I'm not entirely sure what you're arguing.Vinnie Terranova wrote: ↑13 Aug 2022 06:15 I highly disagree. ATS is a game. It's not a 1:1 representation of the real world. Likewise the trucks we now have in the game are also not a 1:1 representation of the real trucks; we even can't open doors or the hood. So, why should truck manufacturers 'dictate' SCS which trucks ATS can have? It looks like the licences for trucks is pushing ATS in a certain direction, while only SCS should be pushing ATS in a certain direction. It's like truck manufacturers are the real boss of ATS instead of SCS Software.
In response to a few preceding posts regarding whether or not electric trucks or (modern, DAF-like) cab-overs should or will exist in ATS, my argument is simply that they need to exist in some practical capacity. I don't feel like that's demanding "a 1:1 representation of the real world" - just demanding that reality be involved at some point in the process. Short of an incredible licensing deal, there's no sense in prioritizing a truck that only exists in theory, or otherwise releases to catastrophic failure, over trucks that currently or previously had some existent impact. This may not be the most realistic game, but it isn't so rooted in fantasy that we need to be inventing history before it happens, in the same way that we shouldn't create new roads just because they should exist, or enforce a strict WoT speed limit because "they're going to cap the speed limit someday, eventually." (They did both of those things early on, by the way, and it sucks.)
All that said, I'm ultimately defending those two things: if they exist in a meaningful capacity in real life, they should also exist in ATS, because the uniqueness they would offer relative to the existing lineup would be unmatched. I don't really consider that "caving to the license-holders" as much as I do "taking any available opportunity to make a unique truck." We just aren't at the point yet where either of them actually do - at least, in a capacity relative to ATS.
I think you're trying to defend classic trucks? That's literally the opposite of what I'm criticizing, because we know exactly how much impact those had. But hey, since you bring it up: truck manufacturers do probably have some sway over what SCS can't add. The trucks are their property, so they'll always have the right to just say "no". That's how the world works, and it's not as simple as just telling these companies "screw you, I'm my own boss and I'll do what I want with your licenses"... unless you desperately want an unpaid courthouse vacation. From our point of view, we can only make educated guesses on how each brand sees their partnership with SCS. Maybe some of them only want their newest trucks. Maybe some of them would love to bring out their oldest. Maybe some of them don't care and will just greenlight anything because it's an excuse for social media hype. Maybe some of them act one way in public but another behind the scenes. These are all possibilities, and their power over SCS isn't something that SCS can overturn simply with balls.
For better or for worse, there's enough low-hanging fruit still lying around that they shouldn't really need to fight against current too much. Classic trucks feel like a useful thing to pivot to once that pool dries up and every brand is satisfied with their current lineup. (Though personally, I'd also rather prioritize the handful of noteworthy recently-retired models - the "classics" that still have a presence, if you will - if at all possible.)