Install the app
How to install the app on iOS
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
An Open Letter to N3V
- Thread starter jacksonbarno
- Start date
hiawathamr
DLC developer for Trainz
Ever since TRS22 doing content for this game has been stressful and N3V hasn't made it clear on how handle things like how to support both TRS19 and TRS22 route packs via TCCP. This took a lot of time talking with Zec to get the actual details I needed.
Also because of TRS22, I ended up cancelling a session pack because KSC2 has a different kuid than what the TRS19 version had and I had a session pack again for KSC2 to be removed from sale because of TRS22. How nice.
I'm not exactly happy with TRS22 and all of the hassle it has caused so far. I might even consider updating my review on Steam about my fun so far....
Cheers
Also because of TRS22, I ended up cancelling a session pack because KSC2 has a different kuid than what the TRS19 version had and I had a session pack again for KSC2 to be removed from sale because of TRS22. How nice.
I'm not exactly happy with TRS22 and all of the hassle it has caused so far. I might even consider updating my review on Steam about my fun so far....
Cheers
N3V why disable derailments?
From I have have read on this issue in past threads the problem was/is a conflict with the PhysX simulation system.
why not try to make them more smart and advanced
but downside it it would take months or even a year to get that advanced , scrpiting etc etc
You largely answered that but the demand for "more realistic collisions" seems to come from a minority of posters with the majority wanting to run a Railway Simulator, not a Crash Simulator - but this is my opinion.
Tony_Hilliam
Trainz Plus - enjoy Trainz from just 20 cents a da
Derailments - they weren't removed, it's just they weren't added when we updated the game engine for TANE. They were also pretty bad in the old days and we figured unless we were going to do it "right" then why bother at all.
Fyi, we're currently compiling a list of the top 1,000 Trainz feature requests. We might even try to narrow it down to the top 100 feasible feature requests since a request can be a 5 minute job or a 5 year job depending on the effort involved.
Please don't add your feature requests to this thread. There's plenty of others focussed on the topic.
Fyi, we're currently compiling a list of the top 1,000 Trainz feature requests. We might even try to narrow it down to the top 100 feasible feature requests since a request can be a 5 minute job or a 5 year job depending on the effort involved.
Please don't add your feature requests to this thread. There's plenty of others focussed on the topic.
I've been around Trainz since TRS2004. I find all my playing time now goes to either Train Sim, TSW2 or Transport Fever 2. This is solely down to available UK based content modelled utilising current technologies. I think Trainz now has the graphical capabilities to match the rest of the pack, or even exceed it, but does not yet have the diversity of current content to keep me interested. This is both in terms of the models but also sound sets and the "feeling" of driving the train.
For me at least, I would need to see a wide range of UK rolling stock and associated content developed before Trainz can properly hook me back in - a couple of models is not enough, I want to see the variety of trains I see in real life represented in the sim. That, or a route with associated stock to the accuracy and quality of a TS/TSW route.
In regards to pricing models, I am a person who will choose a one off payment over a subscription every time. But I would subscribe to a Trainz if it meant that it is closer to having a comprehensive content set to the latest standards.
I hope in time new content can be addressed as my allegiance truly lies with Trainz. I would love to have Surveyor level tools with the content of the other games.
I used to dabble in content creation and have tried out Blender and PBR. I found it too complex for the time I had available. Perhaps more and better tutorials and walk throughs might help spur on future content creation.
For me at least, I would need to see a wide range of UK rolling stock and associated content developed before Trainz can properly hook me back in - a couple of models is not enough, I want to see the variety of trains I see in real life represented in the sim. That, or a route with associated stock to the accuracy and quality of a TS/TSW route.
In regards to pricing models, I am a person who will choose a one off payment over a subscription every time. But I would subscribe to a Trainz if it meant that it is closer to having a comprehensive content set to the latest standards.
I hope in time new content can be addressed as my allegiance truly lies with Trainz. I would love to have Surveyor level tools with the content of the other games.
I used to dabble in content creation and have tried out Blender and PBR. I found it too complex for the time I had available. Perhaps more and better tutorials and walk throughs might help spur on future content creation.
I want to see the variety of trains I see in real life represented in the sim.
