My Future DLC Ideas

[Mjmannella]

I literally addressed that already from the start. Yes there is going to be sacrifices. Since Frontier went down that geographical road it is just logical to follow it further to the end. It's funny since they made these decisions but you're acting like I'm responsible for it.

So why stay away from biome packs if you're aware that any choice made will have limitations? Why are the biome restrictions in particular taboo?

The original Wii was a revolutionary console with unique features which managed to convince normies specifically older generations to buy it just for Wii sports alone, so no surprise it sold well. Then you get to the Wii U that didn't really offer anything special or any good games nor had any good marketing overall which makes it minor upgrade to the Wii and you just want to pin it down to the name alone. Yes names matter, but so do all the other factors.

We can still use the Wii U as a case study for the importance of names. A name means recognition, easy marketing, and third-party appeal. Specs-wise it's a bigger leap than the Wii was from the last generation (which can reasonably be generalized as a Gamecube with motion controls), and only seems like less than that because it had a terrible name.
So yes, I think it's reasonable to blame the name.

I still wonder why you care so much about the sales and new customers, are you a shareholder or something?
Again, I don't think people are that stupid or lazy or easily confused by these names and like I said before the majority of the customers are most likely veterans.

Because I don't want this game to be niche, I want the zoo sim genre to be as widespread as possible. Having confusion does not make for a more inclusive community.

Also wouldn't the best way to be actually inclusive to...well...include forgotten regions and cultures?

You can do that without having subsequently confusing names. You can absolutely do 6 biome packs that represent most regions of the world.

At this point I think you're just trolling. It's not that complicated or deep. These are just DLCs, one click and you can read the short description or look at the pictures and videos and find out. Like for real, who doesn't read the description before they buy something...You're clearly overthinking this.
I was also quite amenable and asked for your constructive suggestions instead of just being weirdly negativ, but you do you...
I'm out.

I'm sorry you feel this way. I'm just trying to encourage more critical thought about the bigger picture behind DLC conception. The onslaught of DLC treading over the same ideas constantly is very stale, and I've love to see some more out-of-the box (or perhaps, out-of-the-zoo) beyond what's already been discussed. And often times if the optimistic lens used take too much centre-stage, it creates unrealistic expectations of the future, thus leading to disappointment that could've easily been avoided had there been a deeper thinking into the concepts.

 

[Jeminyne]

some biomes have a far higher or lower biodiversity and you may struggle choosing in one biome or finding animals in another.

Honestly, I can't think of a single biome in-game besides tundra that would be hard to fill out. Name me one in-game biome that you think would be hard to find animals for, and I could do it easily. (Plus, 5-animal packs are a thing, and it's not likely they'd get to every biome anyway.)

 

[nutrit]

Even tundra is robust with highly wanted and very attractive animals:

Wolverine
Walrus
Musk ox
Arctic hare (not so highly wanted but a hare in a game would be such a nice treat)

With arctic architecture and more basic zoo pieces (coastal mural and pre-made indoor habitats for different species).

and if it is a animal pack also:
Beluga
Rockhopper penguin
Snowy owl

 

[Jeminyne]

Even tundra is robust with highly wanted and very attractive animals:

Wolverine
Walrus
Musk ox
Arctic hare (not so highly wanted but a hare in a game would be such a nice treat)

With arctic architecture and more basic zoo pieces (coastal mural and pre-made indoor habitats for different species).
View attachment 287820

and if it is a animal pack also:
Beluga
Rockhopper penguin
Snowy owl

Good point! I'd also volunteer the tundra swan or puffin. I think, elk, bald eagles, red foxes, and even leopard seals are sometimes considered under tundra as well.

 

[Aramar]

Even tundra is robust with highly wanted and very attractive animals:

Wolverine
Walrus
Musk ox
Arctic hare (not so highly wanted but a hare in a game would be such a nice treat)

With arctic architecture and more basic zoo pieces (coastal mural and pre-made indoor habitats for different species).
View attachment 287820

and if it is a animal pack also:
Beluga
Rockhopper penguin
Snowy owl

I'd would add the Siberian musk deer:

-Wolverine
-Walrus
-Muskox
-Siberian musk deer

Instant buy for me!

