Top Mud Sites Forum - View Single Post

Atyreus · 01-12-2006, 12:51 PM

I'm not attempting to apply a literal meaning to the phrase "free to play." I'm attempting to make a case for how it is can be expected to be understood in advertising (after all, this whole issue was set off by people accusing IRE of being dishonest and unethical for using the phrase "free to play" to advertise their games).

I'm not going to try to lawyer a line between what games can honestly, ethically, and legally advertise themselves as "free to play" and what games can't. I'll I've done is make some observations on why certain games probably don't advertise themselves as free to play.

Guild Wars does NOT advertise themselves as "free to play." Read their press release again. Their offer for "FREE online play" is obviously qualified by the assumption that you have purchased their game (unless you want to assume that they are going to be distributing their client for free, in which case they would most definitely be "free to play").

Likewise Gemstone and Threshold have, as far as I am aware, no intention of letting people play their games for free beyond a limited time period and are, thus, probably not likely to advertise themselves as free games or as "free to play" games. Given the obvious advantages of advertising something as free, we can only assume that they don't do so because they don't consider themselves to be in the business of providing "free to play" games. In fact, it wouldn't surprise me if either game would make efforts to prevent a player from repeatedly opening new accounts just for the sake of playing for free if they detected such activity. As I've explained, Threshold has rules in place that at least implicitly forbid such activity.

But, even if we were to accept limited-time free trials as an acceptable variant of the "free to play" claim, what does it matter? If anything, this would just strengthen the argument that IRE is being completely honest and above-board when they advertise their games as "free to play," considering you are never in jeopardy of being prohibited from playing further if you choose not to pay for the services they offer.

01-12-2006, 12:51 PM	#347
Atyreus Member Join Date: Feb 2003 Home MUD: The Dreaming City Posts: 60	I'm not attempting to apply a literal meaning to the phrase "free to play." I'm attempting to make a case for how it is can be expected to be understood in advertising (after all, this whole issue was set off by people accusing IRE of being dishonest and unethical for using the phrase "free to play" to advertise their games). I'm not going to try to lawyer a line between what games can honestly, ethically, and legally advertise themselves as "free to play" and what games can't. I'll I've done is make some observations on why certain games probably don't advertise themselves as free to play. Guild Wars does NOT advertise themselves as "free to play." Read their press release again. Their offer for "FREE online play" is obviously qualified by the assumption that you have purchased their game (unless you want to assume that they are going to be distributing their client for free, in which case they would most definitely be "free to play"). Likewise Gemstone and Threshold have, as far as I am aware, no intention of letting people play their games for free beyond a limited time period and are, thus, probably not likely to advertise themselves as free games or as "free to play" games. Given the obvious advantages of advertising something as free, we can only assume that they don't do so because they don't consider themselves to be in the business of providing "free to play" games. In fact, it wouldn't surprise me if either game would make efforts to prevent a player from repeatedly opening new accounts just for the sake of playing for free if they detected such activity. As I've explained, Threshold has rules in place that at least implicitly forbid such activity. But, even if we were to accept limited-time free trials as an acceptable variant of the "free to play" claim, what does it matter? If anything, this would just strengthen the argument that IRE is being completely honest and above-board when they advertise their games as "free to play," considering you are never in jeopardy of being prohibited from playing further if you choose not to pay for the services they offer.