Talk:Free-to-play

"System requirements"

The article says high system requirements is a problem that can be solved by FTP. It should be explained, why. A full price game can be developed with low system requirements while FTP can also be designed with the latest tech in mind and high requirements. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.144.118.2 (talk) 12:06, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Exactly, that explanation doesnt make any sense. System requirements have nothing to do with the business model. --186.50.185.76 (talk) 00:03, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

"Free-to-play"

You can use the term "free-to-play", sure, but is it actually used professionally? I'd call software that is "free-to-play" freeware. And "Some of these games have both a free version and a Pay-to-play version that offers the full version of the game and all of the updates" sounds like shareware to me. And even if "free-to-play" is valid as a term of its own, an article isn't needed to tell the reader what can already be concluded from the name. There are currently 7 articles linking to free-to-play (excluding talk pages).

– Andreas Blixt ☺ 21:47, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

freeware implies everything is free. In F2P games it is only playing that is free, but there are always a lot of features that can be bought only with real money. Shinhan 09:35, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

This term is extremely common, actually, and there are quite a few games which use it. Advertisements were recently run for the game Warhawk which used the term to mean that the online portion of the game did not require a subscription (I believe games such as SOCOM on the Playstation 2 required a subscription to play online). Many MMOs, particularly ones out of Korea and China, use free-to-play business models (most are so-called micro-transaction models, meaning that players use real money to buy virtual game items). Many articles could link to this, but do not because the games are not well-known. Nonetheless, the page needs cleanup. --Anon 121.209.160.15 (talk) 13:32, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Wait, its 3 catergories, f2p dosent inculde b2p.

F2p = Free to play as in runescape, flyff, legend of ares. TOTALLY free to play and download. B2p = Buy to play as in guildwars and most gun games like cs, you buy it then your good no monthly stuff. P2p = Pay to play in which games that are montly payed like WoW , EQ and stuff.

I someone should edit this article in this way so it makes sense. B2p and f2p arnt the same thing =P. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.205.55.209 (talk) 22:47, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

You could have just done that yourself, 72.205.55.209 ~ R.T.G 22:35, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I removed "Others conduct free-to-play services as for gaming to be substantially alive but charging through other means, as for in-game items and money." from the end of the second paragraph because it seems a little redundant (other than mentioning in-game money), but also because it is unclear what the original editor intended to say. What does it mean for gaming to be "substantially alive" in this case? -- pale (talk) 19:01, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I removed "http://www[DOT]F2P[DOT]info Free 2 Play" (Broken link on purpose) It's not a proper citation, nor is it anywhere nearly a comprehensive listing of games currently available in the F2P market. It is essentially a bunch of readily available YouTube clips slapped together on a page with advertising. Someone is trying to profit off this page. Netgoth (talk) 16:09, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Shouldn't the term "free to play" only be hyphenated when it's being used as a compound modifier? That's how the term "pay to play" is used and is reflected as such in its wiki listing. —Alika|Alex 21:11, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

List/category?

Should a list of F2P games be put on this article? Should those games be in an F2P category? --92.104.55.141 (talk) 14:02, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I vote no, if only because the nightmarish amount of work that would be involved in maintaining a list of that nature. There are literally hundreds of F2P MMO games in the Western market alone. Opening it up to all F2P non-MMO flash/etc. games would put that number into the thousands, if not tens of thousands. Now, compound that for every market around the world, different localizations, etc. You get the idea. Netgoth (talk) 16:27, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Merge with Freeware?

Just turn this into a part of the Freeware article, perhaps? I dunno, this is somewhat stubby. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.57.99.1 (talk) 21:12, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely not, since freeware and free-to-play are arguably complete opposites. They could of course be included in article describing all software business models, but that is not what you said. -- EsotericRogue Talk 00:40, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Glassball?

How comes this is in this article 'has allowed Mojang, the company behind the game, to release a full version of Minecraft in November 2011.' according to my calendar it is still August 2011. So why does it say 'allowED [...] to release [...] in November 2011' so why does it sound as if November has already passed? 62.159.242.114 (talk) 07:30, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Changed it to "will allow". I used "has allowed" initially because I was trying to say that it allowed the company to prepare for a November 2011 release. i.e. They were so confident in the product that they were willing to say that a full version would come on X date in the future. Gary King (talk · scripts) 12:21, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Minecraft isn't even free to play. Irrelevant material removed. GDallimore (Talk) 14:02, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Freemium/Virtual good/Micropayment/Microtransaction

I was surprised we didn't have an article on microtransactions, which is a pretty significant topic related to the balloning F2P model, so I've started an article on the subject. I felt it was worthwile to create it a separate article from this one, as this article is already quite long, addresses only video games, and with consideration that microtransactions are also found in some paid games (for example TF2 before it went free, the buyable map-pack in Angry Birds Star Wars, etc). However, I've noticed we now have articles on the following distinct but heavily related topics:

