Rails & Riches

[Gumboots]

Yes I understand you wouldn't want to be gathering crap from all over the world during development. That would just drive you nuts and bork development. Dev work needs to be centralised.

What I was thinking was that if someone makes a custom asset they should (IMO) be able to distribute it how they want to. If they effectively have to give control of their custom asset to Steam before anyone can use it, I would be looking sideways at that. This really shouldn't be a problem in practice, since offhand I can't see how it would even be possible to make and test custom assets without this degree of freedom.

I have just read your blog over at your main site. It's funny how people these days think a few paragraphs is long. Pity the poor sods if they ever have to read a book.

Anyway, I notice you are making a big deal out of bridges, tunnels and undo. Personally I wouldn't have thought these were worth mentioning. I would assume they would naturally be in the game, as they have been in RT3 since it was released. Same goes for track laying not being restricted to a grid or to fixed angles. Again, RT3 has always had this anyway. You seem to be using RT2 as your baseline standard rather than (the far more advanced, but still really old) RT3. I'm not sure if anyone here is at all interested in RT2. People here will be comparing your game to RT3.

Thanks for asking. So we are looking at imitating RT2's industry tree style. So we aren't likely to use self-moving cargo.

I think this would be a mistake, as the self-moving cargo adds realism IMO.

That said, I'm wanting to add some better cause and effect for industry, having to use "pump priming" to industries to get them to reach full potential instead of just on/off.

This sounds intriguing, but I'm not sure what it means.

I'm still up in the air on the stock market and hope to make that an active discussion with players. I've gone back and forth on them so often I feel like a wiper blade. I like them and I don't just like lots of players. If feels like so many people said things like "It was nice that I could turn stocks off." That never feels right.

I agree with this. IMO the stock market side of the game should be at least as sophisticated as RT3, although for custom scenario purposes it would probably be a good idea to still allow disabling the stock market.

[Blackhawk]

Ok, I just watched the video again this time with sound on the kickstarter page. It can be difficult to hear people at times with the background noise. Also when you say you were working with your friends at Super Genius I had no idea who they were until I read later down on the page they were an art studio. Considering the only game footage you show is of the "ugly terrain editor" you might want to clarify that earlier in the project. On my first view, I thought hmm that's the only game footage? That's a little disappointing. It made me think right now it looks like RT3 but more barren and no trains. Then I read that more funding is needed to get beyond a basic terrain editor and understood the lack of footage.

-I agree with Gumboots here that the emphasis on an undo option and tunnels seems a bit much as I would have expected them anyways as they were in RT3. There is also a lot of focus on buildings and houses. Maybe I'm in the minority here, but I don't care if all the houses look the same. That was probably the last thing that came to my mind in RT2 or RT3. In RT3 reskinning of buildings seemed to grow out of necessity for having buildings look a little different as they were being used to create a new industry, it didn't really seem to be done because people desperately wanted the building to look a little different.

-The self-moving cargoes vs stationary. I could live with either, although the self-moving definitely seems more realistic (and theoretically the amount that is self-moving could increase over the years depending on the type of cargo as alternate shipping methods become available) That said it's probably easier to code cargoes that are stationary. Along this line, I would hope there would be the ability to stop at a location and drop off cargo and then have another train come pick up that cargo.
*as the initial game would only seem to be going up to 1930, I wonder if you would have planned out your cargo system til say 2020 or just end it at 1930 and worry about the cargo chains later.

-Pump priming - As Gumboots said, not quite sure what that means. I assume if you supply another cargo the production would increase? Maybe it's something like the Trainmaster mod where most buildings essentially required a fuel source? That reminds me that one thing a lot of people seemed to want in RT3 scenarios was the ability to use electricity as a cargo/commodity/condition for events. In RT3 there were limitations in what could be done with it.

-Stock market. I think something would be lost in the game if there were no stock market. While it doesn't have to be overly complicated, something would at least be nice. It's hard to have a rail game based on steam and not have the ability to be a rail baron. It would be an interesting aspect if the AI's could even attempt to buyout/merge with your company. Of course, there's a question in itself, will there be any AI railroads?

