gptech wrote:Would the answer be for RSC to stop improving the core software so that assets don't develop any niggling little faults with things such as an alternative method of controlling the player train?
Absolutely not. I'm assuming that's a facetious answer for fun and stimulating discussion, rather than a serious suggestion?
IMHO,
the answer is clear information at the point of sale, so that the description enables customers (new and old) to make reasonable choices, and know whether a DLC asset is fully-compatible or not.
RSC can't argue that it's too much work to keep their historic sales info up-to-date - this information is their main sales driver, and bad accuracy will affect future sales and damage existing sales-relationships. RSC have a responsibility as much to themselves as to the customer to keep their sales material accurate and working well for them. Disgruntled customers (
of which I am not one, but I admit playing a certain amount of Devil's Advocate for the customers who will be annoyed by such discoveries as DLC that they can buy today but which doesn't fully work) are not something any sensible selling organisation wants to foster, if it can instead make them happy (or at least, content) customers instead. Quite apart from anything else, RSC is in an *easier* position to update its sales info than many companies selling things in a
non-online environment. They have no catalogues to print; no leaflets or pamphlets to throw out and replace with new; just a few edits on web-pages at Steam and on their own site (most of which will be 99% the same in terms of content). An afternoon's work or two, maybe - surely that's what the marketing team is
for, after all?
There is also the legality question, in terms of products matching their sales description, but I'll not push that point too hard in case the fanboy army tells me to sue them or call the police or do some other hyperbolically silly reactive nonsense. In point of fact, it wouldn't need even that - a simple email to the Advertising Standards Authority from a really hacked-off customer would probably suffice to get their knuckles rapped, not that I intend to do that, either - as I said, my intention here is to raise the issue, not beat up the developers, or even RSC, too much. Just to provide a 'steer', maybe.
An
alternative answer is for developers to take on board that
not all current owners of their DLC creations are necessarily old lags who have had the use of that DLC since the early days of RailWorks. The old customers can be considered to have extracted all reasonable cost-value out of that DLC by now, and are taking the mickey if they
expect a free tweak up to 'new game' standards. But
some customers will be
new customers, who bought the item in good faith,
since the arrival of TS2013 and knowing no different, believed it to do what was reasonably inferred on the tin, when it was placed on sale (whether in a discount-sale or not) for use in the 'new game'. They may rightly consider they have been
sold short. Developers
might therefore want to restore the balance, when and if they come to do an upgrade, and cut these 'new customers' some slack when working out their pricing scale.
I live in hope that *someone* might understand, and realise who's side I'm on - the devs, RSC
and the flippin' customer - with the aim of increasing the chance of a long-lasting happy sales-relationship in all directions - but perhaps I am wasting my virtual breath.
! Obviously there wouldn't then be complaints about RSC abandoning the sim 
!!
