Marylebone - Aylesbury Delisted From Steam

Anyone know what's going on? Apparently it was delisted two days ago. It still seems to be available on JT's store.

 

It is still on the JT Store as they made the route - it is possible JT asked to remove the route from Steam.

 

It does not say "At the request of the publisher". I wonder if DTG got tired of complaints about the route not working (which is likely due to bad AP file management given multiple references to the same file locations). I did check the the ones for the Virgin pack and the Class 40 are the same. Maybe the text got changed in these boxes, as I remember a publisher request quoted in one before.



I have poked Thomas and asked if it's possible for someone from JT to comment on this. Either way, the route is on their store right now, and there is an extension that packs neatly onto Chiltern Main Line. Note it will not add on to the Steam version of the route. Which is also removed.

https://store.steampowered.com/app/...ern_Main_Line_London__Birmingham_Route_AddOn/



What is still available is found here: https://store.steampowered.com/search/?developer=Just Trains

 

Thank you for clearing that up Jamie and removing the Cyclonic fog of "reasons" according to nothing more than someone's imagination.

 

LOL

 

Come now. I try to see possibilities. The lost license was a possibility. I just didn't consider listing it.

Makes me wonder if it will get the SWC treatment someday (or should I say the Cornish treatment). We'll see.

 

I doubt it will as JT have never removed a route from steam then re released it unbranded. Also per your first reply. JT routes do NOT come as AP files on steam they never have.

 

I said "the Cornish treatment". It got re-released unbranded. I can provide links backing this, so let's not bicker over this or misinform others, please.

 

I am not bickering JT files on steam do not come as AP files

 

I never said they only came in AP files as far as I'm aware. But I'll prove you wrong anyway since you seem to be on a personal mission to discredit me this evening. The unbranded version of Cornish Main Line, which I'm referencing here, has four AP files, including the files for the route and scenarios themselves.

 

And here we are again playing the victim so does anyone who corrects your comment automatically go on a mission to discredit you. YOU posted a silly comment to get a reaction in another thread got corrected then try and play the victim. Good thing the screenshots got took so if you do edit your comments out to play the victim the admin will see exactly what your agenda was.

But here is your origional comment. You suggested the files got removed because of "bad AP file managemnet"

Which is when i commented, BUT as We got an official reply from DTG staff as to why it got removed i fail to see why you have to come back to this thread which was last responded to 7 days ago is beyond and that is after we got an offical reply from staff. the only reason i can think of for you to comment further is to yet again stir trouble. Its getting boring now Cyclone it really is.

 

Afaik All DLC purchased from Steam is now in .ap format, even the JT stuff.

I accidentally bought the Kyle line through Steam (it was a route requirement and I just followed the provided link not realising at the time it was a JT route) it's the only one I did as I prefer buying JT content directly from their own site.

The Kyle line is the only jT route I have that's in .ap format

 

Additionally, MML Derby to Nottingham/Leicester and MML Nottingham to Lincoln are fully in AP format, also referencing the Common Library AP file. Some things, like ECML North and I think some files in the original MML route, remain unpacked.

 

You are indeed correct i stand corrected and apologies Cyclone on this comment i was wrong. I just ad a look at the Jt routes i have from steam installed only one i have currently appears to be the met line i took the midland ones off steam as i bought them direct to avoid confusing the sim. I apologise i was wrong in my reply to you Cyclone and thank you for both correcting me. Cant comment on ECML North AKA newcastle - edinburgh as i got that on release on JT website directly.

 

I also want to publicly clarify something on the comment pictured here. When news came that the Chiltern routes had been discontinued, I was doing early speculation on what might have happened. I know from my research that there have been comments about the route not working properly with others installed, which included its sister route and the Metropolitan Line. This was a reference to AP files that had different copies of the same named files inside of them in some cases. This has since been corrected by the Common Library. That was not a comment saying that JT items "only come in AP files", though many now do when they reach Steam, and DTG has its reasons why they need to (whether for game purposes or other purposes we aren't in a place to say).