• Free-to-play
• Micropayment - a very small transaction of money in a digital environment; the term seems more general than microtransaction and might for example include buying an MP3 for a dollar or a newspaper article for 50 cents in addition to buying an in-game item or what have you
• Virtual good - a digital/virtual good (such as an in-game item) that can be purchased via micropayment
• Microtransaction - the exchange of a micropayment for a virtual good or a small feature
• Freemium - an application that is free but offers microtransactions or subscription services

These concepts are all distinct (freemium can apply to software besides games, a microtransaction is specific to the purchase of an item or feature used inside an application and can occur outside of free games) but there is a lot of room for overlap between them, and I'm not sure how to break up the material or whether some of the articles should be merged. Any input on the subject would be appreciated. Some guy (talk) 06:07, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

http://www.gtaf.com.ar/

http://www.gtaf.com.ar/ removing this link for now but would like discussion in the future about the website in question. It is linked as a "list of free to play games" but only contains 1 game, the rest are "waiting to be filled out" and contain nothing more than a placeholder with no name of the game or timeline to show when, if ever, the rest of the list will be filled out. The website link therefore is misleading, and the website itself actually seems to be stealth advertising (we get a lot of that here on wikipedia, let's be honest) as opposed to a legitimate attempt at cataloging every free to play game in existence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.29.91.180 (talk) 17:12, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

"Pay 2 win"

The article is missing to point that some publishers tend to use the "gambling effect" described here, to make the advanced levels of free-2-play game virtually impossible to achieve without buying "premium" content, therefore pushing players to spend money, as otherwise will lost all time spended in previous levels. --Sully76cl (talk) 20:50, 7 January 2015 (UST)

I would be glad to include such stuff. Got a reliable source that encapsulates this idea? Zero Serenity ^{(talk - contributions)} 22:04, 7 January 2015 (UsT)

-- Yes There is publishers Wiki Users who removing this model from Wikipedia, They want hide this model because have an interest in it . Pay to Win is strong commercial model and like I see there in Wikipedia are people who defend this interest. One of strongest is in call of war, where Users can't even talk about it on forum, Their accounts are banned if They trying discuss about this model for certain period, problem mainly known in This game on forum, This topic is forbidden subject --Darek555 (talk) 07:51, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Pay to win needs its own article. There are many games which are not free to play and still include pay to win features, see for example Archeage. prokaryotes (talk) 18:27, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

There's absolutely no reason why it needs its own article. It's an obvious conceptual variant/type of "free to play". We're not a dictionary where you have an entry for every term out there. Sergecross73 msg me 19:20, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Sergecross73 I just find it confusing to be directed here when I want to read about pay-to-win.-. prokaryotes (talk) 19:42, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

I think pay-to-win could have its own article, though someone would have to research it and start a draft. I think the topic "pay-to-win" is separate (enough) from "free-to-play". Most sources I find with a casual Google News search are news sources about specific games. We don't want to write a list of pay-to-win controversies, of course. Either way, until then, I think this article does a fair job explaining the subject. ~Mable (chat) 20:00, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

The citation given for the definition of "Pay to win" (42) never explicitly intended to define "Pay to win", the research was aimed at better understanding Free to play games and their ecosystem. When it does tries to explain the concept, it give a very telling example of what they portray as "pay-to-win" by citing World of tank premium ammo which are recognized to ,on top of giving a significant advantage, not be easily obtainable otherwise than by paying with money. It also raise legitimacy concerns over his definition that he would suggest that temporary boost would make a player more "skillful" in the game, while skills at anything requires some kind of talent or adeptness, skills requires practice, time and knowledge. It can't be obtained in a second by paying money. So my point is that Wikipedia should at the very least give concurrent definitions that are found in other medium in the industry such as places that come into contact regularly with those types of games and how they define and view them as to give a broader spectrum and understanding. For example, Droidgamers uses the following description as a criteria to categorize games. - You can pay for a feature, mechanic, or item that either provides a significant advantage over other players that can’t otherwise earn it for free, or allows you to continue to progress when you can’t by continuing to play for free (a paywall). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.148.205.106 (talk • contribs)

"Droidgamers" is not a reliable source. - MrOllie (talk) 22:51, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

I think the point still stand over the writters describing it as "skillful" 184.148.205.106 (talk) 23:02, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

He discredited himself by referring to it in such a way. Which put the entire definition into question and up for debate, which it is. This definition is not settled yet. 184.148.205.106 (talk) 23:11, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Wouldn't you at least agree that the definition given here should be put back in context since the source material are specifically exploring the world of "Free to play" games

Something like, "In the context of free to play games, a game is generally considered pay to win..." 184.148.205.106 (talk) 00:18, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Potato hands, I deleted my stuff. I think the point still stand over the writters describing it as "skillful"

I added this definition to the article, I'm sorry for the previous change made as I was ignorant of the process of Wiki. I feel like the definition that was there did not convey that the term "P2W" doesn't have a settled definition as it's not a well researched and document topic in and of itself, as the paragraph above mines conveys by stating it lacks content to warrants a page of itself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.148.205.106 (talk) 23:11, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for (belatedly) taking this to the talk page instead of continuing to edit war.

