Im sure the NA peeps will love it. For me as an European guy its rather meh i have to admitt. Swapping in the porcupine or canada goose for the lynx would bring some more appeal for me, since they are also pretty common over here
Spring 2024 DLC Speculation
- Thread starter The Carcharodontogenius
- Start date
I’ll do a couple other lineups that are more balanced.
All have Native American scenery
Woodlands Pack
. ABB
. NA River Otter
. Elk/Wapiti
. Virginia Opossum
. Common Garter Snake Exhibit
Plains Pack
. Black-footed Ferret
. Burrowing Owl
. Patagonian Mara
. Greater Rhea
. Grass Snake Exhibit
Forest Pack
. ABB
. Elk/Wapiti
. North American Porcupine
. Mallard
. Northern Flying Squirrel WTE
Last edited:
Anniversary update?
The bunny needs a new rig, so highly doubt it would be an anniversary animal. Plus bunnies = peoples attention which also = DLC making
He can take the spot of the opossum thenThe bunny needs a new rig, so highly doubt it would be an anniversary animal. Plus bunnies = peoples attention which also = DLC making
I like all of these ideas!
It will depend on what theme Frontier went with - Woodlands, Boreal, Tundra or even Taiga focusing only on NA animals, but I think the one that would almost certainly be in any of them would be the ABB. While not as highly requested as some other animals, I'd say it's almost without question North America's most iconic zoo species mammal not in the game as yet.
After that - high contenders - Muskox, Elk/Wapiti, Walrus, Canadian Lynx - between some highly requested animals and some easier to do animals I think 1 or 2 of any of these would decent chance to make it in.
Middle ground contenders - Wild Turkey, as America's second most iconic bird (and some may say most iconic). North American River Otter (almost put up one level but neither a group Frontier focuses on a lot), Black Footed Ferret (same family as the Otters but is a conservation icon hence why it's not in the group below this one) I think it's possible we may get 1 of this group, but no more than that.
Oddballs - Mallard, Virginia Possum, North American Porcupine, Arctic/Snowshoe Hare (or another Hare or Rabbit). Between new rigs, difficulty of rigs, I think these may be a little less likely but still, Frontier likes to throw in oddballs every now and again. There's also no denying a Lagomorph would be very recognizable and iconic of a wild animal, the bigger issue with it is that it's not an iconic zoo animal. Which is why discussion on them hadn't come until recently so late into the game, they're just not thought of as being in zoos.
So for the 4 habitat animals, if we generally agree the ABB is definitely taking a spot, the other three spots would be one from each of these three groups, or two High contenders and one of either the Middle Ground or Oddball groups. Though there's a chance Frontier would just go with the bigger names in general and include the ABB and all 3 of the High Contenders.
Assuming we get any of this at all of course.
Would love this! Gharial needs a counterpart friendo
We currently only have one kangaroo, which lives in desert areas. An eastern grey (for example) would be both visually and climatically distinct - more so than another giraffe or zebra would certainly. This is even more the case for smaller macropods.
I would love a gray kangaroo species! After a tree kangaroo of course, but I think they would add a but more diversity.
“Asia needs it’s lion representation to!!”
I just can’t at this point.
They don’t need representation before we get unique walrusses, secretary birds, gelada and howler monkeys.
Another Flamingo? Try the Roseate Spoonbill or Scarlet Ibis instead.
I guess the local zoo you often visit have those animals probably and you only build parks using animals from that one zoo.
But this isn’t you local zoo the game, this game covers all the world and all animals in it.
I don’t understand people playing this game? They build only one zoo from their own continent and that’s it?!?
“I never play around with the tassie and kiwi as they aren’t found in North American zoos”
This just blows my mind
I just can’t at this point.
They don’t need representation before we get unique walrusses, secretary birds, gelada and howler monkeys.
Another Flamingo? Try the Roseate Spoonbill or Scarlet Ibis instead.
I guess the local zoo you often visit have those animals probably and you only build parks using animals from that one zoo.
But this isn’t you local zoo the game, this game covers all the world and all animals in it.
I don’t understand people playing this game? They build only one zoo from their own continent and that’s it?!?
“I never play around with the tassie and kiwi as they aren’t found in North American zoos”
This just blows my mind
Well yeah, it could be a third to half of the player base that bought the game to make their local zoo with all the animals they love seeing on a digital screen. Not everyone cares about global diversity, most of the player base seems to be north american and european so there is a leaning majority to what animals are found in those zoos.
It blows my mind much more that people bother wasting time on trying to convince each other that their wants are more "objectively needed".
There's no such thing as what's objectively needed for this game. Everyone has other priorities. Some people want unique animals even regardless of their status in captivity, some people want specific species to build zoos in specific areas, some people want to prioritize animals that are the most common in captivity, some people want animals with mechanics that aren't in the game yet and so on and on. There's no objective criteria without your subjective start point.
Purely based on my own criteria for instance, an Asiatic Lion is much more needed than a Walrus, as the first are more common in captivity than the other (especially in Europe). But I'm not going to go around telling people who want a walrus they're "wrong" for wanting one.
I really don't understand what's so hard about letting people voice what they would like to see in the game without going into endless discussions where each side wants to show how superior their wants are compared to the others.
Thank you Iben for wording what I see more and more here on the forums.It blows my mind much more that people bother wasting time on trying to convince each other that their wants are more "objectively needed".
