Planet zoo concept art

How is it greedy? Everyone knew what they were getting when they bought the game. It's not withholding, it's planning - if they even had anything withheld, which I doubt considering the rush to release this game. We'll never know and it doesn't matter anyway.

How is it not greedy? If we're basing this conversation on the assumption that the animals are already made (which, as I said, is pure conjecture anyway and probably not the case, or at least not the whole case), then it's literally the definition of greedy to exclude features from a final product expressely to earn money off them later.

Just because it's "common practice" doesn't mean it isn't greedy.
 
How is it not greedy? If we're basing this conversation on the assumption that the animals are already made (which, as I said, is pure conjecture anyway and probably not the case, or at least not the whole case), then it's literally the definition of greedy to exclude features from a final product expressely to earn money off them later.

Just because it's "common practice" doesn't mean it isn't greedy.

Were you even around when this game released? It was rushed beyond belief to meet that release date. It takes a variety of skill sets to get an animal in the game. A concept designer, a modeler, a texturer, an animator and a programmer at least. When the game was planned I'm sure it was decided how many animals would be included for the initial release. I'm also sure Frontier had the foresight to realize that people would want more no matter how many were in the release. I'm sure some parts of the extras planned were in some stage of development but it's highly unlikely any were all ready to go. The release date was set LONG before the game was finished, it's far more likely they had to release with less to meet that date than that they held back completed content - just to be greedy.
 
Everyone has a different definition of greedy. For me it is greedy to ask for more animals than we got in the base game. And while most animals need improvment in look and behaviour, we have the most detailed animals ever in a zoo game. And the most in a base game by numbre.

Withholding animals or not, in my opinion Frontier deserves every extra penny they make with additional content.
 
Everyone has a different definition of greedy. For me it is greedy to ask for more animals than we got in the base game. And while most animals need improvment in look and behaviour, we have the most detailed animals ever in a zoo game. And the most in a base game by numbre.

Withholding animals or not, in my opinion Frontier deserves every extra penny they make with additional content.
Very true but just want to point out 1 thing: Imo asking/wishing is good but asking/demanding is leaning more towards greedy.
(for example "I hope this animal makes it in a DLC" and wishlists vs "Why isn't this animal in the game?" and this game is lacking insert animal/feature)
Really depends on the tone.
 
Look at concept art for things like buildings and cars, they are generally ideas pushed to the limits. Limitations in safety, cost, practicality, materials means the main body/ideas may stay but very rarely do concept images of anything not get changed in the final version.

If you don't push for the very best you don't get results like we have with Planet Zoo but it doesn't mean everything can make it in for various reasons.
 
Very true but just want to point out 1 thing: Imo asking/wishing is good but asking/demanding is leaning more towards greedy.
(for example "I hope this animal makes it in a DLC" and wishlists vs "Why isn't this animal in the game?" and this game is lacking insert animal/feature)
Really depends on the tone.

Of course it does. But calling Frontier greedy reallyis a no go in my opinion. WISHLISTS on the other hands, can't be long enough for me. I have long ones myself, but am willing to pay for all my wishes.
 
Well, Frontier is business and not a charity, so for me its totally logical DLCs cost money. I mean, I also want to get paid for my work.
Its also totally fine they are reserving some animals for DLCs. It would have been impossible to put all in the base game anyways. Sure, if they give us some free treats inbetween, thats also nice, but I dont expect it. Frontier could also chose simply not put any new content to PZ, so paid is better than none. And yeah, when we bought the game we paid for whats already there, not what may or may not come in the future.

I also have some wishes for PZ, but I know I wont get them for free and thats fine. (If I get them at all)
 
There could habe been 100 species in the base game and people would still complain. I'm very satisfied with what we got in the base game, it's been keeping me engaged for 240 hours and I'm far from being finished. So the money was well spent, and this is the reason why I'll happily spend more on DLCs that interest me. I would consider it greedy to ask for more content withouth paying extra. Even more so because I see how hard Frontier is trying to fix issues and respond to criticism, this really makes me want to support the game.
 
