<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_07_04_0336213</id>
	<title>Despite New Owner, id Still Lives Or Dies By Their Engines</title>
	<author>Soulskill</author>
	<datestamp>1246735260000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>The Guardian has an article about id Software's status after <a href="http://games.slashdot.org/story/09/06/24/172218/ZeniMax-Parent-Company-of-Bethesda-Buys-id-Software?from=rss">being purchased by ZeniMax</a> (Bethesda's parent company) not long ago. While id gained considerable financial stability out of the deal, it's clear that what Bethesda has to gain is <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/gamesblog/2009/jul/01/games-id-software-doom-rage">access to top-of-the-line engine technology</a>, which they've often needed to license. id's Todd Hollenshead said, "The videogames business is defined by technology, which is why guys like JC [John Carmack] are still so significant. Consumers may not be as in touch with the intricacies as they used to be, but you can still make significant, impactful change. We're confident <em>Rage</em> will be one of them..." He also mentions that "the PC market has receded in terms of significance," a sentiment evidenced by <a href="http://www.joystiq.com/2009/06/25/interview-ids-john-carmack-and-zenimax-ceo-on-the-acquisition/">id's aggressive expansion into the iPhone games market</a>.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The Guardian has an article about id Software 's status after being purchased by ZeniMax ( Bethesda 's parent company ) not long ago .
While id gained considerable financial stability out of the deal , it 's clear that what Bethesda has to gain is access to top-of-the-line engine technology , which they 've often needed to license .
id 's Todd Hollenshead said , " The videogames business is defined by technology , which is why guys like JC [ John Carmack ] are still so significant .
Consumers may not be as in touch with the intricacies as they used to be , but you can still make significant , impactful change .
We 're confident Rage will be one of them... " He also mentions that " the PC market has receded in terms of significance , " a sentiment evidenced by id 's aggressive expansion into the iPhone games market .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Guardian has an article about id Software's status after being purchased by ZeniMax (Bethesda's parent company) not long ago.
While id gained considerable financial stability out of the deal, it's clear that what Bethesda has to gain is access to top-of-the-line engine technology, which they've often needed to license.
id's Todd Hollenshead said, "The videogames business is defined by technology, which is why guys like JC [John Carmack] are still so significant.
Consumers may not be as in touch with the intricacies as they used to be, but you can still make significant, impactful change.
We're confident Rage will be one of them..." He also mentions that "the PC market has receded in terms of significance," a sentiment evidenced by id's aggressive expansion into the iPhone games market.</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_0336213.28578459</id>
	<title>Thanks id Software, for the GPL of Doom/Quake</title>
	<author>G3ckoG33k</author>
	<datestamp>1246739640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Thanks id Software, for the GPL of Doom/Quake. Right now it is a serious blessing! Thanks!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Thanks id Software , for the GPL of Doom/Quake .
Right now it is a serious blessing !
Thanks !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Thanks id Software, for the GPL of Doom/Quake.
Right now it is a serious blessing!
Thanks!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_0336213.28579215</id>
	<title>Re:Curious</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246710840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Why is John Carmack the only developer of commercial game engines who actually releases the source code after they have become technically obsolete?</p></div><p>I remember Carmack saying in some interview/presentation that the reason they \_can\_ do it is that they are very careful not to license any technologies in their games they couldn't make Open Source later, and that because of this principle they've had to do some things the hard way whereas otherwise they could have just licensed some components.</p><p>(Or something along those lines. I couldn't find the exact statement right now.)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why is John Carmack the only developer of commercial game engines who actually releases the source code after they have become technically obsolete ? I remember Carmack saying in some interview/presentation that the reason they \ _can \ _ do it is that they are very careful not to license any technologies in their games they could n't make Open Source later , and that because of this principle they 've had to do some things the hard way whereas otherwise they could have just licensed some components .
( Or something along those lines .
I could n't find the exact statement right now .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why is John Carmack the only developer of commercial game engines who actually releases the source code after they have become technically obsolete?I remember Carmack saying in some interview/presentation that the reason they \_can\_ do it is that they are very careful not to license any technologies in their games they couldn't make Open Source later, and that because of this principle they've had to do some things the hard way whereas otherwise they could have just licensed some components.
(Or something along those lines.
I couldn't find the exact statement right now.
)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_0336213.28578733</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_0336213.28578829</id>
	<title>Re:The times they are changing...</title>
	<author>JCZwart</author>
	<datestamp>1246702680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>I always thought Id's games were perfect examples of engine showcases. I remember being very fascinated with Quake; read all about it, BSP modeling etc. (I even tried to create my own 3d-engine, which failed miserable, by the way).<br>
<br>
Anyone else remember <a href="http://www.bluesnews.com/abrash/index.htm" title="bluesnews.com" rel="nofollow">Ramblings in Real-time</a> [bluesnews.com] by Mike Abrash? Worth a read if you're interested in the mechanics of the Quake 3D-engine.<br>
<br>
But Quake still wasn't very much more than showcasing... Id often seemed to rely on parties such as Raven Software for convincing storylines, exciting level designs, etc. I'd like to see them produce a game like Oblivion... A cutting edge 3d engine to power a convincing RPG world, what more would you want!</htmltext>
<tokenext>I always thought Id 's games were perfect examples of engine showcases .
I remember being very fascinated with Quake ; read all about it , BSP modeling etc .
( I even tried to create my own 3d-engine , which failed miserable , by the way ) .
Anyone else remember Ramblings in Real-time [ bluesnews.com ] by Mike Abrash ?
Worth a read if you 're interested in the mechanics of the Quake 3D-engine .
But Quake still was n't very much more than showcasing... Id often seemed to rely on parties such as Raven Software for convincing storylines , exciting level designs , etc .
I 'd like to see them produce a game like Oblivion... A cutting edge 3d engine to power a convincing RPG world , what more would you want !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I always thought Id's games were perfect examples of engine showcases.
I remember being very fascinated with Quake; read all about it, BSP modeling etc.
(I even tried to create my own 3d-engine, which failed miserable, by the way).
Anyone else remember Ramblings in Real-time [bluesnews.com] by Mike Abrash?
Worth a read if you're interested in the mechanics of the Quake 3D-engine.
But Quake still wasn't very much more than showcasing... Id often seemed to rely on parties such as Raven Software for convincing storylines, exciting level designs, etc.
I'd like to see them produce a game like Oblivion... A cutting edge 3d engine to power a convincing RPG world, what more would you want!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_0336213.28578475</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_0336213.28579101</id>
	<title>Don't leave out Nexuiz!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246708560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I mean it's very nice, since it's given us games like Urban Terror and OpenAreana</p></div><p>And Nexuiz!</p><p>It's really great.  The weapons are somewhat sci-fi'esque: the sniper rifle shoots blue "laser" beams, and the Electro shoots funky blue balls which explode either on proximity or by being hit.</p><p>The maps are great; "dm6" is obviously "stolen", as is Agressor (I guess, since it's also in OpenArena).</p><p>Try it out some time<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p><p>(happy customer, not paid shill; besides, they can only pay me in source code which is free anyways<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:D)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I mean it 's very nice , since it 's given us games like Urban Terror and OpenAreanaAnd Nexuiz ! It 's really great .
The weapons are somewhat sci-fi'esque : the sniper rifle shoots blue " laser " beams , and the Electro shoots funky blue balls which explode either on proximity or by being hit.The maps are great ; " dm6 " is obviously " stolen " , as is Agressor ( I guess , since it 's also in OpenArena ) .Try it out some time : ) ( happy customer , not paid shill ; besides , they can only pay me in source code which is free anyways : D )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I mean it's very nice, since it's given us games like Urban Terror and OpenAreanaAnd Nexuiz!It's really great.
The weapons are somewhat sci-fi'esque: the sniper rifle shoots blue "laser" beams, and the Electro shoots funky blue balls which explode either on proximity or by being hit.The maps are great; "dm6" is obviously "stolen", as is Agressor (I guess, since it's also in OpenArena).Try it out some time :)(happy customer, not paid shill; besides, they can only pay me in source code which is free anyways :D)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_0336213.28578733</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_0336213.28582667</id>
	<title>Re:Reduced Focus = Reduced Significance</title>
	<author>CronoCloud</author>
	<datestamp>1246703100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A lot of folks back then essentially used their C64's, Atari's and Amigas as game consoles, and never used them for anything else, at least after the crash of '84. The C64 and Amiga were actually originally designed to be consoles, that were turned into computers later in their development. Nigh about 87 a lot of those people had shifted to the NES.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A lot of folks back then essentially used their C64 's , Atari 's and Amigas as game consoles , and never used them for anything else , at least after the crash of '84 .
The C64 and Amiga were actually originally designed to be consoles , that were turned into computers later in their development .
Nigh about 87 a lot of those people had shifted to the NES .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A lot of folks back then essentially used their C64's, Atari's and Amigas as game consoles, and never used them for anything else, at least after the crash of '84.
The C64 and Amiga were actually originally designed to be consoles, that were turned into computers later in their development.
Nigh about 87 a lot of those people had shifted to the NES.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_0336213.28581119</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_0336213.28581721</id>
	<title>Re:Try making good games again id...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246735800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I agree....</p><p>Now another thing about consoles.  Try playing a realistic flight or space sim on them.  You'll run out of buttons real quick.  Consoles are USELESS when it comes to realistic sims.  Especially something like IL2 Sturmovik.</p><p>Consoles are neat but with the limited controllers and little room for expansion when it comes to things like flightsticks and rudder pedals and such they just don't interest me much.</p><p>Plug 3 video cards into a console.... can't do that either.  Multihead gaming.... also cool for sims.  How about stereoscopic video for true 3D?  Well... last I checked the PS3 and XBOX 360 can't do that either.  While the average 12 yr old may not be interested, mommy can't afford it or they can't fit 3 displays in their living room, these technologies interest ME.</p><p>I don't want my game experience dumbed down so they can make a few more sales to 12 year old kids.  THAT is the problem with consoles.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I agree....Now another thing about consoles .
Try playing a realistic flight or space sim on them .
You 'll run out of buttons real quick .
Consoles are USELESS when it comes to realistic sims .
Especially something like IL2 Sturmovik.Consoles are neat but with the limited controllers and little room for expansion when it comes to things like flightsticks and rudder pedals and such they just do n't interest me much.Plug 3 video cards into a console.... ca n't do that either .
Multihead gaming.... also cool for sims .
How about stereoscopic video for true 3D ?
Well... last I checked the PS3 and XBOX 360 ca n't do that either .
While the average 12 yr old may not be interested , mommy ca n't afford it or they ca n't fit 3 displays in their living room , these technologies interest ME.I do n't want my game experience dumbed down so they can make a few more sales to 12 year old kids .
THAT is the problem with consoles .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I agree....Now another thing about consoles.
Try playing a realistic flight or space sim on them.
You'll run out of buttons real quick.
Consoles are USELESS when it comes to realistic sims.
Especially something like IL2 Sturmovik.Consoles are neat but with the limited controllers and little room for expansion when it comes to things like flightsticks and rudder pedals and such they just don't interest me much.Plug 3 video cards into a console.... can't do that either.
Multihead gaming.... also cool for sims.
How about stereoscopic video for true 3D?
Well... last I checked the PS3 and XBOX 360 can't do that either.
While the average 12 yr old may not be interested, mommy can't afford it or they can't fit 3 displays in their living room, these technologies interest ME.I don't want my game experience dumbed down so they can make a few more sales to 12 year old kids.
THAT is the problem with consoles.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_0336213.28578471</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_0336213.28580209</id>
	<title>Not all shooters are first-person</title>
	<author>tepples</author>
	<datestamp>1246723380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>For people like me I'll take mouse/keyboard over a console controller any day for [first-person shooter] games.</p></div><p>What will the other three players in the room take, if not gamepads?
</p><ul> <li>Extra keyboards and mice? Good luck getting Windows to tell the game which keyboard or which mouse made a given keystroke or movement.</li><li>Extra PCs? I babysit, and children usually can't bring in dad's PC.</li></ul><p>
Besides, what controller do you prefer for non-first-person shooters such as Zero Wing or Ikaruga?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>For people like me I 'll take mouse/keyboard over a console controller any day for [ first-person shooter ] games.What will the other three players in the room take , if not gamepads ?
Extra keyboards and mice ?
Good luck getting Windows to tell the game which keyboard or which mouse made a given keystroke or movement.Extra PCs ?
I babysit , and children usually ca n't bring in dad 's PC .
Besides , what controller do you prefer for non-first-person shooters such as Zero Wing or Ikaruga ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For people like me I'll take mouse/keyboard over a console controller any day for [first-person shooter] games.What will the other three players in the room take, if not gamepads?
Extra keyboards and mice?
Good luck getting Windows to tell the game which keyboard or which mouse made a given keystroke or movement.Extra PCs?
I babysit, and children usually can't bring in dad's PC.
Besides, what controller do you prefer for non-first-person shooters such as Zero Wing or Ikaruga?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_0336213.28578471</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_0336213.28578885</id>
	<title>technology? what about fun?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246703940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"The videogames business is defined by technology"</p><p>Really? I've only been playing games since pong, and worked in them for 10 years, but stupidly I've been defining the videogames business by 'fun'.<br>It's a pity this has ended up a minority viewpoint.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" The videogames business is defined by technology " Really ?
