Reason SE Asia pack did sell as well: less “iconic” animals?

[Jeminyne]

Edit: sorry for the typo in the title! And sorry if this has been discussed a lot before and I just missed it all somehow.

So, I’ve heard the SE Asia pack sold worse than the other DLC, and call me biased, but I don’t think it’s because most casual players want more pieces and less animals. I think it’s because it had less animals that most people recognize and see as “essential.”

Now for someone like me, the pack was a dream. I love the weird, lesser known animals like the binturong, babirusa, sun bear, and proboscis monkey.

But it didn’t have anything that makes casual players say “I NEED IT!” like the kangaroo and koala for the Australia pack, polar bear for Arctic, meerkat for Africa, or Jaguar for SA. (And don’t even get me stared on the Aquatic pack.)

I’m optimistic about the NA pack being an 8 animal one, just because of how many people seem to agree that animals like the moose, cougar, red/Arctic fox, and sea lion are popular and well known. But I’m curious what other people think. I’m also curious how you guys think the other packs would have sold if they had more animals but less pieces, and which animals frontier would have chosen to make them even more irresistible.

 

[jcp011c]

I agree, I think the overall support that was there was for the idea of more animals in a pack. And of course every animal has their fans, or just people who buy anything with this game as well (count me in that last group) Ad while I think there were a lot of fairly popular requested animals like the tapir and clouded leopard, I have to agree, there wasn't a single animal that was such an obvious "must have" as the kangaroo or penguin or meerkat. The clouded leopard and sun bear got a lot of the trailer time, and we already knew that one was in the works for some pack.

I'm optimistic with the NA pack as well though, we have some very iconic and high profile animals that can potentially be in that pack, but their inclusion is not a given. We didn't get "no brainer" inclusions like the capybara in SA, or the gibbon in SEA after all.

 

[FoxyDee]

I have been actually saying this in another thread some time ago, that this might be one of the factor. For anyone with a better knowlege of animals it might me a dream pack, full of weird and unique animals (of course there are also some of the hardcore players that simply did not like the animals or were missing pieces, just so I dont dissmiss them), for the wider audience and casual players, they might not know these animals even existed. I am pretty sure they appreciate a meerkat more than a random weird humanoid looking bear (I love the sun bear, my favourite of the pack!), a monkey with a big nose and a weird looking black red panda (I exaggerated it a bit, but you know how it goes).

I sincerely hope Frontier plan more animal packs, NA would be awesome and I really hope for it. Biome packs or even endangered species pack would also be great as animal packs for me. ANd hell yeah I hope for more weird animals.

 

[NZFanatic]

As a massive zoo and animal nerd, one thing I can say is that for me at least the pack wasn't that exciting. I didn't buy it until the week of the Africa Pack announcement.

There were only two animals in the pack that really excited me - the clouded leopard and the sun bear - and the Malayan tapir is just a total bust that, for some reason, still has not been rectified, so I was kind of turned off from it from the start (I maintain that the tapir is an issue far more greivous than the binturong ever was - a wonky model is still better than a literal copy-and-paste with a new paintjob).

Anyway, I loved the concept, and even if they weren't what I wanted right then and there I do love the animals (except the Malayan tapir - finish it, please!), but I still think they could have done a 4+1 pack (clouded leopard, sun bear, binturong, babirusa) with a beautiful building set, and then given us the experimental animal pack with Africa, which, and I say this regardless of how anyone feels about the building set specifically, didn't need a building set.

 

[Jeminyne]

As a massive zoo and animal nerd, one thing I can say is that for me at least the pack wasn't that exciting. I didn't buy it until the week of the Africa Pack announcement.

There were only two animals in the pack that really excited me - the clouded leopard and the sun bear - and the Malayan tapir is just a total bust that, for some reason, still has not been rectified, so I was kind of turned off from it from the start (I maintain that the tapir is an issue far more greivous than the binturong ever was - a wonky model is still better than a literal copy-and-paste with a new paintjob).

Anyway, I loved the concept, and even if they weren't what I wanted right then and there I do love the animals (except the Malayan tapir - finish it, please!), but I still think they could have done a 4+1 pack (clouded leopard, sun bear, binturong, babirusa) with a beautiful building set, and then given us the experimental animal pack with Africa, which, and I say this regardless of how anyone feels about the building set specifically, didn't need a building set.

