<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_10_21_071251</id>
	<title><em>World of Goo</em> Creators Try Pick-Your-Price Experiment</title>
	<author>Soulskill</author>
	<datestamp>1256153520000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>2D Boy, the independent game studio behind <em>World of Goo</em>, recently celebrated the game's one-year anniversary by offering it at whatever price buyers cared to pay. They've now <a href="http://2dboy.com/2009/10/19/birthday-sale-results/">released some sales statistics</a> about how people responded to the opportunity. The average price during the sale was $2.03; the game normally retails for $20.  <a href="http://www.surveymonkey.com/sr.aspx?sm=MZpIFVRQn99e\_2fJukiNVWR9Rm3Xg1MSQ85QQk09BNH3s\_3d">According to a survey</a> of why people paid what they did, 22.4\% said it was all they could afford at the time, and 12.4\% said they already owned <em>World of Goo</em> and were buying it for a different platform. (Yes, <a href="https://games.slashdot.org/story/09/02/14/053209/World-of-Goo-Ported-To-Linux">there is a Linux version</a>.) Over 57,000 people took advantage of the offer, which was enough for 2D Boy to term it "a huge success." Interestingly, they also saw a significant increase in sales through Steam, and a smaller increase through Wiiware. They've decided to extend the experiment until October 25th.</htmltext>
<tokenext>2D Boy , the independent game studio behind World of Goo , recently celebrated the game 's one-year anniversary by offering it at whatever price buyers cared to pay .
They 've now released some sales statistics about how people responded to the opportunity .
The average price during the sale was $ 2.03 ; the game normally retails for $ 20 .
According to a survey of why people paid what they did , 22.4 \ % said it was all they could afford at the time , and 12.4 \ % said they already owned World of Goo and were buying it for a different platform .
( Yes , there is a Linux version .
) Over 57,000 people took advantage of the offer , which was enough for 2D Boy to term it " a huge success .
" Interestingly , they also saw a significant increase in sales through Steam , and a smaller increase through Wiiware .
They 've decided to extend the experiment until October 25th .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>2D Boy, the independent game studio behind World of Goo, recently celebrated the game's one-year anniversary by offering it at whatever price buyers cared to pay.
They've now released some sales statistics about how people responded to the opportunity.
The average price during the sale was $2.03; the game normally retails for $20.
According to a survey of why people paid what they did, 22.4\% said it was all they could afford at the time, and 12.4\% said they already owned World of Goo and were buying it for a different platform.
(Yes, there is a Linux version.
) Over 57,000 people took advantage of the offer, which was enough for 2D Boy to term it "a huge success.
" Interestingly, they also saw a significant increase in sales through Steam, and a smaller increase through Wiiware.
They've decided to extend the experiment until October 25th.</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_071251.29822595</id>
	<title>Re:Who bought this...</title>
	<author>BoredAtWorkWhatElse</author>
	<datestamp>1256135820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well I already own the game (on Steam) but I just "bought" it again just to support the pricing model.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well I already own the game ( on Steam ) but I just " bought " it again just to support the pricing model .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well I already own the game (on Steam) but I just "bought" it again just to support the pricing model.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_071251.29820661</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_071251.29820701</id>
	<title>Legal pirates made me a annoyed panda</title>
	<author>Bazar</author>
	<datestamp>1256119020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>what bugs me is that 16,852 people paid $0.01 for the game. Which is nothing but legally pirating the game.</p><p>If you were doing it for an OS port of the game thats fine, but otherwise at least throw in a dollar.<br>The bandwidth and credit processing would cost them more then the cent provided.</p><p>At least they got the marketing, and my business, which is some good from the cheapskates<br>Thats my $2.00 cents.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>what bugs me is that 16,852 people paid $ 0.01 for the game .
Which is nothing but legally pirating the game.If you were doing it for an OS port of the game thats fine , but otherwise at least throw in a dollar.The bandwidth and credit processing would cost them more then the cent provided.At least they got the marketing , and my business , which is some good from the cheapskatesThats my $ 2.00 cents .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>what bugs me is that 16,852 people paid $0.01 for the game.
Which is nothing but legally pirating the game.If you were doing it for an OS port of the game thats fine, but otherwise at least throw in a dollar.The bandwidth and credit processing would cost them more then the cent provided.At least they got the marketing, and my business, which is some good from the cheapskatesThats my $2.00 cents.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_071251.29824543</id>
	<title>Re:Pricing Models</title>
	<author>batdog</author>
	<datestamp>1256145360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Similar refinement: I would do a descending clock auction: start at $19, every 6 hours price goes down another $1, maximum number of copies sold in the auction is, say, 100,000. An optional (in my opinion useful) subtlety is to keep progressive sales information private, so the fear of missing the deal is the more palpable to potential buyers.</p><p>I think a similar format would work for a site like woot.com. Maybe it has been tried?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Similar refinement : I would do a descending clock auction : start at $ 19 , every 6 hours price goes down another $ 1 , maximum number of copies sold in the auction is , say , 100,000 .
An optional ( in my opinion useful ) subtlety is to keep progressive sales information private , so the fear of missing the deal is the more palpable to potential buyers.I think a similar format would work for a site like woot.com .
Maybe it has been tried ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Similar refinement: I would do a descending clock auction: start at $19, every 6 hours price goes down another $1, maximum number of copies sold in the auction is, say, 100,000.
An optional (in my opinion useful) subtlety is to keep progressive sales information private, so the fear of missing the deal is the more palpable to potential buyers.I think a similar format would work for a site like woot.com.