I hope in time new content can be addressed as my allegiance truly lies with Trainz. I would love to have Surveyor level tools with the content of the other games.
I used to dabble in content creation and have tried out Blender and PBR. I found it too complex for the time I had available.
I sympathize. The days of using GMax to create "acceptable" scenery and rolling stock assets have long gone. In a post just a day or two ago one GMax based creator has acknowledged that fact and is going to make the effort to switch to Blender.
N3V make little, if any, content themselves. I do not have the other sims to be able to comment on how they do it but I suspect that a lot of their content is payware or commissioned (with the cost most likely passed on to the consumers). My attempts to use Blender have ended with the same result as yours - the time needed to learn to use the tools is long, the time to develop assets of "acceptable" quality is longer. Some users have resorted to using Sketchup, with all the "issues" that that option creates.
In my latest project I have switched to using PBR textures exclusively. It was an initial learning curve but the results are impressive (in my opinion).
I do not have any magic bullet solution to offer except to say that expanding the Trainz user base will also expand the number of talented asset creators (and they are all talented).
In my latest project I have switched to using PBR textures exclusively. It was an initial learning curve but the results are impressive (in my opinion).
pware...just saw your comment re PBR textures. Inspired me to go look and download a few....liked then so much have gone for broke and now, like you, will use them exclusively.
Inspired me to go look and download a few....liked then so much have gone for broke and now, like you, will use them exclusively.
Welcome to the PBR club. A few tips that might help you:-
- Set your Shader Quality to no higher than Standard (ultra will cause a few issues with some assets where they touch a PBR texture)
- Where possible, avoid using the rotation tool ("[" and "]" keys) when painting - this will increase the memory usage as it will, according to Zec, increase the texture load.
- For most PBR textures a smaller scaling value (I use 25% max) will be more appropriate. I only use the maximum scale when I need the larger texture effect.
And of course, avoid mixing PBR and non-PBR textures. I also now use only track assets that use PBR textures for their ballast.
Like most Trainzers, I understand that it takes time & money for N3V to devolope new features and improve existing features, within the Sim.
That said, one thing that got my blood boiling quite a while ago was N3V changing the UNDO/REDO buttom in TS2019 & TS2022, to hide it in a drop down menu. When in Tane Surveyor, I would use this buttom more than twice as much as all the other buttons combined. For that reason alone, I still only "build" in Tane, not TS2019.
So as far as I am personally concerned, N3V has "taken a feature away, rather than added one" (Yes, I'm aware of a hot key option). IMHO, this was a backward step by N3V. Even tho lots of the community voiced their amazement & disapproval, N3V never listened. (Whatever happened to the customer is always right?)...
Maybe one day we might see the simple Undo/Redo button reinstalled in it's rightful place (as a button) in the left hand TOP side of Surveyor. (Boy, does that feel good getting that off my chest, again)... I was up half the night debating with me, myself & I as too whether I should post this post or not. "I" won out!!! :hehe:
Now where were we???
Cheers, Mac...
CTRL Z and CTRL Y. Just like every other windows program. You will save weeks of your life just in mouse movement (Dependending on age).
would be nice to have both options though
jacksonbarno
Alco Spoken Here
First off I would like to thank everyone for keeping things civil and weighing in. Everyone seems to have great points so far and I think this has gone a long way to clear up misconceptions and answer a lot of questions people to have been pondering. I would also like to give a big thanks to Tony as well for his in depth and thoughtful response. It's really a rarity these days that a CEO is so open and active on a public forum like this, and rarer still that the time is taken to draft a well thought out response such as we have seen here.
In spirit yes, however I think my main concern was not necessarily the lack of wanting to wait or pay an adequate price, but rather that the base game of Trainz 22 seems to add no features itself. To me the subscription service seems to be the only component of the new Trainz release that offers a functional upgrade from the prior version.
I think that this explanation, coupled with the later elaboration that you made a few points down, does a much better job of explaining to me what the intent behind the service is. In the way a "premium beta" service to access new features that are mostly but not entirely game-ready is a fantastic idea, and one that I would definitely more support. My only concern with this system is the aforementioned lack of (in my opinion) tangible updates to the base game, especially moving forward in future versions. Factoring in the FCT cost certainly also does help put it a bit more in perspective, but most recurring users already have T:ANE and TS19 content. That is definitely good for new incoming users, but those people are also the ones who are least affected by the startling similarity between the base games of 19 and 22, as they are not upgrading from a prior version.
