How many animals should DLC packs have
- Thread starter tigris115
- Start date
if it was 8 I would be rly happy
Depends on how often you want new content. I'd prefer new content more regularly, so I'd expect and accept fewer animals per pack. I understand how long it takes to make new animals for a game like this, so how could I reasonably expect more? I feel like a lot of people think they just type "Animal X" into a random generator and BOOM there's the animal. It's not that easy.
the answer is 42, of course.
The better question is actually "how long would you be willing to wait for new content?"
It heavily depends on additional content like plants and building items, which we also desperately need imo.
And if the animals are only reskins with 1-2 new animations like all DLC animals so far.
New rigs, more behavioral animations etc. require much more effort and should be rewarded higher, i.e. a higher sales price would be satisfied.
If they stick to the poor size of 4 'reskin' animals, just leveraging on existing rigs, I will also stick to not buying any DLC.
And if the animals are only reskins with 1-2 new animations like all DLC animals so far.
New rigs, more behavioral animations etc. require much more effort and should be rewarded higher, i.e. a higher sales price would be satisfied.
If they stick to the poor size of 4 'reskin' animals, just leveraging on existing rigs, I will also stick to not buying any DLC.
I'd be good with maybe four Habitat animals and 2-3 Exhibit animals. I understand why the Arctic pack had no Exhibit animals since those tend to be invertebrates and reptiles that won't live in colder climates, but a South America or Australia pack should have them.
I think that a good policy is that if an animal can be made by a modder (restricted by having to use a pre-existing rig and animal), it should be marked down price-wise.
For example, if certain species on the Nexus page were implemented, they'd likely be super easy for Frontier to make, especially the straight-up clones.
(URL removed)
For example, if certain species on the Nexus page were implemented, they'd likely be super easy for Frontier to make, especially the straight-up clones.
(URL removed)
Last edited by a moderator:
The camel was built off of the zebra rig. Where do you draw the line?
Using the same rig is fine, as long as the animal looks different (zebra and camel look very different
)I think he means more like, we already have the Reticulated Giraffe and adding other giraffes (Masai/Rothschild) isn't worth the money.
Same goes with adding extra tiger/lion species.
They look very similar (size/build), same behavior, maybe the nature/biome needs could be different.
A bit more in that direction, not another Zoo Tycoon 2013 (having 100+ species, which mostly are the same).
I don't mind if 1 or 2 animals, depending on DLC size, looks similar (not too much), really depends on the other animals in a DLC pack.
Just getting "reskins" of existing in-game animals doesn't cut it for me.
IMO there should to be a "unique" element to a new animal (could be various choices)
Last edited:
for me a new extra tiger/lion species or something simular would matter, because i barely look at the animations of the animals, but it matters if i can put a new lion in a habitat with plants from america f.e. and the whole idea of forming the fitting environment for it. i think it matters how people play the game, if you are very interested in observing animals, then it matters if it is a completely new animal, for me it doesnt matter.
While I certainly want new unique animals, such as kangaroo or siamang, etc. I also want and would happily pay for DLC that contain certain closely related species. I think we need another giraffe species, preferably the Masai giraffe. Not only is the spotting pattern visibly different but both the Masai and Reticulated giraffe are commonly represented in zoos around the world. It is boring for every safari exhibit in every digital zoo to contain the exact same species. Similarly I would like to see another zebra species. I would vote for the Grevy's zebra, whose striping is very different from the Plains zebra, and is also found in many zoos. I would like to see at least a half dozen different poison dart frog species, tarantulas from multiple ecosystems around the world, and at least one desert scorpion.
In contrast I have very little interest in specifying down to the subspecies level in most cases. I think the worst inclusion in the whole game is the Himalayan brown bear, who provides very little visual contrast to the grizzly bear and is not found in zoos anywhere. A more appropriate choice would have been the Syrian brown bear, who is visibly different, lives in a more unique biome, and is actually found in zoos.
In contrast I have very little interest in specifying down to the subspecies level in most cases. I think the worst inclusion in the whole game is the Himalayan brown bear, who provides very little visual contrast to the grizzly bear and is not found in zoos anywhere. A more appropriate choice would have been the Syrian brown bear, who is visibly different, lives in a more unique biome, and is actually found in zoos.
Making new rigs for the sake of new rigs is a wasteful way of making a game though. Making a easy to re-use, adjust and expand rig takes a lot more effort than you seem to think. If you want the game to be optimized and work fluently, re-using rigs is the best way to go.
Of course that's not possible with every animal I get that, but animals specifically work well with shared rigs and a few unique animations for each rig.
As both a developer and a modder, I cannot agree with this statement. Modding things takes time and effort as well, and quick edits are possible because we as modders never have to adhere to stricter conditions that developers have to. It's often much easier to mod than it is to develop really.
Besides, at the end of the day, developers should be paid for their work, no matter how "easy" the work seems to us as players. So there are costs, even if the edits are "small".
Last edited:
I recently watched a youtube video where someone wondered the same thing. How many animals should DLCs contain to keep the player base motivated to stay engaged with the game? Are 4 new animals every 70-90 days going to do that? Is that enough for people to stay interested in planet zoo?
He made the argument that it won't, considering that people are likely only interested in 1, maybe 2 new animals out of the 4, which means it's not enough incentive to buy. And with not enough new content coming out, interest in the game will go down. What would be really interesting is DLCs with new animals AND new game mechanics. In other words, stuff that will add new and fresh experiences to the game, like adding flying animals and aviaries, or aquatic animals and tanks.
He didn't think that only 4 new animals every couple of months, along with a new scenario, building theme, and maybe new foliage, will keep players interested.
That said, how many animals I personally think a DLC should have? I think 8 is a nice number that could do the most justice to new themes, without having to exclude iconic animals due to limited slots. If every DLC had 8 new animals, along with the aforementioned new scenario, building theme, and foliage, I think people would be more inclined to buy the DLC and I think people would be burned out less quickly due to more new animals to play with and build for. I personally feel the need for new game mechanics wouldn't be so pressing if there was more choice and variety in the animal roster. DLCs could offer more choice and variety, but not if they come with 3-4 animals.
He made the argument that it won't, considering that people are likely only interested in 1, maybe 2 new animals out of the 4, which means it's not enough incentive to buy. And with not enough new content coming out, interest in the game will go down. What would be really interesting is DLCs with new animals AND new game mechanics. In other words, stuff that will add new and fresh experiences to the game, like adding flying animals and aviaries, or aquatic animals and tanks.
He didn't think that only 4 new animals every couple of months, along with a new scenario, building theme, and maybe new foliage, will keep players interested.
That said, how many animals I personally think a DLC should have? I think 8 is a nice number that could do the most justice to new themes, without having to exclude iconic animals due to limited slots. If every DLC had 8 new animals, along with the aforementioned new scenario, building theme, and foliage, I think people would be more inclined to buy the DLC and I think people would be burned out less quickly due to more new animals to play with and build for. I personally feel the need for new game mechanics wouldn't be so pressing if there was more choice and variety in the animal roster. DLCs could offer more choice and variety, but not if they come with 3-4 animals.
I guess will find out in time what frontier decides. I got a feeling 8-10 animals per pack would take longer then 70-90 days depending on if the animals are new rigs or not. I disagree with the new game mechanics being so pressing if we had more animal variety as it would be the animal variety that would introduce new mechanics. As for interest in the game itself just depends on what each individual gets from playing the game. Me I love sandbox and although I’m definitely awaiting news of some kind of dlc I would by no means say I’m bored with the game as I love the creative aspect of the game.