Maybe it has been tried?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_071251.29820739</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_071251.29831339</id>
	<title>Re:thanks</title>
	<author>nametaken</author>
	<datestamp>1256139180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I thought the sale ended on the anniversary date.</p><p>Anyway, I paid $5 as well, and I kinda feel bad about it.  They specifically said they chose to not DRM it... and just asked people to be decent.</p><p>I wish more good games were done this way.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I thought the sale ended on the anniversary date.Anyway , I paid $ 5 as well , and I kinda feel bad about it .
They specifically said they chose to not DRM it... and just asked people to be decent.I wish more good games were done this way .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I thought the sale ended on the anniversary date.Anyway, I paid $5 as well, and I kinda feel bad about it.
They specifically said they chose to not DRM it... and just asked people to be decent.I wish more good games were done this way.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_071251.29820369</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_071251.29821381</id>
	<title>Thinking behind my price</title>
	<author>cowbutt</author>
	<datestamp>1256127360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I picked up WoG for US$2. I'd never played it before and had never been bothered enough to even download the demo. Effectively, I was happy to pay US$2 to take a chance on something which I might not like or play at all, or I might love and play relentlessly. I wouldn't have regretted that US$2 if I played it once and never bothered again.</p><p>I should add that I'm not a big gamer; I get all my games used for &pound;1-4 for PSX, original XBox and PC and generally stick to recognised AAA titles. I pay similar prices for movie DVDs. Only CDs and DVD box sets get better prices out of me; anywhere from &pound;8 to &pound;16 usually.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I picked up WoG for US $ 2 .
I 'd never played it before and had never been bothered enough to even download the demo .
Effectively , I was happy to pay US $ 2 to take a chance on something which I might not like or play at all , or I might love and play relentlessly .
I would n't have regretted that US $ 2 if I played it once and never bothered again.I should add that I 'm not a big gamer ; I get all my games used for   1-4 for PSX , original XBox and PC and generally stick to recognised AAA titles .
I pay similar prices for movie DVDs .
Only CDs and DVD box sets get better prices out of me ; anywhere from   8 to   16 usually .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I picked up WoG for US$2.
I'd never played it before and had never been bothered enough to even download the demo.
Effectively, I was happy to pay US$2 to take a chance on something which I might not like or play at all, or I might love and play relentlessly.
I wouldn't have regretted that US$2 if I played it once and never bothered again.I should add that I'm not a big gamer; I get all my games used for £1-4 for PSX, original XBox and PC and generally stick to recognised AAA titles.
I pay similar prices for movie DVDs.
Only CDs and DVD box sets get better prices out of me; anywhere from £8 to £16 usually.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_071251.29825655</id>
	<title>Re:That's very nice, but</title>
	<author>Golddess</author>
	<datestamp>1256149980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Why would I have to purchase the game multiple times to be able to play it on different platforms in the first place?</p></div><p>Because some people prefer not to pay <i>up to</i> 8 times (PC/Mac/Linux/Wii/PS3/360/DS/PSP) as much for a game that they only want to use on a single platform?  I'll grant you that it is unlikely to be quite <i>that</i> high, but that would seem to me to be the upper limit.<br>
<br>
It would be nice to be able to buy, say, a core game and then just pay a little more on top of that for every platform you'd like to play it on, but it's ludicrous to claim "I bought the PC version, why can't I get the game on Mac/Linux/Wii/PS3/360/DS/PSP for free?". There <i>are</i> additional costs to release a game on multiple platforms vs a single platform.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why would I have to purchase the game multiple times to be able to play it on different platforms in the first place ? Because some people prefer not to pay up to 8 times ( PC/Mac/Linux/Wii/PS3/360/DS/PSP ) as much for a game that they only want to use on a single platform ?
I 'll grant you that it is unlikely to be quite that high , but that would seem to me to be the upper limit .
It would be nice to be able to buy , say , a core game and then just pay a little more on top of that for every platform you 'd like to play it on , but it 's ludicrous to claim " I bought the PC version , why ca n't I get the game on Mac/Linux/Wii/PS3/360/DS/PSP for free ? " .
There are additional costs to release a game on multiple platforms vs a single platform .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why would I have to purchase the game multiple times to be able to play it on different platforms in the first place?Because some people prefer not to pay up to 8 times (PC/Mac/Linux/Wii/PS3/360/DS/PSP) as much for a game that they only want to use on a single platform?
I'll grant you that it is unlikely to be quite that high, but that would seem to me to be the upper limit.
It would be nice to be able to buy, say, a core game and then just pay a little more on top of that for every platform you'd like to play it on, but it's ludicrous to claim "I bought the PC version, why can't I get the game on Mac/Linux/Wii/PS3/360/DS/PSP for free?".
There are additional costs to release a game on multiple platforms vs a single platform.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_071251.29820349</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_071251.29831307</id>
	<title>Re:That's very nice, but</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256138880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You're right.  The only sensible solution is to stop making games altogether, since people are just going to pirate your game and not make it worthwhile.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You 're right .
The only sensible solution is to stop making games altogether , since people are just going to pirate your game and not make it worthwhile .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You're right.
The only sensible solution is to stop making games altogether, since people are just going to pirate your game and not make it worthwhile.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_071251.29820923</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_071251.29831419</id>
	<title>Re:What about absolute sales?</title>
	<author>nametaken</author>
	<datestamp>1256140140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What everyone should take away from this...</p><p>Don't ever, ever, ever use PayPal.  Ever.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What everyone should take away from this...Do n't ever , ever , ever use PayPal .
Ever .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What everyone should take away from this...Don't ever, ever, ever use PayPal.
Ever.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_071251.29820813</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_071251.29820393</id>
	<title>My own experience</title>
	<author>Random Walk</author>
	<datestamp>1256158260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>I offer some of my software for 'pick your price'. I <i>recommend</i> a price, but clearly state that <i>any</i> price is ok. Most buyers buy at the recommended price. Very few pay significantly less (pay is through Paypal, which I think imposes a minimum price of $1). And - not quite unexpectedly - almost nobody ever pays more<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-)</htmltext>
<tokenext>I offer some of my software for 'pick your price' .
