Armstrong Powerhouse Latest Update

Discussion in 'General Discussion' started by Peter Hayes, May 20, 2021.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Peter Hayes

    Peter Hayes Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2016
    Messages:
    787
    Likes Received:
    318
  2. 749006

    749006 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2016
    Messages:
    8,420
    Likes Received:
    2,675
    I'm seeing Double :o
     
  3. Nick Y

    Nick Y Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2020
    Messages:
    2,049
    Likes Received:
    1,765
    Just checked my AP account and it seems the 158/159 was updated in April and isn't on the changelog.
    It appears the update was about a week after I purchased them.
    The 170 was updated on the same day so I guess I need to download the new updates.
     
  4. andy.malcolm

    andy.malcolm Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2019
    Messages:
    314
    Likes Received:
    179
    There was a bunch of updates in April that didn't make it to the change log. I would suspect those updates are unimportant to players or were scenario updates replacing assets with AP ones maybe.
     
  5. Cyclone

    Cyclone Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 29, 2020
    Messages:
    3,160
    Likes Received:
    1,051
    A bunch got updated on April 27. Apparently they were “not relevant to you as a customer”. I ask why we need to update them, then. What was changed that is shared by a bunch of items?

    Of course, I downloaded the updates anyway as they were not installed yet.
     
  6. Peter Hayes

    Peter Hayes Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2016
    Messages:
    787
    Likes Received:
    318
    Latest June 2021 updates:

    ap updates.png
     
    • Like Like x 1
  7. Cyclone

    Cyclone Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 29, 2020
    Messages:
    3,160
    Likes Received:
    1,051
    OK, hold on. Why is he changing the scenarios to require the newest thing created? No thank you, I'm going to keep my existing version, and I don't like that newer customers are going to have to get yet one more item to use that same scenario I can currently play.

    That is, unless the thing replaced is a sound pack. In which case, I can understand the change. I hope he's not just randomly adding trains to scenarios in old software after the fact in a sales pitch. Even so, both versions should remain available for a period of time for existing sound pack owners.

    EDIT: OK, I just looked at this old version of the page. He took out a basic model and put in the new enhanced model over it, basically saying you have to buy this to play this. I really do not like this. Yes, people can use Ts-Tools, but luckily I don't have to in that specific case because I already downloaded it.
     
    Last edited: Jun 3, 2021
  8. andy.malcolm

    andy.malcolm Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2019
    Messages:
    314
    Likes Received:
    179
    There will have already been 455s in those scenarios so he's gone back and replaced them with the enhancement pack version. I can see the drawbacks but it also makes perfect sense from his point of view.
     
  9. Cyclone

    Cyclone Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 29, 2020
    Messages:
    3,160
    Likes Received:
    1,051
    If the scenario utilized the sound pack and he was removing that in favour of using the enhancement pack, sure. But he created the scenario with the basic 455, with no updates. A second version could have been added utilizing the EP but the original version maintained. His business model is "integrate everything in such a way that people are required to buy my entire collection", and that reeks.

    Maybe that's not how he sees it. He sees it as providing the new train as an update to make the scenario more realistic for buyers of that pack. But people who have not purchased the brand new toy are being told hey, you are no longer allowed to use the dirty toy from Steam, you now need to use my toy. And yes, we can run Ts-Tools, but the fact that he explicitly FORCES it is what I don't like.
     
    Last edited: Jun 3, 2021
  10. IronBladder

    IronBladder Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 5, 2017
    Messages:
    894
    Likes Received:
    1,708
    Welcome to the world of current AP business practices. I don't like it either. It means you can't fully use bug fixes unless you buy more product.
     
  11. Cyclone

    Cyclone Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 29, 2020
    Messages:
    3,160
    Likes Received:
    1,051
    Or unless you're smart enough to back up your scenarios before installing the bugfixes.
     
  12. andy.malcolm

    andy.malcolm Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2019
    Messages:
    314
    Likes Received:
    179
    We see the same criticisms of AP from the same people in every single thread about them, I am not sure what the benefit is of re-hashing this. They have done this with scenarios for as long as I can remember.
     
