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

How would you like or think SCS will release the states bundles for ATS

Option 1 - Release the States on the same date with their own Steam page and a special Steam bundle price.
24
38%
Option 2 - Release the States as a single DLC like ETS2 does with countries.
40
63%
 
Total votes: 64

Tristman
Posts: 1543
Joined: 17 Mar 2021 20:15
Location: Pizza Hut

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

#21 Post by Tristman » 13 Aug 2022 06:58

VTXcnME wrote: 13 Aug 2022 00:07
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.
I get that Montana is quite big compared to what we’re used to, but like the Dakotas it’s a low density state. That’s why they were able to develop it in a year (which I think they could also do with a Dakotas bundle). Texas is a whole different beast imo, since it’s both bigger than even Montana and it has a crazy amount of big cities, interstates, giant junctions and considerable variety in biomes and density.

So I agree with you, Texas is a one time thing. But with how rapidly they were able to develop Montana (and they could’ve taken a little more time as well in my opinion), I’m not sure they should be afraid of doing DLCs with a similar land area as long as they are low density states.

I think releasing North and South Dakota separately for $11.99 is not a good value proposition. Developing and releasing them separately will also take more time than doing them together in one go, whereas I think knocking out the Great Plains states asap so SCS gets to the more interesting states is preferable.
User avatar
VTXcnME
Posts: 1243
Joined: 04 Jun 2021 12:53

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

#22 Post by VTXcnME » 13 Aug 2022 10:42

flight50 wrote: 13 Aug 2022 05:13 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.
So no more push to the Atlantic?

I missed that steam.

Regardless of whatever pattern it's released in- the larger states aren't going to get bundled into super dlc packs. Unless that was already mentioned on the stream, and I missed that too. Aside from whatever pattern (which was only mentioned for illustrative purposes) the country gets sent out in, Montana and Texas I still believe to be one- off situations. The only reason we had DLC that big was because that's the size of the state. A lot of folks said it before- I think you included, @flight50 . Montana and Texas are exceptions not a new norm for dlc size. That seems like a correct answer- and I just haven't seen anything to indicate they've changed their stance on that. Arizona and New Mexico could have been bundled. Washington/ Oregon could have been bundled. They weren't.

Financially it just doesn't make sense for SCS to make giant bundles.
Tristman wrote: 13 Aug 2022 06:58
I get that Montana is quite big compared to what we’re used to, but like the Dakotas it’s a low density state. That’s why they were able to develop it in a year (which I think they could also do with a Dakotas bundle). Texas is a whole different beast imo, since it’s both bigger than even Montana and it has a crazy amount of big cities, interstates, giant junctions and considerable variety in biomes and density.

So I agree with you, Texas is a one time thing. But with how rapidly they were able to develop Montana (and they could’ve taken a little more time as well in my opinion), I’m not sure they should be afraid of doing DLCs with a similar land area as long as they are low density states.

I think releasing North and South Dakota separately for $11.99 is not a good value proposition. Developing and releasing them separately will also take more time than doing them together in one go, whereas I think knocking out the Great Plains states asap so SCS gets to the more interesting states is preferable.
As I said to Flight above, Oregon/Washington could have been bundled if we're looking at density of state. Aside from a couple cities on the pacific coast, most of the inland area is very much less developed. They were never considered as a bundled launch DLC. Each were done separately. Utah and Nevada could have been bundled DLC. Outside of Vegas and Salt Lake City metro areas, there's really not large cities or complicated road networks.

Despite the density of the state SCS still has to go thru and map/design/layout everything. Even nothing takes work to produce. Those lonely stretches of interstate between cities are still dozens of work hours spread between mappers and asset folks to get just right. A road network that occupies 70,000 sq miles still takes time to layout. It's not the prefabs in the cities that are recycled over and over. It's not the delivery prefabs that seem to be identical to their 2016 counterparts that take work to fit in. Those are the easy things. Drop prefab, build road network up to it. So I don't think just because it's 'low density' it will be any less work than some other states.

The road network is the most work in the whole DLC. Mapping all that out takes the most time. After that? It's just decorating the real work with trees are pretty much recycled thru each DLC, along with the downtown buildings. Then there are the delivery prefabs. And traffic lights. And street lights. And road signs. Actually they do have the state specific signs, but one and done there, after its designed it's really just a matter of changing a number on the plate in photoshop (or whatever equivalent program they use).
User avatar
flight50
Posts: 30158
Joined: 20 May 2017 03:33
Location: Dallas/Ft. Worth, Tx - USA

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

#23 Post by flight50 » 13 Aug 2022 13:08

VTXcnME wrote: 13 Aug 2022 10:42 The only reason we had DLC that big was because that's the size of the state. A lot of folks said it before- I think you included, @flight50 . Montana and Texas are exceptions not a new norm for dlc size. That seems like a correct answer- and I just haven't seen anything to indicate they've changed their stance on that. Arizona and New Mexico could have been bundled. Washington/ Oregon could have been bundled. They weren't.

