My Future DLC Ideas

Zyx · Jan 22, 2022

So I wanted to share my ideas for future DLCs. The concept is the same as already established, either it's an expansion pack or a pure animal pack.
Now I know a lot of it might be just wishful thinking, there are far too many DLCs to be realistically implemented, so there is going to be some compromises and even sacrifices.
But here are my proposals.

Existent

Arctic Pack
South America Pack
Australia Pack
Aquatic Pack
South East Asia Animal Pack
Africa Pack
North America Pack
Europe Pack

High Priority

South America Animal Pack
Asia Animal Pack (+ Asia Pack)
Aquatic Animal Pack
Europe Animal Pack
Middle Eastern Pack (+ Middle Eastern Animal Pack)
Australia Animal Pack
Endangered Animal Pack

Medium Priority

North Africa Animal Pack
Africa Animal Pack
Arctic Animal Pack
Central America Pack

Low Priority

North America Pack
Antarctica Animal Pack
Deluxe Animal Pack (Missing Animals)

Uncertain

Madagascar Animal Pack
Patagonia Animal Pack
Central Asia Animal Pack
North Asia Animal Pack

Special Pack

Aviary Pack
Marine Pack

South America Animal Pack

Asia Pack
I'm not sure if there should be an Asia Pack or just an Animal Pack, because we already have indian and east asian architecture, but maybe the south east asia style could be implemented instead.

Asia Animal Pack
If there is only an animal pack the chinese alligator, asiatic lion and golden langur should be replaced by the takin, sloth bear and the lar gibbon.

Aquatic Animal Pack
This one is quite open for change, maybe some antarctic animals could be included, so we don't need an extra DLC for these.

Europe Animal Pack
The red deer could be replaced with the roe deer and the eurasian wolf with the italian wolf.

Middle East Pack

Middle East Animal Pack
This one is optional, but I like it to fill the space in the middle east.

Australia Animal Pack

Endangered Animal Pack
This one could be useful for adding missing animals.

Zyx · Jan 22, 2022

North Africa Animal Pack
This one could be merged with the middle east animal pack.

Africa Animal Pack
Not sure about the choices here, so I'm open for suggestions.

Arctic Animal Pack
Had to expand a bit to the south, but I think it should work.

Central Asia Animal Pack

Zyx · Jan 22, 2022

Aviary Pack
I think the aviary pack should include more animals than usual and it could be possible if they reuse the models for each subspecies like for the macaw.

Macaw

Hyacinth Macaw
Scarlet Macaw
Blue-And-Yellow Macaw

Anyway I made one in the usual concept.

Aidan635 · Jan 22, 2022

I really hope you realize that we're not gonna get all of these or even most of them

Antimony96 · Jan 22, 2022

Some really good ideas: My main issues would be:

1. I'm strongly against an Asiatic lion simply because it's actually the same subspecies as the West African lion. The actual subspecies divide between lions is the northern lion (Asiatic + West African + the extinct Barbary lion) and the southern lion (east + southern Africa; almost all captive lions are southern lions).
2. The European animal pack seems pretty filler-y. 3 of the 8 animals would be clones.
3. I think you could fit in some flying birds that don't need aviaries (fowl+wading birds) outside of the Aviary Pack. Red-crowned crane for Asia, secretary bird for Endangered, white stork for Europe, helmeted guineafowl for Africa etc. By far the worst skewing in PZ representation to real life zoo representation is the lack of birds outside of penguins and ratites.

Aidan635 said:
I really hope you realize that we're not gonna get all of these or even most of them

Probably not, especially not dedicated animal packs for both South and Central America, but it's fine to speculate. If PZ support continues through 2024 (which is possible given current hiring) that could mean up to 12 DLC packs.

Zyx · Jan 22, 2022

Aidan635 said:
I really hope you realize that we're not gonna get all of these or even most of them

Yeah, I know that's why I addressed it already.

Now I know a lot of it might be just wishful thinking, there are far too many DLCs to be realistically implemented, so there is going to be some compromises and even sacrifices.

