Not sure what disrespect you are referring to, all I was pointing out is that you might have missed the intended context of the thread. You are welcome to have a different opinion, I simply was interested in debating your observations, because they did not seem valid to me. I think that there might be some miscommunication in our dialogue, not sure why you got offended. As far as the proof you are asking for, there is none other that everything that I have already attempted to point out in the various posts found here. It is kind of hard to debate your points when you keep up misunderstanding what I point out, I never suggested one single DLC instead of the current format, the idea here is to develop an substantial add on to this game independent of the already planned DLCs, ultimately adding and filling in the gaps left open in the current game/model.
Planet Zoo 2.0
- Thread starter Danny_zoo
- Start date
Not sure what disrespect you are referring to, all I was pointing out is that you might have missed the intended context of the thread. You are welcome to have a different opinion, I simply was interested in debating your observations, because they did not seem valid to me. I think that there might be some miscommunication in our dialogue, not sure why you got offended. As far as the proof you are asking for, there is none other that everything that I have already attempted to point out in the various posts found here. It is kind of hard to debate your points when you keep up misunderstanding what I point out, I never suggested one single DLC instead of the current format, the idea here is to develop an substantial add on to this game independent of the already planned DLCs, ultimately adding and filling in the gaps left open in the current game/model.
That is a good point, and I did address it in the thread, the add on game would of course have to be optimize to function in a substantially higher and vastly superior capacity to what we currently have. That would of course be the base of launching a 2.0 add on, since it means an improvement in technical performance for Planet Zoo. And its implementation could certainly take a few years, it definitely would not be a quick enterprise. Something of this scale and caliber would take up a considerable time frame, as it is expected.
However, as much as I like the idea, I reckon it's kind of utopian. As Swjos wrote you can call your PZ 2.0 an "add on" or whatever but it's still a "DLC" and not a base game. And as far as I know, there is no "add on" or "DLC" in the history of videogames that was so daring and costly (I might be wrong). So even if the content was really worth the money, many people would still argue it's too much to charge for additional content or that they were deceived when they bought PZ 1.0 as they thought it was a "complete" game.
If after all the regular DLCs Frontier has planned we end up not having some of the most requested features, animals or scenery/foliage (and sure we will), the common route to follow would be simply an 'independent' PZ 2.
Last edited:
You keep repeating that I misunderstood or don't get it, which is not true. You obviously can't come up with an example of a DLC that scale that was published. Therefore, doing it for the first time would be a marketing experiment. It doesn't matter if it would fail or not and it doesn't matter if there were made marketing analysis or not. It's a simple fact.
Repeating that you believe in the success of something doesn't automatically make it a success, as it also doesn't make it a failure just because someone disbeliefs. And that's it from me. If you can't crasp, for whatever reason, that someone can understand you and yet point out things that aren't thought to an end, I can't help you. And that's it from me. No need to disturb and annoy me longer via PM, telling me I don't get it. Believe me, I do and I also get a lot more, that I better don't explain here
Welcome to my ignore list.
Repeating that you believe in the success of something doesn't automatically make it a success, as it also doesn't make it a failure just because someone disbeliefs. And that's it from me. If you can't crasp, for whatever reason, that someone can understand you and yet point out things that aren't thought to an end, I can't help you. And that's it from me. No need to disturb and annoy me longer via PM, telling me I don't get it. Believe me, I do and I also get a lot more, that I better don't explain here
Welcome to my ignore list.You keep repeating that I misunderstood or don't get it, which is not true. You obviously can't come up with an example of a DLC that scale that was published. Therefore, doing it for the first time would be a marketing experiment. It doesn't matter if it would fail or not and it doesn't matter if there were made marketing analysis or not. It's a simple fact.
Repeating that you believe in the success of something doesn't automatically make it a success, as it also doesn't make it a failure just because someone disbeliefs. And that's it from me. If you can't crasp, for whatever reason, that someone can understand you and yet point out things that aren't thought to an end, I can't help you. And that's it from me. No need to disturb and annoy me longer via PM, telling me I don't get it. Believe me, I do and I also get a lot more, that I better don't explain here
Not sure what any of that was about, but have a good day, and enjoy the game.
I think they don't. When a Part 2 doesn't live up to the expectation, people don't even bother with the sequels. In short: There's no reliable way to predict consumer behaviour .
Star Wars is a good example. 7 didn't connect with a lot of people and the box office draws for 8 and 9 were poor (compared to 7 !). Still made profits but looking at the Solo movie, that was a huge box office bomb. Slapping Star Wars to the title did not have the desired effect.
Racing car management games are not that common, so it's not strange they are trying this one. With the license to back it up - it could be an interesting game. The last real licensed F1 management game was years ago. F1 is still a bigger draw than zoo games.
