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

I assume you read at least the phrase you quoted. In that very phrase, two things are compared: a) the full game, b) the DLCs. Assuming that indeed data is biased, it should be biased in both elements of the comparison. Ergo, DLCs overall ratings are still significantly lower than the full-game's.
Now, if we get technical, I am happy to get technical too.

Lower DLC ratings does not necessarily mean DLC are viewed worse than the base game. Fewer people buy DLCs, leading to fewer reviews, so each review has a higher weight than the reviews for the base game. This problem with unequal sample sizes can lead to wrong conclusions unless accounted for.

It's ironic that you question "biased" data using an opinion. Is there any fact that proves that indeed steam reviews are biased towards negativism?

I wasn't saying this explicitly applies to the steam reviews (it probably does, this would be just my opinion), just more as a general concept, which is established in marketing science. So not an opinion, but science based information.

Regarding your specific example: "$10 for 4 animals is too much". I don't see how a person writing that review is ignoring other content in the pack. They are most likely fine with the rest of the content, but very disapointed with the amount of animals. Not ignoring anything. (This is just an assumption, so is yours).

This was just a random example, though I have seen reviews stating something along the lines that "$10 for 4 animals means $2.50 per animal and thats too expensive", in which case they are explicitly not assigning value to the other content, this was more what I was meaning to provide as an example. Also, you are also making an assumption by saying they are most likely fine with the rest of the content, this is an excellent example how you and I both have different biases in interpreting the same data (with no real way to tell who is correct).

Why negative critics are extreme and positive are not extreme?

Sorry I wasn't clear here, I was including extreme positive in this statement

But it is the only meaningul data that is avaliable (as far as I am aware).
Objectively, what data is used to know what the PZ players want, then?

You are assuming this is the only data they have. They also could have independent market research, maybe use focus groups, possibly use player usage data (I'm not sure which diagnostic data, if any, are sent to Frontier). There could be other sources of information that you and I likely will never see. Even if they don't, using biased data isn't inherently bad IF you correct for it. If the data is biased but has been corrected for such bias, it is still usable to draw conclusions.
 
Objectively, what data is used to know what the PZ players want, then?
Depends if they actually want to know to that extend. .
A lot of devs just create content they think suits the game best and if you are lucky you share that same vision of new content.
I think most DLC for PC wasn't requested by the community either.
Same goes with the actual game. A lot of games are just created to be unique and hopefully gain an audience after release - people never asked for those games.

Companies like Blizzard/Rockstar are known for doing their own thing with their product. Highly requested features (like DLC for singleplayer GTA5/RDR2) by the community means nothing to Rockstar. Gaming companies are not that easily influenced by media/community compared to movie/tv studios.
Which is often a good thing: Or we just end up with an updated version of another game instead of something new/unique.

Except when the game fails from the start, then they want to listen if it's salvagable or just pull the plug (which actually happens more often).
Small/indie companies are more open to listening, imo.

But maybe also actual game data is used. During the 1 year anniversary they posted a picture with the most breeded animal (peafowl) and some other data. Don't know if that's only franchise but they know which animals are more popular and more used. Very common with games with online features, you agree with sharing some data when you hit "agree".

It would be interesting so see what happened, if Frontier tested the monthly animal idea. I see why it might be a bit of a risky step for them, to go out and announce one animal per month from now on. Instead they could just try it out once, see how well it sells. Maybe even with a not super popular choice of animal, to put it on the edge. Let it be out there for a while, look at the numbers and the reactions. Then they have a better base for whatever this would be profitable solution for them.
Somewhat hoping they eventually try something like this. Also a good idea of adding a not-popular choice. Nice addition to Markun's idea imo.
 