Zyx · Jan 22, 2022

Antimony96 said:
Some really good ideas: My main issues would be:

1. I'm strongly against an Asiatic lion simply because it's actually the same subspecies as the West African lion. The actual subspecies divide between lions is the northern lion (Asiatic + West African + the extinct Barbary lion) and the southern lion (east + southern Africa; almost all captive lions are southern lions).
2. The European animal pack seems pretty filler-y. 3 of the 8 animals would be clones.
3. I think you could fit in some flying birds that don't need aviaries (fowl+wading birds) outside of the Aviary Pack. Red-crowned crane for Asia, secretary bird for Endangered, white stork for Europe, helmeted guineafowl for Africa etc. By far the worst skewing in PZ representation to real life zoo representation is the lack of birds outside of penguins and ratites.

Probably not, especially not dedicated animal packs for both South and Central America, but it's fine to speculate. If PZ support continues through 2024 (which is possible given current hiring) that could mean up to 12 DLC packs.

1. Yeah kinda agree, I put it in because we have multiple tigers and leopards so I thought it could work. But the spot could be used for another one, so yes.
2. Well that's the problem of the european fauna (same as otters, beavers, etc.). But maybe the wolverine could be included.
3. I wasn't sure what to do with the aviary pack, so I excluded most birds (except emu and penguins) so I'd have free options for that one.

Also some choices were dependant on other DLC selections. I didn't want to duplicate the animals.

Aidan635 · Jan 23, 2022

Zyx said:
Yeah, I know that's why I addressed it already.

I guess that's what happens when you don't read the whole thread. My apologies

Mjmannella · Jan 23, 2022

I continue to be baffled as to why people would think that we'd get a DLC pack that shares the majority of its name with an existing DLC pack. In the business world (i.e. what Frontier as a company is doing), names need to be sharp, clear, and distinct. This is to help new consumers find exactly what they want and to avoid any confusion that may drive them away.

A pack titled the "South America Animal Pack" or the "Oceania Animal Pack" is as unlikely to me as a "Myths & Cryptids Pack" to be honest.

Antimony96 · Jan 23, 2022

Mjmannella said:
I continue to be baffled as to why people would think that we'd get a DLC pack that shares the majority of its name with an existing DLC pack. In the business world (i.e. what Frontier as a company is doing), names need to be sharp, clear, and distinct. This is to help new consumers find exactly what they want and to avoid any confusion that may drive them away.

A pack titled the "South America Animal Pack" or the "Oceania Animal Pack" is as unlikely to me as a "Myths & Cryptids Pack" to be honest.

"Neotropical Animal Pack" would work fine for South/Central America. Not sure about Oceania but they could go with a broader Islands Pack encompassing Madagascar and possibly the Caribbean and some Pacific islands.

12344321 · Jan 23, 2022

Mjmannella said:
I continue to be baffled as to why people would think that we'd get a DLC pack that shares the majority of its name with an existing DLC pack. In the business world (i.e. what Frontier as a company is doing), names need to be sharp, clear, and distinct. This is to help new consumers find exactly what they want and to avoid any confusion that may drive them away.

A pack titled the "South America Animal Pack" or the "Oceania Animal Pack" is as unlikely to me as a "Myths & Cryptids Pack" to be honest.

If you think a South America 2 dlc or a second African dlc wouldn't sell well then (with all due respect) you aren't reading the room very well.

Sure those packs would have terrible names. And sure that dlc has also been done already.

They still would sell well.
Those areas are still lacking highly requested animals. End of story. People will pay.

They can name the dlc whatever they want, the demand for more animals is high enough that it will sell.

Zyx · Jan 23, 2022

Mjmannella said:
I continue to be baffled as to why people would think that we'd get a DLC pack that shares the majority of its name with an existing DLC pack. In the business world (i.e. what Frontier as a company is doing), names need to be sharp, clear, and distinct. This is to help new consumers find exactly what they want and to avoid any confusion that may drive them away.

A pack titled the "South America Animal Pack" or the "Oceania Animal Pack" is as unlikely to me as a "Myths & Cryptids Pack" to be honest.

Well like I said.

The concept is the same as already established

It's Frontier's concept, so why wouldn't we expect the same principle? Now I agree as far a catchy name might be more attractive but I don't think most people are that nitpicky or so easily confused so they would be deterred by such a minor issue. And if so, consider it a place holder for some better names, any suggestions?