I think you've raised some good points, but in my opinion we need better sources to explain this in the article. Droidgamers.com doesn't appear to meet WP:RS.

This article is about "free-to-play" as a full topic. Readers will understand that a subsection about "pay-to-win" will be about a sub-topic of "free-to-play". Paywalls are common among many types of freemium games, including free-to-play. So if this concept has any special connection to "pay-to-win" specifically, we need a source to explain it for us. We cannot use indirect sources to imply it, as that is original research. Grayfell (talk) 00:06, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Didn't see you respond here. Sorry.

What's your thoughts on what I said up here regarding amending the sentence to put back the definition in context? 184.148.205.106 (talk) 00:20, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Without necessarily putting a concurring definition up, we could put the one that exist in context like my example above.What do you think? 184.148.205.106 (talk) 02:44, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

I think that you haven't presented a reliable source, which is how any changes need to start on Wikipedia. - MrOllie (talk) 02:49, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Yup. Grayfell (talk) 03:11, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Easy, the source is the same cited for the definition in question here.It's literally the same study, he's defining the concept for the sake of his paper ON F2P games.

"The Rise of Free-to-Play

How the revenue model changed games and playing" 184.148.205.106 (talk) 03:28, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Here is the first relevant sentence:

Especially in competitive games, content that gives players power over others is frowned upon, and games that includes these items are called pay-to-win.p.31

Later it also says:

Especially if money can be used to overcome skill and effort in a competitive setting, the games are called pay-to-win, which is seen as one of the most negative sides of free-to-play, especially in the Western game culture.p.109

While the context is a lot more nuanced, the source is saying that any advantage that can be bought is seen as intrinsically unfair, and any game that provides these advantages in a competitive setting is seen by players a "pay-to-win". The source is not itself making a distinction between unfair and fair, and goes to great-length to explain how this distinction is subjective and may not even exist at all.

As for the World of Tanks example, I could not find anywhere in that source where it specifically said that World of Tank's premium ammunition is what made it a pay-to-win game. It doesn't say that the ammo makes a player more skillful. It says consumable items typically make a player "more powerful or skillful". It then lists premium ammo as a separate example of a subscription power upgrade, in contrast to consumable items. It's a 120 page thesis paper. It's going to have some awkward word choices, but this doesn't undermine its reliability. Grayfell (talk) 20:01, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Page 31. Line 6. He says "Especially in competitive games, content that gives players power over others is frowned upon, and games that includes these items are called pay-to-win." Then line 10 "Skipping

waiting and grinding can be seen as a more accepted way to use money compared to direct power content, such as weapons or boosters."

Same page at the end. He then goes on to sub-categorize paying elements even further in Table 3. where he list "Premium ammo" as a "power/subcribtions" type.

Page 32. Paragraph 4. He then specifically references World of Tanks with the "premium ammos". 184.148.205.106 (talk) 21:20, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I read that, but as I said previously, it's not enough for a source to imply a conclusion, it needs to directly support it. Interpreting sources in this way is a form of original research. Grayfell (talk) 23:45, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

I disagree, there's a clear theme and line connecting all those parts.

Are we suppose to read each sentence of the study on its own as if they were completely disconnected from each other? 184.148.205.106 (talk) 13:03, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

Yes. The source needs to directly support the added text. MrOllie (talk) 13:05, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

Would like your thoughts on what I wrote below.

How about this then "Kati Alha, in its study "The Rise of Free-to-Play, How the revenue model changed games and playing" defines pay to win as.. "insert current wiki text".

Purely factual, nothing added that could be perceived as changing what the paper mean or wrote. 184.148.205.106 (talk) 13:24, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

Doesn't Wikipedia even state that we're not to copy paste studies but paraphrase them with the reference? How is the definition paraphrased right now is any better than the more precised one suggested? It doesn't change the definition the study is giving, it merely removes the inaccuracy of saying that it apply in general when the source clearly never makes that claim. No where in the study does he says that this definition applies to all game genre. So why is ok to write it this way when it's not in the source material at all? 184.148.205.106 (talk) 13:13, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

Let's step back a bit. This change, which started this discussion, appears to me to be original research, since it was adding something which was potentially implied by the source, but which wasn't directly stated. Even if you believe it was directly stated, you do not have consensus for this change, so for now, that's not going to happen, but more discussion could change that.