Totally agree. Would have preferred SE Asian themed pieces to be honest. The dhole and tapir were a letdown for me, even without the wonky model, given how many species could've replaced them. And Africa having so many "missing" species is a key point. Would've totally gone for a porcupine, fossa, eland, or crane.

 

[NZFanatic]

Totally agree. Would have preferred SE Asian themed pieces to be honest. The dhole and tapir were a letdown for me, even without the wonky model, given how many species could've replaced them. And Africa having so many "missing" species is a key point. Would've totally gone for a porcupine, fossa, eland, or crane.

In saying that the Africa Pack has no bearing on whether the SEA Pack sold well or not, since it wasn't confirmed at that point, but I still think it's a good point. Both packs and concepts would have been on Frontier's roadmap, so I have to wonder why they chose to do Southeast Asia as an animal pack and Africa as a standard pack. I have a lot of questions like that really - what I wouldn't give to be a fly on the wall.

 

[Sahara]

How do you guys know how well it sold? Genuine question

 

[Jeminyne]

How do you guys know how well it sold? Genuine question

Honestly, I was gonna ask how everyone here seems to know that, too. I've just kinda accepted it as common knowledge so to speak, but it's a good idea to ask.

 

[Jeminyne]

In saying that the Africa Pack has no bearing on whether the SEA Pack sold well or not, since it wasn't confirmed at that point, but I still think it's a good point. Both packs and concepts would have been on Frontier's roadmap, so I have to wonder why they chose to do Southeast Asia as an animal pack and Africa as a standard pack. I have a lot of questions like that really - what I wouldn't give to be a fly on the wall.

I have a feeling it might be because there are already so many African animals in the game. They outnumber most other continents... though you'd think that has no bearing on how well a pack will sell.

 

[Aramar]

I don't know what's the source that says the SEA pack didn't sell well. If it is the number of reviews on Steam, although it has less reviews than other DLCs, it still has more than 100, which is more than several of DLCs for Planet Coaster. Also, there are new reviews appearing on a regular basis, which means people are still buying it (probably on sales).

In my case, I bought it first day, but despite having more animals than usual, it only brought 1 animal of my 30 essential animal list. So I agree that the animals included, although cool animals, were not very important to me, and probably to other people too. An animal pack with more popular animals would have been more popular.

 

[iloveyourzoos]

I don't think we on the outside have actual numbers about whether the SEA pack sold better, worse, or the same compared to other packs.

What does seem to be true is that those who disliked it came from a particularly well organized portion of the community (good on them for organizing this way), and have really strong representation within the youtube advertising sector. Which is where the "common knowledge" comes from. But I also saw reviews from people who said SEA was the first pack that they bought -- precisely because it was the first pack that included more animals. So I think it's hard to know how that played out in terms of actual sales, and also creates a bit of a chicken-and-egg problem of not knowing what to attribute things to. (ie. did the cycle of bad publicity have more of an impact than anything about the animals in the pack itself? Did the pack sell fine, but its buyers are just more spread out and less visible in the places that are driving the conversation?).

But assuming for a moment the hypothetical that there was something about the pack itself, and that there is a clear ordering of iconic-ism, I have mixed feelings about it. On the one hand, I do think that an Australian animal only pack for example might have done better than the SEA pack, because a lot of people bought it primarily for the kangaroos and koalas, and the building pieces were probably incidental to them, just as the additional 3 animals might have been.

On the other hand, not every animal is as "must have" as a lion or an elephant. So if you're trying to build a pack and figure out how much to put in it, it would make perfect sense that a pack with one or two "iconic" animals wouldn't get as many additional items, and that you would therefore want to save more of those additional animals to strengthen a (hopefully) future pack, where the strength of several animals can be put together to make it marketable. (At least, that's my hope, as I really want to see many more animals come to the game, and don't want them to stop when they feel like they've run out of single animals that can sell a pack on their own).

So the idea might be that you need a certain amount of animal popularity, and can get that either by having one or two big ticket "must have" items, or by combining enough of the next level animals to cumulatively add up to that amount. I'd note that under this hypothesis, the solution to lower sales (if that is indeed the case here) might not be going back to 4+1+200/180 packs, since a SEA pack of that type wouldn't magically make the 4 animals more iconic. It may actually be increasing the number of animals to 8+1 or 9+1. After all, if we are hypothesizing that the sunbear or clouded leopard weren't enough to sell with the number of additional animals given, there's no real reason to assume they would have sold with additional pieces.

