<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_07_14_0445230</id>
	<title>The Evolution of Multiplayer Games and Online Play</title>
	<author>Soulskill</author>
	<datestamp>1247569560000</datestamp>
	<htmltext><a href="http://www.gamerzunite.com/" rel="nofollow">Ranga14</a> writes <i>"The recently announced <em>Command &amp; Conquer 4</em> seems to be following the same path of Blizzard's <em>Starcraft 2</em> in having no LAN/offline multiplayer. They will require users to be logged in at all times to even be able to play any facet of the game. <a href="http://www.gamerzunite.com/Evolution-of-Multiplayer-Games-and-Online-Play">What will this mean for LAN parties</a>, gaming events and those who don't play online? Is this a sound business decision, or do EA &amp; Blizzard not get that this method of attempting to thwart piracy will fail like others have?"</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ranga14 writes " The recently announced Command &amp; Conquer 4 seems to be following the same path of Blizzard 's Starcraft 2 in having no LAN/offline multiplayer .
They will require users to be logged in at all times to even be able to play any facet of the game .
What will this mean for LAN parties , gaming events and those who do n't play online ?
Is this a sound business decision , or do EA &amp; Blizzard not get that this method of attempting to thwart piracy will fail like others have ?
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ranga14 writes "The recently announced Command &amp; Conquer 4 seems to be following the same path of Blizzard's Starcraft 2 in having no LAN/offline multiplayer.
They will require users to be logged in at all times to even be able to play any facet of the game.
What will this mean for LAN parties, gaming events and those who don't play online?
Is this a sound business decision, or do EA &amp; Blizzard not get that this method of attempting to thwart piracy will fail like others have?
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_0445230.28688735</id>
	<title>Re:When was the last LAN party you went to?</title>
	<author>jellomizer</author>
	<datestamp>1247574180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Most companies when they go out of business especially one of any particular size they get bought out and sold to different companies/organizations. So if say Blizzard went out of business you may be able to setup a NFP Fund to buy BattleNet. for them and relicense it (You may not be able to GPL the code) or give it away to others.  If a company is going out of business they are usually fairly open to selling stuff to you.</p><p>LAN Games have the problem with demographics now.  Most people don't know when the LAN ends and the Internet begins, creating a support problem.  Also it is not a heavily used feature as you said about LAN Parties are obsolete.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Most companies when they go out of business especially one of any particular size they get bought out and sold to different companies/organizations .
So if say Blizzard went out of business you may be able to setup a NFP Fund to buy BattleNet .
for them and relicense it ( You may not be able to GPL the code ) or give it away to others .
If a company is going out of business they are usually fairly open to selling stuff to you.LAN Games have the problem with demographics now .
Most people do n't know when the LAN ends and the Internet begins , creating a support problem .
Also it is not a heavily used feature as you said about LAN Parties are obsolete .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Most companies when they go out of business especially one of any particular size they get bought out and sold to different companies/organizations.
So if say Blizzard went out of business you may be able to setup a NFP Fund to buy BattleNet.
for them and relicense it (You may not be able to GPL the code) or give it away to others.
If a company is going out of business they are usually fairly open to selling stuff to you.LAN Games have the problem with demographics now.
Most people don't know when the LAN ends and the Internet begins, creating a support problem.
Also it is not a heavily used feature as you said about LAN Parties are obsolete.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_0445230.28688681</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_0445230.28691821</id>
	<title>Maybe a Valve Cybercaf&#195;&#169; solution?</title>
	<author>Bluetick</author>
	<datestamp>1247589720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Maybe they'll do the same thing that Valve does with their Valve Cybercaf&#195;&#169; program.  Would probably be too expensive for small meetups.  But would be fine for gaming events, tournaments, and Korean players (that mostly play at gaming centers anyway).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe they 'll do the same thing that Valve does with their Valve Cybercaf     program .
Would probably be too expensive for small meetups .
But would be fine for gaming events , tournaments , and Korean players ( that mostly play at gaming centers anyway ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe they'll do the same thing that Valve does with their Valve CybercafÃ© program.
Would probably be too expensive for small meetups.
But would be fine for gaming events, tournaments, and Korean players (that mostly play at gaming centers anyway).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_0445230.28720537</id>
	<title>Re:When was the last LAN party you went to?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247772960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I run LAN parties - copyright / DRM systems have NEVER been an issue.</p><p>Get twenty (or) four hundred computer gaming geeks in a room and one of them will have a hacked distributable copy that works on LAN - as an organizer I usually have them myself either from prior LANs or to make sure the games go on.</p><p>We'll probably be playing SC 2 at local LANs before it's even officially launched with a hacked beta version.</p><p>The will of hundreds of millions of gamers worldwide is greater than a fistful of developers no matter how skilled they are. We are zerg, flood, borg - resistance is futile.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I run LAN parties - copyright / DRM systems have NEVER been an issue.Get twenty ( or ) four hundred computer gaming geeks in a room and one of them will have a hacked distributable copy that works on LAN - as an organizer I usually have them myself either from prior LANs or to make sure the games go on.We 'll probably be playing SC 2 at local LANs before it 's even officially launched with a hacked beta version.The will of hundreds of millions of gamers worldwide is greater than a fistful of developers no matter how skilled they are .
We are zerg , flood , borg - resistance is futile .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I run LAN parties - copyright / DRM systems have NEVER been an issue.Get twenty (or) four hundred computer gaming geeks in a room and one of them will have a hacked distributable copy that works on LAN - as an organizer I usually have them myself either from prior LANs or to make sure the games go on.We'll probably be playing SC 2 at local LANs before it's even officially launched with a hacked beta version.The will of hundreds of millions of gamers worldwide is greater than a fistful of developers no matter how skilled they are.
We are zerg, flood, borg - resistance is futile.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_0445230.28689907</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_0445230.28688883</id>
	<title>Re:When was the last LAN party you went to?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247575920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The question is more of how much can the PC gaming community can take.  First, it was more intrusive DRM, then activation, now its having to be online just to play a single player campaign.</p><p>I'm seeing an attitude in the game industry that is an off-putter.  Yes, the economy in most of the world stinks, but instead of trying to jumpstart sales by putting out some innovative IP, I see the grip tightening over what stuff comes out.  This creates a feedback loop because gamers either will just crack whatever protection something had (patch out DRM, make a server emulator), pirate the game, or just give the game company the finger and go back to playing WoW and not bother buying any works that are less functional than the previous versions.</p><p>What this does is create an opportunity for a small game company to take the market by storm by making a quality game that ends up widespread and played everywhere.  This is how ID Software (and its predecessor, Apogee) got started.  Yes, a lot of copies will be pirated, but a lot of times, pirated copies lead to bought copies.  Right now, this market is ignored because of the white-hot iPhone app market, but once that hits saturation (could be six months to a year), people will want to have fun PC games again, and an indie software house could do well in all likelihood.</p><p>For new games, the barrier to entry is low, and it is high.  It is low because almost anyone can write code, get an Authenticode signing key from MS, get an account with RegNow to handle registrations, then use Tucows or download.com as the main place where customers can download the executable.  The barrier to entry is high because users are expecting 3D, theater quality graphics and sound at every turn.  The days of writing a generic top-down RPG along the lines of Final Fantasy Legends are long over, unless one is writing an iPhone app.  So, an indie publisher will have to deal with that by having gameplay so good it overshadows dated graphics.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The question is more of how much can the PC gaming community can take .
First , it was more intrusive DRM , then activation , now its having to be online just to play a single player campaign.I 'm seeing an attitude in the game industry that is an off-putter .
Yes , the economy in most of the world stinks , but instead of trying to jumpstart sales by putting out some innovative IP , I see the grip tightening over what stuff comes out .
This creates a feedback loop because gamers either will just crack whatever protection something had ( patch out DRM , make a server emulator ) , pirate the game , or just give the game company the finger and go back to playing WoW and not bother buying any works that are less functional than the previous versions.What this does is create an opportunity for a small game company to take the market by storm by making a quality game that ends up widespread and played everywhere .
This is how ID Software ( and its predecessor , Apogee ) got started .
Yes , a lot of copies will be pirated , but a lot of times , pirated copies lead to bought copies .
Right now , this market is ignored because of the white-hot iPhone app market , but once that hits saturation ( could be six months to a year ) , people will want to have fun PC games again , and an indie software house could do well in all likelihood.For new games , the barrier to entry is low , and it is high .
It is low because almost anyone can write code , get an Authenticode signing key from MS , get an account with RegNow to handle registrations , then use Tucows or download.com as the main place where customers can download the executable .
The barrier to entry is high because users are expecting 3D , theater quality graphics and sound at every turn .
The days of writing a generic top-down RPG along the lines of Final Fantasy Legends are long over , unless one is writing an iPhone app .
So , an indie publisher will have to deal with that by having gameplay so good it overshadows dated graphics .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The question is more of how much can the PC gaming community can take.
First, it was more intrusive DRM, then activation, now its having to be online just to play a single player campaign.I'm seeing an attitude in the game industry that is an off-putter.
Yes, the economy in most of the world stinks, but instead of trying to jumpstart sales by putting out some innovative IP, I see the grip tightening over what stuff comes out.
This creates a feedback loop because gamers either will just crack whatever protection something had (patch out DRM, make a server emulator), pirate the game, or just give the game company the finger and go back to playing WoW and not bother buying any works that are less functional than the previous versions.What this does is create an opportunity for a small game company to take the market by storm by making a quality game that ends up widespread and played everywhere.
This is how ID Software (and its predecessor, Apogee) got started.
Yes, a lot of copies will be pirated, but a lot of times, pirated copies lead to bought copies.
Right now, this market is ignored because of the white-hot iPhone app market, but once that hits saturation (could be six months to a year), people will want to have fun PC games again, and an indie software house could do well in all likelihood.For new games, the barrier to entry is low, and it is high.
It is low because almost anyone can write code, get an Authenticode signing key from MS, get an account with RegNow to handle registrations, then use Tucows or download.com as the main place where customers can download the executable.
The barrier to entry is high because users are expecting 3D, theater quality graphics and sound at every turn.
The days of writing a generic top-down RPG along the lines of Final Fantasy Legends are long over, unless one is writing an iPhone app.
So, an indie publisher will have to deal with that by having gameplay so good it overshadows dated graphics.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_0445230.28688733</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_0445230.28688823</id>
	<title>Re:When was the last LAN party you went to?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247575200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Also it is not a heavily used feature as you said about LAN Parties are obsolete.</p></div><p>I agree that LAN parties are obsolete, though for an entirely different reason. Picture this situation: you have friends at your home, and you all happen to have the itch to play a video game. They don't have their PCs with them for any of several reasons:
</p><ol> <li>They didn't anticipate wanting to play a video game before they left.</li><li>They aren't allowed to dismantle the family PC. (I see this a lot because I babysit.)</li><li>Their PCs are laptops without a powerful enough graphics chip to play a recent first-person shooter. (This is becoming more common with the rise of Eee PC and other low-cost subnotebooks.)</li></ol><p>
The solution came in three pieces:
</p><ol> <li>In 1996, Nintendo added third and fourth controller ports to its Nintendo 64 video game console.</li><li>In 1999, USB allowed connecting multiple gamepads to a computer through a hub.</li><li>In 2008, television-sized LCD monitors became affordable, freeing from having to choose a laptop carefully to get SDTV out or buy and install an aftermarket video card to get SDTV out because HDTVs can display the VGA signals that PCs already put out.</li></ol><p>
So LAN parties, which had been popular throughout the eras of Doom and Quake, eventually became less necessary because friends can sit on the sofa and play console or HTPC games together.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Also it is not a heavily used feature as you said about LAN Parties are obsolete.I agree that LAN parties are obsolete , though for an entirely different reason .
Picture this situation : you have friends at your home , and you all happen to have the itch to play a video game .
They do n't have their PCs with them for any of several reasons : They did n't anticipate wanting to play a video game before they left.They are n't allowed to dismantle the family PC .
( I see this a lot because I babysit .
) Their PCs are laptops without a powerful enough graphics chip to play a recent first-person shooter .
( This is becoming more common with the rise of Eee PC and other low-cost subnotebooks .
) The solution came in three pieces : In 1996 , Nintendo added third and fourth controller ports to its Nintendo 64 video game console.In 1999 , USB allowed connecting multiple gamepads to a computer through a hub.In 2008 , television-sized LCD monitors became affordable , freeing from having to choose a laptop carefully to get SDTV out or buy and install an aftermarket video card to get SDTV out because HDTVs can display the VGA signals that PCs already put out .
So LAN parties , which had been popular throughout the eras of Doom and Quake , eventually became less necessary because friends can sit on the sofa and play console or HTPC games together .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Also it is not a heavily used feature as you said about LAN Parties are obsolete.I agree that LAN parties are obsolete, though for an entirely different reason.
Picture this situation: you have friends at your home, and you all happen to have the itch to play a video game.
They don't have their PCs with them for any of several reasons:
 They didn't anticipate wanting to play a video game before they left.They aren't allowed to dismantle the family PC.
(I see this a lot because I babysit.
)Their PCs are laptops without a powerful enough graphics chip to play a recent first-person shooter.
(This is becoming more common with the rise of Eee PC and other low-cost subnotebooks.
)
The solution came in three pieces:
 In 1996, Nintendo added third and fourth controller ports to its Nintendo 64 video game console.In 1999, USB allowed connecting multiple gamepads to a computer through a hub.In 2008, television-sized LCD monitors became affordable, freeing from having to choose a laptop carefully to get SDTV out or buy and install an aftermarket video card to get SDTV out because HDTVs can display the VGA signals that PCs already put out.