Just checked the steam reviews on each dlc plus deluxe pack :
68% positive for Arctic pack
70% positive for Deluxe
61% positive for South America pack
72% positive for Australia pack
80% positive for Aquatic pack
89% positive for the game itself
Overall pretty good numbers. And their still selling so it’s hard telling if any changes will come. Like a user mentioned most people who are pretty satisfied with the pack usually won’t review. Overall I’ve liked each pack in their own way and have much like even the people who complain the most bought every pack. Now I know the South American and Australian pack didn’t diversify the animals with only five but maybe it’s all part of frontiers plan we did receive the giant otter plus I find it hard to believe more won’t be added at some point.
 
You know, it's a bit hard to discuss against a battery of assumptions and opinions. I will insist again: it is not my goal to put Frontier down or to say that they don't listen to feedback, etc. I am just exposing the data that is available, which, in terms of steam reviews, it's pretty much what paul78 posted here:
Just checked the steam reviews on each dlc plus deluxe pack :
68% positive for Arctic pack
70% positive for Deluxe
61% positive for South America pack
72% positive for Australia pack
80% positive for Aquatic pack
89% positive for the game itself
Overall pretty good numbers. And their still selling so it’s hard telling if any changes will come. Like a user mentioned most people who are pretty satisfied with the pack usually won’t review. Overall I’ve liked each pack in their own way and have much like even the people who complain the most bought every pack. Now I know the South American and Australian pack didn’t diversify the animals with only five but maybe it’s all part of frontiers plan we did receive the giant otter plus I find it hard to believe more won’t be added at some point.
This almost feels like a loop. I've been talking about that data the whole weekend. Glad you checked it.
Now, allow me the expression: there is none so blind as those that refuse to see.
Because now that the scientific method has been brought up, seeing, observing is the main principle of science, whether you're talking about statistics, marketing science, biology, etc.

Anyway, talking about data, because it's what we have available for all of us and is objective. Steam reviews/ratings indicate that the DLC packs (not inxluding Deluxe though the rating would remain the same), have an average rating of 70.25%. That is 19% less than the full-game. I have literally not done anything in the last days other than remarking that.
If 70% average rating and -19% decrease in comparison to the full game is "pretty good numbers" for Frontier, then there is nothing to discuss really.
Arguments such as "the DLCs are still selling well, people will still buy DLCs" should not be the motto in any company, for their own good. If their only aim is profit and they don't try to please at least some of their customers feedback, sooner or later this company will not be as well-regarded. Luckily, I believe Frontier's mindset is not of that sort.

Now, back to the feedback and data that we have available. Here several things have been said over the last days that need clarification. Sorry to insist here but some things cry out to heaven:

-Here it has been said that the vocal part of the community who post in this forum, participate in dedicated discord servers, reddit and similar platforrms, and steam reviews are a negligible minority (<1%) of the playerbase.

Yes. That can be quantifiable to some extent if you compare all the sold products with all the steam reviews, Frontier forum posts, etc. It is provable and objective. Facts.

-Here it has been said that this <1% vocal part of the PZ community are not representing the whole playerbase.

Yes. Same as above applies.

-Here it has been said that the <1% vocal part of the customers that buy a product (PZ in this case) usually lean towards a negative bias which does not represent the whole playerbase.

Impossible to determine. It's an opinion, an assumption. It's this assumption that is biased. Supposedly marketing science supports that, yet it is impossible to demonstrate unless you make a survey of a consistent part of your playerbase. Any correction you apply is inherently biased because it speculates and creates fictional data out of reviews/feedback/activity from <1% of the playerbase. Basically, you can assume the vocal part of the community are more negative, and you can assume they are more positive. None is provable.
Same could be said about pretty much any reviewed product or service (movies, restaurants, mobile phones, etc.). If all the reviews and forum posts are overall more negative than what the general public thinks, there is this "negative bias" in all of them, making everything comparable, whether all biased or all not biased.
But for some reason, apparently, this marketing science theory doesn't apply as much to the ratings of the full-game (I'm saying this because it has significantly higher ratings). Contradictory.

