I know, at least start from 20. Dont forget we need fish, whales and seals too.
Expansion Pack every Two Years Plus DLC In Between.
- Thread starter premierfong
- Start date
Thanks for you the viewing and reply, I am actually thinking expansion packs + DLCs. So we still get DLCs still. Expansion works like a new Pokemon generations, with new game play, roster and still in the same universe. This will refresh the franchise, and keep the game for as long as possible and still make money for Frontier.
I think 8 is sufficient to start with and I don’t agree, at all, that we ‘need’ whales (quite the opposite). We have seals already. Fish would be good but there are many higher priorities (for me).
Sure,… more content will always be great but why ‘expansion packs’ rather than just more DLC?
What I want is DLC that's going to hold its weight. Expansion packs were essentially big DLC, but their branding made them remembered as their own thing. Planet Zoo's DLC will always be remembered as attachments to the core game because they don't hold the same weight as DLC that existed 15-20 years ago.
Though it is important to recognize that older models were limited, as it wasn't as easy to update video games in the early 2000's as it is today. DLC back them was essentially required to carry patches for their base games, since other methods weren't as available.
But in turn, that's the contributing factor to why people think Planet Zoo's DLC is rather weightless. The bulk of DLC Frontier makes for their games just adds content, not new behaviours or mechanics. Of course, they've been relegating those to the updates that happen in conjunction with DLC. But the separation between update and DLC ends up being a worse trade-off for the parts to which people are expected to pay extra. It's an unfortunate catch-22 situation, and I'm not sure what could be done to remedy this without somewhat feeling regressive.
Now, there's the big question of what Frontier would do in terms of animals that would require new mechanics (the big ones these days being aviary birds and obligate aquatic animals). Will they make them a tightened DLC pack ala the aviary in Return to Jurassic Park? Will they be reserved as a sequel hook like JWE2? Will the required mechanics be added for free? (along with at least one free animal, as it'd be odd to add aviary mechanics when it applies to no base-game animals, for example) It's difficult to say what's going to happen given the DLC models we currently have for Planet Zoo.
Though it is important to recognize that older models were limited, as it wasn't as easy to update video games in the early 2000's as it is today. DLC back them was essentially required to carry patches for their base games, since other methods weren't as available.
But in turn, that's the contributing factor to why people think Planet Zoo's DLC is rather weightless. The bulk of DLC Frontier makes for their games just adds content, not new behaviours or mechanics. Of course, they've been relegating those to the updates that happen in conjunction with DLC. But the separation between update and DLC ends up being a worse trade-off for the parts to which people are expected to pay extra. It's an unfortunate catch-22 situation, and I'm not sure what could be done to remedy this without somewhat feeling regressive.
Now, there's the big question of what Frontier would do in terms of animals that would require new mechanics (the big ones these days being aviary birds and obligate aquatic animals). Will they make them a tightened DLC pack ala the aviary in Return to Jurassic Park? Will they be reserved as a sequel hook like JWE2? Will the required mechanics be added for free? (along with at least one free animal, as it'd be odd to add aviary mechanics when it applies to no base-game animals, for example) It's difficult to say what's going to happen given the DLC models we currently have for Planet Zoo.
But how much of that is subjective though? And how much of that is influenced by nostalgia? You know that I love Zoo Tycoon 2 to death, but if you look back at its expansion packs they really weren't that substantive when it comes to content as we'd like to think they were. And maybe they were "less weightless" because base Zoo Tycoon 2 was a pretty empty game compared to base Planet Zoo?
Not necessarily. The internet in the early 2000's was already well developed enough to handle patches without expansion packs. Again reaching back to ZT2, patches were installed through connecting the game with the internet. We had an entire download page in the game that handled that. Blue Fang clearly didn't consider it impossible or difficult to release patches without expansion packs, because they actively did it without.
I don't really want to go into the rest tbh. I stand by my point that the feeling towards expansion packs are really subjective and rose tinted because of nostalgia. Which isn't a bad thing for sure, but that doesn't mean we should go back to that when there are now solutions that are better suited to the majority of the market.
Whether or not the PZ DLCs feel weightless because the new mechanics come for free is up to you, but I much rather have more people enjoy these things then forcing everyone to buy everything.I don't think it's unreasonable for people to look more fondly on 20 animals than they would compared to 4-7 animals, since that's just a sheer number's game. They can be the highest-quality animals on the market but at the end of the day it's quantity that makes memories when it comes to zoo games. People aren't going to care in the long run if the animals have X number of polygons, 2K texture resolutions, or having animations that are exactly 1:1 with the real animal and nothing else uses its animations. They want animals they think are cool. 20 cool low-poly animals isn't necessarily worse than 4-7 cool high-quality animals.
