DLCs
- Thread starter FranzCamillo
- Start date
-
- Tags
- dlc
Althought I'd like that too, I think that's not happening with the current setup of DLC's mixed with building pieces and scenery.
Maybe in the future we will get "animal only" packs, consisting of maybe 10-15 animals.
But history tells me it's not going to dramatically change, if at all. At least we got some new features with this update, but that's seperate to the DLC.
This DLC also shows that they aren’t done representing a region or biome just because of any specific pack being released. We thought SA may be done for a while, but now they add two animals that are from the region.
A North America pack could introduce Alligator and Sea Lion as aquatic creatures, for example.
It is perfectly reasonable to think more aquatic animals can be released in various packs moving forward and that they aren’t done with a specific category because of it being the title of a pack.
Hopefully we get more animals, but I understand the constraints and think asking for numerous patterns, colors, new mechanics, unique rigs, behaviors, research, re-skin rigs, scenery, bug fixes, quality of life fixes, building pieces, and more is a bit unrealistic.
This is a very recurrent discussion and we all pretty much know we all have our own view on the topic.
For me, it's important to talk more in detail about a couple of things that sometimes get misinterpreted.
1) At this point in time I believe most people who ask for more animals in each DLC are not asking for big 30-40€ expansions. There might be a couple of users here and there that still demand ZT2-like expansions but the majority is just asking for the same model of DLC we have now plus 2-4 more animals (15€, 20€ max).
2) Between a total reskin (eg. subspecies of brown bear) and a completely new animal model (eg. gray seal) there is a wide range of cases that would make releasing more animals in the same time rather possible. Here are some examples based on 6 factors in order of importance/time consumption:
-Subspecies of brown bear: same rig, same behaviour, same sounds, slightly different skin, slightly different size, same species
-Subspecies of tiger: same rig, same behaviour, same sounds, slightly different skin (maybe a bit more complex than bears due to patterns), different size, same species
-Subspecies of wolves: same rig, same behaviour, same sounds, moderately different skin (eg. Arctic wolf, Mexican wolf, Iberian wolf), roughly the same size, same species.
-Other subspecies of canis lupus (Dingo/Guinean singing dog) compared to wolves: same rig, slightly different behaviour, different sounds, very different skin, similar size, same species.
-Crocodiles (Crocodyloidea): same rig, same behaviour, slightly different sounds, moderately different skin, different size, different species.
-Ruffed lemurs (black&white vs red): same rig, same behaviour, same sounds (afaik), different skin, similar size, different species.
-Tapirs: same rig, similar behaviour, different sounds (afaik), different skin, slightly different size, different species.
-Gazelles (Gazella spp.), could be otters, small cats, or virtually every animal genus: only slightly different rig, slightly different behaviour, different sounds (afaik), different skin, different size, different species.
Most of these animals could be considered reskins by many people, and they would be right to some degree, but even something as trivial as changing the species would make a notable difference for many players and would simply appreciate more variation. As long as an animal doesn't need a very distinct rig, sounds or behaviour animations, it can be done in a matter of days. And after that Frontier video we now even know making rigs shouldn't be as difficult as it was when they first started with PZ.
Would some people be unhappy for having to pay for a new brown bear subspecies? Arguably yes. But what about a new tapir? A new crocodile? Thes animals wouldn't need a new rig, nor a new behaviour and only slightly different sounds. @markun's idea keeps popping up because it'd be a great 'compromise' solution. We get many new animals (12 per year), even if some of them look similar, at a reasonable price (1-2€ maybe?).
I don't know, it doesn't sound unreasonable nor unfeasible to me, even if 'manpower' is not increased as Swjos suggested.
For me, it's important to talk more in detail about a couple of things that sometimes get misinterpreted.
1) At this point in time I believe most people who ask for more animals in each DLC are not asking for big 30-40€ expansions. There might be a couple of users here and there that still demand ZT2-like expansions but the majority is just asking for the same model of DLC we have now plus 2-4 more animals (15€, 20€ max).
2) Between a total reskin (eg. subspecies of brown bear) and a completely new animal model (eg. gray seal) there is a wide range of cases that would make releasing more animals in the same time rather possible. Here are some examples based on 6 factors in order of importance/time consumption:
-Subspecies of brown bear: same rig, same behaviour, same sounds, slightly different skin, slightly different size, same species
-Subspecies of tiger: same rig, same behaviour, same sounds, slightly different skin (maybe a bit more complex than bears due to patterns), different size, same species
-Subspecies of wolves: same rig, same behaviour, same sounds, moderately different skin (eg. Arctic wolf, Mexican wolf, Iberian wolf), roughly the same size, same species.
-Other subspecies of canis lupus (Dingo/Guinean singing dog) compared to wolves: same rig, slightly different behaviour, different sounds, very different skin, similar size, same species.
-Crocodiles (Crocodyloidea): same rig, same behaviour, slightly different sounds, moderately different skin, different size, different species.
