TRS19 Content delivery strategy causing major route development problems

Hi guys - just a quick note that we're monitoring this thread but unfortunately other tasks have had to take precedence today. I think we now have a comprehensive list of your concerns and we will respond with a comprehensive reply asap.

...Is this too much to ask of you all?
Bob

No - re your 4 points, you're pretty much spot on the money there.

Tony_Hilliam said:

BuilderBob - regarding: "<kuid2:661281:100035:1> C&O 2-6-6-6 H8 - New River Mining Coal Run is installed by default. It is a session of <kuid2:453099:100037:20> C&O Hinton Division and includes <kuid:175455:100379> GBCX Cylindrical Hopper which is a freeware item from Jointed Rail. "
>>
We've worked out the process required to get into this situation and how to get out of it.

Click to expand...

Perhaps that process creates a similar problem, but it's not what occurred here. Neither the 3rd party assets nor the DLC route were ever installed. Somehow the cars became marked as payware, so installing the 3rd party items (which are not marked as payware in the CDP, according to JR) causes them to be marked as 'Modified, Faulty, Payware'. They can be deleted (open for edit and/or reverting is not required) but whenever they are loaded again they become 'Modified, Faulty, Payware'.


I believe that this case is a symptom of the problem under discussion - the session (<kuid2:661281:100035:1>) is built-in, but its dependent route (<kuid2:453099:100037:20>) and some of its traincars are DLC. So a built-in item has missing dependencies that are permanently marked as payware regardless of where they get loaded from, and are also faulty if they don't get loaded as DLC. I hope you mean by 'shouldn't be optional' that the installation of DLC really IS optional, and failing to install it will not create items with missing dependencies that cannot be fixed.

Cayden - spot on the money with your assessment, saved me posting similar. Freeware on the DLS should be for use in freeware routes only, it should not be there for the convenience of wannabee payware authors to help themselves as an alternative to setting up a proper group or commissioning the required model and texture assets. AFAIK freeware referenced in a payware route does not impart any royalties back to its original author, not even a token complimentary FCT or similar. None of the other train sims operate on this basis and indeed, anyone putting someone else's free content in a paid for route without permission would at best be on the end of a "cease and desist" notice or a letter from a lawyer inviting attendance at court to settle on compensation.

If that means changing the T&C of the DLS to remove the "Your stuff is now ours", then so be it.

Vern said:

…Freeware on the DLS should be for use in freeware routes only…

Click to expand...

Not exactly what I was trying to say.

I have no objections with freeware being used in payware routes. It should be free for anyone to use including in payware routes. The purchaser should be paying for the route not the assets that they should otherwise be able to download freely from the source (3[SUP]rd[/SUP] party site or DLS).

The problem is, as Bob (MSGSapper) pointed out in the original post, when freeware is converted to built-in or payware it is no longer completely free for use, as in other routes or in modified form. For example, one can’t modify the texture file(s) and then resave the asset. Nor can one add or delete content from the config.txt file (e.g., I have sometimes removed annoying sound clips) then resave the asset.

I am all for sharing my hobby. I’ve written tutorials for others and included Blender files, even the finished .cdp files to facilitate the learning experience. In this regard, I have greatly benefitted from others willing to share their Blender files, notably paulhobbs and pencil42. In recent uploads to the DLS I have left in the .fbx file so that others can import it back into Blender and modify it if they wish.

Cayden

The issue of freeware in payware routes pops up in these forums every now and again - I guess it is time again.

Strange as it may seem, I can see both points of view on this. I can see how someone who had spent the time and effort creating an asset and donating it to the Trainz community as freeware could be upset when some "wannabe" (as Vern puts it) creator with delusions of skill uses that asset to make money in a payware route. From personal experience, a good route (and it would have to be very very good for me to fork out my hard earned) takes a lot of time and effort.

But, and this point has been raised many times, when a creator adds a DLS (freeware) asset to their payware route, they are not copying and redistributing that freeware asset. The payware route simply references the asset in its list of dependent assets. The person who purchases that payware route still has to download all its freeware assets from the DLS.

But I can also see what Cayden is saying - freeware is freeware and can be used by whom-ever for whatever reason including payware. If a freeware creator wants to stop payware creators using her/his creations then simply add the statement "not to be included in payware" to the description of the asset. I know this may be very difficult if not impossible to enforce because a payware creator may simply post their work on 3rd party sites outside the control of N3V.

I do not support the removal of the clause on the DLS that any uploaded freeware assets can be used by N3V for any purpose - which usually means including it in the next update "builtins" or in DLC or repairing it so that it works - which benefits N3V and keeps the sim/game alive. If a creator does not like that provision, and I know that some do not, then they are free to host their own personal DLS site. I personally do not use 3rd party assets so that is no loss to me.

Payware is as important to the survival of Trainz as freeware. If you stop payware creators from adding (or referencing) any freeware in their routes then we are simply cutting off our own noses for no obvious good.

My opinion only

Cayden said:

Not exactly what I was trying to say.

