<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_06_05_0852201</id>
	<title>Valve Explains Quick <em>Left 4 Dead</em> Sequel</title>
	<author>Soulskill</author>
	<datestamp>1244200680000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>Valve's announcement that <a href="http://games.slashdot.org/story/09/06/01/2121252/emLeft-4-Dead-2em-Announced-For-November?from=rss"> <em>Left 4 Dead 2</em> would be released</a> only a year after the first game has <a href="http://forums.steampowered.com/forums/showthread.php?t=885287">generated a great deal of controversy</a> among fans of the game. There are concerns that <em>Left 4 Dead</em> will not get any additional content, the community will be divided, and that the quick development cycle won't do justice to the sequel. Now, Valve devs and execs are going out of their way to address those concerns. <em>Left 4 Dead</em> project lead Chet Faliszek said, "It just became very clear that this was <a href="http://arstechnica.com/gaming/news/2009/06/before-its-time-valve-explains-left-4-dead-sequel-to-ars.ars">a cohesive, singular statement we wanted to make</a>, not a more slow update thing... too much stuff was tied together with too many other things." Developer Tom Leonard was quick to point out that <a href="http://www.gamasutra.com/php-bin/news\_index.php?story=23911">work wouldn't cease for the first game</a>: "We are doing updates across the summer, adding new matchmaking features, and new features to facilitate user maps after the SDK is out. ... Additionally, those maps can be transported into <em>Left 4 Dead 2</em>." Doug Lombardi said simply, "<a href="http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2009/06/04/valve-on-l4d2-trust-us-a-little-bit/">Trust us a little bit</a>," explaining that Gabe Newell is "always talking about providing entertainment as a service &mdash; it's not about making a game any more."</htmltext>
<tokenext>Valve 's announcement that Left 4 Dead 2 would be released only a year after the first game has generated a great deal of controversy among fans of the game .
There are concerns that Left 4 Dead will not get any additional content , the community will be divided , and that the quick development cycle wo n't do justice to the sequel .
Now , Valve devs and execs are going out of their way to address those concerns .
Left 4 Dead project lead Chet Faliszek said , " It just became very clear that this was a cohesive , singular statement we wanted to make , not a more slow update thing... too much stuff was tied together with too many other things .
" Developer Tom Leonard was quick to point out that work would n't cease for the first game : " We are doing updates across the summer , adding new matchmaking features , and new features to facilitate user maps after the SDK is out .
... Additionally , those maps can be transported into Left 4 Dead 2 .
" Doug Lombardi said simply , " Trust us a little bit , " explaining that Gabe Newell is " always talking about providing entertainment as a service    it 's not about making a game any more .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Valve's announcement that  Left 4 Dead 2 would be released only a year after the first game has generated a great deal of controversy among fans of the game.
There are concerns that Left 4 Dead will not get any additional content, the community will be divided, and that the quick development cycle won't do justice to the sequel.
Now, Valve devs and execs are going out of their way to address those concerns.
Left 4 Dead project lead Chet Faliszek said, "It just became very clear that this was a cohesive, singular statement we wanted to make, not a more slow update thing... too much stuff was tied together with too many other things.
" Developer Tom Leonard was quick to point out that work wouldn't cease for the first game: "We are doing updates across the summer, adding new matchmaking features, and new features to facilitate user maps after the SDK is out.
... Additionally, those maps can be transported into Left 4 Dead 2.
" Doug Lombardi said simply, "Trust us a little bit," explaining that Gabe Newell is "always talking about providing entertainment as a service — it's not about making a game any more.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_0852201.28220735</id>
	<title>Wont do justice?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244208300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The original game had like 6 guns, 4 levels and about 5 types of enemies.</p><p>You could do justice to that in about a month with a mod team, let alone in a year with a full blown dev team.</p><p>I was really looking forward to L4D when it was announced, but as games go, L4D was probably the one game I can point to with the most dissapointingly small amount of content I've seen in the last 5 years.</p><p>It really did feel like an HL2 mod and nothing more. The idea is fantastic, but the execution of it left a lot to be desired IMO.</p><p>I understood why Valve didn't bother with a storyline, but generally if you're not going to bother with that you make it up by making sure there's a ton of levels, game modes, weapons, enemies and so on to deal with. The problem with L4D is that it was devoid of any meaningful amount of any of these things. It had few maps, few enemy types, few weapons, few gameplay modes.</p><p>For &pound;30 - &pound;35 I expect a game, not a mod.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The original game had like 6 guns , 4 levels and about 5 types of enemies.You could do justice to that in about a month with a mod team , let alone in a year with a full blown dev team.I was really looking forward to L4D when it was announced , but as games go , L4D was probably the one game I can point to with the most dissapointingly small amount of content I 've seen in the last 5 years.It really did feel like an HL2 mod and nothing more .
The idea is fantastic , but the execution of it left a lot to be desired IMO.I understood why Valve did n't bother with a storyline , but generally if you 're not going to bother with that you make it up by making sure there 's a ton of levels , game modes , weapons , enemies and so on to deal with .
The problem with L4D is that it was devoid of any meaningful amount of any of these things .
It had few maps , few enemy types , few weapons , few gameplay modes.For   30 -   35 I expect a game , not a mod .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The original game had like 6 guns, 4 levels and about 5 types of enemies.You could do justice to that in about a month with a mod team, let alone in a year with a full blown dev team.I was really looking forward to L4D when it was announced, but as games go, L4D was probably the one game I can point to with the most dissapointingly small amount of content I've seen in the last 5 years.It really did feel like an HL2 mod and nothing more.
The idea is fantastic, but the execution of it left a lot to be desired IMO.I understood why Valve didn't bother with a storyline, but generally if you're not going to bother with that you make it up by making sure there's a ton of levels, game modes, weapons, enemies and so on to deal with.
The problem with L4D is that it was devoid of any meaningful amount of any of these things.
It had few maps, few enemy types, few weapons, few gameplay modes.For £30 - £35 I expect a game, not a mod.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_0852201.28220337</id>
	<title>"...entertainment as a service."</title>
	<author>L4t3r4lu5</author>
	<datestamp>1244204940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Just after I've bought^h^h^h^h^h^hlicensed an EA game and am presented with the EULA, I certainly feel like I've been served.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Just after I 've bought ^ h ^ h ^ h ^ h ^ h ^ hlicensed an EA game and am presented with the EULA , I certainly feel like I 've been served .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just after I've bought^h^h^h^h^h^hlicensed an EA game and am presented with the EULA, I certainly feel like I've been served.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_0852201.28220783</id>
	<title>Re:Why I cry at night...</title>
	<author>Rogerborg</author>
	<datestamp>1244208600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Electricity is a service.  Pizza delivery is a service.  The difference is that I'm not obliged to make a large capital outlay on Electricity Meter v2.0 or Doorbell v3.0 every year in order to continue paying for their service.

