I think it's hard to pinpoint value through sheer numbers. It's not all about the money. From my perspective, 10€ is not expensive because I get hours upon hours of fun out of it. It's valuable TO ME because my time playing the game is an enjoyable experience. It's satisfying and it takes my mind of the daily struggles. I have a hard time thinking of a thing that would give me such joy for such a long time for just 10€. I mean, would I like more animals for the same price? Absolutely, who wouldn't, but at the same time I'm aware that it's probably not going to change. I don't see Frontier's DLC model for PZ changing. All in all, I never really had issues with the price tag.
Do planet zoo game developer really know what we want in planet Zoo game ???
- Thread starter Willyphua
- Start date
It’s absolutely not a gift. We paid for it and continue to do so. It’s not about deserving anything.
Frontier have official forums where they invite feedback and engagement and that’s what people are doing.
The vast majority of comments here are constructive and come from a place of commitment and engagement.
People are invested and care about a game which gives huge amounts of pleasure and given the circumstances we are all currently living in it has probably taken an even greater significance.
As long as Frontier invite our feedback it is absolutely appropriate that we give it.
I think most (or maybe everybody) would agree with that. I have no issues with the current DLC concept either.
While some have said that 2 more would make a huge difference, some said it won't make much of a difference - maybe if it's 6 more that would work. Would be interesting to see how this would work out. I think 2 more will not change much and people will still ask for 2 more for the next DLC.
Yeah, that mood has shifted in recent years. Nowadays you got enough competition in games.
Back then, the choices were a lot more limited. You had to be patient.
I think you are somewhat misreading that comment. Or maybe I do
People commented about deserving the anniversary update, deserving more animals or certain animals in DLC, aviaries.
Don't think it's a gift either, we paid for every DLC and base game. You get what you paid for but buying the base game does not mean we deserve DLC. We want more DLC or specific DLC but that's basically it.
I've seen some comments in the PC forum about "Frontier can't treat their customers this way by not providing new DLC for customers who bought every DLC". Really weird to read those comments, you buy DLC which you can use immediately but that doesn't mean they are obligated to release new DLC ?
I'm glad the Spore example was mentioned, because this happens more often with niche categories of games. You know, like the only chance we are able to get this kind of content because a future game won't happen or maybe in 10-15 years ?
Yes, that's what I'm saying (poor choice if words on my part. Sorry for the confusion)I think you are somewhat misreading that comment. Or maybe I do
People commented about deserving the anniversary update, deserving more animals or certain animals in DLC, aviaries.
Don't think it's a gift either, we paid for every DLC and base game. You get what you paid for but buying the base game does not mean we deserve DLC. We want more DLC or specific DLC but that's basically it.
I've seen some comments in the PC forum about "Frontier can't treat their customers this way by not providing new DLC for customers who bought every DLC". Really weird to read those comments, you buy DLC which you can use immediately but that doesn't mean they are obligated to release new DLC ?
I'm glad the Spore example was mentioned, because this happens more often with niche categories of games. You know, like the only chance we are able to get this kind of content because a future game won't happen or maybe in 10-15 years ?
Going to jump in here and say everyone seems to have an opinion on time versus cost and everyone will differ on what they think adds more value. Myself I would prefer resources put into new game mechanics more than extra animals but that is because I like management a lot and I don't try to buiold recreations so I have no problem imagining that a siberian tiger is a sumatran one for the purposes of my zoos. DLCs could be 10x the size and they still wouldn't have covered everyone's favourites or enabled us to fully recreate real life zoos. Especially without new mechanics being introduced.