Additionally, I later realized my early speculation comment couldn't be further from the truth, as negative opinion and reviews doesn't lead to something getting removed. It was a stupid remark on my part, but I made it, so I left it since editing it later really does not accomplish anything. It's also not my place to say what the real reason could be. Early speculation will always happen, however, when something happens, and often be wrong. I accept this when I speculate on something.

I do hope the Chiltern routes return to Steam in the future.

 

Thank you for claryfing and correcting me. Now lets all just quit the bickering and get along please there is enough drama in the world already without us all adding to it.

Thanks for the information though/.

 

Isn’t the bigger question here what is it with DTG and licensing? They seem to be approaching this issue from a standpoint that virtually no other developer in any genre does. I’m baffled by it.

This conversation has been done to death on the TSW forums (the latest being the release of a Scotrail route but not being able to use the word ‘Scotrail’ in the livery designer) but on this point specifically I fail to see why, if the CML & extensions remain for sale on JT’s website, they cannot be sold on Steam.

 

Probably for the same way JT can sell a Virgin-liveried Voyager but DTG can't - JT have the license, but not DTG. Selling on Steam means it falls under DTG's (lack of) license.

 

I’d be very surprised it that were the case, as in JT have a licence whilst DTG don’t. Of course I maybe wrong, but I know that JT widely employ the same methodology as ATS, AP and many smaller 3rd party providers; you purchase an unbranded product and if you wish you can obtain a free branding patch. Their Voyager could be a different case, again there’s no way of knowing for certain. I believe UK copyright law allows you to parody the real world which I guess is what they’re doing.

It seems like it’s one rule for DTG and one rule for everyone else on this one.

 

because you cannot sell a product with branding you do not own the rights to. This is why the likes of AP will see a product however keep the branding patch as a separate freely available download they are essential then not selling the branding

 

That is wrong
If you look at JT Products they change the logos of the what they sell.
Have you heard of FW&S, FWS or BB - and that well known store D&Q just outside Sheffield

FWS 67


FW&S 60


BB 60


D&Q?

DTG Don't do that as the simmers would point out it was wrong.
Double standards where it is ok for one company to put the wrong logos on trains but not another.

Peter

 

749006, JT maybe used to that but they certainly don’t anymore. Have a look at the latest Midland Mainline releases; real world branding everywhere. They even confirmed this is how they comply with the law in one of their latest videos, just like AP & ATS do.

390001, in my later reply I said exactly that. Just regarding your point about selling products with branding on, you’ve obviously never played MSFS. Absolutely everything available for that game comes as per the real world, sold either through 3rd party stores on the in-game Marketplace and there is absolutely no way on this earth that the developers have got licences to cover all of the branding they use.

The point stands, it cannot be one rule for ATS, AP, JT and most other 3rd party TS developers and the same for anything and everything MSFS, and one rule for DTG. Just because DTG say something is the reason they do things doesn’t actually make it so.

 

If you look at the D&Q store in the picture above you might recognise the Midland Mainline -correct branding?

 

I said later Midland Mainline releases. That was the first instalment. Have a look at Hope Valley for example.

 

IP law is a vague business, and JT's lawyers may not have the same opinions as DTG's lawyers.

 

the real world branding is not in any of the stores etc etc. if your talking about the branding of stock that is because it uses 3rd party stock which as explained above is how they go around that

 

Yeah, in a round-about way that’s my point. DTG seem to have taken an exceptionally risk adverse standpoint on all of this which is at odds with many many other developers, yet the rules are the same for all. DTG aren’t a special case.

To have pulled this route from Steam when it is still available elsewhere just serves to highlight that fact.

 

Yes. I have played msfs and flight sims as long as train sims. Do
You know if the developers have permission from the airlines etc for branding. Yes or no ?

 

I didn’t say it was available in the store. I said you can obtain a free branding patch to go alongside your purchase.

 

99.99% no. I work in the industry and there is simply no way a given developer has gone and obtained licences for every airline livery the world over for a product they sell for £25. The same applies to airports, where not only every single piece of external branding is there, but now all the interior stuff is as well, right down to beer taps, packets of crisps and drinks cans in fridges. The same applies to aircraft where not only the design and name is used, but the systems are modelled to depth way beyond anything ever seen in a train sim, and those systems carry both brands and task flows that will undoubtedly be trademarked, patented or copyrighted.