I 've only been playing games since pong , and worked in them for 10 years , but stupidly I 've been defining the videogames business by 'fun'.It 's a pity this has ended up a minority viewpoint .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"The videogames business is defined by technology"Really?
I've only been playing games since pong, and worked in them for 10 years, but stupidly I've been defining the videogames business by 'fun'.It's a pity this has ended up a minority viewpoint.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_0336213.28579523</id>
	<title>Re:Reduced Focus = Reduced Significance</title>
	<author>drsquare</author>
	<datestamp>1246716000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Developers want to make games for whichever platforms sell. With hardcore PC gamers only wanting to play MMOs or FPS sequels, and casual PC gamers only playing browser games, then developers will concentrate on consoles and handhelds.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Developers want to make games for whichever platforms sell .
With hardcore PC gamers only wanting to play MMOs or FPS sequels , and casual PC gamers only playing browser games , then developers will concentrate on consoles and handhelds .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Developers want to make games for whichever platforms sell.
With hardcore PC gamers only wanting to play MMOs or FPS sequels, and casual PC gamers only playing browser games, then developers will concentrate on consoles and handhelds.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_0336213.28578441</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_0336213.28578861</id>
	<title>qUITE SURPRISED</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246703460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Quite surprised they were allowed to do it<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.. those early engines often migrate to newer , portable hardware eg iphone ipod or even set top boxs. I had never heard of urban terror or openarena. I WILL check them out. Can they be ported to the wd hd tv, please?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Quite surprised they were allowed to do it .. those early engines often migrate to newer , portable hardware eg iphone ipod or even set top boxs .
I had never heard of urban terror or openarena .
I WILL check them out .
Can they be ported to the wd hd tv , please ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Quite surprised they were allowed to do it .. those early engines often migrate to newer , portable hardware eg iphone ipod or even set top boxs.
I had never heard of urban terror or openarena.
I WILL check them out.
Can they be ported to the wd hd tv, please?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_0336213.28581119</id>
	<title>Re:Reduced Focus = Reduced Significance</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246730940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well, there's more too it than that.  Let's take a trip back in time to the 1980's, the Atari and Commodore 64 ruled the PC roost and Electronic Arts, Infocom, Origin Systems and others were making great, fun PC games that we all loved.</p><p>The great thing about these systems was that they included what was for the time decent graphics hardware.</p><p>Sometime later, the Amiga and Atari 520ST came out, but my family didn't get one of those.  No, we got some IBM clone abomination with <em>no graphics</em>.  My Dad made some comment that "this is a serious computer, not a game machine."</p><p>He apparently hadn't be paying attention to the fact that gaming had been my biggest activity since grade school... or perhaps didn't care.  Of course, a lot of that was boardgames and Pen &amp; Paper too.  Or maybe he just didn't realize how pathetically crippled the IBM clone he bought was.  He's not a gamer at all, so graphics and sound needed to be justified some other way.</p><p>I still had my Ataris (two versions of the 800 at that point) but Atari 800 games started to dry up.  Then for Christmas me and my brother got... an NES to share.   The NES appealed to Dad because it was considerably cheaper than buying an Amiga, and that was that.   Later I bought myself a Lynx and a Sega Genesis (when I realized Lynx software support, while OK, was somewhat limited).</p><p>The big change?  Computers weren't coming with state of the art graphics support out of the box.  Even today, you can't go and just buy any PC game and expect it to work.  You might not have enough memory, you might not have enough Graphics Processing Power, your CPU might not be fast enough.</p><p>PCs are still superior as platforms than consoles if you care about things like Liberty (appropriate for this 4th of July), but consoles deliver a consistant and repeatable experience.  (Major Japanese developers tend to treat PC gaming as a red headed step child, and many of those console games will never see the light of day on a PC.)</p><p>There has been a big change in consoles, which is price.  Which has gone up in a big way recently.  I expect that's caused a bit of a revival in the PC market.  Last Christmas I got my little girl a graphics card for her PC rather than a console, because I just couldn't justify the price for what we would get.  She's more of a DS and PC Gamer anyway.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , there 's more too it than that .
Let 's take a trip back in time to the 1980 's , the Atari and Commodore 64 ruled the PC roost and Electronic Arts , Infocom , Origin Systems and others were making great , fun PC games that we all loved.The great thing about these systems was that they included what was for the time decent graphics hardware.Sometime later , the Amiga and Atari 520ST came out , but my family did n't get one of those .
No , we got some IBM clone abomination with no graphics .
My Dad made some comment that " this is a serious computer , not a game machine .
" He apparently had n't be paying attention to the fact that gaming had been my biggest activity since grade school... or perhaps did n't care .
Of course , a lot of that was boardgames and Pen &amp; Paper too .
Or maybe he just did n't realize how pathetically crippled the IBM clone he bought was .
He 's not a gamer at all , so graphics and sound needed to be justified some other way.I still had my Ataris ( two versions of the 800 at that point ) but Atari 800 games started to dry up .
Then for Christmas me and my brother got... an NES to share .
The NES appealed to Dad because it was considerably cheaper than buying an Amiga , and that was that .
Later I bought myself a Lynx and a Sega Genesis ( when I realized Lynx software support , while OK , was somewhat limited ) .The big change ?
Computers were n't coming with state of the art graphics support out of the box .
Even today , you ca n't go and just buy any PC game and expect it to work .
You might not have enough memory , you might not have enough Graphics Processing Power , your CPU might not be fast enough.PCs are still superior as platforms than consoles if you care about things like Liberty ( appropriate for this 4th of July ) , but consoles deliver a consistant and repeatable experience .
( Major Japanese developers tend to treat PC gaming as a red headed step child , and many of those console games will never see the light of day on a PC .
) There has been a big change in consoles , which is price .
Which has gone up in a big way recently .
I expect that 's caused a bit of a revival in the PC market .
Last Christmas I got my little girl a graphics card for her PC rather than a console , because I just could n't justify the price for what we would get .
She 's more of a DS and PC Gamer anyway .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, there's more too it than that.
Let's take a trip back in time to the 1980's, the Atari and Commodore 64 ruled the PC roost and Electronic Arts, Infocom, Origin Systems and others were making great, fun PC games that we all loved.The great thing about these systems was that they included what was for the time decent graphics hardware.Sometime later, the Amiga and Atari 520ST came out, but my family didn't get one of those.
No, we got some IBM clone abomination with no graphics.
My Dad made some comment that "this is a serious computer, not a game machine.
"He apparently hadn't be paying attention to the fact that gaming had been my biggest activity since grade school... or perhaps didn't care.
Of course, a lot of that was boardgames and Pen &amp; Paper too.
Or maybe he just didn't realize how pathetically crippled the IBM clone he bought was.
He's not a gamer at all, so graphics and sound needed to be justified some other way.I still had my Ataris (two versions of the 800 at that point) but Atari 800 games started to dry up.
Then for Christmas me and my brother got... an NES to share.
The NES appealed to Dad because it was considerably cheaper than buying an Amiga, and that was that.
Later I bought myself a Lynx and a Sega Genesis (when I realized Lynx software support, while OK, was somewhat limited).The big change?
Computers weren't coming with state of the art graphics support out of the box.
Even today, you can't go and just buy any PC game and expect it to work.
You might not have enough memory, you might not have enough Graphics Processing Power, your CPU might not be fast enough.PCs are still superior as platforms than consoles if you care about things like Liberty (appropriate for this 4th of July), but consoles deliver a consistant and repeatable experience.
(Major Japanese developers tend to treat PC gaming as a red headed step child, and many of those console games will never see the light of day on a PC.
)There has been a big change in consoles, which is price.
Which has gone up in a big way recently.
I expect that's caused a bit of a revival in the PC market.
Last Christmas I got my little girl a graphics card for her PC rather than a console, because I just couldn't justify the price for what we would get.
She's more of a DS and PC Gamer anyway.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_0336213.28579445</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_0336213.28581777</id>
	<title>Re:Reduced Focus = Reduced Significance</title>
	<author>Jackie\_Chan\_Fan</author>
	<datestamp>1246736460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I agree with you, but i wouldnt toss Valve into the mix. Valve has been great on the PC. Steam while it still is a copy protection scheme, is still a pretty dam good distribution platform and a great gaming community. Yes its a form of DRM but they're pretty fair with the users and Steam doesn't hassle the user in any way really. Its very light on resources and it enhances the gaming community.</p><p>Valve has also been incredible with Team Fortress 2. They've supported it quite well and Its far better than anything ID has ever put out.</p><p>The Left 4 Dead 2 thing was a kick in the ass to PC gamers that bought L4D (such as myself). The reason being is that Left 4 Dead was too simple, too short, and seamed like a mod (which in reality it is and they some what admit to it if you read about the history of its development).</p><p>The problem was Left 4 Dead was so simple and under developed, that fans had expected Valve to support it with lots of free content that would enhance the game such as new campaigns, new weapons, better AI, etc. This expectation was due to the fact that Valve had been so generous with Team Fortress 2 and they still are to this day. They have been openly supporting TF2 at their own cost, selling the game for $10 on several occasions. They managed to grow a large user base by building a community of gamers and supporting it, so much that we all expected them to do the same with Left 4 Dead.</p><p>L4D is a really shallow and boring game. Its a great idea that never really came to light in its execution. Valve probably knows this and decided to just go ahead and do a Left 4 Dead. I dont think L4D was EVER expected to be as popular and as huge as it became (thanks to the hype). L4D2 will remain a thorn in most gamers minds until it is released. I plan to buy L4D2 if it is of quality this time around. L4D was a huge disappointment but a great idea.</p><p>Anyways... I agree... PC gaming is not dead.... YET. If developers like ID dont start actually making games.... It will die.</p><p>Valve has done far more for PC gaming than id has done recently. id may not even be relevant these days because they're too slow to develope and no one is interested in their games because no one ever hears of what they're doing. They might as well not even exist. id is legendary but they need to produce something NOW.</p><p>I just bought Street Fighter IV on steam... I own it already on xbox360. So I dont think PC gaming is dead. The PC has the best version of Street Fighter IV, and MadCatz's xbox 360 Tournament Arcade stick works perfectly on the PC as well.... so its a match made in heaven.</p><p>Developers like CAPCOM (makers of street fighter), whom are traditionally console developers have been supporting the PC more than ever now a days. More so than even id software. Capcom has put out more PC games than id has in the past 10 years. I find that interesting.</p><p>That said... Xbox live is a great community, and the xbox hardware itself is good enough to play 720p games while sitting back on your couch looking at a giant HD LCD screen. More people use voice coms on xbox live than on pc and more people have xbox's than a gaming PC.</p><p>The consoles are going to win this war because developers are going where the people are first, and second they do still care about piracy. The PC versions of console games tend to come out after the console release. The console releases all get priority (Street Fighter, Lost Planet, Red Faction all came out later on PC).</p><p>This is why i wont toss valve under the bus... Valve has created an Xbox Live like experience with Steam. A friends list, voice coms, game invites, messages, personal webpages for gamers, digital download distribution with a very friendly drm scheme.</p><p>Valve is doing the right thing, and I'm proud of their fair pricing and often ridiculously cheap prices on their hit titles... They're quite fair to gamers in many respects. The whole Left 4 Dead 2 thing is a bitch but i cant complain too much. I bought Team fortress 2 for $10 on Steam, and they have given me so much free additional content for TF2 and have kept the community alive and well that it really is admirable. I cant kill Valve for the Left 4 Dead 2 thing yet... not until I see the final product.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I agree with you , but i wouldnt toss Valve into the mix .
Valve has been great on the PC .
Steam while it still is a copy protection scheme , is still a pretty dam good distribution platform and a great gaming community .
Yes its a form of DRM but they 're pretty fair with the users and Steam does n't hassle the user in any way really .
Its very light on resources and it enhances the gaming community.Valve has also been incredible with Team Fortress 2 .
They 've supported it quite well and Its far better than anything ID has ever put out.The Left 4 Dead 2 thing was a kick in the ass to PC gamers that bought L4D ( such as myself ) .
The reason being is that Left 4 Dead was too simple , too short , and seamed like a mod ( which in reality it is and they some what admit to it if you read about the history of its development ) .The problem was Left 4 Dead was so simple and under developed , that fans had expected Valve to support it with lots of free content that would enhance the game such as new campaigns , new weapons , better AI , etc .
This expectation was due to the fact that Valve had been so generous with Team Fortress 2 and they still are to this day .
They have been openly supporting TF2 at their own cost , selling the game for $ 10 on several occasions .
They managed to grow a large user base by building a community of gamers and supporting it , so much that we all expected them to do the same with Left 4 Dead.L4D is a really shallow and boring game .
Its a great idea that never really came to light in its execution .
Valve probably knows this and decided to just go ahead and do a Left 4 Dead .
I dont think L4D was EVER expected to be as popular and as huge as it became ( thanks to the hype ) .
L4D2 will remain a thorn in most gamers minds until it is released .
I plan to buy L4D2 if it is of quality this time around .
L4D was a huge disappointment but a great idea.Anyways... I agree... PC gaming is not dead.... YET. If developers like ID dont start actually making games.... It will die.Valve has done far more for PC gaming than id has done recently .
id may not even be relevant these days because they 're too slow to develope and no one is interested in their games because no one ever hears of what they 're doing .
They might as well not even exist .
id is legendary but they need to produce something NOW.I just bought Street Fighter IV on steam... I own it already on xbox360 .
So I dont think PC gaming is dead .