Mjmannella · Jan 23, 2022

Antimony96 said:
"Neotropical Animal Pack" would work fine for South/Central America. Not sure about Oceania but they could go with a broader Islands Pack encompassing Madagascar and possibly the Caribbean and some Pacific islands.

Central America is the only one I can really see happening, and only because Frontier treats that region very bizarrely. They might see it as distinct enough from the rest of North America to warrant a new pack.

12344321 said:
Sure those packs would have terrible names. And sure that dlc has also been done already.

This is exactly why they won't happen. This isn't about "reading the room" it's about observing rational business decisions.

12344321 said:
They still would sell well.

I guarantee you that if their names are too similar their sales will be drastically lower, solely because it confuses new buyers.

12344321 said:
Those areas are still lacking highly requested animals. End of story. People will pay.

They can name the dlc whatever they want, the demand for more animals is high enough that it will sell.

Which is why I think biome packs are what's really going to take off for 2022. They have nice, distinct names with none of the confusion.

Jeminyne · Jan 23, 2022

While I'd love all these packs and these animals, biome packs do make way more sense at this point.

"Rainforest" or "Tropical" pack could include favorites like the leopard, capybara, siamang, gibbon, langur, or howler monkey, fossa, coati, tree kangaroo, sloth, etc.

"Desert" (or a separate pack called "Grasslands" for some of these) could cover the Emu, Dromedary Camel, Baboon, Przewalski's Wild Horse, Aardwolf, Giant Eland, Maned Wolf, Wallaby, Wombat, Grey Crowned Crane, Secretary Bird, King Cobra...

"Temperate" could cover the Wisent, Red Fox, Small Clawed Otter, Echidna, Platypus, Tassie Devil, Alligator Snapping Turtle, Red Crowned Crane...

You get the idea.

The one of yours I see as most likely would be the aquatic animal pack, and they'd probably call it something different like "wetlands," and thus remove the penguin and seal. Maybe a "coastal" pack would be another possibility.

Mjmannella · Jan 23, 2022

I just think a second tread at the Aquatic biome straight-up isn’t happening, there’s no wetlands or coastal biome in the game and I don’t see why they’d add one now.

Iben · Jan 23, 2022

Mjmannella said:
I continue to be baffled as to why people would think that we'd get a DLC pack that shares the majority of its name with an existing DLC pack. In the business world (i.e. what Frontier as a company is doing), names need to be sharp, clear, and distinct. This is to help new consumers find exactly what they want and to avoid any confusion that may drive them away.

A pack titled the "South America Animal Pack" or the "Oceania Animal Pack" is as unlikely to me as a "Myths & Cryptids Pack" to be honest.

I'm honestly more baffled by the idea that you seem to think that this is written law and that the name alone will massively impact sales like that, whilst in reality it's a combination of a hell of a lot of things.

As if there aren't a plethora of examples in our society where brands bring out products with similar sounding names. Heck, there's even examples from within Frontier. Classic Ride Collection and Magnificent Ride Collection for Planet Coaster for instance. According to you people would be confused because there are "two ride collections" and they wouldn't buy the second one because they might be confused by the first one? Cretaceous Dinosaur Pack and Carnivore Dinosaur Pack for JWE is another good example. Both starting with a C, both ending with Dinosaur Pack, make those hashtags and people scrolling on social media will easily mix those up, guaranteed.

According to you these packs would have never been named that because the names are too similar. But in the end; they do just fine. Because DLCs are a lot more than just a name.

Mjmannella · Jan 23, 2022

Iben said:
I'm honestly more baffled by the idea that you seem to think that this is written law and that the name alone will massively impact sales like that, whilst in reality it's a combination of a hell of a lot of things.

2 words: Wii U. That console is the embodiment of the importance a name has in the business world. If its name doesn't make the product easy to understand, it's not going to sell. If the Wii U was named to be more distinct (ex. Super Wii, like the SNES), I guarantee it would've sold much better.