-Here it has been said that the full-game better reviews (compared to the DLCs') are a product of the higher amount of people rating the full-game. Apparently, this marketing science theory does not apply when working with higher numbers. It has been said that because of the fact that fewer people review the DLCs, they tend to be more negative because each review has a higher weight. Apparently, people who support the game in the long run (= buy their DLCs) introduce an additional negative bias in the feedback/steam reviews.

Again. Impossible to determine. Opinions, assumptions. Subjective. Biased. And similarly to what happened with the full-game above, apparently all these justifications don't apply as much to the Aquatic pack compared to the other packs (I'm saying this because it has significantly higher ratings).Contradictory.
It's quite simple and obvious. Higher ratings -> higher regard. Meaning the Aquatic pack and the full game are better than the other DLCs,based on steam reviews. Simple. That's why I said you're reading too much into it.

-Here it has been stated that the most common demand/complaint is the low amount of animals. But the quality of these complaints (in the forum, discord or steam reviews) has been questioned.

Fair enough. Not all critiques and reviews are of "high quality" or constructive. But again, same applies for positive ones. I insist, though. You can argue half the reviews are of low quality, etc, etc. Still, by far the most common complaint is very few animals. It's undeniable.
Later, there was an attempt to justify this by "looping the loop":
what fundamental problem do they try to solve here? Do they just want more differntly coloured polygons for the sake of visual variety? Do they hope to break out of a repitive gameplay loop do to new challenges? Both points need to be fixed differently and so it's up to Frontier do deduce what "we need more animals!" actually means.

Same goes with your other answer. Why do people need the possibility to recreate actual zoos to have fun with this game? What part of the gameplay does this adress and how?

Then it get's even more complicated when you think about the details. Let's just say people want more animals for the sake of having more animals. Which animals do you give them? The ones requested on the forums? On Steam? All of them?
It really doesn't get that complicated. Or, at least, that is not the topic of the thread (though it's interesting). Either way, Frontier nor us have no way, no tool to respond to most of those questions. It's pointless to try to know why people try to recreate real zoos in a zoo game. Like...c'mon.
The better (or at least the only) information you can get regarding most of that is through the forum and other platforms (what I have been saying from the beginning). But again, you're reading too much into it. We're talking about a game where there are signs for animals that are not in-game. A game whose animal requirements are...well...questionable. I doubt they'd do research on: Do people who ask for more animals just want differently coloured polygons for the sake of visual variety? Like...really c'mon :D

-Here it has been said that data from steam reviews, forum posts, etc. should most likely be corrected to remove the so-called negative biase.
Another attempt to transform factual data into something else, something fictional based on <1% of the playerbase. Any correction would be biased because it would deviate from the real data or feedback that the steam reviews, forum posts etc. provide.

-Here it has been said that probably Frontier has some tools (of which no one knows) that probably tell the devs information about what the players want.

Again, impossible to demonstrate. An assumption. Player usage data such as: "knowing that 9.999.999 peafowls were bought in the last year", doesn't provide any valuable information to the topic. Knowing that classic roof trim 01 was the most used building item is not useful either. Knowing that animals from the aquatic pack have been more used than animals from the Arctic pack is not meaningful, either. The only tool they could use (which is unavailable to us) to know what the players want is the exact full-game and DLCs sales and all that goes with it. Essentially, market research. Other than that, steam reviews and official platforms are what it is available. (They have even repeatedly encouraged players to provide feedback on the forum).


TL;DR: I'm simply saying this: DLCs are not as well-regarded as the full-game. And that the most common demand is more variety of animals. There is not much else to it.
I really don't know to what limits one can give justifications to refute factual data that is there, available to all of us. I'm not trying to argue if data is good or bad, I am presenting it. This whole thing is almost laughable.
 
