|
But this brings us back to context. I'm not questioning your definition of "free to play" (I've been pretty much the same definition all along) or "pay for perks." But, as I said in my previous post, your definition of "pay for perks" can be spot on and can be applicable to IRE's games, among others, but still be a less than optimal way to categorize such games. Stripped from the context of the current argument, your definitions are fine, but in the context of the current argument, they completely dance around the particular objection that was raised against simply using the phrase "pay for perks" without any further elaboration. My point was not that your definition is wrong or self-contradictory, but that it is not accurate enough for the purposes of providing players with useful information about what costs might be associated with any particular games and not helpful to game owners who understandably want to provide information about their games that is as accurate as possible.
|