</p><p>Y'all listening, Gabe?  You're speaking the language of the salesman.  We're games players.  We want to play games, not subscribe to services.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Electricity is a service .
Pizza delivery is a service .
The difference is that I 'm not obliged to make a large capital outlay on Electricity Meter v2.0 or Doorbell v3.0 every year in order to continue paying for their service .
Y'all listening , Gabe ?
You 're speaking the language of the salesman .
We 're games players .
We want to play games , not subscribe to services .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Electricity is a service.
Pizza delivery is a service.
The difference is that I'm not obliged to make a large capital outlay on Electricity Meter v2.0 or Doorbell v3.0 every year in order to continue paying for their service.
Y'all listening, Gabe?
You're speaking the language of the salesman.
We're games players.
We want to play games, not subscribe to services.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_0852201.28220319</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_0852201.28225943</id>
	<title>And nothing new was said</title>
	<author>Dracil</author>
	<datestamp>1244230740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They keep saying they'll still support L4D1, but all we see is stuff that was already going to be released.  Everything else after that is "the users will do the work and we will claim credit for the additional content".  Sorry no, the modding community has already stopped work on L4D1 content to focus making maps that will make use of the new features of L4D2 (and so far it looks like the compatibility is 1-way, otherwise we can easily just copy the new campaigns from L4D2 into L4D1).  They have said exactly nothing about support AFTER L4D2 is released.  They're still being intentionally misleading about "continued support", just like they were with that quote up there about new stuff for L4D when they really meant L4D2.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>They keep saying they 'll still support L4D1 , but all we see is stuff that was already going to be released .
Everything else after that is " the users will do the work and we will claim credit for the additional content " .
Sorry no , the modding community has already stopped work on L4D1 content to focus making maps that will make use of the new features of L4D2 ( and so far it looks like the compatibility is 1-way , otherwise we can easily just copy the new campaigns from L4D2 into L4D1 ) .
They have said exactly nothing about support AFTER L4D2 is released .
They 're still being intentionally misleading about " continued support " , just like they were with that quote up there about new stuff for L4D when they really meant L4D2 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They keep saying they'll still support L4D1, but all we see is stuff that was already going to be released.
Everything else after that is "the users will do the work and we will claim credit for the additional content".
Sorry no, the modding community has already stopped work on L4D1 content to focus making maps that will make use of the new features of L4D2 (and so far it looks like the compatibility is 1-way, otherwise we can easily just copy the new campaigns from L4D2 into L4D1).
They have said exactly nothing about support AFTER L4D2 is released.
They're still being intentionally misleading about "continued support", just like they were with that quote up there about new stuff for L4D when they really meant L4D2.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_0852201.28224361</id>
	<title>I can see both sides to this argument</title>
	<author>jollyreaper</author>
	<datestamp>1244224020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I understand what Valve is saying but I think they may be making a douche move here.</p><p>Back when Half-Life came out I was saying to myself how it would be great if they released episodic content on the same engine. The story was so huge in Half-Life, it was fully half of the gameplay. I would have been interested to see more of what was happening with Gordon Freeman. Charge $50 for the first game which covers the cost of engine development, release two or three quality add-ons over the next few years, not the faffing about like OpFor and Blue Shit but real, proper new chapters, just as long as the original game, and then when the tech has improved that's when you release the sequel for $50 again. They tried this with HL2's episodic content except those games were expensive, short, and take just as long to come out as a real game.</p><p>When looking at the hardcore wargamer market, it seemed reasonable that something like this could be handled along a subscription model. You pay $50 a year and get a constant stream of updates, more scenarios and models and such. Every five years or so the engine gets an overhaul to bring it up to date and that's part of the release cycle. I figured this sort of thing would make sense in the internet age because there would be such close contact between developer and fanbase. But what this sort of thing has devolved to in real life is like the sports games where a new engine is created for a new console and then the only thing that really changes each year are the team rosters and stats and you get charged full price for that minuscule update.</p><p>I can tell you what the game publishers are probably drooling at replicating here -- game store revenues. That's what DLC is about. When you're a D&amp;D player or, God help you, a Warhammer guy, you're constantly shelling out money each month. New books, new figurines, dice, etc. What the publishers like is even if the physical game is resold, it doesn't come with that DLC. (the only exception is when they decide to release a game of the year edition that specifically includes all the add-ons.) So if the game is resold, the DLC doesn't go with it and so the same content can be resold to the new player. Eventually they're hoping for physical media to go away altogether and all distribution will be online with no right of resale. Expect major dick moves all the way along here.</p><p>I wonder how successful episodic gaming could really be, if the episodes were priced very low and the publisher kept up a consistent release schedule with relatively short intervals. I know I almost never buy a game at full-price and usually pick them up for $20. If a publisher released quality episodes for $10 a pop and each episode was about a sixth the length of a full game, I could easily end up paying the full $60. If the episodes were good enough, I wouldn't even mind.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I understand what Valve is saying but I think they may be making a douche move here.Back when Half-Life came out I was saying to myself how it would be great if they released episodic content on the same engine .
The story was so huge in Half-Life , it was fully half of the gameplay .
I would have been interested to see more of what was happening with Gordon Freeman .
Charge $ 50 for the first game which covers the cost of engine development , release two or three quality add-ons over the next few years , not the faffing about like OpFor and Blue Shit but real , proper new chapters , just as long as the original game , and then when the tech has improved that 's when you release the sequel for $ 50 again .
They tried this with HL2 's episodic content except those games were expensive , short , and take just as long to come out as a real game.When looking at the hardcore wargamer market , it seemed reasonable that something like this could be handled along a subscription model .
You pay $ 50 a year and get a constant stream of updates , more scenarios and models and such .
Every five years or so the engine gets an overhaul to bring it up to date and that 's part of the release cycle .
I figured this sort of thing would make sense in the internet age because there would be such close contact between developer and fanbase .
But what this sort of thing has devolved to in real life is like the sports games where a new engine is created for a new console and then the only thing that really changes each year are the team rosters and stats and you get charged full price for that minuscule update.I can tell you what the game publishers are probably drooling at replicating here -- game store revenues .
That 's what DLC is about .
When you 're a D&amp;D player or , God help you , a Warhammer guy , you 're constantly shelling out money each month .
New books , new figurines , dice , etc .
What the publishers like is even if the physical game is resold , it does n't come with that DLC .
( the only exception is when they decide to release a game of the year edition that specifically includes all the add-ons .
) So if the game is resold , the DLC does n't go with it and so the same content can be resold to the new player .
Eventually they 're hoping for physical media to go away altogether and all distribution will be online with no right of resale .
Expect major dick moves all the way along here.I wonder how successful episodic gaming could really be , if the episodes were priced very low and the publisher kept up a consistent release schedule with relatively short intervals .
I know I almost never buy a game at full-price and usually pick them up for $ 20 .
If a publisher released quality episodes for $ 10 a pop and each episode was about a sixth the length of a full game , I could easily end up paying the full $ 60 .
If the episodes were good enough , I would n't even mind .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I understand what Valve is saying but I think they may be making a douche move here.Back when Half-Life came out I was saying to myself how it would be great if they released episodic content on the same engine.
The story was so huge in Half-Life, it was fully half of the gameplay.
I would have been interested to see more of what was happening with Gordon Freeman.
Charge $50 for the first game which covers the cost of engine development, release two or three quality add-ons over the next few years, not the faffing about like OpFor and Blue Shit but real, proper new chapters, just as long as the original game, and then when the tech has improved that's when you release the sequel for $50 again.
They tried this with HL2's episodic content except those games were expensive, short, and take just as long to come out as a real game.When looking at the hardcore wargamer market, it seemed reasonable that something like this could be handled along a subscription model.
You pay $50 a year and get a constant stream of updates, more scenarios and models and such.
Every five years or so the engine gets an overhaul to bring it up to date and that's part of the release cycle.
I figured this sort of thing would make sense in the internet age because there would be such close contact between developer and fanbase.
But what this sort of thing has devolved to in real life is like the sports games where a new engine is created for a new console and then the only thing that really changes each year are the team rosters and stats and you get charged full price for that minuscule update.I can tell you what the game publishers are probably drooling at replicating here -- game store revenues.
That's what DLC is about.
When you're a D&amp;D player or, God help you, a Warhammer guy, you're constantly shelling out money each month.
New books, new figurines, dice, etc.
What the publishers like is even if the physical game is resold, it doesn't come with that DLC.
(the only exception is when they decide to release a game of the year edition that specifically includes all the add-ons.
) So if the game is resold, the DLC doesn't go with it and so the same content can be resold to the new player.
Eventually they're hoping for physical media to go away altogether and all distribution will be online with no right of resale.
Expect major dick moves all the way along here.I wonder how successful episodic gaming could really be, if the episodes were priced very low and the publisher kept up a consistent release schedule with relatively short intervals.
I know I almost never buy a game at full-price and usually pick them up for $20.
If a publisher released quality episodes for $10 a pop and each episode was about a sixth the length of a full game, I could easily end up paying the full $60.
If the episodes were good enough, I wouldn't even mind.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_0852201.28224151</id>
	<title>Promises? [Citation needed]</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244223240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The most serious complaint seems to be that "significant content for L4D1 was promised," and L4D2 means that L4D won't get the promised content. Does anybody know <i>where</i> these promises are coming from? I don't remember reading anything about that. If this is just some fans griping because TF2 got significant post-release content and L4D didn't, I don't really see the problem. TF2 launched with three or four maps; L4D had 20.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The most serious complaint seems to be that " significant content for L4D1 was promised , " and L4D2 means that L4D wo n't get the promised content .
Does anybody know where these promises are coming from ?
I do n't remember reading anything about that .
If this is just some fans griping because TF2 got significant post-release content and L4D did n't , I do n't really see the problem .
TF2 launched with three or four maps ; L4D had 20 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The most serious complaint seems to be that "significant content for L4D1 was promised," and L4D2 means that L4D won't get the promised content.
Does anybody know where these promises are coming from?
I don't remember reading anything about that.
If this is just some fans griping because TF2 got significant post-release content and L4D didn't, I don't really see the problem.
TF2 launched with three or four maps; L4D had 20.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_0852201.28220595</id>
	<title>The Left4Dead SDK isn't even out yet.</title>
	<author>AftanGustur</author>
	<datestamp>1244207100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
It has been "coming soon", since last fall, I wonder if Valve plans to only release it for L4D 2, forcing the current players to buy the new game if they want to create mods.
</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It has been " coming soon " , since last fall , I wonder if Valve plans to only release it for L4D 2 , forcing the current players to buy the new game if they want to create mods .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
It has been "coming soon", since last fall, I wonder if Valve plans to only release it for L4D 2, forcing the current players to buy the new game if they want to create mods.
</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_0852201.28228163</id>
	<title>Re:Why I cry at night...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244200320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Bullshit. You don't know what the fuck your talking about, I bet you don't even own a valve game. They obviously aren't good enough for you. May I ask, what is good enough for you?</p><p>Steam (from valve) presents games as a service, they continually update them (monthly at least), and improve anything that causes problems. Game play problems mostly. They listen to users' input and fix the games up for the better. For example, TF2, they just removed the feature that allowed you to get weapons by getting lots of achievements, as it was unfair, but the new way they tried wasn't good so they changed it again. Now you can pick them up, or get them by achievements. This is great IMHO.</p><p>It is why alot of games suck--the games that <b>aren't</b> presented as a service are the ones that suck. You know why alot of open source/free games are so fun? Because the devs don't just do it for money--they care about there games and listen to their users. They continue development even after the game has finished, a continuing service.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Bullshit .
You do n't know what the fuck your talking about , I bet you do n't even own a valve game .
They obviously are n't good enough for you .
May I ask , what is good enough for you ? Steam ( from valve ) presents games as a service , they continually update them ( monthly at least ) , and improve anything that causes problems .
Game play problems mostly .
They listen to users ' input and fix the games up for the better .
For example , TF2 , they just removed the feature that allowed you to get weapons by getting lots of achievements , as it was unfair , but the new way they tried was n't good so they changed it again .
Now you can pick them up , or get them by achievements .
This is great IMHO.It is why alot of games suck--the games that are n't presented as a service are the ones that suck .
You know why alot of open source/free games are so fun ?
Because the devs do n't just do it for money--they care about there games and listen to their users .
They continue development even after the game has finished , a continuing service .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Bullshit.
You don't know what the fuck your talking about, I bet you don't even own a valve game.
They obviously aren't good enough for you.
May I ask, what is good enough for you?Steam (from valve) presents games as a service, they continually update them (monthly at least), and improve anything that causes problems.
Game play problems mostly.
They listen to users' input and fix the games up for the better.
For example, TF2, they just removed the feature that allowed you to get weapons by getting lots of achievements, as it was unfair, but the new way they tried wasn't good so they changed it again.
Now you can pick them up, or get them by achievements.
This is great IMHO.It is why alot of games suck--the games that aren't presented as a service are the ones that suck.
You know why alot of open source/free games are so fun?
Because the devs don't just do it for money--they care about there games and listen to their users.
They continue development even after the game has finished, a continuing service.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_0852201.28220319</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_0852201.28227693</id>
	<title>Look up</title>
	<author>Littleman\_TAMU</author>
	<datestamp>1244197260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><a href="http://games.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1257929&amp;cid=28220765" title="slashdot.org" rel="nofollow">http://games.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1257929&amp;cid=28220765</a> [slashdot.org] <br> <br>
I remember that interview as well.  The simplicity of "making your own story", i.e. them not developing one for you made me think of TF2.  Look at what they've done with that and that seems to be what Gabe was talking about when talking about L4D.  Now they're dropping a whole new game instead of free updates like with TF2.  The problem here is expectations.  If I wasn't expecting a TF2-style life-cycle, I wouldn't be disappointed.  Of course, I would have expected that type of game to start out at 29.99, not 49.99.</htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //games.slashdot.org/comments.pl ? sid = 1257929&amp;cid = 28220765 [ slashdot.org ] I remember that interview as well .
The simplicity of " making your own story " , i.e .
them not developing one for you made me think of TF2 .
Look at what they 've done with that and that seems to be what Gabe was talking about when talking about L4D .
Now they 're dropping a whole new game instead of free updates like with TF2 .
The problem here is expectations .
If I was n't expecting a TF2-style life-cycle , I would n't be disappointed .
Of course , I would have expected that type of game to start out at 29.99 , not 49.99 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://games.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1257929&amp;cid=28220765 [slashdot.org]  
I remember that interview as well.
The simplicity of "making your own story", i.e.
them not developing one for you made me think of TF2.
Look at what they've done with that and that seems to be what Gabe was talking about when talking about L4D.
Now they're dropping a whole new game instead of free updates like with TF2.
The problem here is expectations.
If I wasn't expecting a TF2-style life-cycle, I wouldn't be disappointed.
Of course, I would have expected that type of game to start out at 29.99, not 49.99.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_0852201.28224151</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_0852201.28225453</id>
	<title>This Explains A Lot -</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244228520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>"Doug Lombardi said simply, "Trust us a little bit," explaining that Gabe Newell is "always talking about providing entertainment as a service &amp;#226;&amp;#8364;" it's not about making a game any more."<br><br>Which explains perfectly why Valve hasn't made a decent game since Half-Life. Half-Life 2 was a glorified tech demo at best, the subsequent episodes of which have all been just as lifeless and pale compared to their late 90's predecessor, both Team Fortress 2 and Left 4 Dead were released in a somewhat fun but half complete state and haven't improved one iota since release (sorry fanboys, but the updates for the former have been universally bad), the Source Engine is held barely above the abyss of obscurity by Valve's own mediocre productions, and Counter Strike has been a negligible offering ever since Valve got its greasy mitts on it. I don't know about you, but it seems almost like the more successful someone in this business gets, the more detached from reality they become. Instead of realizing that fans wanted fun games like Half-Life that were actually easy for a layperson to modify, Valve drank the Engine Salesman Koolaid, almost went bankrupt because of it, and is now more a publisher than a producer because of Steam. Not that Steam itself is bad, it's Valve's greatest contribution to gaming and I'm thankful to have the service, but for buying and playing games not made by Valve because they're just plain bad at it now.<br><br>I'd probably be singing a different tune if the Source SDK and Hammer weren't trash, but Unreal 3 is today's modder's paradise. Better stick to your publishing outfit, machinema-based false advertising (I'm looking at you, 'Meet the Team'), and bad in-game memetic humor, Gabe.</htmltext>
<tokenext>" Doug Lombardi said simply , " Trust us a little bit , " explaining that Gabe Newell is " always talking about providing entertainment as a service      " it 's not about making a game any more .
" Which explains perfectly why Valve has n't made a decent game since Half-Life .
Half-Life 2 was a glorified tech demo at best , the subsequent episodes of which have all been just as lifeless and pale compared to their late 90 's predecessor , both Team Fortress 2 and Left 4 Dead were released in a somewhat fun but half complete state and have n't improved one iota since release ( sorry fanboys , but the updates for the former have been universally bad ) , the Source Engine is held barely above the abyss of obscurity by Valve 's own mediocre productions , and Counter Strike has been a negligible offering ever since Valve got its greasy mitts on it .
I do n't know about you , but it seems almost like the more successful someone in this business gets , the more detached from reality they become .
Instead of realizing that fans wanted fun games like Half-Life that were actually easy for a layperson to modify , Valve drank the Engine Salesman Koolaid , almost went bankrupt because of it , and is now more a publisher than a producer because of Steam .
Not that Steam itself is bad , it 's Valve 's greatest contribution to gaming and I 'm thankful to have the service , but for buying and playing games not made by Valve because they 're just plain bad at it now.I 'd probably be singing a different tune if the Source SDK and Hammer were n't trash , but Unreal 3 is today 's modder 's paradise .
Better stick to your publishing outfit , machinema-based false advertising ( I 'm looking at you , 'Meet the Team ' ) , and bad in-game memetic humor , Gabe .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Doug Lombardi said simply, "Trust us a little bit," explaining that Gabe Newell is "always talking about providing entertainment as a service â€" it's not about making a game any more.
"Which explains perfectly why Valve hasn't made a decent game since Half-Life.
Half-Life 2 was a glorified tech demo at best, the subsequent episodes of which have all been just as lifeless and pale compared to their late 90's predecessor, both Team Fortress 2 and Left 4 Dead were released in a somewhat fun but half complete state and haven't improved one iota since release (sorry fanboys, but the updates for the former have been universally bad), the Source Engine is held barely above the abyss of obscurity by Valve's own mediocre productions, and Counter Strike has been a negligible offering ever since Valve got its greasy mitts on it.
I don't know about you, but it seems almost like the more successful someone in this business gets, the more detached from reality they become.
Instead of realizing that fans wanted fun games like Half-Life that were actually easy for a layperson to modify, Valve drank the Engine Salesman Koolaid, almost went bankrupt because of it, and is now more a publisher than a producer because of Steam.
Not that Steam itself is bad, it's Valve's greatest contribution to gaming and I'm thankful to have the service, but for buying and playing games not made by Valve because they're just plain bad at it now.I'd probably be singing a different tune if the Source SDK and Hammer weren't trash, but Unreal 3 is today's modder's paradise.
Better stick to your publishing outfit, machinema-based false advertising (I'm looking at you, 'Meet the Team'), and bad in-game memetic humor, Gabe.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_0852201.28229029</id>
	<title>Re:Never happy, are we?</title>
	<author>snuf23</author>
	<datestamp>1244207040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i> Only when playing with random people did it feel dangerous and exciting again because there would be varying levels of player skill.  </i></p><p>Damn straight. Like the first time I played a random game online and promptly threw a Molotov cocktail at a player pinned by a hunter. I think I followed it up with a close range shotgun blast.<br>Nothing like horrible player skills to make your partners more dangerous than the zombies.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Only when playing with random people did it feel dangerous and exciting again because there would be varying levels of player skill .
Damn straight .
Like the first time I played a random game online and promptly threw a Molotov cocktail at a player pinned by a hunter .
I think I followed it up with a close range shotgun blast.Nothing like horrible player skills to make your partners more dangerous than the zombies .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Only when playing with random people did it feel dangerous and exciting again because there would be varying levels of player skill.
Damn straight.
Like the first time I played a random game online and promptly threw a Molotov cocktail at a player pinned by a hunter.
I think I followed it up with a close range shotgun blast.Nothing like horrible player skills to make your partners more dangerous than the zombies.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_0852201.28224901</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_0852201.28224025</id>
	<title>Re:Wont do justice?</title>
	<author>sfarmstrong</author>
	<datestamp>1244222700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>For &pound;30 - &pound;35 I expect a game, not a mod.</p></div><p>And L4D2 is a mod because it uses the same engine? By that logic, wasn't Half Life a Quake 2 mod?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>For   30 -   35 I expect a game , not a mod.And L4D2 is a mod because it uses the same engine ?
By that logic , was n't Half Life a Quake 2 mod ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For £30 - £35 I expect a game, not a mod.And L4D2 is a mod because it uses the same engine?
By that logic, wasn't Half Life a Quake 2 mod?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_0852201.28220735</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_0852201.28224039</id>
	<title>Where the hell is Half Life 2: Episode 3?</title>
	<author>dstyle5</author>
	<datestamp>1244222760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Forget LFD2, where the hell is HL2: Episode 3?  How about making a game for the millions of people who bought Episodes 1 and 2 Doug?