Last edited:
It's safe to say that the general consensus among players is that DLCs lack animals. That's it. The amount of animals we get with each DLC is just too small. It doesn't matter where you look. Content creators, official forums, Steam reviews, Reddit, discord communities...The majority of the community is in agreement about this matter.
 
Same could be said about pretty much any reviewed product or service (movies, restaurants, mobile phones, etc.). If all the reviews and forum posts are overall more negative than what the general public thinks, there is this "negative bias" in all of them, making everything comparable, whether all biased are all not biased.
But for some reason, apparently, this marketing science theory doesn't apply as much to the ratings of the full-game (I'm saying this because it has significantly higher ratings). Contradictory.
Yeah, but most reviews are based on the actual product and complaining about the amount of animals is not reviewing the content, it's reviewing an expectation/request. Maybe those people should start a petition or look for people who agree with them and mail a signed letter to their PR dept.

The "thumbs up/thumbs down" has always been a questionable thing, there's no follow-up rating for the product (like stars or numbers).
With YT, people give every video of a certain artist a "thumbs down" just because they don't like him. Not actually rating the music or video.
Btw, you can dislike the video but like the music but YT doesn't offer you the option to make that rating.

Steam DLC reviews for DLC are always a bit questionable, you don't know if they actually bought/played it. (always 0.0 hours played)
It also has a slightly different audience than the base game. Some people don't buy DLC.
(+33.000 people rated the base game and only <300 people rated the DLC.)
Besides I could easily ask multiple people to post a negative review, even if they don't own the game. (never would do this, i don't like the mob-rule)
Btw, applies to both sides of the argument.

I agree, also pure speculation, we are just guessing. :D (i like reading both views on this, btw)

Fair enough. Not all critiques and reviews are of "high quality" or constructive. But again, same applies for positive ones. I insist, though. You can argue half the reviews are of low quality, etc, etc. Still, by far the most common complaint is very few animals. It's undeniable.
The most common complaint in the reviews, yes - I agree. That's the most common complaint.
Going with all platforms feedback, I would say performance/bugs/not properly working features are the biggest complaints.

I think everyone has understanding on the term data. It's just that people question that data on usefulness, based on other experiences? We only see a small fraction of online information and people don't explain why/how they rate something. I also explained in earlier comment that the positive rating could have various reasons, and a lot of positive reviews are useless too.

It's safe to say that the general consensus among players is that DLCs lack animals. That's it. The amount of animals we get with each DLC is just too small
For $ 9,99 I don't think it's lacking animals. I wouldn't mind 1 or 2 animals more but lacking, no.
Again there's a price/content issue where people base their opinion on. There are people who think that 9,99 DLC should have 8-10 habitat animals. And some think that they should release 10 habitat animal packs for 14,99-19,99. Or think this is the right balance.

I don't even think there's a general consensus on how DLC packs should look like. Tbh, the majority of those complaints are : we want more animals. But what do they actually mean? Haven't seen many suggestions for a DLC with the pricetag mentioned.
I like to see more animals too (i think everyone does) but if they released a 50 animal species pack for $100,-. I'm not going to buy that one. And 50 animals for $20,-, that's not going to happen, you can request all you want but it's a company. ( ofc. don't mind being wrong on that last one :D )
That has nothing to do with caring about the game but a principle of not paying that much for a DLC pack in 1 purchase. And that's an opinion shared by a large group in the gaming community in general.
 
Last edited:
Just checked the steam reviews on each dlc plus deluxe pack :
68% positive for Arctic pack
70% positive for Deluxe
61% positive for South America pack
72% positive for Australia pack
80% positive for Aquatic pack
89% positive for the game itself
Overall pretty good numbers. And their still selling so it’s hard telling if any changes will come. Like a user mentioned most people who are pretty satisfied with the pack usually won’t review. Overall I’ve liked each pack in their own way and have much like even the people who complain the most bought every pack. Now I know the South American and Australian pack didn’t diversify the animals with only five but maybe it’s all part of frontiers plan we did receive the giant otter plus I find it hard to believe more won’t be added at some point.

