'twas the night before trailer, and all through the thread
Not a person was posting, not even a shred
Not a person was posting, not even a shred
DLC20 Discussion (maybe, but why not?)
- Thread starter DarthQuell
- Start date
I'm making pizzas. Completely unrelated to the DLC but I have nothing else nice to post about
Frankly, the catering annoys me as a consumer because it means I'm forced to endorse things I don't want to obtain things I do want. If this pack adds a nilgai (highly desired) and an Asiatic lion (highly undesired), how do I communicate to Frontier that I want more animals like nilgais and less animals like Asiatic lions?
Im someone who really wants the Asiatic Lion and isn't too bothered about the Nilgai. But I'm not going to be mad if the Nilgai is included, I know plenty of people would be happy with it. They are not making this pack to appeal to you, me, or any individual alone. Everyone has different preferences and being upset that 1 or 2 out of 7 aren't your preference isn't productive. I don't think there's a single pack that has been universally well received - there will always be someone upset with the omission of something or the inclusion of something else. I think we focus too much on the 1 thing that's not there rather than the 5-7 good things that are. And at the end of the day, if people think the pack is worth it they'll buy it
The only solution to the problem you're saying would be to release each species in individual "packs" which most certainly would be more expensive on the whole and less well received for the average player
And on top of that, with every new pack that gets released, it's gets even more impossible to create a single pack that is universally well received.
We're 200+ animals in, with the vast majority of classical heavy hitters added already, we're going to keep getting divisive packs. It's the nature of the game.
If you want a serious answer to that question, Steam Reviews would really be the only option.
Steam reviews and just generally being vocal is all you can do for the most part. I do believe they can actually monitor how many times animals get used in things like franchise mode so they will know which animals were not as well received.
That being said the being forced to endorse something to get something else you want is exactly what they have always been trying to do and why they will never do taxonomic packs. Its better for frontier if every animals attracts different people you may prefer the nilgai over the lion others will have the opposite this ensures that they get the most amount of people to get the pack with the fewest animals.
I would argue that both grasslands and north america were pretty much universally loved and there are definitely others where its only like 1 animal people didnt like such as wetlands.
Last edited:
I can say exactly the same why do I have to pay for the nilgai or macaque that I don't care about just to get the animals I want? But it's not catering. Frontier isn't like, "oh, we really need to give a lion because the players who want it are our favourite players in the whole community" It's just business. It's the obvious way to sell more packs, which is their goal. Your idea of only getting YOUR favourite animals is unrealistic and bad business the same way I won't get a pack of felines, you won't get a pack of deer.
Wait are we now getting angry over the fact DLC doesn't have ALL animals you like? XD
What is that??
First of all, every animal (besides parasites imo) deserve love. Because you don't prefer animal x or z is not Frontier's problem.
And of course, Frontier wants to make most players groups happy even if it meant that every single animal will be fav of only one of the groups. But 7 animals will make 7 groups happy, not just one, so 7 groups will think about buying it to get the fav animal. That's not a scam that's logic.
I am a group of:
-more ungulates
-more canines
-animals people likely never heard of
and trust me it's getting really tiring of hearing people telling me it's wrong to be in this group and I should want monkeys and every bear existing.
I respect your favs, you respect mine and respect Frontier choices.
Frontier could have ended DLCs after 3 years and we would cry to abyss right now.
The new random reasons to complain about each new packs is getting out of hand
What is that??
First of all, every animal (besides parasites imo) deserve love. Because you don't prefer animal x or z is not Frontier's problem.
And of course, Frontier wants to make most players groups happy even if it meant that every single animal will be fav of only one of the groups. But 7 animals will make 7 groups happy, not just one, so 7 groups will think about buying it to get the fav animal. That's not a scam that's logic.
I am a group of:
-more ungulates
-more canines
-animals people likely never heard of
and trust me it's getting really tiring of hearing people telling me it's wrong to be in this group and I should want monkeys and every bear existing.
I respect your favs, you respect mine and respect Frontier choices.
Frontier could have ended DLCs after 3 years and we would cry to abyss right now.
The new random reasons to complain about each new packs is getting out of hand
I don't have to respect Frontier's choices actually, I'm choosing to pay for them after all. And frankly, I wouldn't have cared at all if Frontier stopped support 3 years ago. Planet Zoo wouldn't be removed from Steam or my Steam library.
But something I hold near and dear to my heart is biodiversity (and yes, that does include parasitic species
). Ungulates being 2 entire orders makes the generalisation extremely biodiverse, while cats and dogs are just 2 families within a single order. Right now, it's not unreasonable to say that cats and dogs are disproportionately over-represented in the game's roster of under 200. In an effort to make this game not turn into Nintendogs + Cats, there ought to be a lot more pushes towards more exotic species that both make this game's rosters its own and also educating the player rather than trying to leech money out of their wallets with species they already know. If that means less cats and dogs, so it shall be.
But something I hold near and dear to my heart is biodiversity (and yes, that does include parasitic species
). Ungulates being 2 entire orders makes the generalisation extremely biodiverse, while cats and dogs are just 2 families within a single order. Right now, it's not unreasonable to say that cats and dogs are disproportionately over-represented in the game's roster of under 200. In an effort to make this game not turn into Nintendogs + Cats, there ought to be a lot more pushes towards more exotic species that both make this game's rosters its own and also educating the player rather than trying to leech money out of their wallets with species they already know. If that means less cats and dogs, so it shall be.
