The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:31, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can be replaced with freeware, shareware or simply the text "free to play". Only used by 7 articles. See the talk page for details. – Andreas Blixt ☺ 09:03, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The article needs cleanup, but a distinction should be drawn between what it refers to, and "freeware" and "shareware" as described by the nominator. As far as I can see, it is not about freeware or shareware - it's about online games that would normally be pay-to-play but are instead free-to-play for whatever reason. If this distinction can be more clearly stated in the article (because, after all, all non-online games are "free to play", so it needs to be mentioned that they're not its subject), and if there isn't already an article that describes these games, I think it can be kept. Seb Patrick 10:03, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Seb Patrick. As a broad concept, this seems worth keeping. — TKD::Talk 10:15, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep refers to a distinctly different concept to freeware and shareware. It needs to be explained somewhere Ydam 10:27, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Currently the article refers to games that can be played with no limitations and for no cost. That is freeware. It also mentions games that can be played for free, but the player will need to pay a fee in order to receive additional features and/or updates. That is shareware. The last paragraph also makes a reference to what could be interpreted as crippleware.

    If the meaning was simply that the game is free to play, I cannot see how the reader would not understand that simply from reading "This game is free to play". Before you go on and tell me that this is not what the article is supposed to contain, that is what it currently does contain (in my opinion).

    Previous comments say that (This is my understanding, correct me if I am wrong) it may refer to the subscription fee of a game, not the initial purchase fee. If this article can be rewritten to include more than just a couple paragraphs about that, then it could certainly be kept. A good comparison could be Guild Wars and World of Warcraft, for example (since they are both pretty similar in function, but different in payment methods).

    – Andreas Blixt ☺ 10:48, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, same reasons as above. Palffy 02:46, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.