One thing that rarely seems to come up but seems to me to be an important factor in how many animals Frontier plan to make it into the final game is game performance. It's as likely to be a limiting factor as time or profit margins.By that i don't just mean technical limitations but also things like how the franchise mode would work with the same size player base but an animal roster twice the size. I pretty much exclusively play franchise because I like the challenge of having to build around what is available, plan breeding programmes to try and sustain populations, make up challenges in my head around rescues etc. There are some species that are already very difficult to get hold of on the online market, it's pretty laggy and players already complain. Players also complain that zoos over a certain size become unplayable and we already can't build a zoo with all the species in it because it gets too big. I know a lot of people play on sandbox with welfare turned off and no guests etc. and they would love to have 6 lemur species, and 4 otters and 8 antelope to choose from but I think we have to acknowledge that performance might be negatively impacted by having huge lists.
That isn't to say that there aren't gaps in the roster that I think Frontier can fill that would make a big difference to the look and feel of our zoos. Birds are an obvious one, I'd also love better nocturnal houses and bat species, smaller cats and mammals are not very well represented currently. BUT if Frontier think they'll get a decent profit margin with 5 people working on a DLC and the choice is between 2 coders working on new mechanics and 3 people working on new animals and scenery or 1 coder working on a new mechanic and 4 working on more animals to add an extra one or two to the list - I'll take the game mechanics every time.
One thing that rarely seems to come up but seems to me to be an important factor in how many animals Frontier plan to make it into the final game is game performance. It's as likely to be a limiting factor as time or profit margins.By that i don't just mean technical limitations but also things like how the franchise mode would work with the same size player base but an animal roster twice the size. I pretty much exclusively play franchise because I like the challenge of having to build around what is available, plan breeding programmes to try and sustain populations, make up challenges in my head around rescues etc. There are some species that are already very difficult to get hold of on the online market, it's pretty laggy and players already complain. Players also complain that zoos over a certain size become unplayable and we already can't build a zoo with all the species in it because it gets too big. I know a lot of people play on sandbox with welfare turned off and no guests etc. and they would love to have 6 lemur species, and 4 otters and 8 antelope to choose from but I think we have to acknowledge that performance might be negatively impacted by having huge lists.
That isn't to say that there aren't gaps in the roster that I think Frontier can fill that would make a big difference to the look and feel of our zoos. Birds are an obvious one, I'd also love better nocturnal houses and bat species, smaller cats and mammals are not very well represented currently. BUT if Frontier think they'll get a decent profit margin with 5 people working on a DLC and the choice is between 2 coders working on new mechanics and 3 people working on new animals and scenery or 1 coder working on a new mechanic and 4 working on more animals to add an extra one or two to the list - I'll take the game mechanics every time.
I had thought of that, but not to that level. It totally makes sense, though. If people can ruin their game with too many mods (excluding malware and viruses), then it's possible PZ has certain limitations
I do think Frontier is at a point where they do need to "step up their game" if they want to stay relevant. Most of (if not practically all) of their major content creators have jumped ship or have intentions of jumping ship for Prehistoric Kingdom at the next available chance. The promise of future DLC's of more animals/more scenery items just isn't that compelling anymore for even their most devoted plans.
I think realistically they do need to make some big moves if they are to compete. They need to do something akin to scaling, mod support, theme makers toolkit, much more grand DLC plans, mirroring items, making custom pivot points, etc. just to stay relevant. Even bigger moves would be real time multiplayer support. Being able to build in real time with friends would drastically increase value. Plus adopting something like the buggies from Zoo Tycoon Xbox would also be a fun addition.
Obviously what I'm saying sounds absurd even as a developer myself. But pound for pound Prehistoric Kingdom is ultimately just stealing their fanbase and bragging about what their game offers that Planet Zoo doesn't. If Frontier would like to remain the top dog in the industry right now, they need to clap back with something. At this point even a 10, 15, 20 animal pack, probably won't suffice. The game needs meaningful gameplay changes more than more props. Opening the game up to a thememakers toolkit alone could take the weight of needing to even make scenery items for expansions, while giving the community a new wave of excitement.
I think realistically they do need to make some big moves if they are to compete. They need to do something akin to scaling, mod support, theme makers toolkit, much more grand DLC plans, mirroring items, making custom pivot points, etc. just to stay relevant. Even bigger moves would be real time multiplayer support. Being able to build in real time with friends would drastically increase value. Plus adopting something like the buggies from Zoo Tycoon Xbox would also be a fun addition.