As for the promise of new updates, I am again optimistic but apprehensive, and will defer to you to announce the what new planned features for the subscription service in the future before I develop an opinion on that.
With all due respect, what is included in the base game of 22 (content aside) that wouldn't be expected in a patch for Trainz 19? Bug fixes and optimizations are expected as part of a game's life cycle, and while they make for wonderful improvements in both updates and new game releases, they do not make a new game by themselves.
I may be misunderstanding then, but if these TRS 22 features were included in 19, then wouldn't mean that there is even less difference between the two games. I also feel that fact also somewhat verifies my last point that the base version of Trainz 22 is more or less a large patch for 19 locked behind a pay wall.
But that misses my point that you do not seem to be giving people the option to purchase the game every three years (at least based off of this release). All of the "new" parts about the new game people can buy are locked behind the subscription! So far it seems that there is no real way to update from 19 if you do not want to purchase the subscription service in the current model.
I am thrilled that you are able to put that in writing, I think that is one of the main fears that a lot of people seem to have had over this new system, and eliminating that factor makes me feel much better about how the base 22 update system will be handled as well.
Maybe I am misremembering but it seems to me that the overwhelming majority of service packs and hotfixes have dealt with stability, optimization, and bug fixes, all of which are to be expected from any game (especially complex and taxing games like simulators). Aside from few isolated examples, I can't think of many actual new features that have been added through Service Packs in recent releases.
Yup, that was it. My bad!
Understandable, however I have gotten the feeling that a number of people still feel that several of those stretch goals (and also some of the achieved goals like the unfinished switch system) (minor weather improvements also come to mind) were misrepresented or at the very least doable within the scope of the game. I'm not saying that we need to achieve the impossible here, but I'm inclined to agree with some sentiments and would also say that the prioritization of the more requested and closer stretch goals would have been nice to see, particularly because graphically they set the game back much more than other, more complex changes that have been implemented. (for the record I very much understand why point lighting was not a priority as it is an extremely demanding process that would tax an already resource heavy game)
Mainly the extraordinary number of assets that 22 has seem to broken by the continuous tightening of the belt regarding the asset validation system. In a lot of ways I understand that it is necessary but it seems like every update breaks more content that the already backlogged content repair group needs to clean up. It is certainly frustrating to have so many routes and building assets broken with every successive release, particularly when many do not have suitable updated replacements.
Wow, I had to split this one into two parts!
Rephrasing that it sounds like you’re saying “here’s a really great feature that I want, but I don’t want to pay more than I have to for it, and I don’t want to wait for it either.”
You will be able to purchase S20 in a future edition when it’s gone through more iterations and polish. Trainz Plus gives you this feature and more new features that we will be adding regularly.
If you want to access it now, you need to support the ongoing development by becoming a member.
In spirit yes, however I think my main concern was not necessarily the lack of wanting to wait or pay an adequate price, but rather that the base game of Trainz 22 seems to add no features itself. To me the subscription service seems to be the only component of the new Trainz release that offers a functional upgrade from the prior version.
This isn’t quite right. To start, the $70 a year includes an FCT, so there’s really only half that amount attributed to the game. You also get all the TANE and TRS19 built-in content, so for users who haven’t purchased those two versions, there is a huge amount of additional content.
In addition, there are new features added on a regular basis, so for next year’s sub, you get several more features. In other words you’re not buying the product off the shelf like TRS22.
I think that this explanation, coupled with the later elaboration that you made a few points down, does a much better job of explaining to me what the intent behind the service is. In the way a "premium beta" service to access new features that are mostly but not entirely game-ready is a fantastic idea, and one that I would definitely more support. My only concern with this system is the aforementioned lack of (in my opinion) tangible updates to the base game, especially moving forward in future versions. Factoring in the FCT cost certainly also does help put it a bit more in perspective, but most recurring users already have T:ANE and TS19 content. That is definitely good for new incoming users, but those people are also the ones who are least affected by the startling similarity between the base games of 19 and 22, as they are not upgrading from a prior version.