The base game of ZT2 wasn't as involved as Planet Zoo, but it still had a serviceable campaign and enough variety in challenges for those looking for deeper engagement. The game certainly assists with those just wanting a simple experience like myself with its extremely easy-to-use Sandbox Mode (need not I labour on the busywork of just obtaining an animal between ZT2 and PZ, but that's better for a different thread).
Fair enough. Though of course ZT2's updates were mincemeat compared to PZ's updates (mostly being bug fixes and minor changes), and a lot of what came in ZT2's expansions (ex. diseases, vehicle tours, elevated paths) would be stuff we could see as update material for PZ. It also helps PZ that there was just more in its base game on launch day thanks to modern advancements in video game development making it easier to make pretty things than ever before. PZ can effectively "get away" with less content in its DLC because it had a better starting point than ZT2.
I myself just see expansions as large-scale DLC. But thanks to inflation and higher expectations (with perhaps a touch of community impatience), we have to pay more for less these days. These are elements that are unfortunately outside of Frontier's control, so they just work with the invisible hand and cater to the current socio-economic climate of society.I don't really want to go into the rest tbh. I stand by my point that the feeling towards expansion packs are really subjective and rose tinted because of nostalgia. Which isn't a bad thing for sure, but that doesn't mean we should go back to that when there are now solutions that are better suited to the majority of the market.
I guess we get more at ones. We still get DLCs, i am just thinking that we replace a DLC with an larger expansion pack.
But that’s a very, very poor comparison…. In the same timeframe ZT got expansions, PZ gets 4 DLC with a total of 20+ habitat animals. The ‘numbers game’ isn’t in ZT’s favour. Overall the content (free and paid) released for PZ is much more substantial than it was for ZT. The reason we remember each of the expansion packs so well is that there were so few of them with a long wait between.
Last edited:
Why is more at once better? Speaking for myself I’d prefer 6 (or however many) DLC per year than 3 DLC + 1 ‘expansion pack’, assuming the same amount of total content.
My argument wasn't about time intervals, it was about each DLC on its own terms. And the fact that you compared 4 of PZ's DLC to just one of ZT2's DLC kind of proves my point.
I wouldn't say the scarcity of expansions is part of their fondness. I'd better attribute that to their marketable names and mechanical additions. For the bulk of PZ's DLC they just throw us animals, foliage, and scenery objects alongside a whole 1 scenario. Meanwhile, ZT2 had all of that with entire new mechanics they could show off too (and on average 2 entire campaigns that offer far more variety than Frontier's bread & butter timed scenarios).
Of course, this praise needs to be qualified, as I did so in detail with my prior comments.
If this proves your point then I’m not sure what your point actually is… That you’d rather the same (or less) total content once per year rather than spread out during the year? Why? If this is what you’re saying I totally disagree, a shorter wait is much, much better IMO. If this isn’t what you mean then I’m not sure what your point actually is.
I guess I can agree that ZTs expansions were more memorable but, as above, I think a big part of this is just that there was a longer wait and fewer packs. I genuinely couldn’t care less if each PZ DLC is less memorable than each ZT expansion pack - I’d much, much, much rather get more content, including free content, spread out over a year than all at once.
My point is that ZT2's packs have more attachment to them because they had more content in them per DLC. Sure, the wait time range from 6 months to a year, but when game updates were in their infancy during the 2000's people were more forgiving of longer wait times. Nowadays there's too high of expectations and too little patience for delayed gratification to enter a renaissance. It's unfortunately not reasonable for Frontier to shift away from the emptier quarterly DLC and towards more weighted (semi) annual DLC.
You could also argue that forcing DLC to be bite-size limits the potential each theme could bring to the table, but that's an essay for another time.
You could also argue that forcing DLC to be bite-size limits the potential each theme could bring to the table, but that's an essay for another time.
I disagree that it’s unfortunate. More content overall is good - but that’s not what expansions did, they just concentrated it into once per year chunks. If anything, the total content (if we include free content) has been substantially higher over the same period for PZ. TBH I don’t even agree that the content (excluding animals) per expansion was much more substantial than what we get alongside each (more frequent) DLC anyway. Under the expansion pack model we’d have only just got our second release of new content, compared to the 8 we have from the DLC model. Under the expansion pack model we’d be waiting another 11 months for new content whereas, under the DLC model we only have to wait another 3-4 months.
IMO more frequent content is better for a whole range of reasons… it maintains interest whereas a longer wait would see interest wane, it means Frontier can respond to feedback / requests more rapidly and effectively, it lowers the financial risk per release for frontier, the cost per release is lower and, therefore, more affordable, and it allows a greater range of themes.