  13. Cyclone

    Cyclone Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 29, 2020
    Messages:
    3,160
    Likes Received:
    1,051
    I have not actually seen this tactic to this point, so it is new to me. I wondered, but this is the first I have seen them literally edit scenarios to remove the “inferior product” in promotional attempts. I can say this: doing that suddenly does not put more money in customer pockets. I can only guess he does it because most of his clientele either buy it right away, meaning little risk and more benefit, or he just does not realize that the tactic he uses is not being seen as the huge benefit he touts it as because he does not consider the other side of it. I mean, I may get the 455 at some point, but I can guarantee this: it is not going to be for those scenarios if I do. So I do not see why they spend time editing old products. People with those scenarios probably played them already. So this primarily affects new customers for an item. And it means they are expected to either pony up or literally do the work to change them back the way they were initially. And this is an acceptable business practice?
     
  14. Pookeyhead

    Pookeyhead Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2018
    Messages:
    4,180
    Likes Received:
    2,607
    Just a reminder... you can swap out any train from any standard scenario, with any train you like. No one is forcing anyone to buy the 455 EP.
     
  15. Cyclone

    Cyclone Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 29, 2020
    Messages:
    3,160
    Likes Received:
    1,051
    I am aware of this, trust me. I've done it before.
     
  16. Peter Hayes

    Peter Hayes Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2016
    Messages:
    787
    Likes Received:
    318
    It is confusing - I'm not sure that the above updates apply to the actual DLC but may only apply to the scenarios now being sold separately. This is a screenshot of the scenario requirements for the Class 319 - no mention of the new Class 455 vol1 - of course AP may not have updated these requirements - hence the uncertainty.

    class 455 vol 1.png
     
  17. Cyclone

    Cyclone Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 29, 2020
    Messages:
    3,160
    Likes Received:
    1,051
    No, if the pack says it was updated, then the scenarios in the pack are updated. I agree with the idea of having the enhanced versions of the scenarios available separately. That would be more friendly to new customers. But what do I know...
     
  18. Mich

    Mich Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2020
    Messages:
    1,036
    Likes Received:
    1,342
    That needs external software like TS Tools, you can't safely say everyone's gonna have that. You also are assuming that everyone's gonna know how to do that or that they'll be able to understand. There's lots of people that struggle or are too scared to mess around when files when you're doing a simple copy and replace job, let alone having to edit them. Furthermore if it's so simple for the everyman then surely it would take no time at all for the pros at Armstrong to do it themselves. Five minutes of work on their end would save all of us five minutes of work each, that's a lot of time being wasted when you add it all up.
     
  19. Pookeyhead

    Pookeyhead Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2018
    Messages:
    4,180
    Likes Received:
    2,607
    Yes it does... which is free.. easy to use... and well documented and covered in a myriad of videos and tutorials... like this one....
    https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=587606467
    Does that confuse you?

    People just like to have a downer on AP.


    Why should they?

    Seriously... why should they? They want you to buy the 455EP. If you don't want to, then don't... just swap it out. You expect AP to do this work for you? Do you want Richard to come around and make your dinner for you as well? Seriously... just swap it out, or here's another idea... don't install the update. No one is making you do anything. Armstrong Powerhouse have not ransom locked your Train Sim install or anthying... they've not shot your dog... They've merely updated some scenarios to use the new 455 enhancement pack.... THEIR scenarios.... to use THEIR products.... HOW DARE THEY! LOL
     
    Last edited: Jun 4, 2021
  20. Mich

    Mich Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2020
    Messages:
    1,036
    Likes Received:
    1,342
    Me? No, but I have had plenty of experience modding FSX and CFS3 before ever messing with TS, and even then it took awhile to figure it out. Someone who hasn't had that experience is gonna have a more difficult time then I did. It's like building a PC, it's not difficult per say, but it's rather time consuming and daunting for those who haven't done it already.

    Also if it's easy for me then imagine how easy for Armstrong it would be to have a member of their team make a version with just the DTG versions of stock. Bossman did something similar recently with the Stanier Mogul, the one on his store has scenarios that use the AP addons. The Steam version has a set which just requires the engine and base route.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  21. Pookeyhead

    Pookeyhead Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2018
    Messages:
    4,180
    Likes Received:
    2,607
    I get all that, but obviously AP want to sell AP products. That's not unreasonable.
     