As for the promise of new updates, I am again optimistic but apprehensive, and will defer to you to announce the what new planned features for the subscription service in the future before I develop an opinion on that.
It isn’t as big a graphical change as in the past, that is true. However, there are new features, and the content included is a step up from previous releases as well. It has been built to take advantage of the latest engine features, and the value based upon regular DLC pricing makes “just a content release” worth while in any case.
But this approach ignores all the new features, bug fixes and optimisations.
With all due respect, what is included in the base game of 22 (content aside) that wouldn't be expected in a patch for Trainz 19? Bug fixes and optimizations are expected as part of a game's life cycle, and while they make for wonderful improvements in both updates and new game releases, they do not make a new game by themselves.
New TRS22 features for TRS19 Platinum users means MPS and new bulk update tools, while for TRS19 users it also means UDS, cameras, Content Store are new.
I may be misunderstanding then, but if these TRS 22 features were included in 19, then wouldn't mean that there is even less difference between the two games. I also feel that fact also somewhat verifies my last point that the base version of Trainz 22 is more or less a large patch for 19 locked behind a pay wall.
Sure, but it’s costing you less than 20 cents a day, and you’re getting regular feature and content updates. Conversely, if you purchase Trainz once every 3 years, you save money, but have to wait to get all the new features Trainz Plus have been enjoying as a benefit of their ongoing subs.
But that misses my point that you do not seem to be giving people the option to purchase the game every three years (at least based off of this release). All of the "new" parts about the new game people can buy are locked behind the subscription! So far it seems that there is no real way to update from 19 if you do not want to purchase the subscription service in the current model.
No, this won’t happen. With the release of MPS for TRS22 users, ongoing compatibility is required so that all players can connect to our servers.
No. This is a major red herring and something I can very clearly state will not occur.
I am thrilled that you are able to put that in writing, I think that is one of the main fears that a lot of people seem to have had over this new system, and eliminating that factor makes me feel much better about how the base 22 update system will be handled as well.
I’m not sure where this concept has come from. We’ve always promised Service Packs to address any issues that arise and we’ve sometimes added features into the mix.
Maybe I am misremembering but it seems to me that the overwhelming majority of service packs and hotfixes have dealt with stability, optimization, and bug fixes, all of which are to be expected from any game (especially complex and taxing games like simulators). Aside from few isolated examples, I can't think of many actual new features that have been added through Service Packs in recent releases.
No. TRS19 has not had MPS as a feature. Perhaps you might be referring to Trainz Plus during the TRS19 era.
Yup, that was it. My bad!
If you check back to Kickstarter project, you see these “Promises” were, in fact, “Stretch goals”. Insufficient crowdfunding meant those goals were not reached. And there is a list of 1,000+ other features that people would like to see, but not enough people prepared to pay for them to be developed.
Understandable, however I have gotten the feeling that a number of people still feel that several of those stretch goals (and also some of the achieved goals like the unfinished switch system) (minor weather improvements also come to mind) were misrepresented or at the very least doable within the scope of the game. I'm not saying that we need to achieve the impossible here, but I'm inclined to agree with some sentiments and would also say that the prioritization of the more requested and closer stretch goals would have been nice to see, particularly because graphically they set the game back much more than other, more complex changes that have been implemented. (for the record I very much understand why point lighting was not a priority as it is an extremely demanding process that would tax an already resource heavy game)
I’m not sure what you’re referring to.
Mainly the extraordinary number of assets that 22 has seem to broken by the continuous tightening of the belt regarding the asset validation system. In a lot of ways I understand that it is necessary but it seems like every update breaks more content that the already backlogged content repair group needs to clean up. It is certainly frustrating to have so many routes and building assets broken with every successive release, particularly when many do not have suitable updated replacements.
Wow, I had to split this one into two parts!
Last edited:
jacksonbarno
Alco Spoken Here
Only you can determine the value you perceive. From our perspective, one new version of Trainz every 3 years doesn’t keep the ship afloat. If the alternative is no more Trainz, what do you think then?... How exactly? We’re a private company, but basically everything we earn is reinvested in new features and products... I totally disagree. The worst thing for Trainz users would be no further development of Trainz. The growing membership base are supporting more and more of the ongoing development of Trainz. Non-members simply need to wait until there's a product they're happy to pay for in the store. We know not everyone will buy every product, but we also know that with more and more people seeing value in memberships, we've been able to expand our dev team further. So surely a good thing for Trainz.