If the expansions are adding more to a DLC theme, I'd say it's a good trade-off. Imagine how much more potential the South America and Africa packs could offer if they weren't constrained to quarterly models. Imagine what else the devs could add to the Aquatic Pack if it was given more potential.
This again, of course, relies on the community having the patience for accept this delayed gratification. It's an attitude I feel is unlikely and thus is something I feel is unfortunate.
That "rapid" and "effective" description of Frontier's community response appears to be used rather generously. The bulk of PZ's yearly support is radio silence, usually the wait time between major updates. Though saying this, I myself am a victim of impatience. Back 15-20 years ago radio silence like this would've been the norm for the few games that even got multi-year updates.
Sidenote: the most actioned feedback we get from Frontier is from being against them, not rooting for their business ventures.
I don’t see that we’d have more African, SA or aquatic stuff than we have (given the additional animals in other packs (Australia would have been a better example). In any case, if (let’s say) SA and Africa both had expansions, those would be the ONLY content we’d have by now. Yes, they’d have been bigger but at the cost of all other content.
I think you’re putting a personal value judgement on what people would like. I don’t think there’s anything better about ‘patience for delayed gratification’ than keenness for new content.
I said more rapidly and effectively than under a yearly release model….. Starting from update 1.1, every single update has addressed some community feedback and even DLC format and content has been modified to reflect feedback (animal packs, smaller species, etc.). Under a yearly expansion pack framework all of these changes would have taken longer to implement and the content changes probably still wouldn’t have happened since Frontier would, only now, be looking at feedback from the second expansion.
I agree that there could be more communication between releases. Note, however, that there’s no reason to think that this would be better under a yearly expansion pack model… indeed it would likely be worse (ie, communication peaks once/year rather than 3-4 times/ year.
I’m not sure what this means.
I was actually thinking win win situation, we get a lot more and Frontier gets a lot more revenue. All happy, as long as the game is profitable, a company will keep making DLC's and expansion. You know how Pokémon have a new generation every 3 years, that is to keep the franchise new and going. So the formula is expansions acts like the new Pokémon generation, with new gameplay and rosters but also keeping all the old rosters.
I am not saying cut DLC, I am thinking just replace a DLC with expansion every two to three years. At the end of the day, we all want a mega zoo that have zoo, aviary, aquariums, animal hospital, hotels, rides, and night safari. Literally everything. That's the only way we can get it officially.
That's a sacrifice I'm willing to make. I'd rather see DLC be more fleshed out than simply trying to fill checkboxes and quotas. I want DLC where you can visibly see the human touch put into the entire package, not something that feels inevitable and detached from passion.
I just think it'd be better if people were more patient. I don't really see why not wanting people to demand more DLC the week of DLC releasing. And unfortunately the current climate of things only encourages rushed attitudes. Being patient allows you to better soak in what you already have, and giving players to actually hold value in what they payed for at a premium price. If the DLC fails to meet that appreciation, that's on the developers and not the critics.
to be fair, Frontier will generally put out minor updates a week or 2 after a major update drops. I don't think it would be unreasonable to have a smaller team in the company focus on patching the game in its current state while a larger team works on adding new content and mechanics. It would be very distressing if this was an impossibility for a AAA studio such as Frontier.
The major instances of community feedback were cases where the community was completely irate. Dinosaur sizes in JWE1, raptor quills in JWE2, the old binturong model. These were all things with huge community drive, and that drive wasn't in support of Frontier.
We’ll, I guess we just disagree on this one. For myself, I’m glad we have more than just one Australian habitat animal, some more European and North American animals, arctic animals, aquatic animals, SEA animals, etc.. More SA and wouldn’t come close to being worth the trade IMO.
I don’t see any sign that most people are dissatisfied with the DLCs so far. Again , I much prefer frequent packs to occasional packs, assuming a similar amount of total content. I would hate the feast or famine yearly release model.
I was mostly talking about changes to what gets released (smaller animals, animal packs, fear rocks, mesh etc.), rather than bug fixes and minor changes (as follows releases) but under a yearly release model there’s no reason to think there’s be fewer total bugs, they’d just take longer to fix after each release, since there wiukd be more bugs per release.
Any change made in response to feedback is, necessarily, in response to requests for changes. Many of these changes were not in response to the community being irate.. it is totally possible to request/suggest changes without being in any way anti-frontier.
In the end, I think we just disagree. I (much) prefer the current model of frequent releases, you would prefer less-frequent but larger ones. Both points of view are subjective but I still see zero benefit of the ‘expansion pack’ model over the DLC model, either for Frontier or for their customers.
Usually when people think "expansion" over "DLC" they're imagining a content pack with new gameplay included within it. So basically what they're asking for is "all the DLC in one hit with huge wait times between each one, plus I want to pay money for the stuff you normally give me for free". It makes zero sense.