I recommend a price , but clearly state that any price is ok. Most buyers buy at the recommended price .
Very few pay significantly less ( pay is through Paypal , which I think imposes a minimum price of $ 1 ) .
And - not quite unexpectedly - almost nobody ever pays more : - )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I offer some of my software for 'pick your price'.
I recommend a price, but clearly state that any price is ok. Most buyers buy at the recommended price.
Very few pay significantly less (pay is through Paypal, which I think imposes a minimum price of $1).
And - not quite unexpectedly - almost nobody ever pays more :-)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_071251.29827589</id>
	<title>Re:Who bought this...</title>
	<author>boyter</author>
	<datestamp>1256157900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Me. I paid $10 for it never planning on playing it either. I do hope this model works out.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Me .
I paid $ 10 for it never planning on playing it either .
I do hope this model works out .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Me.
I paid $10 for it never planning on playing it either.
I do hope this model works out.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_071251.29820661</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_071251.29822029</id>
	<title>But I thought pick-your-price didn't work...</title>
	<author>clone53421</author>
	<datestamp>1256132460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Over 57,000 people took advantage of the offer, which was enough for 2D Boy to term it <strong>"a huge success."</strong></p> </div><p>Wut?!</p><p>But everyone knows pick-your-price is infeasible! The music industry proved it! Didn't they?</p><p>More seriously, though, let's do some straight math and see how this turned out.<br>57,000 x $2.03 = $115,710</p><p>Anybody care to guess how much they'd have made off the same 57,000 people if they hadn't held this promotion?</p><p>All in all, they netted over $115 grand in this. Not bad for their one-year anniversary promotion (in fact, I'd almost call it a "huge success" &mdash; oh wait, they already did).</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Over 57,000 people took advantage of the offer , which was enough for 2D Boy to term it " a huge success .
" Wut ?
! But everyone knows pick-your-price is infeasible !
The music industry proved it !
Did n't they ? More seriously , though , let 's do some straight math and see how this turned out.57,000 x $ 2.03 = $ 115,710Anybody care to guess how much they 'd have made off the same 57,000 people if they had n't held this promotion ? All in all , they netted over $ 115 grand in this .
Not bad for their one-year anniversary promotion ( in fact , I 'd almost call it a " huge success "    oh wait , they already did ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Over 57,000 people took advantage of the offer, which was enough for 2D Boy to term it "a huge success.
" Wut?
!But everyone knows pick-your-price is infeasible!
The music industry proved it!
Didn't they?More seriously, though, let's do some straight math and see how this turned out.57,000 x $2.03 = $115,710Anybody care to guess how much they'd have made off the same 57,000 people if they hadn't held this promotion?All in all, they netted over $115 grand in this.
Not bad for their one-year anniversary promotion (in fact, I'd almost call it a "huge success" — oh wait, they already did).
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_071251.29821173</id>
	<title>Arrogant comments...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256125260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>... I notice a lot of people complaining that people paid so little.  But that is irrelevant.</p><p>World of goo is for all intent's and purposes a small indie game.  It is competing against all other older AAA games with many million dollar budgets that have now hit the bargain bin, for the same or similar prices (5$-10$).</p><p>I think people forget that the value of a game is what people are prepared to pay for it against all other games.   Let's not also forget that games are massively overly produced.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>... I notice a lot of people complaining that people paid so little .
But that is irrelevant.World of goo is for all intent 's and purposes a small indie game .
It is competing against all other older AAA games with many million dollar budgets that have now hit the bargain bin , for the same or similar prices ( 5 $ -10 $ ) .I think people forget that the value of a game is what people are prepared to pay for it against all other games .
Let 's not also forget that games are massively overly produced .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... I notice a lot of people complaining that people paid so little.
But that is irrelevant.World of goo is for all intent's and purposes a small indie game.
It is competing against all other older AAA games with many million dollar budgets that have now hit the bargain bin, for the same or similar prices (5$-10$).I think people forget that the value of a game is what people are prepared to pay for it against all other games.
Let's not also forget that games are massively overly produced.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_071251.29822679</id>
	<title>Re:Legal pirates made me a annoyed panda</title>
	<author>TheBlackSwordsman</author>
	<datestamp>1256136300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
I paid one cent for the game (actually, I paid two cents for it, as the site crashed on me during the first transaction and I was forced to do it all over again). I don't feel bad about it, though. Fact is, for me this game wasn't worth buying. I tried the demo and it was pretty enjoyable, but not enjoyable enough that I felt like spending money on it. However, if offered the chance to get the game for free, or in this case almost free, then sure, I'll take it. How exactly am I a pirate? 2D Boy told me to pay what I felt like paying and that's what I did.
</p><p>
Your argument is just as bad as claiming that a pirated copy of a game, song, movie etc. automatically equals a lost sale.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I paid one cent for the game ( actually , I paid two cents for it , as the site crashed on me during the first transaction and I was forced to do it all over again ) .
I do n't feel bad about it , though .
Fact is , for me this game was n't worth buying .
I tried the demo and it was pretty enjoyable , but not enjoyable enough that I felt like spending money on it .
However , if offered the chance to get the game for free , or in this case almost free , then sure , I 'll take it .
How exactly am I a pirate ?
2D Boy told me to pay what I felt like paying and that 's what I did .
Your argument is just as bad as claiming that a pirated copy of a game , song , movie etc .
automatically equals a lost sale .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
I paid one cent for the game (actually, I paid two cents for it, as the site crashed on me during the first transaction and I was forced to do it all over again).
I don't feel bad about it, though.
Fact is, for me this game wasn't worth buying.
