Talk:List of commercial video games released as freeware

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Video games, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of video games on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Video gamesWikipedia:WikiProject Video gamesTemplate:WikiProject Video gamesvideo game articles

Start

This article has been rated as Start-class on the project's quality scale.

???

This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Summary of Video games WikiProject open tasks:

Summary of Video games WikiProject open tasks

AfDs

Merge discussions

Other discussions

No major discussions

Disputed freeware download links

I've removed these to here for discussion. Without some sort of proof, I'd argue that the guy hosting the below links doesn't have permission to be doing so. Just because something was being distributed by the creator/copyright holder does not necessarily mean that offering them on your own is OK.

Zork I (1980), by Infocom, (Get it here)
Zork II (1981), by Infocom, (Get it here)
Zork III (1982), by Infocom, (Get it here)
Zork: The Undiscovered Underground (1997), by Infocom, straight-to-freeware release in 1997 as publicity for the release of Zork: Grand Inquisitor (Get it here)

At least the Zorks I-III include a licence notice from Activision, which forbids copying the games. Evktalo 15:33, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The games Betrayal at Krondor, Caesar, and Red Baron are not free downloads. This was confirmed by Liberated Games in November 2004. Furthermore, Ultima 0 and Ultima IV are ambiguous, at best.

Yes.. I'm not sure if the list belongs in the Abandonware page at all - if the games are supported with a download or a freeware licence, they are hardly abandonded. evktalo 12:37, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Both the Oldware (French site) and replacementdocs engage in copyright infringement. My vote would be to remove those links, but I would prefer not engage in that practice myself since my own site (Liberated Games) is listed. (Note: Liberated Games tries to stay clean in the sense of listing sites only if confirmation from a copyright holder can be obtained.)

Actually - Some of the games listed were availble for free for a short time. However, not anymore. Ultima IV, I believe, is only allowed to be distributed by one website for free. --68.196.38.13 22:26, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

iD Software Games

Shouldn't iD Software games like Doom and Quake be on the list here? Or does being opensourced mean it's not abandonware? Jacoplane 02:18, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Read a few lines above.. ;) Only their source has been released. The game data has not. evktalo 18:42, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Descent: Freespace

What about Descent: Freespace game? --Varnav 16:52, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Source only. [1]evktalo 09:22, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rockstar Games

Rockstar has released GTA, GTA2, and Wild Metal for free. I'm pretty sure these count...

http://www.rockstargames.com/classics/gta.html --Chris Price 04:03, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see Wild Metal on there after more checking, but GTA and GTA2 still aren't --Chris Price 04:03, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See Talk:Abandonware#Public domain vs freeware. --69.54.29.23 19:40, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Granted, but still, either Wild Metal should not be on the list, or GTA and GTA2 should be added. Having one of the three listed makes no sense at all. --Chris Price 09:45, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MechCommander Series

The MechCommander series have not been released as freeware, the site www.mechcommander.org is offering pirate copies of the isos via torrent. Microsoft have released the source code for MC2 which the owners of mechcommander.org appear to equate with being the same thing as the entire game being released as freeware.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Deepcut (talk • contribs) .

That appears to be correct... even more, ONLY MC2 source code has been released (and I'm not sure about the graphics data), I haven't found references on the rest of the series... Releasing one game's source code clearly doesn't affect the rest of the series. Even if the entire game was open source, it doesn't belong in this list. Removed the links to the illegal downloads site from the articles too.Sega381 20:00, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

True, no place here, even if the Soure code download packet from Microsoft includes a compiled version of the game. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.173.162.129 (talk) 12:47, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Web directory?

This page reads like a Web directory, more than an encyclopedic article. Are there other Wikis this page could be moved to and maintained there? --69.54.29.23 13:17, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There could be another article, but I haven't found one where this list fits well. However, it might be a good idea to remove the "Get it here" links; I'm not sure they really belong there in the first place...Sega381 19:51, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Removed the links; they are at each article's page anyway. Shoule be less web-directory like now.Sega381 04:07, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Addition

~~Should Starcommand 2:Ur-quan masters be here?~~ Jefffire 09:40, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind, it goes under open-souce now. Jefffire 10:18, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it should. I have added it under its correct title Star Control II. -- Darklock (talk) 19:18, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Factor 5 Amiga games

I've just notice factor 5 have their ports of r-type and bonks adventure aswell a katakis along with backup versions of the first three turrican games. so what part of the list should these be put in. link Atirage 04:40, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

F.E.A.R.'s multiplayer component

Is this one worth mentioning? Wouldn't this just be viewed as a patch since the single player game is necessary to play it? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Messatsu (talk • contribs) 06:33, 27 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

I haven't played the game, but as I understood, the multiplayer version of FEAR was available as a free download, and so it was playable without the original FEAR game. It's included in the original game; it's not a patch for the retail version (at least that's what is said in the FEAR article).Sega381 15:02, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's actually called Fear Combat and it is a free download you can get from the fear site itself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.219.5.171 (talk) 15:36, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A lot more

There are a lot of publishers and individuals who have given permission for their old titles to be freely distrubuted. // Liftarn

The original BattleChess (for DOS) from 1988 should be included. In fact it was one of the first "liberated" games ever, in 1994. Quote from the file_id.diz that was included in magazine publications and downloads at that time: "[...] With the advent of BATTLE CHESS II(tm) last year, we launched what is perhaps the most intriguing style of chess play since this, the original BATTLE CHESS swept the computer gaming world in 1988. As our way of saying thanks, we are setting BATTLE CHESS loose upon the world as FREEware! Yes, that's right - FREEWARE. [...]"

Page organization

Suggesting anti-chronological original release sorting for game list instead of alphabet name sorting. Because for video games, year of release is strongly linked to technologies SW & HW. Would looks like nicer and easier to browse like this:

2006 - FPS - FEAR combat
2005 - RPG - [...]
2005 - FPS - [...]

It sounds like a good idea, it may be a better organization... however, most lists I've seen are ordered alphabetically... is there any Wikipedia rule or recommendation on this? What do everyone else think? Sega381 16:23, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really see a problem with the alphabetical ordering. The list isn't there for people to quickly find a free game to play, it's not a free games portal, it's a list of games which at one point weren't freeware but were release as such at a later date. Having said that, I am not strongly opposed to a re-ordering, and if more people want it, that's fine I guess. However, if someone is going to make the list chronological, it should be going from oldest to newest, as per this guideline, and not in reverse order. And I don't think the type of game should come before the name of the game, that just makes no sense at all. --Lijnema 18:48, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]