Obviously what I'm saying sounds absurd even as a developer myself. But pound for pound Prehistoric Kingdom is ultimately just stealing their fanbase and bragging about what their game offers that Planet Zoo doesn't. If Frontier would like to remain the top dog in the industry right now, they need to clap back with something. At this point even a 10, 15, 20 animal pack, probably won't suffice. The game needs meaningful gameplay changes more than more props. Opening the game up to a thememakers toolkit alone could take the weight of needing to even make scenery items for expansions, while giving the community a new wave of excitement.
If there was anything that would still be able to light a fire under Frontier's proverbial *** it would be this. Content creators are their lifeline to selling their games, but especially for PC and PZ. They take priority in terms of who they're trying to most actively pleased in order to keep them involved. I said this a couple of months ago when the initial trailer for PK came out, and again when the microcraptor aviary was revealed...PK should absolutely terrify Frontier.
You're absolutely right in that if they don't start to get more innovative, and I'll admit I don't know when this will happen but only that it will in fact happen, they will lose nearly all of the interest from YT and Twitch creators. It could happen in a few weeks when the PK alpha is released. It could happen when they patch in the next 20 creatures. It might not happen until the game is fully finished and launched. But it will happen if nothing changes on Frontier's end. That's a near assurance.
I personally would much rather play a game focusing on extant animals rather than extinct, but PZ has so many amazing features (modular and scalable building, rotating textures, more high quality fur, truly reflective water) that I can't wait to try it out.
Last edited:
I definately agree that they need to step up their game to land a thing with Planet Zoo in the future. Unfortunately, I think they are more in the mood to just give up and blame it on lack of interest from the playerbase. Which - and I am absolutely sure of this - isn't the case.
Personally, to be fair, most of your suggestion wouldn't step up the game for me though. I am more of a single player and looking at how many people play sandbox and how little do franchise, I might not be the only one. But yes, the management aspect of the game needs huge more features. A thememakers toolkit would also be awesome, as custom content keeps most games alive for a longer time period.
I actually do believe though, that a 20 animal pack would indeed help the game get back on the hype track for a while, to give them more time to work on features.
I had high hopes that PK would be the kick in the behind Frontier seems to need. But I have a feeling that the next DLC will only be "same old, same old" and oh my gosh, will that hurt my PZ fandom heart.
Last edited:
For me if they were to change anything it would be to actually see the exhibit animals moving round , I was disappointed to find out they do not actually move but just have 3 or 4 positions in the exhibit that they jump to between you looking at them
franchise mode aside (no idea how it works as I only play sandbox) would game performance be impacted by the number of species available or how many individual animals you actually have in your zoo?
@Cocolori, Interesting take on this.
To counter more species in franchise they could add more Frontier Zoo generated animals on the market to compensate. (still able to find those species on the market)
For those who want to build big zoos that might be a problem but I think people will just create more themed/continent based zoos, imo people will find a solution to work with this.
Ther are some worries that this could take 3-5 years to get somewhere near what they promised or bragging about. (it took them 6-7 years to get to this stage, with all their troubles)
Hope the early access game will be interesting enough but early access is a hit or a miss. There are a lot of Early Access games that lose almost their entire playerbase before completing the actual game. Dino games have a good following, so it has good opportunities.
Seen multiple claims that a indie game will force big changes for the bigger game title, haven't seen that one yet.
Would be great to have another game with similar building mechanics. The building/terraforming looks great.
But going to wait buying this game, first want to see what's actually in the game when they launch it as EA.
Don't think PZ is competing that much against PK, not everybody is interested in dinos (same goes with the zoo theme).
To counter more species in franchise they could add more Frontier Zoo generated animals on the market to compensate. (still able to find those species on the market)
For those who want to build big zoos that might be a problem but I think people will just create more themed/continent based zoos, imo people will find a solution to work with this.
