Do planet zoo game developer really know what we want in planet Zoo game ???

[nutrit]

I would love this so much. I really wish they would do something like this even if it would be only for additional Subspecies I would still buy at least some of them

I see we’re on the same page here.

I would be so grateful if they would put in that kind of online library only so called clone animals and a lot of not the most anticipated species. So they could leave the most wanted species for the proper DLC (Like rhino or moose).

 

[LN]

When the game was released I really thought that they would make a huge online library of countless deluxe animal species - where you can buy them as you like because this game just ask for it. And the only thing that would limit you is the money you want to spend.
I think they could make great amount of money selling 1 species for 2,99$. That would be my biggest dream.

I honestly hope they stick to the current system, maybe with a extra animal or 2.

I'm not keen on spending 2.99 per animal, no matter what animal. I'd rather have packs.

But I can understand where maybe people are only looking into particular animals only, and are not interested in other animals from that pack, for which this would be a viable solution.

 

[Firestar97]

I honestly hope they stick to the current system, maybe with a extra animal or 2.

I'm not keen on spending 2.99 per animal, no matter what animal. I'd rather have packs.

But I can understand where maybe people are only looking into particular animals only, and are not interested in other animals from that pack, for which this would be a viable solution.

I think it is meant additional to the DLCs

 

[NL_Mutso]

True as far as individual behaviors go they could start now but it could also be easier once every species to make the roster is in game.

My guess would be that animal species (paid DLC) would be the last content for PZ, when the time is near.
I don't expect big (free) updates near the end.

If this should happen, maybe that has to be added within a year or so?

When the game was released I really thought that they would make a huge online library of countless deluxe animal species

A lot of games have an in-game store for cosmetics etc. so it doesn't sound strange to me if they would've done this.
Maybe online could cause some issues, you unlock an animal, unpopular among the community and unable to find these animals on the market. (maybe looking too much into this one)

I think the price per animal would be the biggest discussion with that store, similar to the micro-transactions discussions with so many games.

 

[LN]

I think it is meant additional to the DLCs

Which would be even better for those who want such a thing and for those who want packs.
I really doubt we would get such a thing though. Packs simply generate more revenue.

 

[markun]

I really doubt we would get such a thing though. Packs simply generate more revenue.

I wouldn’t underestimate the potential profits of regular small releases that generate both revenue and interest, something I’ve been advocating for ages.

 

[NL_Mutso]

I wouldn’t underestimate the potential profits of regular small releases that generate both revenue and interest, something I’ve been advocating for ages.

People do like to spend money on small in-game items. (GTA - Shark cards, Countless games - Lockboxes or skins)
Btw, we already got the regular small releases

It really depends on the selection:
Going with the "clones" and the large library of choices on 1 page:
I would buy the Wisent and Grey Kangaroo on such a page.
More zebra species, not likely to buy those.
More bear or tiger species, don't know - depends on the actual extra species

I think some species would be profitable and some don't. We know some people will buy everything and some who are selective in the species.
Your suggestion of 1 animal per month has more appeal imo: 2,99 per month for 10 months in a row isn't much but spending 29,99 for selecting 10 clones, that looks more expensive.
(i think 1,99 is somewhat more fair for cloned animals)

 

[Swjosdotschka]

The monthly animal suggestion has many supporters, the thread many pages. But as I said, I'm beginning to doubt they really got that on their radar or are willing in any frorm or shape to change their business model. And even sticking to the packs and just releasing an additional animal every month would be a change.

And yes, I would be one of those persons who'd buy every habitat species.

 

[Dezessete]

The monthly animal suggestion has many supporters, the thread many pages.

Please define "many".
And keep in mind that according to steamdb there are >1 million people who bought PZ.

 

[Swjosdotschka]

Please define "many".
And keep in mind that according to steamdb there are >1 million people who bought PZ.