"Doug Lombardi said simply, "Trust us a little bit"."  I find that somewhat difficult to do.  It seems like Valve care more about milking money out of you than giving people what they want.  It's probably taking so long for Episode 3 cause they are making some other stuff I don't want to throw in with Episode 3 and give them the ability to charge $60 instead of $15 - $20 for Episode 3 itself.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Forget LFD2 , where the hell is HL2 : Episode 3 ?
How about making a game for the millions of people who bought Episodes 1 and 2 Doug ?
" Doug Lombardi said simply , " Trust us a little bit " .
" I find that somewhat difficult to do .
It seems like Valve care more about milking money out of you than giving people what they want .
It 's probably taking so long for Episode 3 cause they are making some other stuff I do n't want to throw in with Episode 3 and give them the ability to charge $ 60 instead of $ 15 - $ 20 for Episode 3 itself .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Forget LFD2, where the hell is HL2: Episode 3?
How about making a game for the millions of people who bought Episodes 1 and 2 Doug?
"Doug Lombardi said simply, "Trust us a little bit".
"  I find that somewhat difficult to do.
It seems like Valve care more about milking money out of you than giving people what they want.
It's probably taking so long for Episode 3 cause they are making some other stuff I don't want to throw in with Episode 3 and give them the ability to charge $60 instead of $15 - $20 for Episode 3 itself.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_0852201.28224901</id>
	<title>Re:Never happy, are we?</title>
	<author>CMF Risk</author>
	<datestamp>1244226120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Exactly.
<br> <br>
It's not that I didn't have fun with L4D, and it kept my attention for about a month or so after release, but pretty quickly all that content was devoured.  Playing with friends we had everything down to a science.  Only when playing with random people did it feel dangerous and exciting again because there would be varying levels of player skill.
<br> <br>

With no updates and expansions my friends and I quickly lost interest and went on to play other games.
<br> <br>

The sort of irony I feel about this is I would *gladly* pay for all the content we've been given for Team Fortress 2.  I still play TF2 quite regularly and have gotten more entertainment out of it than any game in recent memory.

