|
I'm afraid I can't quite follow your logic there. How is it that advertising a game as free to play (which it is, let's not kid ourselves) results in an individual then paying $200 in the first place? I mean, if it was Kimberly's prerogative to play for free, which is entirely her option, she isn't going to be spending that money. No amount of policy ignorance (which a brief scan of the website or about ten minutes of play time would clear up) would lead to this scenario, at least not where concerns whether the game should be considered free to play or not.
As a side note, Achaea's success speaks volumes for the credibility of its business model. I can't speak for the numbers exactly, but enough people do very well for themselves without spending a dime (myself included for the first two and a half years or so there) that claiming that the playing field becomes irrevocably unbalanced by the pay for perks system is simply inaccurate.
|