  22. Cyclone

    Cyclone Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 29, 2020
    Messages:
    3,160
    Likes Received:
    1,051
    No, no, hold on. The reason people like me don't like what they do is because they are going out of their way to make it necessary for less advanced computer users like us to make it necessary to obtain more of their products to play their content. This seems to be lost on some folks. As a business person, I would want to encourage users to try out the item they purchase without having to have a massive outflow of cost to do it. You want to drive my train? Here's a simple 15 minute scenario trying it out. Here's another few scenarios where that train is generally used as AI so you can see more of it. If you have additional products, here are alternate versions of scenarios for use for getting good pictures, but are otherwise the same as the simpler versions.

    Do you see the issue here? Look at the requirements for the 150/2. Non-advanced users feel they have to spend not only the £19.99 on the train itself, but now they have to obtain another £79.93 of goods from the same company, plus another $121.45 CAD from Steam, plus JT and another $32.99 for the Voyager Advanced...and that just covers the Bristol to Swansea scenarios (total in CAD, $298 plus "Paypal tax" for the non-Steam purchases, probably closer to $305-310). Add more for the Wherry Lines scenarios. Now, some of this can't be avoided. You have to buy the route you want to drive the train on. This is sensible. Taking that one out, for only THREE scenarios, we have to buy 12 different train packages of things that WE DO NOT EVEN DRIVE. Why should it be necessary, for us to enjoy our new train, to buy ANOTHER $270 WORTH OF TRAINS to drive this train we're buying from point A to point B? As Mich stated, people all too easily overlook the fact that a lot of people have an expectation that something works out of the box. As a customer, I want to just play with the new toy. Armstrong can easily skimp down the requirements. But with the recent edits to SEVEN packages, they have shown that they see no reason to do that. They feel it's more appropriate to make you pay as much as you possibly can because it sells more of their products (and incidentally, JT and DTG themselves too) and that's better for business. There is no eye towards the customer here. Plain and simple. This is like telling someone they can buy the toilet, but they also have to buy the little knob that flushes it separately, plus all the piping inside, plus the toilet seat, all at an extra cost. If you buy a toilet that way, then by all means. If not, you shouldn't be OK with this either.

    It doesn't matter if someone is going to buy all of the products in the end. Heck, I bought a bunch of items already with an eye on more. Someday I'll buy the 375/377, 411/412, 317, 319, and others to add on to what is now turning into a rather large collection overall between DTG, AP, and Just Trains. That isn't the point. It's not about me or what I want. The point is that there should be two versions of the scenarios provided, like Just Trains tries to do with routes like the Midland Mainline where versions exist using nothing more than the trains in the asset pack, but alternate versions exist for those who own all the bells and whistles. The scenarios are about going from Point A to Point B, C, D, E, F, and beyond. Not about buying everything out there to be able to run it. Making it as hard as possible for the buyer to enjoy the scenarios included and then saying they take no responsibility if you edit the scenario? That's like a builder saying they can install a door, but they are not responsible for you getting robbed at night because you didn't pay for them to install the lock, and you installed it incorrectly. Give them a way to get their foot in the door and make it easy to try it without having to learn how to use how to edit scenarios. People will try it, they will probably like it, and they'll buy more. He's literally demanding upfront payment for everything to make a basic scenario work, then saying we take the risk if we choose to edit scenarios - and by the way, you're not allowed to publish the alternate version to make it easier for these people in the first place. Do you see the problem here? It's easy to provide an alternate version of scenarios. They choose not to. Because they want you to buy everything, not walk away happy with one or two products. That's not a good business attitude in any other industry, and it's amazing that it works here. Because it's more likely to shun new buyers away to something else where they only have to buy a route (a reasonable request) and nothing else since everything else comes with the route.

    No, we can't tell AP how to do business. But I've been around long enough to know when something can be done better. And this can be done better. Historically, they've chosen not to do better. Can I replace the new 455 with Ts-Tools? Sure I can! Can I replace the 86 from the EP with the basic 86, or a free Virgin reskin if I want to? You bet I can! Can I remove AP's 142 and use DTG's? Well, no I can't, I don't own DTG's and I already have the AP one - but if it was the other way around, sure I could! The point is, they could provide a version that doesn't require buying their entire personal catalog or forcing users to try to make the scenario work around the items they have installed. We can't tell them not to do that, but you have to admit that this can be problematic for a certain subset of the players. They could even include AI-only versions of trains that can run in the scenarios, but can't be driven. The fact that he doesn't feel a need to do this tells me he doesn't get a lot of new customers, and clearly it works better for him to make these kinds of changes. Some of us might not care about packaged scenarios, but SOME people do. And while they could clone an official scenario and sub their AP 377, say, on London to Brighton, again, some are not skilled enough to do even this. Perhaps they shouldn't play Train Simulator, then, but they still should be catered to in some respects. Because they're giving you money just like everyone else is. You should satisfy as many customers as you can, not 15% of the market.