My question is then - does N3V need the subscription model to remain viable? If so then in my opinion this entire discussion is as good as pointless, because you are entirely correct. I think I speak for most when I say given the two options, I would entirely support the move to a subscription model if it means a more secure future for the franchise.
>>
Accepted? Predatory? Really?
Memberships are optional. If you want more features more quickly, then choose Trainz Plus. If you want more content as well, choose Gold Class.
If you want to pay once-off as each new major product is released, and not receive the subscription benefits, feel free to keep doing that
I would certainly say that subscription based models are widely accepted as predatory by many in the gaming industry. It does not take much more than a cursory google search to reveal that this opinion is held by many involved in the gaming industry, especially with the large scale move to this model in other franchises. I understand that N3V is offering more with their model than many of these scenarios, and I understand that N3V is faced with a more unique situation. The issue (as previously stated) is that it does not feel like you are giving customers a choice. The fact of the matter is that you are not buying a new game every three years if you do not opt into the subscription, you are buying the same game every three years.
I’m all ears.
I would say a place to start is more comprehensive development of DLC alongside both built-in and DLC routes to offer companion products, and even as packages. This has been occasionally done in the past, however it seems to have been the initiative of the creators behind the routes in question rather than N3Vs (Gawpo's C&O route and locomotives come to mind). A suggestion for example (I don't want to get too content involved but to outline the point) would be, say, full packs of Superliner cars in sold on the store to compliment the incomplete set sold in 22, one pack for each Amtrak phase. Perhaps something could be worked out with Jointedrail to include their F40s and/or P42s alongside or in the packs, and then sessions for Moffat, Tehachapi (Coast Starlight reroute) and other US routes that are offered on the Trainz store.
Not only does that utilize the content that N3V has already commissioned for the game in a cost-effective way (making the first superliner in the set is much more effort than any successive superliner), but it also offers a more out-of the box DLC experience that newer or less creation inclined users can enjoy. This could help drive DLC sales up at least a bit more and also help increase the usefulness of built in routes as well.
I agree. So how much is it worth to you per day to enjoy that product and to support the developer to make it better? You pay your ISP provider each month, and I expect that it’s a lot more than $8/mth.
It is, and I use Trainz far more than any other game, although I would compare Trainz more to something like Netflix than my ISP. My question is why should that support for the product come in the form of a subscription service at all?
We currently do not allow Scrapbooks in payware routes to be used in other routes. We have been told that this practice is unfair and should be dropped. You’re suggesting the opposite, that we should not allow Scrapbooks to be used in any other route.
Given users can currently merge non-payware routes, I don’t see this as a new issue.
I wasn't suggesting any outcome as much as inquiring about a problem. I would definitely say that the scrapbook system has the potential to be much worse than the payware route merging issue because it would be a lot less identifiable and traceable. You could in theory mix and match different sections of other people's routes and then claim the product as entirely your own. You could even in theory merge a payware route, copy large areas off of that route into the scrapbook, and then use those areas in a freeware route that you entirely claim as your own.
I'm not saying I have a solution for it, but I am saying it has the potential to be a major issue.
Thank you again for the in-depth and thoughtful response. I'm glad this thread has received so much attention!
There is a lot there to process in those two posts by jacksonbarno, some of which has been covered in earlier posts and in other threads.
I will just concentrate on the subscription issue, which seems to be a burning topic with some posters.
By coincidence this mornings edition of my local newspaper (The Sydney Morning Herald - Business Section) had an almost full page article on the topic of subscriptions in the computer gaming industry. The remaining space on the page was taken up by the recent death due to the end-of-support of MS Internet Explorer - is anyone still using that? This death, according to the obituary, occurred on June 15th.
I wrote an earlier post in this thread on how subscription services are taking over the software industry and how the gaming consoles were looking seriously at the move. Now that move is official. XBox and Playstation are now following the lead of Microsoft and Apple in offering access to hundreds of their games for monthly and/or annual subscriptions. There are various levels of subscription available. The move has been met with mixed reactions by gamers - some are totally in favour, others are not (sounds familiar).