Iben said:
As if there aren't a plethora of examples in our society where brands bring out products with similar sounding names. Heck, there's even examples from within Frontier. Classic Ride Collection and Magnificent Ride Collection for Planet Coaster for instance. According to you people would be confused because there are "two ride collections" and they wouldn't buy the second one because they might be confused by the first one? Cretaceous Dinosaur Pack and Carnivore Dinosaur Pack for JWE is another good example. Both starting with a C, both ending with Dinosaur Pack, make those hashtags and people scrolling on social media will easily mix those up, guaranteed.

According to you these packs would have never been named that because the names are too similar. But in the end; they do just fine. Because DLCs are a lot more than just a name.

Neither of those are as extreme of examples as having a "South America Animal Pack" right next to a "South America Pack". Classic, Magnificent, Cretaceous, and Carnivore are all clear and distinct words. The proposed case would be more like if the packs were, "Classic Rides Collection", "Very Classic Rides Collection", "Carnivore Pack", and "Carnivore Pack 2". These names are far more confusing for someone jumping into the game first-hand, and really only make sense to existing consumers.

Zyx · Jan 23, 2022

Jeminyne said:
While I'd love all these packs and these animals, biome packs do make way more sense at this point.

"Rainforest" or "Tropical" pack could include favorites like the leopard, capybara, siamang, gibbon, langur, or howler monkey, fossa, coati, tree kangaroo, sloth, etc.

"Desert" (or a separate pack called "Grasslands" for some of these) could cover the Emu, Dromedary Camel, Baboon, Przewalski's Wild Horse, Aardwolf, Giant Eland, Maned Wolf, Wallaby, Wombat, Grey Crowned Crane, Secretary Bird, King Cobra...

"Temperate" could cover the Wisent, Red Fox, Small Clawed Otter, Echidna, Platypus, Tassie Devil, Alligator Snapping Turtle, Red Crowned Crane...

You get the idea.

The one of yours I see as most likely would be the aquatic animal pack, and they'd probably call it something different like "wetlands," and thus remove the penguin and seal. Maybe a "coastal" pack would be another possibility.

I experimented with this idea too, I just don't think biome packs are really that much better. Yes, you would lift geographical restrictions and could easily add missing animals but you would also add biome restriction, meaning some biomes have a far higher or lower biodiversity and you may struggle choosing in one biome or finding animals in another. Since some options are already picked or too many are not makes it even more tricky.

Also the main issue is that some regions are clearly underrepresented and need a buff, unless you want to dedicate some spots in each biome pack to them this would not change a lot. So the problems just shift somwhere else.

Now I'm not against it at all, I just followed Frontier's guidelines and made a proposal inside their framework. They made their choices and I just filled the gaps, if the people want to cut, merge, shift and rename packs, so be it.

2 words: Wii U. That console is the embodiment of the importance a name has in the business world. If it name doesn't make the product easy to understand, it's not going to sell. If the Wii U was named to be more distinct (ex. Super Wii, like the SNES), I guarantee it would've sold much better.

Neither of those are as extreme of examples as having a "South America Animal Pack" right next to a "South America Pack". Classic, Magnificent, Cretaceous, and Carnivore are all clear and distinct words. The proposed case would be more like if the packs were, "Classic Rides Collection", "Very Classic Rides Collection", "Carnivore Pack", and "Carnivore Pack 2". These names are far more confusing for someone jumping into the game first-hand, and really only make sense to existing consumers.

A console like the Wii U is a different and standalone product which appearently didn't sell well because of the poor marketing (which isn't just about the name), the lack of quality of games at the release and the mediocre perfomance of hardware and software. So it's a multitude of reasons.

DLCs are usually not standalone, they are part of an established base game with a clear concept. Having an animal pack in a zoo game is pretty straight forward. Yes the name is long and similar to the other pack and maybe there are better options but to say people get easily confused and won't buy it is absurd. It's just a cosmetic aspect.

These names are far more confusing for someone jumping into the game first-hand, and really only make sense to existing consumers.

These people could just read the description and probably would buy either just the base game or the complete bundle pack.
Simulation games like this are niche games with a dedicated fan base which is the target audience and which won't be bothered too much anyway.

