The problem is not fixed until the previous 2 DLC are made permanently available.
Its possible that the Bruce Lee and Eminem packs are doomed to live in the time-limited DLC experiment forever.
IO may have negotiated deals with Bruce Lee’s estate/Eminem with the time-limited stuff in mind, so the entire deal may have been drastically altered because of it. If that did happen, they’d likely have to go through the process of renegotiating a deal/playing for lawyers to draw up contracts etc that it could just fall into the “not worth it” category.
Afterall, The Undying was destined to rot inside the game alongside The Wildcard until the CelebrET strategy was developed and gave them a reason to renegotiate a deal with Sean Bean.
Of course, this is all speculative but there is a chance that its not as simple as “we want it, so IO must do it”.
7 Likes
I don’t know how likeness rights work, but a solution to having to re-negotiate each time a celebrET is re-activated could be to lease the rights for a smaller but recurring fee. That way they can use them until the end of the WoA life cycle. It also prevents the conversation of “Well WoA only has [ x ] months left, is it worth dropping [x amount] to get the Undying re-activated one last time when we’re so close to the end?”, they’ll already have the lease, which expires when WoA does
Or, people could just buy the DLC while it’s out for an entire month and not have to worry about it, one-and-done. We saw this same thing with the Disruptor DLC, who was available for six months, and people who knew it was out during that time and didn’t spend the $5 dollars to get it then are now griping how they can’t access the items that came with it now that it’s de-listed. Had all that time to spend less than a homeless person makes begging on a street corner in a day to get permanent access to the ET and its accompanying accessories, chose not to, and are now upset that it’s gone? Buy the damned thing when you have the chance! Lee and Shady were out for over a month, and those who got their DLCs can now play them in Arcade as we see fit, so the solution was right in front of us and if you didn’t take it, that is kinda your own goof.
5 Likes
Why should anyone have to buy it as soon as possible? When it was released everyone was under the impression the DLC would be permanent, so why should there be any urgency?
Similar to the point above, but this response also fails to recognize future players and their ability, or inability, to access this content. Hitman is a singleplayer game. Time-limited content, let alone time-limited PAID content, shouldn’t be a thing.
I’m not going to ring on this in any further messages because I know you love to argue, but this entire response comes off as naive and undermining 
8 Likes
I am talking specifically about those players who are already involved and aware of the situation and the time limit and still don’t act on it, as specified in my statement here:
, which applies not just to the Disruptor but each DLC.
Even if they thought it was permanent, why didn’t they already get it? It was there for months. There was no reason to not get it right away and start accessing the content contained within. There may not have been an existing sense of urgency, but there was no need to dawdle and procrastinate.
Because you’re not seeing my greater point, which is that players who are already here and already have access to these DLCs, time limited or not, but especially those which are, have no reason to not obtain the DLCs at the earliest opportunity. And if they choose not to, for whatever reason, those specific players really have no cause for complaint, beyond the traditional complaint of having to pay for it in the first place. New players who come later are another story.
2 Likes
Who knows? It’s an irrelevant question. Maybe someone couldn’t afford it when it released. Maybe someone was waiting for a sale. Maybe someone couldn’t play the game. It literally doesn’t matter.
You’re speaking for yourself here.
7 Likes
It is true that the ship has probably sailed at this point, and there are lot of things that might have factored into that.
