Pre-order Funding To Bring Back Cancelled/usa Only Dlc

Discussion in 'Suggestions' started by mike.duncan, Mar 11, 2021.

  1. mike.duncan

    mike.duncan Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2021
    Messages:
    44
    Likes Received:
    18
    Dovetail, I would like to make this suggestion to you. Set up a pre-order block for players to fund the work that is necessary to make the changes that would allow you to start reselling the DLC which is no longer available, or make the currently USA only DLC available to the rest of the world. Decide how much money would make it worth it for you to do the work needed to make these available and put them on Kickstarter or something and set it so that anyone who pledges at least $25 (or whatever you think the individual DLCs are worth) will get a free copy once the updates have been completed (assuming the goal is reached). There is no risk to your company since you are setting the goals, and even after the copies have been given to those who pledged, you can continue to sell these DLCs through Steam to make even more. I know there would be complications for DLCs like the Arriva or BNSF locos, but just give us the missions as scenario packs and assign them to different trains. I hope that this proposal will be considered by you Dovetail Games, and that you will see how this will benefit both yourselves and your loyal fanbase.
    Michael Duncan
     
    • Like Like x 2
  2. DIFFLOCK

    DIFFLOCK Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2021
    Messages:
    230
    Likes Received:
    81
    I presume the changes might be to release un-branded routes as an aside to trying to pursue full licensing deals?
     
    • Like Like x 1
  3. mike.duncan

    mike.duncan Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2021
    Messages:
    44
    Likes Received:
    18
    Right, my understanding is that most of the US only DLC is due to licensing issues, so the only real work required is to change them to unlicensed train components or components which are already licensed for worldwide use.
     
    • Like Like x 3
  4. NEC Railfan

    NEC Railfan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2020
    Messages:
    872
    Likes Received:
    871
    This is actually not a bad idea, we've seen Dovetail make a move to remove branding on its routes, such as the Cornish Main Line. It would be a good investment to take the time to just color over some BNSF markings or remove some decals. (Something I can do within 5 minutes). Hey, if there's an employee somewhere reading into these forums, maybe it wouldn't be a bad idea to pitch this to the sales managers or whoever manages the release of DLC. It's something that can be done at literally no cost, and the player base won't mind missing logos either, as they're more focused on things like being able to use certain routes and scenarios from the workshop than aesthetics. (Also aesthetics that the community can quickly patch as a free add-on).
     
    • Like Like x 5
  5. Blacknred81

    Blacknred81 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2019
    Messages:
    2,540
    Likes Received:
    5,694
    Just a note, Dovetail has no control over whether Stevens Pass and the ATSF SD45-2 DLC get unbranded as those were done by 3rd party studios. And i don't see DTM unbranding the SD45-2 as they no longer have the project files for said locomotive.
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Helpful Helpful x 1
  6. mike.duncan

    mike.duncan Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2021
    Messages:
    44
    Likes Received:
    18
    So they can reach out to the third party studios with the offer, and for the amount of work it would take for them to make them brand safe I think they'd jump at the opportunity.
     
    • Like Like x 2
  7. Blacknred81

    Blacknred81 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2019
    Messages:
    2,540
    Likes Received:
    5,694
    If they were so concerned about it they would of done it already, not to mention 2 routes from G-Trax that got pulled from Steam are already available via freeware on Railworks America. (Portland Terminal/Maine Maritime and Bessemer & Lake Erie/Penn Steam).

    Also to note, 2 people who did work on Stevens Pass also did work on the Montana Hi-Line, so its not like its impossible, they just chose not to do it.
     
    Last edited: Mar 12, 2021
    • Like Like x 3
  8. Cyclone

    Cyclone Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 29, 2020
    Messages:
    1,319
    Likes Received:
    414
    I suggested submitting the SD45-2 to another sales site so that it can be legally acquired from there. But I also don't see this happening.

    Also, I think G-Trax is happy with the fact they can just SELL Stevens. If the BNSF license ever pulled completely, it would probably be made free like the others.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  9. steammaster4449

    steammaster4449 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2020
    Messages:
    672
    Likes Received:
    504
    May I ask why those routes got pulled from Steam and turned into freeware? I've never been able to figure out why they got pulled.
     
  10. Blacknred81

    Blacknred81 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2019
    Messages:
    2,540
    Likes Received:
    5,694
    I have no clue why the Portland Terminal route got pulled, I would assume licensing but I have no idea.

    As far as the Bessemer and Lake Erie route is concerned, it was an issue with licensing with Canadian National.

    As quoted from Rick Grout himself.....
    Qz1lYnt.png
     
    • Like Like x 2
    • Helpful Helpful x 1
  11. steammaster4449

    steammaster4449 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2020
    Messages:
    672
    Likes Received:
    504
    Ah. Thank you.
     