<br> <br>
Maybe I'll just buy L4D2 as sort of my TF2 "tax"</htmltext>
<tokenext>Exactly .
It 's not that I did n't have fun with L4D , and it kept my attention for about a month or so after release , but pretty quickly all that content was devoured .
Playing with friends we had everything down to a science .
Only when playing with random people did it feel dangerous and exciting again because there would be varying levels of player skill .
With no updates and expansions my friends and I quickly lost interest and went on to play other games .
The sort of irony I feel about this is I would * gladly * pay for all the content we 've been given for Team Fortress 2 .
I still play TF2 quite regularly and have gotten more entertainment out of it than any game in recent memory .
Maybe I 'll just buy L4D2 as sort of my TF2 " tax "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Exactly.
It's not that I didn't have fun with L4D, and it kept my attention for about a month or so after release, but pretty quickly all that content was devoured.
Playing with friends we had everything down to a science.
Only when playing with random people did it feel dangerous and exciting again because there would be varying levels of player skill.
With no updates and expansions my friends and I quickly lost interest and went on to play other games.
The sort of irony I feel about this is I would *gladly* pay for all the content we've been given for Team Fortress 2.
I still play TF2 quite regularly and have gotten more entertainment out of it than any game in recent memory.
Maybe I'll just buy L4D2 as sort of my TF2 "tax"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_0852201.28220765</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_0852201.28227173</id>
	<title>Re:Promises? [Citation needed]</title>
	<author>otopico</author>
	<datestamp>1244193840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And with the games so similar, content for one may very well work with the other (PC side anyway). This fulfills the blood oath some people claim to have heard for continued content plus it adds value to both games.</p><p>And honestly, if the people so upset at L4D2 are really so upset, don't buy it and shut up. Other wise it just comes across as whining.</p><p>L4D and TF2 are some of the best values I have ever seen in games. I have had both for a while, play both, and continue to enjoy them. I'm missing the root of all the outrage.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And with the games so similar , content for one may very well work with the other ( PC side anyway ) .
This fulfills the blood oath some people claim to have heard for continued content plus it adds value to both games.And honestly , if the people so upset at L4D2 are really so upset , do n't buy it and shut up .
Other wise it just comes across as whining.L4D and TF2 are some of the best values I have ever seen in games .
I have had both for a while , play both , and continue to enjoy them .
I 'm missing the root of all the outrage .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And with the games so similar, content for one may very well work with the other (PC side anyway).
This fulfills the blood oath some people claim to have heard for continued content plus it adds value to both games.And honestly, if the people so upset at L4D2 are really so upset, don't buy it and shut up.
Other wise it just comes across as whining.L4D and TF2 are some of the best values I have ever seen in games.
I have had both for a while, play both, and continue to enjoy them.
I'm missing the root of all the outrage.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_0852201.28224151</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_0852201.28225163</id>
	<title>Yes, the L4D2 content WAS promised for L4D1</title>
	<author>Devistater</author>
	<datestamp>1244227200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://ve3d.ign.com/articles/news/41219/Left-4-Dead-DLC-Promised" title="ign.com">http://ve3d.ign.com/articles/news/41219/Left-4-Dead-DLC-Promised</a> [ign.com]<br>"Chet Faliszek said that Valve plans to get the DLC rolling much more quickly with Left 4 Dead than it has been able to for Team Fortress 2. Plans already in the works call for new campaigns, weapons, and boss infected (the game's zombie enemies). In addition, there were strong hints at a flamethrower coming not long after launch."</p><p>Yes, the valve team promised L4D 1 content, including new special infected AND weapons AND new campaigns. Turns out they saved all that for L4D2 instead. L4D2 will have a new special infected (charger), new weapons, and new campaigns. And no, they didn't add any new campaigns in L4D1, just tweaked versions of the old ones for versus, and a single new mini map for survival (the rest of the survival levels are just portions of the old maps in old campaigns)</p><p>That same guy at valve in an interview said they have been working on L4D2 since the launch of L4D1.<br><a href="http://www.shacknews.com/featuredarticle.x?id=1138" title="shacknews.com">http://www.shacknews.com/featuredarticle.x?id=1138</a> [shacknews.com]<br>"Shack: When did development on Left 4 Dead 2 start?</p><p>Chet Faliszek: Pretty much after Left 4 Dead launched."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //ve3d.ign.com/articles/news/41219/Left-4-Dead-DLC-Promised [ ign.com ] " Chet Faliszek said that Valve plans to get the DLC rolling much more quickly with Left 4 Dead than it has been able to for Team Fortress 2 .
Plans already in the works call for new campaigns , weapons , and boss infected ( the game 's zombie enemies ) .
In addition , there were strong hints at a flamethrower coming not long after launch .
" Yes , the valve team promised L4D 1 content , including new special infected AND weapons AND new campaigns .
Turns out they saved all that for L4D2 instead .
L4D2 will have a new special infected ( charger ) , new weapons , and new campaigns .
And no , they did n't add any new campaigns in L4D1 , just tweaked versions of the old ones for versus , and a single new mini map for survival ( the rest of the survival levels are just portions of the old maps in old campaigns ) That same guy at valve in an interview said they have been working on L4D2 since the launch of L4D1.http : //www.shacknews.com/featuredarticle.x ? id = 1138 [ shacknews.com ] " Shack : When did development on Left 4 Dead 2 start ? Chet Faliszek : Pretty much after Left 4 Dead launched .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://ve3d.ign.com/articles/news/41219/Left-4-Dead-DLC-Promised [ign.com]"Chet Faliszek said that Valve plans to get the DLC rolling much more quickly with Left 4 Dead than it has been able to for Team Fortress 2.
Plans already in the works call for new campaigns, weapons, and boss infected (the game's zombie enemies).
In addition, there were strong hints at a flamethrower coming not long after launch.
"Yes, the valve team promised L4D 1 content, including new special infected AND weapons AND new campaigns.
Turns out they saved all that for L4D2 instead.
L4D2 will have a new special infected (charger), new weapons, and new campaigns.
And no, they didn't add any new campaigns in L4D1, just tweaked versions of the old ones for versus, and a single new mini map for survival (the rest of the survival levels are just portions of the old maps in old campaigns)That same guy at valve in an interview said they have been working on L4D2 since the launch of L4D1.http://www.shacknews.com/featuredarticle.x?id=1138 [shacknews.com]"Shack: When did development on Left 4 Dead 2 start?Chet Faliszek: Pretty much after Left 4 Dead launched.
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_0852201.28221311</id>
	<title>"Trust us" ?</title>
	<author>Bobtree</author>
	<datestamp>1244211840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't buy promises.  I pay for what is delivered.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't buy promises .
I pay for what is delivered .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't buy promises.
I pay for what is delivered.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_0852201.28220593</id>
	<title>What about Guitar Hero?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244207040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Who's going to explain all the quick Guitar Hero sequels?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Who 's going to explain all the quick Guitar Hero sequels ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Who's going to explain all the quick Guitar Hero sequels?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_0852201.28220989</id>
	<title>DAMN YOU VALVE!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244209980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Damn you valve, you've swindled me for the first, but last time!</p><p>I expected updates, which were promised, and I don't get the, there is no compromise, I WANT CONTENT!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Damn you valve , you 've swindled me for the first , but last time ! I expected updates , which were promised , and I do n't get the , there is no compromise , I WANT CONTENT !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Damn you valve, you've swindled me for the first, but last time!I expected updates, which were promised, and I don't get the, there is no compromise, I WANT CONTENT!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_0852201.28220639</id>
	<title>Re:Why I cry at night...</title>
	<author>theIsovist</author>
	<datestamp>1244207460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>While normally I'd agree with you, Valve games tend to keep the quality high with their releases.  And with Steam, they don't have to make games for income anymore, so anything they do create is created out of love of the craft.  This is probably why they constantly miss their deadlines.  They have enough money that missing a deadline is preferable to releasing a crappy product.</htmltext>
<tokenext>While normally I 'd agree with you , Valve games tend to keep the quality high with their releases .
And with Steam , they do n't have to make games for income anymore , so anything they do create is created out of love of the craft .
This is probably why they constantly miss their deadlines .
They have enough money that missing a deadline is preferable to releasing a crappy product .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>While normally I'd agree with you, Valve games tend to keep the quality high with their releases.
And with Steam, they don't have to make games for income anymore, so anything they do create is created out of love of the craft.
This is probably why they constantly miss their deadlines.
They have enough money that missing a deadline is preferable to releasing a crappy product.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_0852201.28220319</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_0852201.28221123</id>
	<title>Re:The Left4Dead SDK isn't even out yet.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244210880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>No it's not.
<p>
Even though the Slashdot poster did call it SDK, it is not a SDK.
</p><p>
An SDK will allow you do modify how the game behaves, create rules such as autokick/ban players who teamkill over a certain limit, create flying monsters etc<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...
</p><p>
What Valve has released is just, as the name implies "authoring tools for Left 4 Dead" and it does only let you "author" new content, i.e. graphics and sounds/music/maps.
</p><p>
The gameplay is still the same.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No it 's not .
Even though the Slashdot poster did call it SDK , it is not a SDK .
An SDK will allow you do modify how the game behaves , create rules such as autokick/ban players who teamkill over a certain limit , create flying monsters etc .. . What Valve has released is just , as the name implies " authoring tools for Left 4 Dead " and it does only let you " author " new content , i.e .
graphics and sounds/music/maps .
The gameplay is still the same .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No it's not.
Even though the Slashdot poster did call it SDK, it is not a SDK.
An SDK will allow you do modify how the game behaves, create rules such as autokick/ban players who teamkill over a certain limit, create flying monsters etc ...