So what? Yes, only a small percentage of players is vocal. That doesn't say that a small percentage can't be representable. Especially in a time where microtransaction are pretty common. Personally I wouldn't support it for every game, but as I said: I support the idea for Planet Zoo, to give us a chance to have animal diversity in this game, if they are not willing to release bigger packs and / or support modding.

 

[Danny_zoo]

Please define "many".
And keep in mind that according to steamdb there are >1 million people who bought PZ.

The number of players who bought the game is much higher than that

 

[PeppyPepp]

When the game was released I really thought that they would make a huge online library of countless deluxe animal species - where you can buy them as you like because this game just ask for it. And the only thing that would limit you is the money you want to spend.
I think they could make great amount of money selling 1 species for 2,99$. That would be my biggest dream.

I would love this, but damn, would my wallet suffer.

And yes, I would be one of those persons who'd buy every habitat species.

See, I am the same. I am one of those people who wants to have each and every single animal in the game they will ever release.

 

[random goat]

Same here.

Please define "many".
And keep in mind that according to steamdb there are >1 million people who bought PZ.

Your point makes sense to me but you could say the same about pretty much any selling strategy. It's impossible to know whether your customers would prefer this or that before your product is out in the market, even for Frontier. Less than 1% of the players will ever be vocal about a game even after it is released. That's why you have to take other games as reference and assume that the few who are somewhat vocal about your product are a representative sample of the total.

In order to get the best impression of what the players preferences are is basically taking a look at your own media/forum and steam reviews. If you check steam reviews, PZ is highly regarded as a great game, very recommended. But if you look at the DLCs reviews, well... things start getting worse. And the main issue with people (from what I could gather), is the low amount of animals. You can look it up yourself. And what a coincidence, that is the most popular demand here too, in the forums. Also quite popular amongst content creators.

Only the Aquatic pack has a relative amount of good reviews as high as the full-game. And the reason of that is simple: despite not being perfect, it's the best pack they've pulled off so far. More actual zoo pieces and, above all, diving animations and all the animals that benefit from them. Because, although diving was part of the update, 4/5 animals that can perform those animations belong to the pack. Even with the overwhelming amount of positive reviews in that pack, you can take a look at the negative ones and even some of the positive ones and the main complaint keeps being the low animal variety.

 

[nutrit]

And search engine in animal market PLEASE

 

[Dezessete]

The number of players who bought the game is much higher than that

Thats why I but the > before the number. Steamdb estimates the numbers between 1.000.000 - 2.000.000 so I just went with the lowest estimate to be on the safe side. It doesn't change the point.

So what? Yes, only a small percentage of players is vocal. That doesn't say that a small percentage can't be representable. Especially in a time where microtransaction are pretty common. Personally I wouldn't support it for every game, but as I said: I support the idea for Planet Zoo, to give us a chance to have animal diversity in this game, if they are not willing to release bigger packs and / or support modding.

I don't think you where understanding me here. Just to clear things up: my statement wasn't there to criticise this specific solution and it was definitely NOT meant in a way to silence a minority of players. The reason I brought it up is to act as a warning:

We all need to be aware of the fact that places like this forum act as a sort of echo chambers, amplifying opinions to a grade degree.
Now it's also well known that people who are unhappy with something are way more vocal than people who are ok with something. This is one of the many pitfalls developers must be aware of, when reacting to peoples feedback. It can easily sway the perception in a way that a problem is seen way bigger than it is or, like in this case, create the illusion of a demand, that doesn't necessarily exist.

Your point makes sense to me but you could say the same about pretty much any selling strategy.

And that's why companies like Frontier (hopefully) evaluate the data and informations given through and around their games. This data is extremely valuable for developers but we will most likely never see this. So I think it's actually a bit ludicrous for us to give Frontier business advise, especially if we base those assumptions on just on steam critics. The player base of PZ will shrink more and more with the time, leaving only the (quite demanding) base of PZ players behind. This coupled with my earlier statement about how negative feedback is mostly more vocal, makes steam critics a shacky place as a foundation for such decisions - NOT worthless, of course, but to be taken with a grain of salt.