Personally I think it would be wiser to spend resources in Planet Zoo 2, instead of putting it in this 2.0 version of a game.
I think from a business POV it would be giving away content with that price - looking at PC the extra DLC in total is approx € 80,-.
With this amount of content € 150-200 looks more reasonable, and I doubt most people are willing to buy this.
Spending 10,- every 3-4 months is more acceptable for most people and people are willing to pay € 20-30,- just for an expansion (aviary/marine).
I understand the purpose of the thread, and I think generally speaking it is an interesting and bold idea. If the question is "would Frontier do it" then I think the answer is 'no', however I can see the merits behind it.
I do think it throws in too much at once, and it covers areas we can't even be sure are possible to cover with the current engine (flight, underwater swimming, comprehensive barrier-style roofing, that sort of thing), and if they are not, it would require such a complete overhaul of the game that they might as well just move on to a sequel that covers these areas.
It actually has occurred to me now that the inclusion of aviaries, flight, and underwater swimming would almost have to come with a free update that alters the game at its base. Otherwise, the future inclusions of birds and marine animals would have to be added on the assumption that the player has already purchased the necessary features as part of a previous DLC. As an example, let's say they create this v2.0 of the game but only 80% of players actually buy it. Then, afterwards, they create another DLC that includes more birds. Does the second DLC also come with all the necessary upgrades to allow for birds, or does ownership of the smaller more standard DLC require ownership of the bigger 2.0 version of the game?
A bit of a tangent, which I apologise for, but an interesting conversation nonetheless.
I do think it throws in too much at once, and it covers areas we can't even be sure are possible to cover with the current engine (flight, underwater swimming, comprehensive barrier-style roofing, that sort of thing), and if they are not, it would require such a complete overhaul of the game that they might as well just move on to a sequel that covers these areas.
It actually has occurred to me now that the inclusion of aviaries, flight, and underwater swimming would almost have to come with a free update that alters the game at its base. Otherwise, the future inclusions of birds and marine animals would have to be added on the assumption that the player has already purchased the necessary features as part of a previous DLC. As an example, let's say they create this v2.0 of the game but only 80% of players actually buy it. Then, afterwards, they create another DLC that includes more birds. Does the second DLC also come with all the necessary upgrades to allow for birds, or does ownership of the smaller more standard DLC require ownership of the bigger 2.0 version of the game?
A bit of a tangent, which I apologise for, but an interesting conversation nonetheless.
Interesting, not a big issue when a 2.0 would be the only opportunity to have flying/diving animals.
To buy DLC to enjoy the other DLC seems very unlikely.
Not a huge fan of this idea: but a season pass could cover that.
You're right that it's not a popular idea - EA copped a lot of flak for it when they added that silly "My First Pet" pack after their "Cats and Dogs" expansion.
It does raise the question, though. Presumably the implementation of flight and/or underwater navigation would be a huge undertaking consuming a lot of resources. For birds especially, the range of possible animal inclusions in such a pack is so broad that it simply wouldn't be possible to contain it to a single DLC, even if that DLC costs 30 bucks and has twenty animals in it. So what does Frontier do?
You have brought up an excellent point, and I believe you are 100% correct, when/if Frontier does release flying/swimming/diving/swinging animations it would make sense to release it as a free update alongside one of their DLCs, as you mention, even with the list referenced above, there are so many other possibilities, and making any of these animations part of a DLC would potentially leave some players out of the equation. Great point.
My biggest concern, and the point I tried making with the thread is that Frontier clearly has a hit with this game, and venturing out into completely different genres when there is so much growth potential with it, does seem like from their perspective like leaving a gold mine partially unexplored to pursue a search for silver. Not sure if all of it translates as referenced as I do often bring a different perspective from a lot of the other players that visit the forum.
NL_Mutso did make a valid point that the F1 series of games they are pursuing could end up being another hit, since it does bring the management element into the equation. For me and the many individuals within the zoo world that I have communicated with in reference to this game, it is all about the zoo, and what can be accomplished with the game.
I also keep on hearing about this engine limitation of the Cobra and how it can potentially cripple the game. I might be completely out of touch in this issue, but why would a company like Frontier (they are not a small company by no means) place such a burden on their games, if in fact their equipment is outdated by modern standards. Everything that I have read coming from them, they do seem to take a lot of pride on it, has there ever been any official word that their Cobra engine can not handle long term support and complex mechanics. It was always my understanding, that when it came to those more advance game features, it was a matter of getting things right, and needing more time, but it would be truly disheartening if at the end, it is a technological limitation. Especially, since the technology to make it work, not only already exists but it is clearly doing just fine with other games. Educate me on this one, what is it, a matter of pride to them? or simply being unable to use the tech that does work? It can not be a matter of money, because they clearly have it, and Planet Zoo as most of their games is a huge success.
