On the “Episode Upgrade Pack” page, if you typed in the URL directly, it would jump to the Steam homepage.
Now it’s no longer possible to purchase it no matter what.
One more thing to add.
The “Sapienza DLC” is the only DLC on the “HITMANWoA” property that cannot be turned off.
All other DLCs can be turned off.
Could you please investigate this as well?
They cannot purchase the WoA Upgrade Bundle as this only includes the following:
This upgrade pack doesn’t grant the “HITMAN 3 Access Pass: HITMAN 1 Complete First Season” and “HITMAN 3 Access Pass: HITMAN 1 GOTY Edition” access passes that someone that owns Part One would already have.
An Episode: Sapienza player would have no access to H1 content outside of what Episode: Sapienza granted.
True.
It might be an exceedingly generous demo (but like, that’s not new these days - Metaphor Refantazio has a 3 hour one! -, and honestly a great marketing PR pull) but if anything it’s a great way to show off the amount of content, variety, and stealth puzzle systems of the full maps, asking players “if you like this, how about 20 Times the Content of it! (Full Game Upgrade available now)”
…
I haven’t confirmed myself but I heard that the Sapienza pack got you access to the Icon and Landslide bonus missions too, is that correct?
Because that’s a damn good deal and possibly why it was specifically offered on its own – but in 2016 terms when it was episodic. That time has long passed and this truly was one of the most baffling additions to the store page.
(Now hopefully they can rectify some issues like “Part One VR Supported [Does not support VR or Freelancer]” confusion that some recent steam reviews have noted confusion on.)
Yes
Let’s put this to rest.
Wow, just reading this thread now. People really have strong opinions on this lol. Let me make myself very unpopular.
I see absolutely no problem in IO giving people the option of a lower price entry. Sapienza is a great fucking level (plus bonus levels), and it also is more accessible and open than Paris, so I get the choice.
People here have exactly no experience in selling video games on a global market. It seems the logic is: big company = greedy for wanting to sell their product.
Lower price entries work. Why are we convincing a company that they’re selling their game wrong when it’s obviously working?
Episode One was a success for IO whether you like it or not. Whether you think it looks too convoluted or not. It works. Look up their financial report.
Where did you get your knowledge of what works and what doesn’t - your perfect intuition? No, you know better than actual professionals with data ofc
I just don’t think I have a say in how a company sells their product? What, because I bought it previously? I have a say in the content of the game that I bought, not how they sell their game in the future. That is for new costumers and their wallets to decide. The entitlement here seems off the charts.
Another thing is unethical behavior. I get outrage for that, but the only bad thing was listing WOA as 5.99 on store fronts when it was only Sapienza. That was shady, but could be an oversight. Removing that and I would have absolutely no problem or say in any of this.
On my lunch at work so haven’t got time to do a point-by-point response, but my quick bullet points.
I actually think adding a Hitman Woa part 2 (That includes New York and Haven Island) and Hitman Woa part 3 alongside the Hitman Woa part 1, would be a more reasonable way of giving players a cheaper entryway into the series.
However, defending Sapienza edition is just ridiculous, 1 location has no business being sold as a separate package. If it really was profitable, I doubt they would delist it.
I never claimed this and these are certainly not my beliefs. I said it because people in this thread are arguing also from a point of it being bad business. It most likely isn’t, based on how a lower entry (Episode One) previously made the game sell more. The only other argument is ethical, which:
With the exception of the unethical listing of WOA for 5,99 that I already called out myself - how is it anti-consumer? It states exactly what you get for your money? It’s another option. No one is forced?
I feel a key point you may have overlooked here is that Episode: Sapienza wasn’t really a lower price entry.
It was on sale for £8.50 in my country, with WoA: Part One priced at £24.99. So, sure, that’s a smaller number at first glance. But when you consider it on a ‘price per episode’ basis, WoA: Part One comes in at £4.17.
So, Episode: Sapienza is effectively twice as expensive as WoA: Part One.
That’s without even considering sale prices for WoA: Part One which dropped below Episode: Sapienza, even when the latter was itself discounted!
It was a more expensive option, disguised as a cheaper entry point. Clear as day anti-consumer tactics.
If you’re not particularly interested in ethics, then we probably have nothing further to discuss. But I totally understand why many were irked by this debacle.
Hm do the ethics of prices really come down to a math like that? Not sure it’s unethical if a baker sells a loaf of bread for 1/3 the price of 6 loafs. That’s just the way the baker set the price. Your choice is still free. Ethics do not come into it.
It’s called quantity discount and it’s a very common business practice. If you buy more, the price per item goes down.
And I’m being generous with that analogy, because you’re getting more than 1/3 with the bonus missions too.
But my point is, even if they were taking 20 for Sapienza and 25 for Episode One. They can set the prices of their products where they want at their own loss or gain and consumers have the free choice to buy or not to buy.
You can disagree with their business but as long as they’re not trying to conceal what you’re actually paying for at each respective price point, it simply is not a question of ethics. Bloated language.