So LAN parties, which had been popular throughout the eras of Doom and Quake, eventually became less necessary because friends can sit on the sofa and play console or HTPC games together.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_0445230.28688735</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_0445230.28689069</id>
	<title>Re:When was the last LAN party you went to?</title>
	<author>Ash Vince</author>
	<datestamp>1247577660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The question is more of how much can the PC gaming community can take. First, it was more intrusive DRM, then activation, now its having to be online just to play a single player campaign.</p></div><p>No, the question is what alternatives are there and can EA buy them and then bring them into line. EA is always to go behave like this. Even if you have a different idea of how a game should play you still need EA or their ilk to distribute the physical copies.</p><p>The most promising invention to end this may well actually turn out to be Steam since they seam to have a much better attitude to their customers but that does not quite seem to have reached the penetration it needs to do this.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The question is more of how much can the PC gaming community can take .
First , it was more intrusive DRM , then activation , now its having to be online just to play a single player campaign.No , the question is what alternatives are there and can EA buy them and then bring them into line .
EA is always to go behave like this .
Even if you have a different idea of how a game should play you still need EA or their ilk to distribute the physical copies.The most promising invention to end this may well actually turn out to be Steam since they seam to have a much better attitude to their customers but that does not quite seem to have reached the penetration it needs to do this .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The question is more of how much can the PC gaming community can take.
First, it was more intrusive DRM, then activation, now its having to be online just to play a single player campaign.No, the question is what alternatives are there and can EA buy them and then bring them into line.
EA is always to go behave like this.
Even if you have a different idea of how a game should play you still need EA or their ilk to distribute the physical copies.The most promising invention to end this may well actually turn out to be Steam since they seam to have a much better attitude to their customers but that does not quite seem to have reached the penetration it needs to do this.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_0445230.28688883</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_0445230.28689209</id>
	<title>This is</title>
	<author>Kurusuki</author>
	<datestamp>1247578260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>This is the new paradigm for gaming. With new connectivity and methods of piracy the method for protecting the games assets has changed. The gaming industry, unlike the recording industries, has seen that the tides are changing and adapted to the new waters. LAN functionality was critical when the internet wasn't as assured. We're beyond that point and the delivery mechanism has changed to follow suit. Why everyone is so surprised an industry is evolving is beyond me. I'd have guessed<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. would be some of the most understanding gamers on the web. Hell, we don't even know battle.net 2.0's functionality yet, and we're already burning the game at the stake for not having LAN. When has blizzard ever failed us? And we all act as if this is the first game ever to not have offline content. World of Warcraft, arguable Team Fortress 2 (sorta kinda), and it's too early with too little time to research for more than what's on the top of my head. But neither of those games flopped. LAN is going the way of VHS and dial-up modems. They still exist, but the people who use them aren't the same people who would be buying new blu-rays or games like StarCraft II. Honestly, if you want LAN play so bad just stick with StarCraft classic, nothing is truly wrong with that game aside from its horrendous resolution. Personally I don't give a damn if there is no LAN, I'm more than sure battle.net 2.0 will more than cover that functionality with gusto.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is the new paradigm for gaming .
With new connectivity and methods of piracy the method for protecting the games assets has changed .
The gaming industry , unlike the recording industries , has seen that the tides are changing and adapted to the new waters .
LAN functionality was critical when the internet was n't as assured .
We 're beyond that point and the delivery mechanism has changed to follow suit .
Why everyone is so surprised an industry is evolving is beyond me .
I 'd have guessed / .
would be some of the most understanding gamers on the web .
Hell , we do n't even know battle.net 2.0 's functionality yet , and we 're already burning the game at the stake for not having LAN .
When has blizzard ever failed us ?
And we all act as if this is the first game ever to not have offline content .
World of Warcraft , arguable Team Fortress 2 ( sorta kinda ) , and it 's too early with too little time to research for more than what 's on the top of my head .
But neither of those games flopped .
LAN is going the way of VHS and dial-up modems .
They still exist , but the people who use them are n't the same people who would be buying new blu-rays or games like StarCraft II .
Honestly , if you want LAN play so bad just stick with StarCraft classic , nothing is truly wrong with that game aside from its horrendous resolution .
Personally I do n't give a damn if there is no LAN , I 'm more than sure battle.net 2.0 will more than cover that functionality with gusto .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is the new paradigm for gaming.
With new connectivity and methods of piracy the method for protecting the games assets has changed.
The gaming industry, unlike the recording industries, has seen that the tides are changing and adapted to the new waters.
LAN functionality was critical when the internet wasn't as assured.
We're beyond that point and the delivery mechanism has changed to follow suit.
Why everyone is so surprised an industry is evolving is beyond me.
I'd have guessed /.
would be some of the most understanding gamers on the web.
Hell, we don't even know battle.net 2.0's functionality yet, and we're already burning the game at the stake for not having LAN.
When has blizzard ever failed us?
And we all act as if this is the first game ever to not have offline content.
World of Warcraft, arguable Team Fortress 2 (sorta kinda), and it's too early with too little time to research for more than what's on the top of my head.
But neither of those games flopped.
LAN is going the way of VHS and dial-up modems.
They still exist, but the people who use them aren't the same people who would be buying new blu-rays or games like StarCraft II.
Honestly, if you want LAN play so bad just stick with StarCraft classic, nothing is truly wrong with that game aside from its horrendous resolution.
Personally I don't give a damn if there is no LAN, I'm more than sure battle.net 2.0 will more than cover that functionality with gusto.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_0445230.28688733</id>
	<title>Re:When was the last LAN party you went to?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247574180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>LAN parties used to be a thing when internet was scarce, connections were slow and often you also had metered lines that only let you transfer so much traffic per month.</p></div><p>This is <em>still</em> the case for satellite and mobile broadband in the United States.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>I refuse to pay premium for renting a game.</p></div><p>Are you willing to give up video gaming altogether once all the major publishers of PC games have switched to this business model?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>LAN parties used to be a thing when internet was scarce , connections were slow and often you also had metered lines that only let you transfer so much traffic per month.This is still the case for satellite and mobile broadband in the United States.I refuse to pay premium for renting a game.Are you willing to give up video gaming altogether once all the major publishers of PC games have switched to this business model ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>LAN parties used to be a thing when internet was scarce, connections were slow and often you also had metered lines that only let you transfer so much traffic per month.This is still the case for satellite and mobile broadband in the United States.I refuse to pay premium for renting a game.Are you willing to give up video gaming altogether once all the major publishers of PC games have switched to this business model?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_0445230.28688681</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_0445230.28690461</id>
	<title>Steam anyone?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247583660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Steam anyone? I've stood by steam since it first released. Amazing product, no one else has been able to recreate it and it took them years to get to the point there at. But they did hit the nail right on the head, and it seems that most dev's/producers don't wanna shell out the extra for productions costs so steam is lookin pretty good.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Steam anyone ?
I 've stood by steam since it first released .
Amazing product , no one else has been able to recreate it and it took them years to get to the point there at .
But they did hit the nail right on the head , and it seems that most dev 's/producers do n't wan na shell out the extra for productions costs so steam is lookin pretty good .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Steam anyone?
I've stood by steam since it first released.
Amazing product, no one else has been able to recreate it and it took them years to get to the point there at.
But they did hit the nail right on the head, and it seems that most dev's/producers don't wanna shell out the extra for productions costs so steam is lookin pretty good.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_0445230.28691029</id>
	<title>I wont buy it</title>
	<author>The Cisco Kid</author>
	<datestamp>1247586240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Earlier this year, I dragged out some old RA and RA2 discs, and put together some low end win98 machines to run them on with my son. They do not have, and WILL NOT EVER have, any connection to the Internet. RA(/2) are getting a bit boring, and I was thinking of finding something newer. Obviously C&amp;C 4 will not be appearing on the list of potential 'something newer', as I *refuse* to connect any wintendo machine to the Internet. I've got a perfectly good set of Ethernet cables connecting the machines, there is *NO* good reason they should need to connect to some remote server over the Internet in order to interplay.</p><p>Just something for EA to note. I wonder how many other people will refuse to buy this for the same reason, how many lost sales it will amount to that they will never be able to count.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Earlier this year , I dragged out some old RA and RA2 discs , and put together some low end win98 machines to run them on with my son .
They do not have , and WILL NOT EVER have , any connection to the Internet .
RA ( /2 ) are getting a bit boring , and I was thinking of finding something newer .
Obviously C&amp;C 4 will not be appearing on the list of potential 'something newer ' , as I * refuse * to connect any wintendo machine to the Internet .
I 've got a perfectly good set of Ethernet cables connecting the machines , there is * NO * good reason they should need to connect to some remote server over the Internet in order to interplay.Just something for EA to note .
I wonder how many other people will refuse to buy this for the same reason , how many lost sales it will amount to that they will never be able to count .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Earlier this year, I dragged out some old RA and RA2 discs, and put together some low end win98 machines to run them on with my son.
They do not have, and WILL NOT EVER have, any connection to the Internet.
RA(/2) are getting a bit boring, and I was thinking of finding something newer.
Obviously C&amp;C 4 will not be appearing on the list of potential 'something newer', as I *refuse* to connect any wintendo machine to the Internet.
I've got a perfectly good set of Ethernet cables connecting the machines, there is *NO* good reason they should need to connect to some remote server over the Internet in order to interplay.Just something for EA to note.
I wonder how many other people will refuse to buy this for the same reason, how many lost sales it will amount to that they will never be able to count.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_0445230.28691383</id>
	<title>Re:When was the last LAN party you went to?</title>
	<author>darkvizier</author>
	<datestamp>1247587920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>give the game company the finger and go back to playing WoW</p></div><p>I agree with the rest, but a game that's <i>not</i> on a monthly subscription plan might have made a better example...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>give the game company the finger and go back to playing WoWI agree with the rest , but a game that 's not on a monthly subscription plan might have made a better example.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>give the game company the finger and go back to playing WoWI agree with the rest, but a game that's not on a monthly subscription plan might have made a better example...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_0445230.28688883</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_0445230.28701417</id>
	<title>Re:Stop buying these new games and play Starcraft</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247656380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Latency is the same thing as lag...</htmltext>
<tokenext>Latency is the same thing as lag.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Latency is the same thing as lag...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_0445230.28689767</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_0445230.28694055</id>
	<title>Professioinal Starcraft 2 with no lan?</title>
	<author>bigbigbison</author>
	<datestamp>1247598840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>While I know that South Korea is super wired, I find it unlikely that they are going to require professional Starcraft 2 players in Korea to have internet connections for all the computers in the events.  I can't believe that they wouldn't make a LAN-only version for pro gaming.</htmltext>
<tokenext>While I know that South Korea is super wired , I find it unlikely that they are going to require professional Starcraft 2 players in Korea to have internet connections for all the computers in the events .
I ca n't believe that they would n't make a LAN-only version for pro gaming .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>While I know that South Korea is super wired, I find it unlikely that they are going to require professional Starcraft 2 players in Korea to have internet connections for all the computers in the events.
I can't believe that they wouldn't make a LAN-only version for pro gaming.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_0445230.28693017</id>
	<title>Re:When was the last LAN party you went to?</title>
	<author>mounthood</author>
	<datestamp>1247594700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The barrier to entry is high because users are expecting 3D, theater quality graphics and sound at every turn.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...  So, an indie publisher will have to deal with that by having gameplay so good it overshadows dated graphics.</p></div><p>It won't just be those issues. As major corporations continue turning the games industry into a Movies/Music style business venture, they'll use all the same tactics those industries use against indie developers: Ratings agencies to enforce decency, and which are owned by the big players. Cross promotions and restrictive deals. Emphasis on costly aspects (3D models/textures, big movie explosions, bands' stadium performances) and minimizing what's open for everyone to produce in the medium (good game play, character development and dialog, musical skill). Legal changes from bought politicians. Massive advertising to create "big hits". Corruption of reviewers and education/training to be biased towards their products.</p><p>The games industry is in for one ugly ride. They won't kill indies, but "video game" won't mean the same thing anymore.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The barrier to entry is high because users are expecting 3D , theater quality graphics and sound at every turn .
... So , an indie publisher will have to deal with that by having gameplay so good it overshadows dated graphics.It wo n't just be those issues .
As major corporations continue turning the games industry into a Movies/Music style business venture , they 'll use all the same tactics those industries use against indie developers : Ratings agencies to enforce decency , and which are owned by the big players .
Cross promotions and restrictive deals .
Emphasis on costly aspects ( 3D models/textures , big movie explosions , bands ' stadium performances ) and minimizing what 's open for everyone to produce in the medium ( good game play , character development and dialog , musical skill ) .
Legal changes from bought politicians .
Massive advertising to create " big hits " .
Corruption of reviewers and education/training to be biased towards their products.The games industry is in for one ugly ride .
They wo n't kill indies , but " video game " wo n't mean the same thing anymore .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The barrier to entry is high because users are expecting 3D, theater quality graphics and sound at every turn.
...  So, an indie publisher will have to deal with that by having gameplay so good it overshadows dated graphics.It won't just be those issues.
As major corporations continue turning the games industry into a Movies/Music style business venture, they'll use all the same tactics those industries use against indie developers: Ratings agencies to enforce decency, and which are owned by the big players.
Cross promotions and restrictive deals.
Emphasis on costly aspects (3D models/textures, big movie explosions, bands' stadium performances) and minimizing what's open for everyone to produce in the medium (good game play, character development and dialog, musical skill).
Legal changes from bought politicians.
Massive advertising to create "big hits".
Corruption of reviewers and education/training to be biased towards their products.The games industry is in for one ugly ride.
