Bryce Boltzman never dies, and neither does this game.
I really have to hand it to Konami. Even though recently released action title NeverDead hasn’t really been treated all that well by reviewers, they’re continuing right along and supporting it with DLC packs.
The first one, aptly titled ‘extension pack volume 1’ is available right now on the PSN and Xbox Live. I can’t seem to locate the link for the title on Playstation Network, but it’s going for 320mspts on Live- that’s a pretty high price tag for a game that didn’t exactly impress too many.
NeverDead Expansion Pack Volume 1 is now available for download and includes all-new online experiences with a new playable character, pop-idol Nikki Summerfield, three additional challenges within the expanded Asylum level, and two new online costumes for the main character, Bryce Boltzmann.
That’s numero uno- the second pack will be out on the 28th (Not the last day of the month this year! Leap year FTW!) and brings a decent amount of content with it too.
In Volume 2, fans can enhance their online playing experience with new playable character, NADA Chief Sullivan, three new challenges within the expanded Sewers level, and two additional online costumes for Bryce Boltzmann.
Honestly, you do get a pretty good amount of stuff, it’s just that that high price tag is more than a little put-offish. I can’t imagine all that many players are going to bite on it. And it’s really a shame, because Konami obviously believed in the game (they pre-made a pair of expansions after all) and the concept is kinda fun.
Too bad that no one is going to buy this. So few people bought the game — and even fewer still enjoyed it — that I can't imagine that these DLC packs are going to make even a small amount of profit, never mind a return on the investment.
This is also sort of rage-inducing about the state of the industry and it's dependency on DLC packs, even (especially?) for games that don't deserve them. Obviously these packs were designed prior to release, else the company would've seen that they didn't have a fanbase to appeal to and, thus, wouldn't have commissioned this sort of extra content. Making this stuff prior to release just gives them an easier way to make a few extra bucks.
Hopefully it will fail miserably, much like NeverDead, and prove the point that designing DLC simply to have DLC is an insult to the customer.
Too bad that no one is going to buy this. So few people bought the game — and even fewer still enjoyed it — that I can't imagine that these DLC packs are going to make even a small amount of profit, never mind a return on the investment.
This is also sort of rage-inducing about the state of the industry and it's dependency on DLC packs, even (especially?) for games that don't deserve them. Obviously these packs were designed prior to release, else the company would've seen that they didn't have a fanbase to appeal to and, thus, wouldn't have commissioned this sort of extra content. Making this stuff prior to release just gives them an easier way to make a few extra bucks.
Hopefully it will fail miserably, much like NeverDead, and prove the point that designing DLC simply to have DLC is an insult to the customer.
I honestly and truly love DLC, and I have a broad belief in what constitutes "good" DLC. I only buy DLC for the games I really enjoy, but for those games I tend to buy a lot of DLC.
So, for instance, I bought the various costume packs as well as the extra stages for Dynasty Warriors Xtreme Legends 7. The costumes gave me that extra customisation for fun, the extra stages add extra gameplay to a game that's already pretty big.
I also intend on buying whatever Square Enix decides to throw my way in FFXIII-2 DLC. Serah swimsuit FTW.
The reason I do believe in DLC is what I believe 100% in supporting the game developers. This games industry (in part because a sizable portion of the vocal gamers are young) has a skewed understanding of capitalism. That is "we should get stuff cheap" – that's why the second hand games industry flourishes, and why price competition is so strong. This is not healthy, because it fails to fulfil the consumer's responsibility in capitalism – to exchange fair compensation to the producer of the goods they are consuming. Price is the reason so many studios have closed in recent times, not profitering by the publishers (remembering that publishers have an ethical responsibility to return dividends to shareholders).
So what am I getting at? DLC is a high profit margin sale for the publisher. It's relatively inexpensive to produce (the character model of Serah already existed. Making a bikini costume for her would cost Square Enix a fraction of what they would pay to develop a model from scratch), so more of the sale money gets back into the publisher's bank accouont.
So I look at DLC as almost a donation situation. If you like game A (NeverDead in this case), then it's almost an ethical act as a consumer to support it by purchasing the DLC.
