|
Guild Wars is frequently described as "free to play" by reviews and such. Why? Because it is, indeed, "free to play" - once you've purchased the client.
I don't think anyone would have a problem with them advertising themselves as "free to play for the first month". Why? Because it clarifies the limitations of how free it is. Equally I wouldn't have a problem with Threshold advertising itself as "free to play, once you've paid the $50 registration fee", or The Eternal City advertising itself as "free to play for all existing Skotos customers", or Guild Wars advertising itself as "free to play, once you've purchased the client". Equally, I wouldn't have a problem with the IRE muds advertising themselves as "free to play, but pay to compete".
But advertise any of the above as simply "free to play" and it is misleading, because it avoids mention of the limitations of that free play - even though they are all, technically, free to play.
They require payment for competitive play. Sure, you can win contests, or get other players to pay for your credits - but you can do exactly the same thing on most other commerical muds. If I give Bubba a thousand gold pieces and the Dagger of Painful Castration in return for him paying my monthly subscription fee, does that make the game the free? Does that mean the mud in question could advertise itself as 'free'?
It was taken from , based on 8 major skills and 4 mini-skills. It has since been pointed out that the mini-skills require less lessons to train, but I've not yet been able to find out how many less - so I shall recalculate by ignoring mini-skills.
It requires 294 credits to max a skill.
You earn the equivilent of 166 credits for reaching level 100 (1000 lessons/6).
294*8 = 2352 credits for 8 skills. 2352-166 = 2186 bought * 100 / 2352 total = 92.9% of your skills coming from credits, assuming you have no mini-skills.
And those credits will have been purchased by the same players who are being told that the mud is 'free'.
|