Gumboots if you ever lose access to your steam account (whether revoked/banned/forgot password) you're pretty much out of luck with steam games. With steam we merely buy the right to play the game. We no longer OWN the game. This is one of my main complaints with Steam. They control your access and if you lose your account, all that money for any games was wasted. It reminds me of a story a few years ago, a woman downloaded books on her amazon kindle. She traveled between the states and UK or somewhere in Europe. But her home was in Europe. While in the states she bought some books off amazon US. Amazon then shut down her account saying she should have been buying them from the European site, not the US site. And in shutting down her account, they wiped her kindle clean since it was their product they could remotely wipe it. (Details may be a little off, it's been awhile since I read this story). The only way you can still own your games if it's a steam game is for that company to also have provided an DRM free version.

As for modding I hope this is pretty open to people being able to mod it. I get mixed feelings on how open you plan on making this for modding. The steam workshop makes it easy for modded content to be in a centralized location but at the same time you say you don't want to let the community make tuning changes that could ruin the fun of the game and you are going to reserve the locomotives to being made by the developers. Again, I don't really need a new skin for a house, but I could use another locomotive that wasn't included in the original, but that seems to be part of the modding that won't be allowed (at least initially). I would suggest that most modding gets free reign. Add new locomotives, add new skins, cargoes, industries, scenarios etc. If a new locomotive looks terrible or has poor stats it will be reflected so in the rating the community gives it. Being that the mods would be through steam, I would think mods could be turned on and off easily, unlike RT3 where you often have to over-write files and copy and paste files in all sorts of places . So if someone wanted to play the original campaign, a mod that might make a locomotive behave slightly differently could be turned off and the original campaign could be forced to be played without that sort of modifier. One of the reasons people still play RT3 is because of the ability to mod it. "Version 1.06" while not perfect helped breathe some new life into the game a few years ago. It's important to embrass the modders. After all, it was modders that created Counter-Strike and Team Fortress from Half-life, which ended up becoming stand alone successes for Valve. A few months ago I played the game Don't Starve and they had so many modders they hired a position for a period of time just to work with the modders and incorporate some of the better ideas into the game itself.

-Switching gears to a random thought. I see you want to have the chairman's attributes be attributable to the actions the player takes. It's been a long time since I played Tropico so I don't really remember the avatar system from that game. It would be interesting if your chairman would develop with you as you progress through the campaigns. Maybe there would be different goals you could select as a victory condition or option goals that would give your chairman a certain attribute. Ex. a haulage goal of PAX competed by X time. The faster your complete that goal, the higher your attribute becomes for a passenger revenue bonus. Of course there could always be negative modifiers too. I.E. being too focused on PAX travel, the hauling revenue for freight may decrease.

-One reason you mentioned steam was for the DLC ability. I hope this doesn't turn into a game with lots of different DLCs where each are over priced things that should have been included in the original. (Look at some of the games by Paradox for an example of this like Europa Universalis or Crusader Kings, having DLC's for things that were included in previous games, but then turned into DLC in sequels). I would also be careful about updating your game too often. Hopefully when you get out of beta and release a final version you won't need to make too many subsequent patches. It bothers me when I log into steam and stuff suddenly needs to update. Of course then there's the issue if it auto updates and I was on a scenario, would I still be able to play that saved game ? And what about any modded content? Would it break with the update?

Well I think I rambled enough for now.

[Gumboots]

Gumboots if you ever lose access to your steam account (whether revoked/banned/forgot password) you're pretty much out of luck with steam games. With steam we merely buy the right to play the game. We no longer OWN the game.

Yeah I wouldn't stand for that. I'd want my own standalone copy. I wouldn't care if I had to buy it from Steam initially, but once bought I should own it. I'd regard that as non-negotiable.

As for modding I hope this is pretty open to people being able to mod it. I get mixed feelings on how open you plan on making this for modding. The steam workshop makes it easy for modded content to be in a centralized location but at the same time you say you don't want to let the community make tuning changes that could ruin the fun of the game and you are going to reserve the locomotives to being made by the developers.

Hang on. What? I'd say allowing people to make locomotives (and rolling stock) is pretty much a baseline requirement. Are you sure they don't just mean that the core team will make the initial roster, but that anyone who wants to add to it later will be able to? That seemed to be what they were saying earlier, as far as I can tell. That would make sense.

And "tuning changes"? Surely event scripting would have to be flexible enough to allow "tuning changes".

-One reason you mentioned steam was for the DLC ability. I hope this doesn't turn into a game with lots of different DLCs where each are over priced things that should have been included in the original. (Look at some of the games by Paradox for an example of this like Europa Universalis or Crusader Kings, having DLC's for things that were included in previous games, but then turned into DLC in sequels). I would also be careful about updating your game too often. Hopefully when you get out of beta and release a final version you won't need to make too many subsequent patches. It bothers me when I log into steam and stuff suddenly needs to update. Of course then there's the issue if it auto updates and I was on a scenario, would I still be able to play that saved game ? And what about any modded content? Would it break with the update?