They won't kill indies, but "video game" won't mean the same thing anymore.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_0445230.28688883</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_0445230.28690651</id>
	<title>Lets Get Realistic</title>
	<author>Reapy</author>
	<datestamp>1247584620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think tossing out LAN sucks for the same reason I don't like paying for xbox live or the fact I was annoyed at half life 2 and steam verification.</p><p>But look at the reality. Firstly, there will be a battle.net emulator in some capacity that you will be able to download on your network and play. No question. With a game this popular, someone will make it. Problem solved.</p><p>Second, as has been mentioned before, sc2 is peer to peer. Though, I am not 100\% certain this is going to work behind a nat. I'm not 100\% certain how nat works over your router, while everyone is 192.168.1.100 and<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.101 etc, battle.net might only know you as your router's ip address and not what is behind it... though, if the packets going out are routed right to your buddies nat ip, ie you are on<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.100 and packet is going to<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.101, I'm pretty sure the router is not going to send the packet along on the next hop towards blizzard, but instead back into your lan to your buddy. If that is the case, the only thing that happened is online authentication, enough that a modem could probably handle 15 people easily.</p><p>But again, if not is hiding the internal ip and blizz only sees the router ip for every person, maybe the routing will not work so hot.</p><p>*shrug* either way, the problem will get fixed, by someone. And trust me, if you still like a game enough to want to play it 10 years later, there will be a nice 'click me once to play' package someone has made out there.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think tossing out LAN sucks for the same reason I do n't like paying for xbox live or the fact I was annoyed at half life 2 and steam verification.But look at the reality .
Firstly , there will be a battle.net emulator in some capacity that you will be able to download on your network and play .
No question .
With a game this popular , someone will make it .
Problem solved.Second , as has been mentioned before , sc2 is peer to peer .
Though , I am not 100 \ % certain this is going to work behind a nat .
I 'm not 100 \ % certain how nat works over your router , while everyone is 192.168.1.100 and .101 etc , battle.net might only know you as your router 's ip address and not what is behind it... though , if the packets going out are routed right to your buddies nat ip , ie you are on .100 and packet is going to .101 , I 'm pretty sure the router is not going to send the packet along on the next hop towards blizzard , but instead back into your lan to your buddy .
If that is the case , the only thing that happened is online authentication , enough that a modem could probably handle 15 people easily.But again , if not is hiding the internal ip and blizz only sees the router ip for every person , maybe the routing will not work so hot .
* shrug * either way , the problem will get fixed , by someone .
And trust me , if you still like a game enough to want to play it 10 years later , there will be a nice 'click me once to play ' package someone has made out there .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think tossing out LAN sucks for the same reason I don't like paying for xbox live or the fact I was annoyed at half life 2 and steam verification.But look at the reality.
Firstly, there will be a battle.net emulator in some capacity that you will be able to download on your network and play.
No question.
With a game this popular, someone will make it.
Problem solved.Second, as has been mentioned before, sc2 is peer to peer.
Though, I am not 100\% certain this is going to work behind a nat.
I'm not 100\% certain how nat works over your router, while everyone is 192.168.1.100 and .101 etc, battle.net might only know you as your router's ip address and not what is behind it... though, if the packets going out are routed right to your buddies nat ip, ie you are on .100 and packet is going to .101, I'm pretty sure the router is not going to send the packet along on the next hop towards blizzard, but instead back into your lan to your buddy.
If that is the case, the only thing that happened is online authentication, enough that a modem could probably handle 15 people easily.But again, if not is hiding the internal ip and blizz only sees the router ip for every person, maybe the routing will not work so hot.
*shrug* either way, the problem will get fixed, by someone.
And trust me, if you still like a game enough to want to play it 10 years later, there will be a nice 'click me once to play' package someone has made out there.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_0445230.28689311</id>
	<title>Nice example of why PC gaming dying</title>
	<author>Fotograf</author>
	<datestamp>1247578740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>there you go.
Add limitations, remove features, lower fun, push graphics and requirements up.</htmltext>
<tokenext>there you go .
Add limitations , remove features , lower fun , push graphics and requirements up .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>there you go.
Add limitations, remove features, lower fun, push graphics and requirements up.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_0445230.28690265</id>
	<title>Re:When was the last LAN party you went to?</title>
	<author>Mordaximus</author>
	<datestamp>1247582820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> <i>The solution came in three pieces:

In 1996, Nintendo added third and fourth controller ports to its Nintendo 64 video game console.</i> </p><p>This is besides the point, but I can think of at least one system that had 4 joystick ports, the Atari 800, almost 2 decades before this<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The solution came in three pieces : In 1996 , Nintendo added third and fourth controller ports to its Nintendo 64 video game console .
This is besides the point , but I can think of at least one system that had 4 joystick ports , the Atari 800 , almost 2 decades before this : )</tokentext>
<sentencetext> The solution came in three pieces:

In 1996, Nintendo added third and fourth controller ports to its Nintendo 64 video game console.
This is besides the point, but I can think of at least one system that had 4 joystick ports, the Atari 800, almost 2 decades before this :)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_0445230.28688823</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_0445230.28690039</id>
	<title>Send them an email</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247581860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I loved the original starcraft game but didn't really like playing online because of the cheating and honestly it's more fun to play in a room full of people you know. I also don't support this designed obsolescence crap. I can still load up starcraft and play it with my friends and will still be able to in 10 years regardless of what happens to blizzard.</p><p>I just sent off an email to blizzard telling them I'm not buying their new version and I suggest you do the same. It only takes a minute and if everyone started doing something other than sitting on their asses things might change.</p><p><a href="http://us.blizzard.com/support/webform.xml?locale=en\_US" title="blizzard.com">http://us.blizzard.com/support/webform.xml?locale=en\_US</a> [blizzard.com]</p><p>I see no way to email EA without having an account. Maybe someone else can find a method.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I loved the original starcraft game but did n't really like playing online because of the cheating and honestly it 's more fun to play in a room full of people you know .
I also do n't support this designed obsolescence crap .
I can still load up starcraft and play it with my friends and will still be able to in 10 years regardless of what happens to blizzard.I just sent off an email to blizzard telling them I 'm not buying their new version and I suggest you do the same .
It only takes a minute and if everyone started doing something other than sitting on their asses things might change.http : //us.blizzard.com/support/webform.xml ? locale = en \ _US [ blizzard.com ] I see no way to email EA without having an account .
Maybe someone else can find a method .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I loved the original starcraft game but didn't really like playing online because of the cheating and honestly it's more fun to play in a room full of people you know.
I also don't support this designed obsolescence crap.
I can still load up starcraft and play it with my friends and will still be able to in 10 years regardless of what happens to blizzard.I just sent off an email to blizzard telling them I'm not buying their new version and I suggest you do the same.
It only takes a minute and if everyone started doing something other than sitting on their asses things might change.http://us.blizzard.com/support/webform.xml?locale=en\_US [blizzard.com]I see no way to email EA without having an account.
Maybe someone else can find a method.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_0445230.28689745</id>
	<title>I've Said It Before, I'll Say It Again -</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247580600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>These companies are looking for two things when they hogtie players to their online services:<br><br>1. Eliminate the possibility of resale or modification by binding the copy to your computer and forcing you to call home every time you play, giving absolute control over your copy and your playable content to the publisher. There's a lot of room for abuse here, and also a lot of room for even more complications than what PC gamers already have to deal with.<br><br>2. Conditioning players for more subscription-based gaming and a vastly more expensive gaming experience. If you don't think you won't be expected to pay extra to liberate your already bought copies of Starcraft 2, Diablo 3, and Command &amp; Conquer 4 once you get them, think again. These companies are taking the Korean approach, but here's the kicker - it was a pay-to-play method intended to support games that could be played FREE OF CHARGE, not games that are going to cost sixty dollars a pop.<br><br>Make no mistake about it. Vivendi and Electronic Arts are making some very bad moves. This stuff won't work, it won't fix anything, it will be broken, and it absolutely will piss a lot of people off. It already has. Fanboys might fall for this, but even kids can tell these publishers are asking us to get ripped off. They're MMOGifying everything just for the extra scratch while paring down features and even basic ownership, and that's bullshit.</htmltext>
<tokenext>These companies are looking for two things when they hogtie players to their online services : 1 .
Eliminate the possibility of resale or modification by binding the copy to your computer and forcing you to call home every time you play , giving absolute control over your copy and your playable content to the publisher .
There 's a lot of room for abuse here , and also a lot of room for even more complications than what PC gamers already have to deal with.2 .
Conditioning players for more subscription-based gaming and a vastly more expensive gaming experience .
If you do n't think you wo n't be expected to pay extra to liberate your already bought copies of Starcraft 2 , Diablo 3 , and Command &amp; Conquer 4 once you get them , think again .
These companies are taking the Korean approach , but here 's the kicker - it was a pay-to-play method intended to support games that could be played FREE OF CHARGE , not games that are going to cost sixty dollars a pop.Make no mistake about it .
Vivendi and Electronic Arts are making some very bad moves .
This stuff wo n't work , it wo n't fix anything , it will be broken , and it absolutely will piss a lot of people off .
It already has .
Fanboys might fall for this , but even kids can tell these publishers are asking us to get ripped off .
They 're MMOGifying everything just for the extra scratch while paring down features and even basic ownership , and that 's bullshit .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>These companies are looking for two things when they hogtie players to their online services:1.
Eliminate the possibility of resale or modification by binding the copy to your computer and forcing you to call home every time you play, giving absolute control over your copy and your playable content to the publisher.
There's a lot of room for abuse here, and also a lot of room for even more complications than what PC gamers already have to deal with.2.
Conditioning players for more subscription-based gaming and a vastly more expensive gaming experience.
If you don't think you won't be expected to pay extra to liberate your already bought copies of Starcraft 2, Diablo 3, and Command &amp; Conquer 4 once you get them, think again.
These companies are taking the Korean approach, but here's the kicker - it was a pay-to-play method intended to support games that could be played FREE OF CHARGE, not games that are going to cost sixty dollars a pop.Make no mistake about it.
Vivendi and Electronic Arts are making some very bad moves.
This stuff won't work, it won't fix anything, it will be broken, and it absolutely will piss a lot of people off.
It already has.
Fanboys might fall for this, but even kids can tell these publishers are asking us to get ripped off.
They're MMOGifying everything just for the extra scratch while paring down features and even basic ownership, and that's bullshit.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_0445230.28689921</id>
	<title>Re:When was the last LAN party you went to?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247581320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><nobr> <wbr></nobr></p><div class="quote"><p>...now its having to be online just to play a single player campaign.</p></div><p>Don't forget requiring gamers to buy each campaign separately.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>...now its having to be online just to play a single player campaign.Do n't forget requiring gamers to buy each campaign separately .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> ...now its having to be online just to play a single player campaign.Don't forget requiring gamers to buy each campaign separately.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_0445230.28688883</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_0445230.28688853</id>
	<title>Re:When was the last LAN party you went to?</title>
	<author>Opportunist</author>
	<datestamp>1247575620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I guess that's the fate I have to face, unless some get smart and realize that I'd buy their games if they didn't rely on a rental system.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I guess that 's the fate I have to face , unless some get smart and realize that I 'd buy their games if they did n't rely on a rental system .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I guess that's the fate I have to face, unless some get smart and realize that I'd buy their games if they didn't rely on a rental system.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_0445230.28688733</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_0445230.28689129</id>
	<title>Thwarting piracy to what end?</title>
	<author>falckon</author>
	<datestamp>1247577900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Let's say they are successful, and they do make it such that you can't play online, or even at all without a legitimate copy. These copyright measures are obviously annoying to their legitimate customers, as evidenced by many<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/.ers here, and I'd venture a guess that they don't increase sales. I think that most people who pirate games wouldn't buy them anyways, they will just find something else to pirate. They may end up getting 5\% of the people who would have pirated the game to buy it, but by annoying their paying customer base with limited functionality or a required connection to play I think it hurts sales more than it helps them in the long run. Pirates will always be there, freeloading your games, companies should worry about impressing their paying customer base.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Let 's say they are successful , and they do make it such that you ca n't play online , or even at all without a legitimate copy .
These copyright measures are obviously annoying to their legitimate customers , as evidenced by many /.ers here , and I 'd venture a guess that they do n't increase sales .
I think that most people who pirate games would n't buy them anyways , they will just find something else to pirate .
They may end up getting 5 \ % of the people who would have pirated the game to buy it , but by annoying their paying customer base with limited functionality or a required connection to play I think it hurts sales more than it helps them in the long run .
Pirates will always be there , freeloading your games , companies should worry about impressing their paying customer base .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Let's say they are successful, and they do make it such that you can't play online, or even at all without a legitimate copy.
These copyright measures are obviously annoying to their legitimate customers, as evidenced by many /.ers here, and I'd venture a guess that they don't increase sales.
I think that most people who pirate games wouldn't buy them anyways, they will just find something else to pirate.
They may end up getting 5\% of the people who would have pirated the game to buy it, but by annoying their paying customer base with limited functionality or a required connection to play I think it hurts sales more than it helps them in the long run.