The second change does not cite a reliable source, so will not gain consensus.

As for attributing the quote, we generally do this if something is too complicated summarize without becoming difficult to understand. This doesn't seem that complicated. Alternately, we attribute quotes which are opinions that are disputed (by other reliable sources) or need context to be understandable for some other reason. This isn't such a case.

This line doesn't appear to meet WP:CLOSEPARAPHRASE to me, but maybe I'm missing it.

I suggest looking for another reliable source. There's a fairly large amount of research on this topic, so something which focuses on this specific term may exist. Grayfell (talk) 19:45, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

Just had a heated argument on WoW forums over this definition and decided to come here to see for myself and read the study.

I think there is definatly a point to be made that this statement should be prefaced by the context of the study it quotes, regardless of the name of the page itself. 63.118.13.10 (talk) 03:41, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Just to expand, saying "in general" would refer to games at large where as the study speficaly sets out to define what it is in F2P context.

It's confusing, it lacks precision.

I would make to following change if it's ok with everyone.

In the context of Free-to-Play games, a game is considered... 63.118.13.10 (talk) 03:51, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Do you have a source which describes how this would be used in other contexts? While this source does definitely place this in the context of free-to-play games, that's because its the topic of the paper, not necessarily because the term is only used in this context.Grayfell (talk) 20:01, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Why would I need that? I'm not trying to define it for other genre am I?

The text as it stand now implies something that is NOT in the study. It never claimed that this definition should apply to other game genre.

Whoever wrote this initially interpreted something that is not directly referenced in the source material, which is wrong by Wiki standard, as you and MrOllie pointed out, and is a form of original research.

Am I wrong? Maybe I missed the part in the study where it specifically says that the definiton applies to all game genre in his view, in which case "in general" would be warranted. 63.118.13.10 (talk) 13:45, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

My reading of the source is that it doesn't say this definition is exclusive to free-to-pay games. Although it's not explicit, the paper does mention many "premium" games and it seems like the author is making an effort to point-out that the term is broad, is applied by players, and doesn't have a pass/fail definition. Grayfell (talk) 19:45, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

That is your reading, who is implying things now...

The source doesn't say either way if it is exclusive or not to free to play games, you even admit that it doesn't explicitly say it which means it is implicit, while it was established, more than once by both you and MrOllie, that we shouldn't imply things that are not directly reference in source material.

By phrasing it with "in general". the page imply that it is used as a broad definition for all games while it is not explicitly said in the paper, which again is supposed to be a big no-no.

A question up there was answered with the following

"Yes. The source needs to directly support the added text. MrOllie (talk) 13:05, 23 September 2022 (UTC)"

Well this threshold was clearly not met at the initial writing of the definition.

If it's not up this standard then it should be changed to meet it.

I would borrow the other guy phrasing up there to amend my suggestion and reach a middle ground on what I think everyone could agree on would be a good compromise. It would both add on precision and clarify the definition by clearly putting it back into the context in which it was made without altering any other word in the article: "Kati Alha, in its study "The Rise of Free-to-Play, How the revenue model changed games and playing" defines pay to win as..." 63.118.13.10 (talk) 20:44, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

Nothing in the source restricts the definition to any particular context, that is purely your own invention. If I write 'the sky is blue' in a book titled 'Meteorology of the Americas' we would not need a second citation to clarify that the sky is blue over Europe as well. We also should not misuse in text attribution to make it sound like a statement of fact is just one person's opinion. MrOllie (talk) 20:48, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

Nothing in the source specify it applies to all of them either while the paper specifically explores the world of free-to-play games and their monetization models.

What is even this example? Scientifically the atmosphere is colorless, what makes the sky blue is the angle at which light hits it but whatever, I don't want to get tangled up in dubious analogies.

I could make up my own that fits what I'm saying to it's completely pointless to do this, look.

A handshake is pretty self-explanatory but can mean different thing in different cultures. Just like P2W can mean different thing in different type of games. Let's stay on topic, we're better than that.

We don't want to make it sound like it's one person's opinion? Alright fine, the thing is written by one person but let's put that aside for the sake of consensus. How about this then:

The study "The Rise of Free-to-Play, How the revenue model changed games and playing" defines pay to win as..."

I think this meet the criteria that the initial sentence doesn't meet and answers your concerns.

But I would like to have your suggestion on how to make it better.

What would you suggest? 63.118.13.10 (talk) 21:56, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

Just like P2W can mean different thing in different type of games. <-- I suggest you find a reliable source that supports that, otherwise we have nothing to change here. MrOllie (talk) 22:10, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

You are just gonna ignore the rest of what I said? It feels like you're not approaching this discussion in good faith.