I tried the demo and it was pretty enjoyable, but not enjoyable enough that I felt like spending money on it.
However, if offered the chance to get the game for free, or in this case almost free, then sure, I'll take it.
How exactly am I a pirate?
2D Boy told me to pay what I felt like paying and that's what I did.
Your argument is just as bad as claiming that a pirated copy of a game, song, movie etc.
automatically equals a lost sale.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_071251.29820701</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_071251.29824085</id>
	<title>Re:It's a sales tactic, not an experiment</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256143260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What you described was the sale tactic Mount and Blade used, except they start with a beta state and get to full price at release.<br>It's the only game that I have ever bought online, and I don't think it's just because it's good.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What you described was the sale tactic Mount and Blade used , except they start with a beta state and get to full price at release.It 's the only game that I have ever bought online , and I do n't think it 's just because it 's good .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What you described was the sale tactic Mount and Blade used, except they start with a beta state and get to full price at release.It's the only game that I have ever bought online, and I don't think it's just because it's good.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_071251.29820597</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_071251.29820359</id>
	<title>I see it coming</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256157780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They gonna rake in huge profits with all these 0.01$ payments.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They gon na rake in huge profits with all these 0.01 $ payments .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They gonna rake in huge profits with all these 0.01$ payments.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_071251.29822421</id>
	<title>Re:So many others could benefit of similar methods</title>
	<author>T Murphy</author>
	<datestamp>1256134980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I forgot the exact amount but I recently bought Halflife 1 for under a dollar off of Steam during a sale. They do sell their old games at low prices, you just have to catch when they do it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I forgot the exact amount but I recently bought Halflife 1 for under a dollar off of Steam during a sale .
They do sell their old games at low prices , you just have to catch when they do it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I forgot the exact amount but I recently bought Halflife 1 for under a dollar off of Steam during a sale.
They do sell their old games at low prices, you just have to catch when they do it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_071251.29820373</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_071251.29821277</id>
	<title>don't donate just to paypal</title>
	<author>Devistater</author>
	<datestamp>1256126340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Anything less than around 33 or so cents goes to to paypal from fees. So just keep in mind that you are donating to paypal not the indy game developer if you do that. There's a lot of people who donated 1 cent to paypal. On the other hand, if you WANT to cost paypal money, donating 1 cent with visa card probably costs paypal money.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Anything less than around 33 or so cents goes to to paypal from fees .
So just keep in mind that you are donating to paypal not the indy game developer if you do that .
There 's a lot of people who donated 1 cent to paypal .
On the other hand , if you WANT to cost paypal money , donating 1 cent with visa card probably costs paypal money .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Anything less than around 33 or so cents goes to to paypal from fees.
So just keep in mind that you are donating to paypal not the indy game developer if you do that.
There's a lot of people who donated 1 cent to paypal.
On the other hand, if you WANT to cost paypal money, donating 1 cent with visa card probably costs paypal money.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_071251.29820905</id>
	<title>Re:Legal pirates made me a annoyed panda</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256121960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why is that at all surprising?</p><p>I would expect more, to be honest, out of 57,000 and you have to take account of that when you run any such event.  Personally, I'd have said any *dollar* amount, so it would have gone for at least $1 and made the maths a little easier but if it was *possible* to buy at 1c, I quite expect to see a hefty percentage of people pay that.</p><p>The so-called "honesty box" system works on the basis that *enough* people are honest (not that all of them are, or even most of them), whether you've put bunches of flowers in a tub by the side of the road, with a tin for collecting payment, or you're selling a game on the Internet.  (The flowers thing is quite common the rural UK - a few pennies and you can take as many flowers as you like because they are effectively surplus, and very few people run off with the tin full of change, either).</p><p>I've personally purchased two World of Goo's, one for me, one for a friend, and think it's a great game.  On reading this article, I emailled a couple of friends that might be interested.  I don't really care if they pay $10, or $1, or 1c, so long as they get the game - it's not "costing" the authors anything that they aren't already paying, and it is with their blessing, and the publicity etc. they are getting more than makes up for it.</p><p>The fact is that most games are too expensive, and I've often thought "If that was a little cheaper, I'd buy it" but rarely tell the author.  The feedback from knowing what/why people are spending what they do if a phenomenal statistic to have.  And I don't think they did bad out of a game that most people already have and most people already paid full-price for, and for which sales are sloping:</p><p>(57,000 times $2.03) - 13\% (Paypal small-transaction fees) = just over $100,000, before they even make the front page of Slashdot.  IN A WEEK.  I don't think the authors have suffered.  I think a lot of people who couldn't justify the expense now get a great piece of entertainment.  The authors get a shedload of easy money from an "old" game, tons of free advertising and lots of useful feedback, a few pirates make themselves legit, some people get that warm glow of supporting and author, some cheapskate people get a "free" game and Paypal make a shedload of money too.  I think that's pretty much win-win.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why is that at all surprising ? I would expect more , to be honest , out of 57,000 and you have to take account of that when you run any such event .
Personally , I 'd have said any * dollar * amount , so it would have gone for at least $ 1 and made the maths a little easier but if it was * possible * to buy at 1c , I quite expect to see a hefty percentage of people pay that.The so-called " honesty box " system works on the basis that * enough * people are honest ( not that all of them are , or even most of them ) , whether you 've put bunches of flowers in a tub by the side of the road , with a tin for collecting payment , or you 're selling a game on the Internet .
( The flowers thing is quite common the rural UK - a few pennies and you can take as many flowers as you like because they are effectively surplus , and very few people run off with the tin full of change , either ) .I 've personally purchased two World of Goo 's , one for me , one for a friend , and think it 's a great game .
On reading this article , I emailled a couple of friends that might be interested .
