Talk:List of freeware games

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Famicom style controller This article is within the scope of WikiProject Video games. For more information, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Stub This article has been rated as stub-Class on the assessment scale.
VG To-do:

213.169.25.131 removed a lot of entries. Revert?

Jep, 213.169.25.131's definition of "proper freeware" is not supported in freeware-article, which says: "Freeware is computer software which is made available gratis/free of charge." Redistributability is not obligatory. --Mikko Paananen 18:04, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Well... Can we reinclude them in their own section as "not freeware but released for free?"
Thats called shareware --E-Magination 15:39, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Not necessarily. GTA 1 and 2 were released for free by Rockstar, but they are not redistributable, they may only be downloaded from their page. In the broad definition the Freeware article uses, they are freeware. If we used a stricter definition, they would not be (and they would be "not freeware but released for free"). In any event, they are not shareware.Sega381 16:18, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Grand Chase

The top section of the article states "Games that require a donation or fee, have nag screens, or require purchase for play time, game items, new content or features are shareware, and are not included in this list." Then, in the Gameplay section of Grand Chase's wiki article, one sees: "The game is free-to-play, but there are some items that can only be purchased with real-world currency." Shall I delete it? --207.216.210.189 (talk) 14:22, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] External links

Can someone please try to find and add external links to those games that doesn't have its own Wiki-page?

[edit] Alphabetic order

Please remember to keep the external links in alphabetic order when you add/remove links.

[edit] GTA

GTA is not freeware. It is distributed freely by rockstar games but can be downloaded solely through their website. Rockstar games themselves clearly state that it is not freeware:

"PLEASE NOTE that while this game may be downloaded for free by all who register by filling out the form on this page, it is NOT freeware and may not be mirrored or duplicated by any third parties without express written consent from Rockstar Games."

(www.rockstargames.com/classics)

So why have you re-added it to the list Nifboy?

Sapienza

GTA 1 and 2 were released for free by Rockstar, but they are not redistributable, they may only be downloaded from their page. In the broad definition the Freeware article uses, they are freeware, as they are avaliable fully and free of charge. If we used a stricter definition, they would not be (and they would be "not freeware but released for free"). In their page, Rockstare uses the stricter Freeware definition. In the article and list, the general definition is used. Sega381 16:18, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nethack

Nethack is not freeware. It's free software.

right, i remove it. --Dafuchs 10:49, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Slight POV problems in game descriptions?

I've noticed that there are several game descriptions that claim the game in question is "so good it got the creator a job" or "one of the best" or something along those lines. Should these be changed to make this list more NPOV? -Nmarchan

[edit] Rise of the Dragon

Does anybody have any references for Rise of the Dragon being freeware? I didn't find any, not even in the game's own article. I was suprised to see it here and normally would have removed it, but seeing that it has been on the list for more than 20 months I thought I'd better ask first. --Anym 17:07, 13 April 2006 (UTC)


Looks more like abandonware to me, just like SimCity first of the name. As its publishers seem not to care about it anymore, I think it'd be safe to remove it. Unless others say otherwise ?

I say we create another list/article documenting abandonwares (games who are not sold/distributed anymore and whose creators have "forsaken", and are legitimately distributable if no profit is made) -- Omega Said 22:52, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Abandonware is not legitimately distributable. The concept of abandonware is not supported by law. In U.S. law copyrighted material is copyrighted to the owner for 70 years upon the date the copyright was issued. So even if they no longer sell the product the copyright is still in effect, and is legally protected by the law.69.225.9.90

[edit] Limits

I see a lot of unpopular games without an article, solely here for advertising. Should I remove them?--E-Magination 15:39, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the list needed a cleanup. Some of the former propietary games that are now freeware need an article, and I think those shouldn't be deleted. But I'm not so sure about removing the information on former freeware games...Sega381 16:22, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Notability

I do not have time to do an exhaustive check right now, but many of the games on this page are probably not notable. Someone should go through and check. Andre (talk) 02:20, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A Card-Ware Game

I just want to recommend a game for this article. Ancient Domains Of Mystery (ADOM). A very extensive text based game similar to nethack. 75.80.231.31 06:26, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Adding External Link - Freeware Forum

Dear all,

I would like to add a link here to a great freeware forum called CWF that has a growing community of dedicated gamers and was set up for as collection of links to freeware games and the discussion of games, to discuss commercial games and other things. Here is the link:

http://forum.connect-webdesign.dk/index.php

I did not want to add it without approval here first.