Interesting data, I have seen that as well.

BASE GAME

Would think that the base game deserves a much higher rating. I think what affected the main game was the poor performance of the Cobra engine rendering the game virtually unplayable in most systems. When you also add player expectations, and the way the game was particularly advertised, allowing players to built the zoo of their dreams, it is just very unrealistic. Planet Zoo Exhibit would have been a much more realistic form of advertisement. Because even today, it is impossible to built a proper zoo. There are a number of other issues related to this feedback, but I believe that poor game performance is the biggest one.

Recommendation

If the game had been built in a different engine, would a reasonably improved performance be expected? Was Planet Zoo rushed out to follow up on the success of Planet Coaster. We will probably never know, but I would imagine that if Frontier ever releases Planet Zoo 2, at least the performance aspect would be improved, possibly in a completely different game engine.

ARCTIC PACK

I think this might be the only justified low rating, and it is understandable that it is the lowest. It was the first pack to be released, and as we all know by now, the majority of players are very unhappy with the limited animal quantity found in the DLCs. The Polar Bear was an anticipated addition to the animal roster, but everything else in this pack was a little lackluster. The construction pieces are extremely odd as well, as not many Zoos outside of Northern Europe have Viking themes, in fact I can not think of a single one. Not a popular choice overall, possibly very popular here in the forum with the abundance of Central and Northern European members, but other than that, a really bad start for a game based on zoos.

Recommendation

I think that an Arctic Pack that had contained a theme similar to what Hannover Zoo has in their Yukon Bay exhibit would have been a big hit, and instead of introducing all of the pointless holiday decorations, we could have received an early start with the flexi color cement boulders, rocks and tree sections.

SOUTH AMERICAN PACK

This is the one that surprises me a little bit, because aside from the limited amount of animals found in the pack, I really thought it was a great pack, lots of thematic pieces, but lots of zoos have entire areas dedicated to this region, so I thought everything was pretty well justified. I think that the negatives associated with this pack, were due to the four species per pack model, and the great disappointment this created amongst players. During this time, many hoped that the Arctic Pack was an anomality and not the norm.

Recommendation

I think that releasing such a limited pack as a representative of all of South America, the world's richest continent in biodiversity was a big mistake. An Amazon or Tropical South American theme that focused on these specific areas of the continent as well as its fauna, would have been much better received in my opinion. The llama could have been part of a separate and future Andes Pack that focused on those regions of the continent. Also a bigger focus on tropical plants in the final scenery piece count would have gone a long way as well. Even the temple construction pieces could have been done a little different, a little less bulky and more detail.

AUSTRALIA PACK

This was the first pack that in my opinion hit all the checkmarks. The pieces were great and beautifully detailed. The foliage in this pack was my favorite in the entire game, and wonder what happened to the artist that created it, because it looks like Frontier placed someone else in charge for the aquatic pack. The trees are so well done, realistic and add so much to the game. Loved the art included in it, and the functionality of many of the pieces, especially the metal pieces, those are just amazing, so much can be created with them.

Recommendation

Short of including an additional four habitat animals in this pack and one additional exhibit animal, I do not know that anyone could have improved it significantly, assuming that the piece count stayed the same. I think that Frontier should just have added those few extra animals, and they would have made a world of difference. By this point, 2 or 3 extra species would have made all the difference in the world, yes.

AQUATIC PACK

This pack had the best ratings of any DLC released after the base game. As expected the addition of aquatic behaviors and the species associated with them were a big hit with players. They had been clamoring for this since before the base game was officially released. For me the biggest takeaway here, were the scenery items and their functionality. The flexi color cement rocks and tree sections were long overdue, and my only wish is that frontier continues to release this kind of pieces in future DLCs. Some of the limitations in diving associated with the animals are somewhat disappointing, but overall Frontier did a good job here.