Financially it just doesn't make sense for SCS to make giant bundles.
Actually the size of the state itself is not the only reason. You are forgeting one main part..........the size of the team during those years. I'll see if I can get this right so take this with a grain of salt:
2016 - ATS had like 5-7 mappers to start the project. They split off from ETS2.
2017 - NM released 7-9 mappers
2018 - Oregon released. Team was around 12-15 but expanded as Washington was now in the works.
2019 Summer - Washington released. The team split into to officially. Patrik became a map lead and Andrej (no longer with SCS) finished up Oregon. I'm not sure how many mappers but enough for 2 teams
2019 Winter - Utah. Now Jakub is a map lead as he lead the Utah team of iirc 8-9 people. SCS continued to add a few more mappers
2020 Summer - Idaho. Jakub split leading the Utah team and the Idaho team. Each team was roughly 8-9. Some mappers worked both. This is why the quality of these 2 are not on the same level as post Idaho.
2020 Winter - Colorado released. Patrik was busy with this since Washington released. Even making a trip to the US for research with a small team. The was like 10-12 on Colorado iirc. SCS did a mass hiring for mappers to head up a 3rd map team staring 2021. Texas gets announced on 2020 xmas stream and a new map lead (Simon) is in charge. Pavel mentioned on the xmas stream he wanted 20-25 people on Texas. Rebuild now announced as well. More gets hired for that purpose
2021 Summer - Davido is now a new map lead so now we have 4 map leads. He now leads this new map team of newbies. We know he had like 10-11 people For Wyoming
2022 Summer - Davido lead Montana with his same team of 10-11. Later swelled to 15 to push Montana head of Texas. Pavel mentioned ATS now has over 30 mappers on the Montana stream. Early in the year, Jakub mentioned that Montana and Texas took his rebuild team from 13 down to 3.

So we didn't get bundles in the past imo for 2 reasons. We didn't really need it because the states were large enough and 2, Pavel acknowledged around Oregon/Washington that multiple map teams would be needed to push ATS along much much faster. The capacity just wasn't there to bundle prior to now. Whether SCS bundles before or after the Mississippi doesn't really matter to me honestly. I'm already committing to buy all states no matter what. I just want a minimum of 2-3 maps per year. I'm fine with one more year of 2 states. In 2024, we must get 3 map dlc's a year minimum.

In regards to me saying Montana and Texas, well before we got into the chats about 100-11k sq mile limits, I've always said bundle Arkansas/Louisiana, Alabama/Mississippi, Georgia/Florida, North Dakota/South Dakota, North Carolina/South Carolina, West Virginia/Virginia. Now outside of that, I never really said much else. To bundle but others have and I might co-sign with that. But never really push it. Obviously the Northeast will get bundle as it contains the smallest states in the US.

I'm on board with the 100-120 sq mile limit but I also think the common named states....Dakota, Virginia and Carolinas make since to bundle. The Dakotas though is the one I'd bump to $17.99. I'd throw every thing I could at it to make that happen including licensed Agriculture partners to help offset licenses with them. I'd pay $17.99 for the Dakotas for that cause but SCS has to seriously justify that price. Otherwise, people will complain about its price. SCS can easily make the prince $13.99 to $15.99 as well and just continue like they do now without a huge wow factor for the Dakotas. Both together are Montana size but Montana was an $11.99 state. People will look at that. So $17.99 might be a bit much but I'd still throw a lot at the Dakota's to make it just as exciting as Montana. Its tough following Montana so make the Dakota's worth the bundle price.

At the end of the day, we are all just speculating. I'm sure SCS has a plan already. What makes sense to us, could be something totally different at SCS. Bundles will come one day. What we don't know is will they before or after the Mississippi River.

