Kansas Discussion Thread

[dwram72]

Charge for this stuff. SCS can make so much more money off cargo than they do. I keep saying they are leaving money on the table and they are big time.

I guess soaring energy costs and skyrocketing inflation aren't affecting you the way it has me...

[flight50]

@dwram72 We get a tonnnn of free content already via updates. Currently trucks are free. We can't expect every piece of cargo to also always be free. SCS is growing and if we want more, we should can pay for it is just my opinion. Doesn't mean you have to pay for it. No one is forced to pay for content that a) they don't want or b) can't afford. Not to be rude or insensitive but for a company that is out to make money and make payroll, should they not make as much as they can just because some can't afford it or have difficulty? That's not fair to people that can afford SCS's asking price for paid content which isn't much. Why should they limit themselves because of limited paying customers? I can assure you, I am not the only one that wants more and is willing to pay for more.

The core game is sufficient enough to enjoy everything SCS offers. Hundreds of people would like a lot more cargo out of SCS. SCS should have an enormous selection of cargo but they don't. It easy money they can make for those that can afford it. Not every uses mods to get more content/free content. Me, I'd rather pay SCS for quality cargo additional content that doesn't depend on a modder for updates or even for continuing their mod altogether. I have to pay for the same goods and services just like everyone else in my economy. But no, I can't say that I struggle to make it to the next day but I do live pay check to pay check, fyi. I make adjustments per paycheck for things I need or want. $3.99, 11.99 or 17.99 for SCS dlc's will not break my bank.

We have not had an industry cargo pack since Washington brought the Forestry pack. If Kansas or Oklahoma can bring an industry pack, people will buy it if they want it. Agriculture and construction materials alone could each have 3+ cargo packs in the games. If Kansas can bring good on new ICCs, great. I was hoping Texas brought an industry oil pack or something since it started a new region, it didn't. So now my hope is for Kansas to do so considering its starting a new region as well. Lots can happen in the MIdwest and Kansas can jump start a lot.

[dwram72]

I'm not meaning to argue or anything like that, but is it fair to be asked to pay extra for something that should already be in the game? It is a trucking game after all.
There's a ton of assets already scattered across the map that could be cargo, but isn't being utilized. (There's a whole thread about it). I get it, some devs charge for everything, I'd hate to see this game become that.

[Bedavd]

Emporia, Colby, and Hays confirmed to be marked

[harishw8r]

I'm not meaning to argue or anything like that, but is it fair to be asked to pay extra for something that should already be in the game? It is a trucking game after all.
There's a ton of assets already scattered across the map that could be cargo, but isn't being utilized. (There's a whole thread about it). I get it, some devs charge for everything, I'd hate to see this game become that.

I’m sure those will not be charged. The only kind of cargo DLC I think we would get is something like Forest Machinery pack. Those take a lot of development time and deserve to be paid. The same could be said for other Flatbed and Lowbed cargo too.

[flight50]

^Agreed. Assets in the game that could be cargo wouldn't be charged. They are not cargo worthy though as most are lower quality. They'd have to remake them for cargo purposes but still that could be part of the game. I speak of cargo that has to be made from scratch with higher detailing. Stuff we do not have a trace of. A dedicated cargo team would do that and that is what should be charged. Assets used around the map are done by the asset team currently, not the vehicle team. 2 different levels of quality created by those 2 teams.

Those that have been part of this forum regularly know exactly where I stand on ICC'S. I don't expect members that don't frequent the forum to catch my drift. I am aware of the 2 threads that talk about assets as cargo though. I've contributed to both in the past but I don't anymore. I recommend to look at the links in my signature (2nd,3rd & 4th link) to understand what cargo I think should be in the game for both paid and core content. I contributed a ton of cargo info around here over the years and not all should be free. Some is way too time consuming to create. That's why I mention "industry cargo" packs.

[Gormanbros]

Welp, I stand corrected lol. Thanks @Spooks. Kansas City Kansas is definitely in the game if we're getting Kansas City Missouri building models with Kansas. Will probably be background scenery visible from I-70. Looks like the MO skyline is pretty visible along I-70 as well as I-35 to a lesser extent. I'm thinking we're going to basically go to the state line there which is fun.

I imagine they've got to fully plan out the Missouri side of Kansas City now too because of this, just so it all fits in the future. It's going to be a great central hub once the eastern states start to fill in a few years from now.

As we're getting both Pittsburg and Kansas City KS, I bet we'll get to drive US-69 between the two cities. Pretty nice.

[Travismods]

Not very impressed with the direction of these blogs. There is too little new happening. Looks like more of the same map being created on the same old engine and just labeled the next state. We need something fresh for this game for it to stay alive but there is not a word on new truck simulation features, improved weather, truck washes or all the assets across the map that could be turned into cargo. I still see the same low poly cars and the same old truck wrecks and same vegetation copy pasted everywhere making each state look the same as the last, with minor exceptions. Is this Texas, Oklahoma, Montana or Kansas? I would have no idea unless I read it is Kansas. Looking in the editor, I am also worried by how much of old assets are being reused across states. It seems like buildings are the only thing unique to each state and everything else, parked vehicles, vegetation and assets is more or less just copy pasted over.

It is time to give us a basic roadmap, SCS, and it is time to make a meaty blog about new gameplay features coming to the game or on a real engine update or this game will just fade into the sunset. This is getting very stale and monotonous in terms of content. Can't see myself buying SCS content while this is all they bring. These flat "boring" states were truly the golden opportunity to really revamp the game with interactivity yet its clear they are now just doing the same over and over again with these maps until the US is finished as long as people are buying. I know I am not but that changes little but reading around social media more people aren't that impressed either with the development direction. I suppose I just do not understand - how are people finding these recycled map DLCs interesting? Are people that desperate for just more map?

[harishw8r]

Yes. People are desperate for maps (at least I am). Now what?

[LeGod7]

Indeed, I am desperate for the entire US to be finished. This was a blog about Kansas DLC so I'm not sure why you'd expect them to be talking about truck washes or whatever. Large parts of Kansas, Texas, Oklahoma etc do look very similar in real life so SCS can only represent that. The landscape doesn't change dramatically just because you've crossed a state line. Personally I found that blog very insightful, and looks like we might be getting at least part of Kansas City which is exciting.