  12. Cyclone

    Cyclone Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 29, 2020
    Messages:
    1,319
    Likes Received:
    414
    I think I heard something about Portland Terminal having bugs or issues with it, so the developers agreed to pull it from sale. Again, this is only what I have read, so I know nothing inside about its removal. I'm glad the route is there as Maine Maritime because it means the Workshop content can still be used somewhat, and it might in theory be possible to still put them on the Workshop (though I do not know for sure) if we transfer them to that content folder (though it may not work unless we have the original route or move it to that folder, renaming it in the process).

    In the meantime, any Portland Terminal content we attempt to utilize will have to be moved to the new content folder in order to work with the new version. The route is functionally the same, so it should be fine. This discussion pertains to the Boston & Maine GE 44 Loco which has scenarios for the route. Minor edits may be needed to swap out trains only in the Portland Terminal version with others.
     
    Last edited: Mar 13, 2021
    • Like Like x 1
  13. Mich

    Mich Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2020
    Messages:
    509
    Likes Received:
    556
    I believe that is correct, I've heard some mention it was due to Pan Am specifically.
    I'm gonna guess that's not correct, not just because of the Pan Am thing either. Frankly if DTG pulled things due to bugs they'd have pulled a million other routes at this point, like OG Donner Pass or WCML South. DTG in general don't seem to care much about bugs, only way they'd pull something is if it genuinely could destroy PCs or consoles, and as buggy as DTG products can be they've never had anything that bad happen.
     
  14. OldVern

    OldVern Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2020
    Messages:
    1,574
    Likes Received:
    2,183
    Luckily I bought Marias and Stevens before the restrictions came in, but if I ever want to reference materials from those routes anyone outside the US who hasn’t already bought is out of luck. I’m not sure I would support Kickstarter funding to rework the routes, it is DTGs problem to solve either by getting the intern to retro the routes or some vigorous re-negotiation with the railroad(s) concerned.

    And I still find the situation hard to reconcile when other train sim providers freely sell and supply BNSF branded products outside the USA.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  15. DIFFLOCK

    DIFFLOCK Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2021
    Messages:
    230
    Likes Received:
    81
    Perhaps BNSF haven't been as heavy handed in sending out cease and desist letters? (They aren't Games Workshop!) ;)
     
    • Like Like x 1
  16. Mich

    Mich Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2020
    Messages:
    509
    Likes Received:
    556
    Making unbranded version of these routes really wouldn't take a kickstarting effort to do, there's just a few textures you'd need to change and you'd be good, it's very easy to do. During some of TSW's streams they've made it very clear they do not do unbranded routes if they can avoid it. Ultimately the problem I think is their attitude towards unbranded content, not commercial viability. As long as the current heads of DTG are in power you're not gonna see them make unbranded content, it's pretty clear they don't have a interest in doing so, and frankly I think people need to just accept it and move on, Sure it might be a silly stance, but there's no point in trying to move a unmovable object, and DTG when it comes to their mindset toward things is slow to change at the best of times when they actively try to, and impossible to change when they have no interest in doing so.
     
    Last edited: Mar 24, 2021
    • Like Like x 1
  17. Cyclone

    Cyclone Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 29, 2020
    Messages:
    1,319
    Likes Received:
    414
    There is something that DTG is forgetting about here. It's completely legal to give away branded content for free. This is why Armstrong Powerhouse has an "optional branding patch" on pretty much everything that he sells. He sells the unbranded liveries, but the branding patch places the logos in the right places. I do not understand why DTG could not do this with BNSF. They can produce the locos cleanly, but not apply the logos, but then down in TS Marketplace the branding patch can be supplied for free. Users don't get the branding patch as part of the purchase.

    You might try to argue that this is still not allowed to do. I thus present a story from a job training class I was once in. A woman in the class mentioned to the teacher that she had a bad headache and asked if there was any headache medicine. The teacher's reply was along the lines of, "I cannot legally administer medicine to you, but if I were to walk out of the room and you were to look in my desk and acquire the medicine yourself, and then take it on your own, I cannot stop you from doing that". This is the exact same thing from a legal standpoint. The teacher bringing her own medicine to work is the same as logos being supplied in an independent package. They cost the user nothing. They therefore don't fall under the usage of trademarked content in sale. Why do you think Nintendo, Sega, etc. typically don't go after ROMs and sites that host them? Because they make no money from it. They would be spending money on a frivilous lawsuit. Even if the owners are rich, there is no evidence of the site making money from the provision of that otherwise illegal content. So therefore, since there would be no viable evidence to present to a judge based on that content, they can just make the skin available separately. And that's what AP does. If the logos were in the pack and he got a cease and desist, he can't sell it. But this way, if company tells him please don't use our logo, all he does is remove the applicable logos from the branding patch and reupload it, and the DLC is not affected. WHY CAN DTG NOT FIGURE THIS PART OUT?
     