I see the subtext here and I won’t engage. I care about right and wrong, yes. Who doesn’t.
Lol, this is a highly amusing sentence to write down in words and post on the internet.
Yeah, I don’t remember denying any of this. I just dislike it so I’m expressing my view. Is that allowed?
Oh, okay, great - thanks! I do disagree 
I believe that’s exactly what they did, as it happens.
Especially since those who own Episode: Sapienza must now repurchase the entirety of Part One (including Sapienza missions) if they want to own the full game.
Also, IO used the Sapienza episode as a reason to triple the price of Part One when it went on sale. It used to go down to $2.99, then once the episode was released it never went lower than $8.99.
I’m mostly convinced that was the main reason Sapienza episode was created - to justify an increase to the Part One sale price because it was selling so well.
I still don’t get the cheaper entry point argument. While I get It for part 1 since that is technically a full game, when you do it for a single map it just comes across as a glorified demo that you have to paid for. Why would you pay for a demo?
I also like to take part 1 succes with a grain of salt, since I believe the sole reason for that is because is on sale all the time, I doubt anyone who owns that has paid full price for it (at least on steam).
A great level does not mean new players need to deal with one more edition to work out. It was a nonsensical choice too, considering Paris was specifically designed to teach the player new mechanics outside the tutorial. It is an easy level, but not too easy. Has plenty of mission stories, bonus episodes, and has the most elusive targets. Sapienza may be a better level, with a lot of content too, but it was not made to ease players into a bigger level space. They chose it because the level was popular, that’s it – It’s not hard to figure that one out. The quality of the level has no real relevance to the issue of confusing new players either.
I’m not a businessman, nor do I work in that kind of market, but that does not mean any of our arguments are discredited on the matter. We were angry at IO selling a single-episode edition that stranded new players in the storyline, confused new players as to what to purchase, and came off as trying to make the game look cheaper, not give players a new “entry point”. If you watch their stream defending the edition, you’ll notice that they’re essentially saying the same thing but with different words, which leads me to believe that there’s very little motivation other than profit involved. Like they were trying to justify something people obviously hate and being backed into a corner.
I can’t corroborate this, but I get the feeling it was “successful” because it was constantly shown as the cheaper option pre-Sapienza Edition. The company was using dark pattern behaviour to make sure it was profitable, instead of making the game stand on its own merits.
Again, we don’t need knowledge of the business to know that people were absolutely livid at IO for adding this edition. And actual professionals with data make mistakes all the goddamn time. The 2016 episodic model, as an example. Doesn’t mean they’re right!
That is absurd. If you purchased something, especially a live service, and it’s doing yourself or anyone harm, then you should bring it up and discuss it, not stay quiet. It is madness to think that the customer should just “consume product, be happy, and don’t help anyone else”. That logic is insanely reductive to our power as customers.
This is not entitlement, it’s standing up for others who deserve to not be tricked out their money.
TWICE! This is the only company that can somehow make spelling errors and not make product pages properly. It was complete madness for the first hour of that promo, and I wasn’t particularly happy about it.
Even if it was an oversight, it was very misleading. And Now I have to deal with having the Sapienza edition on Steam, because god forbid anyone at IO check their product page before it goes live.
Help me? I’m not sure I comprehend. So you you can’t say that a specific thing is not about ethics on the internet? Or do you think that everything is about ethics?
Or maybe you just deflected and took that line out of context to not engage with my argument.
I said ethics specifically don’t come into the matter of quantity discount. It’s a choice a business gets to make. That can be good or bad business, but it specifically has nothing to do with ethics.
I said you can dislike their business choices, but your argument was about ethics, and you are shifting the goalpost. Your original post:
Your post was about how the quantity discount of selling Sapienza for 5.99 when Episode One is sold for 24.99 is unethical. That’s what I’m responding to.
Fine. 
Still not an ethical question.
I think intention matters in ethics. Now, this is another point entirely, but you could grand them that this is only the outcome of them responding to your guys’ backlash. Damned if they do, damned if they don’t.
But yeah, the option could be put back in for people to upgrade from Sapienza. I’m sure IO did it intentionally though because they clearly are satan.
I mean, 2.99$ is insanely cheap for 6+ maps? I wouldn’t exactly call it unethical to change your mind about that. At the end of they day though, they can price their own product how they want.
Sapienza + Sapienza Bonus Missions + ICA Training/Final Test. Plenty of stuff to play for a small price. Consumer gets to make the choice.
That’s up each consumer to decide. If they want it or not. It’s another option they have.
Speculation. You don’t know if that’s all that went into the decision.
I simply don’t agree. Paris feels restricted and daunting to new players. A lot of trespassing zones. Sapienza has huge open areas and is a much softer vibe with clear markers of where not to go (i.e. the mansion that has armed guards in front of it). As many mission stories, and one that actually opens up right when you enter the level (Rocco).
Seeing how they nerfed Paris in the newest ET, I know accessibility is on their mind when getting new players.
