Should SCS have a dedicated cargo team???

[VTXcnME]

Okay. So- still- there's an assets team that makes all this stuff. How hard would it be to take some of the pallet cargo at say.... the home store (home depot) that's palletized cement blocks or bricks or whatever- and make them haul-able cargo on a flat deck?

Feels like that's be a gimme/easy addition without much effort.

[howey]

If someone wants to take over this thread from now on then be my guest as this will be my last post on here as I have completely lost all interest on both games and SCS themselves with there decision making and choices and my patience has wane with them making the "game changing factor" this will be my final post on here as I will be focusing on my attention elsewhere.

[Viper28]

my position: outside of a few features that are simply far too complex, the bar should always be TOWARD realism...realizing that realism takes time and costs money (as it should) and for those afraid/bothered by realism...here's your nifty little box to click to deactivate it...and/or don't but the content dlc.

I hear this stance from time to time here, and I disagree. SCS is a business and it needs to maintain it's game. The biggest selling points of the game are the fact that it is relatively cheap and runs well on slower PC's. This brings in a lot of customers that are willing to pay that bit to play the game. When you make it more and more focussed on realism, that has to be payed somehow. Farming simulator, which some like to compare it to, is selling a new 40 euro title every 2 or 3 years. This means that they can earn a lot more money from a similarly sized customer base.

SCS currently simply doesn't have the funds to focus a lot more on realism. Another potential issue is that when they focus on realism, a part of the customer base is going to leave because they feel the game is no longer fun for them. SCS constantly needs to balance between people that want more realism and those that don't want it, and don't want to spend money on it. I'm not attacking your desire for more realims here, but mainly explaining why someone's desire doesn't always translate in a good decision game-wise

I'm sorry gt379 but that comment above doesn't make much sense. So since in real life a truck driver doesn't haul loads to look at, the game doesn't really need to devote consistent attention to diverse cargo development. And apparently, because a trailer pack isn't a cargo pack a trailer pack can only be trailers? I submit that a well done trailer pack, can and should include a robust variety of new cargoes 6-8 and should be priced accordingly...I'm willing to pay more if the content is more substantial. Nobody anywhere codifies that a trailer pack can't also be a combined cargo pack. Outside of the developer, and yes, hey if that's their decision, that's the their decision...albeit not a very innovative and economically efficient one in my opinion.

I'm all for more cargo, but I don't think a trailer dlc is the best place to introduce it. First of all, cargo should be packed separately. 2 small DLC's are a better option than one big one. If people only want the cargo, let them pay only for that. Same for the trailers. If you would say that it doesn't have to increase the cost, than the cargo might as well be part of a free update. This second option would be my preference, but 3D cargo takes time and money to develop, and probably also involves some licensing, so I understand why that type of cargo would be in a separate pack.

I agree with some of what you have to say. At this point, the only irrefutable proof in rebuttal of this "must be priced low, keep it very simple, don't advance because it scares the folks" would be to finance a trucking simulation that actually brings in many of these features that I keep hearing other people say can't or shouldn't be done. And not features only: ways of marketing. If I had the money, I'd finance it (even at a loss) simply to provide those that want it with something better and to prove it could be done. Now, I'm not talking everything that's ever been thrown in about detail, but quite a bit of it is feasible and is presently done in similar -- albeit different -- simulations. Now, because the truck companies don't want their brand image tarnished I'd probably have to remove real names from the trucks (though they'd look good) because damage, exhaust, dire, and flat tires would be available options. Also, a reconceptualization on a large chunk of the production chains in the game: some make sense others are lousy. No more food tankers delivering to a grocery store; instead, a greater presence of manufacturing and processing...then shipping to stores for consumers. And this is one area where pack reconceptualization would work well to: "Production chain packs: the cargo, the unique production facilities, the trailer, all in one pack. To add on to the base game production chains.

I agree, the player base simply isn't substantial enough to support this financially, and/or it's also comprised at its core of many folks that really are terrified by depth and detail....and having to check boxes to turn off features. That likely won't change. I'm rooting for technology and time to step in and add some pressure to the whole scenario. That all might actually benefit.