Recommendation

I think Frontier should really look into what can be done about creating a few more animals per pack, even if the species are very similar. It is been a while already, since the majority of players have been constantly very outspoken about this, and absolutely nothing has been done. How difficult would it have been to create an Asian Small Clawed Otter out of the juvenile rig associated with the Giant Otter? Or an African Penguin out of the King Penguin, a California Sea lion or Leopard Seal out of the Grey Seal? There is absolutely no justification for this, especially when by their own admission they worked on this for well over a year.



My final take away:

Poor game performance is the biggest negative factor associated with this game. Second the very small amount of animals introduced with each DLC, and lastly the lack of communication and constant suppression of constructive criticism by Frontier CMs as they are the link between the players and the game, and should embrace feedback instead of attempting to control the narrative thru player accounts and suggest that nothing is wrong with the game.
 
Last edited:
constant suppression of constructive criticism by Frontier CMs as they are the link between the players and the game, and should embrace feedback instead of attempting to control the narrative thru player accounts and suggest that nothing is wrong with the game.
I see we are including conspiracy theories here on this forum now. Could it not just be there is a player base out there who does not see significant issues with the game, communication levels, and DLC formats? Just because you believe there are major issues, does not mean that everyone agrees with you, and their disagreement does not equate to suppression, but rather highlights counter arguments and alternate points of view. This discord creates discussion, which isn't that a point of forums in the first place?

I am one of those players that doesn't believe the game/Frontier is as broken as has been suggested by some. Is there room for improvements? Yeah, there is. There are definitely still some bugs that need to be fixed, performance optimizations are needed (though these may be limited by the engine), I do think better tutorials are needed (though youtube is a big help here). General impression though, there are no glaring issues in my mind, the game is functional and enjoyable as is.

Do I think the DLC model needs to be changed? Hard to say, I have no issues with the current format, but I'm really not sure adding more animals to each DLC would end up with more animals in the end, I think this would just end up with fewer, more expensive DLCs. I could also see this having a negative impact on sales when considering the entire player base (the people in this forum are more than likely the most passionate, but not necessarily reflective of the majority). I also don't see an increased number of animals in the same time frame occurring, this is assuming that those people who are working on the DLC completely stop working once all the animals are complete and aren't doing any work until the next DLC.

Do I think Frontier's minimal communication is a problem? No, I don't. I honestly don't understand the need for players to get updates saying "we are working on this", this won't speed up the process of development to release. I also could see issues arising, especially if a feature is promised by a certain date, but Frontier is unable to deliver for whatever reasons. Heck, we've even seen people get upset when certain dates come and go (the anniversary) with no releases, even though absolutely nothing was promised (by the way, this is the only place I've seen where people are genuinely upset about not getting free content, my way of thinking is that you as a customer are owed nothing other than what is explicit promised at the time of purchase, anything else is extra).

But I guess my dissenting opinion is just some CM in disguise trying to control the narrative, because you aren't allowed to disagree with the loudest voices in the room 🤷
 
Heck, we've even seen people get upset when certain dates come and go (the anniversary) with no releases, even though absolutely nothing was promised (by the way, this is the only place I've seen where people are genuinely upset about not getting free content, my way of thinking is that you as a customer are owed nothing other than what is explicit promised at the time of purchase, anything else is extra).
Well, this has popped up a few times now. I understand your reasoning: you can't complain about something that never existed, that was never promised.
I think the reason why many people (if not all) were a bit disapointed with the lack of an anniversary update was essentially this:

Two comparable games at all levels. You could even say they are sister-games. One had an anniversary update. The other didn't.

Also, regarding communication and/or community engagement: I am particularly not too bothered if they don't provide any roadmap, though some vague statements to know where the game is heading would be appreciated from time to time. Eg: what other animals will get diving animations, if flamingoes will finally get colour variations, if other animals will get colour variations or if the ones with the current system will have further variations (to some extent), if they are (or are not) looking forward to implement vista points, for instance, etc.