Good points there.

TBH, at the moment I'm wondering how this game is going to be better than RT3. Tunnels? So what? Bridges? Ditto. 3D world. Well yeah, of course.

What's the exciting bit? What about this game is going to make us think RT3 is a dinosaur that's not worth our time any more? What is it about this game that is going to truly rock? Make us interested.

[Blackhawk]

You are correct, the line does say initially regarding modders making new locomotives.

"We also think that fully animated engines with particle effects and sounds, are something we should reserve for our professional content developers initially."

Not quite sure that line is necessary, at least in a kickstarter promotion where the ability to customize/mod is an important thing to emphasis. I can understand wanting to release a game before new locos and rolling stock mods are created, but what's "initially" mean? It's too vague. It could mean waiting until after the beta is closed, or it could very well mean for the first year or two of the game no new locos will be allowed in the steam workshop. Maybe for purposes of not wanting to somehow distort the game play with new locos. Or there's the possibility it would interfere with being able to release later DLC for additional locomotives, a diesel/electric time period, or a European (or other area) dlc content, if people had previously made European locomotives in the workshop.

Another comment for the kickstarter page: More details regarding your funding goals might be useful.
-1.3m gets a full release
-1.8m gets expanded content. -- For 1/2 million more, what sort of expanded content are we talking about? It might not be a bad thing to list what the "possibilities" of additional content would be. What would be the difference between a full release and the expanded content? I understand one reason you might not want to list a lot being that people could be upset if you then don't add that content to the game especially if you later sell it as a DLC which people expected it to be with the original game, but on the other hand I'd need some more details as to why I would want to donate more money to try and get this additional content.

[Gumboots]

Y'know I'm wondering why they want to include a sandbox mode. Anyone can edit any scenario's conditions to make it effectively a sandbox anyway, or at least they can in RT3 and I assume the same would be the case in this new game. Personally I hardly ever use sandbox mode in RT3. I do use it occasionally for testing, but wouldn't miss it if it didn't exist since I can (and do) test in saved scenarios anyway.

My 2c is that if including a sandbox mode was going to require any non-negligible amount of coding time it would be better to forget about it and just put the same amount of work and time into making a better RTS. I really can't see the point of putting extra restrictions on the main game's quality just for the sake of having a sandbox mode (which, I suspect, will hardly ever be used).

[Hawk]

Since I found out early on (long before this thread was started) that I wouldn’t be able to run this game on my XP rig (it will require at least Win 7 – I was told), and even if I could run the game I wouldn’t rent it (it is a bit misleading suggesting that you buy) from Steam, so I really don’t have a place in this discussion – but here goes anyway.

The casual gamer generally doesn't concern themselves as much with game play as they do with eye candy. Consequently, game developers have to take that into consideration when they develop a game, if they have any hope of making any money from their work. Steam also comes into play for the same reason. That's where the casual gamer goes to buy games, for their convenience. Hence giving the developer a much better marketplace.
It is unfortunate, but that's just the way things are now-a-days.

Also, if the developer plans to release their game in stages (as Franz as hinted at), Steam is a better place for that as the game can be updated quite easily on everyone's computer the same way to the same level, hopefully resulting in less technical support needed.

This is where problems can arise for modders. Unless the game is developed in such a way that the core games files remain unchanged by modders, anything done with them will be overwritten the next time an update is released.
Also, if the game is developed in such a way so as to make it possible to mod it without making any changes to core/default files, by way of non-default config/dat/txt/etc files, those files would have to be outside of the default game install/Steam folder (the 18 Wheels of Steel series is a great example of this) or added after install, or the next time you connect to Steam, any changes you make would be overwritten anyway.
Steam automatically ‘corrects’ any and all files that you downloaded from them. Steam typically doesn’t mess with files added to the game install folder after the fact though.

As to what has been said about your Steam account being canceled or your account banned, this is true. Once Steam determines that you are not welcomed with them, for whatever reason – be it your fault or not – you lose all the ‘rent’ you’ve paid to Steam and are basically thrown out of your game world and can no longer play the games installed within the Steam directory.
You can be banned for any number or reasons.