[Viper28]

Okay. So- still- there's an assets team that makes all this stuff. How hard would it be to take some of the pallet cargo at say.... the home store (home depot) that's palletized cement blocks or bricks or whatever- and make them haul-able cargo on a flat deck?

Feels like that's be a gimme/easy addition without much effort.

exactly. I mean it's not like the production chains are much beyond A-B right now, perhaps a few are A-B-C. Basically, largely rendering and graphics with a bit of programming.

[Viper28]

If I was SCS, I'd only show standard loads as well in screen shots. Why would they show exclusive content in the core game if you don't buy the dlc? Once we get the promotional teaser trailer, I'd be shocked and honestly a little pissed if LK doesn't come with a few new exclusive cargoes. For those that buy the dlc, it's not right to get LK cargo in traffic without buying the dlc.

For a licensed trailer pack, I expect something to drive the dlc. I don't care what Krone did, so no point in bringing it up. This is not Krone and ETS2 does not struggle to get new cargo like ATS. If SCS wants people to buy into ATS, make purchases worth the buy. I can sit out LK if need to. I'd rather not. 2-3 new cargoes at least for me. Ideally 5-6+ is a better drive. To many options in my signature that can make the LK dlc.

Today would be a great day to get that LK blog too.

Hey Flight, did/are the Lode King/Prestige coming with a few new exclusive cargoes?

[flight50]

I don't know. I haven't looked thru the cargo on them. I'd assume no. Otherwise people would be talking about it. A bit disappointing to not have it though but it is what it is. Trailers look good though. I'd rather pay a few bucks more to have gotten new cargo with it. I think someone said Krone didn't either so no hugely surprised even though I was thinking the 2 are unrelated. I was wrong there.

So either we get new licensed equipment with old trailers or new licensed trailers with old cargo.....not both new together. Now the expectation is set for ATS.

[Travismods]

No, there isn't any new cargo. SCS and Pavel do not like cargo or any company diversity added to the game, even though they could make money hand over fist with cargo DLCs. For some reason they are leaving that money on the table, it really seems like they don't care about peoples request for more cargo. No other excuse can really explain why we don't have 10 cargo DLCs already. Do they want to make money or not? I mean, it wasn't exactly two days ago people started with the idea asking for more cargo...it was literally 5 years ago now.

Still nothing. Don't expect anything more for tomorrow beyond map DLC with old prefabs and a truck a year.

[Optional Features]

It is impressive that we managed to get two trailer dlcs (one free and one paid pack) with not single new feature or cargo.

People keep saying to be patient, but I'm not sure what we are waiting for.

It's like going to the store and returning with no groceries. What better opportunity to at least hint at new cargo than a new trailer?

[flight50]

Honestly, I'd say the patience is for hopes that Pavel sees the need for a dedicated cargo team. At one point, SCS did not see the need for a 2D artist. They hired one and saw the huge potential and now there are 4 of them. Each game as a pair. At one point, ATS only had one map team. We now have 4 map leads. Hopefully Pavel sees the need to hire cargo specialist. If I could model, if was a SCS employee, I'd push Pavel to let me get new cargo out with every update and every new trailer. I'm not saying we need it all at once but chipping away at a cargo pool should be a goal.

I say this all the time but the main point of the game is to transport cargo from point A to B. In order to do this, ICC's are essential which is why I talk about it none stop.

I - In order to have cargo, someone has to make product so you need industry.
C - Every industry makes product to sale for profit. So we have cargo.
C - Every industry has multiple if not dozens of companies that produce the same or similar product. So now you have diversity in companies.

No ICC's, no ATS. Everything else supports this. Obviously you need at least one truck and one trailer. That's your tools. You need a map to drive on. The same map is repetitive and people quit so you make more and more maps. Then you make more and more trucks and trailers to keep your tools refreshed. Everything along with that adds to the experience. Some things are essential to trucking, others things are great to have.

[Optional Features]

Yeah, I think Pavel is a bit disconnected from the community. Every time he has a Christmas stream, it seems like he's telling us what he wants instead of asking what we want. He isn't the target customer: we are, so things like cargo should be a top priority.

It's really needed at this point.