The PC has the best version of Street Fighter IV , and MadCatz 's xbox 360 Tournament Arcade stick works perfectly on the PC as well.... so its a match made in heaven.Developers like CAPCOM ( makers of street fighter ) , whom are traditionally console developers have been supporting the PC more than ever now a days .
More so than even id software .
Capcom has put out more PC games than id has in the past 10 years .
I find that interesting.That said... Xbox live is a great community , and the xbox hardware itself is good enough to play 720p games while sitting back on your couch looking at a giant HD LCD screen .
More people use voice coms on xbox live than on pc and more people have xbox 's than a gaming PC.The consoles are going to win this war because developers are going where the people are first , and second they do still care about piracy .
The PC versions of console games tend to come out after the console release .
The console releases all get priority ( Street Fighter , Lost Planet , Red Faction all came out later on PC ) .This is why i wont toss valve under the bus... Valve has created an Xbox Live like experience with Steam .
A friends list , voice coms , game invites , messages , personal webpages for gamers , digital download distribution with a very friendly drm scheme.Valve is doing the right thing , and I 'm proud of their fair pricing and often ridiculously cheap prices on their hit titles... They 're quite fair to gamers in many respects .
The whole Left 4 Dead 2 thing is a bitch but i cant complain too much .
I bought Team fortress 2 for $ 10 on Steam , and they have given me so much free additional content for TF2 and have kept the community alive and well that it really is admirable .
I cant kill Valve for the Left 4 Dead 2 thing yet... not until I see the final product .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I agree with you, but i wouldnt toss Valve into the mix.
Valve has been great on the PC.
Steam while it still is a copy protection scheme, is still a pretty dam good distribution platform and a great gaming community.
Yes its a form of DRM but they're pretty fair with the users and Steam doesn't hassle the user in any way really.
Its very light on resources and it enhances the gaming community.Valve has also been incredible with Team Fortress 2.
They've supported it quite well and Its far better than anything ID has ever put out.The Left 4 Dead 2 thing was a kick in the ass to PC gamers that bought L4D (such as myself).
The reason being is that Left 4 Dead was too simple, too short, and seamed like a mod (which in reality it is and they some what admit to it if you read about the history of its development).The problem was Left 4 Dead was so simple and under developed, that fans had expected Valve to support it with lots of free content that would enhance the game such as new campaigns, new weapons, better AI, etc.
This expectation was due to the fact that Valve had been so generous with Team Fortress 2 and they still are to this day.
They have been openly supporting TF2 at their own cost, selling the game for $10 on several occasions.
They managed to grow a large user base by building a community of gamers and supporting it, so much that we all expected them to do the same with Left 4 Dead.L4D is a really shallow and boring game.
Its a great idea that never really came to light in its execution.
Valve probably knows this and decided to just go ahead and do a Left 4 Dead.
I dont think L4D was EVER expected to be as popular and as huge as it became (thanks to the hype).
L4D2 will remain a thorn in most gamers minds until it is released.
I plan to buy L4D2 if it is of quality this time around.
L4D was a huge disappointment but a great idea.Anyways... I agree... PC gaming is not dead.... YET. If developers like ID dont start actually making games.... It will die.Valve has done far more for PC gaming than id has done recently.
id may not even be relevant these days because they're too slow to develope and no one is interested in their games because no one ever hears of what they're doing.
They might as well not even exist.
id is legendary but they need to produce something NOW.I just bought Street Fighter IV on steam... I own it already on xbox360.
So I dont think PC gaming is dead.
The PC has the best version of Street Fighter IV, and MadCatz's xbox 360 Tournament Arcade stick works perfectly on the PC as well.... so its a match made in heaven.Developers like CAPCOM (makers of street fighter), whom are traditionally console developers have been supporting the PC more than ever now a days.
More so than even id software.
Capcom has put out more PC games than id has in the past 10 years.
I find that interesting.That said... Xbox live is a great community, and the xbox hardware itself is good enough to play 720p games while sitting back on your couch looking at a giant HD LCD screen.
More people use voice coms on xbox live than on pc and more people have xbox's than a gaming PC.The consoles are going to win this war because developers are going where the people are first, and second they do still care about piracy.
The PC versions of console games tend to come out after the console release.
The console releases all get priority (Street Fighter, Lost Planet, Red Faction all came out later on PC).This is why i wont toss valve under the bus... Valve has created an Xbox Live like experience with Steam.
A friends list, voice coms, game invites, messages, personal webpages for gamers, digital download distribution with a very friendly drm scheme.Valve is doing the right thing, and I'm proud of their fair pricing and often ridiculously cheap prices on their hit titles... They're quite fair to gamers in many respects.
The whole Left 4 Dead 2 thing is a bitch but i cant complain too much.
I bought Team fortress 2 for $10 on Steam, and they have given me so much free additional content for TF2 and have kept the community alive and well that it really is admirable.
I cant kill Valve for the Left 4 Dead 2 thing yet... not until I see the final product.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_0336213.28578441</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_0336213.28582085</id>
	<title>Re:Id Needs A Gameplay Guru</title>
	<author>UnknownSoldier</author>
	<datestamp>1246740240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I agree it does sound like a good idea. i.e. The whole bit about having the flashlight and being able to shoot mutually exclusive in Doom 3 just wasn't a very good design decision.</p><p>Unfortunately, that's not to happen.  I had dinner with Romero at E3 - he's busy doing 5 (!) MMOs.  I actually asked about Daikatana.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-)  I didn't realize it sold 200,000 and broke even for Eidos.  He admitted that one of the mistakes made was hiring inexperienced people. One of the lesson learnt was "Hire the most experienced people first, the least experienced people last" which sounds pretty reasonable.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I agree it does sound like a good idea .
i.e. The whole bit about having the flashlight and being able to shoot mutually exclusive in Doom 3 just was n't a very good design decision.Unfortunately , that 's not to happen .
I had dinner with Romero at E3 - he 's busy doing 5 ( !
) MMOs .
I actually asked about Daikatana .
: - ) I did n't realize it sold 200,000 and broke even for Eidos .
He admitted that one of the mistakes made was hiring inexperienced people .
One of the lesson learnt was " Hire the most experienced people first , the least experienced people last " which sounds pretty reasonable .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I agree it does sound like a good idea.
i.e. The whole bit about having the flashlight and being able to shoot mutually exclusive in Doom 3 just wasn't a very good design decision.Unfortunately, that's not to happen.
I had dinner with Romero at E3 - he's busy doing 5 (!
) MMOs.
I actually asked about Daikatana.
:-)  I didn't realize it sold 200,000 and broke even for Eidos.
He admitted that one of the mistakes made was hiring inexperienced people.
One of the lesson learnt was "Hire the most experienced people first, the least experienced people last" which sounds pretty reasonable.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_0336213.28580405</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_0336213.28578897</id>
	<title>Oblivion 5:</title>
	<author>ikono</author>
	<datestamp>1246704180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I guess now we know what TES 5's subtitle will be now that Bethesda has the option of iD's engines... The Elder Scrolls V: The Sacred Torch</htmltext>
<tokenext>I guess now we know what TES 5 's subtitle will be now that Bethesda has the option of iD 's engines... The Elder Scrolls V : The Sacred Torch</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I guess now we know what TES 5's subtitle will be now that Bethesda has the option of iD's engines... The Elder Scrolls V: The Sacred Torch</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_0336213.28580731</id>
	<title>Re:The times they are changing...</title>
	<author>TheRaven64</author>
	<datestamp>1246727880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>While Quake was a pretty unexciting game, it was an excellent tech demo.  I struggled through the first chapter (against boredom, not against the game) and couldn't be bothered with the other three.  Making the QuakeC compiler free, however, was a stroke of genius.  The game was in three parts, the progs.dat file, containing a bytecode-compiled version of the game logic, the engine binary that loaded and ran the bytecode, and the artwork / models / levels.  </p><p>
By making QuakeC free, anyone could write a replacement progs.dat; effectively a new game that ran on the same engine and used [some of] the same levels and artwork.  The proliferation of mods for the game meant that there were hundreds of demoes for the engine floating around.  Quake originally was around 50MB, and by around '98 my Quake directory was around 500MB with all of the rest being mods.</p><p>
Now, mods are pretty common for FPS games.  It's hard to remember what a change Quake was.  The first Quake mod I played was Quake Soccer, where you kicked a head around and tried to score goals with it.  To run it, you just unzipped the directory and ran 'quake -game soccer' instead of 'quake' (this was back in the DOS days, when everyone used a command line).  A third-party modification for a game like this was almost unheard-of.  I'd played a few modifications before, but they'd all involved binary patching or replacing game files.  Being able to launch what was effectively a new game with just a command-line switch was a massive improvement.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>While Quake was a pretty unexciting game , it was an excellent tech demo .
I struggled through the first chapter ( against boredom , not against the game ) and could n't be bothered with the other three .
Making the QuakeC compiler free , however , was a stroke of genius .
The game was in three parts , the progs.dat file , containing a bytecode-compiled version of the game logic , the engine binary that loaded and ran the bytecode , and the artwork / models / levels .
By making QuakeC free , anyone could write a replacement progs.dat ; effectively a new game that ran on the same engine and used [ some of ] the same levels and artwork .
The proliferation of mods for the game meant that there were hundreds of demoes for the engine floating around .
Quake originally was around 50MB , and by around '98 my Quake directory was around 500MB with all of the rest being mods .
Now , mods are pretty common for FPS games .
It 's hard to remember what a change Quake was .
The first Quake mod I played was Quake Soccer , where you kicked a head around and tried to score goals with it .
To run it , you just unzipped the directory and ran 'quake -game soccer ' instead of 'quake ' ( this was back in the DOS days , when everyone used a command line ) .
A third-party modification for a game like this was almost unheard-of .
I 'd played a few modifications before , but they 'd all involved binary patching or replacing game files .
Being able to launch what was effectively a new game with just a command-line switch was a massive improvement .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>While Quake was a pretty unexciting game, it was an excellent tech demo.
I struggled through the first chapter (against boredom, not against the game) and couldn't be bothered with the other three.
Making the QuakeC compiler free, however, was a stroke of genius.
The game was in three parts, the progs.dat file, containing a bytecode-compiled version of the game logic, the engine binary that loaded and ran the bytecode, and the artwork / models / levels.
By making QuakeC free, anyone could write a replacement progs.dat; effectively a new game that ran on the same engine and used [some of] the same levels and artwork.
The proliferation of mods for the game meant that there were hundreds of demoes for the engine floating around.
Quake originally was around 50MB, and by around '98 my Quake directory was around 500MB with all of the rest being mods.
Now, mods are pretty common for FPS games.
It's hard to remember what a change Quake was.
The first Quake mod I played was Quake Soccer, where you kicked a head around and tried to score goals with it.
To run it, you just unzipped the directory and ran 'quake -game soccer' instead of 'quake' (this was back in the DOS days, when everyone used a command line).
A third-party modification for a game like this was almost unheard-of.
I'd played a few modifications before, but they'd all involved binary patching or replacing game files.
Being able to launch what was effectively a new game with just a command-line switch was a massive improvement.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_0336213.28578829</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_0336213.28580405</id>
	<title>Id Needs A Gameplay Guru</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246725240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Id was at its best when Jon Romero worked there since Carmack would focus on the graphics and Romero would focus on the gameplay.  Since the break-up of this partnership Id's games have gone drastically down hill while Romero found he couldn't make a game without Carmack.  Romero appeared to have trouble with the technical side of Daikatana with lengthy delays and terrible visuals when it finally was released.  Daikatana received a poor reception but the gameplay was clearly there with some innovative ideas and great feel to the movement control.  It was the technical execution that was lacking, likely a result of not having somebody like Carmack.</p><p>Carmack's engines always look amazing but the engine is now Id's only selling point and their games are just dire.  Id desperately needs to recruit someone with a proven record of making fun games so they can bring their gamplay up to the level of their engines.  I vote for Romero, and bring American McGee back while you're at it.  That would really return Id back to its past glory.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Id was at its best when Jon Romero worked there since Carmack would focus on the graphics and Romero would focus on the gameplay .
Since the break-up of this partnership Id 's games have gone drastically down hill while Romero found he could n't make a game without Carmack .
Romero appeared to have trouble with the technical side of Daikatana with lengthy delays and terrible visuals when it finally was released .
Daikatana received a poor reception but the gameplay was clearly there with some innovative ideas and great feel to the movement control .
It was the technical execution that was lacking , likely a result of not having somebody like Carmack.Carmack 's engines always look amazing but the engine is now Id 's only selling point and their games are just dire .
Id desperately needs to recruit someone with a proven record of making fun games so they can bring their gamplay up to the level of their engines .
I vote for Romero , and bring American McGee back while you 're at it .
That would really return Id back to its past glory .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Id was at its best when Jon Romero worked there since Carmack would focus on the graphics and Romero would focus on the gameplay.
Since the break-up of this partnership Id's games have gone drastically down hill while Romero found he couldn't make a game without Carmack.
Romero appeared to have trouble with the technical side of Daikatana with lengthy delays and terrible visuals when it finally was released.
Daikatana received a poor reception but the gameplay was clearly there with some innovative ideas and great feel to the movement control.
It was the technical execution that was lacking, likely a result of not having somebody like Carmack.Carmack's engines always look amazing but the engine is now Id's only selling point and their games are just dire.
Id desperately needs to recruit someone with a proven record of making fun games so they can bring their gamplay up to the level of their engines.
