Talk:List of freeware video games

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)

External links

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

Alphabetic order

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

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)

Nethack

Nethack is not freeware. It's free software.

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

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

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

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)

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)

• Pretty much, DUH!. --=='''[[User:E-Magination''' ==]] 09:29, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

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)

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

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)

• Yes, you may remove them.--=='''[[User:E-Magination''' ==]] 18:06, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
• I agree, remove them. --W3stfa11 22:11, 27 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)

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

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

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)