For one, Eminem and Bruce Lee’s estate might have felt disinclined to associate with Hitman for extended time period i̶n̶ ̶c̶a̶s̶e̶ ̶o̶f̶ ̶n̶e̶w̶ ̶s̶e̶x̶ ̶o̶f̶f̶e̶n̶d̶e̶r̶ ̶c̶o̶n̶t̶r̶o̶v̶e̶r̶s̶i̶e̶s̶ ̶d̶o̶w̶n̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶ ̶l̶i̶n̶e̶, so the deal was time-limited in its entirety in their interest. Note that real names of Bruce Lee and Eminem were used in the content, unlike other DLCs with fictional characters (although played by real people), it definitely adds to that factor. I think Bruce Lee’s representatives in particular are understandably quite protective of his memory, as evidenced by Once upon a time in Hollywood controversy, which is why I imagine he’s not the actual mission target (not that that would have been appropriate regardless)
If that is the case… It’s still a bad decision by IOI in the first place. It’s not like this wasn’t a learned lesson with Gary Busey, as starting with Sean Bean, ET celebrities would take on fictional personas. Was there really nothing to be done to not make the content entirely inaccessible in a month? No way to negotiate the outcome where more players could play the missions, a large chunk of work by programmers, artists and voice actors wouldn’t go down the drain, IOI would get more sales from the DLCs and maybe even Eminem/BLEstate would get more royalty money from those sales? Unless, of course, the decision to make the DLC purchases time-limited was entirely IOI’s idea in the first place, which would make the situation even more absurd.
I know what you mean, but it’s a terrible take nonetheless. People can’t be expected to pay for the product within some arbitrary and unnecessary time limit if they don’t or can’t do it at the time or are not even aware of it in the first place. They might be on vacation, they might be absorbed in work, they might have health issues or other life struggles, they might simply be taking a break from a game just to come back to it later or as mentioned – not even be a Hitman player at the time. Christ, even a person already owning the DLC wouldn’t be able to play it if later they decide to play Hitman on another platform. People’s lives shouldn’t revolve around Hitman and its oddly specific DLC sales, especially when the reason for the time limit is poor decision on IOI’s side that most likely could have been avoided.
4 Likes
It actually does, because not one person who has voiced complaint that I have seen has stated it as being unable to afford it. Or really, any reason at all. Only upset and discontent at it not being available, and regret at not getting it when they had the opportunity. So why not do so? It is always a possibility that content available at one point one be available at a later point, so even if one has no interest in actually playing DLC at one time but know they will want to later, they should obtain it as soon as they can and then just wait to actually play it until they’re ready.
I’m speaking from the sensible position.
All that is well and good, but again, I am speaking specifically about those players who are part of the community regularly, know the content is there, know it’s going to go away in the case of the time-limited ones (questions about whether it would be gone during the Lee season were all over), and simply don’t, for whatever reason. You know it’s there, you’re part of the community, but you don’t get it when you can, even for ones that are not time limited but could still be lost at some point for one reason or another. Why not get it while it’s there? If you don’t want to - not can’t, but won’t - and then it’s gone later, why are you complaining? You had your shot and didn’t take it. This is a very narrow field, I’m not applying it to every person who misses getting the DLC, or even most, but those who fall into that range.
2 Likes
The Disruptor is a completely different situation. IOI didn’t give any advance warning they were going to delist it because it was removed as soon as McGregor’s sentence was known.
From your own point of view perhaps, but in regard to what’s available to new players and game preservation in general, you’re just defending a terrible marketing decision and people whine about it simply because it’s objectively terrible.
8 Likes
I already addressed this point, and how, regardless of whether we knew it was going to leave or not, it was there for almost a six month period, and people who knew it was there simply didn’t get it for whatever reason, and they could have. I addressed this very talking point after it happened in fact.
I’ve addressed this point as well just a while ago and how I am not talking about new players or people who missed out because they weren’t able to actually play the game until it was too late.
I’m repeating myself now and you guys aren’t paying attention to the specific category of players whom my points are addressed to, which is not the wider fanbase. We’re getting off topic now and spamming the threat with repeated points that I keep having to repeat myself who they’re intended for.
2 Likes
I don’t think IOI is the reason Bruce Lee and Eminem were limited. None of the others are, so when you think about it a little bit I’d assume it has more to do with the celebs themselves and what IOI was able to come to an agreement on with them. So saying someone should’ve got fired is just ridiculous. I also agree.. buy the damn DLC if you want it so badly. If you haven’t learnt your lesson since disruptor being delisted, then you have no one to blame but yourself. We can whine that it’s wrong and blah blah but at the end of the day it’s $5 not spent. Boo hoo.
