218, while still used today, certainly don't "scream modern"
Putting the horse before the cart. Sales are higher for modern routes. Older routes were made before. They just don't get the sales. It sucks being in the minority (because I really like older routes more) but that's business. If third parties are willing to do the "blue" content, then it's "safer" investment for DTG to stick to the modern, urban passenger stuff that generates the most profit.
In regards to route length restrictions, surely that’s not a problem as routes like WCML and ECML could be fully built but just released in sections. I’d like to see added Kings Cross to Peterborough and some point in the future Doncaster to Newcastle perhaps. Eventually we could end up with the full line split between 4 or 5 dlc’s.
I reluctantly accept the financial reality of route building in TSW at around a 50 mile limit. It must be feasible to build the WCML route from Euston to Wolverhampton, or Stafford and beyond, or any other extended route, in modules, something I would certainly buy. The problem is that it would mean no other route could be built for the year or more it might take to complete all sections and what will happen to revenue from the loss of sales to those who have no interest in that route (and erosion of user base). So development by DTG alone would mean a very long hiatus between modules. Third parties could be the savior here - ATS has been working (interminably it seems) on just this in TSC. The point being that third parties might be able to make the revenue/overhead equation work, since passion often seems to outweigh economic considerations! DTG could maybe make it possible to route hop service to service very smoothly, but it means all modules would have to be set in the same time frame and timetable. None of this of course answers the discussion of modern/older - I doubt there is an answer to that.
No. Focus is the parent company, not the shareholders. I don't think you fully understand how shares and investments work.
The ONLY reason shareholders invest in companies is to make money, so of course they are interested in what Focus, Dovetail, and every other part of the company is doing. I'm really sorry, but that is the most asinine statement you could have made.
The average shareholder is not going to pay attention to the DLC release schedule of one of Focus' subsidiaries.
Shareholders do not generally micromanage the companies they have holdings in; that is what they pay executives for.
Wait... you're making the claim. So you have to prove your point. Prove that there are "shareholders" that are "telling them what to do" first.
It's been stated in many different places by different DTG members. When asked why there wasn't more "BR stuff" or "early diesel" or "steam" they variously replied that older stuff doesn't sell as well. If you don't believe it, that's fine. However, you're bound to continue to be disappointed and confused as to why. In any case, there's no technical reason you can't have longer routes. The "limits" are time/labor/money and audience. As with most things.
Older stuff don't sell, my arse. That is like Lotus saying saloon cars don't sell: if you don't offer them up then you aren't going to sell any. The fact that JT have put their TSW income for the year on BR Blue says a lot, there clearly is a demand there when it is done correctly to a high standard. Unless you have conducted a study/have a study proving what you say about BR blue not selling then your comment on it is no more valid than any other.
That's their "thing" though. I never said NO ONE would buy it. Just that DTG focuses on the console player and the 80% majority. Hence they focus on it. And there WERE older routes. It's not as if no routes were ever sold. Look, believe it or not. Up to you. It's either they're following the money and making what makes money..... or they're lying for no reason and making less money because "everyone really wants old BR stuff." Now which is likelier? That new routes sell better? Or that they are intentionally losing out on money with BR and lying to you for no reason? I can't see any support for the latter position, but believe it if makes you feel better. I'm not disagreeing that I'd PREFER more older and BR stuff. However, I also see what many of the younger player base on consoles are posting on social media and it's modern, urban passenger stuff from TSW. To paraphrase several of them "I don't want to drive stuff that was made before I was born." If trains are anything like music, people tend to form their attachments early in life around what they grew up with, so it only makes sense that over time we'll see "newer" and newer stuff, especially given that young people overwhelmingly prefer consoles today and TSW was made especially for consoles. (Whereas TSC still supplies much content for PC only, and that crowd skews older) You don't have to like it or agree. Just making a marketing observation as a grey beard myself with business experience. It's not just trends unique to TSW. They're similar across the video game industry. Getting old sucks. However, I'm reminded every day that the 1974 was 50 years ago. Even a 25 year old with an XBox wasn't around before 1999. It makes sense he's going to be familiar with trains after 2000. How many even here are going to honestly say steam trains were "common" when they grew up? They'd be in their 70s by now. As much as I hate it, time moves on. Attention spans shorten. Pace picks up. People do want their runs in less than an hour. So it's not what is technically "feasible." It's what the majority of players will buy. Sure you'll sell SOME to that 20%. However, if third parties are already doing that for you.... why not focus your internal money on the "money makers" that get that other 80%? Doesn't take a huge corporation or "shareholders" to make simple business decisions. They're a "small business" by business standards (couple hundred employees I think?) And it's more a matter of keeping their employees paid and happy. Would you as a boss only take contracts that made LESS money on purpose? Might do a job on the low side for a favor or because it's of interest to you, but as a rule wouldn't you take the higher paying jobs to stay in business?
Wow! Did you work in marketing by any chance, a lot of words there and even more generalisations! Just to focus in on one example you use, that being a 25 year old. Going by what you say their 'emotional bond' would be formed before, say the age of ten, so in the time between 1999 and 2009, roughly, yet there are no routes from this era. I don't disagree that modern routes are easier for DTG to make, but contest the fact that there is a large disparity between sales of modern and older routes due to the era. Surely DTG would want to cater for people interested in the older routes so they continue to provide them with custom and buy a mixture of routes in different settings and eras. I wouldn't be here at all if it weren't for NTP. Me as a boss! Bloody hell mate you are living in dreamland, though I would try and get the largest customer base as possible.
I wouldn't cut off an obvious revenue stream, I'd exploit it. There's plenty here on these very forums that would buy BR Blue in an instant without a second thought, and I can imagine there are others outside these forums that'd do the same. Maybe someone would be attracted by trains they don't see anymore, maybe they want to relive those times. With a good, healthy dose of market research, its not rocket science to see that there is a market I could tap into and exploit to increase my profits.
Source? DTG released three routes involving br blue stock one after the other, not to mention a bunch of loco packs for them. If that isn't a chance being given, I don't know what is. At the time those routes released people were begging for more modern traction, a quick look through old posts and YouTube reviews at the time shows this quite clearly. You seem to have a strong perscription of rose tinted glasses.
All those were released for TSW2020. Then for some strange reason, they decided against more. They never gave it a chance. Maybe it would've been a different story if they released more than 3. Which was for some reason interpreted as people only wanting modern traction. YouTube reviews are mostly biased, and not at all representative of the player base. Old posts are not representative of the current playerbase. I don't need glasses to see thanks. I can see as far as the eye can see.
Anyone that says "well I" is anecdotal. You don't have to agree. That's fine. However, if you don't agree with what makes sense, then you need to come up with your own explanation for why they act as they do. Go for it. Throw it out there for criticism. Simply saying "well I want this" is not a real answer. If you think there's a huge, vocal support for old routes then why aren't we seeing it? Is DTG allergic to making money? By assuming they are ignoring a huge player base, that's leaving money on the table and losing them money by comparison. So, IF that's true then you'd have to explain why they are intentionally losing money. I'd love to hear your explanation. Sincerely. Maybe there's some bigger strategy I'm missing and they're not just making what the majority want to buy. Then it's further incumbent on a person who WANTS change to ask yourself how you get that change? Go ahead. Fire away.