I honestly and truly love DLC, and I have a broad belief in what constitutes "good" DLC. I only buy DLC for the games I really enjoy, but for those games I tend to buy a lot of DLC.
So, for instance, I bought the various costume packs as well as the extra stages for Dynasty Warriors Xtreme Legends 7. The costumes gave me that extra customisation for fun, the extra stages add extra gameplay to a game that's already pretty big.
I also intend on buying whatever Square Enix decides to throw my way in FFXIII-2 DLC. Serah swimsuit FTW.
The reason I do believe in DLC is what I believe 100% in supporting the game developers. This games industry (in part because a sizable portion of the vocal gamers are young) has a skewed understanding of capitalism. That is "we should get stuff cheap" – that's why the second hand games industry flourishes, and why price competition is so strong. This is not healthy, because it fails to fulfil the consumer's responsibility in capitalism – to exchange fair compensation to the producer of the goods they are consuming. Price is the reason so many studios have closed in recent times, not profitering by the publishers (remembering that publishers have an ethical responsibility to return dividends to shareholders).
So what am I getting at? DLC is a high profit margin sale for the publisher. It's relatively inexpensive to produce (the character model of Serah already existed. Making a bikini costume for her would cost Square Enix a fraction of what they would pay to develop a model from scratch), so more of the sale money gets back into the publisher's bank accouont.
So I look at DLC as almost a donation situation. If you like game A (NeverDead in this case), then it's almost an ethical act as a consumer to support it by purchasing the DLC.
Wow that was long, lol. I have an idea for an opinion piece for the website. Excuse me 😛
Wow that was long, lol. I have an idea for an opinion piece for the website. Excuse me 😛
I agree with you on the whole and, for developers who I feel have provided me a product that is worthy of my attention and money, I will gladly fork over the cash for anything they give me. However, I think that blindly giving them money simply because it's the "ethical" thing to do, whether the content is worth that money or not, is a bit naïve.
I'd much rather donate the money directly to the developer for no return than pay for some substandard DLC; doing so would merely give them the impression that they should continue producing said substandard DLC based off of existing assets. This is especially frustrating when it is content that could just as easily have been released within the full release, such as map packs — or, in the case of NeverDead, "expanded maps", whatever that means — or weapons or challenges.
DLC content such as Undead Nightmare for Red Dead Redemption, or The Shivering Isles for Oblivion, or even the costumes for Dynasty Warriors are either completely optional — thus allowing you to justify it based on your level of support for the developer — or so different from the original content that you'd truly be missing out if you didn't acquire them yourself. The stuff that is being offered by NeverDead seems little more than a cashgrab by a studio desperate to make a profit on a game that failed miserably in the market.
In my opinion, anyway. 😛
I agree with you on the whole and, for developers who I feel have provided me a product that is worthy of my attention and money, I will gladly fork over the cash for anything they give me. However, I think that blindly giving them money simply because it's the "ethical" thing to do, whether the content is worth that money or not, is a bit naïve.
I'd much rather donate the money directly to the developer for no return than pay for some substandard DLC; doing so would merely give them the impression that they should continue producing said substandard DLC based off of existing assets. This is especially frustrating when it is content that could just as easily have been released within the full release, such as map packs — or, in the case of NeverDead, "expanded maps", whatever that means — or weapons or challenges.
DLC content such as Undead Nightmare for Red Dead Redemption, or The Shivering Isles for Oblivion, or even the costumes for Dynasty Warriors are either completely optional — thus allowing you to justify it based on your level of support for the developer — or so different from the original content that you'd truly be missing out if you didn't acquire them yourself. The stuff that is being offered by NeverDead seems little more than a cashgrab by a studio desperate to make a profit on a game that failed miserably in the market.
In my opinion, anyway. 😛
Screw an opinion piece: I think we have a topic for you and I to discuss on our podcast! Haha!
Screw an opinion piece: I think we have a topic for you and I to discuss on our podcast! Haha!
Glad to be of service guys 😉 at least Bryce Boltzman was good for something.
Glad to be of service guys 😉 at least Bryce Boltzman was good for something.