Based on your experience, I think you can imagine why the discrepancy between your reaction and the reactions of some others exists: you spend a lot of time driving in AZ/NM, whereas some others spend a lot of time driving in the northern half of the map, so NV being poor quality has an outsized impact on that sort of experience.Xefjord wrote: 25 Jun 2025 15:37 The idea that any kind of updating the map is a "negative effect of PRT" just because it isn't the area people wanted updated first is insane to me. I am playing the same game doing the same truck jobs and I end up driving New Mexico and Arizona like 20 times more than I ever drive in Nevada. It isn't just because I am avoiding Nevada either. There is just a lot of good routes leading to Arizona/New Mexico when my HQ is based out of Missouri and the broader south. If like me, you live on highway 66, improving all parts of the highway are hugely beneficial. Because it's almost always the preferred route the game tries to take me.
At the end of the day, I personally think the DLCs are generally good-to-great value for money, especially compared to some of the other luxuries I spend my money on. Even the 3 ATS and 1 ETS2 map DLCs that are likely coming this year will cost me less than a single Switch 2 game. So in the grand scheme of things, them reworking one part of the map before another is not a big deal. I will survive, lol. But the base map reworks are a key component of SCS's business model. They're not simply a gift to the players, they're a part of the calculation every player makes as to what degree they want to support the game going forward or not. If they had never bothered reworking anything, I think the game as a product would likely be in a less healthy state, and they certainly would have missed the boat entirely on launching on consoles because there's no way that the console market would accept 2016 ATS or 2010 UKTS quality in the 2020s.
Of course I'm not gonna pretend like reworking Nevada first is the 100% objectively correct decision and they should have bowed down to my omnipotent armchair wisdom and went with that strategy. Other users have brought up good points as to why Arizona first would have been a decent idea, although I don't necessarily agree but they are certainly valid arguments. Clearly SCS thinks the Route 66 corridor was the way to go. We'll see how it turns out, my mind very well could be changed after seeing more. Especially if both the I-40 and I-80 corridor reworks are in the works. That might be a best-of-both-worlds scenario.
As far as PRT goes: it's something that doesn't interest me very much, but it would have interested me a heck of a lot more if you could actually drive more segments of historic Route 66 or Lincoln Highway routings, maybe even better if they finagled it a bit to make it more coherent to drive in 1:20 vs real life, to really play into that romantic idea of the old Great American Road Trip idea they seem to have burned into their brains via movies and other media. Sure the western part of Route 66 will be cool after the reworks, but the eastern part and most of the Lincoln Highway is still not well-represented. So it doesn't make me super happy to see that PRT may have an outsized influence on their rework order strategy, while still having inconsistent levels of appeal in their actual mapping. That's the worst of both worlds for me.
It also probably doesn't help that I think the Lincoln Highway is more interesting than Route 66; it's likely my northern bias showing, but they really didn't do much for the Lincoln Highway at all unfortunately so that kind of killed a lot of the interest I would have had for PRT, driving a cool old car along the Lincoln Highway in a video game would be awesome.