I do n't really care if they pay $ 10 , or $ 1 , or 1c , so long as they get the game - it 's not " costing " the authors anything that they are n't already paying , and it is with their blessing , and the publicity etc .
they are getting more than makes up for it.The fact is that most games are too expensive , and I 've often thought " If that was a little cheaper , I 'd buy it " but rarely tell the author .
The feedback from knowing what/why people are spending what they do if a phenomenal statistic to have .
And I do n't think they did bad out of a game that most people already have and most people already paid full-price for , and for which sales are sloping : ( 57,000 times $ 2.03 ) - 13 \ % ( Paypal small-transaction fees ) = just over $ 100,000 , before they even make the front page of Slashdot .
IN A WEEK .
I do n't think the authors have suffered .
I think a lot of people who could n't justify the expense now get a great piece of entertainment .
The authors get a shedload of easy money from an " old " game , tons of free advertising and lots of useful feedback , a few pirates make themselves legit , some people get that warm glow of supporting and author , some cheapskate people get a " free " game and Paypal make a shedload of money too .
I think that 's pretty much win-win .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why is that at all surprising?I would expect more, to be honest, out of 57,000 and you have to take account of that when you run any such event.
Personally, I'd have said any *dollar* amount, so it would have gone for at least $1 and made the maths a little easier but if it was *possible* to buy at 1c, I quite expect to see a hefty percentage of people pay that.The so-called "honesty box" system works on the basis that *enough* people are honest (not that all of them are, or even most of them), whether you've put bunches of flowers in a tub by the side of the road, with a tin for collecting payment, or you're selling a game on the Internet.
(The flowers thing is quite common the rural UK - a few pennies and you can take as many flowers as you like because they are effectively surplus, and very few people run off with the tin full of change, either).I've personally purchased two World of Goo's, one for me, one for a friend, and think it's a great game.
On reading this article, I emailled a couple of friends that might be interested.
I don't really care if they pay $10, or $1, or 1c, so long as they get the game - it's not "costing" the authors anything that they aren't already paying, and it is with their blessing, and the publicity etc.
they are getting more than makes up for it.The fact is that most games are too expensive, and I've often thought "If that was a little cheaper, I'd buy it" but rarely tell the author.
The feedback from knowing what/why people are spending what they do if a phenomenal statistic to have.
And I don't think they did bad out of a game that most people already have and most people already paid full-price for, and for which sales are sloping:(57,000 times $2.03) - 13\% (Paypal small-transaction fees) = just over $100,000, before they even make the front page of Slashdot.
IN A WEEK.
I don't think the authors have suffered.
I think a lot of people who couldn't justify the expense now get a great piece of entertainment.
The authors get a shedload of easy money from an "old" game, tons of free advertising and lots of useful feedback, a few pirates make themselves legit, some people get that warm glow of supporting and author, some cheapskate people get a "free" game and Paypal make a shedload of money too.
I think that's pretty much win-win.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_071251.29820701</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_071251.29822557</id>
	<title>Re:That's very nice, but</title>
	<author>Svartalf</author>
	<datestamp>1256135640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Every developer out there seems to think DRM will "get them more sales" at least at some point in time.  Some then realize this fact: The people pirating aren't "lost sales"- they're people who either can't/won't buy your product for varying reasons.</p><p>You want to win the "can't" crowd back if possible- you're never going to convince the "won't" crowd ever.  The former is a possible customer, the latter is not and will not be.</p><p>DRM might slow the infringers down (it's been proven that pretty much every DRM solution to date has been circumvented within weeks of the release of the title...and that initial crush in the case of many titles won't be where you make your money if you're download only/mostly...) but it will pretty much never stop them.  Ask Microsoft how nifty their DRM has been on the 360.  DRM won't turn the "can't" crowd to be your customer- it won't put money in their pockets to buy.  DRM won't turn the "won't" crowd into your customers- if they want your game badly enough, they will take it whether you have DRM on the title or not.  If it's such that they won't bother, you've failed at making a fun game.</p><p>DRM is a folly wherever it gets used.  It's use is based off of a flawed premise out of the gate.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Every developer out there seems to think DRM will " get them more sales " at least at some point in time .
Some then realize this fact : The people pirating are n't " lost sales " - they 're people who either ca n't/wo n't buy your product for varying reasons.You want to win the " ca n't " crowd back if possible- you 're never going to convince the " wo n't " crowd ever .
The former is a possible customer , the latter is not and will not be.DRM might slow the infringers down ( it 's been proven that pretty much every DRM solution to date has been circumvented within weeks of the release of the title...and that initial crush in the case of many titles wo n't be where you make your money if you 're download only/mostly... ) but it will pretty much never stop them .
Ask Microsoft how nifty their DRM has been on the 360 .
DRM wo n't turn the " ca n't " crowd to be your customer- it wo n't put money in their pockets to buy .
DRM wo n't turn the " wo n't " crowd into your customers- if they want your game badly enough , they will take it whether you have DRM on the title or not .
If it 's such that they wo n't bother , you 've failed at making a fun game.DRM is a folly wherever it gets used .
It 's use is based off of a flawed premise out of the gate .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Every developer out there seems to think DRM will "get them more sales" at least at some point in time.
Some then realize this fact: The people pirating aren't "lost sales"- they're people who either can't/won't buy your product for varying reasons.You want to win the "can't" crowd back if possible- you're never going to convince the "won't" crowd ever.
The former is a possible customer, the latter is not and will not be.DRM might slow the infringers down (it's been proven that pretty much every DRM solution to date has been circumvented within weeks of the release of the title...and that initial crush in the case of many titles won't be where you make your money if you're download only/mostly...) but it will pretty much never stop them.
Ask Microsoft how nifty their DRM has been on the 360.
DRM won't turn the "can't" crowd to be your customer- it won't put money in their pockets to buy.
