Expect somewhat the same support for PZ, as they will give PC.
Planet Zoo is not a AAA title like the Sims. This is not EA
Even PC got a lot of support in DLC after release. More than most games.
At least 3 years of support would be great.
Can we please stop comparing Zoo Tycoon games to Planet Zoo
- Thread starter PeppyPepp
- Start date
Expect somewhat the same support for PZ, as they will give PC.
Planet Zoo is not a AAA title like the Sims. This is not EA
Even PC got a lot of support in DLC after release. More than most games.
At least 3 years of support would be great.
You bring up a very good point there, Swjosdotschka- they're certainly already at work on the next pack or two, so it's unlikely that even if they take the critiques we're making right now to heart, it will probably be a couple of releases before we start seeing a lot in the way of implementation. So we should remember this and not collectively flip out when the next DLCs drop and they aren't PRECISELY what we're saying we want XD
As I wrote in another post, that's the key point tbh. It's how much time Frontier will be willing to invest on PZ that will determine how many animals we end up having in the game, and not the amount of animals they include in each DLC. As in any other company, the staff is 'limited' and will produce what they can, whether it's in small packs or bigger ones. It's obvious not everyone in Frontier is dedicated to creating new animals-related content. There are other aspects of the game like fixing bugs, creating new building pieces, even implementing new mechanics, each of them assigned to separate teams. Not to mention there are other games they're working on for sure, both past and future ones.
All we can hope for is that they invest more time/people to creating animals instead of building pieces, which of course would imply a somewhat complex learning process (I guess) for the 'new' people, as well as some resources adjustments.
Indeed, if all the suggestions/concerns/critiques/demands we've seen these days regarding the DLC policy are taken into account, and most likely will to some degree (being Frontier a company that listens to feedback), we won't see those changes until 2 DLCs form now, probably.
Just popping into to echo what OP and some people are saying here. I think this is really important to address because it keeps popping up in discussions.
I've been quite happy with the South American DLC, mostly because of the price to quality ratio. It sits nicely and I have no complaints.
This is what really matters anyway. I like the rough roadmap idea. I think what really matters is we get these small packs every so often, and bigger DLC's in a decent tempo.
People underestimate the power of nostalgia. You look back to a game from a long, long time ago, and think it was absolutely perfect, when in reality it isn't. In-fact it probably had a lot of bugs, but either you were little or you played a long time ago, that you just erased it and kept the good parts. I mean, that's literally how our brains work. We only hold on to what is necessary.
It's a disservice to compare any game to a game from that long ago. Don't get me wrong, I grew up with those games and I love them to bits. I also know that we should learn from our pasts not to repeat it. But what I know most is that I shouldn't let my nostalgia cloud my judgement. We are light years ahead of where then, and we need to keep improving and moving forward. Less blame, less ragey backlash, more analysis, more solution-oriented constructive feedback.
Exactly this! I loved those games personally. I grew up with them. I adore them and they will always hold a place in my heart. What people forget is that the game is actually 20 years old, from a time in gaming which is very very different from now. What it takes to develop then, isn't the same amount that it takes to develop now. There is a lot more texture work, programming, art and other elements that go into every single thing now because of the tools used behind the scenes to develop these games. The effort that it takes is way different now, set by a bar by the game or engine itself.
I've been quite happy with the South American DLC, mostly because of the price to quality ratio. It sits nicely and I have no complaints.
This is what really matters anyway. I like the rough roadmap idea. I think what really matters is we get these small packs every so often, and bigger DLC's in a decent tempo.
This keeps popping up in the Jurassic World Evolution forums too. There is a LOT to improve in that game for sure.. and this game certainly has improved on many of those aspects that lacked in that game, but carried forward what was good in that game. Frequently it used to be compared to Jurassic World Operation Genesis, and that is one of my favourite games of all time, more than RC2 or ZT2, yet I feel we have moved so far forward. We just need to keep tweaking and improving! It's always good to learn from the past and not repeat the mistakes made in history. it's definitely a good thing - but there is a limit.
People underestimate the power of nostalgia. You look back to a game from a long, long time ago, and think it was absolutely perfect, when in reality it isn't. In-fact it probably had a lot of bugs, but either you were little or you played a long time ago, that you just erased it and kept the good parts. I mean, that's literally how our brains work. We only hold on to what is necessary.
It's a disservice to compare any game to a game from that long ago. Don't get me wrong, I grew up with those games and I love them to bits. I also know that we should learn from our pasts not to repeat it. But what I know most is that I shouldn't let my nostalgia cloud my judgement. We are light years ahead of where then, and we need to keep improving and moving forward. Less blame, less ragey backlash, more analysis, more solution-oriented constructive feedback.
Last edited: