Eshe - to be fair, let's quote our all-knowing friend Wikipedia, for a definition of "Free to play":
Moreover, while we may argue that Ryzom is f2p because some portion of content is accesible, the common understanding is different:
A game with a subscription is not, and cannot be f2p. Especially so when the subscription is a paywall to accessing content. Pvp is simply unbalaced if a f2p were to attack a subscriber with much better levels. Same goes for a difference in levels for pve.
So - while both subscriptions and f2p deviate from the "traditional" model (i.e. the model where you pay an upfront cost), these two terms carry very different meanings.
This is not the first time people have complained about the misleading nature of Ryzom's advertising. There is this thing called "common person's understand", and no, Ryzom does not get an exemption just because its advertisers want to exploit the slight feature overlap with actual f2p games (e.g. unlimited playtime without any payment). The financial model is ultimately different.
Consider this: a person like the one above you comes in and sinks 20 hours of playtime, just doing the damn long tutorial and mucking about on Mainland. Then they find out they're actually drastically crippled, and the only way to go forward is to start paying monthly. They will understandably be unhappy with the dishonest advertising..
Free-to-play (F2P) refers to video games which give players access to a significant portion of their content without paying. There are several kinds of free-to-play games, but the most common is based on the freemium software model.
Moreover, while we may argue that Ryzom is f2p because some portion of content is accesible, the common understanding is different:
In the late 2000s, many MMOs transitioned to the free-to-play model from subscriptions, including subscription-based games such as The Lord of the Rings Online: Shadows of Angmar, Age of Conan: Hyborian Adventures, Dungeons & Dragons Online, and Champions Online.
A game with a subscription is not, and cannot be f2p. Especially so when the subscription is a paywall to accessing content. Pvp is simply unbalaced if a f2p were to attack a subscriber with much better levels. Same goes for a difference in levels for pve.
Greg Zeschuk, of BioWare believes there is a good possibility that free-to-play would become the dominant pricing plan for games, but that it was very unlikely that it would ever completely replace subscription-based games.
So - while both subscriptions and f2p deviate from the "traditional" model (i.e. the model where you pay an upfront cost), these two terms carry very different meanings.
This is not the first time people have complained about the misleading nature of Ryzom's advertising. There is this thing called "common person's understand", and no, Ryzom does not get an exemption just because its advertisers want to exploit the slight feature overlap with actual f2p games (e.g. unlimited playtime without any payment). The financial model is ultimately different.
Consider this: a person like the one above you comes in and sinks 20 hours of playtime, just doing the damn long tutorial and mucking about on Mainland. Then they find out they're actually drastically crippled, and the only way to go forward is to start paying monthly. They will understandably be unhappy with the dishonest advertising..
---