    I'll get off the soapbox.
     
    Last edited: Jun 4, 2021
    • Like Like x 6
  23. Pookeyhead

    Pookeyhead Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2018
    Messages:
    4,180
    Likes Received:
    2,607
    I disagree. The end.
    They want to use THEIR products in THEIR scenarios. Perfectly reasonable.
     
    • Like Like x 2
  24. Cyclone

    Cyclone Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 29, 2020
    Messages:
    3,160
    Likes Received:
    1,051
    I already conceded that detail. And my point is I can't see how it works business-wise to attract new customers. The end.
     
  25. IronBladder

    IronBladder Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 5, 2017
    Messages:
    894
    Likes Received:
    1,708
    No, not reasonable at all, not when they try to force you to buy products that weren't part of the original deal. I dislike the way I'm stopped from accepting a bug fix by finding they've now blocked it's use in the scenarios without me buying something else, or resorting to some cumbersome backup and substitution of scenarios, or using some 3rd party modding tool. It now annoys me so much that I've stopped buying their products at all, so at least for my small part of the market it's a disastrous counter-productive policy and judging by comments here and elsewhere I'm not the only person who feels this way.

    They could get round it and serve both existing and new customers by the simple expedient of asking at installation if we want any existing installed scenarios overwriting.
     
    Last edited: Jun 4, 2021
  26. Pookeyhead

    Pookeyhead Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2018
    Messages:
    4,180
    Likes Received:
    2,607
    I disagree utterly.
     
  27. Pookeyhead

    Pookeyhead Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2018
    Messages:
    4,180
    Likes Received:
    2,607
    Yet it does.
     
  28. Cyclone

    Cyclone Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 29, 2020
    Messages:
    3,160
    Likes Received:
    1,051
    Explain how requiring 15 different products to try out a train works when some bloke can buy a train on Steam and run it immediately. Are you suggesting the average customer already owns everything relevant on Steam? Are you assuming they are creating scenarios and not playing any themselves?
     
  29. Pookeyhead

    Pookeyhead Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2018
    Messages:
    4,180
    Likes Received:
    2,607
    There is not one single AP product that requires you to own 15 others. The enhancement packs obviously require you to own the product it is "enhancing", but apart from that, every AP product is a stand alone product that requires nothing else to use. I have no idea why you are saying you need to buy 15 other products to try out a train? You buy it... and drive it... I'm confused.
     
  30. Pookeyhead

    Pookeyhead Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2018
    Messages:
    4,180
    Likes Received:
    2,607
    Scenarios are available from sources other than AP... they're even completely free in most cases.

    This whole "Oh, think of the poor people who only buy off Steam"... What about them? They're probably not buying AP products then, are they?
     
  31. Pookeyhead

    Pookeyhead Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2018
    Messages:
    4,180
    Likes Received:
    2,607
    Seriously... if you hate AP that much, just stop buying their products... but stop boring us all to death with your salty tears.
     
  32. andy.malcolm

    andy.malcolm Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2019
    Messages:
    314
    Likes Received:
    179
    every ... single ... armstrong ... powerhouse ... thread
     
  33. Pookeyhead

    Pookeyhead Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2018
    Messages:
    4,180
    Likes Received:
    2,607
    I know.. its tiring. You can't discuss anything to do with AP without someone complaining about price, or scenario requirements etc.
     
  34. IronBladder

    IronBladder Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 5, 2017
    Messages:
    894
    Likes Received:
    1,708
    If it comes up on every single thread maybe AP should take note? Or are they happy to be the Marmite of train simulation?
     
  35. Pookeyhead

    Pookeyhead Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2018
    Messages:
    4,180
    Likes Received:
    2,607
    ...by the same people, over and over again.
     
  36. IronBladder

    IronBladder Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 5, 2017
    Messages:
    894
    Likes Received:
    1,708
    As are the AP apologists. Pookeyhead, let's be honest there are only about a dozen of us who constantly post about AP, either to praise or criticise. We're just different sides of the same coin.
     