I vote for Romero, and bring American McGee back while you're at it.
That would really return Id back to its past glory.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_0336213.28589661</id>
	<title>Re:technology? what about fun?</title>
	<author>pommiekiwifruit</author>
	<datestamp>1246799820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>I've been defining the videogames business by 'fun'</i>
<p>Epic Games defines it as 60 hour minimum work weeks<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-)
</p><p>Apparently their code all looks like it was written at 1:50am as well (they have compulsory 2am leaving time), but everyone seems to be using it...
</p><p>EA defines it as changing a number in the product manual to match the current year.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've been defining the videogames business by 'fun ' Epic Games defines it as 60 hour minimum work weeks : - ) Apparently their code all looks like it was written at 1 : 50am as well ( they have compulsory 2am leaving time ) , but everyone seems to be using it.. . EA defines it as changing a number in the product manual to match the current year .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've been defining the videogames business by 'fun'
Epic Games defines it as 60 hour minimum work weeks :-)
Apparently their code all looks like it was written at 1:50am as well (they have compulsory 2am leaving time), but everyone seems to be using it...
EA defines it as changing a number in the product manual to match the current year.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_0336213.28578885</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_0336213.28591879</id>
	<title>!Technology</title>
	<author>msormune</author>
	<datestamp>1246913040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>
Videogames business is defined by technology? Not true anymore, it's pretty much all about the content. Everyone is at the moment accustomed to great graphics so that argument just don't cut anymore. That's why games like GTA and Fallout 3 are top sellers. People just won't buy "gfx demos" like Doom3 anymore, because they can easily check the word about the game from 'net, or from Steam directly.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Videogames business is defined by technology ?
Not true anymore , it 's pretty much all about the content .
Everyone is at the moment accustomed to great graphics so that argument just do n't cut anymore .
That 's why games like GTA and Fallout 3 are top sellers .
People just wo n't buy " gfx demos " like Doom3 anymore , because they can easily check the word about the game from 'net , or from Steam directly .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
Videogames business is defined by technology?
Not true anymore, it's pretty much all about the content.
Everyone is at the moment accustomed to great graphics so that argument just don't cut anymore.
That's why games like GTA and Fallout 3 are top sellers.
People just won't buy "gfx demos" like Doom3 anymore, because they can easily check the word about the game from 'net, or from Steam directly.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_0336213.28605025</id>
	<title>Re:Id Needs A Gameplay Guru</title>
	<author>hotmultimedia</author>
	<datestamp>1246957860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yep, Carmack and Romero were like the Lennon and McCartney of the gaming world, because they were different but still had enough in common to be friends and therefore balance each other.<br> <br>
It's stated many times in book Masters of Doom, that Romero was always the one who was driving the engine to it's limits. He was also very necessary to kinda point Carmack to the right direction gameplay-wise. as Carmack was the master on the technical side, he was getting his fun from technical challenges and that's why he needed somebody to keep him on the right track.<br> <br>
When more technical people are working alone, they create piece of shit productions like Revolution 9, but when they are working with somebody that has an insight on the "other side", they are unbeatable together.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yep , Carmack and Romero were like the Lennon and McCartney of the gaming world , because they were different but still had enough in common to be friends and therefore balance each other .
It 's stated many times in book Masters of Doom , that Romero was always the one who was driving the engine to it 's limits .
He was also very necessary to kinda point Carmack to the right direction gameplay-wise .
as Carmack was the master on the technical side , he was getting his fun from technical challenges and that 's why he needed somebody to keep him on the right track .
When more technical people are working alone , they create piece of shit productions like Revolution 9 , but when they are working with somebody that has an insight on the " other side " , they are unbeatable together .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yep, Carmack and Romero were like the Lennon and McCartney of the gaming world, because they were different but still had enough in common to be friends and therefore balance each other.
It's stated many times in book Masters of Doom, that Romero was always the one who was driving the engine to it's limits.
He was also very necessary to kinda point Carmack to the right direction gameplay-wise.
as Carmack was the master on the technical side, he was getting his fun from technical challenges and that's why he needed somebody to keep him on the right track.
When more technical people are working alone, they create piece of shit productions like Revolution 9, but when they are working with somebody that has an insight on the "other side", they are unbeatable together.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_0336213.28580405</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_0336213.28583101</id>
	<title>Re:Curious</title>
	<author>Kaboom13</author>
	<datestamp>1246708740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There's probably a variety of reasons, but some of them are:<br>1.  Licensing/Ownership issues.  Over the course of the 5+ years it takes an engine to become obsolete, a lot of game developers don't exist anymore, have been bought out, merged, changed management, changed publishers, etc.  Between commitments to publishers, distributors, creditors, licensors and such, even if they do still exist, it may no longer be clear if they even legally can release the source, and doing so may open them up to legal troubles.</p><p>2.  Licensed technology.  If you licensed tech from other companies, you have to tread careful in regards to the terms of your license and any proprietary code of theirs that may be in your product, or patents that may surface later if someone uses your code to make something of their own.</p><p>3.  EA.  They deserve special mention.  Over their history they have a remarkable track record of buying up and coming companies with lots of promise and potential, then taking all their IP and franchises they just spent a ton of money acquiring, and tossing it in a bottomless pit never to be seen again.  I don't know exactly WHY they do it, but they do.  A lot of the older developers who had old games whose source they can release were gobbled up by EA and disappeared.  The chances of EA themselves ever giving out old code it pretty much nill, they make Microsoft look like a bunch of free-love hippies.</p><p>4.  Embarrassment.  Games are generally developed in a serious time crunch, and time may not be taken to make things look pretty.  In fact, the patch histories of a lot of games would suggest the code is a complete clusterfuck (for example, in World of Warcraft, every bug fix managed to bring back at least one previous bug from months or years earlier, that seemed completely unrelated).  ID planned to license out their tech, and had a lot of time even after it was released cleaning up the code and working with licensees to make their code polished.  Like an old high school yearbook, some devs have probably decided some things are better left forgotten.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There 's probably a variety of reasons , but some of them are : 1 .
Licensing/Ownership issues .
Over the course of the 5 + years it takes an engine to become obsolete , a lot of game developers do n't exist anymore , have been bought out , merged , changed management , changed publishers , etc .
Between commitments to publishers , distributors , creditors , licensors and such , even if they do still exist , it may no longer be clear if they even legally can release the source , and doing so may open them up to legal troubles.2 .
Licensed technology .
If you licensed tech from other companies , you have to tread careful in regards to the terms of your license and any proprietary code of theirs that may be in your product , or patents that may surface later if someone uses your code to make something of their own.3 .
EA. They deserve special mention .
Over their history they have a remarkable track record of buying up and coming companies with lots of promise and potential , then taking all their IP and franchises they just spent a ton of money acquiring , and tossing it in a bottomless pit never to be seen again .
I do n't know exactly WHY they do it , but they do .
A lot of the older developers who had old games whose source they can release were gobbled up by EA and disappeared .
The chances of EA themselves ever giving out old code it pretty much nill , they make Microsoft look like a bunch of free-love hippies.4 .
Embarrassment. Games are generally developed in a serious time crunch , and time may not be taken to make things look pretty .
In fact , the patch histories of a lot of games would suggest the code is a complete clusterfuck ( for example , in World of Warcraft , every bug fix managed to bring back at least one previous bug from months or years earlier , that seemed completely unrelated ) .
ID planned to license out their tech , and had a lot of time even after it was released cleaning up the code and working with licensees to make their code polished .
Like an old high school yearbook , some devs have probably decided some things are better left forgotten .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There's probably a variety of reasons, but some of them are:1.
Licensing/Ownership issues.
Over the course of the 5+ years it takes an engine to become obsolete, a lot of game developers don't exist anymore, have been bought out, merged, changed management, changed publishers, etc.
Between commitments to publishers, distributors, creditors, licensors and such, even if they do still exist, it may no longer be clear if they even legally can release the source, and doing so may open them up to legal troubles.2.
Licensed technology.
If you licensed tech from other companies, you have to tread careful in regards to the terms of your license and any proprietary code of theirs that may be in your product, or patents that may surface later if someone uses your code to make something of their own.3.
EA.  They deserve special mention.
Over their history they have a remarkable track record of buying up and coming companies with lots of promise and potential, then taking all their IP and franchises they just spent a ton of money acquiring, and tossing it in a bottomless pit never to be seen again.
I don't know exactly WHY they do it, but they do.
A lot of the older developers who had old games whose source they can release were gobbled up by EA and disappeared.
The chances of EA themselves ever giving out old code it pretty much nill, they make Microsoft look like a bunch of free-love hippies.4.
Embarrassment.  Games are generally developed in a serious time crunch, and time may not be taken to make things look pretty.
In fact, the patch histories of a lot of games would suggest the code is a complete clusterfuck (for example, in World of Warcraft, every bug fix managed to bring back at least one previous bug from months or years earlier, that seemed completely unrelated).
ID planned to license out their tech, and had a lot of time even after it was released cleaning up the code and working with licensees to make their code polished.
Like an old high school yearbook, some devs have probably decided some things are better left forgotten.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_0336213.28578929</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_0336213.28582973</id>
	<title>Re:technology? what about fun?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246706760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And you think pong wasn't defined by the technology of the day?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And you think pong was n't defined by the technology of the day ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And you think pong wasn't defined by the technology of the day?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_0336213.28578885</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_0336213.28591681</id>
	<title>Re:The times they are changing...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246823580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Quake was one of the most memorable games of the 90s. The spooky gameplay and ambience were groundbreaking. I still play it occasionally, unlike other titles of the era.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Quake was one of the most memorable games of the 90s .
The spooky gameplay and ambience were groundbreaking .
I still play it occasionally , unlike other titles of the era .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Quake was one of the most memorable games of the 90s.
The spooky gameplay and ambience were groundbreaking.
I still play it occasionally, unlike other titles of the era.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_0336213.28578829</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_0336213.28578471</id>
	<title>Try making good games again id...</title>
	<author>dstyle5</author>
	<datestamp>1246739760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>"the PC market has receded in terms of significance,"<br> <br>

While its true that PC gaming is sharing a larger and larger chunk of its gaming dollars with consoles, there is still money to be made on PCs IMO.  For people like me I'll take mouse/keyboard over a console controller any day for FPS games.  Perhaps id would make more money if their more recent PC games were actually good.  Given their new found financial resources I hope id takes the time and creates something other than Doom X with shiny id Tech Y.  Try adding some new, innovative game play in your next game and perhaps I might buy it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>" the PC market has receded in terms of significance , " While its true that PC gaming is sharing a larger and larger chunk of its gaming dollars with consoles , there is still money to be made on PCs IMO .
For people like me I 'll take mouse/keyboard over a console controller any day for FPS games .
Perhaps id would make more money if their more recent PC games were actually good .
Given their new found financial resources I hope id takes the time and creates something other than Doom X with shiny id Tech Y. Try adding some new , innovative game play in your next game and perhaps I might buy it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"the PC market has receded in terms of significance," 

While its true that PC gaming is sharing a larger and larger chunk of its gaming dollars with consoles, there is still money to be made on PCs IMO.
For people like me I'll take mouse/keyboard over a console controller any day for FPS games.
Perhaps id would make more money if their more recent PC games were actually good.
Given their new found financial resources I hope id takes the time and creates something other than Doom X with shiny id Tech Y.  Try adding some new, innovative game play in your next game and perhaps I might buy it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_0336213.28579631</id>
	<title>Re:The times they are changing...</title>
	<author>unfunk</author>
	<datestamp>1246717800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>To this day I am amazed at just how many games the Quake 3 engine ended up powering. When I first saw Q3, I was pretty amazed by it, but I never thought it had what it took to power "full" games. Call of Duty just blew me away, and even more so when I found out it was the Q3 engine.<br> <br>
I'm kind of disappointed they didn't see that level of success with the Doom 3 engine. There was plenty of potential, but nobody seems to have chased up on it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>To this day I am amazed at just how many games the Quake 3 engine ended up powering .
When I first saw Q3 , I was pretty amazed by it , but I never thought it had what it took to power " full " games .
Call of Duty just blew me away , and even more so when I found out it was the Q3 engine .
I 'm kind of disappointed they did n't see that level of success with the Doom 3 engine .
There was plenty of potential , but nobody seems to have chased up on it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>To this day I am amazed at just how many games the Quake 3 engine ended up powering.
When I first saw Q3, I was pretty amazed by it, but I never thought it had what it took to power "full" games.
Call of Duty just blew me away, and even more so when I found out it was the Q3 engine.
I'm kind of disappointed they didn't see that level of success with the Doom 3 engine.
There was plenty of potential, but nobody seems to have chased up on it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_0336213.28578829</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_0336213.28578629</id>
	<title>Re:Reduced Focus = Reduced Significance</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246698900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't get how you think id and Valve have forgotten the platform that made them big.  Pretty much all of id's work lands on PC first, and Steam is a distribution platform for PC games.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't get how you think id and Valve have forgotten the platform that made them big .
Pretty much all of id 's work lands on PC first , and Steam is a distribution platform for PC games .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't get how you think id and Valve have forgotten the platform that made them big.