 

[random goat]

So why stay away from biome packs if you're aware that any choice made will have limitations? Why are the biome restrictions in particular taboo?

We can still use the Wii U as a case study for the importance of names. A name means recognition, easy marketing, and third-party appeal. Specs-wise it's a bigger leap than the Wii was from the last generation (which can reasonably be generalized as a Gamecube with motion controls), and only seems like less than that because it had a terrible name.
So yes, I think it's reasonable to blame the name.

Because I don't want this game to be niche, I want the zoo sim genre to be as widespread as possible. Having confusion does not make for a more inclusive community.

You can do that without having subsequently confusing names. You can absolutely do 6 biome packs that represent most regions of the world.

I'm sorry you feel this way. I'm just trying to encourage more critical thought about the bigger picture behind DLC conception. The onslaught of DLC treading over the same ideas constantly is very stale, and I've love to see some more out-of-the box (or perhaps, out-of-the-zoo) beyond what's already been discussed. And often times if the optimistic lens used take too much centre-stage, it creates unrealistic expectations of the future, thus leading to disappointment that could've easily been avoided had there been a deeper thinking into the concepts.

With all due respect Mjamannella, but you're making a mountain out of a molehill.

It really isn't that complex. It reminds me of your bizarre ideas that small animals like meerkats were terrible animal choices because they were too small to manage (specially for casual players). C'mon...

Look, I'm not saying a potential 'South American Animal Pack' or something like that is ideal from a marketing standpoint, but you're pretty much implying the casual playerbase is straight up dumb. It takes less than 1 minute to go on the Planet Zoo's Steam Store page, click on each DLC and check what animals are included. And boom, the 'naming problem' becomes trivial. The most important thing is the content of a DLC, and ultimately its ratings. That's what will make the vast majority of players decide on whether to buy a pack or not, definetely not because of the name lol
Would it make more sense to shift to biome packs? Well, maybe, but I doubt the potential difficulty of coming up with unique names for future DLC packs is meaningful or even on the table at all for that matter. If we get biome packs, it's because they see it as a more suitable approach to tackle the most requested and missing animals and features.

 

[Aramar]

Name it "Amazon animal pack", problem solved (unless it includes animals from Patagonia).

"Oceania animal pack" is quite different from "Australia pack", I don't see any problem there.

 

[Doran]

Name it "Amazon animal pack", problem solved (unless it includes animals from Patagonia).

Yup. I think it whats gonna happen.
Everyone probably knows what/where is amazon rainforest. Place that is always mentioned when it comes to environmental degradation
Species from cerrado and patagonia would be excluded, but this is harsh reality. Frontier wont include every animal.

 

[Mjmannella]

It really isn't that complex. It reminds me of your bizarre ideas that small animals like meerkats were terrible animal choices because they were too small to manage (specially for casual players). C'mon...

I still stand by that, but that's a discussion for another thread.

Look, I'm not saying a potential 'South American Animal Pack' or something like that is ideal from a marketing standpoint, but you're pretty much implying the casual playerbase is straight up dumb. It takes less than 1 minute to go on the Planet Zoo's Steam Store page, click on each DLC and check what animals are included. And boom, the 'naming problem' becomes trivial.

My point is that it shouldn't be a requirement to understand of which contains what content. It should be simple and clear from just glancing at it from the Store page. This doesn't mean consumers are stupid, it means that they they have to do stuff they shouldn't have to do.

The most important thing is the content of a DLC, and ultimately its ratings. That's what will make the vast majority of players decide on whether to buy a pack or not, definetely not because of the name lol

Names mean a lot in the business world, it absolutely matters. If the name isn't appealing to the consumer, they're probably not going to buy it.
To give an extreme example, would anybody buy a DLC pack that was labelled the, "I Hate Children Pack", even if the content inside was as desirable as possible? Chances are many would pass, because they wouldn't like the association given in the pack's name. Of course, it's worth repeating that this is an extreme example for the sake of proving my point.

Name it "Amazon animal pack", problem solved (unless it includes animals from Patagonia).