I have no objections with freeware being used in payware routes. It should be free for anyone to use including in payware routes. The purchaser should be paying for the route not the assets that they should otherwise be able to download freely from the source (3[SUP]rd[/SUP] party site or DLS).

The problem is, as Bob (MSGSapper) pointed out in the original post, when freeware is converted to built-in or payware it is no longer completely free for use, as in other routes or in modified form. For example, one can’t modify the texture file(s) and then resave the asset. Nor can one add or delete content from the config.txt file (e.g., I have sometimes removed annoying sound clips) then resave the asset.

I am all for sharing my hobby. I’ve written tutorials for others and included Blender files, even the finished .cdp files to facilitate the learning experience. In this regard, I have greatly benefitted from others willing to share their Blender files, notably paulhobbs and pencil42. In recent uploads to the DLS I have left in the .fbx file so that others can import it back into Blender and modify it if they wish.

Cayden

Click to expand...

Then the best solution is maybe for the route author to clone the asset, give it a new name (e.g. prefixed with their initials) and use that instead? Or that could of course open further cans of worms with the original author.

Incidentally, I have a feeling not for payware use clauses are trumped by N3V's upload terms, I may be wrong...

Maybe we need to boycott trains subscription services until these problems are addressed.

Vern said:

Then the best solution is maybe for the route author to clone the asset, give it a new name (e.g. prefixed with their initials) and use that instead? Or that could of course open further cans of worms with the original author.

Incidentally, I have a feeling not for payware use clauses are trumped by N3V's upload terms, I may be wrong...

Click to expand...

No you are actually correct on that.

Anyway lets see how N3V intend to sort things out. It shouldn't be impossible to come up with something that solves the problem or at least lessens it.

Vern said:

Then the best solution is maybe for the route author to clone the asset, give it a new name (e.g. prefixed with their initials) and use that instead?

Click to expand...

Absolutely not. There is no need for another copy of an existing item, and it is likely a breach of copyright.

A route created by a Trainz user refers to an item - it does not include the item. This avoids any issues of impinging on the intellectual rights of the asset creator. But it does create the issue of ensuring that anyone who uses the route has access to the assets that the route refers to (part of the topic being discussed here). DLC packages address that problem by including the asset in the package (as well as referencing it in the route, of course). N3V gets the right to do that from the licence granted to them by anyone who uploads their asset to the DLS. https://www.auran.com/trainz/AuranContentCreationandDistributionPolicy.htm

N3V does not automatically get the right to modify that asset, although they sometimes do that with the agreement of the content creator.

The restriction on the rights of N3V to modify assets when they redistribute them, and the restriction on anyone else to redistribute (unless specifically authorised) is important in ensuring content creators support the DLS and the Trainz community that relies on it.

We've moved away from the original issue in this thread and now moved onto "DLS items should not be used in payware routes or sessions". I will add this to the growing list of items to address, but for now, here are some points (as I sit here on a Saturday morning working away) to ponder...

[And just before I get to these points - I'd really love to find a way to encourage more content creators, and one of those could be finding ways to compensate them for their efforts.]

* The content is made available for sharing free on the DLS, where Trainz users can access it and use it in their own creations
* A route builder chooses to use various assets from the DLS in their route (to make it look more or less like a real world)
* They include trains and rolling stock which are necessary to operate a railroad
* The route they create provides the "structure" necessary to create sessions, drive trains, interact with industries etc
* Without a route, the assets can only be looked at, and cannot be interacted with
* There are payware routes and freeware routes (and probably far more "work in progress" routes that never get seen by anyone but their creator
* Payware routes are generally (but not always) greater undertakings than freeware routes
* The market for payware routes for Trainz is smaller than the market for freeware routes (that makes sense - why pay for X when you can get Y for free)
* The market decides how much a payware creator receives, but overall, the revenue for all but the best selling DLC items is small
* A payware route takes say 1,000 hours to create (often much more)
* A payware route includes say 1,000 to 5,000 assets each taking say 10 hours on average to create (although a loco is 100s of hours). Let's settle for total time commitment of 20,000 hours on average for the content (as somewhere between 10,000 to 50,000 man hours).
* So the "cost of creating the content" is far greater than "the cost of developing the route".
* One proposal is to share the payware revenue with the content creators
* This process would, by definition, reduce the revenue for the route builder
* The amount of money received by the creator (if they are still alive, and can still be found) would be in the $1-$10 range per item per DLC route (i.e. not give up your day job income)
* Processing payments to 1,000 different content creators would fall to N3V and there would be a significant cost to automate and manage this process
* The likely effect would be that you would have less payware routes (since the return for the route builder is reduced)
* The benefit for the content creators is negligible

In an ideal world, everything would be free.
Do DLC creators benefit from the content on the DLS? Yes.
Does the community benefit from having these items available? Yes (for those interested in buying or subscribing to access the content).
Does N3V Games benefit from the content on the DLS? Yes.

Would introducing compensation for all DLC content help the community in general? Probably not.
Some route builders would probably give up.
N3V Games would probably decide not to host this payware due to the administration cost of paying 1000 contributors.
With one aspect of revenue generation removed, N3V Games would then need to reconsider the viability of continuing to develop and support Trainz.