DRM won't turn the "won't" crowd into your customers- if they want your game badly enough, they will take it whether you have DRM on the title or not.
If it's such that they won't bother, you've failed at making a fun game.DRM is a folly wherever it gets used.
It's use is based off of a flawed premise out of the gate.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_071251.29820349</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_071251.29835049</id>
	<title>Never Wanted this Game...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256225880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...but I bought it for 25 cents.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...but I bought it for 25 cents .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...but I bought it for 25 cents.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_071251.29820349</id>
	<title>That's very nice, but</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256157660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is a pretty cool experiment. But...</p><p>Why would I have to purchase the game multiple times to be able to play it on different platforms in the first place?</p><p>Also, I spoke with one of the World of Goo developers a few months back and he said they were working on a new game (not a sequel). Due to disappointing sales of World of Goo, it was pretty much certain this new game would get some form of DRM. He didn't know what kind of DRM but he wasn't happy about it. I hope this "huge success" means the DRM is off the table now, but for now, it means I won't be buying the new game.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is a pretty cool experiment .
But...Why would I have to purchase the game multiple times to be able to play it on different platforms in the first place ? Also , I spoke with one of the World of Goo developers a few months back and he said they were working on a new game ( not a sequel ) .
Due to disappointing sales of World of Goo , it was pretty much certain this new game would get some form of DRM .
He did n't know what kind of DRM but he was n't happy about it .
I hope this " huge success " means the DRM is off the table now , but for now , it means I wo n't be buying the new game .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is a pretty cool experiment.
But...Why would I have to purchase the game multiple times to be able to play it on different platforms in the first place?Also, I spoke with one of the World of Goo developers a few months back and he said they were working on a new game (not a sequel).
Due to disappointing sales of World of Goo, it was pretty much certain this new game would get some form of DRM.
He didn't know what kind of DRM but he wasn't happy about it.
I hope this "huge success" means the DRM is off the table now, but for now, it means I won't be buying the new game.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_071251.29820499</id>
	<title>Ubuntu Software Store...</title>
	<author>xtracto</author>
	<datestamp>1256116440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is a game that should *definitely*  be available in Ubuntu Software Store for next release.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is a game that should * definitely * be available in Ubuntu Software Store for next release .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is a game that should *definitely*  be available in Ubuntu Software Store for next release.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_071251.29837975</id>
	<title>Re:What about absolute sales?</title>
	<author>clone53421</author>
	<datestamp>1256238120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No, no, no...</p><p>The real way to look at this is very simple.</p><p>How many of these 56,000 people were potential customers at $20 per copy? If over ~5000 of them were (about 1 in 11), they lost money in the promotion, but the vast majority would probably <em>not</em> have bought the game (ever) for $20. Thus they have opened a market which was, formerly, almost entirely untapped. Finding untapped markets <em>never</em> hurts.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No , no , no...The real way to look at this is very simple.How many of these 56,000 people were potential customers at $ 20 per copy ?
If over ~ 5000 of them were ( about 1 in 11 ) , they lost money in the promotion , but the vast majority would probably not have bought the game ( ever ) for $ 20 .
Thus they have opened a market which was , formerly , almost entirely untapped .
Finding untapped markets never hurts .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No, no, no...The real way to look at this is very simple.How many of these 56,000 people were potential customers at $20 per copy?
If over ~5000 of them were (about 1 in 11), they lost money in the promotion, but the vast majority would probably not have bought the game (ever) for $20.
Thus they have opened a market which was, formerly, almost entirely untapped.
Finding untapped markets never hurts.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_071251.29820813</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_071251.29820597</id>
	<title>It's a sales tactic, not an experiment</title>
	<author>goldcd</author>
	<datestamp>1256117700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Commercially published game sales tend to spike when they're released - and then tail off afterwards. For Indie games I assume the 'spike' is a bit further down the line as people have to find it first - but sales will trail off once everybody is aware of it and has decided whether or not to buy it.<br>
"Back in the day" the game ended up as a budget release (if it were lucky), maybe first at &pound;10, then &pound;5  - and you know only a teensy proportion of that shelf price ever made it back to the developer.<br>
The "name your own price" strategy seems designed to mop up anybody who had an interest in the game, yet never got around to buying it for whatever reason.<br> Basically if somebody doesn't buy it - they were NEVER going to buy it under any circumstance at all. <br>
So - nice idea for games in the 'tail' of their lives.<br>
<br>
What I'd like to see a publisher try (just to satisfy my idle curiosity<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:) is to raise the price of games from release up to a point.<br>
i.e. We are going to sell this game for $25. We are launching it at $10 and every day for the next 2 weeks, we're adding a dollar to the price - seems an ideal way to get your headlines, and convert those waverers (the vast majority who will never buy) into purchasers.<br>
<br>
I guess in summary, the general rule is that when you get somebody looking at the purchase page, there should always be a reason for them to buy now, rather than next week.<br>
I for one have been hearing about WOG for aages - have I got around to even playing it - no - I had something 'else' to do. I now see the name your own price is about to finish so in my head I can heat "It's now or never time for me to buy it." *wanders off to purchase*</htmltext>
<tokenext>Commercially published game sales tend to spike when they 're released - and then tail off afterwards .
For Indie games I assume the 'spike ' is a bit further down the line as people have to find it first - but sales will trail off once everybody is aware of it and has decided whether or not to buy it .
" Back in the day " the game ended up as a budget release ( if it were lucky ) , maybe first at   10 , then   5 - and you know only a teensy proportion of that shelf price ever made it back to the developer .
The " name your own price " strategy seems designed to mop up anybody who had an interest in the game , yet never got around to buying it for whatever reason .
Basically if somebody does n't buy it - they were NEVER going to buy it under any circumstance at all .