Samsung have joined in by offering access to any bluetooth enabled game controllers to stream (subscriptions required) games from multiple servers in their new TVs. Streaming games is another area of contention, particularly for those on lower speed internet connections. Locally, here in Australia, Microsoft will introduce a game streaming service with Sony (Playstation) launching one internationally next week.
You can still buy individual games from Microsoft (XBox) and Sony (Playstation).
In my earlier post I noted that the small sample of Microsoft games that I looked at back then, particularly at the low cost end, were mostly puzzles that, once solved, you would probably not play again. None of the games I looked at were developed by Microsoft. Without checking I would guess that the same is true with Sony.
The subscription model has obvious benefits for the developers. For one it gives them a more secure steady income and the ability to plan future releases without being constantly limited by their variable sales income. Tony recently posted that due to the uptake of the subscriptions they have been able to employ two more programmers. That is a win for everyone. For consumers it gives access to many more games with the costs spread over a longer period. For those who only want to play a few games, the option to buy outright is still there.
Now there is an obvious issue for a company, like N3V, that has essentially only a single software product - lets call it "Trainz+". For a monthly or yearly subscription over a period of time the subscription would be more expensive than buying the same product outright. So more has to be offered than just the same product. This is provided by the regular updates with new subscription only features such as Surveyor 2.0 and additional Bulk Fill options (not just normal SP/HF bug "fixes"), access to more content, an FCT (or a further discount for those who already have a "lifetime" FCT), etc. A Gold subscription, at a higher cost, gives access to even more content.
Now those "extras" will not please everyone and not everyone would be able to afford the subscription. The option to buy outright is still there.
Some of the posts I have seen that are opposing the subscription model have commented that they do not like the idea of subscribers getting features and/or benefits that outright purchases do not get immediately, have to wait longer for, or have to pay extra to access (the DLC offerings and FCT for example). It turns non-subscribers, they claim, into "second class" members. Unfortunately, this criticism ignores the real world. As I have pointed out in previous posts on this, the organisations that I belong to offer members (subscribers) benefits and discounts that non-members do not get - that is one of the reasons I joined them. But again, not everyone can afford the annual membership fees I pay so those people can still use the services they offer but they will pay the market prices and will not receive other benefits.
The article in today's paper made it clear that subscription gaming is here to stay but the distributors (Microsoft at least, Sony did not comment for the article) have made it clear that subscriptions will be an option for players, not mandatory. N3V have clearly and repeatedly stated the same.
My thoughts.
I will just concentrate on the subscription issue, which seems to be a burning topic with some posters.
By coincidence this mornings edition of my local newspaper (The Sydney Morning Herald - Business Section) had an almost full page article on the topic of subscriptions in the computer gaming industry. The remaining space on the page was taken up by the recent death due to the end-of-support of MS Internet Explorer - is anyone still using that? This death, according to the obituary, occurred on June 15th.
I wrote an earlier post in this thread on how subscription services are taking over the software industry and how the gaming consoles were looking seriously at the move. Now that move is official. XBox and Playstation are now following the lead of Microsoft and Apple in offering access to hundreds of their games for monthly and/or annual subscriptions. There are various levels of subscription available. The move has been met with mixed reactions by gamers - some are totally in favour, others are not (sounds familiar).
Samsung have joined in by offering access to any bluetooth enabled game controllers to stream (subscriptions required) games from multiple servers in their new TVs. Streaming games is another area of contention, particularly for those on lower speed internet connections. Locally, here in Australia, Microsoft will introduce a game streaming service with Sony (Playstation) launching one internationally next week.
You can still buy individual games from Microsoft (XBox) and Sony (Playstation).
In my earlier post I noted that the small sample of Microsoft games that I looked at back then, particularly at the low cost end, were mostly puzzles that, once solved, you would probably not play again. None of the games I looked at were developed by Microsoft. Without checking I would guess that the same is true with Sony.
The subscription model has obvious benefits for the developers. For one it gives them a more secure steady income and the ability to plan future releases without being constantly limited by their variable sales income. Tony recently posted that due to the uptake of the subscriptions they have been able to employ two more programmers. That is a win for everyone. For consumers it gives access to many more games with the costs spread over a longer period. For those who only want to play a few games, the option to buy outright is still there.