Pirates will always be there, freeloading your games, companies should worry about impressing their paying customer base.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_0445230.28692059</id>
	<title>Re:When was the last LAN party you went to?</title>
	<author>hemp</author>
	<datestamp>1247590800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I seem to remember eagerly awaiting ID's shareware release of Doom to my favorite BBS.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I seem to remember eagerly awaiting ID 's shareware release of Doom to my favorite BBS .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I seem to remember eagerly awaiting ID's shareware release of Doom to my favorite BBS.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_0445230.28688883</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_0445230.28692021</id>
	<title>SC2 = DOA in the US</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247590620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I predict that Starcraft 2 will be dead on arrival in the United States, even though it will probably be a very hot item in Asia.</p><p>1. The PC is nearly dead as a gaming platform thanks to Microsoft's plan to move PC gaming to Xbox. I see this as a positive step, since I don't like upgrading my hardware every year just to play a video game.<br>2. Abandoning Starcraft's primary audience (offline single player and LAN) means they won't get to play on the nostalgia crowd, so it's effectively a new franchise.<br>3. $180 for the "full" game makes it considerably more expensive than any other PC game to date (that's a year of WoW, paid up front).</p><p>To summarize: Smaller market + Fewer repeat customers + Higher price = Fail^3. Way to go Blizzard.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I predict that Starcraft 2 will be dead on arrival in the United States , even though it will probably be a very hot item in Asia.1 .
The PC is nearly dead as a gaming platform thanks to Microsoft 's plan to move PC gaming to Xbox .
I see this as a positive step , since I do n't like upgrading my hardware every year just to play a video game.2 .
Abandoning Starcraft 's primary audience ( offline single player and LAN ) means they wo n't get to play on the nostalgia crowd , so it 's effectively a new franchise.3 .
$ 180 for the " full " game makes it considerably more expensive than any other PC game to date ( that 's a year of WoW , paid up front ) .To summarize : Smaller market + Fewer repeat customers + Higher price = Fail ^ 3 .
Way to go Blizzard .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I predict that Starcraft 2 will be dead on arrival in the United States, even though it will probably be a very hot item in Asia.1.
The PC is nearly dead as a gaming platform thanks to Microsoft's plan to move PC gaming to Xbox.
I see this as a positive step, since I don't like upgrading my hardware every year just to play a video game.2.
Abandoning Starcraft's primary audience (offline single player and LAN) means they won't get to play on the nostalgia crowd, so it's effectively a new franchise.3.
$180 for the "full" game makes it considerably more expensive than any other PC game to date (that's a year of WoW, paid up front).To summarize: Smaller market + Fewer repeat customers + Higher price = Fail^3.
Way to go Blizzard.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_0445230.28692193</id>
	<title>Re:Lets Get Realistic</title>
	<author>canajin56</author>
	<datestamp>1247591280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It should work just fine on "Full Cone" NAT.  I have no idea what proportion of consumer routers work this way, but it uses less memory and effort, so probably most!  With any sort of NAT, PC1 (192.168.0.100) connects to blizzards server from port 1234 or what-have-you.  Your NAT router says "Sure, why not" and forwards that as coming from your.ip:1234.  Now PC2 (192.168.0.100) does the same, but the router says "That's in use, you can be port 4321!" and forwards it as you.ip:4321.  Blizzard responds to your.ip, and if the packet is to 1234, it goes to PC1, and if its port 4321, it goes to PC2.  When the game starts, the PCs talk to each other, not the server.  So 192.168.0.100:1234 will send a packet to your.ip:4321.  Your router gets it, and will translate it as originating from "your.ip:1234".  It will then look at it and say "a packet addressed to your.ip:4321?  OK" and forward that to 192.168.0.101:1234.  That is, if it allows that sort of thing.  Some routers only allow incoming connections from servers that have already been talked to.  This takes more memory, but some will do it for more security.  If that's the case, PC1 and PC2 can't talk to each other!  But still, it may make exceptions for local connections.  It may also allow failed packets to count, so when PC1 and PC2 both get blocked since they haven't talked to each other before, their retry packets may get through, since now they HAVE sent to each other before!  It all depends on the nitty-gritties of your router.  (My old router wouldn't even work for a local packet addressed to your.ip:anything, even with port forwarding, it would just discard the packet!)</htmltext>
<tokenext>It should work just fine on " Full Cone " NAT .
I have no idea what proportion of consumer routers work this way , but it uses less memory and effort , so probably most !
With any sort of NAT , PC1 ( 192.168.0.100 ) connects to blizzards server from port 1234 or what-have-you .
Your NAT router says " Sure , why not " and forwards that as coming from your.ip : 1234 .
Now PC2 ( 192.168.0.100 ) does the same , but the router says " That 's in use , you can be port 4321 !
" and forwards it as you.ip : 4321 .
Blizzard responds to your.ip , and if the packet is to 1234 , it goes to PC1 , and if its port 4321 , it goes to PC2 .
When the game starts , the PCs talk to each other , not the server .
So 192.168.0.100 : 1234 will send a packet to your.ip : 4321 .
Your router gets it , and will translate it as originating from " your.ip : 1234 " .
It will then look at it and say " a packet addressed to your.ip : 4321 ?
OK " and forward that to 192.168.0.101 : 1234 .
That is , if it allows that sort of thing .
Some routers only allow incoming connections from servers that have already been talked to .
This takes more memory , but some will do it for more security .
If that 's the case , PC1 and PC2 ca n't talk to each other !
But still , it may make exceptions for local connections .
It may also allow failed packets to count , so when PC1 and PC2 both get blocked since they have n't talked to each other before , their retry packets may get through , since now they HAVE sent to each other before !
It all depends on the nitty-gritties of your router .
( My old router would n't even work for a local packet addressed to your.ip : anything , even with port forwarding , it would just discard the packet !
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It should work just fine on "Full Cone" NAT.
I have no idea what proportion of consumer routers work this way, but it uses less memory and effort, so probably most!
With any sort of NAT, PC1 (192.168.0.100) connects to blizzards server from port 1234 or what-have-you.
Your NAT router says "Sure, why not" and forwards that as coming from your.ip:1234.
Now PC2 (192.168.0.100) does the same, but the router says "That's in use, you can be port 4321!
" and forwards it as you.ip:4321.
Blizzard responds to your.ip, and if the packet is to 1234, it goes to PC1, and if its port 4321, it goes to PC2.
When the game starts, the PCs talk to each other, not the server.
So 192.168.0.100:1234 will send a packet to your.ip:4321.
Your router gets it, and will translate it as originating from "your.ip:1234".
It will then look at it and say "a packet addressed to your.ip:4321?
OK" and forward that to 192.168.0.101:1234.
That is, if it allows that sort of thing.
Some routers only allow incoming connections from servers that have already been talked to.
This takes more memory, but some will do it for more security.
If that's the case, PC1 and PC2 can't talk to each other!
But still, it may make exceptions for local connections.
It may also allow failed packets to count, so when PC1 and PC2 both get blocked since they haven't talked to each other before, their retry packets may get through, since now they HAVE sent to each other before!
It all depends on the nitty-gritties of your router.
(My old router wouldn't even work for a local packet addressed to your.ip:anything, even with port forwarding, it would just discard the packet!
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_0445230.28690651</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_0445230.28689445</id>
	<title>Re:When was the last LAN party you went to?</title>
	<author>poetmatt</author>
	<datestamp>1247579340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Lan parties have never been obsolete. What do you call 4 people getting together to play a video game, or maybe 2 or 3 consoles getting together to play?</p><p>Now what if these are say Xbox consoles with diablo 3, which now have to get online to play?</p><p>Guess you're screwed then, huh?</p><p>Your reasoning is just off in all ways. Lan parties still exist for tons of reasons such as a: people want to game together and b: some people either don't have the bandwidth to game remotely (but have the PC) or people I don't know, enjoy super great latency on a lan?</p><p>Sheesus man, your comment was ignorant.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Lan parties have never been obsolete .
What do you call 4 people getting together to play a video game , or maybe 2 or 3 consoles getting together to play ? Now what if these are say Xbox consoles with diablo 3 , which now have to get online to play ? Guess you 're screwed then , huh ? Your reasoning is just off in all ways .
Lan parties still exist for tons of reasons such as a : people want to game together and b : some people either do n't have the bandwidth to game remotely ( but have the PC ) or people I do n't know , enjoy super great latency on a lan ? Sheesus man , your comment was ignorant .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Lan parties have never been obsolete.
What do you call 4 people getting together to play a video game, or maybe 2 or 3 consoles getting together to play?Now what if these are say Xbox consoles with diablo 3, which now have to get online to play?Guess you're screwed then, huh?Your reasoning is just off in all ways.
Lan parties still exist for tons of reasons such as a: people want to game together and b: some people either don't have the bandwidth to game remotely (but have the PC) or people I don't know, enjoy super great latency on a lan?Sheesus man, your comment was ignorant.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_0445230.28688823</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_0445230.28688983</id>
	<title>Re:When was the last LAN party you went to?</title>
	<author>El\_Muerte\_TDS</author>
	<datestamp>1247576760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>In 1999, USB allowed connecting multiple gamepads to a computer through a hub.</p></div></blockquote><p>With Gravis GrIP you could hook up multiple gamepads on a single PC joystick port, this was released in 1996 iirc.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>In 1999 , USB allowed connecting multiple gamepads to a computer through a hub.With Gravis GrIP you could hook up multiple gamepads on a single PC joystick port , this was released in 1996 iirc .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In 1999, USB allowed connecting multiple gamepads to a computer through a hub.With Gravis GrIP you could hook up multiple gamepads on a single PC joystick port, this was released in 1996 iirc.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_0445230.28688823</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_0445230.28695373</id>
	<title>Re:When was the last LAN party you went to?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247562180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I have some friends who like to game a little and we sometimes organise a LAN party.  There are usually 5/6 of us there.</p><p>We generally have great difficulty trying to persuade the games to actually work.  We do tend to go for older games due to the hardware that people have so maybe new ones are better but at the last one we organised we never managed to get everybody playing the same game because of issues.  A couple of my friends have xbox 360's so we jsut ended up playing with them most of the time because you can plug them in and play and it just works.  The unfortunate thing for me is that I really hate console controllers.  I have never owned a console and I just dont' seem to be able to cope very well.  Also I am really an RTS fan so console gaming wipes that pretty much (I tried halo wars on a legendary random map and it was too easy).</p><p>We find that fps games do tend to be better although not perfect.  Halo 1 for example has odd connectivity problems.  Some people just can't see some hosts which is odd because other people can see that host and they can see a different host but then other people can't see that host.  These PC's are all connected through one switch so the network should look identical for everyone.</p><p>AOE2 the conquerors (the best RTS ever made) had numerous bugs.  One of the PC's crashed whenever somebody used a taunt.  This would normally be ok except some people were not entirely sober and it seemed to be hard for them to resist.  Also another issue with AOE2 would be that myself and another friend have played rather a lot online (although we still get thrashed by good online people) so it is rather unfair.  Previously we have tried playing as the same player with both of us controlling it against 4 others who are teamed and we won easily so it is basically be fighting this guy with our allies sending a few troops along now and them.</p><p>So this is why I think LAN's aer dying because it is extremely annoying and irritating trying to persuade the games to work over the network.  It probably doesn't help that a couple fo people who come don't really game and for example he does not actually own a mouse so he was lent one but then a mouse broke so he was left with a touchpad and needless to say playing an fps with a touchpad does not make for a good game.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have some friends who like to game a little and we sometimes organise a LAN party .
There are usually 5/6 of us there.We generally have great difficulty trying to persuade the games to actually work .
We do tend to go for older games due to the hardware that people have so maybe new ones are better but at the last one we organised we never managed to get everybody playing the same game because of issues .
A couple of my friends have xbox 360 's so we jsut ended up playing with them most of the time because you can plug them in and play and it just works .
The unfortunate thing for me is that I really hate console controllers .
I have never owned a console and I just dont ' seem to be able to cope very well .
Also I am really an RTS fan so console gaming wipes that pretty much ( I tried halo wars on a legendary random map and it was too easy ) .We find that fps games do tend to be better although not perfect .
Halo 1 for example has odd connectivity problems .
Some people just ca n't see some hosts which is odd because other people can see that host and they can see a different host but then other people ca n't see that host .
These PC 's are all connected through one switch so the network should look identical for everyone.AOE2 the conquerors ( the best RTS ever made ) had numerous bugs .
One of the PC 's crashed whenever somebody used a taunt .
This would normally be ok except some people were not entirely sober and it seemed to be hard for them to resist .
Also another issue with AOE2 would be that myself and another friend have played rather a lot online ( although we still get thrashed by good online people ) so it is rather unfair .
Previously we have tried playing as the same player with both of us controlling it against 4 others who are teamed and we won easily so it is basically be fighting this guy with our allies sending a few troops along now and them.So this is why I think LAN 's aer dying because it is extremely annoying and irritating trying to persuade the games to work over the network .
It probably does n't help that a couple fo people who come do n't really game and for example he does not actually own a mouse so he was lent one but then a mouse broke so he was left with a touchpad and needless to say playing an fps with a touchpad does not make for a good game .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have some friends who like to game a little and we sometimes organise a LAN party.
There are usually 5/6 of us there.We generally have great difficulty trying to persuade the games to actually work.
We do tend to go for older games due to the hardware that people have so maybe new ones are better but at the last one we organised we never managed to get everybody playing the same game because of issues.
A couple of my friends have xbox 360's so we jsut ended up playing with them most of the time because you can plug them in and play and it just works.
The unfortunate thing for me is that I really hate console controllers.
I have never owned a console and I just dont' seem to be able to cope very well.
Also I am really an RTS fan so console gaming wipes that pretty much (I tried halo wars on a legendary random map and it was too easy).We find that fps games do tend to be better although not perfect.
Halo 1 for example has odd connectivity problems.
Some people just can't see some hosts which is odd because other people can see that host and they can see a different host but then other people can't see that host.
These PC's are all connected through one switch so the network should look identical for everyone.AOE2 the conquerors (the best RTS ever made) had numerous bugs.
One of the PC's crashed whenever somebody used a taunt.
This would normally be ok except some people were not entirely sober and it seemed to be hard for them to resist.
