Texas Discussion Thread

[supersobes]

In the game, the Nevada cover art shows the Peterbilt 389. It seems that there are multiple versions of the art.

[ external image ]

[flight50]

The Peterbilt 579 is used on the cover art of the game itself, so I believe licensing shouldn't be too large of an obstacle for the the 389 to appear on the cover art for Texas to represent Peterbilt's home state.

The 579 was 5-6 years ago on the cover. Doesn't mean the same relationship exist. When ATS struggled to get trucks, we didn't see Kenworth nor Peterbilt step up and allow the 567 or the T800/T880. The first truck brands in the game now, is not a guarantee that they still cooperate now. What if SCS is trying to get tuning packs for (x) brand and they don't want any parts of it. Brands in the game does not equal anything in addition to just a truck license.

[Sora]

It should definitely be a Peterbilt representing Texas, but if for some reason this is legally unavailable (though I don't see why this would occur), I'll accept the LoneStar as an alternative.

I don't care that much tbh but I'd be very very slightly disappointed if it was something else since those two options specifically make too much sense.

[Marcello Julio]

If SCS decides to add the Peterbilt plant in Denton, what makes the most sense in my head is that the Texas cover truck will be a Peterbilt truck, just as it was with Washington that we had the Kenworth plant and the cover truck was the T680. It would not make sense for them to add the Peterbilt plant and the cover truck to be from another manufacturer. I'm hopeful that now with Paccar approach to the New DAF on ETS2, it reflects in the Paccar North America and that SCS will be able to bring the New 579 into the game before Texas.

[flight50]

The Lonestar was used for Idaho. So no way that makes the Texas dlc, this soon. My guess is the new 579, 389 or the Cascadia. It definitely makes since to put a Peterbilt on the Texas cover but that might be out of SCS's control. So that must be considered. No matter what the community thinks, they still have to get permission for this stuff. Its not all automatic just because we think the stars align. We don't know the process that SCS has to go thru but I bet there is a protocol. There are proper channels to go thru and if they violate them, they are back to square one when ATS couldn't get anyone other than Paccar to joint the game. Permissions is everything.

The new 579 makes a ton of sense. Texas won't release til next year more than likely so there is hope. But, if SCS can't get that deal, what do you do? Something has to be on the cover. Not having a Pete on the cover is minor. Getting the Texas dlc period is the major. The Pete on the cover does nothing for us. But getting the Texas dlc is everything. Once the dlc releases, no one is thinking about what's on the cover anyways. The content to be concerned about is in the dlc itself, not some cover art. The cover art is not playable, but the dlc is. I can careless what is on the cover for Texas once the dlc is purchasable. I do collect all the ATS map release art work just to have them, but I wouldn't take offense to (x) state not getting a truck that I thought it should get.

[oldmanclippy]

I wouldn't expect another truck to be on the cover besides the Cascadia. The newest truck has been the cover truck since Utah, and I'd be surprised if that changed unless they want to insult one of their industry partners by going out of order. 49X for Wyoming, Cascadia for Texas, and Montana gets the next truck. I'd be surprised if we didn't get another truck before Montana, but otherwise they can start reusing trucks.

[Bedavd]

We have a T680 in Washington's cover, which follows the Kenworth factory added in the game. And that's despite the Volvo being added in a month after Oregon's release in 2018, and the T680 already showing up on the New Mexico cover.

Sure, absolutely the Cascadia needs a cover, and what better state than putting the best-selling truck on (probably) the best-selling DLC? However, we also have 39 more states to go after Texas so there's plenty of time. I get the indication that PACCAR and SCS have a good enough relationship that if SCS really wanted to put the 389 or 579 onto the cover PACCAR wouldn't put up too much resistance to getting that paperwork done, particularly if the Peterbilt plant is coming.

I'd put my money on it being one of the Peterbilt's, personally.

[flight50]

We have both Paccar and its two sub companies to worry about. Its not just Paccar though. Everyone has to be on the same page for ATS to get this or that. It make sense for Texas to have Peterbilt and the new 579 but that is all from being spoiled because that is what we expect. We don't know if we get all this. The worst part is that SCS has said nothing to indicate neither and if we don't get what we expect, then we get upset and mad. If we don't get it, does that mean that SCS is at fault, nope. It means something didn't work out. Even though no confirmations from SCS are made when it comes to licensing partners, we the fans disappointed ourselves. Until we see a blog for this or that, we are only speculating and wishlisting things.

We finally got a Devil's Tower blog. That is (1) confirmation that we where looking for. There will be numerous more confirmations in the future. Texas will have a butt load of confirmations necessary. Roads, cities, buildingings, depots, cargo, features, etc, you name it. Texas should have a ton of blogs though so I'll be excited to sit and read each one up until its released.

[Xaagon]

So far we have had one truck on the cover of each state. What's to say this is always the case? Maybe they release one with multiple trucks, no trucks, or focus on a trailer or something? Personally I'm more concerned with the content than the cover.

[flight50]

There is going to come a time when a state must repeat. Which one will be first is a tough guess but it won't be Texas if the Cascadia is there. But I think it does happen in the next 2-3 years. SCS is going to run out of in production trucks pretty quick if ATS goes to 3 maps a year.