SCS mp

Scottvdken
Posts: 43
Joined: 22 Oct 2015 16:48

Re: SCS mp

#61 Post by Scottvdken » 20 Jan 2021 19:37

Removed quote - Rule 2.12

Of course there is. They've been doing it (and making money doing it) for the past 6+ years. You said it yourself, DLC. I have no problem paying for DLC if it supports the devs. Which, as I've said, is the fundamental basis for my argument.

The chances of them making money off of DLC from their existing playerbase is much higher (in my opinion) than these mysterious 'users' who are supposedly out there by the 'thousands' not buying the game because it doesn't have multiplayer.
Last edited by Madkine on 20 Jan 2021 20:41, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: Rule 2.12
User avatar
plykkegaard
Posts: 7204
Joined: 26 Oct 2014 13:42

Re: SCS mp

#62 Post by plykkegaard » 20 Jan 2021 19:42

Better physics or improved logistics can be DLCs? I don't know maybe but different core engines makes it harder (more expensive) to maintain

This signature virus has been spliced with the Fundementalism-B virus to create a new more contagious strain. Please look for it infecting a signature near you.
Scottvdken
Posts: 43
Joined: 22 Oct 2015 16:48

Re: SCS mp

#63 Post by Scottvdken » 20 Jan 2021 20:03

*sigh*

I didn't think I'd have to explain this. I was asked for a list of things they 'could be working on', so I provided that. I was not asked for a list of ONLY the items that could be packaged into DLC's.

I thought it would be pretty obvious that some of those items just need work, and some of those could be packaged up into DLC's. Enough with the strawmen already, focus on the actual topic instead of trying to argue semantics with me.
User avatar
plykkegaard
Posts: 7204
Joined: 26 Oct 2014 13:42

Re: SCS mp

#64 Post by plykkegaard » 20 Jan 2021 20:57

Oh sorry, topic in this thread is SCS MP

This signature virus has been spliced with the Fundementalism-B virus to create a new more contagious strain. Please look for it infecting a signature near you.
Bobble2020
Posts: 57
Joined: 04 Mar 2020 20:24

Re: SCS mp

#65 Post by Bobble2020 » 20 Jan 2021 21:26

The simple answer is SCS are working on MP because people have asked for it from day one . There is no better trucking games than ETS2 and ATS . Personally i have zero interest whatsoever in playing it as an MP game but that doesn't mean that because i don't want it then it shouldn't happen , For me i have played too many games where i have seen mp ruined by idiots who get bored and decide to try and ruin it for others . I will carry on supporting ScS by buying DLC that i want in my game and playing it alone . I hope ScS can make it work really well and give people the game they really want , That way they will stay in business and keep giving us more games , content and fun for years to come .

You only have to look at games like farming simulator to see how popular games can be where people can play as a group with their friends . That seems to be what ScS are aiming for with Mp , people to play and have fun in a group with their friends .
User avatar
bobgrey1997
Posts: 3641
Joined: 30 Nov 2015 02:13
Location: Minnesota, Iowa, Dekotas, and Nebraska
Contact:

Re: SCS mp

#66 Post by bobgrey1997 » 20 Jan 2021 21:32

Scottvdken wrote: 20 Jan 2021 19:06 Improving truck physics
Adding additional companies and jobs
Adding more cargo gameplay options (multiple loads in owned trailers)
Adding more functionality to truck weights, weigh stations, border crossings
Better end-game gameplay loops
Better logistical control instead of just a hub and spoke for AI
Weather/Seasons
More cargo types
More tuning packs
More trailer types


Do I really need to go on? The list is endless.
The list is endless, so they have to prioritize.
Let's say they scrapped the entire Multiplayer project and chose to put that team on to additional companies. Well, why waste time on additional companies instead of seasons or multi-job loads?
SCS' research has turned up that allocating X amount of members to work on MP will be financially feasible. How? It will bring in more players (this is true for just about any feature they or you could come up with).
If you don't like it, suck it up and move on.
You want evidence to support any opinion or facts you think is wrong? How about prove yours as well. Or, better yet, look around on this internet thing and compare the average playerbase of online games with those of offline games, including simulators. Even niche market games like simulators greatly benefit from online systems, especially when said system isn't forced.