Also another issue with AOE2 would be that myself and another friend have played rather a lot online (although we still get thrashed by good online people) so it is rather unfair.
Previously we have tried playing as the same player with both of us controlling it against 4 others who are teamed and we won easily so it is basically be fighting this guy with our allies sending a few troops along now and them.So this is why I think LAN's aer dying because it is extremely annoying and irritating trying to persuade the games to work over the network.
It probably doesn't help that a couple fo people who come don't really game and for example he does not actually own a mouse so he was lent one but then a mouse broke so he was left with a touchpad and needless to say playing an fps with a touchpad does not make for a good game.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_0445230.28688823</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_0445230.28690483</id>
	<title>Re:When was the last LAN party you went to?</title>
	<author>DarthVain</author>
	<datestamp>1247583780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I disagree. I see no reason that LAN parties would be obsolete. However the make up has changed.</p><p>Two things have changed. One is the industry sells a shit ton of laptops now, and for many years now, more lap tops than desktops. If anything this trend would see MORE LAN parties than ever before, if only because everyone is more portable now. The second thing is the people who might participate in LAN parties are more "mainstream" if you will, and are probably less tech savvy and don't care all that much about the latest and greatest hardware, so long as "it just works". That seems to be the trend these days.</p><p>That said you get a different type of LAN party, and this is what Blizzard is banking on. First of all if you think that StarCraft2 will not be designed to run on a laptop with integrated graphics your insane. If you look at any software that Blizzard has ever done, the one thing that they have been smart and consistent about is making software that will run on a very large range of hardware. Sure it may not look as good with everything dialed down, but if you can carry it around with you, that may be viewed as a decent trade off. So given that, these people are not the type that would spend a lot of time to try and figure out how the heck to network all their shit together to have a LAN party. Blizzard could have probably created something, but they already have something that does this, called Battlenet. Sure everyone connecting to Battlenet to network to the guy sitting next to you is not as fast as a direct network, but then again most will not be able to take advantage of speed due to hardware anyway.</p><p>This is not to say that hardcore LAN parties would not happen, but from a business perspective they are likely hitting their largest market this way, and that is not to mention the other advantages they gain from doing this (Piracy, control, expand on brand battlenet and invest in making it better, etc...)</p><p>I personally still think it is a dick move, as it sort of does screw over its loyal hardcore fan base (like me). I know I am not happy about it, but I understand their reasons for doing it, and if you think about it, it makes sense from their perspective, just not from mine. I know the decision moved me from the will defiantly pre-order and buy right away category, to they will probably buy it eventually category.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I disagree .
I see no reason that LAN parties would be obsolete .
However the make up has changed.Two things have changed .
One is the industry sells a shit ton of laptops now , and for many years now , more lap tops than desktops .
If anything this trend would see MORE LAN parties than ever before , if only because everyone is more portable now .
The second thing is the people who might participate in LAN parties are more " mainstream " if you will , and are probably less tech savvy and do n't care all that much about the latest and greatest hardware , so long as " it just works " .
That seems to be the trend these days.That said you get a different type of LAN party , and this is what Blizzard is banking on .
First of all if you think that StarCraft2 will not be designed to run on a laptop with integrated graphics your insane .
If you look at any software that Blizzard has ever done , the one thing that they have been smart and consistent about is making software that will run on a very large range of hardware .
Sure it may not look as good with everything dialed down , but if you can carry it around with you , that may be viewed as a decent trade off .
So given that , these people are not the type that would spend a lot of time to try and figure out how the heck to network all their shit together to have a LAN party .
Blizzard could have probably created something , but they already have something that does this , called Battlenet .
Sure everyone connecting to Battlenet to network to the guy sitting next to you is not as fast as a direct network , but then again most will not be able to take advantage of speed due to hardware anyway.This is not to say that hardcore LAN parties would not happen , but from a business perspective they are likely hitting their largest market this way , and that is not to mention the other advantages they gain from doing this ( Piracy , control , expand on brand battlenet and invest in making it better , etc... ) I personally still think it is a dick move , as it sort of does screw over its loyal hardcore fan base ( like me ) .
I know I am not happy about it , but I understand their reasons for doing it , and if you think about it , it makes sense from their perspective , just not from mine .
I know the decision moved me from the will defiantly pre-order and buy right away category , to they will probably buy it eventually category .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I disagree.
I see no reason that LAN parties would be obsolete.
However the make up has changed.Two things have changed.
One is the industry sells a shit ton of laptops now, and for many years now, more lap tops than desktops.
If anything this trend would see MORE LAN parties than ever before, if only because everyone is more portable now.
The second thing is the people who might participate in LAN parties are more "mainstream" if you will, and are probably less tech savvy and don't care all that much about the latest and greatest hardware, so long as "it just works".
That seems to be the trend these days.That said you get a different type of LAN party, and this is what Blizzard is banking on.
First of all if you think that StarCraft2 will not be designed to run on a laptop with integrated graphics your insane.
If you look at any software that Blizzard has ever done, the one thing that they have been smart and consistent about is making software that will run on a very large range of hardware.
Sure it may not look as good with everything dialed down, but if you can carry it around with you, that may be viewed as a decent trade off.
So given that, these people are not the type that would spend a lot of time to try and figure out how the heck to network all their shit together to have a LAN party.
Blizzard could have probably created something, but they already have something that does this, called Battlenet.
Sure everyone connecting to Battlenet to network to the guy sitting next to you is not as fast as a direct network, but then again most will not be able to take advantage of speed due to hardware anyway.This is not to say that hardcore LAN parties would not happen, but from a business perspective they are likely hitting their largest market this way, and that is not to mention the other advantages they gain from doing this (Piracy, control, expand on brand battlenet and invest in making it better, etc...)I personally still think it is a dick move, as it sort of does screw over its loyal hardcore fan base (like me).
I know I am not happy about it, but I understand their reasons for doing it, and if you think about it, it makes sense from their perspective, just not from mine.
I know the decision moved me from the will defiantly pre-order and buy right away category, to they will probably buy it eventually category.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_0445230.28688823</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_0445230.28689767</id>
	<title>Stop buying these new games and play Starcraft 1..</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247580660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>This is exactly why everyone should play Starcraft: Brood War, you may argue that the UI and graphics are shit but hey, the same could be said about chess or go, I mean, having to actually move the peices with your hand? Worst UI design ever, yet people still play these games.  Plus, Starcraft has a lot of gameplay and metagame, taking a long time to master unless you are a genius, making the gameplay never boring as it is a learning experience throughout, even the pro's are constantly learning and changing their strategies.  But for such a game, the latency ( or time between when your mouse click or keyboard hit is registered ) in multilayer games is very important for micromanagement ( especially mutalisk harassment where mutalisks are timed to launch their attack on the edge of their range and move back immediately to achieve a very optimal and powerful guerrilla warfare effect when done repeatedly ).  Which is why latency changing tools have been added to the game so that latency equal to that of lan can be archived on battle.net ( of course with a penalty to lag which is not the same as latency ). Graphics to me, mean nothing, because just look at the world around you, if you want to look at pretty pictures, just look out your window.  Starcraft's online environment is ( IMO ) much more mature than other games ( eg Halo on Xbox live ) since the players online are ages 20+, the only players under the age of 20 playing starcraft online are kids from Korea.  Teens new to gaming will generally not play Starcraft in north america as they have much newer games with better graphics to attract that age group.  However the argument that LAN is dead to me is completely invalid as I on a weekly basis have lan parties at friend's places through a wireless router, and everyone has laptops so it is not like carrying around a pc, nowadays laptops are so portable as you can carry them in backpacks designed to carry laptops.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is exactly why everyone should play Starcraft : Brood War , you may argue that the UI and graphics are shit but hey , the same could be said about chess or go , I mean , having to actually move the peices with your hand ?
Worst UI design ever , yet people still play these games .
Plus , Starcraft has a lot of gameplay and metagame , taking a long time to master unless you are a genius , making the gameplay never boring as it is a learning experience throughout , even the pro 's are constantly learning and changing their strategies .
But for such a game , the latency ( or time between when your mouse click or keyboard hit is registered ) in multilayer games is very important for micromanagement ( especially mutalisk harassment where mutalisks are timed to launch their attack on the edge of their range and move back immediately to achieve a very optimal and powerful guerrilla warfare effect when done repeatedly ) .
Which is why latency changing tools have been added to the game so that latency equal to that of lan can be archived on battle.net ( of course with a penalty to lag which is not the same as latency ) .
Graphics to me , mean nothing , because just look at the world around you , if you want to look at pretty pictures , just look out your window .
Starcraft 's online environment is ( IMO ) much more mature than other games ( eg Halo on Xbox live ) since the players online are ages 20 + , the only players under the age of 20 playing starcraft online are kids from Korea .
Teens new to gaming will generally not play Starcraft in north america as they have much newer games with better graphics to attract that age group .
However the argument that LAN is dead to me is completely invalid as I on a weekly basis have lan parties at friend 's places through a wireless router , and everyone has laptops so it is not like carrying around a pc , nowadays laptops are so portable as you can carry them in backpacks designed to carry laptops .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is exactly why everyone should play Starcraft: Brood War, you may argue that the UI and graphics are shit but hey, the same could be said about chess or go, I mean, having to actually move the peices with your hand?
Worst UI design ever, yet people still play these games.
Plus, Starcraft has a lot of gameplay and metagame, taking a long time to master unless you are a genius, making the gameplay never boring as it is a learning experience throughout, even the pro's are constantly learning and changing their strategies.
But for such a game, the latency ( or time between when your mouse click or keyboard hit is registered ) in multilayer games is very important for micromanagement ( especially mutalisk harassment where mutalisks are timed to launch their attack on the edge of their range and move back immediately to achieve a very optimal and powerful guerrilla warfare effect when done repeatedly ).
Which is why latency changing tools have been added to the game so that latency equal to that of lan can be archived on battle.net ( of course with a penalty to lag which is not the same as latency ).
Graphics to me, mean nothing, because just look at the world around you, if you want to look at pretty pictures, just look out your window.
Starcraft's online environment is ( IMO ) much more mature than other games ( eg Halo on Xbox live ) since the players online are ages 20+, the only players under the age of 20 playing starcraft online are kids from Korea.
Teens new to gaming will generally not play Starcraft in north america as they have much newer games with better graphics to attract that age group.
However the argument that LAN is dead to me is completely invalid as I on a weekly basis have lan parties at friend's places through a wireless router, and everyone has laptops so it is not like carrying around a pc, nowadays laptops are so portable as you can carry them in backpacks designed to carry laptops.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_0445230.28689907</id>
	<title>Re:When was the last LAN party you went to?</title>
	<author>Malevolyn</author>
	<datestamp>1247581260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Are you willing to give up video gaming altogether once all the major publishers of PC games have switched to this business model?</p></div><p>I'd be much more willing to get into reverse engineering, actually.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Are you willing to give up video gaming altogether once all the major publishers of PC games have switched to this business model ? I 'd be much more willing to get into reverse engineering , actually .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Are you willing to give up video gaming altogether once all the major publishers of PC games have switched to this business model?I'd be much more willing to get into reverse engineering, actually.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_0445230.28688733</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_0445230.28690487</id>
	<title>Re:When was the last LAN party you went to?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247583780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Once new game consoles came out that have ports for everyone to plug in their own audio/visual head set, then you'll have a case.</p></div><p>You mean like the PS1?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Once new game consoles came out that have ports for everyone to plug in their own audio/visual head set , then you 'll have a case.You mean like the PS1 ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Once new game consoles came out that have ports for everyone to plug in their own audio/visual head set, then you'll have a case.You mean like the PS1?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_0445230.28689005</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_0445230.28693467</id>
	<title>Re:Send them an email</title>
	<author>TheSoepkip</author>
	<datestamp>1247596380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><tt>EA employees read slashdot as well...<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)</tt></htmltext>
<tokenext>EA employees read slashdot as well... ; )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>EA employees read slashdot as well... ;)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_0445230.28690039</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_0445230.28690149</id>
	<title>Re:When was the last LAN party you went to?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247582340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>This is how ID Software (and its predecessor, Apogee)</i></p><p>Apogee was not the 'predecessor' to iD.  They are separate companies: Apogee was the publisher and iD the developer.</p><p>The reason you don't hear about Apogee anymore is because they changed their name to 3D Realms.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is how ID Software ( and its predecessor , Apogee ) Apogee was not the 'predecessor ' to iD .
They are separate companies : Apogee was the publisher and iD the developer.The reason you do n't hear about Apogee anymore is because they changed their name to 3D Realms .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is how ID Software (and its predecessor, Apogee)Apogee was not the 'predecessor' to iD.
They are separate companies: Apogee was the publisher and iD the developer.The reason you don't hear about Apogee anymore is because they changed their name to 3D Realms.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_0445230.28688883</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_0445230.28688681</id>
	<title>When was the last LAN party you went to?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247573580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think it's a wrong move, but not because of LAN parties. LAN parties used to be a thing when internet was scarce, connections were slow and often you also had metered lines that only let you transfer so much traffic per month. Today, with bandwitdths that break the mbit borders easily and often hover about 10mbit, carrying your computer somewhere is, at best, something you'd do for special occasions. Events, maybe sponsored, where you may even win a prize for being good. Not just "getting together to play".</p><p>My argument against those mandatory online services is simple: What if the company ceases to exist or ceases to support the product? Good bye multiplayer (or even singleplayer)? Today I could still fire up a game of Starcraft, locally or through the internet, I needn't connect with BattleNet (let's assume it ever went away), I could play SC for as long as there is TCP/IP v4 around. Dunno if it works with v6, someone would have to try.</p><p>Tying a game to its maker essentially results in a better rental version. And I refuse to pay premium for renting a game.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think it 's a wrong move , but not because of LAN parties .