Now there is an obvious issue for a company, like N3V, that has essentially only a single software product - lets call it "Trainz+". For a monthly or yearly subscription over a period of time the subscription would be more expensive than buying the same product outright. So more has to be offered than just the same product. This is provided by the regular updates with new subscription only features such as Surveyor 2.0 and additional Bulk Fill options (not just normal SP/HF bug "fixes"), access to more content, an FCT (or a further discount for those who already have a "lifetime" FCT), etc. A Gold subscription, at a higher cost, gives access to even more content.
Now those "extras" will not please everyone and not everyone would be able to afford the subscription. The option to buy outright is still there.
Some of the posts I have seen that are opposing the subscription model have commented that they do not like the idea of subscribers getting features and/or benefits that outright purchases do not get immediately, have to wait longer for, or have to pay extra to access (the DLC offerings and FCT for example). It turns non-subscribers, they claim, into "second class" members. Unfortunately, this criticism ignores the real world. As I have pointed out in previous posts on this, the organisations that I belong to offer members (subscribers) benefits and discounts that non-members do not get - that is one of the reasons I joined them. But again, not everyone can afford the annual membership fees I pay so those people can still use the services they offer but they will pay the market prices and will not receive other benefits.
The article in today's paper made it clear that subscription gaming is here to stay but the distributors (Microsoft at least, Sony did not comment for the article) have made it clear that subscriptions will be an option for players, not mandatory. N3V have clearly and repeatedly stated the same.
My thoughts.
jacksonbarno
Alco Spoken Here
I understand that subscription services necessarily need to provide more in order to offer a clear advantage over a non-subscription service. This makes sense, and I am not arguing that N3V should not offer more features and content for their subscription product.
My point is that there are no new features offered in Trainz 22, and that the only new features come with the subscription offering. Offering a startlingly similar product to 19, this leaves users with the choice of more or less re-purchasing Trainz 19, or buying the subscription. I think it is fairly reasonable to ask for new, non subscription versions in the Trainz franchise to have some improvement over the previous release that amounts to more than a patch.
My point is that there are no new features offered in Trainz 22, and that the only new features come with the subscription offering. Offering a startlingly similar product to 19, this leaves users with the choice of more or less re-purchasing Trainz 19, or buying the subscription. I think it is fairly reasonable to ask for new, non subscription versions in the Trainz franchise to have some improvement over the previous release that amounts to more than a patch.
Completely agree with the main point. It's disgusting how the gaming industry is pushing its customers to pay monthly for characteristics that at first should be stock. We'll miss the old times when you buy a game and you enjoyed the most part of it without having to pay again for anything. This is a much concern basically for parents (and I don't even have kids) as this might create a compulsive buying behavior.
My two cents:
How about, instead of spending months working on a completely different game, take this approach to updating.
The Mojang Approach:
Have customers pay once (say $100) and release yearly updates. Every three or four years release major updates that change the game, such as shaders like in TRS19, Doppler and MP in TRS12, etc. You can release “DLC” that has exclusive features such as S2.0, MPS and more.
Basically, have one game for sale, forever. Makes content transfer easy, makes updating easy and cheap, and there are still ways to make money thru “DLC” that enhances the core game mechanics.
Instead of paying $70 a year for one or two things and still having to buy a new game after three years, update everything, transfer content, fix errors, waste storage space, etc., make a clean and simple way to updating.
Modified Mojang Approach:
Basically, do exactly as before, however sell the game at a lower price (say $50) and charge $10 or $20 per major update to the game. You have one game, but the updates cost a little bit of money. Offer S2.0 and MPS as “DLC” and charge some money for that, but not a subscription.
What I’m trying to say is, selling upwards of 10 games and having to code them individually is time consuming for the dev team, and when you want to update, you need more storage space, the patience to transfer content with a not-easy method, and a bunch of money just to get a couple of features.
Thanks for listening, and thanks to Jackson for creating the thread!
How about, instead of spending months working on a completely different game, take this approach to updating.
