Cargo Line Volume 2 Speculation

I'm convinced if DTG did something to improve their reputation by making a less buggy game, more TOCs would sign a licensing agreement with DTG, as they seem to do in other railway sims. You don't want bad publicity by misrepresented stuck or flawed trains.

Any company should be interested in being featured in a good simulator, can't see any other reason than lack of quality putting some TOCs off and saying nay to DTG.

 

That is my understanding. Licenses are per software.
There is a lake in the middle of Training Center, with a small pier. When being built we intended to put mock fishing points with all the gear from the other sim and even have the boat so you could potter around on the lake. Alas, the license said no. The assets were only permitted for use in the agreed sim and not TrainSim. I think we did add fish to the end of the pier at least. They swim in a circle I think.

Edit - I thought of another one. When adding the Airbus Beluga landing into Leipzig to Rapid Transit we originally tried to get the aircraft previously developed for the DTG flightsim stuff, but again the license was only for use in FlightSim, so it required a whole new process to obtain a license with Airbus to put a plane in TrainSim. It is why to this day the Beluga is the only officially licensed real representation of an aircraft in DTG DLC, all the others I believe have been adjusted to not represent real aircraft.

 

Yes but as far as I am aware it is for the Class 70 and associated wagons that were shipped with the pack only. It doesnt cover the entire Freightliner fleet of locos that Freightlier have.
This is where peoples entire idea of liscensing go completely out of the window to how it is.

Hentis

 

Then DTG need to either negotiate harder (perhaps offer a percentage of the take to a charity of the TOC/FOC choice), or just bite the bullet and go with semi fictional liveries and company names.

 

Yeah, it needs to just be semi fictional at this point. EWS getting a tad stale lol.

 

How many people would be happy with semi fictional liveries and company names?
They get enough flack about this, that and the other and add the fact that they are not ujsing proper liveries and TOC names its ripe to be ripped apart.

Tony

 

It's better than only EWS red for the rest of the games lifespan. Anyone that has a go at them for using semifictional liveries, after they clearly explain they've been trying to get the license for years is not worth listening to.

 

Definitley understand where you are coming from. I do. But how many people listen to dovetail on their socials or watch there livestreams?

 

Then as I said, they aren't worth listening to if they complain about that. I don't want to be stuck with EWS red for all eternity because some people will moan because the name on the side of the train isn't 100% accurate. The majority of the player base will not care.

 

Perhaps we should let Dovetail themselves respond? Besides if they explain the circumstances most potential customers will understand. I would be more likely to buy a Class 70 freight pack in my aforementioned "Fast Freight" livery and logo than another tedious revisit of the Class 66.

 

Frankly they can make the Class 70 pink for all I care, I just want a new freight loco haha. Livery Maker will allow us to stick Freightliner/GBRF on it anyway.

 

Honestly, if the leading head of train simulation can’t license more than one ToC for UK freight, then I’m not interested in what DTG have to say, I just won’t buy freight content.

Regardless of weather we are defending or attacking DTG on this subject, we simply don’t know what the problem is, as DTG are silent.

Still no word on Rivet’s pack, which could have offered some variation in the 66’s. Got to wonder if that’s a licensing blunder too.

Overall I’m tired of the EWS 66, but I at least want to see just one model of it being used, not one new one for every UK DLC that releases. I do not want 66 66’s.

 

Negotiating harder doesn't mean anything if the toc still say no. It's their choice and dtg can only do so much. Dtg can't force them to make a decision or proceed to creating the product without permission or they can face legal consequences. They have the right to say no. It's like a vendor selling a product, well not really but it still applies. They can use all the marketing strategies they want and make all sorts of deals but the customer has the right to say no and forcing them against their will is a violation. Same with any other thing that requires consent. You can negotiate as much as you want, but that doesn't mean they'll allow it at all.

Licensing is also how dtg gets access to the train. If they can't access it or get reference material, then you can't create a train.

 

Except that's not how it works. The game can be as perfect as it wants to be and companies can still say no for various reasons which Matt explained in streams.

