Atomic Systems

With the ever increasing trend to released 'older' DLC updated to TS2013 standard in part form within a route or scenario package I think it's time for a poll to gauge where people are at the moment.

So much can be posted and unless someone goes through post after post on page after page there will never be a definitive answer.

You see the statements. Pick one that is most relevant to you.

Post your reasons for why you voted the way you did if you wish, it is a forum after all.
But please respect others opinions.

Regards

A new item 'updated' item doesn't preclude us from still using the older version; if we were happy with the 'old' one at the time of purchase it was sold as working---anything introduced after, whether that be because of a major revamp or to take advantage of newer, previously unavailabe features, is a totally different item.

Define "updated", first.

anything introduced after, whether that be because of a major revamp or to take advantage of newer, previously unavailabe features, is a totally different item

Improved maybe, but surely not totally different. I'm not one of those that think payware updates should be free forever as that would mean nothing would ever get a major revamp. But recent cough-updates like the Big Boy and Class 57 don't offer enough of an improvement to make me want to pay full price over again.

Hmm, am I sick of repeating this again? not quite. The only bit left of the old 57 is parts of the external model, and even that's had work done. If it looks different ( completely different inside, in this case ), sounds different, drives different, it's not really the same thing anymore. But sadly recognising that won't validate someone's something-for-nothing argument, so eh I should stop.

I wouldn't buy a route to get an updated model like the 158, though if I didn't fancy the route, that's a bit excessive.

Kariban wrote:Hmm, am I sick of repeating this again? not quite. The only bit left of the old 57 is parts of the external model, and even that's had work done. If it looks different ( completely different inside, in this case ), sounds different, drives different, it's not really the same thing anymore. But sadly recognising that won't validate someone's something-for-nothing argument, so eh I should stop.

I wouldn't buy a route to get an updated model like the 158, though if I didn't fancy the route, that's a bit excessive.

I agree with this summation. The 57 case justifies it for me (but wont buy until it has all liveries included). So i will have to wait and see re 66/101/etc

Kariban wrote:Define "updated", first.

By updated, I mean brought up to TS2013 standard. Whether that be a completely new model or an update to the old model to bring it up to spec.



I would happily buy a new DLC package if the liveries of the original release were included.
If the older model was updated then that could render any 3rd party reskin/liveries broken and obsolete.

Kariban wrote:Hmm, am I sick of repeating this again? not quite. The only bit left of the old 57 is parts of the external model, and even that's had work done. If it looks different ( completely different inside, in this case ), sounds different, drives different, it's not really the same thing anymore. But sadly recognising that won't validate someone's something-for-nothing argument, so eh I should stop.

The thing is, unless I'm completely wrong the original class 57 did get a free update to TS2012/13 - i.e. rain on the windows and a bunch of other upgrades:

http://forums.uktrainsim.com/viewtopic. ... 4&t=125919

I don't know why anyone would complain about this situation (original updated for free + new different version available to buy if you want), seems more than fair.

The question is rather rhetorical isn't it?, basically asking us if we have, in principle, any qualms about having duplicate assets yet with differing feature sets. The precedent has, in part, already been set; many will have duplicate classes 20, 33, 37, 50, 67 to name a handfull. Admittedly from various providers, and the feature sets won't differ that much, but it's already accepted practice.
This question, and the other 2 or 3 threads relating to DLC pricing/policy has been brought up by the few lines from a newsletter stating we can expect a re-worked class 101 DMU in SPT livery; no mention of when, what will (if anything) be bundled with it, nor the cost. Since this news was posted in here the speculation/rumour mill has had to start working a second shift, but just as we've concluded before the only things we'll agree on are:
a) We'll all find something written in the thread(s) we disagree with.
b) Prices are determined by the provider, no amount of moaning and groaning here will change that.
c) Nobody is, or will be, forced to buy a new version.

Hi, the only problem with updating older models to the new standard is that they might in theory no longer work with the version of Railworks they were designed for. So someone who was using an older version of RW could legitimately claim that it didn't work with the programme it was designed for. My thoughts only.

@GPTech
In all fairness I don't see what you're getting at. The title of the thread is a question, wrongly probably, but the poll and it's choices are relevant and not trying to push anyone in one direction or another by it's wording.

As with the DLC you have a choice to
a - take part in the poll or not
then if you do decide to take part
b - make a choice of which statement is most relevant to you

I just don't see what your post has to do with the poll

pjt1974 wrote:I just don't see what your post has to do with the poll.....As with the DLC you have a choice to
a - take part in the poll or not
then if you do decide to take part
b - make a choice of which statement is most relevant to you

It probably has nothing to do with the poll itself, but I fail to see where many of the other posts do, and I worked through options a and b above last night/early hours of this morning---I believe I was the 3rd one to cast a 'vote'. To tie in with the poll, I opted for the top one---my decision to buy anything would be based upon whether I wanted an item, whether I could afford it, and whether I deemed it worth the asking price; the fact that I may have an earlier version which I wouldn't lose doesn't come in to it.
The post you didn't understand (sort of proving my conclusion a)..? ) was to illustrate that for many having duplicates of stock items is nothing new. Yes, maybe I did waffle on a bit (nothing new there) and these last few lines should have come before the mis-leading post but time often flows oddly in Yorkshire....

