But outside of games just not being playable, people are talking about not having fun without the IAP. This is fairly subjective. I didn't spend a dime on Plant's vs. Zombies 2 despite it having IAP, yet somehow people suggest you "have" to spend money to have fun.
No, the games are free.
> You can't call your food pesticide-free or GM-free or gluten-free unless it really is.
> But outside of games just not being playable, people are talking about not having fun without the IAP. This is fairly subjective. I didn't spend a dime on Plant's vs. Zombies 2 despite it having IAP, yet somehow people suggest you "have" to spend money to have fun.
You didn't clarify that in your original post here. If I understood this is what you meant then I would've edited my post to remove the "fun" part but rather change it with "take full advantage of".
If Plaint and Zombies were advertised as a free game, you download it but it only lets you play 5 minutes before you have to pay, then that's not a free game. It's a free demo/trial.
> Yeah, not even the same thing.
Yes, it is in this point we're making. The people didn't make this happen, it required the intervention of the government to mandate this type of information accuracy.
You are the one here acting like a troll. You come off as argumentative to the point of combative. You nitpick and swear, all in a highly unpleasant tone. If you really are done, great, the discussion will be better off.
"But outside of games just not being playable, people are talking about not having fun without the IAP. This is fairly subjective."
Given that almost all of us arguing from either side would probably agree with this, there are two obvious options:
1. Allow the current situation, in which you can market anything as free, literally an app that does nothing without spending on IAP, so long as it is free to download
2. Prevent the use of the term 'free' if IAP is present at all.
In the interests of the consumer, to offer protection from unscrupulous companies which, particularly in this marketplace, have demonstrated some pretty unethical practises, I favour the latter.
>> You can't call your food pesticide-free or GM-free or gluten-free unless it really is.
> Yeah, not even the same thing.
Not the exact same thing, but not that different either. If I spray my fruits with pesticides that then get washed off in the rain, or stay in the crust which I remove before selling, I could reasonably argue that they are "pesticide-free". It's the government that forbids me to market them that way.
That's not a helpful response. If you want to disagree - why is this different?
It makes sense to me for 'free' to mean 'free forever'. You could call it 'free to download' or whatever. Its basically false or misleading advertising to call something 'free' which you could end up paying for...
No, the games are free.
> You can't call your food pesticide-free or GM-free or gluten-free unless it really is.
Yeah, not even the same thing.