Pretty much all of id's work lands on PC first, and Steam is a distribution platform for PC games.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_0336213.28578441</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_0336213.28578475</id>
	<title>The times they are changing...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246739820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>With the recent closing of the doors to 3d Realms it's good to reflect on the old heavy hitters in a contemporary complexion.</p><p>Back in the day it was the Unreal Engine and the Quake engine that were the benchmark for graphics. The build engine for 3d realms spawned countless titles, though that was the last great engine they had.</p><p>So today, it seems that what is most important to some firms is the quality of the engine rather than the games they produce. This however results in titles that are simply showcases, appose to good games.</p><p>It would be nice for developers to have enough in house resources to do both. Create an amazing game around an amazing engine.</p><p>With that I look with optimism to the future of id in hopes that they bring back some of that old sparkle that has been lacking as of late.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>With the recent closing of the doors to 3d Realms it 's good to reflect on the old heavy hitters in a contemporary complexion.Back in the day it was the Unreal Engine and the Quake engine that were the benchmark for graphics .
The build engine for 3d realms spawned countless titles , though that was the last great engine they had.So today , it seems that what is most important to some firms is the quality of the engine rather than the games they produce .
This however results in titles that are simply showcases , appose to good games.It would be nice for developers to have enough in house resources to do both .
Create an amazing game around an amazing engine.With that I look with optimism to the future of id in hopes that they bring back some of that old sparkle that has been lacking as of late .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>With the recent closing of the doors to 3d Realms it's good to reflect on the old heavy hitters in a contemporary complexion.Back in the day it was the Unreal Engine and the Quake engine that were the benchmark for graphics.
The build engine for 3d realms spawned countless titles, though that was the last great engine they had.So today, it seems that what is most important to some firms is the quality of the engine rather than the games they produce.
This however results in titles that are simply showcases, appose to good games.It would be nice for developers to have enough in house resources to do both.
Create an amazing game around an amazing engine.With that I look with optimism to the future of id in hopes that they bring back some of that old sparkle that has been lacking as of late.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_0336213.28579445</id>
	<title>Re:Reduced Focus = Reduced Significance</title>
	<author>ae1294</author>
	<datestamp>1246714980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's pretty clear to me what is going on.</p><p>Someone who spends 300+ dollars for a console (which is nothing more than a propitiatory computer) are more likely to spend money on games for that platform and then turn around and buy the new platform in 2 years. They are already totally on board with the idea that they will have zero control and are willing to pay whatever you demand. People who play or did play computer games are much more likely to cause trouble and bitch.</p><p>Some people do hack and mod the systems but most people who run out and by a PS3, wee or XBOX360 will never do so. I have an xbox v1.1 I paid 20 bucks for broke, fixed it, installed a 300gb HD drive packed full of games and emulators and flashed the sucker. When people see it they beg me to mod their systems until I tell them they need to fork over the money for the mod chip and hard drive and then strangely they don't want to do it anymore. I say strangely because the total cost to mod is less than buying two games but I guess they don't see it that way.</p><p>As far as hardware compatibility problems.. I don't think that is much of an issue being that there are only two video chip makers and two processor chip makers left. Everyone runs WinXP for games and turning off antivirus isn't hard or even needed most of the time so I'm pretty sure it's all about the DRM and fanboys being fanboys.</p><p>Owning a computer is normal but talking about how fast it is is being a nerd. Owning a PS3 is cool and means your mommy and daddy must love you enough to hand over their credit card.</p><p>nuff said...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's pretty clear to me what is going on.Someone who spends 300 + dollars for a console ( which is nothing more than a propitiatory computer ) are more likely to spend money on games for that platform and then turn around and buy the new platform in 2 years .
They are already totally on board with the idea that they will have zero control and are willing to pay whatever you demand .
People who play or did play computer games are much more likely to cause trouble and bitch.Some people do hack and mod the systems but most people who run out and by a PS3 , wee or XBOX360 will never do so .
I have an xbox v1.1 I paid 20 bucks for broke , fixed it , installed a 300gb HD drive packed full of games and emulators and flashed the sucker .
When people see it they beg me to mod their systems until I tell them they need to fork over the money for the mod chip and hard drive and then strangely they do n't want to do it anymore .
I say strangely because the total cost to mod is less than buying two games but I guess they do n't see it that way.As far as hardware compatibility problems.. I do n't think that is much of an issue being that there are only two video chip makers and two processor chip makers left .
Everyone runs WinXP for games and turning off antivirus is n't hard or even needed most of the time so I 'm pretty sure it 's all about the DRM and fanboys being fanboys.Owning a computer is normal but talking about how fast it is is being a nerd .
Owning a PS3 is cool and means your mommy and daddy must love you enough to hand over their credit card.nuff said.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's pretty clear to me what is going on.Someone who spends 300+ dollars for a console (which is nothing more than a propitiatory computer) are more likely to spend money on games for that platform and then turn around and buy the new platform in 2 years.
They are already totally on board with the idea that they will have zero control and are willing to pay whatever you demand.
People who play or did play computer games are much more likely to cause trouble and bitch.Some people do hack and mod the systems but most people who run out and by a PS3, wee or XBOX360 will never do so.
I have an xbox v1.1 I paid 20 bucks for broke, fixed it, installed a 300gb HD drive packed full of games and emulators and flashed the sucker.
When people see it they beg me to mod their systems until I tell them they need to fork over the money for the mod chip and hard drive and then strangely they don't want to do it anymore.
I say strangely because the total cost to mod is less than buying two games but I guess they don't see it that way.As far as hardware compatibility problems.. I don't think that is much of an issue being that there are only two video chip makers and two processor chip makers left.
Everyone runs WinXP for games and turning off antivirus isn't hard or even needed most of the time so I'm pretty sure it's all about the DRM and fanboys being fanboys.Owning a computer is normal but talking about how fast it is is being a nerd.
Owning a PS3 is cool and means your mommy and daddy must love you enough to hand over their credit card.nuff said...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_0336213.28578441</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_0336213.28584147</id>
	<title>Re:Don't leave out Nexuiz!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246723920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Actually, Nexuiz is based on the DarkPlaces engine, which is a derivative of Quake 2, not Quake 3. DarkPlaces development started and had pretty much reached its current form by the time Quake 3 was GPL'ed.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually , Nexuiz is based on the DarkPlaces engine , which is a derivative of Quake 2 , not Quake 3 .
DarkPlaces development started and had pretty much reached its current form by the time Quake 3 was GPL'ed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually, Nexuiz is based on the DarkPlaces engine, which is a derivative of Quake 2, not Quake 3.
DarkPlaces development started and had pretty much reached its current form by the time Quake 3 was GPL'ed.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_0336213.28579101</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_0336213.28578441</id>
	<title>Reduced Focus = Reduced Significance</title>
	<author>deweyhewson</author>
	<datestamp>1246739220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If the PC market has "receded in terms of significance" it is due solely to developers abandoning the platform. If developers like id or Valve (with their recent Left 4 Dead 2 fiasco) would remember the platform that made them what they are, then the platform itself would still be doing just fine, thank you very much.

PCs haven't changed. Developers have.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If the PC market has " receded in terms of significance " it is due solely to developers abandoning the platform .
If developers like id or Valve ( with their recent Left 4 Dead 2 fiasco ) would remember the platform that made them what they are , then the platform itself would still be doing just fine , thank you very much .
PCs have n't changed .
Developers have .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If the PC market has "receded in terms of significance" it is due solely to developers abandoning the platform.
If developers like id or Valve (with their recent Left 4 Dead 2 fiasco) would remember the platform that made them what they are, then the platform itself would still be doing just fine, thank you very much.
PCs haven't changed.
Developers have.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_0336213.28580761</id>
	<title>Re:Curious</title>
	<author>TheRaven64</author>
	<datestamp>1246728300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm a bit surprised that updated versions of the old engines don't take an business from him.  Something like the DarkPlaces engine, based on the Quake 1 engine, is not up to the same standards as top-of-the-line commercial engines today, but it still looks good and is free.  If the selling point for your game is how fun it is to play, then using an engine like this is much cheaper than licensing a commercial one.  If the selling point is how good it looks, then you need to be writing your own engine or you can't use that as a differentiation point.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm a bit surprised that updated versions of the old engines do n't take an business from him .
Something like the DarkPlaces engine , based on the Quake 1 engine , is not up to the same standards as top-of-the-line commercial engines today , but it still looks good and is free .
If the selling point for your game is how fun it is to play , then using an engine like this is much cheaper than licensing a commercial one .
If the selling point is how good it looks , then you need to be writing your own engine or you ca n't use that as a differentiation point .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm a bit surprised that updated versions of the old engines don't take an business from him.
Something like the DarkPlaces engine, based on the Quake 1 engine, is not up to the same standards as top-of-the-line commercial engines today, but it still looks good and is free.
If the selling point for your game is how fun it is to play, then using an engine like this is much cheaper than licensing a commercial one.
If the selling point is how good it looks, then you need to be writing your own engine or you can't use that as a differentiation point.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_0336213.28578929</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_0336213.28578837</id>
	<title>I also wonder how true that really is</title>
	<author>Sycraft-fu</author>
	<datestamp>1246702860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It would seem from a number of ways of looking at it, that the PC is as large a market as any given console. It is the "4th console" as it were. As such that means the market is not at all insignificant. Part of the problem I think is that some publishers view it as "PC vs Console" where all consoles are unified in to one market, and the PC in a separate one. They then think that the PC market should be as big as the console market and bemoan that it isn't. That's just not a good way to look at it.</p><p>Also some developers at least are showing a renewed interest in the PC. Capcom, for example, decided to bring Street Fighter 4 to the PC. It comes out next Tuesday. They had done some of the SF games on PC, but stopped after Alpha 2. However now they are trying again. Part of it may be because the Arcade version of the game is a Windows PC (it runs on Taito X2 hardware which is an XP embedded PC) but they also must see the PC market as worth the port, as they've already one Xbox 360 and PS3 ports.</p><p>I do think you are on to something with the quality of iD's games. I have been very unimpressed. Quake 4 in particular was a real disappointment. However not only have their games disappointed me, but their engine has as well. That was traditionally their big thing. Their engine was the cutting edge.</p><p>Well when Doom 3 came out, showing off iDTech 4, I was real underwhelmed. The "all real world light sources" were neat, but poorly done. Shadows were very dark and very harsh, owing to the fact light only bounced once in the engine. What's more, texture detail was substantially below what I was used to. Personally, I felt UT2004 (Unreal Engine 2) looked better over all. Not as many advanced features, but the graphics were more pleasing. Also Doom needed a beast of a system to do what it did, whereas UT2004 ran very well on moderate hardware.</p><p>Also iDtech 4 hasn't advanced much at this point. It is still their top flight engine and Unreal Engine 3 totally blows it away. Thus far, they've had no good response.</p><p>You can see it in the sales too. Currently there's 7 games that use iDTech 4, and over half of those are iD or Raven (who works closely with iD) games. UE3, which has been out for much less time, has near 100 games using it, including non-FPS games (such as the Last Remnant, an RPG).</p><p>It seems like iD isn't making first flight engines, which would be ok if their games were great, but their games are also rather undifferentiated. That is not a good situation to be in. A mediocre game with amazing graphics can still sell well, and of course the engine can be licensed out for all kinds of stuff (maybe the game is just a tech demo more than anything). Likewise a great game can get by just fine with mediocre graphics. However being not so god at both isn't a real recipe for success, especially not if you are spending the money developing your own engine.</p><p>We'll see what happens. I hope iD Tech 5 is awesome, but I worry. There really hasn't been anything out of them in terms of news or demos or the like since 2007. That is not a good sign to me. A lot changes in computers in 3 years, you'd think we'd see at least some more news about the status or demos or something. Any time a project is announced and then falls silent for a number of years, I worry that there are problems and it isn't going to be what it should.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It would seem from a number of ways of looking at it , that the PC is as large a market as any given console .
It is the " 4th console " as it were .
As such that means the market is not at all insignificant .
Part of the problem I think is that some publishers view it as " PC vs Console " where all consoles are unified in to one market , and the PC in a separate one .
They then think that the PC market should be as big as the console market and bemoan that it is n't .
That 's just not a good way to look at it.Also some developers at least are showing a renewed interest in the PC .
Capcom , for example , decided to bring Street Fighter 4 to the PC .
It comes out next Tuesday .
They had done some of the SF games on PC , but stopped after Alpha 2 .
However now they are trying again .
Part of it may be because the Arcade version of the game is a Windows PC ( it runs on Taito X2 hardware which is an XP embedded PC ) but they also must see the PC market as worth the port , as they 've already one Xbox 360 and PS3 ports.I do think you are on to something with the quality of iD 's games .
I have been very unimpressed .
Quake 4 in particular was a real disappointment .
However not only have their games disappointed me , but their engine has as well .
That was traditionally their big thing .
Their engine was the cutting edge.Well when Doom 3 came out , showing off iDTech 4 , I was real underwhelmed .
The " all real world light sources " were neat , but poorly done .
Shadows were very dark and very harsh , owing to the fact light only bounced once in the engine .
What 's more , texture detail was substantially below what I was used to .
Personally , I felt UT2004 ( Unreal Engine 2 ) looked better over all .
Not as many advanced features , but the graphics were more pleasing .
Also Doom needed a beast of a system to do what it did , whereas UT2004 ran very well on moderate hardware.Also iDtech 4 has n't advanced much at this point .
It is still their top flight engine and Unreal Engine 3 totally blows it away .
Thus far , they 've had no good response.You can see it in the sales too .