My main concern is lack of communication/engagement in general. It doesn't have to be announcements about future plans per se. The lack of enthusiasm for the game compared with PC is very noticeable. The forum is quite silent betwen DLCs. Also, just have a look at the respective official youtube accounts and see that PZ didn't have the same treatment even before release.

-Before release: PC: 108 videos. PZ: 14 videos. Okay, maybe they changed the model: PC had a lot of short videos, PZ had far less videos but a bit longer ones.

-1st year after release: PC: 96 videos/streams (not counting soundtrack songs). PZ: 36 videos/streams. This is part of what I'm talking about. It's like they don't believe in their own product, even if it was at least as successful as PC in terms of sales.
 
Last edited:
Just because game A had a anniversary update, and automatically thinking game B would get the same is just the wrong mindset IMO.

I'd loved to have anything for an anniversary, but getting nothing didn't hurt me either.
I respect your opinion, but it doesn't change the fact that many (or at least some) people felt disappointed with the lack of an update. I don't know if it's the right or the wrong mindset, all I know is that that mindset was based on precedents. At that point (based on precedents) it was more reasonable to think there was going to be an anniversary update to think that there was not going to be one; hence the disappointment.
 
Well, this has popped up a few times now. I understand your reasoning: you can't complain about something that never existed, that was never promised.
I think the reason why many people (if not all) were a bit disapointed with the lack of an anniversary update was essentially this:

Two comparable games at all levels. You could even say they are sister-games. One had an anniversary update. The other didn't.

Also, regarding communication and/or community engagement: I am particularly not too bothered if they don't provide any roadmap, though some vague statements to know where the game is heading would be appreciated from time to time. Eg: what other animals will get diving animations, if flamingoes will finally get colour variations, if other animals will get colour variations or if the ones with the current system will have further variations (to some extent), if they are (or are not) looking forward to implement vista points, for instance, etc.

My main concern is lack of communication/engagement in general. It doesn't have to be announcements about future plans per se. The lack of enthusiasm for the game compared with PC is very noticeable. The forum is quite silent betwen DLCs. Also, just have a look at the respective official youtube accounts and see that PZ didn't have the same treatment even before release.

-Before release: PC: 108 videos. PZ: 14 videos. Okay, maybe they changed the model: PC had a lot of short videos, PZ had far less videos but a bit longer ones.

-1st year after release: PC: 96 videos/streams (not counting soundtrack songs). PZ: 36 videos/streams. This is part of what I'm talking about. It's like they don't believe in their own product, even if it was at least as successful as PC in terms of sales.

Let's put it this way: Planet Zoo is getting less TLC compared to PlanCo.

We don't really know why, but I think there's a big difference between Frontier in 2016 and Frontier in 2021. Frontier is now a bigger player in the market compared to when PlanCo was launched - in the las 5-year period Frontier has multiplied by almost 3 their revenue, and almost x20 their profits.
 
I respect your opinion, but it doesn't change the fact that many (or at least some) people felt disappointed with the lack of an update. I don't know if it's the right or the wrong mindset, all I know is that that mindset was based on precedents. At that point (based on precedents) it was more reasonable to think there was going to be an anniversary update to think that there was not going to be one; hence the disappointment.

fine to be disappointed at the lack of an update,... but being angry or feeling ripped off (as if you were promised something that you absolutely were not) is unreasonable.... especially in the light of COVID
 
Last edited:
fine to be disappointed at the lack of an update,... but being angry or feeling ripped off (as if you were promised something that you absolutely were not) is unreasonable.
I agree, i think everyone was a bit disappointed but it's really weird to see this. It's very unique - never seen that on any forum.
The general idea I got was that most people expressed their disappointment but also realized it was never promised. I also think it was a missed opportunity to do something special but angry/feelling ripped off, no.