Mjmannella · Jan 23, 2022

Zyx said:
I experimented with this idea too, I just don't think biome packs are really that much better. Yes, you would lift geographical restrictions and could easily add missing animals but you would also add biome restriction, meaning some biomes have a far higher or lower biodiversity and you may struggle choosing in one biome or finding animals in another. Since some options are already picked or too many are not makes it even more tricky.

Also the main issue is that some regions are clearly underrepresented and need a buff, unless you want to dedicate some spots in each biome pack to them this would not change a lot. So the problems just shift somwhere else.

There's always going to be sacrifices made. The reality is that Planet Zoo isn't getting unlimited support can can't add every animal that everyone wants. If it means a particular region gets snuffed, so be it.

Zyx said:
A console like the Wii U is a different and standalone product which appearently didn't sell well because of the poor marketing (which isn't just about the name), the lack of quality of games at the release and the mediocre perfomance of hardware and software. So it's a multitude of reasons.

The Wii prior wasn't exactly shining in those qualities, but is one of the best selling consoles in history. Names absolutely matter. If the Wii U had a better name, it would've led to more initial buyers due to having a better name for marketing (for mind you, what is upgraded hardware) and more interest from third parties to make Wii U games.

Zyx said:
DLCs are usually not standalone, they are part of an established base game with a clear concept. Having an animal pack in a zoo game is pretty straight forward. Yes the name is long and similar to the other pack and maybe there are better options but to say people get easily confused and won't buy it is absurd. It's just a cosmetic aspect.

And when you have near-identical DLC names, that concept becomes less clear. The average newcomer isn't going to look at a "South America Animal Pack" and a "South America Pack" and immediately understand which pack have what content aside from the 1 animal on the DLC header. It's an idea that would only be understood by people already on board and are fans of the game.

Zyx said:
These people could just read the description and probably would buy either just the base game or the complete bundle pack.
Simulation games like this are niche games with a dedicated fan base which is the target audience and which won't be bothered too much anyway.

Good marketing doesn't require reading, it should be deliberately easy to understand from just browsing the DLC listings. It's also unfair to assume a bifurcation between the sole base and everything at once, consumers are more complex than we give credit. Maybe someone really wants a capybara but couldn't care for a giant anteater. If they only hear about PZ now, how would they immediately know what has what?

I think that's a problem in general with a lot of DLC ideas suggested (not just on these forums, but other sites like Reddit and the Wiki too): they're all from the lens of the super-fan who already knows everything there is to offer and sees it as a past thing. We should be rationalizing our DLC ideas with the idea that it's understandable for new consumers, as it would help make the community more inclusive (and bigger in general).

Zyx · Jan 24, 2022

There's always going to be sacrifices made. The reality is that Planet Zoo isn't getting unlimited support can can't add every animal that everyone wants. If it means a particular region gets snuffed, so be it.

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.

The Wii prior wasn't exactly shining in those qualities, but is one of the best selling consoles in history. Names absolutely matter. If the Wii U had a better name, it would've led to more initial buyers due to having a better name for marketing (for mind you, what is upgraded hardware) and more interest from third parties to make Wii U games.

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.

And when you have near-identical DLC names, that concept becomes less clear. The average newcomer isn't going to look at a "South America Animal Pack" and a "South America Pack" and immediately understand which pack have what content aside from the 1 animal on the DLC header. It's an idea that would only be understood by people already on board and are fans of the game.

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.

Good marketing doesn't require reading, it should be deliberately easy to understand from just browsing the DLC listings. It's also unfair to assume a bifurcation between the sole base and everything at once, consumers are more complex than we give credit. Maybe someone really wants a capybara but couldn't care for a giant anteater. If they only hear about PZ now, how would they immediately know what has what?

I think that's a problem in general with a lot of DLC ideas suggested (not just on these forums, but other sites like Reddit and the Wiki too): they're all from the lens of the super-fan who already knows everything there is to offer and sees it as a past thing. We should be rationalizing our DLC ideas with the idea that it's understandable for new consumers, as it would help make the community more inclusive (and bigger in general).

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.

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

I was also quite amenable and asked for your constructive suggestions instead of just being weirdly negativ, but you do you...

I'm out.