Here

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/352273299_Pay-to-Win_Gaming_and_its_Interrelation_with_Gambling_Findings_from_a_Representative_Population_Sample

The paper explore the concept on the aspect of gambling and directly defines it like this:

Pay-to-Win products are functional in that they afford players a distinct advantage in the game and increase the likelihood of winning. 63.118.13.10 (talk) 22:39, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

Here is another one

https://aaltodoc.aalto.fi/bitstream/handle/123456789/39117/master_Majander_Ville_2019.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y

Page 19 first paragraph

"This is not to say that any enhancements to gameplay are automatically detrimental, but there is a fine line to be tread

between offering players convenience and quality-of-life upgrades, versus offering seemingly

unfair advantages to those who are prepared to invest large sums to succeed at the game."

Documented, direct and different concurring definitions from other papers. 63.118.13.10 (talk) 22:57, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

The first source, from the Journal of Gambling Studies says as its first sentence Pay-to-Win gaming describes a common type of video game design in which players can pay to advance in the game. It doesn't limit this to free-to-pay. Here is the only mention of "free-to-play" in that paper:

In summary, academic research on Pay-to-Win gaming is scarce. Most often, studies do not distinguish between Pay-to-Win and related game forms, e.g. Free-to-Play, and thus focus not specifically on Pay-to-Win but on specific products such as loot boxes, or motives to buy in-game items in general. The following explorative research questions aim at addressing the identified research gaps: ... (p.4 of the paper)

This suggests that the paper's authors view pay-to-win as separate but related to free-to-play. This matches Wikipedia's coverage, since pay-to-win is a redirect to a subsection of this article.

As for the second source, here's the definition: The phenomenon where investing money in to the game makes either the game or other players easier to beat is called pay-to-win, or P2W for short. I do not accept that this disagrees with or differs from the other currently-cited source. Grayfell (talk) 02:02, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

I read this to,you guys both quoted only the part that was vindicating you. You are both equally biased. The full quote is this:

"The phenomenon where investing money in to the game makes either the game or other players easier to beat is called pay-to-win, or P2W for short. This mechanic is often seen as detrimental to the long-term success of a game. This is not to say that any enhancements to gameplay are automatically detrimental, but there is a fine line to be tread between offering players convenience and quality-of-life upgrades, versus offering seemingly unfair advantages to those who are prepared to invest large sums to succeed at the game."

And this by the way is a different interpretation of P2W that warrant a standalone quotation and a reference to the research quoted.

It's within the scope of the page and piles on similar research. If Wikipedia is suppose to be an encyclopedia then this is just as worthy to be included as the other research was. 184.148.205.106 (talk) 03:13, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

In light of this I would leave current definition as is to quell your objections.

Add this from first quote as a separate sentence:

" Furthermore, some go further and explain that such products work under the premise of giving distinct advantages to favorise a winning outcome" (insert reference to first quote).

Add this from second quote

"According to research, pay-to-win features are more likely to negatively affect the long-term success of a game in large part because the line between convenience and quality of life features and seemingly unfair advantages is easily crossed" (Insert reference to second quote)

...

This would lead perfectly into the nest sentence about market research in China.

Resume wiki article 184.148.205.106 (talk) 13:42, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

For your first proposal: "Furthermore, some go further and explain that such products work under the premise of giving distinct advantages to favorise a winning outcome" - What does this sentence mean? "Favorise" is a relatively obscure term which means unduly favor, so this seems like it's going back into "unfair" being the criteria for "pay-to-win". As I said, the source goes into significant depth to explain that the line between fair and unfair is ambiguous and subjective , but the term "pay-to-win" is used for any situation where paying money provides an advantage over non-paying players. Also, starting a sentence with "furthermore, some go further" is a editorializing language. How is this "further"? Who is "some"?

The second proposal is a lot more workable, but it needs a ton more context. While this source is arguably usable, it's still a master's thesis and is pretty flimsy as a secondary or tertiary source for the state of research as a whole. Additionally, the author of the source is taking a clear stance in favor of the live-service model for games, and this makes it somewhat of a biased source as well.

So it will not be obvious to readers what "long-term success" means in this context. The source is talking about long-term revenue from the perspective of a studio or publisher, but without this context it could mean financial success, number of players, number of "whales", or even critical success. The author is in favor of pay-to-win to the extent that it makes more money for publishers, not based on quality or fairness. Those are the reasons that pay-to-win is "often seen as detrimental", so this context is relevant. Grayfell (talk) 21:56, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

References

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Free-to-play. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://services.runescape.com/m=news/newsitem.ws?id=1386
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://hackclashclans.com/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121030172013/http://pc.gamespy.com/pc/dota-2010/1224922p1.html to http://pc.gamespy.com/pc/dota-2010/1224922p1.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:14, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Fee-To-Pay

Jim Sterling uses this term liberally when discussing full priced games with microtransactions that should be in Free-to-Play games. Is it worth talking about here or somewhere? Zero Serenity ^{(talk - contributions)} 16:58, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Pay to Win - Solidarity alert for real Editors !