 

[NL_Mutso]

Your point makes sense to me but you could say the same about pretty much any selling strategy. It's impossible to know whether your customers would prefer this or that before your product is out in the market, even for Frontier. Less than 1% of the players will ever be vocal about a game even after it is released. That's why you have to take other games as reference and assume that the few who are somewhat vocal about your product are a representative sample of the total.

I agree with the 1% one. Not many people bother to comment/review the game. I disagree with that a few being representative. (even when the DLC is released it's a close call with positive/negative feedback).
You got the fans focused on the zoo on this forum, which is completely different than the steam forum. More content is not a highly requested demand on that forum. A year ago on instagram/twitter, the request for console versions was more popular than on this forum.
The only thing that would be representative for Frontier would be the sales numbers, I guess?
In the first 15 months they sold +1,5 million copies of the base game - it's a lot but I think PC will remain the popular title in the long run. Theme Park/Rollercoaster games have always been more popular in the gaming community.

In order to get the best impression of what the players preferences are is basically taking a look at your own media/forum and steam reviews. If you check steam reviews, PZ is highly regarded as a great game, very recommended. But if you look at the DLCs reviews, well... things start getting worse. And the main issue with people (from what I could gather), is the low amount of animals. You can look it up yourself. And what a coincidence, that is the most popular demand here too, in the forums. Also quite popular amongst content creators.

People always complain about the price or unhappy with the content on steam, it's a bit too personal to give an objective opinion about it.
People who buy games on regular basis, barely pay attention to those kind of bad reviews. (with a few minutes of reseach you'll know if it's worth the price for yourself)
If it's overwhelmingly negative, that's going to scare of a lot of people. When it's slightly positive or negative, not a big deal

DLC reviews actually got better - the Australian and Aquatic ones got better reviews than the previous ones.

• Or the DLC got better
• Or people who complain don't bother complaining about the game anymore
• Or the negative reviewers have moved on to other games. (the first packs had double the amount of reviews)
• Or the people who bought the game in recent months are more positive about the products.

The funny part is that the base game has a lot of bad reviews because people played ZT/ZT2 and didn't expect this. I think PZ has suffered some from the nostaglia of ZT, which I think is completely unfair. If they slapped the title Zoo Tycoon on it, fair point.

 

[Swjosdotschka]

Every company can only assume that the vocal players, if in the majority in a forum, do represent the more silence players.

However, there are also numbres of all players that indicate that the current sale strategy isn't perfect. The numbre of people playing the game drop very fast after a new DLC. Which basically is a proof that the DLCs aren't substantial enough to keep players invested for a longer time. So this is not really a personal guessing game.

In my opinion, the best solution would be to create more substantial DLCs. But of course there are also work arounds and all are based on keeping the game more present in the casual players minds between the DLCs.

I could go into detail as to how each suggestion here (monthly animal, roadmap) etc. could influence player behavior, but for now I'll keep it to that.

 

[Dezessete]

Every company can only assume that the vocal players, if in the majority in a forum, do represent the more silence players.

I'm not quite sure if I understood you here correctly, so please let me know if my interpretation is wrong and correct me if needed, but it sounds like companies need to rely on the vocal minority to guess what the not so vocal palyers think? If thats trua than this is exactly the fallacy I was talking about. There is way more data that a game provides beside the posts on a forum of said game.

However, there are also numbres of all players that indicate that the current sale strategy isn't perfect. The numbre of people playing the game drop very fast after a new DLC. Which basically is a proof that the DLCs aren't substantial enough to keep players invested for a longer time. So this is not really a personal guessing game.