Perhaps another option would be to put a paywall onto the DLS to generate revenues directly for the people who upload there (although the admin cost again is going to eat into that again).

the problem is wider, who is obliged to repair freeware assets with error in payable ( payware, buidin ) routes and sessions

similar reading
SP3 hf1

Tony_Hilliam said:

* One proposal is to share the payware revenue with the content creators

Click to expand...

I'm not sure this has ever been seriously proposed. Certainly it has not been raised in any recent discussion. In fact, the concern about freeware becoming payware is pretty much the opposite of the suggestion that content creators share the payware revenue.

I don't get any sense that content creators are concerned about N3V making money from payware routes that include their freeware content provided that content is not flagged as payware.

BuilderBob said:

I'm not sure this has ever been seriously proposed. Certainly it has not been raised in any recent discussion. In fact, the concern about freeware becoming payware is pretty much the opposite of the suggestion that content creators share the payware revenue.

I don't get any sense that content creators are concerned about N3V making money from payware routes that include their freeware content provided that content is not flagged as payware.

Click to expand...

Read Vern's post #83

Tony_Hilliam said:

* The amount of money received by the creator (if they are still alive, and can still be found) would be in the $1-$10 range per item per DLC route (i.e. not give up your day job income)
* Processing payments to 1,000 different content creators would fall to N3V and there would be a significant cost to automate and manage this process

Click to expand...

I can personally vouch for those two points. Over the last few decades I have been the editor and contributing author of a number of technical books which are still receiving royalty payments. Some of those royalties (only a few hundred dollars now but to be divided up between 3-6 people) come directly to me as the editor and I have to distribute them to the authors that were involved - a task that is becoming impossible. People have moved away, email, web and social media media addresses are no longer functioning.

My comments were somewhat anecdotal, however having been involved in payware route creation for MSTS I can certainly recall this was created by a team specifically put together for the purpose. (3D Trainstuff, Blue Arrow etc.). Any royalties, which as Tony quite rightly says in the overall scheme of things doesn't amount to that much, were split on a basis agreed by all parties involved. It never occurred to me or anyone else to lift a freeware item off UKTS or Trainsim dot com and put it in the route, certainly not without asking and certainly not in the expectation it would be gratis.

Although not personally involved with payware for DTG-TS and its Railworks predecessor I know from conversations with others it is similarly taboo to consider using freeware without permission or recognition, whether this is bundled with the route or referenced from elsewhere.

There are plus and minus points to the argument, but does put Trainz as the odd man out in the payware route building world. On the one hand the N3V system allows just about anyone to take a crack at doing a route for profit without having to assemble a full team, but then we end up with the situation as outlined in the OP - freeware items becoming payware.

Incidentally "royalties" don't have to be a financial payment. They could be a complimentary copy of the finished project or as already mentioned, a voucher for FCT access to the DLS for whatever time period was deemed appropriate.

Talking about royalties for assets is absurd, it is impossible to determine the value of each asset and then determine the compensation. But talking about the moral norms in the use of assets and the maintenance of assets, is of very high importance when they use it in payware, builtin purpose, because someone use the assets of another, free of charge. If something is repaired then both, original and repaired asset must stay free.

celje said:

If something (freeware) is repaired then both, original and repaired asset must stay free.

Click to expand...

Which is my understanding of the current situation. Certainly there have glitches where some (how many is argued about) freeware has been incorrectly labelled as payware, usually after an upgrade. But N3V have acknowledged and acted on these cases when reported.

A simple way to resolve this is to not include any freeware, aka assets that are on the DLS and not on third-party sites, in the payware routes. When someone purchases a payware routes, the route is installed as it is now, and via the downloading system within Trainz, the required assets are downloaded. This DLS access will deliver content as was done in TS12 for the updates, with the only difference being no FCT will be required and this isn't updates, but instead the latest version of those assets as required.

The downside to this is it'll be bigger and longer downloads for installing the routes, but in the long run it ensures that the content that's one the DLS is on the DLS and not locked down in the payware-DLC system.

Now if these payware routes, could be fully unlocked to include merging and all the other things we used to do with routes, it would be really, really nice.

JCitron said:

...not include any freeware, aka assets that are on the DLS and not on third-party sites, in the payware routes
...if these payware routes, could be fully unlocked to include merging and all the other things


Good suggestions

Tony_Hilliam said:

Read Vern's post #83

Click to expand...

That comment referred to the much wider context of the payware market in general. I find it strange that you question the basis of the Trainz model by suggesting that content creators need to be compensated for their creations, when you have repeatedly referred to the success of the DLS and the evidence of nearly half a million uploads, even though the N3V licence allows freeware to be used in N3V payware.

Content creators who believe they deserve compensation for their creations currently have the means to do that through third-party sites, and you actually work closely with some of them. It's a non-issue as far as the freeware on the DLS is concerned. The issue is the alteration of freeware to built-in and payware, which, incidentally, is likely contrary to the licence granted by the content creator.