Yes, they were to high from the start.
Maybe. But on both sides. There were some communication issues in my opinion. You just don't use a word like seamless when it's not seamless. You don't use realistic genetic, when the genetic is not realistic at all. People discussed about these things in the forum and it would have been a good move, if Frontier would have steped in there and guided expectations a bit better. There seem to be no "no" or "this won't be implemented like that" in the communication to not sound negative, but in my opinion an clear "no" is sometimes better for a company than letting it run loose to avoid lowering expectations.
On the other hand, some players expected a NASA-programmed game for a few bucks and instead of communicating with a company that is really good in reacting to feedback, they dumped it, sometimes with pretty childish anger. And they forget that this game had to come out eventually, to earn enough money to support it further. You can not work for 10 years on a game to make it perfect on release. Workers need to get paid.
I'm afraid, missleaded and not met expectations are a reason why the interest in the game droped so drastically.Which, in all honesty. worries me a lot. I have just once in my life loved a game so much as I love Planet Zoo and I wish it to be part of my life with fresh content regularly for at least 4 years. In my opinion, we have a great, almost perfect, base in front of us to build on and Planet Zoo has so much potential to be perfect for everyone one day. But everyone, on both sides, still has to learn a few things. Patience on the player-side. More honest communication on the companies side. And balancing some features a bit