Correlation != causation.
The reason for shrinking player bases can lie in a myriad of things.
Thats the problem I have with such threads (and this one in particular) that people see a problem for themselve and rush to find a solution without actually analyzing said proplem first. People are like: "x is bad, so you have to do y to make it not bad." But maybe it's not just x thats bad but also a, b and c who all play into x. (this is also not exclisive to this forum, this is a generell observation. people are just driven to find solutions). But the question to why a propblem is a problem is way more complex than this. It's not about finding A problem, it's about finding THE problem.
So maybe, all this solutions that got provided are actually already acknowledged by Frontier, and the reason they aren't implimented (yet) is that those solutions aren't the right ones, according to the data that Frontier has, or need to be more evaluated first.
There is just more to the topic than the often repeated narrative of "Company x doesn't ad solution y. So that must mean company x doesn't care!"
We have to get away from this shallow thinking.

 

[NL_Mutso]

However, there are also numbres of all players that indicate that the current sale strategy isn't perfect. The numbre of people playing the game drop very fast after a new DLC. Which basically is a proof that the DLCs aren't substantial enough to keep players invested for a longer time. So this is not really a personal guessing game.

Ehm, that's normal? New content/DLC always create an interest spike and then return to a normal activity.
You could also argue that DLC is responsible for keeping a steady activity, which is also debatable .

Looking at steamdb they look very stable over the last year. (steamdb only looks at active players at specific times but a useful insight on popularity of a game)

I know with Ark Survival (very active game), which has expansion packs that creates a similar DLC spike with activity and returning to the "normal" activity in 2-4 weeks.
Cities: Skylines same story.

 

[random goat]

We all need to be aware of the fact that places like this forum act as a sort of echo chambers, amplifying opinions to a grade degree.
Now it's also well known that people who are unhappy with something are way more vocal than people who are ok with something. This is one of the many pitfalls developers must be aware of, when reacting to peoples feedback. It can easily sway the perception in a way that a problem is seen way bigger than it is or, like in this case, create the illusion of a demand, that doesn't necessarily exist.

I agree with this part. And devs obviously know about this too.
One note, though. The more consistent players are usually the most active in the forum, dedicated discord servers, youtube, reddit, etc. Players who bought the game but hardly ever play it (the vast majority) are not active in these platforms for a basic reason: they don't care that much. Efforts to make new content or fix bugs should not be directed at this "vast majority", in my opinion, but at people who will most likely keep supporting the game = the ones that are more vocal, share PZ content, etc. That is how it worked in PC to some degree. In fact, the last pack and the fact that they actively encouraged one of the main PZ communities (BroNation) to write a a document about what the game needs might indicate they will follow a similar path in the new future (hopefully).

Side fun fact here: Maybe some people don't realize this but chances are that most of the people who criticize some aspects of the game here in the forum or dedicated discord servers belong to the small % of the players who support the game entirely (=bought most if not all DLCs, and will continue to do so regardless of them not being 100% perfect).

And that's why companies like Frontier (hopefully) evaluate the data and informations given through and around their games. This data is extremely valuable for developers but we will most likely never see this. So I think it's actually a bit ludicrous for us to give Frontier business advise, especially if we base those assumptions on just on steam critics.

It wasn't my intention to lecture Frontier in anything. They should have expertise on that and I honestly have no idea about marketing, customers behaviour, supply & demand, etc. My area of knowledge is mostly biological science. But I would be glad to know what data could they be using in order to know what PZ players want, if it's not the forum opinions, steam reviews and discord servers from content creators. Maybe I am missing something here.

The player base of PZ will shrink more and more with the time, leaving only the (quite demanding) base of PZ players behind. This coupled with my earlier statement about how negative feedback is mostly more vocal, makes steam critics a shacky place as a foundation for such decisions - NOT worthless, of course, but to be taken with a grain of salt.

Again, it can be more demanding, I agree. But it is the people who will undoubtedly buy future DLCs, not the people who spent 20 hours in the game and went onto something else. Also, it is contradictory to what Mutso posted regarding steam reviews:

DLC reviews actually got better - the Australian and Aquatic ones got better reviews than the previous ones.