There's no such thing as what's objectively needed for this game. Everyone has other priorities. Some people want unique animals even regardless of their status in captivity, some people want specific species to build zoos in specific areas, some people want to prioritize animals that are the most common in captivity, some people want animals with mechanics that aren't in the game yet and so on and on. There's no objective criteria without your subjective start point.
Purely based on my own criteria for instance, an Asiatic Lion is much more needed than a Walrus, as the first are more common in captivity than the other (especially in Europe). But I'm not going to go around telling people who want a walrus they're "wrong" for wanting one.
I really don't understand what's so hard about letting people voice what they would like to see in the game without going into endless discussions where each side wants to show how superior their wants are compared to the others.
Of course people are free to have preferences, but don't state your preference as an objectively need or better choice than other person's preference.
This, 1000 times this. I want what I want and I’m not wrong for wanting it. Other people want different things and they’re not wrong for wanting them either.It blows my mind much more that people bother wasting time on trying to convince each other that their wants are more "objectively needed".
There's no such thing as what's objectively needed for this game. Everyone has other priorities. Some people want unique animals even regardless of their status in captivity, some people want specific species to build zoos in specific areas, some people want to prioritize animals that are the most common in captivity, some people want animals with mechanics that aren't in the game yet and so on and on. There's no objective criteria without your subjective start point.
Purely based on my own criteria for instance, an Asiatic Lion is much more needed than a Walrus, as the first are more common in captivity than the other (especially in Europe). But I'm not going to go around telling people who want a walrus they're "wrong" for wanting one.
I really don't understand what's so hard about letting people voice what they would like to see in the game without going into endless discussions where each side wants to show how superior their wants are compared to the others.
If I’ve ever come across differently I apologize for it seeming that way. Just me voicing my own opinions on what I want. The only animal I take a stand against is s Manatee, and that’s because of technical reasons not because of any opinions about the animal themselves.
Last edited:
I mean, while I understand that you gotta respect what other people personally want, there are definitely objectively better additions, it doesn't all lie on the preference itself but on how many people have said preference, the more people want an animal, the more important it is for it to get added. I think that's why people in this forum can get frustrated. Of course, many animals are in a sort of limbo and you can't really tell if x is better than y, but there are others that definitely are.It blows my mind much more that people bother wasting time on trying to convince each other that their wants are more "objectively needed".
There's no such thing as what's objectively needed for this game. Everyone has other priorities. Some people want unique animals even regardless of their status in captivity, some people want specific species to build zoos in specific areas, some people want to prioritize animals that are the most common in captivity, some people want animals with mechanics that aren't in the game yet and so on and on. There's no objective criteria without your subjective start point.
Purely based on my own criteria for instance, an Asiatic Lion is much more needed than a Walrus, as the first are more common in captivity than the other (especially in Europe). But I'm not going to go around telling people who want a walrus they're "wrong" for wanting one.
I really don't understand what's so hard about letting people voice what they would like to see in the game without going into endless discussions where each side wants to show how superior their wants are compared to the others.
As simple as it is: if you put a pack with an asiatic lion and a pack with a walrus, the pack with the walrus will objectively sell better, because more people want a walrus than they want another lion. The fact that people are more willing to spend their money on something they don't have over something that is similar to what they have, that's where the "objectivity" lies. So more profitable = more needed, at least imo.
And honestly, Planet Zoo last year has done it rather poorly because they are still limiting themselves to the meta-wishlist while ignoring animals that are not even accounted for in there, which are birds and marine species. I am not sure why they would decide that is better not to make mad money on those options, and instead just keep doing requested clones that while can sell well they definitely aren't as profitable. I just hope that this year they finally give South America that well deserved love and announce whatever they plan to do in the future with the game or the franchise, until then I still birdlieve.
Last edited:
Yeah but that's the whole point I've been trying. Whatever "objectivity" means in this case is just based on the your starting criteria. From a business perspective it's whatever animals sells the best for the lowest cost. For @NZFanatic's perspective for instance it's whatever animals are available to make zoos in New Zealand. Two different perspectives, completely different outcomes, both equally objective.
You can be objective about your choices compared to the criteria you set up for yourself; but those criteria are always going to be subjective because we start from different perspectives from what we want out of this game.
Regardless, it's pretty pointless thing to get frustrated over it if you ask me.
People are going to want different things and whilst what we want as a community does seem to influence the animals chosen to be added, it's not like it's the only factor. Far from it.I guess the simplest explanation would be that the resource investment to do those animals is too high compared to the potential profit they're going to make.
The how, why, etc. behind it is as much as an unknown to me as it is to you though, I could spitball ideas from scenarios I've seen and experience (like, maybe they need more technical capability but they can't invest into that right now because of other projects), but without insider information we're forever going to be blind as to why they still haven't done birds.
I just wish they never went down the route of F1 manager and warhammer games. They are so good at making Planet Games and we could have had a few more by now, and more unique species for zoo
Once the next CMS game is announced and the next 2 are in full development we're pretty sure that's it for Zoo right? Because they still need a small team for F1 manager as they have a contract to release these games annually (unless they probably pay a fee to exit the contract). Not to mention with 20% job cuts.
Whatever happens, they should keep us informed. No more community managers to read these forums either.
Once the next CMS game is announced and the next 2 are in full development we're pretty sure that's it for Zoo right? Because they still need a small team for F1 manager as they have a contract to release these games annually (unless they probably pay a fee to exit the contract). Not to mention with 20% job cuts.
Whatever happens, they should keep us informed. No more community managers to read these forums either.
Haha, this pic is perfect, Bun-Bun is staring at us like, "Haven't you forgotten someone?"