 

[random goat]

Indeed, it's impossibe to know how well the SEA pack sold so it's difficult to draw conclusions.

I think most of us, builders and animal lovers, would ideally prefer slightly bigger packs with 7-8 animals and ~150 building pieces. The reasons why the devs chose SEA for an animal pack and then Africa for a regular pack are pretty inexplicable to me. I guess it had to do with them wanting to introduce North African architecture at some point but at the same time they wanted to please the masses with more animals in another pack. They could have gone a hundred other directions but it is what it is. Luckily SEA is now pretty well covered in terms of animals (still want my gibbon, small clawed otter and some SEA deer, though). Africa, even though it's the continent with most species in-game, is still lacking some essential animals that might come at a later day in animal only packs (endangered, rainforest, desert, etc.).

Regarding the animal picks for the SEA pack I have to say they're mostly on point.
Every animal except from the proboscis monkey and dhole were super popular requests for the general public. Despite the proboscis monkey's low popularity, it was still a great choice given the constraints a gibbon would have had in terms of animations (to me it's quite clear that Frontier didn't want to include a gibbon because they haven't figured out brachiation and a gibbon with no brachiation would have received a lot of criticism).
The dhole was the more "meh" choice and its inclusion probably had to do with meeting deadlines (rigs for a civet, muntjac, gaur, etc. would have needed a lot more time) or to avoid further controversy with animals such as the small clawed otters (even more unrealistic diving depth requirements) or any subspecies of leopard ("omg two leopards in the same pack what is this heressy!!!").

 

[NL_Mutso]

I have a feeling it might be because there are already so many African animals in the game. They outnumber most other continents... though you'd think that has no bearing on how well a pack will sell.

I think most packs sold less than their previous packs (maybe the aquatic one did better?).
After a while you stop losing interest in the game or are only willing to pay a discounted price for a game you don't play on a regular basis.
But it's just a guess, the last one based on other games.

Not saying the SEA pack had bad choices (ofc, not) but the other packs did have 1 or 2 big name animals. And for a lot of people these species aren't somewhat unknown. I know what some people would think : Great opportunity to learn about these animals but I don't think people will spend money just to check if they like it or to learn about the species (you can just wiki the species if that's the goal)

 

[FoxyDee]

I think most packs sold less than their previous packs (maybe the aquatic one did better?).
After a while you stop losing interest in the game or are only willing to pay a discounted price for a game you don't play on a regular basis.
But it's just a guess, the last one based on other games.

Seems about right. Even the African pack which has some strong popular animal choices is getting less reviews just as SEA. Not that its any proof how well the DLC sells, but it might be a slight indicator.

 

[NL_Mutso]

Seems about right. Even the African pack which has some strong popular animal choices is getting less reviews just as SEA. Not that its any proof how well the DLC sells, but it might be a slight indicator.

There is a formula for calculating sales based on the amount of reviews. Also not proof but the amount of reviews does give some direction into popularity. Not talking about the actual content of those reviews.

 

[Tobs]

I have a few question to the OP:

-The title of the thread is a very bold statement: Reason SE Asia pack did not sell as well: less "iconic" animals?

What's you evidence tu make such a statement?

I suppose you've heard that from some CCs - because if you've heard it from Frontier official financial information, please share the source. Thanks.

I think the only bit of actual information (=facts) we know is that the Artic Pack is the best sold DLC (not surprising). From the interim financial report shared earlier this year by Frontier, we know that the Aquatic pack did perform extremely well.

-How do you know most casual players want more pieces and less animals? I'm genuinely interested. Because I believe (or think) it's right the opposite. Most casual players care about animals and less about pieces - and I think I'm not alone with that thought.

On that note, this one is an interesting thread to read:

https://twitter.com/x/status/1409531677043474433

Source: https://twitter.com/sdanwolf/status/1409531677043474433?s=20


-Do we have some objective parameters to analyse player engagement with PZ? Absolutely. SteamDB charts and Steam Charts can give a hint about player engagement [are they the best objective parameters? Probably not, but AFAIK, there aren't any better]. Of course, the key is observe how players engaged after each DLC release.

Both platforms analyse concurrent players (i.e. players playing the game at the same time). They take into consideration "Peak" and "average" (concurrent players) values for concurrent players.