LAN parties used to be a thing when internet was scarce , connections were slow and often you also had metered lines that only let you transfer so much traffic per month .
Today , with bandwitdths that break the mbit borders easily and often hover about 10mbit , carrying your computer somewhere is , at best , something you 'd do for special occasions .
Events , maybe sponsored , where you may even win a prize for being good .
Not just " getting together to play " .My argument against those mandatory online services is simple : What if the company ceases to exist or ceases to support the product ?
Good bye multiplayer ( or even singleplayer ) ?
Today I could still fire up a game of Starcraft , locally or through the internet , I need n't connect with BattleNet ( let 's assume it ever went away ) , I could play SC for as long as there is TCP/IP v4 around .
Dunno if it works with v6 , someone would have to try.Tying a game to its maker essentially results in a better rental version .
And I refuse to pay premium for renting a game .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think it's a wrong move, but not because of LAN parties.
LAN parties used to be a thing when internet was scarce, connections were slow and often you also had metered lines that only let you transfer so much traffic per month.
Today, with bandwitdths that break the mbit borders easily and often hover about 10mbit, carrying your computer somewhere is, at best, something you'd do for special occasions.
Events, maybe sponsored, where you may even win a prize for being good.
Not just "getting together to play".My argument against those mandatory online services is simple: What if the company ceases to exist or ceases to support the product?
Good bye multiplayer (or even singleplayer)?
Today I could still fire up a game of Starcraft, locally or through the internet, I needn't connect with BattleNet (let's assume it ever went away), I could play SC for as long as there is TCP/IP v4 around.
Dunno if it works with v6, someone would have to try.Tying a game to its maker essentially results in a better rental version.
And I refuse to pay premium for renting a game.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_0445230.28697193</id>
	<title>Re:When was the last LAN party you went to?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247570100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"They see the entire PC market as a den of thieves"<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...because it is.</p><p>Not many on the game dev side want to be locked into sony/microsoft/nintendo's corporate shenanigans. But without being able to ACTUALLY SELL GAMES, game developers can't make a living. PC users fuck the market for themselves by freeloading by the thousands. 90\% of the PC gamers = pirate, and the market is smaller than the console market to begin with anyway. So why bother - there are greener pastures. Plus the PC hardware and OS's are overly complex for the average user, leading to lots of customer complaints because of incompatibility. That isn't helping either.</p><p>From the game dev perspective, an ideal situation would be a console (fixed hardware, so no compatibility issues, and anti-pirate features built in) with something like Itunes or the iphone app store (--&gt; lower amount of corporate shenanigans than dealing with sony/ms).</p><p>-A game dev.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" They see the entire PC market as a den of thieves " ...because it is.Not many on the game dev side want to be locked into sony/microsoft/nintendo 's corporate shenanigans .
But without being able to ACTUALLY SELL GAMES , game developers ca n't make a living .
PC users fuck the market for themselves by freeloading by the thousands .
90 \ % of the PC gamers = pirate , and the market is smaller than the console market to begin with anyway .
So why bother - there are greener pastures .
Plus the PC hardware and OS 's are overly complex for the average user , leading to lots of customer complaints because of incompatibility .
That is n't helping either.From the game dev perspective , an ideal situation would be a console ( fixed hardware , so no compatibility issues , and anti-pirate features built in ) with something like Itunes or the iphone app store ( -- &gt; lower amount of corporate shenanigans than dealing with sony/ms ) .-A game dev .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"They see the entire PC market as a den of thieves" ...because it is.Not many on the game dev side want to be locked into sony/microsoft/nintendo's corporate shenanigans.
But without being able to ACTUALLY SELL GAMES, game developers can't make a living.
PC users fuck the market for themselves by freeloading by the thousands.
90\% of the PC gamers = pirate, and the market is smaller than the console market to begin with anyway.
So why bother - there are greener pastures.
Plus the PC hardware and OS's are overly complex for the average user, leading to lots of customer complaints because of incompatibility.
That isn't helping either.From the game dev perspective, an ideal situation would be a console (fixed hardware, so no compatibility issues, and anti-pirate features built in) with something like Itunes or the iphone app store (--&gt; lower amount of corporate shenanigans than dealing with sony/ms).-A game dev.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_0445230.28689111</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_0445230.28689635</id>
	<title>I run one of the national Starcraft forums</title>
	<author>unity100</author>
	<datestamp>1247580180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>in my country. despite that, i wont buy sc2 if its missing lan play. i see that many of our community members will do the same too. whichever executive moron came up with that no lan idea, can shove the cds up his ass now.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>in my country .
despite that , i wont buy sc2 if its missing lan play .
i see that many of our community members will do the same too .
whichever executive moron came up with that no lan idea , can shove the cds up his ass now .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>in my country.
despite that, i wont buy sc2 if its missing lan play.
i see that many of our community members will do the same too.
whichever executive moron came up with that no lan idea, can shove the cds up his ass now.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_0445230.28692321</id>
	<title>Office Lans</title>
	<author>T.E.D.</author>
	<datestamp>1247591880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Perhaps LAN Parties are a thing of the past, but lunchtime office LAN play is alive and well. There are probably 30 people where I work who went out and bought everything in the Battlefield series due to the lunchtime office games. That is only one group that I work near. There are others in the facility.

</p><p>However, most corporate firewalls block gaming sites. So this move will prevent us (and other companies like us) from doing the same with those two games. This <strong>will</strong> impact sales.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Perhaps LAN Parties are a thing of the past , but lunchtime office LAN play is alive and well .
There are probably 30 people where I work who went out and bought everything in the Battlefield series due to the lunchtime office games .
That is only one group that I work near .
There are others in the facility .
However , most corporate firewalls block gaming sites .
So this move will prevent us ( and other companies like us ) from doing the same with those two games .
This will impact sales .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Perhaps LAN Parties are a thing of the past, but lunchtime office LAN play is alive and well.
There are probably 30 people where I work who went out and bought everything in the Battlefield series due to the lunchtime office games.
That is only one group that I work near.
There are others in the facility.
However, most corporate firewalls block gaming sites.
So this move will prevent us (and other companies like us) from doing the same with those two games.
This will impact sales.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_0445230.28691103</id>
	<title>No non-online = no piracy ?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247586540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What I would really like to know is how long will it take for a game as successful as Starcraft, now Starcraft 2, to have non official game servers, like bnetd and pvpgn.</p><p>If Blizzard and others do it correctly, it may be very very hard to implement these non-official servers. If they leave some code, some character behaviors on the server side, it will be nearly impossible to replicate them.</p><p>Think about any sort of AI in the game, or even simpler - simply counting damage impacts to each unit - what if that is done at the server-side? that's bye bye piracy... or, reimplementing major parts of the game.</p><p>NO-LAN haters created a petitiononline asking blizzard to introduce LAN playing in SC2...</p><p>http://www.petitiononline.com/LANSC2/petition.html</p><p>
&nbsp;</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What I would really like to know is how long will it take for a game as successful as Starcraft , now Starcraft 2 , to have non official game servers , like bnetd and pvpgn.If Blizzard and others do it correctly , it may be very very hard to implement these non-official servers .
If they leave some code , some character behaviors on the server side , it will be nearly impossible to replicate them.Think about any sort of AI in the game , or even simpler - simply counting damage impacts to each unit - what if that is done at the server-side ?
that 's bye bye piracy... or , reimplementing major parts of the game.NO-LAN haters created a petitiononline asking blizzard to introduce LAN playing in SC2...http : //www.petitiononline.com/LANSC2/petition.html  </tokentext>
<sentencetext>What I would really like to know is how long will it take for a game as successful as Starcraft, now Starcraft 2, to have non official game servers, like bnetd and pvpgn.If Blizzard and others do it correctly, it may be very very hard to implement these non-official servers.
If they leave some code, some character behaviors on the server side, it will be nearly impossible to replicate them.Think about any sort of AI in the game, or even simpler - simply counting damage impacts to each unit - what if that is done at the server-side?
that's bye bye piracy... or, reimplementing major parts of the game.NO-LAN haters created a petitiononline asking blizzard to introduce LAN playing in SC2...http://www.petitiononline.com/LANSC2/petition.html
 </sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_0445230.28689005</id>
	<title>Re:When was the last LAN party you went to?</title>
	<author>Saxerman</author>
	<datestamp>1247577060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Don't propagate this myth.  Hell, my Atari 400 came with 4 joystick ports.  We had a multi-tap for our SNES so you could play 4 player games.  That isn't new, and yet once we had our own PCs, we still went to LAN parties.
</p><p>
You can't play all games crowded around the same monitor.  For some you really want your own audio/visual source so you're NOT all tied to one another in the same location.  Playing games of 8 player X-Wing vs. Tie Fighter or Starcraft or Age of Empires, or 16 player Counter-Strike or Rainbow Six were expressly fun because we could all run off on our assigned tasks without worrying about going off screen or trying to watch our tiny slice of the split-screen.  Breaking a LAN party up into two teams, where each team was in a separate room, beat the hell out of any cooperative on-line play I've ever experienced.
</p><p>
Now, granted, lugging around a 30 or even 40 pound monitor was a bit of a pain, even with those handy monitor tote straps.  But, in the end, it only took a few minutes for us to tear down a PC, toss the cables in a bag, and pack it all into the car.  As we'd have LAN parties every few (extended) weekends, setup was not the major pain.  Have LAN party locations with adequate seating, power, ventilation, and ethernet  ports was the tricky part.  But once we had adequately sized apartments (gamers living in the next unit works fantastic) or homes, we had our gaming mecca.
</p><p>
Once new game consoles came out that have ports for everyone to plug in their own audio/visual head set, then you'll have a case.  Until then, for me at least, there is still something to be said for LAN parties.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Do n't propagate this myth .
Hell , my Atari 400 came with 4 joystick ports .
We had a multi-tap for our SNES so you could play 4 player games .
That is n't new , and yet once we had our own PCs , we still went to LAN parties .
You ca n't play all games crowded around the same monitor .
For some you really want your own audio/visual source so you 're NOT all tied to one another in the same location .
Playing games of 8 player X-Wing vs. Tie Fighter or Starcraft or Age of Empires , or 16 player Counter-Strike or Rainbow Six were expressly fun because we could all run off on our assigned tasks without worrying about going off screen or trying to watch our tiny slice of the split-screen .
Breaking a LAN party up into two teams , where each team was in a separate room , beat the hell out of any cooperative on-line play I 've ever experienced .
Now , granted , lugging around a 30 or even 40 pound monitor was a bit of a pain , even with those handy monitor tote straps .
But , in the end , it only took a few minutes for us to tear down a PC , toss the cables in a bag , and pack it all into the car .
As we 'd have LAN parties every few ( extended ) weekends , setup was not the major pain .
Have LAN party locations with adequate seating , power , ventilation , and ethernet ports was the tricky part .
But once we had adequately sized apartments ( gamers living in the next unit works fantastic ) or homes , we had our gaming mecca .
Once new game consoles came out that have ports for everyone to plug in their own audio/visual head set , then you 'll have a case .
Until then , for me at least , there is still something to be said for LAN parties .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Don't propagate this myth.
Hell, my Atari 400 came with 4 joystick ports.
We had a multi-tap for our SNES so you could play 4 player games.
That isn't new, and yet once we had our own PCs, we still went to LAN parties.
You can't play all games crowded around the same monitor.
For some you really want your own audio/visual source so you're NOT all tied to one another in the same location.
Playing games of 8 player X-Wing vs. Tie Fighter or Starcraft or Age of Empires, or 16 player Counter-Strike or Rainbow Six were expressly fun because we could all run off on our assigned tasks without worrying about going off screen or trying to watch our tiny slice of the split-screen.
Breaking a LAN party up into two teams, where each team was in a separate room, beat the hell out of any cooperative on-line play I've ever experienced.
Now, granted, lugging around a 30 or even 40 pound monitor was a bit of a pain, even with those handy monitor tote straps.
But, in the end, it only took a few minutes for us to tear down a PC, toss the cables in a bag, and pack it all into the car.
As we'd have LAN parties every few (extended) weekends, setup was not the major pain.
Have LAN party locations with adequate seating, power, ventilation, and ethernet  ports was the tricky part.
But once we had adequately sized apartments (gamers living in the next unit works fantastic) or homes, we had our gaming mecca.
Once new game consoles came out that have ports for everyone to plug in their own audio/visual head set, then you'll have a case.
Until then, for me at least, there is still something to be said for LAN parties.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_0445230.28688823</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_0445230.28694257</id>
	<title>Re:When was the last LAN party you went to?</title>
	<author>khellendros1984</author>
	<datestamp>1247599800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Games are cool, and they've been a strong influence on my life. That being said, if I'm not confident that I could run a (single-player) game without a network connection and without activation, I won't buy it. In fact, it's a significant turn-off if I'm not able to sell the game to someone else (e.g. an account-specific downloaded version, or something). If my sources of acceptable games dry up, I'll find a new hobby (or maybe just take solace in my huge collections of older games that I already have)</htmltext>
<tokenext>Games are cool , and they 've been a strong influence on my life .
That being said , if I 'm not confident that I could run a ( single-player ) game without a network connection and without activation , I wo n't buy it .
In fact , it 's a significant turn-off if I 'm not able to sell the game to someone else ( e.g .
an account-specific downloaded version , or something ) .
If my sources of acceptable games dry up , I 'll find a new hobby ( or maybe just take solace in my huge collections of older games that I already have )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Games are cool, and they've been a strong influence on my life.