Well that part of my argument was specifically about people claiming it was bad business. I’m questioning how people here would know that a lower price point is bad business, when IO’s own sales data is indicating something different.
Eh. It’s the 2nd full mission of a 20 mission campaign. I think new players will be alright, not exactly getting spoiled.
If this is the case, why is your response anger? There is nothing maliciously gained by IO then. I don’t get it. That would just be IO shooting themselves in the foot, not a malicious action.
It’s some wild language you guys use. They have to justify somthing, like they really wronged you. You already bought the game, I assume. Why do they need to justify their buy options to you?
How is it dark-pattern behaviour when it says exactly what you pay for? I mean, it’s right there in the name. Who is gonna think that something called “Episode One” means getting a full game? A child maybe?
A few superfans on HMF and Reddit you mean. Does not represent the majority of players in any way. I don’t think you need to know business to have an opinion. I was responding to people calling it bad business based only on their perfect business-intuition. But the only actual datapoint we have regarding lower-point entries says that it’s been a success. Hence why they made the Sapienza option in the first place.
Doing harm? IO is doing us harm by adding another buy option. I can’t believe how evil they are.
It’s fine to give negative feedback to IO, but your language is way out of proportion. How exactly are they trying to trick people again? I acknowledge that listing WOA on storefronts with the Sapienza/Episode One sale price is shady. But they changed this. I don’t necessarily think that this was intentional, but it certainly could be.
Where else are they intentionally trying to trick people? Enlighten me.
I mean, you didn’t really deny it either.
All of the zones are clearly earmarked as such, and there are guards in front of the main stairwell and the rooms to the sides. This is a ridiculous claim. And the trespassing zones tend to be fairly large because the map is segmented based on verticality. Sapienza is much more fluid in that regard as it has smaller trespassing zones and more disguises. I’d argue Sapienza is less friendly to new players.
They “nerfed” Paris in the same way they “nerfed” Berlin in The Drop; they made perts of the map more open to players to fit a new design goal (Which, btw, is not nerfing something, it’s altering the map so it feels like a different location).
Spoilers isn’t the problem, it’s the fact that you’re clearly meant to build up the world and intrigue by playing the maps in order. Imagine skipping the first 20 minutes of a movie; all the worldbuilding, all the names that get thrown out there for you to remember, all the characters’ actions. It’s complete nonsense to start playing a game like this.
I’m angry because they had the kahuna’s to pull such a stunt upon new players. Is that not obvious by now?! You don’t need to be malicious to give an actively detrimental gameplay experience for new players, it’s that they didn’t listen, and refused to. As I said in my video, the developers claim they listen, but outright ignored players’ cries to remove the edition, and only did so after four and a half months after sheepishly admitting fault. There is no defense for behaviour of a company who ignores their userbase like that. They saw money to be made and decided to shaft the userbase and the new players, not helping either.
Christ on a bicycle…because it’s still a bad idea! My purchase of the game is completely irrelevant!
The cheapest option will show up on the steam drop-down when you search for HITMAN WOA, in a clear attempt at tricking the user into buying the game because it’s that cheap.
I showed a very steady stream of comments in my video. It was not just superfans who were angry at this. And even if that were true, wouldn’t you want to listen to the people who play your game the most?
Buying a version of a game that is cheap, with an implied upgrade path, then it being revealed that you essentially have to buy the game again (or buy an upgrade pack if you play on Steam). To a new player, they’ll just go for the cheapest option unless told otherwise because they’ll have no context for what this Sapienza Edition is, and the chart is so absurdly complex to read that it doesn’t help.
Hope that answers your question, but I sense It doesn’t.
Fair enough, that is a bit sketchy. Probably how the storefronts work technically, but that could be better ethically.
The rest of what you stated I simply disagree with.
You know what, I know your positions and I feel like I have expressed mine. It’s fine.
Regarding that point, IO was also eagerly advertising “up to 90% off” when it came to a sale on WOA as a whole.
I am using this screenshot because you can see the individual sales, the image was also used without further explanation. In December Part One was 90% off by the way.
Yes it is not straight up bad or a misinformation. It just played into the cards of their marketing.
Personally I think it is unethical to raise prices of digital products after their main development phase because the raise in the price is not representing any significant costs that have risen.
But Hitman did not get more expensive as far as I know and with these high quality Elusive Targets coming and to come I am willing to see that there are investments happening. On the contrary, we pay for WOA as much as we did for H2016 back in the day, despite the first and the second being contained in there.
The aspect I disliked more than using it for advertising sales was the fact that we constantly point out that buying the whole game is confusing for new players. That can be backed with reoccurring questions at Reddit and Discord. We moderators saw the need to make our own info graphic (read: not by IO) to explain what you get for which pack. That really should not be needed.
It is especially bad when people ask after they bought something they expected to contain more or is easier to upgrade.
Now I don’t want to keep banging on IO’s door here because the Sapienza pack is gone. I just want to add my perspective here for you.