Bit hesitant on that one though. Been following the game for a while but wouldn't be surprised PK is completed when PZ is done with all their content..
Ther are some worries that this could take 3-5 years to get somewhere near what they promised or bragging about. (it took them 6-7 years to get to this stage, with all their troubles)
Hope the early access game will be interesting enough but early access is a hit or a miss. There are a lot of Early Access games that lose almost their entire playerbase before completing the actual game. Dino games have a good following, so it has good opportunities.
Seen multiple claims that a indie game will force big changes for the bigger game title, haven't seen that one yet.
Would be great to have another game with similar building mechanics. The building/terraforming looks great.
But going to wait buying this game, first want to see what's actually in the game when they launch it as EA.
Don't think PZ is competing that much against PK, not everybody is interested in dinos (same goes with the zoo theme).
Same question here, never played anything other than sandbox, not really interested in anything else, but why would having a larger animal collection to choose from, affect anything? I can't see the logic in that.
I actually do agree that PZ shouldn't need to compete with PK, but it just appears to be the case. Now I will say the "content creator" issue I mentioned isn't really an issue of PZ so much as the content creators chasing the next big thing. And while the Planet Coaster, and Jurassic World Evolutions people were able to easily translate into PZ, Prehistoric Kingdom just appears to be the next logical island to jump to even if its not Frontier. And as you said, PZ is a zoo game, PK is a dinosaur game. So it still has a monopoly on the market. But I think that is dangerous in its own right because that means there is nothing to keep the zoo genre going or innovating. PK can smoke out PZ in every aspect but ultimately will never replace PZ and so I think it'll just kinda generate a community of zoo nerds who resent their own favorite game. The argument of "Why don't we have that" as the other tycoon games on the horizon (PC2, JWE2, PK, etc) evolve is gonna be very prominent. As for player faith in the "future of PZ and its dlc" is dwindling each update we feel like we aren't heard. Aquatic pack was a step in the right direction for sure but even that seems like it missed the point of us asking for Aquariums, and getting just seals and penguins. The Aquatic Pack was the best "so far" but I think the community all agrees its still not where we "want" to be DLC wise.
I love Planet Zoo more than anything and want it to succeed. I want the level of excitement for PZ and Frontier that the PK devs are receiving from their fans. Issue is PK I believe is the wakeup call that PZ is gonna need to realize, no, your community is not really "on board" with the current roadmap. The current dlc setup. The current content output. We don't want this game to die but its really hard to stay excited for something that we feel is doing the bare minimum. The PZ community has always felt like Frontier doesn't care about us and that the game was a quick cash grab to grab an open market, but we are real consumers and do want to give you our money. So help us, help you. Give us something to genuinely be excited for.
Honestly, I hope what you said is correct. By 10 year time, most of our computers should be able to run the game smoothly with a lot of animals.
To be honest, only releaseing DLC monthly will boost their revenue and hence their stock price.
I think your thinking. Its not like we dont pay for DLC. More DLC more revenue, hence high stock price. To be honest most animal we want can be reskin from existing animals, just adjust some details and size.
For some reason that part they dont listen. Just make some new animals and reskin some to fill in the gap. A lot of missing animals can be just reskin, resize, and change some needs. boom done! Or allow adding modded animals instead of replacing them.
I’m not sure that’s fair as I don’t see anything that suggests a consensus on aquariums whether for fish or aquatic mammals or a huge demand. It’s not a priority for me, for example, and when it comes to cetaceans I’m actively opposed as are many/most people here.
Pretty much this, I dont see how could possibly a bigger list to choose from affect the game performance, other than that there would be even more animals in the already laggy trade center in franchise. But that could be solved via animal categories or something, so the whole list would not have to load at once.
Other than that no, the game gets laggy once you have a certain number of animals in your zoo, however the number of animals you can choose from, would by itself have no impact on the performance.