That being said, if I'm not confident that I could run a (single-player) game without a network connection and without activation, I won't buy it.
In fact, it's a significant turn-off if I'm not able to sell the game to someone else (e.g.
an account-specific downloaded version, or something).
If my sources of acceptable games dry up, I'll find a new hobby (or maybe just take solace in my huge collections of older games that I already have)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_0445230.28688733</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_0445230.28697573</id>
	<title>Re:When was the last LAN party you went to?</title>
	<author>elrous0</author>
	<datestamp>1247571960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>There still aren't any decent MMO's out for consoles and that says *something* for the continuing viability of the PC market. Blizzard doesn't seem too worried about consoles or console gamers. Hell, even Bioware made their new <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knights\_of\_the\_Old\_Republic\_3" title="wikipedia.org">KOTOR MMO</a> [wikipedia.org] PC-only, and KOTOR made most of its sales on the xbox.</htmltext>
<tokenext>There still are n't any decent MMO 's out for consoles and that says * something * for the continuing viability of the PC market .
Blizzard does n't seem too worried about consoles or console gamers .
Hell , even Bioware made their new KOTOR MMO [ wikipedia.org ] PC-only , and KOTOR made most of its sales on the xbox .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There still aren't any decent MMO's out for consoles and that says *something* for the continuing viability of the PC market.
Blizzard doesn't seem too worried about consoles or console gamers.
Hell, even Bioware made their new KOTOR MMO [wikipedia.org] PC-only, and KOTOR made most of its sales on the xbox.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_0445230.28689111</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_0445230.28690495</id>
	<title>Man, what a load of crap.</title>
	<author>PontifexMaximus</author>
	<datestamp>1247583780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You know, I'm all about teh intarwebs.  But this is stupid.  I almost never play video games multiplayer.  I play them mainly to GET AWAY from people.  And because Windows is the dominant gaming OS my only Windows system isn't connected to my network at all.  EA is killing video gaming single handedly.  Bastards.  Well they can keep their games.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You know , I 'm all about teh intarwebs .
But this is stupid .
I almost never play video games multiplayer .
I play them mainly to GET AWAY from people .
And because Windows is the dominant gaming OS my only Windows system is n't connected to my network at all .
EA is killing video gaming single handedly .
Bastards. Well they can keep their games .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You know, I'm all about teh intarwebs.
But this is stupid.
I almost never play video games multiplayer.
I play them mainly to GET AWAY from people.
And because Windows is the dominant gaming OS my only Windows system isn't connected to my network at all.
EA is killing video gaming single handedly.
Bastards.  Well they can keep their games.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_0445230.28689281</id>
	<title>I Don't Care</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247578560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You can still call it a "LAN Party".  We do.  It's kinda disingenuous, but who cares?  We get together to play WoW at each other's houses all the time.  My wireless network can handle it.  It'll be the same for Starcraft and C&amp;C.  Whatever.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You can still call it a " LAN Party " .
We do .
It 's kinda disingenuous , but who cares ?
We get together to play WoW at each other 's houses all the time .
My wireless network can handle it .
It 'll be the same for Starcraft and C&amp;C .
Whatever .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You can still call it a "LAN Party".
We do.
It's kinda disingenuous, but who cares?
We get together to play WoW at each other's houses all the time.
My wireless network can handle it.
It'll be the same for Starcraft and C&amp;C.
Whatever.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_0445230.28691557</id>
	<title>Red Alert 3 had no LAN co-op play</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247588640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>C&amp;C Red Alert 3, the most recent game in the franchise, did not support LAN co-op play at launch.  A <a href="http://teknogods.com/" title="teknogods.com" rel="nofollow">group</a> [teknogods.com] developed custom binaries that would let you play co-op on LAN, and went on to attempt to create a generalized replacement for EA's matchmaking servers.</p><p>In my personal experience attempting to play RA3 online co-op from behind NAT was flaky to the point of uselessness.</p><p>I wonder how all of these forthcoming "online only" RTS games will behave with multiple users behind NAT.  That is my main concern when it comes to the lack of LAN play.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>C&amp;C Red Alert 3 , the most recent game in the franchise , did not support LAN co-op play at launch .
A group [ teknogods.com ] developed custom binaries that would let you play co-op on LAN , and went on to attempt to create a generalized replacement for EA 's matchmaking servers.In my personal experience attempting to play RA3 online co-op from behind NAT was flaky to the point of uselessness.I wonder how all of these forthcoming " online only " RTS games will behave with multiple users behind NAT .
That is my main concern when it comes to the lack of LAN play .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>C&amp;C Red Alert 3, the most recent game in the franchise, did not support LAN co-op play at launch.
A group [teknogods.com] developed custom binaries that would let you play co-op on LAN, and went on to attempt to create a generalized replacement for EA's matchmaking servers.In my personal experience attempting to play RA3 online co-op from behind NAT was flaky to the point of uselessness.I wonder how all of these forthcoming "online only" RTS games will behave with multiple users behind NAT.
That is my main concern when it comes to the lack of LAN play.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_0445230.28689393</id>
	<title>Re:When was the last LAN party you went to?</title>
	<author>PopeRatzo</author>
	<datestamp>1247579100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>The barrier to entry is high because users are expecting 3D, theater quality graphics and sound at every turn.</p></div> </blockquote><p>Except that doesn't explain the popularity of games like Plants vs Zombies.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The barrier to entry is high because users are expecting 3D , theater quality graphics and sound at every turn .
Except that does n't explain the popularity of games like Plants vs Zombies .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The barrier to entry is high because users are expecting 3D, theater quality graphics and sound at every turn.
Except that doesn't explain the popularity of games like Plants vs Zombies.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_0445230.28688883</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_0445230.28692625</id>
	<title>Re:When was the last LAN party you went to?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247593140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>However, if you create a battle.net compatible server, blizzard will sue you under the DMCA (and most likely win since they've already successfully sued someone for making a battle.net compatible server; e.g. bnetd)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>However , if you create a battle.net compatible server , blizzard will sue you under the DMCA ( and most likely win since they 've already successfully sued someone for making a battle.net compatible server ; e.g .
bnetd )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>However, if you create a battle.net compatible server, blizzard will sue you under the DMCA (and most likely win since they've already successfully sued someone for making a battle.net compatible server; e.g.
bnetd)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_0445230.28689907</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_0445230.28691799</id>
	<title>Cutting out LAN is a killer</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247589600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Cutting out LAN can really destroy gameplay for games that require massive amount of updates to the server, and a really low latency to function well. It also cuts off the possibility for users without a 10MBit/10Mbit connection to play games well online. The regular bandwidth for users is way too low to cut off LAN imho. Most online gaming on 1Mbit/1Mbit is a bad experience for those who like to play on a LAN connection.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Cutting out LAN can really destroy gameplay for games that require massive amount of updates to the server , and a really low latency to function well .
It also cuts off the possibility for users without a 10MBit/10Mbit connection to play games well online .
The regular bandwidth for users is way too low to cut off LAN imho .
Most online gaming on 1Mbit/1Mbit is a bad experience for those who like to play on a LAN connection .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Cutting out LAN can really destroy gameplay for games that require massive amount of updates to the server, and a really low latency to function well.
It also cuts off the possibility for users without a 10MBit/10Mbit connection to play games well online.
The regular bandwidth for users is way too low to cut off LAN imho.
Most online gaming on 1Mbit/1Mbit is a bad experience for those who like to play on a LAN connection.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_0445230.28696183</id>
	<title>Contacting EA?</title>
	<author>Ranga14</author>
	<datestamp>1247565420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>There's a good thread going on the Command and Conquer web site.

<a href="http://forums.commandandconquer.com/jforum/posts/list/17550.page" title="commandandconquer.com" rel="nofollow">http://forums.commandandconquer.com/jforum/posts/list/17550.page</a> [commandandconquer.com]

I'd suggest making your opinion known there. The EA devs might see what's going on. As for Starcraft 2. I believe there's an online petition for it someone online.</htmltext>
<tokenext>There 's a good thread going on the Command and Conquer web site .
http : //forums.commandandconquer.com/jforum/posts/list/17550.page [ commandandconquer.com ] I 'd suggest making your opinion known there .
The EA devs might see what 's going on .
As for Starcraft 2 .
I believe there 's an online petition for it someone online .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There's a good thread going on the Command and Conquer web site.
http://forums.commandandconquer.com/jforum/posts/list/17550.page [commandandconquer.com]

I'd suggest making your opinion known there.
The EA devs might see what's going on.
As for Starcraft 2.
I believe there's an online petition for it someone online.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_0445230.28697241</id>
	<title>Connection required = no money from me</title>
	<author>fox171171</author>
	<datestamp>1247570280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I know I'm in the minority, but I work away from home (pretty much away from everything, including the internet) for 3-4 weeks at a time. And since I'm not home at the end of my shift, I do most of my gaming then. Anything that requires a connection is not getting any of my money.

The other things (like shutting down their servers, etc) also applies.

Less value = no sale.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I know I 'm in the minority , but I work away from home ( pretty much away from everything , including the internet ) for 3-4 weeks at a time .
And since I 'm not home at the end of my shift , I do most of my gaming then .
Anything that requires a connection is not getting any of my money .
The other things ( like shutting down their servers , etc ) also applies .
Less value = no sale .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I know I'm in the minority, but I work away from home (pretty much away from everything, including the internet) for 3-4 weeks at a time.
And since I'm not home at the end of my shift, I do most of my gaming then.
Anything that requires a connection is not getting any of my money.
The other things (like shutting down their servers, etc) also applies.
Less value = no sale.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_0445230.28695081</id>
	<title>Why won't Blizzard do this?</title>
	<author>MadLad</author>
	<datestamp>1247604180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Can someone tell me what's wrong with this idea?<br> <br>

Blizzard can get the best of both worlds like this:<br> <br>

1. Player buys Starcraft 2<br>
2. Player logs on to Battle.net ONCE, and authenticates<br>
3. Having authenticated, Player can play on LAN. Without authentication, LAN play is unavailable.<br> <br>

This way, Blizzard gets the best of both worlds, and so do we. There's no need to exclude LAN support altogether, since its inclusion in this model carries no penalties for anyone. Or am I missing something massive?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Can someone tell me what 's wrong with this idea ?
Blizzard can get the best of both worlds like this : 1 .
Player buys Starcraft 2 2 .
Player logs on to Battle.net ONCE , and authenticates 3 .
Having authenticated , Player can play on LAN .
Without authentication , LAN play is unavailable .
This way , Blizzard gets the best of both worlds , and so do we .
There 's no need to exclude LAN support altogether , since its inclusion in this model carries no penalties for anyone .
Or am I missing something massive ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Can someone tell me what's wrong with this idea?
Blizzard can get the best of both worlds like this: 

1.
Player buys Starcraft 2
2.
Player logs on to Battle.net ONCE, and authenticates
3.
Having authenticated, Player can play on LAN.
Without authentication, LAN play is unavailable.
This way, Blizzard gets the best of both worlds, and so do we.
There's no need to exclude LAN support altogether, since its inclusion in this model carries no penalties for anyone.
Or am I missing something massive?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_0445230.28690329</id>
	<title>Thanks</title>
	<author>Lije Baley</author>
	<datestamp>1247583120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Thanks to the Hamachi-loving jerks who spoil it for families like mine which use LAN disc-sharing legitimately.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Thanks to the Hamachi-loving jerks who spoil it for families like mine which use LAN disc-sharing legitimately .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Thanks to the Hamachi-loving jerks who spoil it for families like mine which use LAN disc-sharing legitimately.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_0445230.28690931</id>
	<title>consider the sales outside the US</title>
	<author>holywarrior21c</author>
	<datestamp>1247585760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Here in Korea, there are at least a dozen internet cafes every corner(seriously). In this land of 50 million people, there are over 20k internet cafes. That is like number of christian churches here as well. (25\% of pop are Christians) People here go to internet cafes for gaming and it is same as LAN parties in the States. Except you pay $1.5/hr which is not that bad and even kids can afford it out of their pocket. In the case of Korea, people don't LAN party. They just party out at the internet cafe. And internet cafes got T1 connection so internet is no problem. (duh!) I guess US customers needs much more convincing argument that those listed here on slashdot. I wonder if battle net makes any big money off of advertisement they sell. I would suggest Blizzard to sell LAN party add on for something like $9.99. And require players to be verified some way. That way they don't lose marginal number of people who wish to play multiplayer offline. (which exactly doesn't make sense in Korea - Are you a hermit?)</htmltext>
<tokenext>Here in Korea , there are at least a dozen internet cafes every corner ( seriously ) .
In this land of 50 million people , there are over 20k internet cafes .
That is like number of christian churches here as well .
( 25 \ % of pop are Christians ) People here go to internet cafes for gaming and it is same as LAN parties in the States .
Except you pay $ 1.5/hr which is not that bad and even kids can afford it out of their pocket .
In the case of Korea , people do n't LAN party .
They just party out at the internet cafe .
And internet cafes got T1 connection so internet is no problem .
( duh ! ) I guess US customers needs much more convincing argument that those listed here on slashdot .
I wonder if battle net makes any big money off of advertisement they sell .
I would suggest Blizzard to sell LAN party add on for something like $ 9.99 .
And require players to be verified some way .
That way they do n't lose marginal number of people who wish to play multiplayer offline .
( which exactly does n't make sense in Korea - Are you a hermit ?
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Here in Korea, there are at least a dozen internet cafes every corner(seriously).
In this land of 50 million people, there are over 20k internet cafes.
That is like number of christian churches here as well.
(25\% of pop are Christians) People here go to internet cafes for gaming and it is same as LAN parties in the States.