Wasn't there supposed to be 52 or 54 animals in the game on release but we got closer to 70 ? Also when some games retail for £50-80 on release I thought PZ was great value at a little over £30. If I want (not need) to spend another £30-£70 on DLC over the next couple of years I am more than happy with that. If I don't fancy any of them I don't have to buy them (I will anyway).
 
Were you even around when this game released?

Yes? I played the beta. I've been active here since day one. What's your point?

You are all drawing the wrong conclusions from what I'm saying and picking fights where there's no fighting to be had. I don't know whether that's because there are a lot of non-English-speaking players of the game and so points are getting missed or because you just like arguing with people, but for a business to even be conceivable then there needs to be an element of greed. "We need to make money". Frontier didn't make Planet Zoo because they wanted to give a gift to the world, otherwise it would have been free to play and they would have worn the bill themselves. But that would be stupid.

The thing that makes me laugh is, I never once said it was a bad thing that they might have withheld content for future DLC's. I never once said it was the wrong thing to do. Frontier is a business. Like all businesses, they only care about their customers so long as they're making money - customers and consumers are a means to an end. That is how economics works. I get the feeling a lot of people associate the community managers like Bo and Chante with Frontier as a whole, and therefore jump to the defence of Frontier because the company has employees that interact semi-regularly with the community (which is also a business strategy, designed to ultimately make money). Of course they have to release DLC. If you ever looked back at some of my other posts on the subject, I've regularly explained how that is the new model of video game success. You can't make big expansion packs anymore because consumers are now used to rapid-fire releases every other month (The Sims isn't an exception - they release content frequently enough to keep people busy and hold back on major gameplay features for their expansions), so it's perfectly reasonable to expect Frontier to try and maintain a momentum by dropping new content in DLC's.

This is something I've been saying since people first started talking about DLC's, before the Arctic Pack. At launch, when I was here. In fact, pre-launch, when I was here, during the Beta.

But no, no - how dare I use a word like 'greedy' in association with a literal corporation run by shareholders whose sole job is to make sure they keep making money (or else they wouldn't have invested in the first place).

TL;DR version: Greedy is a perfectly apt word to use to describe the DLC model of frequent releases, but it's also a perfectly apt way to run a game like Planet Zoo and I never said it wasn't.
 
It's a bit like saying a shop is 'greedy' for selling you a box of 6 different flavoured cupcakes because they already made 2 other flavoured cupcakes that they will sell for a bit extra if you find 6 aren't enough to give you want you wanted. Annoying if your favourite flavour wasn't in the original assortment but not the shops problem!
 
It's a bit like saying a shop is 'greedy' for selling you a box of 6 different flavoured cupcakes because they already made 2 other flavoured cupcakes that they will sell for a bit extra if you find 6 aren't enough to give you want you wanted. Annoying if your favourite flavour wasn't in the original assortment but not the shops problem!

It's not like that at all, because again, again, you're assuming I'm equating "greedy" with "bad".

Frontier is a PLC, a public company, which means they sell shares publicly. To be a director in the UK you need I think 50,000 pounds, which is a considerable amount of money (it's been a while since I looked into this). In order to invest that 50,000 into something, you need two things; the desire to turn that 50,000 into more (greed) and the confidence that what you're investing in will succeed (to make you more money). Frontier had to convince its shareholders that Planet Zoo would make them a lot of money, otherwise they wouldn't agree to pour funds into it in the first place. This game, like every game, like every product, like every cupcake at every bakery, is built on greed, and would not exist without greed.

Once more, in case the people in the back missed it, I'm not saying this is a bad thing. It just is what it is, it's currently the way we get things produced that we want to consume. It's also the whole reason there's such a thing as price inflation - I used to work for a retailer that spent $1.35 on the homebrand kettles they sold for $45. They could have charged $15 dollars and still made a major profit, but that is why they had 'sales' and reduced the price in order to make people think they were getting a better deal when in fact they were still paying well over 200% what the company did.