There are the authors who are trying to protect a hidden business. I noticed this tendency, with the pay-to-win definition. Someone is trying to remove posts about this model. Since there is no no-pay-to-win then there must also be pay-to-win logic. Pay-to-win models are the whole mass. These are the games in which the payment very strongly interferes with the game-play, allowing any player to change the game-play. In a word, payment is an element of the game that can affect the game progression. Many developers of such games do not like when their game so defined, because they become less prestigious. Players do not value such games where the skill of playing is not counted but paying. Imagine a poker game in which a player would pay for a card he might get, does that make sense? In a word of game some developers have very aggressive politic, I personally encountered this. Such politic is in Call of Word, where every discussion about pay-to-win on forum is removed and player could be banned for certain period of time. This is the most extreme situation I have ever encountered.   Please take note of and respond to such authors who remove this model and report it as malicious authors of Wikipedia!--Darek555 (talk) 08:18, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Can you link to some examples of this happening? ~Mable (chat) 09:38, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

What link do You mean ? To author who remove pay-to-win mode, this You can check in editor history, or to banned account in Call of War ? If You want check ban in Call of War just make account in this game and in forum and add post with theme like "If Call of War is Pay to Win" ?, first You will get email with alert from moderators that Your post is unproper, and post will be removed, if You will reaped this problem You will be banned, or You just don't understand pay-to-win mode ? Some definition You can find in link/cites I add in main Article. I think that there should be described such game in separate section something like: payment policy of game developers, I think this is important--Darek555 (talk) 10:12, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Ah, it's this edit that prompted you to bring this up? Interesting issue. I'm honestly not even entirely sure what the "Pay models" section is for. "No-pay-to-win" is never explained, pay to play seems unrelated and should probably only be listed in the "See also" section. Crowdfunding is never explained in the article either. Shouldn't we just... delete this section? Pay-to-win is thoroughly described in the "Negative impact" section. ~Mable (chat) 10:47, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Do You suggest that section Pay models is unnecessary, then for what is this free to play topic ? Do You suggest that pay models like no pay to win, pay to play, pay to win are not commonly ? And like I remember are You that person who fight with me that in Path of Exile is no permadeath mode ? :),  ?--Darek555 (talk) 11:23, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

The list of "pay models" as it existed earlier today was vague and unsourced. It listed some terms, including "Pay-to-win", but didn't provide any context or explanation. I'd rather see these terms being explained in prose, as is done in the "criticism" section. I hope this solves the issue with this article. And yeah, I think I do remember talking with someone with your grammar structure about permadeath at some point. I don't really remember that incident all that well, though. ~Mable (chat) 12:28, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

As for the issue in Call of War: this falls outside of Wikipedia's juristiction, so to speak, and per WP:NOTFORUM, this is not the place to bring it up. Try social media, other forums, or contacting a news organization. ~Mable (chat) 10:48, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

For what I should contact with Call of War ? like I see there is described Dota2, Word of Tank etc, what do You suggest ?--Darek555 (talk) 11:23, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

You mentioned above that moderators on the Call of War forums were deleting any posts describing its payment model as "pay to win". That's too bad. I can't find any reliable sources commenting on the issue, however, so this isn't particularly relevant to Wikipedia. In fact, the game itself isn't even notable! Wikipedia is not the right place to right great wrongs, so to speak. If your intention is to confront Bytro Labs with this issue, Wikipedia isn't the place for it. ~Mable (chat) 12:28, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Removing section the Criticism

I think it should be changed or removed. This is authors creativity based on describing of Dota2. For me this is a hidden advertisement and it should be removed as soon as possible. When I try add information about other games with other payment implementation it is removed. For me this is hidden commercial protection. Either game examples are examples or not, let's decide ! For me this is commercial protection.--Darek555 (talk) 14:23, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

You are not understanding the situation at all. You additions have been removed because you're trying to use a messageboard as a source. Per WP:USERG, this cannot be used as a source. Additionally, Call of War is not a very good example because it doesn't have its own Wikipedia article, or any other context around it. Examples like Dota 2 are used because its an example that is much more likely to be known and understood by the reader, especially with it having its own article. It's mention is not promotional in nature at all, its a very neutral, natural listing of the title. No offense, but I really think you need to slow down and learn about Wikipedia a little more. You seem to be jumping straight in without really understanding how the website works, and clashing with everyone as a result. Sergecross73 msg me 16:13, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Payment models

