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)

Um..I think there is a error with the Disadvantages:

"Lower trade limit

A free player's maximum trade limit is 40,000 gp every fifteen minutes, whereas the maximum trade limit for members is 240,000 gp every fifteen minutes"

Now, I wouldn't mind if it said per every hour. or 10,000 every fifteen minutes. 60,000 for members every 60,0000
I tried fixing the error myself, but someone keeps changing it back.

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)

This is an old discussion, but logical errors annoy me: NPOV means informing and reporting without bias. It does not mean having equal numbers of advantages and disadvantages listed, unless there really is an equal number of advantages and disadvantages. --68.100.120.39 23:02, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, F2P do have advantages, albeit small ones, like not dying as easily. I've seen what the strong monsters can do(youtube) and the literally kill about 1-3 members in less that a minute. And those are in their 60s and 70s. In f2p, we have none of them.

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)

I just spent roughly four years as a non-member before becoming a member. I must say that I was not insulted in any way from this article and the fact is that there really are no advantages to the free world. The only possible one is that you will get experience slightly slower in the free world. Every time there was an update, I would know it would be for members only and I would not get to use it. My 99's went neglected without a skillcape. My freinds air-guitared me to death... I know that this post is, itself, not objective, but I would support the nuetrality of this article Mjc3 14:12, 17 October 2008 (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)

I edited it,since the wild is not longer used for open pking,something went wrong with the edit i made,i suck at editing

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)

No Skillcape

No skill cape for f2p, I think someone should mention that as a disadvantage (less recognition for achievement). Aurora sword http://a.imageshack.us/img191/1589/butterflyj.png 04:06, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Rule breaking

There are rule breaking and macroing in memebrs world also, so i don't think that's really a disadvantage over P2P Aurora sword http://a.imageshack.us/img191/1589/butterflyj.png 04:12, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

er... no offense, but you'r not a member, so how would you be able to tell if there ws less rulebreakers? Tesfan 17:39, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I lurk a lot. Aurora sword http://a.imageshack.us/img191/1589/butterflyj.png 15:29, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

There are a lot more macroers in f2p, though.

REDIRECT User:C Teng/sig 15:47, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Uh....

Is it really okay to mention that they can "get away with more [rulebreaking]" as non-members? I think it should at least be rephrased. --Mura 06:50, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I completely disagree with that sentance altogether. Also it can give the idea that "oh, I'll get away with scamming in F2P!".

Chiafriend 12

I have 12 friends. 22:17, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

NPoV and Cleanup

I've gone through the article and did my best to clean up/reword areas that are possibly biased. If anyone else wants to look through the article, maybe we could remove the NPoV tag. In addition, I just did some general cleanup (grammar fixes, updated info, links, removed any abbreviations I came across, etc) Regabuh 18:19, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

About a month and no further comments on the NPoV dispute, based on the previous messages here, I think it's safe if I remove the tag. Regabuh 21:09, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

world size free vs members

Not to disrespect the edit of how much world is available for free players vs members (edit changed 10% to 30%) but I am wondering where either of these numbers came from. Is there any notable source of info that is gauranteed? Like off the KB? --Degenret01 04:25, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, if you go to the "Play Runescape" server selection page and count, you will find that about 68 servers are for members while about 88 servers are for free-to-play; now you know what the ratio is. 219.78.1.127 04:33, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

So like I said, can anyone correlate this info? I don't care about servers available, that is not the question. The question is world size, free vs pay.--Degenret01 14:05, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I would guess that the 10% just came from a visual estimate by looking at the world map. I don't know where that number originally came from, but I don't think there's any hard numbers to back it up, if that's what you're asking.

There is the free-to-play version of the world map on the page now... I guess if someone really wanted to know, they could compare the size of that map (minus the black parts) to the official world map on the Jagex website (again, minus black spaces) and get a concrete ratio... That's the only way I could think you could get a reliable estimate, but it'd be kinda tedious. Regabuh 18:58, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

So can anyone tell me what the real ratio is including all the dungeons? I'd say its more around 5% pyrolord 08:11, April 5, 2011 (UTC)

Wait-What??

It says there Aren't any Capes of accomplishment for free players, but there are skill capes?? Aren't they the same thing?-- Lord Rapter 09:54, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Lol, did that confuse anyone else? I've removed that sentence. Thanks,

CFLM ^{Talk # Sign} 10:00, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Updates to F2P

I can't find the exact link atm and I'm a bit pressed for time, but the gnome-copters were an F2P update as wellMjc3 14:18, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

who?

who came up with 10% i think actuly about 15% just my thoughts on the topic Legaking 23:45, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Care Free attitude

Personally I believe this should be removed. It is a stereotype. Also, it is highly opinionated, situational, and in general, not a proper writing style.

Redundancy and Opinion

Mainly in the list of disadvantages, there seems to be a large amount of repetitious topics and a certain amount of bias. First of all, several of them can be merged. Mainly, "Fewer skills" + "Lower combat level"; "Rare updates" + "Less attention". Lower combat level can be mentioned in the "Fewer skills" topic, considering that the lower combat level is a result of there being less skills. "Rare updates" and "less attention" are pretty much synonymous and can be merged. Does anyone else agree?

The topic I'm looking at in regards to containing opinions is the one about there being a younger player base in F2P. You can read it yourself, but this is the question I asked myself after reading it: Am I reading something on a wiki, or a forum post on the Official Runescape Fans Membership Forum? Are there any official sources, such as a Jagex poll? Besides, this topic in general is incorrect, since, in society today, kids receive an allowance for doing chores, meaning they have money. I'm removing the topic because of bias, feel free to revert if I'm wrong.Tc3001 20:01, October 27, 2010 (UTC)