You’re account was hacked (whether it was your fault or not).
You create a second account.
You do a charge back with your credit card company because you weren’t happy with a game you paid rent on (forget going to Steam and requesting your money back).

There’s a number of other reasons you can be banned/deactivated.
You could contact Steam and try to work things out to get your game world back, but from what I’ve read at other forums, the chances of that happening are minimal at best. You’re guilty until proven innocent and arbitration with them is most definitely stacked against you.

If the developer decides to associate themselves with Steam, even if you buy a cd of the game, you’ll have to create a Steam account to register the game, so having the cd means nothing because Steam can still stop you from playing, unless the developer were to create the game in such a way as to make it possible to play the game without a Steam account but only require a Steam account to get updates/patches.
Then again, why would a game developer want to add the additional cost of cd’s if they want to associate themselves with Steam. That wouldn’t be very cost efficient.

As I said earlier, I can understand a game developer going the Steam route. After all, it’s just a very small percentage of possible buyers that don’t like Steam.

I’ll step down off of my soapbox now and turn this thread back over to more interested parties.
Anyone: Please feel free to correct any misstatements I may have unintentionally or unknowingly made.
My comments were made from my limited experience with Steam (I only rented playing rights through Steam on one game - Railworks) and a game community for Railworks, that requires Steam (RailworksAmerica.com which I originally started, then turned over to someone else).

My thoughts on the game itself are irrelevant, since I won't be playing it anyway.

[Blackhawk]

I think that the graphics these days is a little less important than it used to be. Granted you can't charge 50$ for a game that looks like it was made in 1990. But several popular games on steam don't have great graphics. (Papers Please is an example, simple game with old graphics but people enjoyed the gameplay. I have a friend who has a co worker who is making a rpg with old looking graphics and it has got some media attention from some of the internet gaming sites. So flashy graphics aren't necessarily needed, but the game has to offer something new. And if you are doing a crowd funding campaign a well designed and visually stimulating page/description helps a lot. Planetary annihilation raised around 2 million on kickstarter and they had a fairly flashy video and a larger audience than rt3 and a larger dedicated following from the original total annihilation and later the supreme commander series. So I doubt that R&R would raise 2m on kickstarter at this point in time. Of course even with that money people have said the released product is more like a beta than a finished product.

As for the steam + cd version. I don't necessarily think there needs to be a cd version. Some games like Don't Starve, Torchlight, Trine, Virus Named Tom... Etc. All have the ability to download direct from the company or use steam. Obviously the steam version is easier for updates and mods but not necessary. And the drm free download from the company doesn't require steam activation. So it isn't necessary to require steam even for a cd version, unless the company really wants its DRM protection. (like Dishonored which requires its cd version be authenticated and might require steam, or Diablo 3 which was required to be played online even in single player.)

[Viconius]

Hi,
So Steam announced they'll finally be doing refunds. http://kotaku.com/steam-is-now-offering ... 1708492000 For those to whom it may make a difference.

Why mention tunnels? Mostly because we looked at RT2 for much of the core inspiration for the game. RT2 didn't have tunnels and it was a shot in the foot. Just making sure no one decided to focus on that. I spent too much time in press tours having to relive that choice to want to do it again.

The initial comment on the locomotives not being something players could create at the beginning is that we are simply undecided at the moment. My current thinking is just not say, no player made loco for the first 6 months or so from launch. Just to make sure we have a launch that can be a consistent player experience. If you've ever done customer support, there are lots of well meaning and not well meaning users out there. Having someone tell you a scenario is broken is tough enough to figure out; but having people add something to the game that breaks it and not tell you is common.

The reason our ask is so high is because we are very familiar with costing of projects and we consulted with a LOT of people. We're even getting someone to join us from RT1. (I'm not putting up a new preview link at the moment, but our KS page has been approved by Kickstarter and when our video is up... maybe tomorrow we'll go live.) We lowered our ask for our Early Access Release to $800k because we've gotten some help at a reduced cost. We'd have preferred to have gotten seed money and then came to Kickstarter, but that didn't work out; however we're "planning" on having a real product not just hoping to do so. As we find ways to save money and time, we will make that happen.

Yep, we plan on rolling things out over time. We want to be as flexible as we possibly can when determining releases and pricing. We want to put out things for free and charge the least amount for significant new features. We'd like to make things like scenarios, textures, architecture and maps as free and user created as possible. Then we would be able to charge the lesser amount for for the expensive projects that we have to undertake ourselves. This doesn't sit well with most marketing types and is potentially one of our biggest business problems.

