Why do the DLC's have so few animals

[12344321]

A private company wanted to make money from the product they released and risked investing in?

I am shocked.

The zoo game. Purposely omitted species from the game...just so they could SELL YOU THOSE ANIMALS later...for a higher price. And you love it.

"What's that, an aquarium game without fish??? Fine with this community! I'll just buy them years later for $10! Yeah, that seems like a fair price for imaginary fish."

 

[yoav_r]

The zoo game. Purposely omitted species from the game...just so they could SELL YOU THOSE ANIMALS later...for a higher price. And you love it.

"What's that, an aquarium game without fish??? Fine with this community! I'll just buy them years later for $10! Yeah, that seems like a fair price for imaginary fish."

Who's to decide what's a "staple" animal and what's not? In comparison, ZT2 had no orangutans, indian elephants, tapir, giant tortoise, or asian rhino species. All of these came in expansion packs. Frontier kept some popular species for DLCs, but also put a lot of popular animals in the base game, which could've been kept for a DLC.

If they'd put only the most popular animals in the base game, you'd lose both the biodiversity and conservation of more niche species, and you could never make a satisfying dlc, because all the headliners would've already been present in the game from the get-go.

Had that been the case we'd be having a "birds of southern Quibec" situation, where the DLC would be niche and people would complain over the lack of popular animals, which would also kill the longevity of the game support. The game needs profitable DLCs for it to be supported.

 

[ElectricMonk]

Who's to decide what's a "staple" animal and what's not? In comparison, ZT2 had no orangutans, indian elephants, tapir, giant tortoise, or asian rhino species. All of these came in expansion packs. Frontier kept some popular species for DLCs, but also put a lot of popular animals in the base game, which could've been kept for a DLC.

If they'd put only the most popular animals in the base game, you'd lose both the biodiversity and conservation of more niche species, and you could never make a satisfying dlc, because all the headliners would've already been present in the game from the get-go.

Had that been the case we'd be having a "birds of southern Quibec" situation, where the DLC would be niche and people would complain over the lack of popular animals, which would also kill the longevity of the game support. The game needs profitable DLCs for it to be supported.

… if we got DLC at all. If DLC aren’t profitable Frontier will stop making them and the game will stop being supported.

 

[SanRazo618]

I agree with bigger dlcs at a higher price. I think we’ll get that with aviaries or aquariums eventually. I also love @Leaf Productions idea about the 2-3$ reskin animals. I need diversity in my choices to distinguish my franchise zoos from one another. And it would keep the community engaged. It seems like a no brainer. But I imagine the team is very small making that difficult. It’s kind of frustrating. As a community we want to give frontier more money but they don’t seem to have the resources necessary to reach those potential profits. Regardless I appreciate frontier for giving me games I’m going to play for years and years