 

Maybe. But of course Matt is representing DTG, so he wouldn't give this as an official reason.

The big players like DB, UP, BNSF, CSX, EWS and LNER probably don't care that much. But for smaller TOCs like Railpool, it might be more important. Interestingly the Vectron, representing that small company, is of outstanding quality.

Just my thoughts, if I were CEO of a TOC I'd be glad to have my company featured in a simulator. It's free advertising, creates interest.

 

In the case of the Class 70 they already have the data they gathered for the TSC version. I would still take a TSW version with a fictional livery based on that, than no Class 70 at all.

And in the case of the Class 60, these are operated by DBS so what's the excuse for not getting one of those in the game?

Not saying it's easy and there aren't challenges but you don't see other sim developers reaching for the, "It's all too much trouble", card every time,

And again, I would be more interested in hearing from DTG on the matter not the usual unofficial spokesperson(s)/apologists.

 

It seems to me that would have more force with passenger TOCs, who market to the general ticket-buying public. Freight companies are only concerned with business customers, who are far less likely to be influenced by a game.

 

Bit annoying as it means that certain things will only be available in the said simulator. But I guess I can see why, as when the company gives a licence, they probably only intend on it being in the game they agreed to have it in.. I don't get why they wouldn't want it in another game developed by the same people though but it's what they want, and theres not much we can do but hope FL will eventually chime in and give us a new loco. Thanks for replying anyway!

 

Well what if they licenced it for a game where you drive trains carefully and then they reused it in a game where you mow people down in a train! You can see why it is strictly licenced for a particular use.

I would love to see anything other than a 66, but re: the title of the thread, I think these packs are not likely to be loco DLC packs, so I can't see a new loco coming in v2 or v3 etc. I suspect it would be quite a big thing to get a 68 or a 70 in-game and that might be as part of a new route with a lot of fanfare.

 

There was a poll a few years ago and "most" were definately opposed to fictional liveries and routes -- Can't find the discussion at this point, but if Matt P. is reading through this thread, I am sure he could confirm.

 

Most people on the forum perhaps, most of the entire player base? I doubt it. The people on consoles that just pick this up for some casual fun and aren't really super into the specifics of who does what aren't going to care all that much. The people on the forums by contrast are much more likely to be more "intense" with their passion of railways and trains by the fact they are actively seeking out a community to engage with on it.

 

I’ll quite happily stick my hands up and say I’m opposed to fake TOC’s. Part of the premium we pay for DLC is that it’s licensed.

Something I’m not opposed to is blank rolling stock (as long as it’s not a huge amount), but I really cannot stand fake branding.

 

I think maybe a 66 in freightliner colours, but without the logo/name might be acceptable?

 

Yeah I think this is how AP get around it, then give you the branding patch as a separate free download, thus they don’t make money off the license.

That said I recall AP getting into bother with the IET’s.

I think DTG would play it much safer though & just not do anything close to a real livery.

 

I'd honestly even accept the DB livery 66, not sure why we got it on GWE, and only EWS since.

 

Yeah it is odd we never see that. There are also plenty of EWS liveried 66’s knocking about still too, but with DB logos on the cabs.

 

Even that would be great. Or more noticeable weathering etc.
The ECML 66 with weathering was a step in the right direction, I just want some more visual variety than an endless fleet of homogenous red EWS 66s.

 

I would be fine with this as an alternative when a licence cannot be obtained.

 

It wasn't a forum poll -- I was run by DTG, it was a while ago but I doubt sentiment has changed much. -- Just as an anology - go read the discussion on the new DTG published Tram series - and read all the comments on those who stated since it was a fictional sity - they would not be interested even though they did like the two tram series released for real cities. But hey - I am just passing on the information that Matt P. presented a while ago..

 

Rail Rage III: Intestine City Express

 

I disagree there are quite a bunch of us console users who are looking for the realism with forking out thousands for a PC.

I'm am one myself. And when they did the survey last, one of the questions was about fake liveries and by a landslide the majority where against it.