A misapplied or inappropriate name or designation for what this model truly is. Some of you may have read the statement above with the idea that while we aren't required to pay a fee, we might be coerced into paying for something. Others might debate what constitutes a “full experience,” especially if there are items that can only be owned by a small subset of people or raids that can only be done by elite raiding parties. More to the point, “acquiring” the full experience of a game, whatever you might define the experience to be, is subject to the interpretation of acquisition (Do I “acquire” it through fun play, earn it through a grind, or maybe through random number generation and treating the game as a second job?). The mind plays tricks on the human understanding of this ideal, making the term “free-to-play” less of a tangible notion and more seemingly a metaphysical, Platonic form. This model isn't about playing games for free, if it was then it wouldn't exist within the business industry. The fact the game has no upfront cost is merely a marketing gimmick to encourage new players to come into the game. After attracting players to play, the game entices said players into purchasing digital items in said game. Usually the business model these games rely on is in actuality pay to win. Which in itself is really a bit of a misnomer, as it should more appropriately be called pay to gain an advantage. I guess ptgaa doesn't make a good acronym though. Anyways, this model enables you to purchase digital items that either save you time, and/or give you a boost over the competition. This in turn allows you progress further into the game at a higher skill level and/or rate than you would otherwise be capable of. What benefits does a unified stance against F2P misconceptions bring to the table? It allows consumers to be informed of what they're getting into when they play. It allows them to choose games not only on the game's merits, but also on their budget at the time. It allows people to try more than one game, come back to the games they like, and spend as much as they can afford or are willing to give to support developers. It's a responsible free market that respects consumers while giving the impression that Ragnar Tornquist implied a few weeks ago: that it's okay to try new things and enjoy play for what it's worth to the individual. More importantly, it destroys the idea of free-to-play in the current incarnations we see it in, which is a harmful and potentially deceitful means of drawing in consumers based on the idea that they don't have to pay anything to enjoy the full experience of the game. It may not reach the Platonic ideal, but it's something pretty idealistic that might benefit gamers and devs alike.