Currently there 's 7 games that use iDTech 4 , and over half of those are iD or Raven ( who works closely with iD ) games .
UE3 , which has been out for much less time , has near 100 games using it , including non-FPS games ( such as the Last Remnant , an RPG ) .It seems like iD is n't making first flight engines , which would be ok if their games were great , but their games are also rather undifferentiated .
That is not a good situation to be in .
A mediocre game with amazing graphics can still sell well , and of course the engine can be licensed out for all kinds of stuff ( maybe the game is just a tech demo more than anything ) .
Likewise a great game can get by just fine with mediocre graphics .
However being not so god at both is n't a real recipe for success , especially not if you are spending the money developing your own engine.We 'll see what happens .
I hope iD Tech 5 is awesome , but I worry .
There really has n't been anything out of them in terms of news or demos or the like since 2007 .
That is not a good sign to me .
A lot changes in computers in 3 years , you 'd think we 'd see at least some more news about the status or demos or something .
Any time a project is announced and then falls silent for a number of years , I worry that there are problems and it is n't going to be what it should .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It would seem from a number of ways of looking at it, that the PC is as large a market as any given console.
It is the "4th console" as it were.
As such that means the market is not at all insignificant.
Part of the problem I think is that some publishers view it as "PC vs Console" where all consoles are unified in to one market, and the PC in a separate one.
They then think that the PC market should be as big as the console market and bemoan that it isn't.
That's just not a good way to look at it.Also some developers at least are showing a renewed interest in the PC.
Capcom, for example, decided to bring Street Fighter 4 to the PC.
It comes out next Tuesday.
They had done some of the SF games on PC, but stopped after Alpha 2.
However now they are trying again.
Part of it may be because the Arcade version of the game is a Windows PC (it runs on Taito X2 hardware which is an XP embedded PC) but they also must see the PC market as worth the port, as they've already one Xbox 360 and PS3 ports.I do think you are on to something with the quality of iD's games.
I have been very unimpressed.
Quake 4 in particular was a real disappointment.
However not only have their games disappointed me, but their engine has as well.
That was traditionally their big thing.
Their engine was the cutting edge.Well when Doom 3 came out, showing off iDTech 4, I was real underwhelmed.
The "all real world light sources" were neat, but poorly done.
Shadows were very dark and very harsh, owing to the fact light only bounced once in the engine.
What's more, texture detail was substantially below what I was used to.
Personally, I felt UT2004 (Unreal Engine 2) looked better over all.
Not as many advanced features, but the graphics were more pleasing.
Also Doom needed a beast of a system to do what it did, whereas UT2004 ran very well on moderate hardware.Also iDtech 4 hasn't advanced much at this point.
It is still their top flight engine and Unreal Engine 3 totally blows it away.
Thus far, they've had no good response.You can see it in the sales too.
Currently there's 7 games that use iDTech 4, and over half of those are iD or Raven (who works closely with iD) games.
UE3, which has been out for much less time, has near 100 games using it, including non-FPS games (such as the Last Remnant, an RPG).It seems like iD isn't making first flight engines, which would be ok if their games were great, but their games are also rather undifferentiated.
That is not a good situation to be in.
A mediocre game with amazing graphics can still sell well, and of course the engine can be licensed out for all kinds of stuff (maybe the game is just a tech demo more than anything).
Likewise a great game can get by just fine with mediocre graphics.
However being not so god at both isn't a real recipe for success, especially not if you are spending the money developing your own engine.We'll see what happens.
I hope iD Tech 5 is awesome, but I worry.
There really hasn't been anything out of them in terms of news or demos or the like since 2007.
That is not a good sign to me.
A lot changes in computers in 3 years, you'd think we'd see at least some more news about the status or demos or something.
Any time a project is announced and then falls silent for a number of years, I worry that there are problems and it isn't going to be what it should.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_0336213.28578471</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_0336213.28579027</id>
	<title>Re:Curious</title>
	<author>MichaelSmith</author>
	<datestamp>1246707120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I think it was <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seymour\_Cray" title="wikipedia.org">Seymour Cray</a> [wikipedia.org] who made a boat every year and finished by chopping the boat up and having a barbecue. If I could somehow dispose of the megabytes of legacy code I have to deal with at work, moving forward would be a lot easier. So maybe GPLing code is Carmack's way of saying <i>its done. Now forget about it and move on.</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think it was Seymour Cray [ wikipedia.org ] who made a boat every year and finished by chopping the boat up and having a barbecue .
If I could somehow dispose of the megabytes of legacy code I have to deal with at work , moving forward would be a lot easier .
So maybe GPLing code is Carmack 's way of saying its done .
Now forget about it and move on .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think it was Seymour Cray [wikipedia.org] who made a boat every year and finished by chopping the boat up and having a barbecue.
If I could somehow dispose of the megabytes of legacy code I have to deal with at work, moving forward would be a lot easier.
So maybe GPLing code is Carmack's way of saying its done.
Now forget about it and move on.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_0336213.28578733</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_0336213.28580021</id>
	<title>My feeling...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246721700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>My feeling is that Carmack will just jump ship if/when ZeniMax starts dictating everything under the sun. Besides, he has cooler things to do, like designing/playing with rockets and potential space vehicles.</p><p>The shift away from PC gaming is a product of many things: cheap consoles, piracy, better console platform support, fixed hardware target.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>My feeling is that Carmack will just jump ship if/when ZeniMax starts dictating everything under the sun .
Besides , he has cooler things to do , like designing/playing with rockets and potential space vehicles.The shift away from PC gaming is a product of many things : cheap consoles , piracy , better console platform support , fixed hardware target .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My feeling is that Carmack will just jump ship if/when ZeniMax starts dictating everything under the sun.
Besides, he has cooler things to do, like designing/playing with rockets and potential space vehicles.The shift away from PC gaming is a product of many things: cheap consoles, piracy, better console platform support, fixed hardware target.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_0336213.28578733</id>
	<title>Curious</title>
	<author>GF678</author>
	<datestamp>1246700640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why is John Carmack the only developer of commercial game engines who actually releases the source code after they have become technically obsolete? I mean it's very nice, since it's given us games like Urban Terror and OpenAreana which can be released completely free as standalone games, but companies very rarely do things out of the goodness of their hearts.</p><p>The only reason I can see him doing this is because he believes in the open-source cause, but will his new owner allow him to continue this trend?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why is John Carmack the only developer of commercial game engines who actually releases the source code after they have become technically obsolete ?
I mean it 's very nice , since it 's given us games like Urban Terror and OpenAreana which can be released completely free as standalone games , but companies very rarely do things out of the goodness of their hearts.The only reason I can see him doing this is because he believes in the open-source cause , but will his new owner allow him to continue this trend ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why is John Carmack the only developer of commercial game engines who actually releases the source code after they have become technically obsolete?
I mean it's very nice, since it's given us games like Urban Terror and OpenAreana which can be released completely free as standalone games, but companies very rarely do things out of the goodness of their hearts.The only reason I can see him doing this is because he believes in the open-source cause, but will his new owner allow him to continue this trend?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_0336213.28578929</id>
	<title>Re:Curious</title>
	<author>Bert64</author>
	<datestamp>1246705020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Releasing the source works out extremely beneficial for them... By the time a game gets opened up, it has very little value as a commercial game anymore, but look at any modern platform that has been cracked or released open - a port of quake or doom is one of the first things to spring up. So something that has virtually no commercial value now becomes a free advertising platform and keeps your name prominent.<br>Most games from the same era as quake are languishing as abandonware and occasionally being played under dosbox, quake runs natively on virtually anything these days.<br>It's also only the engine that's open, the data files are not, so you can either use third party data files (like urban terror and openarena), the original demo files or buy the original data files (you will usually be able to find a dirt cheap copy of the game in a bargain bin somewhere).</p><p>I think all game companies should do this, having the source to old games is good for everyone involved and far better than games becoming abandonware that won't even run on modern systems without some form of emulation.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Releasing the source works out extremely beneficial for them... By the time a game gets opened up , it has very little value as a commercial game anymore , but look at any modern platform that has been cracked or released open - a port of quake or doom is one of the first things to spring up .
So something that has virtually no commercial value now becomes a free advertising platform and keeps your name prominent.Most games from the same era as quake are languishing as abandonware and occasionally being played under dosbox , quake runs natively on virtually anything these days.It 's also only the engine that 's open , the data files are not , so you can either use third party data files ( like urban terror and openarena ) , the original demo files or buy the original data files ( you will usually be able to find a dirt cheap copy of the game in a bargain bin somewhere ) .I think all game companies should do this , having the source to old games is good for everyone involved and far better than games becoming abandonware that wo n't even run on modern systems without some form of emulation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Releasing the source works out extremely beneficial for them... By the time a game gets opened up, it has very little value as a commercial game anymore, but look at any modern platform that has been cracked or released open - a port of quake or doom is one of the first things to spring up.
So something that has virtually no commercial value now becomes a free advertising platform and keeps your name prominent.Most games from the same era as quake are languishing as abandonware and occasionally being played under dosbox, quake runs natively on virtually anything these days.It's also only the engine that's open, the data files are not, so you can either use third party data files (like urban terror and openarena), the original demo files or buy the original data files (you will usually be able to find a dirt cheap copy of the game in a bargain bin somewhere).I think all game companies should do this, having the source to old games is good for everyone involved and far better than games becoming abandonware that won't even run on modern systems without some form of emulation.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_0336213.28578733</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_0336213.28583181</id>
	<title>So...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246709580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>... Elder Scrolls 5 and Fallout 4 on the id Tech 5? I'd say that well be an upgrade as torque sucks ass...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>... Elder Scrolls 5 and Fallout 4 on the id Tech 5 ?
I 'd say that well be an upgrade as torque sucks ass.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... Elder Scrolls 5 and Fallout 4 on the id Tech 5?
I'd say that well be an upgrade as torque sucks ass...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_0336213.28578491</id>
	<title>atleast EA didn't buy them</title>
	<author>Inconnux</author>
	<datestamp>1246740000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I wonder if this means they wont GPL any further game engines... This news was kinda sad, one of the top tier developers sells out... a sad time for pc gamers... but I guess it could have been worse, EA could have bought them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I wonder if this means they wont GPL any further game engines... This news was kinda sad , one of the top tier developers sells out... a sad time for pc gamers... but I guess it could have been worse , EA could have bought them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I wonder if this means they wont GPL any further game engines... This news was kinda sad, one of the top tier developers sells out... a sad time for pc gamers... but I guess it could have been worse, EA could have bought them.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_0336213.28588849</id>
	<title>Re:I also wonder how true that really is</title>
	<author>allcoolnameswheretak</author>
	<datestamp>1246790580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt;Personally, I felt UT2004 (Unreal Engine 2) looked better over all.</p><p>I think Doom 3 looks so clearly better than UT2004, it's not even a matter of taste. The models of UT2004 look low-poly in direct comparison with Doom 3 and have little or no facial features:</p><p><a href="http://downtown-dmz.de/uploads/ut2004.jpg" title="downtown-dmz.de" rel="nofollow">http://downtown-dmz.de/uploads/ut2004.jpg</a> [downtown-dmz.de]<br><a href="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/e/ef/Master\_Sergeant\_Kelly\_(Doom).jpg" title="wikimedia.org" rel="nofollow">http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/e/ef/Master\_Sergeant\_Kelly\_(Doom).jpg</a> [wikimedia.org]</p><p>and the environments in Doom 3 are alot more fleshed out, detailed and interesting than in UT2004, not to speak of the overall atmosphere and special effects. There's also a technical reason why Doom 3 looks alot better than UT2004. A typical UT2004 game has alot more action on the screen at once than in Doom3, where the action is limited to single smaller rooms or corridors. Therefore Doom 3 could afford to cram more detail into everything whereas UT2004 models and environments had to be limited due to the expanse and intensity of the action. Anyway, concering graphics quality, Doom 3 was clearly half a generation ahead of UT2004.</p><p>By the way, I'm not an Id fanboy. I like both Doom and UT. And I don't intend to brag, but I work with OpenGL 3D graphics professionally. I think I know what I'm talking about here.<br>Seriously, no!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; Personally , I felt UT2004 ( Unreal Engine 2 ) looked better over all.I think Doom 3 looks so clearly better than UT2004 , it 's not even a matter of taste .
The models of UT2004 look low-poly in direct comparison with Doom 3 and have little or no facial features : http : //downtown-dmz.de/uploads/ut2004.jpg [ downtown-dmz.de ] http : //upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/e/ef/Master \ _Sergeant \ _Kelly \ _ ( Doom ) .jpg [ wikimedia.org ] and the environments in Doom 3 are alot more fleshed out , detailed and interesting than in UT2004 , not to speak of the overall atmosphere and special effects .
There 's also a technical reason why Doom 3 looks alot better than UT2004 .
A typical UT2004 game has alot more action on the screen at once than in Doom3 , where the action is limited to single smaller rooms or corridors .
Therefore Doom 3 could afford to cram more detail into everything whereas UT2004 models and environments had to be limited due to the expanse and intensity of the action .
Anyway , concering graphics quality , Doom 3 was clearly half a generation ahead of UT2004.By the way , I 'm not an Id fanboy .
I like both Doom and UT .
And I do n't intend to brag , but I work with OpenGL 3D graphics professionally .
I think I know what I 'm talking about here.Seriously , no !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt;Personally, I felt UT2004 (Unreal Engine 2) looked better over all.I think Doom 3 looks so clearly better than UT2004, it's not even a matter of taste.