Financially it doesn't make sense for SCS to make giant bundles? That's how ETS2 comes. No particular reason why ATS can't do that now that they have a map team the size of ETS2 now. We didn't get that before because ATS had 50% the size of the ETS2 map team. Now i can say that the US is much easier to keep doing individual states but the prices will be all over the place which is why we speculate the 100-120k sq miles concept. SCS doesn't even know what they will do at this point until things get closer to (x) state/area.
User avatar
VTXcnME
Posts: 1243
Joined: 04 Jun 2021 12:53

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

#24 Post by VTXcnME » 13 Aug 2022 13:30

@flight50 I agree with you on Carolinas, Virginias. 100%. LA/AK. AL/MS. GA/FL. Yup. 100% agree those will be bundled. I'd even go so far as to suggest that most everything east of Mississippi river is bundled in bordering pairs.

But I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on Dakotas.

But like you, it really doesn't matter to me how the states come out, the order, or whether they are bundled or not. I'm buying the US as it becomes available, so.... Cheers and happy driving.
User avatar
flight50
Posts: 30158
Joined: 20 May 2017 03:33
Location: Dallas/Ft. Worth, Tx - USA

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

#25 Post by flight50 » 13 Aug 2022 13:47

Same here. When they come, I'll be happy to get whatever. I'm sure I'll question some states order when they drop but for me, at the end of the day, I'm a map person first. I love new roads and getting new ICC's with them. That is why I'd be content if SCS only had 1 truck and 1 trailer to deliver with. Just give me a but load of options with that one truck and trailer. Give me a butt load of options on the map to deal with. Flood me with ICCs and I'm good. Obviously the game is much deeper than just one truck and one trailer. But not with ICCs.

I love big rigs though. Ever since I was a 3rd grader in 88' seeing them fly by my school bus on the interstate I've had interest. We use to do the pull chain and 50% of truckers blew their air horn. I was hooked ever since, lol. So combining that love with a game that now allows me to experience North American roads is all I could ask for. I can't be a real life trucker right now. If the opportunity came once all my kids are out of school, I could then but I'll feel like I'm too old and missed a lot by that time. Not to mention the salary hit I'd take in the first few years. Things are constantly changing on the road for truckers and at an older age, not sure if I can deal with it. Plus my co-workers would kill me if I left them, lol.
User avatar
AlexxxF1
Posts: 555
Joined: 20 Oct 2020 04:50
Location: Belarus
Contact:

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

#26 Post by AlexxxF1 » 13 Aug 2022 16:16

Tristman wrote: 13 Aug 2022 06:58 I think releasing North and South Dakota separately for $11.99 is not a good value proposition. Developing and releasing them separately will also take more time than doing them together in one go, whereas I think knocking out the Great Plains states asap so SCS gets to the more interesting states is preferable.
in fact, development and release separately will take as much time in the end as developing and releasing them in a package.
The mapping team (of 10 people) builds out roads and areas around and then moves on to the next area.
South Dakota can be ready and wait half a year for release to wait until North Dakota is ready. To get the union and release SD+ND.
So I'm suggesting that's why SD release first, and those who want to get the combined package (SD+ND) can not buy it and wait for the release of ND to buy them in a set finally.

well, issuing SD and ND separately for $11.99 is just beneficial from the point of view of the SCS.
SCS have a team working on reworking the base game (CA,NV,AZ), this work is free. We get map updates without paying a cent for it.
these people don't get paid for their work. so their work should be paid from the releases of any other new map DLC. people get paid monthly.

well, if the map is smaller in area, and even more importantly, its road network is not so dense, which means less work has been done, which means you can take less money for this DLC.
for example SD can be sold for $9.99 if the road network is not as dense as in Washington.

for me, for example, Idaho and Montana offset each other's road density and cost.
ID was not dense with the road network, MT is crowded. in the end, when one seems overpriced and the other underpriced, together ID MT for $11.99 each is very nice.

Although I wouldn't discount inflation either.
the SCS can simply keep the current price for DLCs, instead of raising the price of their new DLCs, if new map DLC are smaller and less dense.
User avatar
55sixxx
Posts: 3392
Joined: 02 May 2020 23:11
Location: 34° 4′ 35″ N, 118° 25′ 46.6″ W
Contact:

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

#27 Post by 55sixxx » 13 Aug 2022 23:59

I think you guys are looking at this way too deeply.

As been stated on MT release stream, SCS is currently with 3 states un-announced with 1 most certainly being in full production (Definitely OK). That said, 2023 will probably (Hopefully) be the first year to push out 3 states with Oklahoma coming solo at around June/July and NE/KS possibly being the first bundle, since they share a lot of similarities and could be fairly easy to map considering roads are mostly plain and straight.

