You know, it's a bit hard to discuss against a battery of assumptions and opinions. I will insist again: it is not my goal to put Frontier down or to say that they don't listen to feedback, etc. I am just exposing the data that is available, which, in terms of steam reviews, it's pretty much what paul78 posted here:
Just checked the steam reviews on each dlc plus deluxe pack :
68% positive for Arctic pack
70% positive for Deluxe
61% positive for South America pack
72% positive for Australia pack
80% positive for Aquatic pack
89% positive for the game itself
Overall pretty good numbers. And their still selling so it’s hard telling if any changes will come. Like a user mentioned most people who are pretty satisfied with the pack usually won’t review. Overall I’ve liked each pack in their own way and have much like even the people who complain the most bought every pack. Now I know the South American and Australian pack didn’t diversify the animals with only five but maybe it’s all part of frontiers plan we did receive the giant otter plus I find it hard to believe more won’t be added at some point.
This almost feels like a loop. I've been talking about that data the whole weekend. Glad you checked it.
Now, allow me the expression:
there is none so blind as those that refuse to see.
Because now that the scientific method has been brought up, seeing, observing is the main principle of science, whether you're talking about statistics, marketing
science, biology, etc.
Anyway, talking about data, because it's what we have available for all of us and is
objective. Steam reviews/ratings indicate that the DLC packs (not inxluding Deluxe though the rating would remain the same), have an average rating of
70.25%. That is
19% less than the full-game. I have literally not done anything in the last days other than remarking that.
If 70% average rating and -19% decrease in comparison to the full game is "pretty good numbers" for Frontier, then there is nothing to discuss really.
Arguments such as "the DLCs are still selling well, people will still buy DLCs" should not be the motto in any company, for their own good. If their only aim is profit and they don't try to please at least some of their customers feedback, sooner or later this company will not be as well-regarded. Luckily, I believe Frontier's mindset is not of that sort.
Now, back to the feedback and data that we have available. Here several things have been said over the last days that need clarification. Sorry to insist here but some things cry out to heaven:
-Here it has been said that the vocal part of the community who post in this forum, participate in dedicated discord servers, reddit and similar platforrms, and steam reviews are a negligible minority (<1%) of the playerbase.
Yes. That can be quantifiable to some extent if you compare all the sold products with all the steam reviews, Frontier forum posts, etc. It is provable and objective. Facts.
-Here it has been said that this <1% vocal part of the PZ community are not representing the whole playerbase.
Yes. Same as above applies.
-Here it has been said that the <1% vocal part of the customers that buy a product (PZ in this case) usually lean towards a
negative bias which does not represent the whole playerbase.
Impossible to determine. It's an opinion, an assumption.
It's this assumption that is biased. Supposedly marketing
science supports that, yet it is
impossible to demonstrate unless you make a survey of a consistent part of your playerbase. Any correction you apply is inherently biased because it speculates and creates fictional data out of reviews/feedback/activity from <1% of the playerbase. Basically, you can assume the vocal part of the community are more negative, and you can assume they are more positive. None is provable.
Same could be said about pretty much any reviewed product or service (movies, restaurants, mobile phones, etc.). If all the reviews and forum posts are overall more negative than what the general public thinks, there is this "negative bias" in all of them, making everything comparable, whether all biased or all not biased.
But for some reason, apparently, this marketing
science theory doesn't apply as much to the ratings of the full-game (I'm saying this because it has significantly higher ratings). Contradictory.
-Here it has been said that the full-game better reviews (compared to the DLCs') are a product of the higher amount of people rating the full-game. Apparently, this marketing
science theory does not apply when working with higher numbers. It has been said that because of the fact that fewer people review the DLCs, they tend to be more negative because each review has a higher weight. Apparently, people who support the game in the long run (= buy their DLCs) introduce an additional negative bias in the feedback/steam reviews.
Again. Impossible to determine. Opinions, assumptions. Subjective. Biased. And similarly to what happened with the full-game above, apparently all these justifications don't apply as much to the Aquatic pack compared to the other packs (I'm saying this because it has significantly higher ratings).Contradictory.
It's quite simple and obvious. Higher ratings -> higher regard. Meaning the Aquatic pack and the full game are better than the other DLCs,based on steam reviews. Simple. That's why I said you're reading too much into it.
-Here it has been stated that the most common demand/complaint is the low amount of animals. But the quality of these complaints (in the forum, discord or steam reviews) has been questioned.
Fair enough. Not all critiques and reviews are of "high quality" or constructive. But again, same applies for positive ones. I insist, though. You can argue half the reviews are of low quality, etc, etc. Still, by far the most common complaint is
very few animals. It's undeniable.
Later, there was an attempt to justify this by "looping the loop":
what fundamental problem do they try to solve here? Do they just want more differntly coloured polygons for the sake of visual variety? Do they hope to break out of a repitive gameplay loop do to new challenges? Both points need to be fixed differently and so it's up to Frontier do deduce what "we need more animals!" actually means.
Same goes with your other answer. Why do people need the possibility to recreate actual zoos to have fun with this game? What part of the gameplay does this adress and how?
Then it get's even more complicated when you think about the details. Let's just say people want more animals for the sake of having more animals. Which animals do you give them? The ones requested on the forums? On Steam? All of them?
It really doesn't get that complicated. Or, at least, that is not the topic of the thread (though it's interesting). Either way, Frontier nor us have no way, no tool to respond to most of those questions. It's pointless to try to know why people try to recreate real zoos in a zoo game. Like...c'mon.
The better (or at least the only) information you can get regarding most of that is through the forum and other platforms (what I have been saying from the beginning). But again, you're reading too much into it. We're talking about a game where there are signs for animals that are not in-game. A game whose animal requirements are...well...questionable. I doubt they'd do research on: Do people who ask for more animals just want differently coloured polygons for the sake of visual variety? Like...really c'mon
-Here it has been said that data from steam reviews, forum posts, etc. should most likely be corrected to remove the so-called negative biase.
Another attempt to transform factual data into something else, something fictional based on <1% of the playerbase. Any correction would be biased because it would deviate from the real data or feedback that the steam reviews, forum posts etc. provide.
-Here it has been said that probably Frontier has some tools (of which no one knows) that probably tell the devs information about what the players want.
Again, impossible to demonstrate. An assumption. Player usage data such as: "knowing that 9.999.999 peafowls were bought in the last year", doesn't provide any valuable information to the topic. Knowing that classic roof trim 01 was the most used building item is not useful either. Knowing that animals from the aquatic pack have been more used than animals from the Arctic pack is not meaningful, either. The only tool they could use (which is unavailable to us) to know what the players want is the exact full-game and DLCs sales and all that goes with it. Essentially, market research. Other than that, steam reviews and official platforms are what it is available. (They have even repeatedly encouraged players to provide feedback on the forum).
TL;DR: I'm simply saying this: DLCs are not as well-regarded as the full-game. And that the most common demand is more variety of animals. There is not much else to it.
I really don't know to what limits one can give justifications to refute factual data that is there, available to all of us. I'm not trying to argue if data is good or bad, I am presenting it. This whole thing is almost laughable.