|
Even if we were to assume that this analogy were entirely apt, and even if we were to assume (incorrectly) that it was impossible for a non-paying player in an IRE game to acquire, by any means, any of the perks available to paying players, your conclusions still would not add up. The player would still be getting what he was promised: free play. Nowhere in IRE's advertising do they promise you the full range of time-saving advantages that are available to paying customers. Nowhere in IRE's advertising do they even imply such. "Free to play" means just that. If I can log on and play without being charged, I'm going to feel like I got what was delivered. Whether or not I feel my gaming experience is gimped by my lack of payment for extras is a seperate issue. If I decide the game is not worth playing for free, that is still a separate issue. It may be a legitimate issue, and I may feel like I have wasted some time with a game in which I cannot compete as well as I would have liked, but it does not provide me with any reasonable grounds to quarrel with the promise of "free play."
You may not like that definition of "free," but the logic with which you and some others have tried to argue that the use of the word is dishonest is tortured at best. If I get something without paying for it, I get it for free. If I get that something for free because someone else paid for it, I'm still getting it for free. I mean, that's pretty much the marketplace definition of "free," isn't it? Someone else was willing to absorb the costs so I wouldn't have to.
|