"Oceania animal pack" is quite different from "Australia pack", I don't see any problem there.

That has the implications (despite likely being unintended) that the Amazon isn't part of South America (even though our current SA Pack is predominantly an "Amazon Pack" anyways), and that Australia isn't part of Oceania (and to be honest, the only reason Australia was chosen as the pack's name over Oceania is because the former is vastly better for marketing). Biome packs avoid this contention by having a more global focus.
The only region packs I can see left are 1-2 more for Asia (ex. Middle East, India, Central Asia, North Asia, Far East) and maybe a Central America Pack (though only because Frontier has a rather awkward treatment of the region).

 

[becks474]

South America animal pack just could be called Latin America animal pack which includes animals not living at the Amazonas. Australia part 2 could be called oceania animal pack and so on. I do not see any problem. And I am the opinion that at least 3 continents could profit from another Region based pack. Australia, South America and greater asia. And I am the opinion that there are enough nice pick animals for an africana animal pack, too. I prefer this old model because we can get animals which have different habitat needs whereas a desert biome pack just give us desert animals. I sure would buy it but the old model is more attractive to me.
But in the end we will find out what will come to us in the future.

 

[random goat]

My point is that it shouldn't be a requirement to understand of which contains what content. It should be simple and clear from just glancing at it from the Store page. This doesn't mean consumers are stupid, it means that they they have to do stuff they shouldn't have to do.

There is no way someone would know what animals, out of all the animal kingdom, would be included in any potential DLC just because of the name.

No average adult or teenager with a steam account and available money would buy a product just based on the name and not the content, specially when the content is so accesible and easy to understand: Animal 1, Animal 2, Animal 3, Animal 4 and 200 building pieces based on X theme.
The 'Europe Pack' is a standalone, unique and recognisable name, which is what you're asking for. Imagine if the animals in said pack were Eurasian brown bear, Eurasian wolf, European bison and Eurasian beaver. Are you really telling me that it'd sell the same just because of the name?

People look at the content/characteristics for literally every product on earth, the name is not even secondary but meaningless. People who don't care about details might not check the specific content of a DLC but they wouldn't reject buying it just for the name. The least they'd do is check the trailers (which are brilliant, comprehensive and self-explanatory). I can only think of a case of a group of people who wouldn't even care about anything but the name of the DLC and that's collectionists that would blindly buy whatever Frontier puts on the table.
The opposite doesn't apply, people wouldn't reject a videogame or a DLC because of their name. Thousands of succesful DLCs and videogames have vague names, similar names or names which don't reflect the content of the product at all. And let's not even comment on other stuff like cars, phones, computers etc. whose names are pretty much random.

Names mean a lot in the business world, it absolutely matters. If the name isn't appealing to the consumer, they're probably not going to buy it.To give an extreme example, would anybody buy a DLC pack that was labelled the, "I Hate Children Pack", even if the content inside was as desirable as possible? Chances are many would pass, because they wouldn't like the association given in the pack's name. Of course, it's worth repeating that this is an extreme example for the sake of proving my point.

I kind of touched this point above: No person in their sane mind would reject buying product or, in this case, a pack because "its name is too similar to another DLC omg I'm confused".
Your example is so extreme that it doesn't prove anything as it would never apply in any possible way.

I'm trying to understand your point and to some extent I agree that the 'easy' route would just be going for biome packs. But I doubt they'd do that just to avoid choosing more regional DLC titles.

 

[Mjmannella]

There is no way someone would know what animals, out of all the animal kingdom, would be included in any potential DLC just because of the name.

No average adult or teenager with a steam account and available money would buy a product just based on the name and not the content, specially when the content is so accesible and easy to understand: Animal 1, Animal 2, Animal 3, Animal 4 and 200 building pieces based on X theme.

The zoo sim isn't just catering to us seasoned animal nerds. Plenty of kids actually learned about animals from playing Zoo Tycoon back in the day, and I'm willing to bet the same experiences have happened in Planet Zoo.

The 'Europe Pack' is a standalone, unique and recognisable name, which is what you're asking for. Imagine if the animals in said pack were Eurasian brown bear, Eurasian wolf, European bison and Eurasian beaver. Are you really telling me that it'd sell the same just because of the name?