I think this article should be expanded to cover different payment models in general, instead of just "Free-to-play" which by itself I think only merits a dictionary entry. Is there enough material out there to build such an article from? SharkD  Talk  23:18, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

I.e. something like Pricing strategies, but for video games. SharkD  Talk  23:20, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

F2P has a history, and an effect on the industry, so it wouldn't be reduced to just a dic def. But I think a comparison of video game pricing models might deserve an article, even without changing this one. Once it was created, it should be easier to see how info between this article and that one could be distributed. --A D Monroe III^(talk) 23:45, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Some sentences meaning is not clear - need logic, style and grammar improvements

In section 'Criticism':

Some suggest finding a balance between a game that encourages players to pay for extra content that enhances the game without making the free version feel limited by comparison.[35]

• the sentence meaning is not clear;
• Some is a weasel word;
• the sentence structure does not follow the proper pattern "... balance between A and B". There is no B in this sentence.

In response to concerns about players using payments to gain an advantage in game, titles such as World of Tanks have explicitly committed to not giving paying players any advantages over their non-paying peers, while allowing the users buying the "gold" or "premium" ammo and expendables without paying the real money.

• the sentence is too long and unclear (especially the second part). It should probably be split into two sentences, the first one ending at "...over their non-paying peers";
• premium should not be quoted;
• the 2nd part of the sentence is either:
  • incomplete: '... while allowing the users buying the "gold ...' - to do what?
  • or was intended to mean something else, most likely something like: 'The game accomplishes this by allowing users to buy premium ("gold") ammo and expendables using both, in-game currency ("silver") and real money'.

Aenchevich (talk) 09:27, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

External link to "pcgamesarchive"

As a first time visitor to http://www.pcgamesarchive.com/, I was left clueless as to where the free-to-play list was located on their site. Using their search textbox for "free to play" returned "Fallout 4" as the only result (probably because of the keyword "free"); "f2p" and "free-to-play" both returned nothing. That left me thinking "why is this site listed in the external links of this wikipedia page as a large database of free-to-play games for PC?" After some digging through the wayback machine, I found that their home page layout was changed between July 28th, 2017 and August 28th, 2017. In their new current layout, the link to the free-to-play list (located at http://www.pcgamesarchive.com/free-pc-games/) is nowhere to be found. How should this be handled? --BryghtShadow (talk) 14:57, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

"Free-to-start"

I suggest removing the word "derisively" from the sentence "Free-to-play's model is sometimes derisively referred to as free-to-start due to not being entirely free." because it is a more correct term. – Gebu (talk) 12:15, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Free-to-play and freeware

I think there is a fundamental misunderstanding about how we define free-to-play and freeware. Free-to-play is a business model and the video game equivalent of freemium. Freeware denotes any software, including video games, that is distributed to the end-user at no charge. By definition, freeware is copyrighted with usually unreleased source code. That said, the two are similar, except that free-to-play games are freeware games that charge players for more features. This book defines freeware games as games that are strictly free to play (the book long predates the business model sense as described in the Wikipedia article). More specifically, this book says that freemium software is a type of freeware with paid "premium" features. Note that the claim that free-to-play and freeware are mutually exclusive appears only in the lead and the word freeware does not in the only citation given to the paragraph. I would propose changing the lead so that it says that the article subject is a type of freeware game. If necessary, I would also propose expanding the article to describe the similarities and differences between freeware and free-to-play, writing that the two are freely available proprietary software with essentially the same licensing restrictions but often different pricing strategies. FreeMediaKid$ 23:25, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

Additionally, it may be better to write that free-to-play contrasts with the buy-to-play model, rather than freeware. Also, I struck out part of my original post as I did not feel that it supported my argument. FreeMediaKid$ 23:47, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

"Freeware denotes any software, including video games, that is distributed to the end-user at no charge." No, it denotes software that is free with no caveats. If I download freeware I would not expect to be asked to pay to unlock the rest of the game. No changes are necessary here. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 13:33, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

I don't understand really what change you are proposing. That "Free-to-play" is a form of freeware rather than a freemium model? That is simply wrong. "Free-to-play" is simply the concept of freemium as applied to video games. You seem focused on the fact that a single citation appears in the lead, but it's there to source the term "free-to-start", and normally the lead should be free of citations altogether. The entire mass of terms is a mess though, but "Free to play" is clearly on top of the freemium pile. -- ferret (talk) 13:35, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Based on the description you gave for "Freemium", an example would be a "Premium Account" for a game like World of Tanks Blitz. Yes the game is free, however there is also some premium features you can buy that make your experience somewhat better (so in the case of WoTB you get some extra currency and XP for each battle).BUt that appears to still be the exact same as free-to-play (which is exactly what the name says, the game is free to play). Free to play, but there may or may not be some things you can purchase in-game with real money. So from what I'm understanding, "Freemium" just specifies that the free-to-play game has things in-game that you can purchase with real money. Feel free to correct me if I'm misunderstanding. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 17:03, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