    • Like Like x 3
    • Helpful Helpful x 1
  18. fabdiva

    fabdiva Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 13, 2019
    Messages:
    577
    Likes Received:
    554
    It isn't legal to give it away for free - while it's probably more tolerated/overlooked for small operations, a company the size of DTG doing it would probably attract attention of the brand's legal department.

    Nintendo have been going after ROM sites, especially with the games being available through Virtual Console
     
    • Like Like x 1
  19. Cyclone

    Cyclone Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 29, 2020
    Messages:
    1,319
    Likes Received:
    414
    The point remains that DTG can solve the problem by unbranding the content, and a BNSF patch will be made by someone within an hour. DTG has thus managed to keep the content available for sale, and whether they produce the free skin or someone else does, there is no trademark exchanged in the sale.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  20. Mich

    Mich Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2020
    Messages:
    509
    Likes Received:
    556
    DTG are in this weird position I don't get, they allow third parities to do unbranded BNSF content, but won't do it themselves. They could easily get away with at least with unbranded BNSF content pretty clearly, ultimately the third parties are using DTG's agreements. I would get it more if they took a hardline stance, Allowing unbranded versions of all the old BNSF content would make sense. Or even just not publishing unbranded BNSF content at all, that would make sense to as well. Instead it's this weird halfway point where they kind of do and don't. Realistically if BNSF care about unbranded content they would go after DTG regardless, they're publishing this stuff after all, even if they're not developing it. The only reason for it is DTG's "Either it's licensed or we're not doing it" attitude, which I can kind of get but it is kind of silly not to do unbranded versions of the existing BNSF stock and Marias Pass, it would be just be easy money.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  21. Cyclone

    Cyclone Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 29, 2020
    Messages:
    1,319
    Likes Received:
    414
    DTG gets a cut of everything sold on Steam. BNSF has not objected to colours being used - in fact, that is not a trademark, so it's legal - so other developers will do that as a way of selling their content on Steam to other customers. Those who want actual BNSF stuff have to go to, say, Travel By Train (and I did suggest putting the DTM SD45-2 on there to join other BNSF products, but I have no clue if this will happen). Over there, you can get several BNSF and Santa Fe models without restriction. But DTG, as a publisher, cannot solicit sales for this content, and thus it cannot be on their site or on Steam. Others take their own risk, or may otherwise have their own licenses.

    BTW, the CN SD70 and SD60 are over there, too. Dirt cheap compared to Steam prices. Because the developer gets that amount either way, so they can sell it for that. they actually get even less than that on Steam. A new CP model is there, not yet on Steam, and may not be. We'll see.
     
  22. mike.duncan

    mike.duncan Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2021
    Messages:
    44
    Likes Received:
    18
    For those saying that it's not worth doing a Kickstarter (which I just put forth as a possibility, DTG could just do some kind of conditional pre-order) or that if they wanted to change it they already would have, like most game companies they are focused on creating new content, maybe not thinking there's enough interest in the older content. The reason for doing the pre-ordering would a) show them that there is demand for these DLCs and b) guarantee DTG a certain amount of money which lets them decide whether or not it is worth their time. Gotta remember that corporations don't necessarily work with the same logic we do. :D
     
  23. Cyclone

    Cyclone Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 29, 2020
    Messages:
    1,319
    Likes Received:
    414
    I think I also noted earlier the aspect of a corporation as a person making its own unique decisions. President Mike is not DTG. Neither is Jamie, or Protagonist (who I recently realized is also Colonel Failure), nor Steve, nor Matt, nor Danny (who we know is more of a grunt, he says so himself), nor anyone else. They are all members of the company, but the corporation is its own entity and can do with its stuff what it wants. Just like us if we operated our own outfit as a sole proprietor where one of us is the owner.

    So in the end, the people who make the decisions - and it may not be any of the people I've named among that group, save for Mike - have to decide what that entity is going to do. We can do no more than make our case for why something should be done. If we keep raising NWC - and not just the same few of us, but other people also asking about it - then there is a better chance of a revisit. I still argue it could be out again in a couple of weeks tops if they squeezed it in, but as was possibly stated (and if not, it can be inferred), they already had a schedule interrupted to put SWC back into the market and probably want to finish the rest of their newer stuff to prep for the 2022 release (including surely another route for the next Deluxe Edition). Can't say I blame them for that. Still need NWC to play some of the content I have ownership of, though. To be honest, the fact that they focused on SWC first means they either will do something to make NWC a completely new product (Chester to Shrewsbury addition, or possibly just add to Stafford or Birmingham, or something else) or they just don't think we care enough about the route to put it back up. There could even be another product on the back end as well and they could time a re-release with that. And the fact that ATS has gone to the Crewe area with Missing Link brings up, again, the need for this route to return. Let's hope it does. Even if it's not until 2022.
     
    Last edited: Apr 7, 2021
    • Like Like x 2
    • Helpful Helpful x 1

Share This Page