-Ruffed lemurs (black&white vs red): same rig, same behaviour, same sounds (afaik), different skin, similar size, different species.
-Tapirs: same rig, similar behaviour, different sounds (afaik), different skin, slightly different size, different species.
-Gazelles (Gazella spp.), could be otters, small cats, or virtually every animal genus: only slightly different rig, slightly different behaviour, different sounds (afaik), different skin, different size, different species.
Most of these animals could be considered reskins by many people, and they would be right to some degree, but even something as trivial as changing the species would make a notable difference for many players and would simply appreciate more variation. As long as an animal doesn't need a very distinct rig, sounds or behaviour animations, it can be done in a matter of days. And after that Frontier video we now even know making rigs shouldn't be as difficult as it was when they first started with PZ.
Would some people be unhappy for having to pay for a new brown bear subspecies? Arguably yes. But what about a new tapir? A new crocodile? Thes animals wouldn't need a new rig, nor a new behaviour and only slightly different sounds. @markun's idea keeps popping up because it'd be a great 'compromise' solution. We get many new animals (12 per year), even if some of them look similar, at a reasonable price (1-2€ maybe?).
I don't know, it doesn't sound unreasonable nor unfeasible to me, even if 'manpower' is not increased as Swjos suggested.
Last edited:
I don't think most people really thought that they were done with SA. Some users did but they are still in "panic"mode. (we will never get *insert *animal species)
Never crossed my mind that they were done with animals from a specific region/biome/continent. For example: not convinced they will make a SA DLC part 2.
Not sure about that one. But it's a neverending story, if you add 2 more - still not good enough. Add another 2 - still not good enough.
I know, I know.. Would like to see more animals too but I think they will never do this right for some people.
And people are more enticed to buy a € 9,99 DLC instead of € 19,99. That's really clear when you see other games as well. For a 12-16 year old spending € 19,99 is a lot different compared to when you work. Or even for some countries.
Suggesting extra manpower because people want more DLC - still don't like the idea.
I don't know if it's reasonable or unreasonable. Personally wouldn't know how much time/effort/money it costs to create 1 completely functional animal (research etc).
Wouldn't appreciate if this would happen to my job/work. Customers/outsiders telling my employer they should hire more staff because they want more. Somewhat telling people their efforts aren't good enough. ( hopefully you'll understand the context of this, forums aren't the best way to explain this
)Wouldn't appreciate if this would happen to my job/work. Customers/outsiders telling my employer they should hire more staff because they want more. Somewhat telling people their efforts aren't good enough. ( hopefully you'll understand the context of this, forums aren't the best way to explain this
Also remember, hiring more people also means more tasks to organize, and while it might be of benefit, future projects might require less manpower, and then you are stuck with maybe to much devs/staff, which costs money.
It's not just a matter of "Hire more people". You also need to be mindful of the future, and the last thing you want as a company is firing people because you have to many.
@Mutso Yep, I totally get your point.
I actually worded myself very badly. I meant that at least most of the examples I presented (different crocodiles, tapirs or tigers, for instance), wouldn't even need additional staff to be created. I really value the work put by each and every member of Frontier: their animals, artwork, foliage etc. are magnificient. I just wonder if one extra animal (a somewhat reskinned one) per month would take so much time/effort with the staff they have now.
Ofc this is all based on assumption. I have never created an animal myself. But from my experience with a couple of modders from ZT2 (I know, we always go back to the same game and it might not be comparable), an animal that doesn't barely need new sounds, nor a new rig nor very specific animations, doesn't take much more than just a few days for just 1 person. The quality of these modded animals are, of course, nowhere close to what Frontier produces. But on the other hand, these people I'm talking about (just like any other modder) did that as a hobby and were not entirely familiar with the correct pipeline to create such animals. In that regard, it should be easier for PZ staff to do that because they have access to it everyday.
To me, all this makes me think that the current rate of animals we get is not really a problem of time constraints but a business decision. I respect it but, as someone who would love to have hundreds of animals available, I can't share it.
I actually worded myself very badly. I meant that at least most of the examples I presented (different crocodiles, tapirs or tigers, for instance), wouldn't even need additional staff to be created. I really value the work put by each and every member of Frontier: their animals, artwork, foliage etc. are magnificient. I just wonder if one extra animal (a somewhat reskinned one) per month would take so much time/effort with the staff they have now.
Ofc this is all based on assumption. I have never created an animal myself. But from my experience with a couple of modders from ZT2 (I know, we always go back to the same game
and it might not be comparable), an animal that doesn't barely need new sounds, nor a new rig nor very specific animations, doesn't take much more than just a few days for just 1 person. The quality of these modded animals are, of course, nowhere close to what Frontier produces. But on the other hand, these people I'm talking about (just like any other modder) did that as a hobby and were not entirely familiar with the correct pipeline to create such animals. In that regard, it should be easier for PZ staff to do that because they have access to it everyday.To me, all this makes me think that the current rate of animals we get is not really a problem of time constraints but a business decision. I respect it but, as someone who would love to have hundreds of animals available, I can't share it.