The models of UT2004 look low-poly in direct comparison with Doom 3 and have little or no facial features:http://downtown-dmz.de/uploads/ut2004.jpg [downtown-dmz.de]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/e/ef/Master\_Sergeant\_Kelly\_(Doom).jpg [wikimedia.org]and the environments in Doom 3 are alot more fleshed out, detailed and interesting than in UT2004, not to speak of the overall atmosphere and special effects.
There's also a technical reason why Doom 3 looks alot better than UT2004.
A typical UT2004 game has alot more action on the screen at once than in Doom3, where the action is limited to single smaller rooms or corridors.
Therefore Doom 3 could afford to cram more detail into everything whereas UT2004 models and environments had to be limited due to the expanse and intensity of the action.
Anyway, concering graphics quality, Doom 3 was clearly half a generation ahead of UT2004.By the way, I'm not an Id fanboy.
I like both Doom and UT.
And I don't intend to brag, but I work with OpenGL 3D graphics professionally.
I think I know what I'm talking about here.Seriously, no!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_0336213.28578837</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_0336213.28580283</id>
	<title>Re:The times they are changing...</title>
	<author>Rockoon</author>
	<datestamp>1246723920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Note that Abrash defected from I.D. (Quake) and went to work for Microsoft (XBOX), then defected from Microsoft and went to work for RAD (Pixomatic) whos technology is found in.. you guessed it.. the Unreal engine.<br>
<br>
I recently heard that he was now working for Intel (Larabbee) but can't find anything official-sounding to back that up.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Note that Abrash defected from I.D .
( Quake ) and went to work for Microsoft ( XBOX ) , then defected from Microsoft and went to work for RAD ( Pixomatic ) whos technology is found in.. you guessed it.. the Unreal engine .
I recently heard that he was now working for Intel ( Larabbee ) but ca n't find anything official-sounding to back that up .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Note that Abrash defected from I.D.
(Quake) and went to work for Microsoft (XBOX), then defected from Microsoft and went to work for RAD (Pixomatic) whos technology is found in.. you guessed it.. the Unreal engine.
I recently heard that he was now working for Intel (Larabbee) but can't find anything official-sounding to back that up.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_0336213.28578829</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_0336213.28583949</id>
	<title>Re:Not all shooters are first-person</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246720680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Windows has some calls to determine which keyboard sent a keystroke. I had to use it recently for a project at work, with a number of barcode scanners configured as HID keyboards. I believe it also works for mice or generic HIDs.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Windows has some calls to determine which keyboard sent a keystroke .
I had to use it recently for a project at work , with a number of barcode scanners configured as HID keyboards .
I believe it also works for mice or generic HIDs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Windows has some calls to determine which keyboard sent a keystroke.
I had to use it recently for a project at work, with a number of barcode scanners configured as HID keyboards.
I believe it also works for mice or generic HIDs.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_0336213.28580209</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_0336213.28585029</id>
	<title>PC shrinking, or consoles growing</title>
	<author>phorm</author>
	<datestamp>1246827180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Indeed. I think that - while the PC market may have shrunk somewhat - the main change is that the games market has grown overall, and moreso in the console arena. Modern consoles attract more gamers. Unfortunately, as a larger source of revenue, this also means that games are generally produced to target consoles in terms of controls, etc, which doesn't make use of the advantages a PC might have.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Indeed .
I think that - while the PC market may have shrunk somewhat - the main change is that the games market has grown overall , and moreso in the console arena .
Modern consoles attract more gamers .
Unfortunately , as a larger source of revenue , this also means that games are generally produced to target consoles in terms of controls , etc , which does n't make use of the advantages a PC might have .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Indeed.
I think that - while the PC market may have shrunk somewhat - the main change is that the games market has grown overall, and moreso in the console arena.
Modern consoles attract more gamers.
Unfortunately, as a larger source of revenue, this also means that games are generally produced to target consoles in terms of controls, etc, which doesn't make use of the advantages a PC might have.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_0336213.28578837</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_0336213.28580117</id>
	<title>Re:Engine is Their Gravy</title>
	<author>skreeech</author>
	<datestamp>1246722540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>DOOM fans may have not been big on Doom 3 but it sold very well.</p><p>"Since 1996, id powered games have generated worldwide revenues in excess of $2 Billion. id's most recent internally developed title, DOOM 3&#239;&#189;, extends a proven track record with over 3.5 million units sold and is id's most successful game to date." <a href="http://www.shacknews.com/docs/press/010710\_id\_carmack\_emmys.x" title="shacknews.com">http://www.shacknews.com/docs/press/010710\_id\_carmack\_emmys.x</a> [shacknews.com]</p><p>They also did focus on one thing at a time until more recently. Raven made Quake 4, Splash Damage made ET:QW, then id fixed Quake 4 before starting on Rage.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>DOOM fans may have not been big on Doom 3 but it sold very well .
" Since 1996 , id powered games have generated worldwide revenues in excess of $ 2 Billion .
id 's most recent internally developed title , DOOM 3     , extends a proven track record with over 3.5 million units sold and is id 's most successful game to date .
" http : //www.shacknews.com/docs/press/010710 \ _id \ _carmack \ _emmys.x [ shacknews.com ] They also did focus on one thing at a time until more recently .
Raven made Quake 4 , Splash Damage made ET : QW , then id fixed Quake 4 before starting on Rage .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>DOOM fans may have not been big on Doom 3 but it sold very well.
"Since 1996, id powered games have generated worldwide revenues in excess of $2 Billion.
id's most recent internally developed title, DOOM 3ï½, extends a proven track record with over 3.5 million units sold and is id's most successful game to date.
" http://www.shacknews.com/docs/press/010710\_id\_carmack\_emmys.x [shacknews.com]They also did focus on one thing at a time until more recently.
Raven made Quake 4, Splash Damage made ET:QW, then id fixed Quake 4 before starting on Rage.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_0336213.28579219</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_0336213.28578831</id>
	<title>Re:Reduced Focus = Reduced Significance</title>
	<author>mlts</author>
	<datestamp>1246702740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think the quote "receded in terms of significance" means that because consoles don't have the illusion of piracy problems that PCs do, and consoles can also bring a lot of additional revenue streams that are not present with PCs (like DRM-ed downloadable content), it means that more bucks on average can be made from the console gamer than the PC gamer.</p><p>PCs are not going away anytime soon.  In this economy, it becomes harder for someone to justify the cost of a console if they don't have one already, while PCs are virtually everywhere.  If a game company can get something playable on the average Mac hardware (I heard a rule of thumb is to get a game working decently on the last model of x86 Macbook running Windows under Boot Camp, so if something runs well on the white/black polycarbonate Macbooks made in early 2008, they have a large market of people they can sell to.)</p><p>As for piracy, for every measure on a PC, there is a counter measure.  If a company makes a dongle, an emulator is written.  A company does CD protection, a patch gets put out.  Activation?  Will get patched.  Forced authentication off a server?  Someone will make a client patch and offer private servers.  DMCA hammer gets swung, the torrents come from non-WIPO nations.  This is why game companies absolutely adore consoles and the total lockdown they bring.  The best compromise I have seen to slow down PC game piracy is what Bioware did with NWN1 after the no CD patch, which is to check serials if someone connects to the Internet servers, but allow LAN play (perhaps a serial check can be done here, but this can be beaten by a keygen).  Of course, there will be a number of freeloaders, but there will also be a lot of paying customers, and a company should only focus on the customers who shell out the bucks and not fret about pirates [1].  Instead, spend the time and effort into expansions and refining the IP.</p><p>Should the big players leave the market (I doubt it even with all the wringing of hands about piracy), then smaller game companies will move in to fill the void.  This is similar to how ID was born in the first place with starting in the shareware market.  There is always room for good games for the PC because they are not leaving the desks of most of the gamers anytime soon.</p><p>[1]:  This doesn't mean to not protect one's copyrights and trademarks, but not to worry that there is a large number of pirates out there using the products.  If users of pirated copies can't use the multiplayer networks, nor download game patches, they are not consuming much in the way of resources.  Plus, it gets word of mouth of a game out, because oftentimes, pirated "demo" copies turn into fully licensed versions.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think the quote " receded in terms of significance " means that because consoles do n't have the illusion of piracy problems that PCs do , and consoles can also bring a lot of additional revenue streams that are not present with PCs ( like DRM-ed downloadable content ) , it means that more bucks on average can be made from the console gamer than the PC gamer.PCs are not going away anytime soon .
In this economy , it becomes harder for someone to justify the cost of a console if they do n't have one already , while PCs are virtually everywhere .
If a game company can get something playable on the average Mac hardware ( I heard a rule of thumb is to get a game working decently on the last model of x86 Macbook running Windows under Boot Camp , so if something runs well on the white/black polycarbonate Macbooks made in early 2008 , they have a large market of people they can sell to .
) As for piracy , for every measure on a PC , there is a counter measure .
If a company makes a dongle , an emulator is written .
A company does CD protection , a patch gets put out .
Activation ? Will get patched .
Forced authentication off a server ?
Someone will make a client patch and offer private servers .
DMCA hammer gets swung , the torrents come from non-WIPO nations .
This is why game companies absolutely adore consoles and the total lockdown they bring .
The best compromise I have seen to slow down PC game piracy is what Bioware did with NWN1 after the no CD patch , which is to check serials if someone connects to the Internet servers , but allow LAN play ( perhaps a serial check can be done here , but this can be beaten by a keygen ) .
Of course , there will be a number of freeloaders , but there will also be a lot of paying customers , and a company should only focus on the customers who shell out the bucks and not fret about pirates [ 1 ] .
Instead , spend the time and effort into expansions and refining the IP.Should the big players leave the market ( I doubt it even with all the wringing of hands about piracy ) , then smaller game companies will move in to fill the void .
This is similar to how ID was born in the first place with starting in the shareware market .
There is always room for good games for the PC because they are not leaving the desks of most of the gamers anytime soon .
[ 1 ] : This does n't mean to not protect one 's copyrights and trademarks , but not to worry that there is a large number of pirates out there using the products .
If users of pirated copies ca n't use the multiplayer networks , nor download game patches , they are not consuming much in the way of resources .
Plus , it gets word of mouth of a game out , because oftentimes , pirated " demo " copies turn into fully licensed versions .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think the quote "receded in terms of significance" means that because consoles don't have the illusion of piracy problems that PCs do, and consoles can also bring a lot of additional revenue streams that are not present with PCs (like DRM-ed downloadable content), it means that more bucks on average can be made from the console gamer than the PC gamer.PCs are not going away anytime soon.
In this economy, it becomes harder for someone to justify the cost of a console if they don't have one already, while PCs are virtually everywhere.
If a game company can get something playable on the average Mac hardware (I heard a rule of thumb is to get a game working decently on the last model of x86 Macbook running Windows under Boot Camp, so if something runs well on the white/black polycarbonate Macbooks made in early 2008, they have a large market of people they can sell to.
)As for piracy, for every measure on a PC, there is a counter measure.
If a company makes a dongle, an emulator is written.
A company does CD protection, a patch gets put out.
Activation?  Will get patched.
Forced authentication off a server?
Someone will make a client patch and offer private servers.
DMCA hammer gets swung, the torrents come from non-WIPO nations.
This is why game companies absolutely adore consoles and the total lockdown they bring.
The best compromise I have seen to slow down PC game piracy is what Bioware did with NWN1 after the no CD patch, which is to check serials if someone connects to the Internet servers, but allow LAN play (perhaps a serial check can be done here, but this can be beaten by a keygen).
Of course, there will be a number of freeloaders, but there will also be a lot of paying customers, and a company should only focus on the customers who shell out the bucks and not fret about pirates [1].
Instead, spend the time and effort into expansions and refining the IP.Should the big players leave the market (I doubt it even with all the wringing of hands about piracy), then smaller game companies will move in to fill the void.
This is similar to how ID was born in the first place with starting in the shareware market.
There is always room for good games for the PC because they are not leaving the desks of most of the gamers anytime soon.
[1]:  This doesn't mean to not protect one's copyrights and trademarks, but not to worry that there is a large number of pirates out there using the products.
If users of pirated copies can't use the multiplayer networks, nor download game patches, they are not consuming much in the way of resources.
Plus, it gets word of mouth of a game out, because oftentimes, pirated "demo" copies turn into fully licensed versions.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_0336213.28578441</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_0336213.28579219</id>
	<title>Engine is Their Gravy</title>
	<author>Seumas</author>
	<datestamp>1246710900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A successfully adopted engine is their only truly viable option considering the not exactly stellar performance and reception of games like Doom 3, Quake 4, and Quake Wars. They need to focus on something. One thing. Regroup. Then come out swinging with that one haymaker rather than increasing the number of projects they're on and diluting their brands with titles that no longer rock the gaming world.</p><p>It isn't like they are lacking in fan-base or good-will, if they make such strides.</p><p>Also, there is no way they're going to stick with the name "Rage". I believe they learned once before that you need to use your engine as a marketing tool by tying it to your identity as a business and not calling it something obscure.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A successfully adopted engine is their only truly viable option considering the not exactly stellar performance and reception of games like Doom 3 , Quake 4 , and Quake Wars .
They need to focus on something .
One thing .
