How would you like the States DLC bundles to be released?

[Trucker Nik]

Definitely the second option, I think the last state that will come out separately will be Texas

[Sara]

Hmmm, no, I wouldn't exactly say Texas will be the last single State. Florida is big enough to be its own DLC, although we're still a fair while away from that. Also, Minnesota and Michigan is another couple of states that can also be in there own DLC's, since there sizes is just a little bigger than Utah or Idaho. Though I think it actually may all come down to what they will provide when we get to any other state.

[JoeAlex23]

Hmmm, very interesting the results of this poll so far, but can't say i'm surprised, doing various states in the same way ETS2 does with countries sounds like a more logical way of doing things.

Each state having it's own Steam page sounds cool and gives people freedom of deciding what to buy but that's just my point of view.

And i did consider a 3rd option about just releasing states more often and at some point put them in a Steam bundle with a general theme, i regret that now, but oh well, thanks everyone for participating!

[hangman005]

How would you like the States DLC bundles to be released?

Probably on steam if I'm gonna be honest with ya

I can see the arguments for both cases but Option 2, suits me better.

[VTXcnME]

I think there's been a lot of solid conversation on bundles (not just N/S Dakota) on the bundling North and South Dakota thread.

For the sake of ease tho... If the state is bigger than say 70 to 75-ish thousand sq miles, I don't see it being bundled. SCS hasn't done it before and there's literally no reason to start doing it now.

Only states you are going to see bundled, are states that their combined square mileage come out to the 75-100K range (maybe 120-140 in very specific instances). You aren't going to see 150,000 sq mile bundles. It would be foolish for SCS to take the financial hit by combining large states (like the Dakotas, or what one person suggested: Kansas/Nebraska/and the Dakotas) into even larger DLC.

Also, you're poll is extraordinarily limited into only thinking going forward *EVERYTHING* will be bundled or sold separately. I think you're gonna see both.

A conceptual timeline:
First phase: Oklahoma will probably come solo. Later Louisiana/Arkansas as our first "bundle"
Second phase: Kansas will be solo. Mississippi/Alabama bundled
Third phase: Nebraska solo. Georgia/Florida together
Fourth phase: South Dakota solo. Iowa/Illinois together.
Fifth phase: North Dakota solo. Tennessee/Kentucky together.

Not an exact map as it leaves some odd gaps between southern I-10 corridor and northern I-90 corridor, but I think we'll see one big state then two smaller bordering states bundled together. The map will make a column north to fill out the remaining big squares, and the bundles will start filling southeast and up thru middle part (tennessee area) and finally the bundles will push across the northern part of the country. That way, the bundles all remain adjacent to each other, keep things from getting too cut off from each other, and more quickly build out the map. It would get to Pavel's goal of 3 states a year. It would check a lot of boxes (at one point Pavel said he wanted to get to the Atlantic ASAP, assuming he means the legit Atlantic and not the Gulf of Mexico which has never been referred to Atlantic proper).

So on and so forth. Once those last "big squares" are done, I suspect everything after that for the most part will be bundles. Pennsylvania will come with Maryland, maybe Delaware too. New York will come with New Jersey. Virginia and West Virginia will be one DLC pack.

But we still have a few more large states to get thru before everything will swap to bundles.

[angrybirdseller]

Going to be more solo states. More profitable to sell as smaller maps especially if it takes year to build it. If Texas releases at 11.99 I bet they will make up the cost with smaller DLC releases like Missouri as solo. Even at 17.99 still think most states will be solo at 11.99 just makes no sense to wait for Nebraska done if Kansas is completed.

Great Lakes those cities are midsize with huge interchanges like Wausau WI or Madison WI, even Des Moines IA the mixmaster interchanges have to create custom assets as well large skyscrapers and buildings.

The Wyoming and Montana were simple road network compared to Wisconsin or Illinois.

Alot more highway building and less backroads.

I can guarantee you they won't do Texas size bundles why would they.

[Tristman]

Again, North Dakota + South Dakota = Montana. For me that’s a reason why they could be bundled.

It is true that South Dakota is bigger than Washington in square miles, but South Dakota is the 46th densest state in the US, while Washington is the 22nd. Washington also has about 9 times the population of South Dakota, which translates to a lot more big cities.

In conclusion, I think Washington does deserve to be a $11.99 state whereas I am doubtful whether South Dakota deserves to be when Montana also was $11.99.

[angrybirdseller]

SCS knows from how previous DLC maps have sold releasing North and South Dakota separately would likely be more profitable margin wise.

[VTXcnME]

Again, North Dakota + South Dakota = Montana. For me that’s a reason why they could be bundled.

SCS didn't release a Montana sized dlc because they wanted to. Not will they release a Texas size dlc because they want to. They were forced to because that's how big the state is.

As has been said before in other threads- and clearly bears repeating- Montana and Texas are not new DLC sized benchmarks anyone should expect to see with any regularity (or really at all) going forward. There is no benefit to SCS by making bundles that big.

[flight50]

The map will make a column north to fill out the remaining big squares, and the bundles will start filling southeast and up thru middle part (tennessee area) and finally the bundles will push across the northern part of the country.

That pattern is probably flawed. I'm not sure if you watched the Montana stream with Pavel revealing the direction after Texas. It doesn't sound like its including the South corridor. He mentioned 3 things on that stream:
1) corn, corn, and more corn
2) along route 66
3) Great Lakes

That pattern takes us North for the next several years.