I mean, people just can't get enough of Carnivora it seems, so I could definitely see that pack making a bit of bank.
But I do get that the roster itself is important. However, that roster is only going to get outreach if it has a name that's distinct and clear. New players could easily end up buying the wrong pack if they're not careful (to which I'll reiterate that there shouldn't be any caution when buying DLC in the first place).

People look at the content/characteristics for literally every product on earth, the name is not even secondary but meaningless.

Quite the contrary. As a Canadian, when I go the store to get margarine and hazelnut spread, we don't call the products by those more descriptive names: we name them by the brands, in these cases it's Becel and Nutella. Those brand names completely override the actual name of the product being sold, purely because those brand names have superseded the product names in terms of marketing appeal. I don't know if there's any products like that in Spain, but It's nonetheless a very common occurrence.
This is why names are important. They tell us what something is because we given certain words an association that connects with us.

People who don't care about details might not check the specific content of a DLC but they wouldn't reject buying it just for the name. The least they'd do is check the trailers (which are brilliant, comprehensive and self-explanatory). I can only think of a case of a group of people who wouldn't even care about anything but the name of the DLC and that's collectionists that would blindly buy whatever Frontier puts on the table.

Once again, watching a trailer shouldn't be necessary if you're just going to buy DLC.
And if anything, having packs with too similar of names would make it harder to search for the trailer and gameplay footage you want; the 2 packs would trigger the same keywords by algorithms, thus having videos for both of them in your search feed.

The opposite doesn't apply, people wouldn't reject a videogame or a DLC because of their name. Thousands of succesful DLCs and videogames have vague names, similar names or names which don't reflect the content of the product at all. And let's not even comment on other stuff like cars, phones, computers etc. whose names are pretty much random.

Again, I point to the Wii U's shortcoming hinging upon it's unmarketable name.

I kind of touched this point above: No person in their sane mind would reject buying product or, in this case, a pack because "its name is too similar to another DLC omg I'm confused".
Your example is so extreme that it doesn't prove anything as it would never apply in any possible way.

I can very easily imagine a situation where we see someone complaining that, "I bought the South America Pack and there was no capybara, even when they said there would be!" and thinking it was deliberate misinformation being spread. But is it really the consumer's fault, or is it the fault of marketing for having 2 very similarly-named packs?

 

[random goat]

The zoo sim isn't just catering to us seasoned animal nerds. Plenty of kids actually learned about animals from playing Zoo Tycoon back in the day, and I'm willing to bet the same experiences have happened in Planet Zoo.

I mean, people just can't get enough of Carnivora it seems, so I could definitely see that pack making a bit of bank.
But I do get that the roster itself is important. However, that roster is only going to get outreach if it has a name that's distinct and clear. New players could easily end up buying the wrong pack if they're not careful (to which I'll reiterate that there shouldn't be any caution when buying DLC in the first place).

Quite the contrary. As a Canadian, when I go the store to get margarine and hazelnut spread, we don't call the products by those more descriptive names: we name them by the brands, in these cases it's Becel and Nutella. Those brand names completely override the actual name of the product being sold, purely because those brand names have superseded the product names in terms of marketing appeal. I don't know if there's any products like that in Spain, but It's nonetheless a very common occurrence.
This is why names are important. They tell us what something is because we given certain words an association that connects with us.

It's funny that you mention kids because of all the people out there they're the ones that wouldn't care a bit about the name. If they like PZ they'll want more content. How would they care about the name of a DLC lol

The Nutella example has little to do with what we're discussing here because first of all, it's a brand and not a product within a brand. And again if you know a brand, you know what they offer - you know their products/content. As I said before, you know what BMW is and more or less what they offer, but if you want a specific BMW car model you'd either randomly pick one or you'd look at the details or references to make a decision, definetely not at the name. Same applies to literally every product and market area.

Your whole argument holds on the assumption that a potential customer knows nothing about the brand, the product nor anything related to Planet Zoo. If you know 'Nutella' and you like buying it, you know what it's like and what it contains (at least for the most part). If Nutella now decided to make a white chocolate spread, who on earth would care about the name? You know what it contains, you know the content, what makes it different. You'd either buy it or not based on whether you like white chocolate, not the name.