The Mojang Approach:
Have customers pay once (say $100) and release yearly updates. Every three or four years release major updates that change the game, such as shaders like in TRS19, Doppler and MP in TRS12, etc. You can release “DLC” that has exclusive features such as S2.0, MPS and more.
Basically, have one game for sale, forever. Makes content transfer easy, makes updating easy and cheap, and there are still ways to make money thru “DLC” that enhances the core game mechanics.
Instead of paying $70 a year for one or two things and still having to buy a new game after three years, update everything, transfer content, fix errors, waste storage space, etc., make a clean and simple way to updating.
Modified Mojang Approach:
Basically, do exactly as before, however sell the game at a lower price (say $50) and charge $10 or $20 per major update to the game. You have one game, but the updates cost a little bit of money. Offer S2.0 and MPS as “DLC” and charge some money for that, but not a subscription.
What I’m trying to say is, selling upwards of 10 games and having to code them individually is time consuming for the dev team, and when you want to update, you need more storage space, the patience to transfer content with a not-easy method, and a bunch of money just to get a couple of features.
Thanks for listening, and thanks to Jackson for creating the thread!
I feel the need to point out that Activision / Blizzard was bought by Microsoft in January for 68.7 Billion Dollars. Their catalogues include plenty of MMPOGs that are available only by subscription. Clearly, many gamers don't have a problem with subscriptions. It makes perfect sense to me that Tony would want a piece of that action.
Now with emerging technology in virtual servers especially in adding virtual high end graphic cards to those servers for AI machine learning research, I believe that it won't be long before games will be able to run entirely on the server and stream the screen output in the same way that 4K movies are streamed in real time. Nvidia already offers this service with a small selection of games but I understand that there is a irritating amount of lag in the game controls. Now with a train simulator that lag would be less important than it is in a FPS game.
Now with emerging technology in virtual servers especially in adding virtual high end graphic cards to those servers for AI machine learning research, I believe that it won't be long before games will be able to run entirely on the server and stream the screen output in the same way that 4K movies are streamed in real time. Nvidia already offers this service with a small selection of games but I understand that there is a irritating amount of lag in the game controls. Now with a train simulator that lag would be less important than it is in a FPS game.
Trainz represents different things to different people. I've been around since UTC, hence the advent of Paint Shed was a big deal. The interface made it easy for any user create basic re-skins suitable for one's needs. Once dabbling in that, many users learned other skills which included Paintshop and some elaborately re-skinned assets. Being a retired railroader, I re-create assets and scenarios familiar to my history and I'll often meticulously go in and out to tweak assets. I undoubtedly spend more time in Surveyor mode than Driver mode.
Not everyone is a creator. A subscription service is fine for those who can afford it. Some folks like lots of content and are willing to pay for it, but a cross section of Trainz users do not. Over the years, some features are enhanced, some are removed. For me, upgrades are a question of balance. I'm okay with a subscription model, so long as there are new tools for content creation and inventory management at the same time. Leaning too heavily one way (or the perception of it) tends to alienate the other group.
TRS2019 works well for me. I'll watch the progression of 22 keenly, but I'm definitely not chomping on any bits trying to update the version any time soon.
Over the next while, an updated version of PaintShop or other content creation tools ought to be in the plan.
Not everyone is a creator. A subscription service is fine for those who can afford it. Some folks like lots of content and are willing to pay for it, but a cross section of Trainz users do not. Over the years, some features are enhanced, some are removed. For me, upgrades are a question of balance. I'm okay with a subscription model, so long as there are new tools for content creation and inventory management at the same time. Leaning too heavily one way (or the perception of it) tends to alienate the other group.
TRS2019 works well for me. I'll watch the progression of 22 keenly, but I'm definitely not chomping on any bits trying to update the version any time soon.
Over the next while, an updated version of PaintShop or other content creation tools ought to be in the plan.
One other point about subscriptions. For example, Microsoft Flight Simulator 2020 uses a real world model as the simulator and a massive multiplayer traffic system. Until N3V adopts such a thing, it ought to tread lightly avoiding it. If it's not in the next update, it may kill the platform all together. Especially if a competitor goes that direction.
Similar threads
- Replies
- 17
- Views
- 1K
- Replies
- 2
- Views
- 903
- Replies
- 7
- Views
- 561
- Replies
- 15
- Views
- 787