Sandbox mode, why? Easy, because unlike hardcore players as we have on a site like this; MOST players of RT2 and RT3 were not hardcore . We had lots of families playing because they could choose what to turn on and off, all the way down to JUST sandbox. Everything is free and nothing goes wrong. To mid and hardcore players, this is sort of crazy. However, it's a relatively small cost to ensure the functionality, but the pay off is huge. Consider that from conversations I've had over 17 years on how the games were played, many played it as their first RTS or even strategy game period! As they aged and learned about the game they turned on more features. It's sort of the essence of what Railroad Games are to me. It's not violent but it can be a challenge that you can strive for. It can teach simplified economics and yet be fun. It can be just artistic to downright infuriatingly hard. With some of the changes we are talking about it will grow and change as the community does. Which makes the product match this timeless genre. This time we're planning long term from the start, and we're going to make it more accessible than just for hardcore fans, but definitely NOT forgetting them either.

[Gumboots]

That all sounds reasonable. I know how hard it is to get accurate information from people about exactly how they screwed things up, so keeping a tight rein on things during development makes sense. I can see why you want to include sandbox too, and if it's relatively little cost in time and effort then it makes sense to do it.

It's sort of the essence of what Railroad Games are to me. It's not violent but it can be a challenge that you can strive for.

This is one of the things I like most about RT3. You have to create stuff rather than destroy it.

It may seem like we're giving you a hard time here, but I'm sure we all wish you well with this and would like to see you succeed. At the moment though, I don't know enough about what you are planning to create to know whether it will interest me personally. Being a hard core type of player, I'm naturally interested in details that the average punter may not consider, and I have a fairly long love/hate list from playing and modding RT3.

Why mention tunnels? Mostly because we looked at RT2 for much of the core inspiration for the game.

Why RT2? Why not RT3?

[Hawk]

Hi,
So Steam announced they'll finally be doing refunds. http://kotaku.com/steam-is-now-offering ... 1708492000 For those to whom it may make a difference.

That will be good news for a lot of Steam users. Thanks for pointing that out.

It may seem like we're giving you a hard time here, but I'm sure we all wish you well with this and would like to see you succeed.

I second this. Even though I won't be able to play it, and I wouldn't buy it through Steam if I could, I do wish you success with this.

[Viconius]

Thank you all!

I think when talking to detail people, the lite answer is I like RT2 more than 3 mostly because of requiring the player to do more of the commerce, cargo doesn't move appreciably unless you do the work. That said, I liked 3's consists and generally speaking I liked RT3 as much as RT2. However, I'm trying to separate the two on philosophy. I'd like the player to be more important in all activities and try to provide more immersion in R&R. It's the RT series that we are trying to update. So, all 3 RT games have good stuff and "when" we get funded I'd like to start talking about the details with the community. We're honest when we say we want to make the game along with the community, its input will shape our choices.

In fact for this group it's more like this. Like the RT series, R&R will be a RR Game, not a simulation. You can assume that we want a few new features along with a better platform. Game play will have some distinctions but they'll be in the vein of the RT series so we're not completely reinventing it just as each 3 had that "feel".

[Lone Cat]

So that means I have to lay tracks to every farms, mines and logcamps to haul freights directly to mills, factory and markets. right? instead of using road switcher to 'gather' resources to nearby city freightyards and form a heavyweight freight trains??

[Gumboots]

Speaking of heavy freight trains, it'd be nice if it were possible to do the game physics such that long freight trains were possible. This could give a much better purpose for the various locomotives in the roster. RT3's 8 car limit renders the larger engines hardly more effective than the rest of them. If the limit could be upped to 20 cars or whatever, you'd finally have a good use for heavy freight locos.

[Silverback]

RT2 TSC introduced drop shipping - you could set a train up to haul from the source to a city freightyard and then haul to a destination if you so wished. In RT2 freight wouldn't move itself at all. RT3 lost that ability as cargo would move itself. To me RT2 had the railroad part as its core - to make money you had to run a rail system, whereas RT3 had more scope to start by making industry profits without even laying track so the railroad seemed more secondary. The emphasis went from RAILROAD tycoon to railroad TYCOON. RT2 had time to mature whereas RT3 was released and mainly left to fend for itself.

To me a rail game has to have rail as its core.