Except you pay $1.5/hr which is not that bad and even kids can afford it out of their pocket.
In the case of Korea, people don't LAN party.
They just party out at the internet cafe.
And internet cafes got T1 connection so internet is no problem.
(duh!) I guess US customers needs much more convincing argument that those listed here on slashdot.
I wonder if battle net makes any big money off of advertisement they sell.
I would suggest Blizzard to sell LAN party add on for something like $9.99.
And require players to be verified some way.
That way they don't lose marginal number of people who wish to play multiplayer offline.
(which exactly doesn't make sense in Korea - Are you a hermit?
)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_0445230.28688989</id>
	<title>Re:When was the last LAN party you went to?</title>
	<author>Opportunist</author>
	<datestamp>1247576820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Just because a company is bought out it doesn't mean that whoever buys it will honor their "old" games and their players. Quite the opposite. Most of the buyouts care for IP, not for released games and (god forbid!) actually supporting them.</p><p>They don't want you to be able to play $good\_game, made by the company they bought out. They want you to go buy $good\_game 2 that they just released, which is essentially the same game with new graphics, but now from the new company. And now they can also make you do that: Simply snip the power supply to the server that enabled you to play $good\_game.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Just because a company is bought out it does n't mean that whoever buys it will honor their " old " games and their players .
Quite the opposite .
Most of the buyouts care for IP , not for released games and ( god forbid !
) actually supporting them.They do n't want you to be able to play $ good \ _game , made by the company they bought out .
They want you to go buy $ good \ _game 2 that they just released , which is essentially the same game with new graphics , but now from the new company .
And now they can also make you do that : Simply snip the power supply to the server that enabled you to play $ good \ _game .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just because a company is bought out it doesn't mean that whoever buys it will honor their "old" games and their players.
Quite the opposite.
Most of the buyouts care for IP, not for released games and (god forbid!
) actually supporting them.They don't want you to be able to play $good\_game, made by the company they bought out.
They want you to go buy $good\_game 2 that they just released, which is essentially the same game with new graphics, but now from the new company.
And now they can also make you do that: Simply snip the power supply to the server that enabled you to play $good\_game.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_0445230.28688735</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_0445230.28689831</id>
	<title>Re:When was the last LAN party you went to?</title>
	<author>hedwards</author>
	<datestamp>1247580960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Steam isn't that much better, they do pretty actively clamp down on the second market and have definitely been known to deactivate entire accounts because somebody bought a couple of games on the second market.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Steam is n't that much better , they do pretty actively clamp down on the second market and have definitely been known to deactivate entire accounts because somebody bought a couple of games on the second market .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Steam isn't that much better, they do pretty actively clamp down on the second market and have definitely been known to deactivate entire accounts because somebody bought a couple of games on the second market.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_0445230.28689069</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_0445230.28693109</id>
	<title>competitive play?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247595000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>One thing to take into account is the level of "professional" (it's in quotations because well.. it's a computer game.) gaming in Korea and other countries, specifically with SC 1.</p><p>By nixing the LAN play, they are essentially mandating that b.net will be the venue for these tournaments/competitions.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>One thing to take into account is the level of " professional " ( it 's in quotations because well.. it 's a computer game .
) gaming in Korea and other countries , specifically with SC 1.By nixing the LAN play , they are essentially mandating that b.net will be the venue for these tournaments/competitions .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One thing to take into account is the level of "professional" (it's in quotations because well.. it's a computer game.
) gaming in Korea and other countries, specifically with SC 1.By nixing the LAN play, they are essentially mandating that b.net will be the venue for these tournaments/competitions.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_0445230.28699941</id>
	<title>Re:When was the last LAN party you went to?</title>
	<author>melikamp</author>
	<datestamp>1247591220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I am for free software and all that, but I am for one OK with commercial titles
being tethered to the mothership. The usual ethical argument l la RMS does not apply,
since games are not commodity software. I think that games benefit the society,
but a fun million dollar game is every bit as effective as a fun 1000 dollar game.

</p><p>And I like some of the big-budget stuff. I want these guys to stay in business.
I like Diablo, for one. Blizz said recently that with the new battle.net they are going
to try to become an arena for competitive gaming. Kudos. Tying the game to
the central server is their only option, and what an option that is, they would be
stupid not to use it. They will get paid. They will have a position on cheaters. They
will give us something homegrown titles do not have: a large, competitive (as in sport)
minded community. Or at least they intend to and should be able to do just that with
some luck. Think SC in Korea, but now it is SC2 and D3, bigger, and in US. I can't stop salivating.
This is how you play in the big leagues, dude. You buckle and obey
the ground rules. Where is the downside? Don't like this attitude? Suck it up and
download Free Arena. Professional game developers do not owe you squat. They
would not be able to pull it off if they could not get paid. It is not like there is a lack
of free as in freedom games that kick ass. There are more of those than ever!

</p><p>In that light, I am very happy that there is even an option of single-player.
Why is it still tethered to the mothership? A better question is: why should they
untie it? Why should they care and put in more code when they have nothing to gain
from it? It's the big leagues. Their playground, their rules. This is the freaking appeal.
I am an old gamer and I like where this is going.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I am for free software and all that , but I am for one OK with commercial titles being tethered to the mothership .
The usual ethical argument l la RMS does not apply , since games are not commodity software .
I think that games benefit the society , but a fun million dollar game is every bit as effective as a fun 1000 dollar game .
And I like some of the big-budget stuff .
I want these guys to stay in business .
I like Diablo , for one .
Blizz said recently that with the new battle.net they are going to try to become an arena for competitive gaming .
Kudos. Tying the game to the central server is their only option , and what an option that is , they would be stupid not to use it .
They will get paid .
They will have a position on cheaters .
They will give us something homegrown titles do not have : a large , competitive ( as in sport ) minded community .
Or at least they intend to and should be able to do just that with some luck .
Think SC in Korea , but now it is SC2 and D3 , bigger , and in US .
I ca n't stop salivating .
This is how you play in the big leagues , dude .
You buckle and obey the ground rules .
Where is the downside ?
Do n't like this attitude ?
Suck it up and download Free Arena .
Professional game developers do not owe you squat .
They would not be able to pull it off if they could not get paid .
It is not like there is a lack of free as in freedom games that kick ass .
There are more of those than ever !
In that light , I am very happy that there is even an option of single-player .
Why is it still tethered to the mothership ?
A better question is : why should they untie it ?
Why should they care and put in more code when they have nothing to gain from it ?
It 's the big leagues .
Their playground , their rules .
This is the freaking appeal .
I am an old gamer and I like where this is going .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I am for free software and all that, but I am for one OK with commercial titles
being tethered to the mothership.
The usual ethical argument l la RMS does not apply,
since games are not commodity software.
I think that games benefit the society,
but a fun million dollar game is every bit as effective as a fun 1000 dollar game.
And I like some of the big-budget stuff.
I want these guys to stay in business.
I like Diablo, for one.
Blizz said recently that with the new battle.net they are going
to try to become an arena for competitive gaming.
Kudos. Tying the game to
the central server is their only option, and what an option that is, they would be
stupid not to use it.
They will get paid.
They will have a position on cheaters.
They
will give us something homegrown titles do not have: a large, competitive (as in sport)
minded community.
Or at least they intend to and should be able to do just that with
some luck.
Think SC in Korea, but now it is SC2 and D3, bigger, and in US.
I can't stop salivating.
This is how you play in the big leagues, dude.
You buckle and obey
the ground rules.
Where is the downside?
Don't like this attitude?
Suck it up and
download Free Arena.
Professional game developers do not owe you squat.
They
would not be able to pull it off if they could not get paid.
It is not like there is a lack
of free as in freedom games that kick ass.
There are more of those than ever!
In that light, I am very happy that there is even an option of single-player.
Why is it still tethered to the mothership?
A better question is: why should they
untie it?
Why should they care and put in more code when they have nothing to gain
from it?
It's the big leagues.
Their playground, their rules.
This is the freaking appeal.
I am an old gamer and I like where this is going.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_0445230.28688883</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_0445230.28689111</id>
	<title>Re:When was the last LAN party you went to?</title>
	<author>fractalus</author>
	<datestamp>1247577840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You are assuming that the current crop of game publishers gives a rat's ass about the PC market. They don't. They see the entire PC market as a den of thieves just waiting to copy their precious IP, and it's a tiny fraction of the size of the console market. Higher risk, vastly smaller return on investment, it's a no-brainer for them in a business sense: skip it. This is why they can justify trying to boil the frog by upping the DRM ante all the time--they don't really care that much if they lose the market.</p><p>The good news is, if the big publishers abandon the PC market, it will leave a demand vacuum and smaller companies will emerge to fill the gap by offering products people want.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You are assuming that the current crop of game publishers gives a rat 's ass about the PC market .
They do n't .
They see the entire PC market as a den of thieves just waiting to copy their precious IP , and it 's a tiny fraction of the size of the console market .
Higher risk , vastly smaller return on investment , it 's a no-brainer for them in a business sense : skip it .
This is why they can justify trying to boil the frog by upping the DRM ante all the time--they do n't really care that much if they lose the market.The good news is , if the big publishers abandon the PC market , it will leave a demand vacuum and smaller companies will emerge to fill the gap by offering products people want .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You are assuming that the current crop of game publishers gives a rat's ass about the PC market.
They don't.
They see the entire PC market as a den of thieves just waiting to copy their precious IP, and it's a tiny fraction of the size of the console market.
Higher risk, vastly smaller return on investment, it's a no-brainer for them in a business sense: skip it.
This is why they can justify trying to boil the frog by upping the DRM ante all the time--they don't really care that much if they lose the market.The good news is, if the big publishers abandon the PC market, it will leave a demand vacuum and smaller companies will emerge to fill the gap by offering products people want.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_0445230.28688883</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_0445230_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_0445230.28694257
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_0445230.28688733
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_0445230.28688681
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_0445230_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_0445230.28701417
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_0445230.28689767
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_0445230_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_0445230.28697193
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_0445230.28689111
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_0445230.28688883
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_0445230.28688733
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_0445230.28688681
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_0445230_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_0445230.28697573
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_0445230.28689111
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_0445230.28688883
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_0445230.28688733
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_0445230.28688681
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_0445230_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_0445230.28689393
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_0445230.28688883
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_0445230.28688733
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_0445230.28688681
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_0445230_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_0445230.28695373
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_0445230.28688823
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_0445230.28688735
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_0445230.28688681
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_0445230_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_0445230.28690265
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_0445230.28688823
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_0445230.28688735
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_0445230.28688681
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_0445230_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_0445230.28693017
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_0445230.28688883
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_0445230.28688733
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_0445230.28688681
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_0445230_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_0445230.28690483
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_0445230.28688823
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_0445230.28688735
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_0445230.28688681
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_0445230_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_0445230.28692193
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_0445230.28690651
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_0445230_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_0445230.28689921
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_0445230.28688883
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_0445230.28688733
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_0445230.28688681
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_0445230_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_0445230.28688853
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_0445230.28688733
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_0445230.28688681
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_0445230_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_0445230.28689445
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_0445230.28688823
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_0445230.28688735
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_0445230.28688681
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_0445230_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_0445230.28690149
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_0445230.28688883
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_0445230.28688733
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_0445230.28688681
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_0445230_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_0445230.28689831
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_0445230.28689069
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_0445230.28688883
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_0445230.28688733
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_0445230.28688681
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_0445230_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_0445230.28699941
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_0445230.28688883
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_0445230.28688733
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_0445230.28688681
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_0445230_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_0445230.28692625
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_0445230.28689907
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_0445230.28688733
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_0445230.28688681
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_0445230_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_0445230.28693467
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_0445230.28690039
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_0445230_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_0445230.28720537
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_0445230.28689907
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_0445230.28688733
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_0445230.28688681
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_0445230_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_0445230.28691383
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_0445230.28688883
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_0445230.28688733
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_0445230.28688681
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_0445230_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_0445230.28688989
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_0445230.28688735
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_0445230.28688681
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_0445230_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_0445230.28692059
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_0445230.28688883
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_0445230.28688733
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_0445230.28688681
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_0445230_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_0445230.28690487
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_0445230.28689005
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_0445230.28688823
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_0445230.28688735
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_0445230.28688681
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_0445230_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_0445230.28688983
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_0445230.28688823
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_0445230.28688735
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_0445230.28688681
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_14_0445230.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_0445230.28689281
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_14_0445230.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_0445230.28690931
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_14_0445230.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_0445230.28691029
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_14_0445230.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_0445230.28689767
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_0445230.28701417
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_14_0445230.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_0445230.28688681
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_0445230.28688733
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_0445230.28688883
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_0445230.28689393
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_0445230.28689069
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_0445230.28689831
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_0445230.28691383
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_0445230.28692059
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_0445230.28699941
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_0445230.28689921
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_0445230.28693017
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_0445230.28690149
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_0445230.28689111
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_0445230.28697573
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_0445230.28697193
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_0445230.28688853
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_0445230.28689907
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_0445230.28692625
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_0445230.28720537
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_0445230.28694257
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_0445230.28688735
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_0445230.28688989
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_0445230.28688823
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_0445230.28688983
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_0445230.28690483
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_0445230.28689445
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_0445230.28690265
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_0445230.28689005
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_0445230.28690487
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_0445230.28695373
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_14_0445230.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_0445230.28689311
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_14_0445230.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_0445230.28690651
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_0445230.28692193
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_14_0445230.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_0445230.28689209
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_14_0445230.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_0445230.28690039
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_0445230.28693467
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_14_0445230.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_0445230.28690329
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_14_0445230.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_0445230.28695081
</commentlist>
</conversation>