If you were a human that unfrotunately didn't have the pleasure to try or even know what a hazelnut chocolate spread is, there is no way you'd buy Nutella just for the name. Or the other way around, there's no way you wouldn't buy whatever brand because of their name. Now that you mention it there's also this famous Spanish chocolate spread brand called 'Nocilla', and I've never ever seen a person that prefers or doesn't like one or the other because of their name.

What you're saying doesn't make any sense at this point. But I guess we'll agree to disagree here. We're already derailing this thread too much

 

[jcp011c]

Just throwing my ideas in here. There's got to be some way to revisit Australia or Oceania as an entire pack theme, while getting around the conflicting name theory. There's just too little in the game, and too many species for it to not get a full focus again. If calling it an Australia animal pack is too similar to the original pack - and I do agree with both points that it may cause confusion for some, but most likely not a majority - there's other ways they could refer to it. I like @Aramar's suggestion of calling it Oceania, and putting in a couple of animals that are not specifically Australian to back that descriptive up.

FWIW I do think that it's likely we'll get an "Amazon" pack if Frontier sticks to location themed packs, but honestly if we don't that's also okay. While there's more South American animals on my want list than Oceania, there's only 5 I'm heavily interested in getting, and 2 of those wouldn't even fit in an Amazon pack. But that of course, is just my own opinion and YMMV.

Truthfully though, I am firmly in the "biome theme" camp. Revisiting Oceania may be a priority to me, but those animals, like just about any other animal not in the game, has potential to be added in through their particular biome. Looking at it this way, if they stick to locales, and release an Amazon pack, I think it's very likely you could wave goodbye to any chances of any other South American animals getting in because I doubt we'd get a third South American focused pack (though I'd certainly buy an Andean or Patagonian pack). Same for any other continent at this point, I think it's very unlikely we'll see three packs relating specifically to any continent. So....would you rather have the Capybara or Maned Wolf, or potential for both with a Rainforest and a Grasslands themes pack - though not necessarily named that. Rainforest might work but Grassland DLC sounds quite boring, there's way to spruce that up though.

 

[NZFanatic]

"Oceania animal pack" is quite different from "Australia pack", I don't see any problem there.

Dead right. It's the most obvious way to add more Australian animals without calling it the "Australia Pack 2" or something. I don't know what @Mjmannella is talking about with that one.

 

[Lelka]

Hmmm...Those are not even real confirmed names for the DLCs Frontier is making. It's the idea of the pack which Zyx thinks that PZ needs.
Do we really need to discuss about whether the name of the DLC being too similar to previous DLC affects the sale of one or not?

 

[Mjmannella]

Dead right. It's the most obvious way to add more Australian animals without calling it the "Australia Pack 2" or something. I don't know what @Mjmannella is talking about with that one.

Australia is a more marketable name for that part of the world than Oceania; more people know what Australia is than what Oceania is. Hence, our existing Australia Pack is already a defacto “Oceania Pack”.

 

[RedPandaReggie]

Australia is a more marketable name for that part of the world than Oceania; more people know what Australia is than what Oceania is. Hence, our existing Australia Pack is already a defacto “Oceania Pack”.

Can always do an Islands Animal Pack

 

[becks474]

Australia is a more marketable name for that part of the world than Oceania; more people know what Australia is than what Oceania is. Hence, our existing Australia Pack is already a defacto “Oceania Pack”.

Of course for most people Australia is more common but I also think most people can place oceania right. So I see no reason not to call a second pack with some Australian animals and perhaps also from New Zealand like the Kiwi Oceania animal pack.

 

[Aramar]

The Arctic has been covered three times: the Arctic pack, the Europe pack and the North America animal pack. I don't really see any problems in having several packs focusing totally or partly in a region that has been covered before if the name is different enough to avoid confusion. If you want the Arctic fox, you buy the North America animal pack and that doesn't imply that the fox is not an Arctic animal. Same applies to the lynx with the Europe pack.