Let's put it this way: Planet Zoo is getting less TLC compared to PlanCo.

We don't really know why, but I think there's a big difference between Frontier in 2016 and Frontier in 2021. Frontier is now a bigger player in the market compared to when PlanCo was launched - in the las 5-year period Frontier has multiplied by almost 3 their revenue, and almost x20 their profits.
4-5 years is a long time and expecting the same because 4 years ago their other title got different (more) attention - well, things change.
Especially with your info - you can expect things to change.
They got multiple franchises running and 2021/2022 looks like a busy year. Back then it was basically Elite and PC

And let's be fair: zoo games aren't as popular as theme park/rollercoaster games. Those games have a bigger history while zoo games, well it's basically ZT/ZT2.
Less activity or less interest from the community is something you can expect.
 
I can relate to the people disappointed with the anniversary for sure. Whether promised or not let’s all face it the anniversary was and definitely should have been a big deal and frontier dropped the ball. The game should have been celebrated as many of us have waited and wanted a quality zoo sim since zt2. Now as far as feeling ripped off or demanding my money back? Absolutely not.... I paid full price for the game and all dlc and would do it again. I’d even recommend anyone on the fence about the game to take the plunge and buy it even at full price it’s well worth the investment.
 
It's not about demanding free content, it's about customer appreciation. If you give customers of similar games of your studio (Planet Coaster, JWE) a free update for their first anniversary, but not the Planet Zoo customers, you show less appreciation and make the game look like a byproduct and not something you really want to celebrate. A Grevy zebra as a reskin or a birthday cake as an enrichment item wouldn't have needed much resources, but it would have been a good way to say "thank you" to your loyal customers, when circumstances didn't allow for an update similar to the games mentioned above.

What they did for the anniversary was giving out free codes and giving out an avatar costume some players have worked hard for before. It was pure advertisment to push sells. And while I think it's always okay to push sales for a company, you also shouldn't forget the people that already support you for a year and longer.

I don't feel ripped off, I feel ignored and not appreciate as a customer and not treated equal. It's like sitting at a table and the waitress would sever everyone that comes after me before me and only serve me in a calm minute - and then wonder why I don't give a tip.

"Frontier is a bigger company now" isn't an argument for me. They were also big when they made JWE. And growth doesn't mean you can suddenly drop the ball.
About communication: There are other things beside a roadmap that are a part of communication. They said they look into a color change for Flamingos linked to food when the fur variation update drop - why not give us an update about the process.

They said, they would add diving to other animals as well - how about giving us an update on that? Small bits and pieces that would keep the ball rolling and would be different from the "we got something to sell!" communication every three or four month.
And last but not least: Answer to bug report threads for crying out loud! They do that, but they don't do it enough.
 
I agree it’s the fact the game was blatantly ignored to a extant. I know they did some livestream and giveaways but the feeling you get from that is it was done just because it had too. I’m probably wrong and maybe frontier surely had their reasons but they said nothing basically. I mean if they would have said hey look guys we’re sorry some we’re disappointed by the anniversary but this is why or what threw us off. I know the anniversary was 3 months ago and is ancient history at this point but @Swjosdotschka makes a very good point I mean the community is now lobbying for a monthly clone animal just to kinda keep the excitement and momentum going and the anniversary was as good of a time as ever to maybe throw out a Masai giraffe or Sumatran tiger. I’ve never asked for free dlc and have always bought it the day of release but a object a animal on the anniversary was very much expected tbh. Bottom line is if planet coaster or jwe gets a much expected sequel and the game or games get a big anniversary celebration it looks extremely bad.
 
I absolutely agree that it was really disappointing that they didn't do anything for the Anniversary even though it seems like they did something for the other Games. Even something small like a new Plant would've been better than nothing.
At least I can hope for a Animal that I really want in my Zoos in the next DLC and also Brachiation Animations if it should really be a South East Asia DLC or something similar
 
Top Bottom