What Valve has released is just, as the name implies "authoring tools for Left 4 Dead" and it does only let you "author" new content, i.e.
graphics and sounds/music/maps.
The gameplay is still the same.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_0852201.28220689</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_0852201.28220779</id>
	<title>Re:The Left4Dead SDK isn't even out yet.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244208540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Its been out for weeks. Go to your Tools tab in Steam.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Its been out for weeks .
Go to your Tools tab in Steam .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Its been out for weeks.
Go to your Tools tab in Steam.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_0852201.28220595</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_0852201.28229003</id>
	<title>Re:What about Guitar Hero?</title>
	<author>spire3661</author>
	<datestamp>1244206800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Guitar Hero is generally shipped as a complete game. Many would agree that L4d shipped in a completely 'final beta' type state. It was both implied and indicated that L4D would be getting the continuous update treatment same as TF2. We now know that is not entirely going to be the case and that to continue to play L4D in any meaningful way, we are going to have to shell out for ANOTHER full retail box.</p><p>L4D steam owners should at least get a SUBSTANTIAL discount on L4D2, fuck the stupid Xbox owners.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Guitar Hero is generally shipped as a complete game .
Many would agree that L4d shipped in a completely 'final beta ' type state .
It was both implied and indicated that L4D would be getting the continuous update treatment same as TF2 .
We now know that is not entirely going to be the case and that to continue to play L4D in any meaningful way , we are going to have to shell out for ANOTHER full retail box.L4D steam owners should at least get a SUBSTANTIAL discount on L4D2 , fuck the stupid Xbox owners .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Guitar Hero is generally shipped as a complete game.
Many would agree that L4d shipped in a completely 'final beta' type state.
It was both implied and indicated that L4D would be getting the continuous update treatment same as TF2.
We now know that is not entirely going to be the case and that to continue to play L4D in any meaningful way, we are going to have to shell out for ANOTHER full retail box.L4D steam owners should at least get a SUBSTANTIAL discount on L4D2, fuck the stupid Xbox owners.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_0852201.28220593</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_0852201.28220857</id>
	<title>LD4 1 was supposed to see free updates</title>
	<author>Synn</author>
	<datestamp>1244209200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The current L4D was very light in content as is and the devs have been promising more would be added to the game. More maps, more weapons, more infected boss types. So I guess now instead of doing that, they're just going to wrap all that new content up, call it a sequal and charge 50 bucks for it. Very sleazy.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The current L4D was very light in content as is and the devs have been promising more would be added to the game .
More maps , more weapons , more infected boss types .
So I guess now instead of doing that , they 're just going to wrap all that new content up , call it a sequal and charge 50 bucks for it .
Very sleazy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The current L4D was very light in content as is and the devs have been promising more would be added to the game.
More maps, more weapons, more infected boss types.
So I guess now instead of doing that, they're just going to wrap all that new content up, call it a sequal and charge 50 bucks for it.
Very sleazy.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_0852201.28220533</id>
	<title>Will there also be a sequel to</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244206620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Left 4 Head?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Left 4 Head ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Left 4 Head?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_0852201.28220591</id>
	<title>L4D2</title>
	<author>G0N70</author>
	<datestamp>1244207040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>PEEELLS HERE!</htmltext>
<tokenext>PEEELLS HERE !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>PEEELLS HERE!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_0852201.28222311</id>
	<title>Re:And what if there was nothing to complain about</title>
	<author>Hecatonchires</author>
	<datestamp>1244216400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>No, but Valve's HR dept might be looking a bit more closely at the payroll budget.</htmltext>
<tokenext>No , but Valve 's HR dept might be looking a bit more closely at the payroll budget .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No, but Valve's HR dept might be looking a bit more closely at the payroll budget.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_0852201.28221805</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_0852201.28220449</id>
	<title>What's all the fuss about, anyway?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244205900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Am I the only one who thought Left 4 Dead was mediocre at best?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Am I the only one who thought Left 4 Dead was mediocre at best ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Am I the only one who thought Left 4 Dead was mediocre at best?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_0852201.28220911</id>
	<title>Poor Gordon Freeman</title>
	<author>ticklejw</author>
	<datestamp>1244209500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Looks like Half-Life 2 Episode 3 is going to go the way of Duke Nukem Forever at this rate...  Come on Gabe, quit fscking around with these little franchises and give me some damned closure!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Looks like Half-Life 2 Episode 3 is going to go the way of Duke Nukem Forever at this rate... Come on Gabe , quit fscking around with these little franchises and give me some damned closure !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Looks like Half-Life 2 Episode 3 is going to go the way of Duke Nukem Forever at this rate...  Come on Gabe, quit fscking around with these little franchises and give me some damned closure!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_0852201.28224587</id>
	<title>Re:The Left4Dead SDK isn't even out yet.</title>
	<author>VGPowerlord</author>
	<datestamp>1244224920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Even though the Slashdot poster did call it SDK, it is not a SDK.</p><p>An SDK will allow you do modify how the game behaves, create rules such as autokick/ban players who teamkill over a certain limit, create flying monsters etc<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</p></div></blockquote><p>I'm pretty sure you can mod L4D just like any other Source game.  There's even <a href="http://www.sourcemm.net/" title="sourcemm.net">Metamod: Source</a> [sourcemm.net] (lower level) and <a href="http://www.sourcemod.net/" title="sourcemod.net">Sourcemod</a> [sourcemod.net] (higher level) to help you there.  Both appear to work on Left 4 Dead.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Even though the Slashdot poster did call it SDK , it is not a SDK.An SDK will allow you do modify how the game behaves , create rules such as autokick/ban players who teamkill over a certain limit , create flying monsters etc ...I 'm pretty sure you can mod L4D just like any other Source game .
There 's even Metamod : Source [ sourcemm.net ] ( lower level ) and Sourcemod [ sourcemod.net ] ( higher level ) to help you there .
Both appear to work on Left 4 Dead .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Even though the Slashdot poster did call it SDK, it is not a SDK.An SDK will allow you do modify how the game behaves, create rules such as autokick/ban players who teamkill over a certain limit, create flying monsters etc ...I'm pretty sure you can mod L4D just like any other Source game.
There's even Metamod: Source [sourcemm.net] (lower level) and Sourcemod [sourcemod.net] (higher level) to help you there.
Both appear to work on Left 4 Dead.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_0852201.28221123</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_0852201.28220423</id>
	<title>Re:Why I cry at night...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244205720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Exactly.  What is Valve thinking?  Why on earth would you release a full fledged sequel so soon?  Expansion packs?  Nah, screw it just go ahead and split the community to turn more bucks?  So are they telling us they are such great game creation gurus that within a short period of time a compelling sequel can be developed, that they only needed a year to fix any complaints, and add more content?  Or should we see it as they screwed us with a watered down version before deciding to make the full version?  Did we just pay $50-60 to play an introduction to the real game?  Seems a little credible given that L4D was blasted for the meager content in the first place which of course Valve promised to add more of later.  Tell you what Valve, how about we go back and call the original Left for Dead 0.5 and the new one just Left for Dead.  This way I feel a lot better for having paid retail price for a game that only had four scenarios and a handful of guns types.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Exactly .
What is Valve thinking ?
Why on earth would you release a full fledged sequel so soon ?
Expansion packs ?
Nah , screw it just go ahead and split the community to turn more bucks ?
So are they telling us they are such great game creation gurus that within a short period of time a compelling sequel can be developed , that they only needed a year to fix any complaints , and add more content ?
Or should we see it as they screwed us with a watered down version before deciding to make the full version ?
Did we just pay $ 50-60 to play an introduction to the real game ?
Seems a little credible given that L4D was blasted for the meager content in the first place which of course Valve promised to add more of later .
Tell you what Valve , how about we go back and call the original Left for Dead 0.5 and the new one just Left for Dead .
This way I feel a lot better for having paid retail price for a game that only had four scenarios and a handful of guns types .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Exactly.
What is Valve thinking?
Why on earth would you release a full fledged sequel so soon?
Expansion packs?
Nah, screw it just go ahead and split the community to turn more bucks?
So are they telling us they are such great game creation gurus that within a short period of time a compelling sequel can be developed, that they only needed a year to fix any complaints, and add more content?
Or should we see it as they screwed us with a watered down version before deciding to make the full version?
Did we just pay $50-60 to play an introduction to the real game?
Seems a little credible given that L4D was blasted for the meager content in the first place which of course Valve promised to add more of later.
Tell you what Valve, how about we go back and call the original Left for Dead 0.5 and the new one just Left for Dead.
This way I feel a lot better for having paid retail price for a game that only had four scenarios and a handful of guns types.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_0852201.28220319</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_0852201.28220683</id>
	<title>I'm disappointed</title>
	<author>GF678</author>
	<datestamp>1244207820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why are games supposedly provided as a service instead of a product? As in, a fully-featured product with the vast majority of the content already there upon release? Seems like each game these days is supplied incomplete and the rest comes through DLCs after release.</p><p>Take Tomb Raider: Underworld for example. There have been two DLC chapter addons available for it (and only for the Xbox 360), and these chapters aren't simply side chapters - they're actually a continuation of the story line which was part of the ORIGINAL GAME. In other words, if you didn't have an Xbox 360 and/or didn't purchase these DLCs, you wouldn't actually "finish" the game as it was suppose to be finished. The story would be incomplete. So screw anyone who thought that buying TRU would mean a full game, nah, you have to PAY for the full story line! Now given the DLCs were in part funded by Microsoft, I'm not surprised they're only available for the 360, and it wouldn't have mattered much if they were just side quests that didn't continue the story. But they do.</p><p>I don't mind bonus packs that cost a bit but provide extra features, but I do mind cash grabs that seem to emphasize the "release early, finish development later" mentality. Works somewhat for open-source content but shouldn't be tolerated for paid products.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why are games supposedly provided as a service instead of a product ?
As in , a fully-featured product with the vast majority of the content already there upon release ?
Seems like each game these days is supplied incomplete and the rest comes through DLCs after release.Take Tomb Raider : Underworld for example .
There have been two DLC chapter addons available for it ( and only for the Xbox 360 ) , and these chapters are n't simply side chapters - they 're actually a continuation of the story line which was part of the ORIGINAL GAME .
In other words , if you did n't have an Xbox 360 and/or did n't purchase these DLCs , you would n't actually " finish " the game as it was suppose to be finished .
The story would be incomplete .
So screw anyone who thought that buying TRU would mean a full game , nah , you have to PAY for the full story line !
Now given the DLCs were in part funded by Microsoft , I 'm not surprised they 're only available for the 360 , and it would n't have mattered much if they were just side quests that did n't continue the story .
But they do.I do n't mind bonus packs that cost a bit but provide extra features , but I do mind cash grabs that seem to emphasize the " release early , finish development later " mentality .
Works somewhat for open-source content but should n't be tolerated for paid products .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why are games supposedly provided as a service instead of a product?
As in, a fully-featured product with the vast majority of the content already there upon release?
Seems like each game these days is supplied incomplete and the rest comes through DLCs after release.Take Tomb Raider: Underworld for example.
There have been two DLC chapter addons available for it (and only for the Xbox 360), and these chapters aren't simply side chapters - they're actually a continuation of the story line which was part of the ORIGINAL GAME.
In other words, if you didn't have an Xbox 360 and/or didn't purchase these DLCs, you wouldn't actually "finish" the game as it was suppose to be finished.
The story would be incomplete.
So screw anyone who thought that buying TRU would mean a full game, nah, you have to PAY for the full story line!
Now given the DLCs were in part funded by Microsoft, I'm not surprised they're only available for the 360, and it wouldn't have mattered much if they were just side quests that didn't continue the story.
But they do.I don't mind bonus packs that cost a bit but provide extra features, but I do mind cash grabs that seem to emphasize the "release early, finish development later" mentality.
Works somewhat for open-source content but shouldn't be tolerated for paid products.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_0852201.28227067</id>
	<title>Re:Why I cry at night...</title>
	<author>LoRdTAW</author>
	<datestamp>1244193180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>LEft 4 dead has a wide audience appeal. Half Life was an amazing game for its time and I still play it through from time to time. Half life 2 had similar game play. But its tough to create a game that has such great game play that it sucks you in.</p><p>Left4dead to me was a cheap cop out. A zombie shooter from valve? I played the demo and was a bit impressed but the game play was repetitive. The same old 20 zombies popping out of nowhere. On line play is also a bitch as its very tough. If your playing 4 V 4 and someone dies or just quits the game is ruined. Team fortress 2 is 100 times the online game dead rising will ever be. Thankfully Valve finished it. And where the hell is Episode 3?</p><p>Left 4 dead 2 is also featuring weapons like a frying pan and bat, didn't dead rising do that? And dead rising had much better game play.</p><p>Screw the game industry and Valve for taking the easy route. They just churn out one generic bland game after another and make a profit. Sure there is a market for bland games like Madden, Halo or Gears of War. But please keep the gems coming. Please don't push them aside for more profitable games.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>LEft 4 dead has a wide audience appeal .
Half Life was an amazing game for its time and I still play it through from time to time .
Half life 2 had similar game play .
But its tough to create a game that has such great game play that it sucks you in.Left4dead to me was a cheap cop out .
A zombie shooter from valve ?
I played the demo and was a bit impressed but the game play was repetitive .
The same old 20 zombies popping out of nowhere .
On line play is also a bitch as its very tough .
If your playing 4 V 4 and someone dies or just quits the game is ruined .
Team fortress 2 is 100 times the online game dead rising will ever be .
Thankfully Valve finished it .
And where the hell is Episode 3 ? Left 4 dead 2 is also featuring weapons like a frying pan and bat , did n't dead rising do that ?
And dead rising had much better game play.Screw the game industry and Valve for taking the easy route .
They just churn out one generic bland game after another and make a profit .
Sure there is a market for bland games like Madden , Halo or Gears of War .
But please keep the gems coming .
Please do n't push them aside for more profitable games .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>LEft 4 dead has a wide audience appeal.
Half Life was an amazing game for its time and I still play it through from time to time.
Half life 2 had similar game play.
But its tough to create a game that has such great game play that it sucks you in.Left4dead to me was a cheap cop out.
A zombie shooter from valve?
I played the demo and was a bit impressed but the game play was repetitive.
The same old 20 zombies popping out of nowhere.
On line play is also a bitch as its very tough.
If your playing 4 V 4 and someone dies or just quits the game is ruined.
Team fortress 2 is 100 times the online game dead rising will ever be.
Thankfully Valve finished it.
And where the hell is Episode 3?Left 4 dead 2 is also featuring weapons like a frying pan and bat, didn't dead rising do that?
And dead rising had much better game play.Screw the game industry and Valve for taking the easy route.
They just churn out one generic bland game after another and make a profit.
Sure there is a market for bland games like Madden, Halo or Gears of War.
But please keep the gems coming.
Please don't push them aside for more profitable games.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_0852201.28220319</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_0852201.28220651</id>
	<title>Never happy, are we?</title>
	<author>Drakkenmensch</author>
	<datestamp>1244207520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>When bad games are announced, we cringe (rightfully I think). When good games are announced, we cringe again with arguments like "Too Soon!" as if the publishers had made a dead David Carradine joke. It's clear that Yahtzee Croshaw was right:<p><div class="quote"><p>Fans are a crying whinny lot who will never be happy with any concession you make, and the sooner you shut them out, the happier you'll be.</p></div></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>When bad games are announced , we cringe ( rightfully I think ) .
When good games are announced , we cringe again with arguments like " Too Soon !
" as if the publishers had made a dead David Carradine joke .
It 's clear that Yahtzee Croshaw was right : Fans are a crying whinny lot who will never be happy with any concession you make , and the sooner you shut them out , the happier you 'll be .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When bad games are announced, we cringe (rightfully I think).
When good games are announced, we cringe again with arguments like "Too Soon!
" as if the publishers had made a dead David Carradine joke.
It's clear that Yahtzee Croshaw was right:Fans are a crying whinny lot who will never be happy with any concession you make, and the sooner you shut them out, the happier you'll be.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_0852201.28220765</id>
	<title>Re:Never happy, are we?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244208420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>I don't think the reason is purely because it's so soon.  Read this emboldened quote of Gabe from last October:<p><div class="quote"><p>Valve intends to support hotly anticipated zombie survival shooter Left 4 Dead post-release with new characters, new maps, new achievements and new weapons in order to grow the community, Gabe Newell has revealed.<br> <br>