These are the historic values from Steam DB (https://steamdb.info/app/703080/graphs/)

And these, from Steam Charts (http://104.131.2.73/app/703080)

If we observe at average players, we can see that players engagement after with the SEA DLC (April data) was higher than Australia (September '20) and probably Africa DLC (we don't have the full July data set yet, but based on the peak values, I think we can assume that SEA performed better than Africa). This might be surprising to you (or not), but SEA DLC average player engagement was very similar to the Aquatic DLC (December '20) engagement.

Now if look at peak concurrent players for each months, SEA DLC outperformed Australia, Aquatic and most likely, Africa DLC.

Of course, this data has to be looked at with caution - do not take it for granted. We don't know how they obtain the information (although I assume they are fed from the same source) neither how those platforms analyse the information they are fed (well, being honest, I haven't made an effort to see whether they share that info, so the information might be available). It should be used as a guidance to observe trends in players engagement.

Some of you might reply with: there was a massive Steam Planet Zoo sale after the SEA DLC pack. Well, surprise surprise, there's ALWAYS been a Planet Zoo Steam SALE after each DLC release. ALWAYS. If you don't believe me, look at this (https://steamdb.info/app/703080/)

Each DLC release has been followed by a Steam Planet Zoo sale.

You may ask why, so far, the Africa DLC values look bad compared to other DLCs (we don't have the full July set yet, but we have the Peak June values - achieved after the Africa DLC release). This could be due to the fact the lockdowns and restrictions are being lifted so player spend less time in front of their PC. We will probably have to wait until the next DLC is release, to see how the trend develops.

-------------------------

In summary, I'm not of the opinion that the SEA DLC did badly or didn't sell well (however, neither you or me know how well (or badly) the SEA DLC actually performed). I'm one that thinks the opposite - just based on the player PZ engagement.

I also think most of the casual players are animals lovers rather than builders.

 

[random goat]

Excellent post, @Tobs . I will always support the use of Steamcharts to analyze data and trends regarding videogames because it is indeed the only objective and reliable source of information. Of course that info has to be taken with a grain of salt, because there are many other factors to take into consideration.

For instance, I'm not sure if Steamcharts data is based on people who only play the game on online mode or if it also records data of offline players. If it only counts online players, you're potentially missing a lot of offline activity. Of course this would not be relevant to make comparisons across PZ DLCs or between PZ and Planco because they're both SP simulation games. But it can be worth having it in mind when we compare PZ with other videogames. Games with multiplayer modes and AAA games are more prone to be played online, whereas that's not the case for SP simulation games. One might think PZ is underperforming (to a large degree) with other games such as Elite Dangerous. But it might not be the case if Steamcharts is not counting offline-mode playing.

On the topic of CCs: I think most of us know by now that there are certain CCs that have their own self-interested agenda and will usually interpret information or even share deceiving (information)opinions to their own personal interest.

 

[Bearcat9948]

The narrative that the SEA pack "killed the community" is based off of nothing but personal feelings, making it a tired and flawed argument. No one can cite anything, other than lower view counts on YT videos, which I've stated before is a total false equivalency. Just because people aren't watching your videos, doesn't mean they aren't playing and enjoying the game. The steam charts prove that pretty clearly.

 

[DarthQuell]

Getting back on topic, if it were up to me I'd go with only animal packs in the future.

My favorite is the SEA pack, not only for having more species, but also because it added a bunch of "forgotten" animals that casual players wouldn't think of. That's my favorite part of the game: that Frontier doesn't stick with just famous, well-known species, but also goes with obscure animals, such as the pangolin, the bingturong, the giant otter, the cassowary, dall sheep.


I'm hoping that NA is an animal pack and we get a couple of well-known, requested species, but that also an obscure member also gets included; I find those more fun and interesting to use in my zoos

 

[NZFanatic]

My favorite is the SEA pack, not only for having more species, but also because it added a bunch of "forgotten" animals that casual players wouldn't think of. That's my favorite part of the game: that Frontier doesn't stick with just famous, well-known species, but also goes with obscure animals, such as the pangolin, the bingturong, the giant otter, the cassowary, dall sheep.

I see what you're saying but in a lot of those cases we missed out on something far more favourable for something rare. The pangolin and binturong I wouldn't say count, because one was in the base game, and the other is fairly well-known, but in the case of the other three there were options available which might have been more appropriate, and I'm saying that as someone who loves the Dall sheep.

IMO both the Australia Pack and the Aquatic Pack especially missed the mark in terms of animal choices.