Of the rail games I've played MY favourite is still RT2. but the main games I've also played and enjoyed are the original Railroad Tycoon and RT3, and many others like Transport Tycoon, Rails across America and Railroad Pioneer. Each has their own little idiosyncrasies e.g Railroad Pioneer requires you to explore to find locations and research upgrades, Transport tycoon has signals to get more track capacity (and other forms of transport) etc.

[Gumboots]

Yes, RT3 is a business sim and strategy game that has a strong rail component. However, if it was just laying track and creating trains and micromanaging cargo it would, IMO, be less interesting. Cargo does move without rail in real life. Always has done. Industry is important.

The lack of drop shipping in RT3 is not a direct consequence of having cargo move on its own. It would be easy to code holding pens that allowed drop shipping, while still allowing cargo outside the pens to move across country.

I agree that RT3's cargo management is in some respects, a bit on the primitive side. In reality you would be able to direct cargo to where you wanted it. If you were shipping grain to your brewery, it wouldn't be stolen by a bakery that just happened to be closer to the station. You wouldn't allow it. You'd just send the grain from the station to your brewery. I think that to make a really good game, some rethinking of cargo management would be worthwhile.

[Hawk]

Have you thought about naming it Rails to Riches instead of Rails & Riches?

[Viconius]

Have you thought about naming it Rails to Riches instead of Rails & Riches?

LOL We tried but some snowboarding group has had it for years.

[Viconius]

RT2 TSC introduced drop shipping - you could set a train up to haul from the source to a city freightyard and then haul to a destination if you so wished. In RT2 freight wouldn't move itself at all. RT3 lost that ability as cargo would move itself. To me RT2 had the railroad part as its core - to make money you had to run a rail system, whereas RT3 had more scope to start by making industry profits without even laying track so the railroad seemed more secondary. The emphasis went from RAILROAD tycoon to railroad TYCOON. RT2 had time to mature whereas RT3 was released and mainly left to fend for itself.

To me a rail game has to have rail as its core.

Of the rail games I've played MY favourite is still RT2. but the main games I've also played and enjoyed are the original Railroad Tycoon and RT3, and many others like Transport Tycoon, Rails across America and Railroad Pioneer. Each has their own little idiosyncrasies e.g Railroad Pioneer requires you to explore to find locations and research upgrades, Transport tycoon has signals to get more track capacity (and other forms of transport) etc.

You hit one of the philosophical nails on the head. We want to get back to building rails and servicing the world not just making profits on industries. So we're steering towards features that will push that aspect.

[Hawk]

Have you thought about naming it Rails to Riches instead of Rails & Riches?

LOL We tried but some snowboarding group has had it for years.

Snowboarding? I wonder what rails has to do with snowboarding?

[Blackhawk]

While RT2 was my favorite of the series for awhile, the more I played RT3 the more it grew on me. At first I thought I didn't really have to do anything in it as I could just set up trains and let them haul whatever and the cargo traveling on its own would take care of itself, but then I gave it another chance a few years later and realized there was a lot more to it. The game behind RT3 was much more expansive and there was much more that could be done than in RT2. RT2 was primarily focused only on the rails, which that's fine, but a real railroad tycoon controlled all the lines of industry and that was much more encompassed in RT3 than in RT2. The greater use of industry was nice as it presented additional ways to play the game, rather than just focus on a rail line, which eventually grows repetitive and tiresome.

How many times can you set up a train's consist and give it stations in the same scenario? I think 95% of my trains in RT2 were run on custom consists to maximize profit and make sure cargo got where I wanted it. Overall, that was just too much micromanaging when scenarios had large numbers of trains.

RT3 was nice in that if you find say a couple profitable mines, maybe you start the scenario by buying the mines and from there you build a railroad. In effect, it was as if you were (in this example) the mining company and you created your own railroad out of necessity and then expanded it into other ventures for profits. (Sort of like the Erie mining company)

It will be interesting to see how this turns out though. Either way it would be nice to have an updated railroad game, whether it takes RT2 or RT3 aspects as it's basis.

----
As for snowboarding and rails, I think rails are what they use to do tricks on and boardslide down on. Whether that's like a metal railing that could essentially be used for stairs or other type of "rail" used for tricks.

Is it Rails to Riches or Rails 2 Riches which was taken? And since it's a snowboarding group would it even matter if you created a railroading game by the same or similar name as it is a very different industry and you'd be selling different products/services so for trademark purposes I'm not sure there would be an issue.