That is undeniably greedy, but it's also the only way the business can run, because if they don't do that, they don't earn a profit, if they don't earn a profit, they can't pay their shareholders for their investment, and if they can't pay their shareholders, the business collapses and they're not making anymore kettles.

Frontier is the same. Just because the game is about cute animals and everyone is having fun with it doesn't mean it's any different to the aforementioned kettle. This isn't a nice little family-run business we're talking about, that needs the support of the local community to go up against the big bad MegaMart down the road. I wouldn't say it's the big bad MegaMart either, but it's definitely somewhere in the middle.

You're all looking at me using the word 'greed' like I'm spitting on someone's grave, when in fact it's just a word I'm using to describe something very common, without which we wouldn't have Planet Zoo in the first place. Thing is, I've already paid for the game, and already paid for the Arctic Pack and the Deluxe Edition, so I've already played my role in all of this and I'm fine with that. I wanted to play the game, so I gave my money to the greedy company who made it, so they could pass on part of that to their greedy shareholders, who would then greenlight further additions being made to the game.

I'm not asking them to give me anything for free. I don't expect or want that.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Maybe it is a language thing, but for me, "greedy" indeed has the connotation of negativity and unreasonably "wanting" behaviour. What Frontier does, I would neutrally call "business strategy". I'd only call it "greed" if I felt exploited by it or thought they asked way too much for what they offer.
 
Maybe it is a language thing, but for me, "greedy" indeed has the connotation of negativity and unreasonably "wanting" behaviour. What Frontier does, I would neutrally call "business strategy". I'd only call it "greed" if I felt exploited by it or thought they asked way too much for what they offer.

It's not you.. Greed is only used in a negative way.. I'm pretty sure if you translate it your own language, you can only find the words with the negative tone..
Just don't pay too much attention to this gibberish...

Wasn't there supposed to be 52 or 54 animals in the game on release but we got closer to 70 ? Also when some games retail for £50-80 on release I thought PZ was great value at a little over £30. If I want (not need) to spend another £30-£70 on DLC over the next couple of years I am more than happy with that. If I don't fancy any of them I don't have to buy them (I will anyway).

Can't find anything on the "52or54 animals" comment.
Funny, but a lot of people make comparisons to ZT/ZT2 with a lot of stuff but always ignore the amount of animals in the base game. (which wasn't that great)

I do think PZ wasn't that expensive but a while ago checked PC with all the DLC and if you want all the DLC, that's quite expensive (atm € 180,-)
I know, I know - your own choice and you get a lot of stuff, but still... it's that first impression on the steam page.. I can always wait for Summer/BlackFriday/December deals :p
 
Maybe it's a language thing. Greedy has a very connotations in my language and is indeed equal to wanting something unreasonable or wanting more than you deserv. My english definitely isn't perfect and I understand better than I speak and speak better than I write. But never have I heard someone using greedy as a neutral word. Maybe another native speaker can bring more light to this interesting language discussion.

A company that sells things at a reasonable price and offer good content is profit oriented to me and right so. A company that sells low quality content for a high quality price is greedy.
 

Ozric

Volunteer Moderator
What does concept art have to do with arguing over greed? Please get back to discussing the topic, or you can have a break from participating in the thread.
 
Wow.... what a tone.
The jaguar lead to the discussion of not realised content or saved for later content. I'd call it a lively discussion. I understand moderating to get back on topic if you think its necessary but I'm not a child who has to be send to time out, nor is anyone else here, I guess.
 
I think there are other games that are far more "greedy" in their DLC policies. The base PZ game had a ridiculous amount of animals, far more than any of us were expecting, I'm sure. Would I love more? Of course I would! There are so many more species that could be added, each with their own unique behaviors and requirements. But I, like many others here, am willing to pay for it, because the game's already great and buying DLC supports further development.
 
Back
Top Bottom