I'd say the examples section would work best if limited to when it's brought up in-universe.
Infinite Tree: an experimental story
Cure Candy
Unstoppable Sex Goddess
![[up]](https://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/smiles/arrow_up.png "[up]"){kind=icon}
This.
Any objections?
I'm taking care of that right now, especially this example:
Games that are continuously patched/updated as time rolls on have had this trope happen. Apparently, everyone's trashing about how the latest mandatory patch for an online game has ruined the game forever - whilst ignoring that the patch was actually given free of charge. Team Fortress 2 is another example with its ever Unpleasable Fanbase.(For an example of patches that suck, look no further than Star Wars Galaxies.)
edited 13th Feb '11 7:41:56 PM by DonZabu
"Wax on, wax off..." "But Mr. Miyagi, I don't see how this is helping me do Karate..." "Pubic hair is weakness, Daniel-san!"
I agree. Always good to keep examples in-universe.
edited 13th Feb '11 7:44:55 PM by troacctid
Rhymes with "Protracted."
I've re-written the opening description somewhat. What do you think of this?
They say that there's no such thing as a free lunch. No matter what, someone has got to pick up the tab.
Complaining About Things You Haven't Paid For is a trope about a person or character who acquires something at no monetary cost to him/her (usually through a promotional giveaway but can also cover things like outright thievery) and doesn't like it.
Presumably a common habit of pessimists and picky people; in a stark contrast of this behavior, people or characters who have no problems looking on the bright side of things may frequently make a remark along the lines of, "Who cares if it's a piece of crap? It's free!" (or, depending on the circumstances, "It's stolen!")
Of course, one could also argue that, in the case of shows, movies, and writing, one is making a tangible investment of one's time by watching it, so even if it doesn't cost money, it's not exactly free (they don't call it "spending time" for nothing, after all). Naturally, Your Mileage May Vary.
Sometimes, this is used to attack people for criticizing things that are free. There is nothing wrong with being constructive towards say, an indie game being distributed for free, or fanfiction or the like that's posted free of charge to you. However, compare constructive criticism to flat out trashing the creator.
This is of course Truth in Television. Just because you got something for free doesn't mean you have to like it. If anything, someone who did not pay for a product is much more likely to realize its crap and throw it away, as they don't have to justify to themselves having wasted money.
Creator - Laconic/24
Makes sense to me. If it's not brought up in-universe, then that's what Troper Tales is for. And that trope has a detailed Troper Tales page.
“I just think that's really shady." "Shady?!" - Stephanie & Chad, The Amazing Race 17
Let's add an "in-universe only, please" banner.
edited 15th Feb '11 8:54:46 PM by SpellBlade
There, I've changed the opening description. How does it look now?
Also, I just have to comment on this:
Linkara mentioned this as one of the reasons why he won't review webcomics.An online video producer invoking this trope not for self-serving purposes? Never thought I'd see the day.
edited 16th Feb '11 3:21:47 PM by DonZabu
"Wax on, wax off..." "But Mr. Miyagi, I don't see how this is helping me do Karate..." "Pubic hair is weakness, Daniel-san!"
I find it disturbing that TV Tropes seems to implicitly support this concept; the concept that if something doesn't cost money, it's immune to criticism.That's funny because when I launched this trope, it never said anything of the sort. All of the examples gathered upon launch all involved character occurrences in stories. The idea is that this is a comedy trope, involving a character complaining about the value or quality of a "product" which the character did not pay anything (be it through theft or a giveaway without payment) to receive whatever value said product may have.
It should be noted that the word "product" was never meant to imply specific works of fiction of any sort that someone pirated, but "anything attainable by anybody."
I would have originally titled this Who Cares If It's Shit? It's Free!, but that's apparently frowned upon (and not very well representative of what the trope aims for).
edited 16th Feb '11 3:44:20 PM by SeanMurrayI
The idea is that this is a comedy trope, involving a character complaining about the value or quality of a "product" which the character did not pay anything (be it through theft or a giveaway without payment) to receive whatever value said product may have.
A different meaning where? The trope's description never suggested anything other than what was originally present on the page. And if you were talking about some of the more questionable examples, we just got rid of those. Where is this taking on a different meaning?
I mean that it's not so much a comedic thing now as it is the kind of thing an author would say when doing Dear Negative Reader.
"Wax on, wax off..." "But Mr. Miyagi, I don't see how this is helping me do Karate..." "Pubic hair is weakness, Daniel-san!"
I got that part. What I'm asking is, "Where is such a thing occurring?"
Was it just in the examples that we just got rid of? Or are there wicks that we should be looking at as well?
edited 17th Feb '11 7:32:15 AM by SeanMurrayI
The Other Troper
Then the description should be reworked to make it clear that it's a comedy trope, and then after that a short disclaimer that in Real Life it should not be used as a shield against Constructive Criticism.
I'm on the internet. My arguments are invalid.
I find it disturbing that TV Tropes seems to implicitly support this concept; the concept that if something doesn't cost money, it's immune to criticism. Sure, it has a small footnote in the opening description saying otherwise, but every other part of the page, including the other sections of the opening description, including the vast majority of the examples, and including the sub-pages, it's treated as if it was a correct defense.
As for why it's not a correct defense, I have two counterarguments: one by Pushing Up Roses
, and the other by UrinatingTree
. PUR argues that, since you're paying a monthly bill to access the Internet, it's never actually free, and UT argues that, even if it doesn't cost money, it's still a tangible investment of your time to watch it. They don't call it "spending time" for nothing. Both move on to argue that quality =/= free.
So what I'd like is for the page to be re-written somewhat to give the concept less of a reverence, perhaps including some of these arguments I've brought up in the opening description.
"Wax on, wax off..." "But Mr. Miyagi, I don't see how this is helping me do Karate..." "Pubic hair is weakness, Daniel-san!"