That leave us 2024 to speculate, and yes, SD/ND could come and IMHO should come bundled up into a single DLC, not only because they are quite sparse regarding road network but also because both combined are only 780sq miles bigger than Montana... And all that is before SCS cuts a big part due to scale. And further along 2024, we could get MO/AR or MN/IA (Me, personally, hope for MN/IA coming first) which is a bold speculation but totaly do-able, considering the map teams are only getting bigger and bigger, then later follow this schedule:

2025 - MO/AR or MN/IA (Depends on what comes in '24) and LA/MS
2026 - WI/IL and MI/IN/OH
2027 - KY/TN and AL/GA/FL
2028 - NC/SC and VA/WV
2029 - NY/PA/MD/NJ/DE
2030 - CT/RI/MA/VT/NH/ME

*HERE's A STATE ABBREVIATION SHEET FOR PEOPLE WHO DON'T KNOW ANY: https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publica ... dix_a.html

And if I'm being honest, the order above would be the optimal route since it leaves no major gaps/holes or states sticking out like sore thumbs and also get's the US done before the end of the decade (IF the world is still in one piece by then :)).
Trakaplex
Posts: 833
Joined: 13 Jan 2021 23:24
Location: Plano, TX

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

#28 Post by Trakaplex » 18 Aug 2022 18:25

AlexxxF1 wrote: 13 Aug 2022 16:16
Tristman wrote: 13 Aug 2022 06:58 I think releasing North and South Dakota separately for $11.99 is not a good value proposition. Developing and releasing them separately will also take more time than doing them together in one go, whereas I think knocking out the Great Plains states asap so SCS gets to the more interesting states is preferable.
in fact, development and release separately will take as much time in the end as developing and releasing them in a package.
The mapping team (of 10 people) builds out roads and areas around and then moves on to the next area.
South Dakota can be ready and wait half a year for release to wait until North Dakota is ready. To get the union and release SD+ND.
So I'm suggesting that's why SD release first, and those who want to get the combined package (SD+ND) can not buy it and wait for the release of ND to buy them in a set finally.

well, issuing SD and ND separately for $11.99 is just beneficial from the point of view of the SCS.
SCS have a team working on reworking the base game (CA,NV,AZ), this work is free. We get map updates without paying a cent for it.
these people don't get paid for their work. so their work should be paid from the releases of any other new map DLC. people get paid monthly.

well, if the map is smaller in area, and even more importantly, its road network is not so dense, which means less work has been done, which means you can take less money for this DLC.
for example SD can be sold for $9.99 if the road network is not as dense as in Washington.

for me, for example, Idaho and Montana offset each other's road density and cost.
ID was not dense with the road network, MT is crowded. in the end, when one seems overpriced and the other underpriced, together ID MT for $11.99 each is very nice.

Although I wouldn't discount inflation either.
the SCS can simply keep the current price for DLCs, instead of raising the price of their new DLCs, if new map DLC are smaller and less dense.
I think SCS should charge based on work and land area of DLC. Both SD and ND would make sense to be $11.99, but for each, no way. But, I guess, if 100,000 sq mi would be around $12, wouldn't that make Washington $8.04? And Utah around $10.70? But that would be rather bad, since Texas would be $32.16. What do you think? But I do do agree with Idaho, it definitely is not worth the same as Montana. There are less visitable cities and fewer roads. Maybe one suggestion is not based on land area, but they could measure the road network total. But still, if Louisiana and Arkansas are bundled, it would be worth more than Washington...
Rule 2.3 - GDPR Violation
User avatar
VTXcnME
Posts: 1243
Joined: 04 Jun 2021 12:53

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

#29 Post by VTXcnME » 21 Aug 2022 10:39

So, smaller states SCS gets a better deal, but states like Montana that were well over the 100K mark, we got a better deal.

It's not a perfect number, but as far as bundled DLC goes, keeping to the 90-100K sized square mileage for $11.99 I think will be the way it goes.

But we're all just guessing at this point. We'll know soon enough how SCS chooses to proceed in the next year or so.

EDIT: I'd say the proper answer to "How would you like the state DLC bundles to be released?" the proper answer would be "QUICKLY"
User avatar
Sara
Posts: 723
Joined: 05 Nov 2021 17:59
Location: Earth
Contact:

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

#30 Post by Sara » 24 Aug 2022 09:53

I highly doubt SCS would increase the price of any future DLC's if it were bundled with 2 or more states together.
Post Reply

Return to “General discussion about the game”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: antonio512, DEDE62, Google [Bot], LegoTechnicFanBoi, Quark and 9 guests