The example you provided would be "kinda same-y." But I might by it if the animals were from a different region or lived in a different biome than what was currently represented in the game. It all depends on the content.Honest question for all the anti-extinct animals people. The argument is often made that you'd rather all the currently alive animals be created first, before extinct animals of any kind are added, if they are added at all. That you definitely wouldn't buy an extinct animal DLC.
That's fair. But I wonder: would any of you actually buy the 5th antelope DLC or the 5th insects and snakes DLC , when we already had 4 of them? Isn't that kind of same-y? Would expansions like that hold players' interest? Would they be enticing for people to buy?
But I doubt we'll wind up in a situation where this is the case. It's a vast world and if you take a look at the other threads in this forum there are so many types of living animals, and regions of the world, that are not represented in the game. Assuming Frontier balances everything it would take years and years and years before they start making things that are "kinda same-y."
There's plenty of cats, canids, mustelids, bears, smaller reptiles, birds, old and new world monkeys, animals from the Americas and Australia and Europe, animals from the arctic, animals that live in wetlands, animals that are primarily aquatic, etc. that can be added. If Frontier goes the route of focusing on variety? This shouldn't be a concern.
And if they're paying attention to the forums, I really don't think they'll be hurting for ideas as to what they might be able to add. There's so much out there that could be added!
I don't think it would be feasible to have all living animals in the game, but people are wanting more diversity than what is currently represented. See my list above -- there's lots of interesting, unique creatures (that are common for zoos and feasible to add in the game). As time goes on, I think what will lose people interest is needing to build another zoo with a "large savanah habitat.' But with the right balance of DLC packs, they can keep things interesting for a long time coming...I agree that I'd like to see other expansions first that focus on animals that live now. Like a marine themed expansion, continental themed expansions, biome themed expansions. But I don't need all currently living animals to be in the game. Many of them are very similar and expansions like those will lose my interest sooner rather than later. I'd buy the first antelope DLC, but the second one? The third? Are they necessary? I'd much rather have completely new content. An expansion with extinct animal would be great after the first major expansions are released. (no dinosaurs as far as I'm concerned; I'd like Holocene mammals and other recently extinct species, like Tasmanian tigers (thylacine))
I do think a small pack of Holocene or recently extinct animals could be cool, particularly with a campaign scenario revolving around it (and I would probably buy it). But I'm not particularly hoping for it. I'd rather they focus on expanding the roster of living animals so that we have a healthy amount of each animal species from different world regions, biomes, etc. so that we can see more variety in the zoos we create.