I've seen a comment about "Do we know what the dev want in planet zoo?".
Don't buy the game if you don't like the game, their approach to a genre or the company.
I find myself agreeing with both of these statements on principle, and can also see them contradicting each other quite a bit -- sometimes because of a sort of circular logic, sometimes because of player bias, and sometimes because of (real or perceived) changes over time. After all, if taken literally, then any uncertainty about what the devs want would mean that no one would ever buy the game, since we couldn't determine if we like it or not without knowing what they want out of it! And while I understand that not everyone researches equally, I think that there are quit a few ways where someone who researched quite responsibly before buying might still think there is room for some constructive feedback.
Certainly if one is buying the game today, your research would turn up the threads about dlc size, missing features, ongoing bugs, and questions about communication strategies. But someone doing substantial research into this game, genre,
and company at launch really might have gotten different results on things they care about. Your research might have said that the devs really wanted lots of input; that the company had a history of seeking out and actively implementing community suggestions; and that they'd created these forums as a way to gather and implement those suggestions.
One's research at launch would have seen devs boasting about how they'd implemented 4 distinct gameplay styles -- of which only 1 was sandbox where the building was the whole piont. But the other 3 promoted
different ways of playing, were heavily hyped in the marketing, and were something the company was quite proud of and intentional about. Presumably this is part of what the devs wanted too.
While not explicitly stated, research into the dlc model at time of launch strongly suggested new dlc every three months (rather than every four), that they would likely go on for three years (for a total of twelve), and that the company had a history of actively implementing player suggestions into those dlcs and their associated updates.
Therefore, having done our research; come to an understanding that feedback, multiple game modes, and more content was what the devs said and implied that they wanted and intended; and having bought and invested into the game based upon that research and understanding -- we continue to supply the best feedback we can.
Because that's the type of product and the type of community that the devs said they wanted at launch -- a game that is responsive to what the community wants!
Maybe that means we've misunderstood from the beginning and gotten our research wrong. Maybe we researched correctly but covid changed things and they just don't know how or whether to communicate that to us. Maybe it was all false advertising from the beginning. Or maybe our beloved devs have every one of our ideas up on a big whiteboard, and are trying valiantly to implement every one of them by the time the game ends.
I continue to hope for that last option (but not expect or demand it). Understanding that their timeline may have had to shift, but trusting that they're still on the case. But I can also understand how someone else might feel differently -- precisely because they did do their research and did listen to what the devs advertised that they wanted!