I don't have to respect Frontier's choices actually, I'm choosing to pay for them after all. And frankly, I wouldn't have cared at all if Frontier stopped support 3 years ago. Planet Zoo wouldn't be removed from Steam or my Steam library.
But something I hold near and dear to my heart is biodiversity (and yes, that does include parasitic species
We should be getting diverse picks, yes. But they can’t sell a pack to general audiences if nobody knows the species. There needs to be some balance. And if the one or two ‘balancing’ species make you not want to buy the pack, I’m sure they’re making up for it by being the selling factor for another twenty.
Think of the DLCs like an advertisement for a zoo. If I’m going to the zoo, and I see that they only house niche and unexciting species, I probably won’t go. But if they have lions and elephants as well? I’m there. The way you get people to learn about biodiversity is attracting them in with lions and tigers and elephants, and then showing them something they’ve never seen before. You can’t expect Joe Bloggs to show any interest in biodiversity without tricking them with a lion first. It is exactly the same with the DLC.
I learned about the Dall Sheep, which I’d never heard of because I bought the Arctic Pack for the Polar Bear. I learned about the Siamang because I bought the Conservation Pack for the Horse and Leopard. I learned about the Binturong because of the Sun Bear and Tapir, the Saiga because of the Wisent, and so on and so forth. You can’t expect people to care about what you care about if you don’t give them a way to relate.
I disagree with the analogy, because that implies every zoo will have "iconic" species. The most common species in IRL zoos is domestic goats. Conversely, having DLC packs actually be adverts by collaborating with real zoos would be an amazing way to get more variety packs made while also promoting real conservation efforts. Imagine a San Diego Zoo Animal Pack or a Toronto Zoo Animal Pack. Tons of potential!
This relativity is also part of the problem. Maybe Joe Bloggs thinks lions and wolves are the coolest things ever, but I want to go to a zoo because I want to see the non-avian reptiles (as a Canadian, they're notoriously few and far between). I also think familiarity is relative too, white-tailed deer would certainly be more exotic to someone living in Indonesia or Malta than they are to someone in Canada or even Venezuela. My point being is that we can't assume people relate to lions and wolves just because those are the species we grow up as stereotypical "zoo animals". And if there's no objectively baseline, there's no need to bog down the roster in an effort to cater to the uncaterable.
I'm not trying to spark a whole debate but ungulates are definitely well represented in game currently. Here's a quick table comparing different mammalian taxonomic groups and their representation in game:I don't have to respect Frontier's choices actually, I'm choosing to pay for them after all. And frankly, I wouldn't have cared at all if Frontier stopped support 3 years ago. Planet Zoo wouldn't be removed from Steam or my Steam library.
But something I hold near and dear to my heart is biodiversity (and yes, that does include parasitic species
| Group | In game species count | Real world species count | Proportion in game vs real world |
| Ungulates | 54 | 287 | 18.8 |
| Perissodactyls | 9 | 17 | 52.9 |
| Artiodactyls | 45 | 270 | 16.7 |
| Carnivora | 48 | 291 | 16.5 |
| Felines | 15 | 41 | 36.6 |
| Canines | 11 | 37 | 29.7 |
| Primates | 16 | 376 | 4.3 |
| Marsupials | 6 | 330 | 1.8 |
| Rodents | 4 | 2000 | 0.2 |
| Monotremes | 1 | 5 | 20.0 |
Key takeaway is that around 19% of known (non cetacean) ungulate species are represented compared to 17% of carnivorans and 4% of primates. Yes, canines and felines have more than their fair share but it's obviously a whole can of worms for a huge number of reasons: there are species that can't be kept in zoos; there are many, MANY small mammals that can't be added due to size; certain groups like primates are difficult to add due to climbing animations; Frontier are trying to account for more popular animals hence high canine/feline counts, the list goes on
Regardless, if you want more biodiversity ungulates are one of the last groups you should want.
You're combining 2 orders against 1 here. It'd be more fair to break down artiodactyls into its respective families and then compare to cats/dogs.
I mean, I think "arbirary" is not entirely fair there's clear patterns in this stuff ie. If something is a) big b) dangerous and c) distant from your individual concept of the mundane it's gonna be more thrilling.
Like, something that would and could eat you is always gonna be some level of thrill to get close to even if it's not your core interest.
Conversely, other animals like red foxes are immensely popular even though they're small, relatively harmless, and virtually everywhere. Same with meerkats and koalas minus the distribution.
But the market is primarily America/Western Europe, so it's not a craziest thing to default to anglosphere when we discuss exotic animals.
But we can because we know that. We can pretend otheriwse for the sake of argument, but in that's not reality.
Reality is that there are animals people relate to more, and that those animals are mammals and (usually) predators.
Also we don't need objective baseline to decide on roster, what caters to majority sells well enough to set a standard.
Don't think that I'm disagreeing with you about whether or not roster is mundane, or should it be, just that it's unrealistic to hope that they go for riskier moves just for the sake of education or roster diversity
Perhaps the market would be less anglospheric if there was outreach to other global communities. Zoos exist outside of the Global North, and shouldn't be ignored in terms of representation. Maybe not everyone thinks predators are the tops.
Maybe it would, but that's not the fact right now and that's what they use to base their decisions on
Sure, but enough people do to effect decision making