|
Does this really matter, though? If a game advertises itself as "free to play," I (and, I would suspect, many others as well) expect just that - to be able to log on and play without spending any money. Whether other players keep the game alive by spending real money for credits that I might or might not purchase with money acquired in-game, or whether the game is kept alive by imms who pay all the bills for server maintenance is irrelevant.
Furthermore, if said game is also a commerical venture in which players can pay for various perks or advancements, I will readily assume that I will either have to (a) pay to remain on par competitively, or (b) find an alternative means, if there is one, of remaining competitive. And, contrary to what some people have tried to argue, I think any reasonable player can be given credit for being able to figure that much out upon deciding to play a game such. Players can and do play such games without getting ripped off or cheated or exploited and lured into paying for addictive behaviors over which they apparently have no control.
There's nothing unethical, dodgy, dubious, innacurate or questionable about a game claiming to be free to play when you can in fact play it for free. Any reasonable person knows that if such a game does offer benefits for play it could well mean that the free play might have some limitations when it comes to competing with paying players. Give such players credit for being able to decide for themselves whether such limitations make the free version of the game still worth their time.
|