Thanks,

Parvini

Not approved.--=='''[[User:E-Magination''' ==]] 11:32, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

It's good to see people ask before add their site, very good manner. Too bad, it's forum and against WP:EL. So I'm afraid it won't fit in article. L-Zwei 11:52, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I am trying to figure out where this break the rules. Since I am the owner and one part of the administrator team of afore mentioned site, I would love it if we could get featured on Wikipedia. The link goes to the forum only because the main site had no real design for it yet. It is still in development and we are getting more involved in the making of the games now too. We plan to help developers in general get their games done through both helping the development hands on, or by financing future developments. If the site is not yet suitable for getting mentioned in this section I would appreciate it if we were allowed by you to mention our site once more later on when we find it to be more done than it is present. As said before it would be an honour to get mentioned on Wiki in this section.

Highests regards and best wishes from Christian Toft

[edit] Free To Play & Shareware Games

A lot of the games here are Free to play, meaning you can play for free, but you can pay money to unlock exclusive stuff. Shouldn't that stuff be removed? Most of the things here are free games, not freeware games. User:phbbt107

I have noticed alot of the games on here are "Free-to-play" games, that have aditional features that you can purchase for real money (e.g. Maple story and FlyFF), but wouldn't that techincly make them shareware? Mattyatty 16:28, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I went ahead and removed a bunch of free-to-play games. If someone could go and check if I missed any, that'd be great. --Lijnema 19:55, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] structure

I think it would be better if these were arranged by genres, don't you think? --W3stfa11 22:11, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm with you. When I'm looking for games, I never start searching at A, but I almost always look for games in a certain genre. Re-structuring the games by genre would be great.

The Zeroorez

[edit] F.E.A.R. Combat

Is there a reason for FEAR Combat not being included? On the 17th of August 2006 the multiplayer version of FEAR went freeware. Also see: First_Encounter_Assault_Recon#Multiplayer, List_of_commercial_games_released_as_freeware and List_of_free_first-person_shooters#F.E.A.R_Combat The Zeroorez

[edit] Open Source vs. Freeware

Despite how the introduction states that open source games should go in the separate list dedicated to them, I spotted 3 open source games within minutes of skimming thru the entry. "Apophis" was even called an open source game in the description, right next to the link! (I've removed the erroneous entries that I've spotted.) Clearly, contributors are missing the distinction between the two lists. Understandable, I suppose, since the sentence that says open source games ought to go in the other list isn't particularly conspicuous. While we can, and should, go thru the list sooner or later to prune out the duplicate open source entries (making sure that they're placed on the open source list), I think that we should erect a prominent banner to prevent such problems in the future, or a similar measure. Thoughts? -Mysterius 06:49, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not too interested in the debate, but I think the argument is that any game that is available for free is freeware, and this thus makes "freeware" a superset which includes all free software (aka open source) packages. --Gronky 08:17, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
I agree. I've seen a number of games dropped from the Open Source list, because the game contained non-free content, and not added to this list. I think it would be best to have all free games in this list, open source and not. --Lijnema 17:10, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm not in any way against that, but the introduction should be edited, then, to reflect consensus. And if/when such a consensus is reached, then my previous deletions should be re-added to the list. -Mysterius 00:21, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, let's list the lot, making a note of which are open source. While we're at it, let's do something other than alphabetical order; categories can do that; perhaps by-genre, by-license, or by original release date? Marasmusine 06:45, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
And let's also split the list in two: packages that are free software but which use non-free level data, maps, images, etc., and packages that are entirely free software and free content. --Gronky 07:21, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
As long as we don't start listing each individual Doom source port in that latter section. Marasmusine 15:55, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
I disagree. Lumping treating "freeware" as an umbrella term under which to place "free software" is mistaken, overlooking the history of the term freeware, how Wikipedia describes it, etc. Please don't conflate terms here. D. Brodale 20:12, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:Dhunters1.jpg

The image Image:Dhunters1.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
  • That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --00:16, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] New link for freeware? or is it just free software... you people confuse me.

I'm not all that familiar with the term "freeware" vs. "free software", so, i'm going to leave it up to someone who actually understands that to post this link in the appropriate section. http://freeware.remakes.org/

thanks(and i'm not logged in. dang.) XIADEN74.77.105.188 (talk) 22:35, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Battle For Wesnoth - Free Software But Not Freeware?

Around 26/27-May-08 the following entry was deleted by Ciastek on the grounds that it is free software but not freeware:

I don't understand the difference between free software and freeware. Please explain. John259 (talk) 06:37, 27 May 2008 (UTC)