Speaking to VideoGamer.com at Leipzig Games Convention, the Valve co-founder and managing director said the developer intended to follow a similar downloadable content policy as it has with Team Fortress 2.<br> <br>

Left 4 Dead, set for release on PC and Xbox 360 on November 21 in Europe, is primarily a four-player cooperative game that sees a group of Survivors battle through four 'Movies' and against 28 Days Later-style zombies called The Infected.<br> <br>

Newell said that Valve's support of the game post-launch will be essential for growing the community.<br> <br>

He said: "<b>One of the things that we're doing is we seem to be in a transition between games as a package product and games more of a service. So if you look at Team Fortress 2, one of things that's really helped grow the community is the continuous updates, where we release new maps, new character classes, new unlockables, new weapons. And we tell the stories about the characters, like the meet the sniper, or meet the sandwich. And that ongoing delivery of content really seems to grow the community.</b> <br> <br>

"<b>So each time we've released one of those for Team Fortress 2 we've seen about a 20\% increase in the number of people who are playing online. And that number is really important because it determines how many community created maps there are, how many servers are running, and so on. So we'll do the same thing with Left 4 Dead where we'll have the initial release and then we'll release more movies, more characters, more weapons, unlockables, achievements, because that's the way you continue to grow a community over time.</b>"</p></div><p>

Remember, people were buying the game with this in mind.  The game shipped incomplete at full price, with only two of the four campaigns available for use in Versus mode (pretty much the main mode).  This was only recently corrected.<br> <br>

Besides bugfixes the only thing they added was survival mode and one very small map for it.  There were no new weapons, characters, movies or unlockables.<br> <br>

I don't share the outrage that seems to be commonplace right now, but at the same time I'm not particularly enthusiastic about a sequel and I can see why people would be annoyed in light of what Valve promised.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't think the reason is purely because it 's so soon .
Read this emboldened quote of Gabe from last October : Valve intends to support hotly anticipated zombie survival shooter Left 4 Dead post-release with new characters , new maps , new achievements and new weapons in order to grow the community , Gabe Newell has revealed .
Speaking to VideoGamer.com at Leipzig Games Convention , the Valve co-founder and managing director said the developer intended to follow a similar downloadable content policy as it has with Team Fortress 2 .
Left 4 Dead , set for release on PC and Xbox 360 on November 21 in Europe , is primarily a four-player cooperative game that sees a group of Survivors battle through four 'Movies ' and against 28 Days Later-style zombies called The Infected .
Newell said that Valve 's support of the game post-launch will be essential for growing the community .
He said : " One of the things that we 're doing is we seem to be in a transition between games as a package product and games more of a service .
So if you look at Team Fortress 2 , one of things that 's really helped grow the community is the continuous updates , where we release new maps , new character classes , new unlockables , new weapons .
And we tell the stories about the characters , like the meet the sniper , or meet the sandwich .
And that ongoing delivery of content really seems to grow the community .
" So each time we 've released one of those for Team Fortress 2 we 've seen about a 20 \ % increase in the number of people who are playing online .
And that number is really important because it determines how many community created maps there are , how many servers are running , and so on .
So we 'll do the same thing with Left 4 Dead where we 'll have the initial release and then we 'll release more movies , more characters , more weapons , unlockables , achievements , because that 's the way you continue to grow a community over time .
" Remember , people were buying the game with this in mind .
The game shipped incomplete at full price , with only two of the four campaigns available for use in Versus mode ( pretty much the main mode ) .
This was only recently corrected .
Besides bugfixes the only thing they added was survival mode and one very small map for it .
There were no new weapons , characters , movies or unlockables .
I do n't share the outrage that seems to be commonplace right now , but at the same time I 'm not particularly enthusiastic about a sequel and I can see why people would be annoyed in light of what Valve promised .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't think the reason is purely because it's so soon.
Read this emboldened quote of Gabe from last October:Valve intends to support hotly anticipated zombie survival shooter Left 4 Dead post-release with new characters, new maps, new achievements and new weapons in order to grow the community, Gabe Newell has revealed.
Speaking to VideoGamer.com at Leipzig Games Convention, the Valve co-founder and managing director said the developer intended to follow a similar downloadable content policy as it has with Team Fortress 2.
Left 4 Dead, set for release on PC and Xbox 360 on November 21 in Europe, is primarily a four-player cooperative game that sees a group of Survivors battle through four 'Movies' and against 28 Days Later-style zombies called The Infected.
Newell said that Valve's support of the game post-launch will be essential for growing the community.
He said: "One of the things that we're doing is we seem to be in a transition between games as a package product and games more of a service.
So if you look at Team Fortress 2, one of things that's really helped grow the community is the continuous updates, where we release new maps, new character classes, new unlockables, new weapons.
And we tell the stories about the characters, like the meet the sniper, or meet the sandwich.
And that ongoing delivery of content really seems to grow the community.
"So each time we've released one of those for Team Fortress 2 we've seen about a 20\% increase in the number of people who are playing online.
And that number is really important because it determines how many community created maps there are, how many servers are running, and so on.
So we'll do the same thing with Left 4 Dead where we'll have the initial release and then we'll release more movies, more characters, more weapons, unlockables, achievements, because that's the way you continue to grow a community over time.
"