No one would refer to a game in which all features are without cost as a 'free-to-play' game, the term means that some portion is pay-gated. MrOllie (talk) 17:30, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Oh? What would be the correct term be then? ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 17:34, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

The current article lead explains it well. 'Free-to-play' is almost a synonym for 'Freemium' - one is specific to games, one is for all software. Games in which all features are without cost are called 'freeware' or just 'free'. MrOllie (talk) 17:44, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Ah alright. Thanks for explaining. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 18:07, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Should we not fix the Category:Freeware games page to fix Category:Free-to-play video games then? Should we also not edit freeware to remove the claim that freeware could use the freemium model (unless I am misunderstanding something). This may have nothing to do with this article and may be construed as WP:OTHERTHINGS, but the confusion surrounding their apparent inconsistency is what led me to this discussion. Also, do the preponderance of sources actually differentiate freeware from free-to-play games? If I am being too hard, I apologize, but I am not yet convinced that my sources are in the minority. FreeMediaKid$ 19:53, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

From what I can see, Freemium is seen as a form of Freeware. Free-to-play though is literally Freemium-as-applied-to-video-games. -- ferret (talk) 20:12, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict) As it turns out, the discussion dates as far back as 2006, and in retrospect, I should have checked for and read such discussions before starting this one. I regret the haste. However, the way I analyze the articles and even the category tells me that there is still confusion among editors about how to classify freeware and free-to-play/freemium. This discussion now seeks to settle the issue. FreeMediaKid$ 20:20, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Yes, it can be difficult. These are terms which were thought up by marketing types to move units (even if that means confusing the consumer), not to create clear categories with firm, definitive boundaries. - MrOllie (talk) 20:59, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Settle what issue? The categories appear correct. Free-to-play/freemium is as sub-sect of freeware. -- ferret (talk) 21:00, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

At this point, I think the most confusing thing is my own proposal. I took a break to look at my own reasoning and figure out what made no sense, so I will present it in a hopefully more coherent manner. I understand that free-to-play, a business model, is fremium for video games and not freeware, which is "software ... that is distributed at no monetary cost to the end user." I hope this clarifies that I am not trying to compare two items of unrelated categories. I also understand that freemium itself is a pricing strategy where the basic software is free, but versions with advanced features are priced. Next, as I attempt to explain what I think editors thought I was proposing, many or all of them had the impression that my proposal was for free-to-play games to be categorized as freeware, even versions with paid content. It now makes sense how I initially generated confusion. The impression I had from reading the article was that free-to-play games and freemium software could not be freeware. It would have been better proposed if I had written that the article should say that costless, non-premium versions of free-to-play games are practically indistinguishable from freeware since both are distributed to the end user at no charge. It is only when one pays for the premium features that the software lose their freeware status. FreeMediaKid$ 21:12, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

but versions with advanced features are priced. I think you misunderstood. There is only one 'version' in free-to-play - a version which is generally throwing up lots of prompts to get you to buy things to use in the game. That is what makes for a free-to-play game - the in game microtransactions and/or aggressive advertising of same. - MrOllie (talk) 01:02, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

I never thought of that before. I did not consider free-to-play games as premium in the sense that they that still cost money, but not to play them. Until then, I had assumed that the nature of free-to-play (and freemium) was dependent upon the player's decision on whether to purchase microtransactions. In other words, I thought that freemium software without paid content would count as freeware, while those with premium features would not. This leads me to only one question left. Some freemium products come in several editions. For example, Microsoft Visual Studio comes in three editions. One of them, Visual Studio Community, is distributed free of charge. As its own package, it has all of the aspects of freeware based on my original catch-all understanding of the term. The other two editions are the packages containing premium features. Of the three editions, I could argue that one of them is freeware since that version is its own software without any features disabled and is not asking for payments in exchange for more content. The other editions are the software with the paid content. I will concede that this argument is pointless in the context of video games since there is no way that developers would release them separately. One will almost certainly never find a commercial game that is sold in multiple editions, one of which is freeware. Basically, I do not see freeware and freemium as being entirely mutually exclusive, but I may be missing something vital that would refute my argument, hence the question. FreeMediaKid$ 14:41, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Team fortress 2

Team fortress 2 is listed as an example of a free to play game in the late 2000s yet it only went free to play in 2011. https://www.forbes.com/sites/insertcoin/2011/06/24/valves-team-fortress-2-goes-free-to-play/ 82.8.179.45 (talk) 02:09, 11 September 2024 (UTC)