  37. Pookeyhead

    Pookeyhead Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2018
    Messages:
    4,180
    Likes Received:
    2,607
    I don't recall the last time I actually created a thread about an AP product.

    Also, if there's only a dozen of you, what makes you so sure you are the voice of some kind of consensus? The fact that almost all freeware scenarios include AP products (something else you all moan about) is testament to their success and ubiquitousness, surely. AP are doing just fine, justifiably. They're excellent products that have transformed an old piece of software and help to keep it current and relevant. I'm not an apologist, as I feel there's nothing AP needs to apologise for. They're not expensive (the average AP product price is slightly more than £15 across the range), and it's not AP's fault that so many freeware scenarios make use of them. It seems to me that you object to AP updating their own scenarios to use their own products. Why aren't you levelling the same accusations at Just Trains, because their scenarios are just as heavily biased towards their own products, and furthermore, also require many AP products... and they do not offer "alternative" versions that do not require them. They also require just as many DTG assets to work... they cost money too! They're not free.

    JT 20 - The DRS Class 20 Farewell Tour
    Drive the Pathfinders DRS Class 20 Farewell Tour on its Leeds to Crewe leg. You will run from Sheffield to Derby.

    Difficulty: Easy
    Duration: 45 minutes

    Required for this scenario to operate correctly:



    So go on... tell us how Just Trains are also being unfair?

    AP updated some of their scenarios to use the newly released 455EP... big deal.
     
  38. 749006

    749006 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2016
    Messages:
    8,420
    Likes Received:
    2,675
    Some people, like Cyclone, are missing a comment on the AP pages for each item on sale
    Scenario Requirements
    Please note that these items are only required if you would like to use the scenarios included in this pack.
    But if you wish to use what you have bought in other scenarios you don't have to buy anything

    The AP 411/412 which I purchased has 6 Scenarios but requires 12 AP add-ons, 10 DTG Add-ons including 3 routes, 2 Fastline wagon sets, 4 JT Add-ons, the MKS 460 and the Thomson 455
    That is 30 extra Add-ons for 6 scenarios - I would not consider spending a pile of money for SIX Scenarios

    I have a big list of AP products that I have purchased over the years and I have only played about 5 of the included scenarios..

    What is the obsession for playing included scenarios - be it from AP, DTG, JT or elsewhere?
    Some of them are very poor and you are better looking around for something different.

    When I buy a Virtual Railroads loco or stock they come with No Scenarios - you have to use the trains in ones you have created yourself or have downloaded.

    Buy the AP add-on if you like it and ignore the scenarios

    Peter
     
  39. Cyclone

    Cyclone Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 29, 2020
    Messages:
    3,160
    Likes Received:
    1,051
    I am very well aware of that comment, Peter. The problem is he's using that as a reason to change the scenarios in the pack as time goes on, so even prior purchasers updating for bugfixes or any newly added liveries find that their own scenarios are updated, potentially rendering their own previously playable scenarios to an unplayable form without further purchases. This is where the issue in the recent update lies in terms of a European law changing the purchase content on existing customers, which is a law DTG tries to comply with by, say, putting the new Phorum pack from LTHC into the DTG folder instead of the original location (which would render some trains removed from customers who bought that pack if that were to be done)..

    As for me, I already was not planning to play the scenarios immediately and am likely not even installing the packages for a couple of months as I play the original content for the routes in question, and I'll be building up to JT routes and AP locos possibly around the same time since some JT routes use AP locos. The exception might be the 150/2, which I may install immediately since the BR Class 150 Loco itself is missing and I have a few potential uses for that as a substitute. Also might install Western Mainlines a bit early as I want to experiment with a scenario idea I have along the route after I tinker with Riviera and SWC.

    Now, just to be clear, if he wants to provide updated scenarios, he can. But basic scenarios ought to be included to make it easier for NEWER customers to get to driving the train immediately. Not everyone just wants to slap the train on a route and drive from Point A to Point B, which in theory could be done with every single product.
     
    Last edited: Jun 6, 2021
  40. 749006

    749006 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2016
    Messages:
    8,420
    Likes Received:
    2,675
    Having made a new release, say the 455, what routes should the scenarios be for?
    There are three which the 455 would/would have be seen on - London to Brighton, London to Portsmouth and South London Network and it won't matter which of the three you chose there will be people who won't have that route.