Remember, people were buying the game with this in mind.
The game shipped incomplete at full price, with only two of the four campaigns available for use in Versus mode (pretty much the main mode).
This was only recently corrected.
Besides bugfixes the only thing they added was survival mode and one very small map for it.
There were no new weapons, characters, movies or unlockables.
I don't share the outrage that seems to be commonplace right now, but at the same time I'm not particularly enthusiastic about a sequel and I can see why people would be annoyed in light of what Valve promised.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_0852201.28220651</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_0852201.28229159</id>
	<title>Re:Where the hell is Half Life 2: Episode 3?</title>
	<author>snuf23</author>
	<datestamp>1244208780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yep. That's why I didn't buy the Orange Box until it was down to $30. And luckily I had someone to gift HL2 and HL2 episode 1 too. At least Portal and Team Fortress 2 were good games.<br>They probably won't release Episode 3 until they can do another bundle that would make it viable as a Xbox 360 release.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yep .
That 's why I did n't buy the Orange Box until it was down to $ 30 .
And luckily I had someone to gift HL2 and HL2 episode 1 too .
At least Portal and Team Fortress 2 were good games.They probably wo n't release Episode 3 until they can do another bundle that would make it viable as a Xbox 360 release .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yep.
That's why I didn't buy the Orange Box until it was down to $30.
And luckily I had someone to gift HL2 and HL2 episode 1 too.
At least Portal and Team Fortress 2 were good games.They probably won't release Episode 3 until they can do another bundle that would make it viable as a Xbox 360 release.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_0852201.28224039</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_0852201.28221485</id>
	<title>Re:Poor Gordon Freeman</title>
	<author>cthulu\_mt</author>
	<datestamp>1244212620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The hero saves the day and gets the girl; all without saying a word.
<br> <br>
No report yet on that beer he's owed.
<br> <br>
Sorry to ruin it for you.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The hero saves the day and gets the girl ; all without saying a word .
No report yet on that beer he 's owed .
Sorry to ruin it for you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The hero saves the day and gets the girl; all without saying a word.
No report yet on that beer he's owed.
Sorry to ruin it for you.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_0852201.28220911</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_0852201.28228975</id>
	<title>Valve and trust</title>
	<author>spire3661</author>
	<datestamp>1244206440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Theyve earned mine with over a decade of very high quality service. Ive arguable gotten more play value from their line of products then pretty much any other form of entertainment. I played CS for YEARS. I will say i was as shocked as alot of other people when they announced L4D2, but I have a feeling it will work out to our mutual benefit in the end. Valve has earned the benefit of the doubt. If anyone should be looked at askance its Blizzard. They are REALLY starting to overmilk the WoW cow. Steins, custom figurines, CCG, miniatures, ads on the forums, motorcycles and guitar axes ( im sorry, but the sound of both of those items would pull me right out of immersion.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Theyve earned mine with over a decade of very high quality service .
Ive arguable gotten more play value from their line of products then pretty much any other form of entertainment .
I played CS for YEARS .
I will say i was as shocked as alot of other people when they announced L4D2 , but I have a feeling it will work out to our mutual benefit in the end .
Valve has earned the benefit of the doubt .
If anyone should be looked at askance its Blizzard .
They are REALLY starting to overmilk the WoW cow .
Steins , custom figurines , CCG , miniatures , ads on the forums , motorcycles and guitar axes ( im sorry , but the sound of both of those items would pull me right out of immersion .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Theyve earned mine with over a decade of very high quality service.
Ive arguable gotten more play value from their line of products then pretty much any other form of entertainment.
I played CS for YEARS.
I will say i was as shocked as alot of other people when they announced L4D2, but I have a feeling it will work out to our mutual benefit in the end.
Valve has earned the benefit of the doubt.
If anyone should be looked at askance its Blizzard.
They are REALLY starting to overmilk the WoW cow.
Steins, custom figurines, CCG, miniatures, ads on the forums, motorcycles and guitar axes ( im sorry, but the sound of both of those items would pull me right out of immersion.
)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_0852201.28221117</id>
	<title>Re:Wont do justice?</title>
	<author>Novotny</author>
	<datestamp>1244210820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I mean, look at chess - <i>still</i> only one bloody map released, but we're still playing it</htmltext>
<tokenext>I mean , look at chess - still only one bloody map released , but we 're still playing it</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I mean, look at chess - still only one bloody map released, but we're still playing it</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_0852201.28220735</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_0852201.28222543</id>
	<title>"Trust us a little bit,"</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244217240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Im a politician.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Im a politician .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Im a politician.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_0852201.28220607</id>
	<title>Don't ignore the comments here.</title>
	<author>nog\_lorp</author>
	<datestamp>1244207160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm sure the sky really is falling.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm sure the sky really is falling .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm sure the sky really is falling.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_0852201.28220689</id>
	<title>Re:The Left4Dead SDK isn't even out yet.</title>
	<author>anomnomnomymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244207880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>It has been out since a couple of weeks...<br> <br>
Hell, it was even posted on <a href="http://games.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/05/17/0444233" title="slashdot.org">Slashdot</a> [slashdot.org].<br> <br>
And even before that, it was possible to create maps with a little tweaking of the Hammer editor.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It has been out since a couple of weeks.. . Hell , it was even posted on Slashdot [ slashdot.org ] .
And even before that , it was possible to create maps with a little tweaking of the Hammer editor .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It has been out since a couple of weeks... 
Hell, it was even posted on Slashdot [slashdot.org].
And even before that, it was possible to create maps with a little tweaking of the Hammer editor.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_0852201.28220595</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_0852201.28221805</id>
	<title>And what if there was nothing to complain about?</title>
	<author>BaronHethorSamedi</author>
	<datestamp>1244214000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>There are concerns that Left 4 Dead will not get any additional content, the community will be divided, and that the quick development cycle won't do justice to the sequel.</p></div><p>If Valve were to add an additional year to the development cycle, would the fans be whining that it was too long to wait?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>There are concerns that Left 4 Dead will not get any additional content , the community will be divided , and that the quick development cycle wo n't do justice to the sequel.If Valve were to add an additional year to the development cycle , would the fans be whining that it was too long to wait ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There are concerns that Left 4 Dead will not get any additional content, the community will be divided, and that the quick development cycle won't do justice to the sequel.If Valve were to add an additional year to the development cycle, would the fans be whining that it was too long to wait?
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_0852201.28225361</id>
	<title>Going with their mind set</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244228100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Given:<br>1) Valve has delivered the Orange Box before<br>2) The Valve developers are feeling the heat<br>3) The two games seem to be compatible<br>4) Doug Lombardi said "Trust us a little bit"</p><p>While I don't know how much Mr. Lombardi keeps his words...but from Valve's track record so far and the above givens, I think there is a fair chance that the new contents in L4D2 will be available for download for the original user (either as a free add-on or for a minuscule fee...say$5?), while the L4D2 buyers can do the same for L4D's contents as well.</p><p>This is probably one of the better ways to keep their reputations, appease the fans by addressing their major concerns, while not stopping the money flow by acquiring new users with brighter settings, etc.  Also, this should not stop people from buying the original L4D now.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Given : 1 ) Valve has delivered the Orange Box before2 ) The Valve developers are feeling the heat3 ) The two games seem to be compatible4 ) Doug Lombardi said " Trust us a little bit " While I do n't know how much Mr. Lombardi keeps his words...but from Valve 's track record so far and the above givens , I think there is a fair chance that the new contents in L4D2 will be available for download for the original user ( either as a free add-on or for a minuscule fee...say $ 5 ?
) , while the L4D2 buyers can do the same for L4D 's contents as well.This is probably one of the better ways to keep their reputations , appease the fans by addressing their major concerns , while not stopping the money flow by acquiring new users with brighter settings , etc .
Also , this should not stop people from buying the original L4D now .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Given:1) Valve has delivered the Orange Box before2) The Valve developers are feeling the heat3) The two games seem to be compatible4) Doug Lombardi said "Trust us a little bit"While I don't know how much Mr. Lombardi keeps his words...but from Valve's track record so far and the above givens, I think there is a fair chance that the new contents in L4D2 will be available for download for the original user (either as a free add-on or for a minuscule fee...say$5?
), while the L4D2 buyers can do the same for L4D's contents as well.This is probably one of the better ways to keep their reputations, appease the fans by addressing their major concerns, while not stopping the money flow by acquiring new users with brighter settings, etc.
Also, this should not stop people from buying the original L4D now.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_0852201.28220681</id>
	<title>It's pretty easy to explain</title>
	<author>Tridus</author>
	<datestamp>1244207820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This isn't that hard to explain. There is profit to be had. They make more money by selling a new game then by releasing free maps for an old one.</p><p>Look, companies only understand one thing: sales. Gamers are notoriously bad at speaking with their wallets. They're a hype driven group. Sure, right now people are all pissed off about this. When L4D 2 comes out, those same people will all be lined up on day 1 forking over money for it and caught up in the hype. That pattern gets repeated over and over again.</p><p>When gamers as a whole start acting like intelligent customers and less like drug addicts looking for a quick hit, you'll see companies not do this type of quick sequel. In the mean time, there's no consequences for them to do it, so why wouldn't they?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is n't that hard to explain .
There is profit to be had .
They make more money by selling a new game then by releasing free maps for an old one.Look , companies only understand one thing : sales .
Gamers are notoriously bad at speaking with their wallets .
They 're a hype driven group .
Sure , right now people are all pissed off about this .
When L4D 2 comes out , those same people will all be lined up on day 1 forking over money for it and caught up in the hype .
That pattern gets repeated over and over again.When gamers as a whole start acting like intelligent customers and less like drug addicts looking for a quick hit , you 'll see companies not do this type of quick sequel .
In the mean time , there 's no consequences for them to do it , so why would n't they ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This isn't that hard to explain.
There is profit to be had.
They make more money by selling a new game then by releasing free maps for an old one.Look, companies only understand one thing: sales.
Gamers are notoriously bad at speaking with their wallets.
They're a hype driven group.
Sure, right now people are all pissed off about this.
When L4D 2 comes out, those same people will all be lined up on day 1 forking over money for it and caught up in the hype.
That pattern gets repeated over and over again.When gamers as a whole start acting like intelligent customers and less like drug addicts looking for a quick hit, you'll see companies not do this type of quick sequel.
In the mean time, there's no consequences for them to do it, so why wouldn't they?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_0852201.28235847</id>
	<title>Re:Promises? [Citation needed]</title>
	<author>icsx</author>
	<datestamp>1244278920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Since you pulled TF2 into comparison with L4D, let's make some comparison with accurate stats.<br> <br>