There are a couple of possible answers here. One is that they didn't think their game would be as successful as it ended up being, hence why they recycled the engine from PlanCo. Another possibility is that they didn't expect people would miss certain features, such as birds (which haven't featured in any meaningful way in any zoo game) and underwater swimming. A third possibility is that they thought the engine could handle the game and it turns out it can't.
Of course this is all speculation, so take it with a grain of salt.
Is there actually a source out there that states that flying birds and underwater swimming are out of the question/ extremely hard to do with this engine? I've seen it pop up so many times already, but I haven't seen any official source mentioning it. The only thing I've ever read on the subject is an interview in which it was mentioned that flying birds presented their own set of challenges, and that they therefor weren't included in the base game. Which, by all means, with the complexity the base game already has, is quite reasonable given that they had to focus on all other stuff first.
I'm just saying, I've seen several people claiming that the engine wouldn't support it so far, but it could easily just be that they postponed that stuff for a "bigger" update/DLC like I've been told PlanCo had. It wouldn't be the first time Frontier left out things deliberately to later feature it in a DLC (SA and Australia being very obvious examples).
I'm just saying, I've seen several people claiming that the engine wouldn't support it so far, but it could easily just be that they postponed that stuff for a "bigger" update/DLC like I've been told PlanCo had. It wouldn't be the first time Frontier left out things deliberately to later feature it in a DLC (SA and Australia being very obvious examples).
It was in one of the QaA discussions on discord, where Frontier answered the question if diving was possible in the future. Their answer was that the underwater navigation is somewhat diffucult to do, even more so than the climbing system they already have,and that they will look into possibilities.
So. yeah, they did not state it is not possible at all.
I'm often the one who brings up that Q&A (I thought it was on Reddit, not Discord), so I'll say this in my defense - I've never claimed they said it was impossible. I've only ever questioned whether it was possible, and made extrapolations on the assumption that it isn't. I've always maintained that if it was easy, they would have already included it, and that if it is possible, then they'll figure it out.
I'm still hopeful that flying birds of some variation will make it in, and that underwater navigation will also make it in. Since both require the same axis of navigation, I imagine that unlocking one will in turn unlock the other, so fingers crossed!
Of course, this was nothing against you, I agree. I do not think they would withold diving if it was doable right now, why would they. Tbh I would rather wait a bit more longer for really awesome diving animations that to have it now but with alot of bugs/worse quality.
Of course, this was nothing against you, I agree. I do not think they would withold diving if it was doable right now, why would they. Tbh I would rather wait a bit more longer for really awesome diving animations that to have it now but with alot of bugs/worse quality.
Exactly, and I apologise for implying I thought it was personal, I just felt like as someone who often points out that specific limitation that I should say something.
Technically, flying can be done without another axis in navigation. Essentially, if they went the ZT2 route they would just make a flying animation the way you make a walking animation. The problem with that is that the height on which the animal flies is then of course completely determined by the actual animation, which is not the preferable solution of course. You could make a bunch of animations (fly_at_1m, fly_at_2m, etc.) and then use the overhead calculation the game has today to see if the animal can perform said animation without clipping through the cover of the exhibit. However, that'd be a very shady an inefficient way of doing it, more like the "how you would mod it in with the current game limitations" approach. So yeah, it could already been done right now, but as you probably can figure from my explanation here, it's certainly not the preferred route to go at all
Exactly for the reason I mentioned, just as a separate DLC with penguins and sealions/seals. Not saying they've withhold it from the start of course, but more like "let's focus on the other stuff first and see about figuring it out later". But that's all speculation of course so who knows.
For what it's worth Planco experience suggests that if they are sure a feature requested is either not doable or not ever going to be in their plans they are always up front about it. E.g. they were clear from early on that weather and pools and water slides would not ever be put in planet coaster. When they are silent about a very highly requested feature it always meant they were trying to solve the problem e.g. custom terrain paints and fireworks in Planco. Sometimes the solution was a bit of a compromise based on the tech constraints, optimisation etc.
So I am cautiously optimistic that at the very least they are trying to solve the issues of diving and flying.
On the DLC front, again based on Planco, they never brought new gameplay mechanics in as DLC, they were always a free update usually with a DLC that gave you more options. E.g. restaurants and hotels were implemented but if you bought the DLC you got more types of food variety and options for your restaurants as well as all the extra themes and rides. No guarantee of the same with planzo but so far it has held true.
So I am cautiously optimistic that at the very least they are trying to solve the issues of diving and flying.
On the DLC front, again based on Planco, they never brought new gameplay mechanics in as DLC, they were always a free update usually with a DLC that gave you more options. E.g. restaurants and hotels were implemented but if you bought the DLC you got more types of food variety and options for your restaurants as well as all the extra themes and rides. No guarantee of the same with planzo but so far it has held true.