Regroup. Then come out swinging with that one haymaker rather than increasing the number of projects they 're on and diluting their brands with titles that no longer rock the gaming world.It is n't like they are lacking in fan-base or good-will , if they make such strides.Also , there is no way they 're going to stick with the name " Rage " .
I believe they learned once before that you need to use your engine as a marketing tool by tying it to your identity as a business and not calling it something obscure .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A successfully adopted engine is their only truly viable option considering the not exactly stellar performance and reception of games like Doom 3, Quake 4, and Quake Wars.
They need to focus on something.
One thing.
Regroup. Then come out swinging with that one haymaker rather than increasing the number of projects they're on and diluting their brands with titles that no longer rock the gaming world.It isn't like they are lacking in fan-base or good-will, if they make such strides.Also, there is no way they're going to stick with the name "Rage".
I believe they learned once before that you need to use your engine as a marketing tool by tying it to your identity as a business and not calling it something obscure.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_0336213.28580941</id>
	<title>Re:The times they are changing...</title>
	<author>VGPowerlord</author>
	<datestamp>1246729680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Raven Software... and Valve software.</p><p>Half-Life's game engine, now known as GoldSrc, was a modified Quake 1 engine.</p><p>Of course, Valve has spent the last 10 years since then modifying it in ever newer versions of the engine now known as Source.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Raven Software... and Valve software.Half-Life 's game engine , now known as GoldSrc , was a modified Quake 1 engine.Of course , Valve has spent the last 10 years since then modifying it in ever newer versions of the engine now known as Source .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Raven Software... and Valve software.Half-Life's game engine, now known as GoldSrc, was a modified Quake 1 engine.Of course, Valve has spent the last 10 years since then modifying it in ever newer versions of the engine now known as Source.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_0336213.28578829</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_0336213.28581141</id>
	<title>Re:The times they are changing...</title>
	<author>JCZwart</author>
	<datestamp>1246731180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>And only now do I find out that Id has actually been acquired by Zenimax, which owns Bethesda as well. According to <a href="http://www.1up.com/do/newsStory?cId=3174953" title="1up.com" rel="nofollow">this interview</a> [1up.com] with John Carmack, Doom 4 will actually be a Bethesda title.<br>
<br>
So I guess we might as well expect a Doom-4-engine-powered Oblivion II. Exciting!</htmltext>
<tokenext>And only now do I find out that Id has actually been acquired by Zenimax , which owns Bethesda as well .
According to this interview [ 1up.com ] with John Carmack , Doom 4 will actually be a Bethesda title .
So I guess we might as well expect a Doom-4-engine-powered Oblivion II .
Exciting !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And only now do I find out that Id has actually been acquired by Zenimax, which owns Bethesda as well.
According to this interview [1up.com] with John Carmack, Doom 4 will actually be a Bethesda title.
So I guess we might as well expect a Doom-4-engine-powered Oblivion II.
Exciting!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_0336213.28578829</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_0336213.28584885</id>
	<title>Quake / Doom engine</title>
	<author>scarolan</author>
	<datestamp>1246737540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hopefully Bethesda will use the quake or doom engine in their new games.  I never liked the feel of the controls in Oblivion or Fallout 3.  The movement just felt weird compared to say, ETQW or other id titles.   Like the controls were a little too loose or something.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hopefully Bethesda will use the quake or doom engine in their new games .
I never liked the feel of the controls in Oblivion or Fallout 3 .
The movement just felt weird compared to say , ETQW or other id titles .
Like the controls were a little too loose or something .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hopefully Bethesda will use the quake or doom engine in their new games.
I never liked the feel of the controls in Oblivion or Fallout 3.
The movement just felt weird compared to say, ETQW or other id titles.
Like the controls were a little too loose or something.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_0336213.28580063</id>
	<title>Re:technology? what about fun?</title>
	<author>Kjella</author>
	<datestamp>1246722000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Not saying this is the only thing but:</p><p>Fun ~= Immersion<br>Immersion ~= Technology</p><p>I do remember the first game that went from water was a blue surface w/static animations to water being a T&amp;L surface with actual waves where you can go splashing in the water and it was just like WOW. People don't like limitations that just seem arbitrary compared to the real world, if it's a 3D world you're simulating why can't you see it in 3D? Why can you only move in n fixed directions when in real world you can go in whatever direction you like. Why isn't there more detail when you walk up close to something? If it's a windy day why doesn't the trees and grass bend in the wind, flags and capes and hair flutter? If light falls upon something, why doesn't it reflect and spread like a light should? If I hack at something with an axe, why shouldn't it break and deform? Don't get me wrong, I'm not talking about realism in a human sense. But even if I'm sneaking up on some trolls that have camped up in a cave with a fire going, I expect the basic laws of physics to not be entirely unlike the real world.</p><p>Take for example the Wii Remote - is that "fun" or "technology"? It takes you away from the button-pushing technology and into swinging a racket not entirely unlike real life. You get a whole different level of immersion on the Wii than you ever did before and that makes it fun. At the same time, it's a very impressive piece of technology itself and once you have the technology, it's not exactly revolutionary figuring out how to use it for tennis. Of course, there are other ways than immersion to get you interested - humor, logic puzzles and strategy are three big ones. But IMHO they too get better with immersion, it's one thing seeing a joke on screen in a 1980s computer game and have it delivered in a clever way by a 3D CGI character with a voicetrack.</p><p>Of course, you can still create a lousy game with tons of technology. But technology acts more like an upper bound, where you can't get any closer to your goals. I'd love for us to get virtual reality propely going, not just swinging that Wii rack but actually being at Wimbeldon looking up at the sides to see the fans cheering you on. For everything you could make that would still suck, there's much more you could create that just wasn't possible before.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not saying this is the only thing but : Fun ~ = ImmersionImmersion ~ = TechnologyI do remember the first game that went from water was a blue surface w/static animations to water being a T&amp;L surface with actual waves where you can go splashing in the water and it was just like WOW .
People do n't like limitations that just seem arbitrary compared to the real world , if it 's a 3D world you 're simulating why ca n't you see it in 3D ?
Why can you only move in n fixed directions when in real world you can go in whatever direction you like .
Why is n't there more detail when you walk up close to something ?
If it 's a windy day why does n't the trees and grass bend in the wind , flags and capes and hair flutter ?
If light falls upon something , why does n't it reflect and spread like a light should ?
If I hack at something with an axe , why should n't it break and deform ?
Do n't get me wrong , I 'm not talking about realism in a human sense .
But even if I 'm sneaking up on some trolls that have camped up in a cave with a fire going , I expect the basic laws of physics to not be entirely unlike the real world.Take for example the Wii Remote - is that " fun " or " technology " ?
It takes you away from the button-pushing technology and into swinging a racket not entirely unlike real life .
You get a whole different level of immersion on the Wii than you ever did before and that makes it fun .
At the same time , it 's a very impressive piece of technology itself and once you have the technology , it 's not exactly revolutionary figuring out how to use it for tennis .
Of course , there are other ways than immersion to get you interested - humor , logic puzzles and strategy are three big ones .
But IMHO they too get better with immersion , it 's one thing seeing a joke on screen in a 1980s computer game and have it delivered in a clever way by a 3D CGI character with a voicetrack.Of course , you can still create a lousy game with tons of technology .
But technology acts more like an upper bound , where you ca n't get any closer to your goals .
I 'd love for us to get virtual reality propely going , not just swinging that Wii rack but actually being at Wimbeldon looking up at the sides to see the fans cheering you on .
For everything you could make that would still suck , there 's much more you could create that just was n't possible before .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not saying this is the only thing but:Fun ~= ImmersionImmersion ~= TechnologyI do remember the first game that went from water was a blue surface w/static animations to water being a T&amp;L surface with actual waves where you can go splashing in the water and it was just like WOW.
People don't like limitations that just seem arbitrary compared to the real world, if it's a 3D world you're simulating why can't you see it in 3D?
Why can you only move in n fixed directions when in real world you can go in whatever direction you like.
Why isn't there more detail when you walk up close to something?
If it's a windy day why doesn't the trees and grass bend in the wind, flags and capes and hair flutter?
If light falls upon something, why doesn't it reflect and spread like a light should?
If I hack at something with an axe, why shouldn't it break and deform?
Don't get me wrong, I'm not talking about realism in a human sense.
But even if I'm sneaking up on some trolls that have camped up in a cave with a fire going, I expect the basic laws of physics to not be entirely unlike the real world.Take for example the Wii Remote - is that "fun" or "technology"?
It takes you away from the button-pushing technology and into swinging a racket not entirely unlike real life.
You get a whole different level of immersion on the Wii than you ever did before and that makes it fun.
At the same time, it's a very impressive piece of technology itself and once you have the technology, it's not exactly revolutionary figuring out how to use it for tennis.
Of course, there are other ways than immersion to get you interested - humor, logic puzzles and strategy are three big ones.
But IMHO they too get better with immersion, it's one thing seeing a joke on screen in a 1980s computer game and have it delivered in a clever way by a 3D CGI character with a voicetrack.Of course, you can still create a lousy game with tons of technology.
But technology acts more like an upper bound, where you can't get any closer to your goals.
I'd love for us to get virtual reality propely going, not just swinging that Wii rack but actually being at Wimbeldon looking up at the sides to see the fans cheering you on.
For everything you could make that would still suck, there's much more you could create that just wasn't possible before.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_0336213.28578885</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_0336213.28578669</id>
	<title>Re:atleast EA didn't buy them</title>
	<author>Aliotroph</author>
	<datestamp>1246699740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>John Carmack seems like the type who wouldn't buy into this kind of thing unless they let him do what he wants.  He owned a big part of id.  The open sourcing shall continue.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>John Carmack seems like the type who would n't buy into this kind of thing unless they let him do what he wants .
He owned a big part of id .
The open sourcing shall continue .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>John Carmack seems like the type who wouldn't buy into this kind of thing unless they let him do what he wants.
He owned a big part of id.
The open sourcing shall continue.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_0336213.28578491</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_04_0336213_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_0336213.28582667
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_0336213.28581119
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_0336213.28579445
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_0336213.28578441
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_04_0336213_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_0336213.28584147
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_0336213.28579101
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_0336213.28578733
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_04_0336213_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_0336213.28578629
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_0336213.28578441
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_04_0336213_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_0336213.28579523
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_0336213.28578441
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_04_0336213_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_0336213.28582973
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_0336213.28578885
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_04_0336213_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_0336213.28583949
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_0336213.28580209
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_0336213.28578471
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_04_0336213_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_0336213.28605025
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_0336213.28580405
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_04_0336213_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_0336213.28580941
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_0336213.28578829
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_0336213.28578475
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_04_0336213_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_0336213.28580731
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_0336213.28578829
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_0336213.28578475
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_04_0336213_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_0336213.28578669
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_0336213.28578491
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_04_0336213_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_0336213.28578831
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_0336213.28578441
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_04_0336213_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_0336213.28582085
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_0336213.28580405
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_04_0336213_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_0336213.28583101
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_0336213.28578929
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_0336213.28578733
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_04_0336213_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_0336213.28579027
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_0336213.28578733
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_04_0336213_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_0336213.28581777
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_0336213.28578441
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_04_0336213_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_0336213.28580117
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_0336213.28579219
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_04_0336213_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_0336213.28581721
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_0336213.28578471
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_04_0336213_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_0336213.28591681
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_0336213.28578829
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_0336213.28578475
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_04_0336213_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_0336213.28580761
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_0336213.28578929
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_0336213.28578733
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_04_0336213_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_0336213.28585029
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_0336213.28578837
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_0336213.28578471
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_04_0336213_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_0336213.28589661
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_0336213.28578885
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_04_0336213_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_0336213.28588849
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_0336213.28578837
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_0336213.28578471
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_04_0336213_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_0336213.28579631
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_0336213.28578829
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_0336213.28578475
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_04_0336213_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_0336213.28580063
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_0336213.28578885
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_04_0336213_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_0336213.28579215
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_0336213.28578733
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_04_0336213_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_0336213.28581141
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_0336213.28578829
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_0336213.28578475
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_04_0336213_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_0336213.28580283
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_0336213.28578829
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_0336213.28578475
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_04_0336213.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_0336213.28580405
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_0336213.28605025
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_0336213.28582085
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_04_0336213.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_0336213.28578475
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_0336213.28578829
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_0336213.28580941
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_0336213.28580283
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_0336213.28579631
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_0336213.28591681
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_0336213.28580731
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_0336213.28581141
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_04_0336213.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_0336213.28578441
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_0336213.28579445
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_0336213.28581119
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_0336213.28582667
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_0336213.28578831
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_0336213.28578629
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_0336213.28581777
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_0336213.28579523
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_04_0336213.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_0336213.28578861
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_04_0336213.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_0336213.28578733
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_0336213.28579101
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_0336213.28584147
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_0336213.28579027
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_0336213.28578929
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_0336213.28580761
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_0336213.28583101
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_0336213.28579215
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_04_0336213.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_0336213.28578897
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_04_0336213.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_0336213.28578885
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_0336213.28580063
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_0336213.28582973
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_0336213.28589661
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_04_0336213.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_0336213.28578471
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_0336213.28580209
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_0336213.28583949
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_0336213.28581721
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_0336213.28578837
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_0336213.28585029
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_0336213.28588849
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_04_0336213.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_0336213.28579219
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_0336213.28580117
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_04_0336213.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_0336213.28578491
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_0336213.28578669
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_04_0336213.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_04_0336213.28578459
</commentlist>
</conversation>
