Talk:Free-to-play

I used the downloadable map from RuneScape's official site and removed all the p2p stuff so that it only shows the f2p stuff. However, it's 229641 bytes. It's recommended that images do not go over 153600 bytes. Should I still upload it? I can't make it any smaller.--Richard 00:17, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
 * If it's bigger than about 300X300 pixels, then maybe just put a photobucket link up, otherwise it'll take up too much page space, and it'll take forever to load. --Raven110283 04:24, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Advantages
I'm removing this for now, as I think there are none lol. Well, let's look at what was there.

Some may not be able to pay - younger players may not have the means to
 * How is this an advantage?

Even those intending to become members can build their levels up first, or see if it's really for them
 * Again, how is this an advantage?

Some people may choose to be members for a short time, after building up supplies that they can make arrows or high level runes from, and then go back to a bit of free player killing
 * Last of all. This should be on the members page.--Richard 23:54, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Not to get into an editwar, but by removing advantages and "strengthing" the disadvantages, this article moves away from a neutral point of view--Curmudgeony 01:12, 13 July 2006 (UTC)


 * The only real advantage to not being a member is not having to pay. That is the only advantage... 06:52, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I have to say that I don't think this article is biased at all. I believe that if membership were free, almost every nonmember would become a member. Therefore, the only advantage to not being a member is that you save money. The three items Richard removed didn't make sense as advantages, they were more like reasons that people wouldn't be members, so I believe that the article is fine in its current state. -- Couchpotato99 00:41, 2 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually, some were advantages. The first one wasn't (because if you're a younger player, you can always get your parents to pay for membership), but the last two were. Being able to build up your skills for free is good, because it takes months to level up the free skills, so not joining until you've levelled those skills means that you're not wasting money. The third one is really more of a reflection on the second one. And Curmudgeony was very right. The article's still not really conforming to NPOV, but it's close enough for now. And no, I'm not trying to start an editwar. --Raven110283 04:22, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Biased
Where is the bias in this article? -- Couchpotato99 00:19, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Well the version from this date seems a little more balanced. The current version seems to be exceptionally negative towards any positive aspects of free to play playing. The comment from above I'm removing this [advantages]  for now, as I think there are none lol. Seems to sum up the bias in the article. This wiki should be for both members and non members, and frankly a nonmember might find the tone of this article a little insulting.--Curmudgeony 00:35, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh, okay, I'll discuss in the entry above then. Thank you. -- Couchpotato99 00:41, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

People would think there is bias here, but there isn't. I don't mean to be rude, but yes, there ARE more disadvantages than advantages. That's the POINT. If there wasn't an insanely long list of DISADVANTAGES, no one would bother with Membership. Kang227 16:44, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Bias, take two
The biased tag was re-added to this page by an anonymous ip. The last time this was declared biased, only one editor believed so and couldn't provide any substantial evidence. Unless the anonymous editor wishes to defend his decision to add the tag or another editor wants to have the tag added, it should be removed. -- Couchpotato99   (talk)   (contribs)  21:51, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Remove it then. JalYt-Xil-Vimescarrot 21:52, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Removed, if someone wants to put it back they can justify it here. JalYt-Xil-Vimescarrot 21:56, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Safer wilderness
I disagree. Members can use F2P wilderness as much as free players can. JalYt-Xil-Vimescarrot 14:38, 26 December 2006 (UTC)


 * But they can't use the insanely powerful super-weapons. I disagree for another reason: the crowds in the Wilderness are SO MUCH LARGER in F2P. I'll mention that... Kang227 16:41, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Surely not using the "insanely powerful super-weapons" means that the Wilderness is less safe? JalYt-Xil-Vimescarrot  17:55, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * How would not being able to use things like the whip in F2P make the wilderness less safe?. To me it sounds akin to saying a deactivated gun is less safe than the real thing... Marcus Gord 18:48, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Assuming you know how to use it, a loaded gun makes you safer than an empty one. That's the whole purpose of buying a gun, unless you're a psychopath or you're military. JalYt-Xil-Vimescarrot  20:35, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh...so being a psychopath is a BAD thing...Kang227 21:06, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I never said that. ;-) JalYt-Xil-Vimescarrot  21:08, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Number of items
Changed the number of total items from 6,000 to 4,000. Tip.it has a list of all the items in the games, so I can safely say there are 745 items that free players can have, and 3525 member only objects, which means that members have access to 4270 objects in total. Tesfan 18:59, 17 March 2007 (UTC)