I did not ask again on your “It’s the methods, not the end result.” reply because I felt silly asking things twice, but now that you bring it up again: What is the issue in this scenario?
Or do you mean that those who did not get it for free don’t get their money back?
I would like if you’d get the money back but I am not sure if this works on every platform.
Giving people a freebie, then throwing them under the bus by forcing them to buy the game again if they want to play any other level. The company is not treating its customers, potential or otherwise, with the respect they clearly deserve. I’m not entirely sure how this is confusing.
I would like if you’d get the money back but I am not sure if this works on every platform.
There’s a lot of headaches around doing multi-platform refunds, but they are certainly possible. Cyberpunk 2077 managed to get Sony to agree to it, and Valve and other companies made special exceptions (which also happened with Batman: Arkham Knight).
What do you mean with “buy the game again” here? What did I miss? Are we still talking about the freebie as you started the sentence with?
IOI be damned if they do 
damned if they don’t. 
At this point, it’s their fault for not using a time machine.
Does anyone realistically expect them to be like, “We made a mistake.”?
No. They’ll hold onto the idea that they were “being helpful” by offering this stand-alone mission(?) or everything associated or what came with it.
So, again… I’m wondering if the issue was that it wasn’t or didn’t seem fair, given what they were charging for it compared to a larger part, because…
I don’t think I ever found out (the Sapienza pack can be yours today! All for the unbelievable price of $19.95!) if someone paying $XX into it got them that much more of a discount for the remaining content. That’s the only way it would’ve been justified.
I agree with Urben. What do you mean with “buy the game again” when the thing didn’t cost money in the first place? I don’t think giving the Sapienza pack for free is forcing anyone to buy anything.
The issue with the upgrade being delisted only affects people who bought Sapienza, not the ones who got it for free, who essentially got a much better starter pack.
I don’t see a problem with it being given away for free prior to delisting either tbh. It caused a big enough surge of players on Steam that if even only a small number of them end up buying something, it was a smart move before pulling the plug on the pack for good.
It affects anyone who got the pack, as a part of the freebie, or if they got it by purchasing it before that point.
And “buy the game again” means “buying H:WOA” in its entirety".
I more mean that this will be a problem later on down the line; I.E: If a player wanted to continue playing outside Sapienza, the they’ll have to buy H:WOA. That’s the kind of force I’m talking about. They don’t need to force your hand early on if they can do the same thing and get the same effect later.
So apparently I’m on my own for thinking that they should’ve just delisted it without the promotion, as that would’ve made for a more sincere move on their part in correcting something they did wrong. Yes, the freebie caused people to play more, but those numbers will go down again once more people realise the issues.
This pack has caused nothing but trouble, and even in death, will continue to do so.
Again, I don’t get why this is a bad thing, that’s the whole point of a free entry point, that’s why some people have been advocating for making Paris part of the starter pack. You get to try the game for free and if you like it you buy it, if you don’t, it doesn’t matter because you didn’t pay anything to begin with, you’re not losing money. It’s a much more consumer friendly way of selling the game than whatever the hell they tried to do with this pack.
It was a smart decision considering that the steam summer sale is close by.
I’m not against a free entry point, or even Paris being in the FSP (I’m very much an advocate for that!). I’m not sure why this reasoning is being transplanted into another, albeit similar, context, when I was not talking about the FSP.
I think what Drib is trying to get at is, there are two groups of players who start the game with this pack: those who decide they like the game and want to keep playing it, so they buy it, and those who decide they don’t like the game and walk away. But there’s a third category in play that’s not being properly considered: those who play this pack, want to play the rest of the game, but then realize that they have to buy the game as a whole, including the map they already have, instead of being able to just buy the ones they’re missing. This group will walk away even if they like the game because they realize that they are being essentially forced to pay to get a map they already have, again, in order to get everything else, and will be upset over such a practice being implemented by the company offering. Meaning that IOI is losing potential players they could have kept because of the way this arrangement has been implemented.
Assuming I’m correct, I see where Drib is coming from, but my guess is that the number of people in this third category will be minimal and not much of a loss. But, the principle of the matter, that IOI enacted such a strategy to begin with, is disconcerting.
Huh? How is the group of players that started with the pack and buy it different from the other group that… buys it anyway?
Maybe the 3rd group realizes they’re being screwed over while the first group either doesn’t realize it or doesn’t care.
I still don’t know if someone buying the pack gets a fair discount for the remaining content.
Does anybody know or have evidence whether a discount is given or not?
Which other group are you referring to?
Other group? Look at the lines I quoted from your reply. I included line breaks to separate the 3… or 2 you were talking about. When scrutinized, the 1st group/example you gave sounded like the 3rd group. And the similarity is that they both BUY the rest of the game. Unless you were saying group 1 buys it, but group 3 wants to buy it, but thinks it’s a ripoff. 
This one. And I think that’s what @Dribbleondo is talking about, too.
I agree that it’s not a bad thing for people who got the Sapienza edition on it’s last day, when it was free. However, before that, it was being sold for a price just like any other edition of the game, and it seems these people will not get any type of discount on buying the full game, despite paying for a part of it.
I see what you’re talking about, but once again I don’t think there is an issue with people who received that for free. If people paid for it yes, it is a scam, that’s what the Sapienza pack was to begin with, a dirty scam. But when they get it at no cost, it’s the same as with any other free entry point.
I don’t see any difference between this and any other demo/free trial from any other game, or
even with the starter pack (including the hypothetical case where Paris get added to that) or the free location rotations IO did some years ago. If people buy the game after trying those they’re technically also paying for content they already played.
But, I think Drib is referring to the people who may back off from buying it at all just because of this practice, resulting in a loss of potential customers.
At least someone understood my case. Glad I’m not going insane.
Hey,
So from what I understand the persons that have Episode Sapienza can use the WOA Upgrade bundle.
I just got back from twitchcon so checking into what I have missed.
You can’t clicking it just sends you to the steam homepage not sure about other platforms but it’s probably the same for them