2 Likes
Never expected to see FOMO being defended so fiercely on this forum. What a strange time to be alive indeed.
5 Likes
Not defending FOMO, which I don’t believe should be a thing, so much as not sympathizing with those who are aware of time limits, or even potential time limits, choose not to act, and then complain.
2 Likes
Which user(s) are you talking about here exactly? Now I don’t keep track of who-complains-about-what-and-when, but my impression is that people complain about time-limited DLCs…
- when they are announced, …
- when they are available and …
- when they are unlisted. …
… more often at multiple of these than only at (3) when they were indifferent at (2).
I think all three phases are valid time frames to complain about it, regardless if it is bought during (2) or not. For example a user could be sympathetic with more casual players who missed it for valid reasons regardless if the user decided to buy it themselves.
You started this whole string of replies to this post:
…and your limitation of users was not given there. It kinda feels like you constructed something just to give a counter argument for the sake of it. While, sure, someone should not complain if insert-situation-of-someone-who-should-not-complain but does that add something to the discussion here? In the end the DLC is either available for anyone, both hardcore fans and casual players, or not. The difference is not important for this main question of making the previous 2 DLC permanently available.
That being said, regarding you keep replying despite noticing things are repeating, I am reminded of this reply I did to you some time back:
6 Likes
I am not buying a DLC that is time-limited and was clearly done to pressure people into paying and playing. That’s the point of FOMO such as this. This is not as simple as you’re making it out to be.
Far as I can tell, the people who really want the DLC just want to replay the mission. The unlockable weapons seems to be a freelancer-specific complaint because it’s impossible to get the weapons now.
…uh…huh.
Hitman is a piece of entertainment, not feckin’ food. You are not obligated to buy it, or it’s DLC’s. This is an absurd comparison.
Shady was only out for one month precisely. But that’s not the biggest issue I have here.
This entire comment ignores the morality of it all. It’s selfish and harmful to actively engage, much less encourage people to buy stuff like this. It encourages customers to trade away their power as consumers to vote with our wallet for just buying everything they release, irrespective of how bad or good it is for the game.
There are many reasons why people didn’t buy the DLC’s (because the pressure tactics into buying put them off, they didn’t have time, or didn’t know it existed, among other reasons I cannot think of). This is insanely reductive of the opposing side.
Buy what you feel like if it makes you happy, especially in the world we currently live in, but do not demonstrably paint others as idiots for not doing so for reasons unknown to yourself.
2 Likes
From my perspective - I don’t care because I buy everything at day one. But overall it’s hasty move and I fully understand why people hate it. You got my sword. IOI just wtf.
See, this is at least a reason for not wanting to buy it. And you’re not lamenting that you missed your chance, you’re upset at having it be under certain conditions in the first place. Whole different story, and one that’s understandable, although not one I’d take.
You’re focusing on entirely the wrong thing here. The point is that $5 for anything outside of a piece of candy is cheap these days, so much so that even a beggar could obtain it (what they are obtaining it for is not relevant to the point). If you couldn’t get it because of price - assuming you’re someone old enough to be in charge of their own purchases - after a month of availability, you have far greater concerns than missing your chance to buy the DLC.
For the dozenth time, I am talking solely about those who choose to not buy it, then complain about missing their chance. No other reasons factor into my stance in this discussion.
Not defending FOMO just arguing that there’s no point in caring. You missed out on wasting $5. Oh no! Anyways.. I also don’t think it’s fair to put blame on IOI entirely when it was likely agreements with the celeb that resulted in it having to be limited. Someone earlier said “I hope that means that whoever came up with that timed limited shit got fired, never to return to the industry.”. That’s a bit over dramatic and should be called out as such.
1 Like