So - nice idea for games in the 'tail ' of their lives .
What I 'd like to see a publisher try ( just to satisfy my idle curiosity : ) is to raise the price of games from release up to a point .
i.e. We are going to sell this game for $ 25 .
We are launching it at $ 10 and every day for the next 2 weeks , we 're adding a dollar to the price - seems an ideal way to get your headlines , and convert those waverers ( the vast majority who will never buy ) into purchasers .
I guess in summary , the general rule is that when you get somebody looking at the purchase page , there should always be a reason for them to buy now , rather than next week .
I for one have been hearing about WOG for aages - have I got around to even playing it - no - I had something 'else ' to do .
I now see the name your own price is about to finish so in my head I can heat " It 's now or never time for me to buy it .
" * wanders off to purchase *</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Commercially published game sales tend to spike when they're released - and then tail off afterwards.
For Indie games I assume the 'spike' is a bit further down the line as people have to find it first - but sales will trail off once everybody is aware of it and has decided whether or not to buy it.
"Back in the day" the game ended up as a budget release (if it were lucky), maybe first at £10, then £5  - and you know only a teensy proportion of that shelf price ever made it back to the developer.
The "name your own price" strategy seems designed to mop up anybody who had an interest in the game, yet never got around to buying it for whatever reason.
Basically if somebody doesn't buy it - they were NEVER going to buy it under any circumstance at all.
So - nice idea for games in the 'tail' of their lives.
What I'd like to see a publisher try (just to satisfy my idle curiosity :) is to raise the price of games from release up to a point.
i.e. We are going to sell this game for $25.
We are launching it at $10 and every day for the next 2 weeks, we're adding a dollar to the price - seems an ideal way to get your headlines, and convert those waverers (the vast majority who will never buy) into purchasers.
I guess in summary, the general rule is that when you get somebody looking at the purchase page, there should always be a reason for them to buy now, rather than next week.
I for one have been hearing about WOG for aages - have I got around to even playing it - no - I had something 'else' to do.
I now see the name your own price is about to finish so in my head I can heat "It's now or never time for me to buy it.
" *wanders off to purchase*</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_071251.29820375</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_071251.29821169</id>
	<title>Re:What about absolute sales?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256125200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's probably an indication that games are seriously overpriced. After all, this is exactly how economic theory predicts this would happen. It just seems that valve did not take 200-year-old economic theory into account, it seems it exclusively took some faraway overpaid manager's word into account.</p><p>But I doubt that this pricing model would hold once a significant amount of games were for sale for 10$.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's probably an indication that games are seriously overpriced .
After all , this is exactly how economic theory predicts this would happen .
It just seems that valve did not take 200-year-old economic theory into account , it seems it exclusively took some faraway overpaid manager 's word into account.But I doubt that this pricing model would hold once a significant amount of games were for sale for 10 $ .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's probably an indication that games are seriously overpriced.
After all, this is exactly how economic theory predicts this would happen.
It just seems that valve did not take 200-year-old economic theory into account, it seems it exclusively took some faraway overpaid manager's word into account.But I doubt that this pricing model would hold once a significant amount of games were for sale for 10$.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_071251.29820375</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_071251.29823791</id>
	<title>Re:That's very nice, but</title>
	<author>iamhassi</author>
	<datestamp>1256141820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>"it was pretty much certain this new game would get some form of DRM."</i>
<br> <br>
Doesn't matter, people will find a way around it, but I'm glad they're offering a way to pay for it because I, like many others, found other means of obtaining the game.  Many times I've downloaded something and though "hey, this is pretty nice, but not worth the $$$$ they're charging but I wish I could give them <i>something</i> to show my appreciation."  So I just donated, not $20 but not $2 either, can't believe most people think they only got $2 worth of enjoyment out of it.
<br> <br>
I think all companies should do this with all forms of media like movies, tv shows, music, and software.  Just a "hey if you like our software please leave a tip" kind of thing.  Even if you think your DRM is fool-proof and no one could possibly ever steal it.... put the donation up anyway, and allow them to fill out a survey because that provides valuable feedback.</htmltext>
<tokenext>" it was pretty much certain this new game would get some form of DRM .
" Does n't matter , people will find a way around it , but I 'm glad they 're offering a way to pay for it because I , like many others , found other means of obtaining the game .
Many times I 've downloaded something and though " hey , this is pretty nice , but not worth the $ $ $ $ they 're charging but I wish I could give them something to show my appreciation .
" So I just donated , not $ 20 but not $ 2 either , ca n't believe most people think they only got $ 2 worth of enjoyment out of it .
I think all companies should do this with all forms of media like movies , tv shows , music , and software .
Just a " hey if you like our software please leave a tip " kind of thing .
Even if you think your DRM is fool-proof and no one could possibly ever steal it.... put the donation up anyway , and allow them to fill out a survey because that provides valuable feedback .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"it was pretty much certain this new game would get some form of DRM.
"
 
Doesn't matter, people will find a way around it, but I'm glad they're offering a way to pay for it because I, like many others, found other means of obtaining the game.
Many times I've downloaded something and though "hey, this is pretty nice, but not worth the $$$$ they're charging but I wish I could give them something to show my appreciation.
"  So I just donated, not $20 but not $2 either, can't believe most people think they only got $2 worth of enjoyment out of it.
I think all companies should do this with all forms of media like movies, tv shows, music, and software.
Just a "hey if you like our software please leave a tip" kind of thing.