Team Fortress 2 had six (6) maps when it was launched. It's price was 29,99$ as a standalone version. TF2 maps are designed in the way as you go back and forth depending how you and your team is. They usually last around 30mins or even 1 hour, depending on server settings where you play at. At TF2, you find different positions favorable to different classes which increases the experience, each time. You learn the spots with each classes which you like to play on, where to be and so on. You learn the layout fast and know where to go but experience varies greatly because your enemy is \_always\_ human.
<br> <br>
Now L4D costs that same as TF2 but in the past it cost total 50 bucks. Basically L4D had four (4) maps. They last each around 1 hour once you get the hang of them. Perhaps if you are pro, even ~35mins. L4D has only way route to victory in campaign mode. You may find additional weapons and you learn the spots where to be to win and what places to go. It nearly hasnt got enough variety as they promised. Same pipe to run through. You know where the regular and special enemies are coming from and how to counter them. Set tank on fire and just run away for 45 seconds and it dies. With few times playing through the maps, there just isnt anything left to play on. Agreed, there is plenty to play compared to some single player crap that costs 50 bucks but as for Valve style support and additional content, no.
<br> <br>
So L4D has actually LESS to play for with default content than TF2 had, if you look at the time which you spent on each game. Of course as a newb, you are playing twice as that time but TF2 still had a lot more to play on than L4D had. I've spent a lot more time on TF2 than on L4D. I lost my interest into L4D after 3 months. Survival update brought me into the game for about a week, then i had gold medals in survival 12, silver in 2, bronze in 1 map(s) with 1-5 tries. I didnt even bother to play the rest as i would have wanted \_new\_ maps, not the same crap ones i got bored already. Survival wasnt a real update. It only brought the stuff the game should have had in the first place and one (1) new map, the lighthouse.
<br> <br>
If you look at TF2, there are shitloads of new stuff since the release. Valve indeed promised more content to the game but they didnt really talk about new maps. Of course, everyone assumed that the game would have some, since CS 1.6, CS Source, DoD Source and TF2 had lots on the past. Looks to me as if they shoot themselves in the foot. Many people will buy L4D2 but L4D comes nonexistant in the moment L4D2 releases. Valve propably will shut their servers down too 6 months - 12 months after the release.
<br> <br>
I just hope existing L4D owners will get L4D2 with 20\% or more discount. Even more if the game will have same 4 campaigns as the older game had + survival mode.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Since you pulled TF2 into comparison with L4D , let 's make some comparison with accurate stats .
Team Fortress 2 had six ( 6 ) maps when it was launched .
It 's price was 29,99 $ as a standalone version .
TF2 maps are designed in the way as you go back and forth depending how you and your team is .
They usually last around 30mins or even 1 hour , depending on server settings where you play at .
At TF2 , you find different positions favorable to different classes which increases the experience , each time .
You learn the spots with each classes which you like to play on , where to be and so on .
You learn the layout fast and know where to go but experience varies greatly because your enemy is \ _always \ _ human .
Now L4D costs that same as TF2 but in the past it cost total 50 bucks .
Basically L4D had four ( 4 ) maps .
They last each around 1 hour once you get the hang of them .
Perhaps if you are pro , even ~ 35mins .
L4D has only way route to victory in campaign mode .
You may find additional weapons and you learn the spots where to be to win and what places to go .
It nearly hasnt got enough variety as they promised .
Same pipe to run through .
You know where the regular and special enemies are coming from and how to counter them .
Set tank on fire and just run away for 45 seconds and it dies .
With few times playing through the maps , there just isnt anything left to play on .
Agreed , there is plenty to play compared to some single player crap that costs 50 bucks but as for Valve style support and additional content , no .
So L4D has actually LESS to play for with default content than TF2 had , if you look at the time which you spent on each game .
Of course as a newb , you are playing twice as that time but TF2 still had a lot more to play on than L4D had .
I 've spent a lot more time on TF2 than on L4D .
I lost my interest into L4D after 3 months .
Survival update brought me into the game for about a week , then i had gold medals in survival 12 , silver in 2 , bronze in 1 map ( s ) with 1-5 tries .
I didnt even bother to play the rest as i would have wanted \ _new \ _ maps , not the same crap ones i got bored already .
Survival wasnt a real update .
It only brought the stuff the game should have had in the first place and one ( 1 ) new map , the lighthouse .
If you look at TF2 , there are shitloads of new stuff since the release .
Valve indeed promised more content to the game but they didnt really talk about new maps .
Of course , everyone assumed that the game would have some , since CS 1.6 , CS Source , DoD Source and TF2 had lots on the past .
Looks to me as if they shoot themselves in the foot .
Many people will buy L4D2 but L4D comes nonexistant in the moment L4D2 releases .
Valve propably will shut their servers down too 6 months - 12 months after the release .
I just hope existing L4D owners will get L4D2 with 20 \ % or more discount .
Even more if the game will have same 4 campaigns as the older game had + survival mode .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Since you pulled TF2 into comparison with L4D, let's make some comparison with accurate stats.
Team Fortress 2 had six (6) maps when it was launched.
It's price was 29,99$ as a standalone version.
TF2 maps are designed in the way as you go back and forth depending how you and your team is.
They usually last around 30mins or even 1 hour, depending on server settings where you play at.
At TF2, you find different positions favorable to different classes which increases the experience, each time.
You learn the spots with each classes which you like to play on, where to be and so on.
You learn the layout fast and know where to go but experience varies greatly because your enemy is \_always\_ human.
Now L4D costs that same as TF2 but in the past it cost total 50 bucks.
Basically L4D had four (4) maps.
They last each around 1 hour once you get the hang of them.
Perhaps if you are pro, even ~35mins.
L4D has only way route to victory in campaign mode.
You may find additional weapons and you learn the spots where to be to win and what places to go.
It nearly hasnt got enough variety as they promised.
Same pipe to run through.
You know where the regular and special enemies are coming from and how to counter them.
Set tank on fire and just run away for 45 seconds and it dies.
With few times playing through the maps, there just isnt anything left to play on.
Agreed, there is plenty to play compared to some single player crap that costs 50 bucks but as for Valve style support and additional content, no.
So L4D has actually LESS to play for with default content than TF2 had, if you look at the time which you spent on each game.
Of course as a newb, you are playing twice as that time but TF2 still had a lot more to play on than L4D had.
I've spent a lot more time on TF2 than on L4D.
I lost my interest into L4D after 3 months.
Survival update brought me into the game for about a week, then i had gold medals in survival 12, silver in 2, bronze in 1 map(s) with 1-5 tries.
I didnt even bother to play the rest as i would have wanted \_new\_ maps, not the same crap ones i got bored already.
Survival wasnt a real update.
It only brought the stuff the game should have had in the first place and one (1) new map, the lighthouse.
If you look at TF2, there are shitloads of new stuff since the release.
Valve indeed promised more content to the game but they didnt really talk about new maps.
Of course, everyone assumed that the game would have some, since CS 1.6, CS Source, DoD Source and TF2 had lots on the past.
Looks to me as if they shoot themselves in the foot.
Many people will buy L4D2 but L4D comes nonexistant in the moment L4D2 releases.
Valve propably will shut their servers down too 6 months - 12 months after the release.
I just hope existing L4D owners will get L4D2 with 20\% or more discount.
Even more if the game will have same 4 campaigns as the older game had + survival mode.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_0852201.28224151</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_0852201.28226523</id>
	<title>Re:Wont do justice?</title>
	<author>shutdown -p now</author>
	<datestamp>1244233560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The original game had like 6 guns, 4 levels and about 5 types of enemies.</p></div><p>Where does this "4 levels" bullshit keeps coming from (I'm seeing it in a lot of posts here)? It's 4 <b>campaigns</b>, 5 maps each.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The original game had like 6 guns , 4 levels and about 5 types of enemies.Where does this " 4 levels " bullshit keeps coming from ( I 'm seeing it in a lot of posts here ) ?
It 's 4 campaigns , 5 maps each .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The original game had like 6 guns, 4 levels and about 5 types of enemies.Where does this "4 levels" bullshit keeps coming from (I'm seeing it in a lot of posts here)?
It's 4 campaigns, 5 maps each.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_0852201.28220735</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_0852201.28220319</id>
	<title>Why I cry at night...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244204760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>"Gabe Newell is "always talking about providing entertainment as a service &#226;" it's not about making a game any more." "



Which is why most games suck now.</htmltext>
<tokenext>" Gabe Newell is " always talking about providing entertainment as a service   " it 's not about making a game any more .
" " Which is why most games suck now .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Gabe Newell is "always talking about providing entertainment as a service â" it's not about making a game any more.
" "



Which is why most games suck now.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_0852201.28225011</id>
	<title>Re:What's all the fuss about, anyway?</title>
	<author>VGPowerlord</author>
	<datestamp>1244226540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Am I the only one who thought Left 4 Dead was mediocre at best?</p></div></blockquote><p>No, and I'm not afraid to say it either.  Particularly since I paid considerably more for it than I paid for Team Fortress 2, which is, hands-down, a better game.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Am I the only one who thought Left 4 Dead was mediocre at best ? No , and I 'm not afraid to say it either .
Particularly since I paid considerably more for it than I paid for Team Fortress 2 , which is , hands-down , a better game .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Am I the only one who thought Left 4 Dead was mediocre at best?No, and I'm not afraid to say it either.
Particularly since I paid considerably more for it than I paid for Team Fortress 2, which is, hands-down, a better game.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_0852201.28220449</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_0852201.28222049</id>
	<title>Re:Why I cry at night...</title>
	<author>Lord Ender</author>
	<datestamp>1244215260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It could be good, it could be bad. I would pay a monthly fee for access to all of the Steam games.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It could be good , it could be bad .
I would pay a monthly fee for access to all of the Steam games .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It could be good, it could be bad.
I would pay a monthly fee for access to all of the Steam games.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_0852201.28220319</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_0852201.28220619</id>
	<title>Re:Why I cry at night...</title>
	<author>alexhard</author>
	<datestamp>1244207280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Software as a service is good, if done properly. Look at TF2! You buy the game, and keep getting awesome new content constantly.</p><p>However, if you see gaming as software as a service then the logical thing would be to keep providing content for L4D instead of releasing another game..</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Software as a service is good , if done properly .
Look at TF2 !
You buy the game , and keep getting awesome new content constantly.However , if you see gaming as software as a service then the logical thing would be to keep providing content for L4D instead of releasing another game. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Software as a service is good, if done properly.
Look at TF2!
You buy the game, and keep getting awesome new content constantly.However, if you see gaming as software as a service then the logical thing would be to keep providing content for L4D instead of releasing another game..</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_0852201.28220319</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_05_0852201_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_0852201.28229003
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_0852201.28220593
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_05_0852201_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_0852201.28227173
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_0852201.28224151
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_05_0852201_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_0852201.28227067
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_0852201.28220319
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_05_0852201_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_0852201.28220619
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_0852201.28220319
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_05_0852201_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_0852201.28221117
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_0852201.28220735
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_05_0852201_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_0852201.28222049
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_0852201.28220319
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_05_0852201_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_0852201.28220423
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_0852201.28220319
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_05_0852201_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_0852201.28220783
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_0852201.28220319
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_05_0852201_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_0852201.28220779
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_0852201.28220595
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_05_0852201_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_0852201.28224025
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_0852201.28220735
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_05_0852201_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_0852201.28227693
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_0852201.28224151
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_05_0852201_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_0852201.28228163
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_0852201.28220319
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_05_0852201_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_0852201.28229159
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_0852201.28224039
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_05_0852201_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_0852201.28229029
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_0852201.28224901
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_0852201.28220765
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_0852201.28220651
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_05_0852201_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_0852201.28235847
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_0852201.28224151
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_05_0852201_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_0852201.28222311
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_0852201.28221805
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_05_0852201_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_0852201.28225011
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_0852201.28220449
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_05_0852201_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_0852201.28220639
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_0852201.28220319
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_05_0852201_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_0852201.28226523
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_0852201.28220735
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_05_0852201_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_0852201.28221485
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_0852201.28220911
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_05_0852201_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_0852201.28224587
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_0852201.28221123
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_0852201.28220689
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_0852201.28220595
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_05_0852201.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_0852201.28220449
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_0852201.28225011
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_05_0852201.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_0852201.28220593
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_0852201.28229003
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_05_0852201.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_0852201.28220911
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_0852201.28221485
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_05_0852201.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_0852201.28220651
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_0852201.28220765
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_0852201.28224901
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_0852201.28229029
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_05_0852201.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_0852201.28220595
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_0852201.28220689
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_0852201.28221123
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_0852201.28224587
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_0852201.28220779
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_05_0852201.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_0852201.28221805
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_0852201.28222311
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_05_0852201.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_0852201.28224039
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_0852201.28229159
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_05_0852201.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_0852201.28220319
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_0852201.28222049
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_0852201.28228163
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_0852201.28220423
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_0852201.28220639
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_0852201.28227067
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_0852201.28220619
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_0852201.28220783
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_05_0852201.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_0852201.28220857
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_05_0852201.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_0852201.28220591
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_05_0852201.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_0852201.28220735
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_0852201.28221117
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_0852201.28224025
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_0852201.28226523
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_05_0852201.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_0852201.28220683
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_05_0852201.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_0852201.28224151
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_0852201.28227173
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_0852201.28235847
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_0852201.28227693
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_05_0852201.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_0852201.28220681
</commentlist>
</conversation>