I've voted (discount option) - but in doing so, realised that there is a situation which isn't really covered in the poll.

I bought a whole bunch of things during the DLC sale. I've saved hundreds of pounds, so you can imagine I've spend around that much too. (Don't tell the missus). I simply wouldn't have been able to afford to splurge quite so much at full price, but that's what sales are all about. Everybody benefits a bit, and I've started playing TS2013 again, which RSC are bound to like too.

However, one or two items that I have purchased - in the belief that all the DLC available at the moment is TS2013-compatible - turns out not to be. Or at least, to be only partially-working with TS2013 'as-advertised'.

I'm not moaning at developers (for ref, the items I've discovered so far are the Thomson Interactive Class 455 and the Oovee Class 156, both of which don't work at all well with the XBOX controller, but which of course do work in 'old-fashioned' keyboard/mouse mode, if you hide the HUD). I'm more angry at RSC or Steam, or whoever didn't make it abundantly clear in the point-of-sale materials that these items were not 100% compatible with TS2013. I had been explicitly hunting for the 'Up the Junction' Class 08 DLC set, but noticed that it had been removed (from Steam, at least - it's still mentioned on the RSC website, but the link to Steam is dead). I reasoned that they must have had a clearout, and removed non-TS2013-compatible items from Steam. If that was true, then everything left must be okay. The odd thing was, the Class 455 turned up in the normal DLC listings during the sale - I discovered later that that Class 156 only appeared in a 'related items' panel, not the main DLC listing - but both were still discounted in the sale. So I presumed (wrongly) that they were tested and fully-compatible with TS2013.

Now, I'm going to sound churlish if, having purchased an item at a discount, I don't want to pay extra to have it 'upgraded' to work with the product I intended it to be used with. I can see that. But at the same time, I do feel a tad conned. I would never have bought these items in their current condition - they don't fulfil the test of proper compatibility or suitability with the current release of the main program. Of course, I am (now) fully aware of their heritage and evolution, and can see *why* they're not fully-compatible (which is why I'm not having a go at the developers, because they are not clairvoyant)... but all the same, I am peeved that I have been 'oversold' them (or rather, undersold their failings), and prompted to buy - albeit at reduced cost - under a cloud of misinformation. The Sale of Goods Act would technically regard them as 'not of merchantable quality', if they don't perform in the way they were purchased for, and the sales blurb didn't indicate that they didn't (which it didn't!)

So in this situation, (or even the situation that if I bought these today at FULL price, now the sale is over), what do we think is 'right' or 'honest' about making someone pay extra to have them 'upgraded'? Sure, to someone who purchased these items back in the days of Railworks 2, their modification would be a genuine upgrade - but to someone who bought them right now - believing them to be fully TS2013 compatible, it's not an upgrade... it's a repair!

Like I said, I'm not having a pop at the devs - but I am trying to make the point that a lot of the expectation of the customer is in the hands of the dev, and to a much greater extent, RSC - in their point-of-sale material. It's no good saying that the customer is stupid, or didn't research enough before spending his money - given the frequency that RSC seem to change the name of this simulator, it's almost impossible to be sure you're looking at a review of a specific item in its current form, and thus the point-of-sale material is crucial. I also appreciate that there is a panel of bullet-points to the side, on Steam, which say what it may support or work with - but this is often incomplete, and there is nothing in there to say what it resolutely DOESN'T work with - which imho is also crucial.

As it goes, I'll soldier on with these items (and any others I find I've bought 'in error' or 'ill-informedly'), because I can just about make them work, even though it spoils the fun a bit to have to kludge-around. But you can see why sometimes it's not as clear cut as 'should we pay for upgrades' or 'should we get discounts if we've purchased it before'. In this instance, I think a free upgrade is due - and the developer(s) should get paid by RSC, because it's their misinformation that created the 'false' sales!

<reaching for my tin hat...>

I'm more angry at RSC or Steam, or whoever didn't make it abundantly clear in the point-of-sale materials that these items were not 100% compatible with TS2013

It didn't say they were 100% compatible either!

The Sale of Goods Act would technically regard them as 'not of merchantable quality', if they don't perform in the way they were purchased for, and the sales blurb didn't indicate that they didn't (which it didn't!)

I have been driving my class 156 with no problem so I am not sure your argument would stand!

Still why don't you take them to court and see how far you get !

Pete

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?