Let me make the point another way. How the heck is DTG (or any software developer for that matter) supposed to run their business if at any point a TOC can decide they no longer wish for their branding to be used? The concept is insane. What would DTG do if the German train licence was suddenly pulled from TSW? Would they withdraw all that content from sale? It would sink the game and likely the company, overnight. Equally, when DTG develop a train model, do they go to the train manufacturer and get permission to use what will certainly be a trademarked design in the game? If not (which I’ll bet is the case), then why is that ok but not using a brand?

 

Surely you can see my point here though? I appreciate you’re hamstrung in what you can say but DTG seem to have an exceptionally risk-adverse attitude to this sort of thing, and the answers they give when questioned on it never really stack up.

The problem with these discussions is that whenever you give an opposing view or question the narrative people just repeat, parrot fashion, what someone from DTG (normally Matt, occasionally Sam) has said previously as if it’s Gospel. Unfortunately it often ignores the fact that DTG seem to be very much in the minority when it comes to their take on this particular aspect of development, often to their detriment.

 

I’m just driving down the WCMLS and am thinking, did DTG get permission to model the shape of the new London bus, copy the design etc of the OHLE equipment, approach the architect that designed the BT Tower for permission to use their designs? Did someone get the licence or permission to recreate the ArcelorMittal Orbit in the Olympic Park on the MML?

I’m being deliberately picky here, but using those inevitably trademarked / patented designs is no different to using brands, so why is one ok but not the other?

 

I get it, no worries at all

It’s an interesting discussion (or at least I find it interesting!) but this one specifically baffles me. It’s not ok for DTG to have this product on their store front, but JT can sell it no problem. It doesn’t really make a great deal of sense.

Maybe it’s simply that TOC’s are actually just that petty, but equally maybe DTG ought to seek different legal counsel to look after their interests.

 

I would be careful about accusing other companies of not doing that.

 

No one could build a full scale repica of the BT tower, Shard or anything else from the representations (and that is all they are) of the buildings. Anyone could take a photo and create a representaion of them should they wish, the exteriors are in the public domain or else we would not be able to see them (or is that another potential conspiracy theory?)

 

You could say the exact same thing about a train livery…

I’m playing devil’s advocate to an extent, because it really does seem like there’s a bit of a double standard. You’ve got one company treading on eggshells then many others seemingly doing the opposite but without issue (and long may that continue). It’s an odd one!

 

What would be the actual objection(s) of real-world train operators for not allowing their logo to appear in a computer (simulation) game?

 

Trademark infringement. Whether or not a judge would agree is a bit up in the air.

 

That is bizarre!!

 

This happened in TSW with Rivet games releasing the IoW DLC and the IoW 2022 DLC. SWR didn't want to give licences out for their liveries, logos and name. The original IoW with the class 483 was released in NSE branding. The IoW 2022 version with the class 484 came with a look-a-like livery.
Also, ScotRail have allowed their logos and name to be used in official TSW releases (Cathcart Circle and the upcoming Glasgow-Edinburgh) but any use of the word ScotRail or their liveries in creators club is not permitted by the licence agreement.

 

Every company is different. I'm just happy BNSF is now acceptable in TSW. Cajon Pass FTW.

 

Not wanting videos on youtube of kids deliberately derailing trains with their logos on in any sim while laughing maniacally

 

Somehow I doubt that is the only reason why TOCs would not license their trademarks. There are also considerations like money.

 

Weird how TOC’s get bent out of shape about this but airlines don’t. Are the people that deal with this sort of stuff for TOC’s so daft to believe that anyone would read anything AT ALL into a kid on YouTube being a prat on a computer game?

DTG say this about kids crashing virtual trains, but I believe I’m right in saying they have (or have had) one of them acting as an ambassador for them and I’m nearly certain that they’ve had him on their streams before. This guy has crash compilations and ‘races’ in TS all over his channel. So we’re either bothered about idiots pretending to crash stuff or we’re not. You can’t have it both ways.