    But say AP do Scenarios for London to Brighton - it has been around the longest.
    And you have your class 455 working a local from London Victoria to East Croydon. The express trains are covered by the 377 included in the pack but the Gatwick Express 73 or 460 would not be there, the Thameslink 319 or 387 would not be there, the Uckfield & East Grinstead 171s would not be there.

    So you would have a Scenario on a busy mainline with only two types of train instead of the 5 or 6 different units - and no freight.

    Then AP would get slagged off for making a scenario that was unrealistic
     
    • Like Like x 1
  41. Cyclone

    Cyclone Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 29, 2020
    Messages:
    3,160
    Likes Received:
    1,051
    ...I'm not talking about the new scenarios with the 455. I'm talking about modifying the scenarios that came with the 205, 37, 456, etc. There's zero reason to edit them other than trying to pitch new products. Have you ever seen products on Steam edited in this way? No. Because of the law I mentioned that has to do with giving customers a different product than what they paid for. Updates and bugfixes to make that specific content (the 37, 205, etc.) better are fine, but changing the supplemental content is not. If he wants to buff up the scenarios that come with the 455, that's his choice. I still don't agree with stuffing 15 different DLC into it, but it's not controversial to the law I mentioned and not part of this discussion.
     
  42. steve.cunningham1980

    steve.cunningham1980 Member

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2020
    Messages:
    99
    Likes Received:
    81
    The other way of looking at it is that someone who has bought, for example, the class 455 enhancement and then bought another pack that utilizes the class 455 in its scenarios might justifiably feel a bit miffed that it is the out of the box version rather than one featuring the enhancements they have just shelled out for
     
  43. 749006

    749006 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2016
    Messages:
    8,420
    Likes Received:
    2,675
    Having already purchased your 205, 37, 456, etc. there is no reason to download the update if the only change is to the scenarios.

    I have not downloaded any AP updates for some time as I don't want the scenarios
     
  44. Pookeyhead

    Pookeyhead Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2018
    Messages:
    4,180
    Likes Received:
    2,607
    ...or just swap out the stock, which he admits to being perfectly capable of doing. Arguing on behalf of other people who, as far as I can tell, haven't raised an issue, is just excuse to have a moan about AP as usual.
     
  45. Pookeyhead

    Pookeyhead Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2018
    Messages:
    4,180
    Likes Received:
    2,607
    This is all pointless... all this moaning about AP has done is trash Peter's thread, which is useful and should be stickied once all this nonsense has been expunged from it. Can moderators please remove all posts that are just debating about whether AP are ruthless digital pirates please? Including mine.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  46. Cyclone

    Cyclone Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 29, 2020
    Messages:
    3,160
    Likes Received:
    1,051
    Never meant to say that, was just trying to suggest they can do better. But I agree that it might make sense to remove this chain of conversation. Clearly trying to debate on behalf of potential new customers just leads to pointless bickering.
     
  47. Pookeyhead

    Pookeyhead Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2018
    Messages:
    4,180
    Likes Received:
    2,607
    In a thread solely for that purpose maybe, but to hijack a thread intended to report on new AP updates... it's merely trashed it.
     
  48. longo239

    longo239 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2020
    Messages:
    1,047
    Likes Received:
    2,103
    I think DTG Threadlocker, I mean Natster may be along soon! :cool:
     
  49. Reef

    Reef Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2018
    Messages:
    2,717
    Likes Received:
    1,772
    Yeah as useless as that endeavour is, three days after the embers of the "discussion" has died down a DTG employee (so as not to unfairly single out Natalie specifically) may come along and say "Play nice children".

    This forum needs active Moderators who are nearly always around (different Moderators from different time zones that actually care about the product and its community helps with that), not DTG staff that obviously have priorities laying elsewhere in Walking Simulators and such..
     
    • Like Like x 2
  50. dunkrez

    dunkrez Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 2, 2019
    Messages:
    1,462
    Likes Received:
    1,679
    Gotta love TrackSide Walker and the Imperial Unreal Engine :)

    Back on topic, this thread is pretty useful, although perhaps would be redundant if AP gave automated mails to notify customers of updates. Perhaps server bandwidth fees are craftily being reduced by just not notifying anyone. Can't think of any other sane reason as to why you wouldn't notify the client base of improvements to their purchases.
     
    • Like Like x 1
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page