If only Frontier were more communicative
Ultimately it’s all speculation. None of us really know how long it takes to do an animal in full, be it something completely new or pretty much a clone/reskin. We don’t know how many people it takes or what other demands there are on their time both professionally and personally.
Ideally I would like more animals. If it’s possible. Maybe it is, maybe not. Maybe there will be bigger packs in the future, we just don’t know. And I’m ok with that. We’ll see.
Ideally I would like more animals. If it’s possible. Maybe it is, maybe not. Maybe there will be bigger packs in the future, we just don’t know. And I’m ok with that. We’ll see.
Wouldn't appreciate if this would happen to my job/work. Customers/outsiders telling my employer they should hire more staff because they want more. Somewhat telling people their efforts aren't good enough. ( hopefully you'll understand the context of this, forums aren't the best way to explain this
Nothing is ever decided by the customers directly anyway - it's decided by the market. Given that PZ has been pretty successful so far, it's not unreasonable to think that they would look at hiring more people to dedicate to the game to maximise its income. I also disagree that you could read it in such a way that it is unsulting to the current staff - that's utter nonsense. Any workplace is only as strong as its weakest link - if the workload starts to increase, then usually it's the staff themselves driving the desire to take on more people.
Of course, in terms of creating animals at least, the workload is actually decreasing, at least in theory - we've heard it from the horse's mouth. The developer video said as much - the more new animals they make, the easier it becomes to make new animals. A combination of skill increases, automating of certain processes, and a wider range of digital skeletons to work from makes the heavy lifting a lot less heavy. Obviously there is still a considerable amount of work beyond just the design of the animal, but since we don't know how the workload is divided none of us can really comment on that.
Personally, I've never complained about the price, I honestly think the DLCs are priced fairly for the amount of work it goes into them. I too wish for more animals, but I just don't see that changing anytime soon. I think we will continue to see this 4+1 DLC model. As it is right now, it is also easier for us to spend 20€ (both me and my partner play) every few months than to spend 30€ or 40€. As long as they keep bringing new gameplay features and new mechanics into the game along with the DLCs, I honestly don't mind the smaller packs. Having loads of animals is great, yeah, but there has to be some substantial gameplay behind it all (for me at least because I do equally enjoy managing my zoo as I do building it).
The first comment is not entirely correct. Customers have gained a lot of influence in the last 10-15 years. (which took some bad turns with social media). You'd be surprised how much influence customers can have on jobs/work policies. It's ridiculous sometimes
And don't brush of anything as nonsense, because you disagree with it.
I've heard it from my employer (actually from my manager who was leaving anyway, one of many horrible experiences after my former employer was bought by an US company).
I know some of my friends in IT experience it this way sometimes (working on a project basis) and really sure some former colleagues (painting company) have similar experiences.
Maybe it's something people need to hear or experience, to understand how this works.
To me, the same - we'll see what happens. I'm a very patient person when it comes to this.
Someone did give some explanation. Frontier is a publicly traded company and they aren't allowed to give out incorrect info. Not familiar with this so going with his/her comment: If you had a roadmap and announced DLC was coming December but for unknown reasons can't deliver in 2020, that causes different problems. While I think they could communicate better on some topics, I think it's something to consider. Can't check if this correct - I have no knowledge on this.
We agree on that one. I'd love to see all requested animals (and more) but I always seen this with other games as well. Recently Battletech (mech game) was something that would benefit from a certain DLC, dev announced a couple of months ago that they will stop support after 2 years, 1 last free update, no plans for a sequel and after that they are done with the game.
I really think the free update/content is something to consider in requesting more animals. I mentioned a few times but ZT2 did this very poorly, adding base game features/behaviors only in paid DLC.
I'm brushing it off as nonsense because I believe it's nonsensical. I'm continuously frustrated by the notion that the Frontier staff are delicate flowers in need of protecting - IMO it's just another form of trying to silence criticism.
I'm not at all sure what you're trying to say here. You've heard what from your employer?
Nobody is saying that frontier stoff are delicate flowers. You can frustrate all you want, that's not going to change. Oh great, the basic "trying to silence critism" comment.
Fine if you don't have experience with some work fields, but some do.
I quoted the part. "insulting to the current staff", thought I made different quote of that (oh well) . I worked 2 employers with a professional/customer work environment, so experienced enough to say that's complete . Again, fine if you don't have experience with those situations (very lucky), also "Any workplace is only as strong as its weakest link" is usually met with eye-rolling: one of the one-liners from a handbook that do poorly on the working place.
You're suggesting that experience in customer service based employment is uncommon?
I did ten years in retail before I hit the zoo industry, I know all about the role customers play in a business, and I know all about how a business is influenced by customers. Generally speaking, customers only have influence with their wallets. The video game industry seems to be a little different in that regard at least, but overall the notion that "the customer is always right" doesn't actually hold water anymore.