In any case, the one part we do agree to is that this debate has gotten rather useless. You repeat the same "they shouldn't waste efforts on a useless game mode" (because, you know, apparently multiplayer isn't a large, stable market that a vast portion of the gaming industry settles in).
The only proof you should need is the existing market, including similar games that make use of it, as well as SCS' decision to develop such a game mode (meaning they find it to be profitable), but you simply refuse to see it that way. Quite common for those who are completely against a specific thing; they refuse to see any reason or evidence supporting it.
Some newbie driver
Posts: 7198
Joined: 12 Dec 2018 11:37

Re: SCS mp

#67 Post by Some newbie driver » 20 Jan 2021 21:38

Scottvdken wrote: 20 Jan 2021 20:03I was asked for a list of things they 'could be working on', so I provided that.
A good list indeed, but then we return to the start of that conversation: why SCS SHOULD do that instead of MP? Because I could easily find you several people here in the forum that could consider several of your proposals a waste of time compared with the option of having an official MP.

I already told it: You would like SCS to focus on some things. I could differ in the things I would like SCS releases. Each one of us has his own different wishlist. If the things we don't like SCS to do before others would be objectively a waste of time, then everything SCS does is a waste of time. That's obviously an absurd ending caused by a reasoning logic that it's flawed (as I said you, I used in the past that argument till I realized how flawed it was). Thinks we would like they do aren't the things they should do. So you pointed the ones you would like, others pointed the ones they would like and we all are loosing to much time rounding in circles about the same.

In the meantime SCS is going to whatever they want to and, so far, is to add a MP version to the game. No matter that there would be people that don't like them to do so or that they could not like the final shape of it (for example, the ones that expect a "MMO clone" of TMP). So it's not a question that this tread had to be an echo chamber in favor of MP and nobody could disagree. The point is: it's going to happen. Let people that could like it talk about how they could like it to be and those who don't wanna have nothing to do with MP can freely ignore this thread.

If you wanted to express your opinion against in here in "fear" (quoted, to say it somewhat) that it could end as an MMO just because some people ask it and nobody seems to oppose; then fear it not. SCS takes their decisions through a process way more meditated than people who just write on here the first wish it crosses their brains. And if we consider all the objective info and facts we know (a lot, even if a lot more are unknown to us); an MMO is the last SCS is going intend to do.

Regards
Scottvdken
Posts: 43
Joined: 22 Oct 2015 16:48

Re: SCS mp

#68 Post by Scottvdken » 20 Jan 2021 22:04

bobgrey1997 wrote: 20 Jan 2021 21:32
The only proof you should need is the existing market, including similar games that make use of it, as well as SCS' decision to develop such a game mode (meaning they find it to be profitable), but you simply refuse to see it that way. Quite common for those who are completely against a specific thing; they refuse to see any reason or evidence supporting it.
I was asking for some proof behind the random numbers you keep pulling out of thin air. Don't put words in my mouth.

I could say the same thing about your point of view - you simply refuse to see it. I'm done with this echo chamber, I've said my piece quite clearly, multiple times, and nobody can come up with a valid response that doesn't have an equally compelling argument against it.
bobgrey1997 wrote: 20 Jan 2021 21:32

The list is endless, so they have to prioritize.
Exactly, and my preference would be that MP not take priority over things.


This all started from me giving my opinion and you seem to take that personally for some strange reason.
User avatar
bobgrey1997
Posts: 3641
Joined: 30 Nov 2015 02:13
Location: Minnesota, Iowa, Dekotas, and Nebraska
Contact:

Re: SCS mp

#69 Post by bobgrey1997 » 20 Jan 2021 23:16

The proof has been shown many times. Just look at the playerbase of online games compared to offline. One such game was stated by name, but you refused to see it apparently.
As for the percentage of players who use mods, well... everything is recorded. Check Steamdb to see how many players ETS2 and ATS have, then check the download numbers of any mods you can find.
Scottvdken
Posts: 43
Joined: 22 Oct 2015 16:48

Re: SCS mp

#70 Post by Scottvdken » 20 Jan 2021 23:36

Lol, you mean farming simulator?? 19,000 avg players the last 30 days vs. ETS2 (a single player, offline game officially) avg over 25,000 last 30 days. Where is the huge influx of online players into FS19? It's not there, because just like ETS2 it's a niche game. You're either into it, or you're not. MP is just icing on the cake if you are.

I told you, this isn't going anywhere - let's be done with it. It's all just opinion and we've all made ours clear I think.
Post Reply

Return to “General discussion about the game”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: fratrac, KoperSLO, NonanteNeuf, urosaki_ and 7 guests