Even if you think your DRM is fool-proof and no one could possibly ever steal it.... put the donation up anyway, and allow them to fill out a survey because that provides valuable feedback.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_071251.29820349</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_071251.29820699</id>
	<title>Re:So many others could benefit of similar methods</title>
	<author>djMouton</author>
	<datestamp>1256118960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Indie rockers Speechwriters LLC did something similar with one of their albums, in their case <a href="http://www.fexum.com/swllc/official/gasmoney/" title="fexum.com" rel="nofollow">giving it away for free</a> [fexum.com] once its associated tour had been paid for and the next album released.</p><p>Of course, they're still fairly unknown, so that's not the best example. But I'm sure the number of gained listeners outweighed the number of lost sales, which is clearly what you want if you're considering this kind of price tinkering.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Indie rockers Speechwriters LLC did something similar with one of their albums , in their case giving it away for free [ fexum.com ] once its associated tour had been paid for and the next album released.Of course , they 're still fairly unknown , so that 's not the best example .
But I 'm sure the number of gained listeners outweighed the number of lost sales , which is clearly what you want if you 're considering this kind of price tinkering .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Indie rockers Speechwriters LLC did something similar with one of their albums, in their case giving it away for free [fexum.com] once its associated tour had been paid for and the next album released.Of course, they're still fairly unknown, so that's not the best example.
But I'm sure the number of gained listeners outweighed the number of lost sales, which is clearly what you want if you're considering this kind of price tinkering.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_071251.29820373</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_071251.29820629</id>
	<title>Cool, I missed the deadline</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256118060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I own Windows version, which I bought in gaming store in Europe for about $5! Now, it would be stupid if I paid more if I wanted to buy, so average price might be influenced by that.</p><p>But I am happy they extended deadline, I missed it and I am going to get Linux version too<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I own Windows version , which I bought in gaming store in Europe for about $ 5 !
Now , it would be stupid if I paid more if I wanted to buy , so average price might be influenced by that.But I am happy they extended deadline , I missed it and I am going to get Linux version too : ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I own Windows version, which I bought in gaming store in Europe for about $5!
Now, it would be stupid if I paid more if I wanted to buy, so average price might be influenced by that.But I am happy they extended deadline, I missed it and I am going to get Linux version too :).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_071251.29824003</id>
	<title>It's this simple</title>
	<author>dmorelli</author>
	<datestamp>1256142960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The game is well-made. It's fun and interesting to me. I have not found any bugginess so far. They produce a native Linux version. They don't harrass us with DRM.</p><p>I paid them US$20. That was my pick-a-price. Because, you know what?, the developers felt it was worth that much originally and I agree.</p><p>This isn't some contest where I have to make sure I win over the other tens of thousands of customers.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The game is well-made .
It 's fun and interesting to me .
I have not found any bugginess so far .
They produce a native Linux version .
They do n't harrass us with DRM.I paid them US $ 20 .
That was my pick-a-price .
Because , you know what ? , the developers felt it was worth that much originally and I agree.This is n't some contest where I have to make sure I win over the other tens of thousands of customers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The game is well-made.
It's fun and interesting to me.
I have not found any bugginess so far.
They produce a native Linux version.
They don't harrass us with DRM.I paid them US$20.
That was my pick-a-price.
Because, you know what?, the developers felt it was worth that much originally and I agree.This isn't some contest where I have to make sure I win over the other tens of thousands of customers.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_071251.29821099</id>
	<title>What about adding an extra category, donationware</title>
	<author>Provocateur</author>
	<datestamp>1256124300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Add another price category where you'd want half to go the indie developer's preferred charity? Now THAT would <i>really</i> make things quite interesting imo, in a social experiment kind of way.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Add another price category where you 'd want half to go the indie developer 's preferred charity ?
Now THAT would really make things quite interesting imo , in a social experiment kind of way .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Add another price category where you'd want half to go the indie developer's preferred charity?
Now THAT would really make things quite interesting imo, in a social experiment kind of way.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_071251.29822073</id>
	<title>Bill me later</title>
	<author>Jainith</author>
	<datestamp>1256132820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How about a bill me later option?</p><p>Sure WOG was hyped, but so are many terrible games. I've recently gotten to the point where I won't buy any game without trying it either in the form of a demo (yay xbox live), or through GameFly.</p><p>I know now that that I have played it that WOG is certainly worth more than $2 to me. I would consider it to be in the $15-$30 range in terms of fun and satisfaction.</p><p>So here's my thought, let me play the game for a couple days, if it totally sucks you'll only get a token sum. If it <b>roxorz</b> then you get the <i>lucre</i>...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How about a bill me later option ? Sure WOG was hyped , but so are many terrible games .
I 've recently gotten to the point where I wo n't buy any game without trying it either in the form of a demo ( yay xbox live ) , or through GameFly.I know now that that I have played it that WOG is certainly worth more than $ 2 to me .
I would consider it to be in the $ 15- $ 30 range in terms of fun and satisfaction.So here 's my thought , let me play the game for a couple days , if it totally sucks you 'll only get a token sum .
If it roxorz then you get the lucre.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How about a bill me later option?Sure WOG was hyped, but so are many terrible games.
I've recently gotten to the point where I won't buy any game without trying it either in the form of a demo (yay xbox live), or through GameFly.I know now that that I have played it that WOG is certainly worth more than $2 to me.
I would consider it to be in the $15-$30 range in terms of fun and satisfaction.So here's my thought, let me play the game for a couple days, if it totally sucks you'll only get a token sum.
If it roxorz then you get the lucre...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_071251.29825201</id>
	<title>Re:That's very nice, but</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256148300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The online play indicated 90\% of copies were pirated, not 10\%; 440,000 sold first week, and 9x that downloaded without paying.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The online play indicated 90 \ % of copies were pirated , not 10 \ % ; 440,000 sold first week , and 9x that downloaded without paying .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The online play indicated 90\% of copies were pirated, not 10\%; 440,000 sold first week, and 9x that downloaded without paying.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_071251.29822737</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_071251.29832059</id>
	<title>Re:That's very nice, but</title>
	<author>darthvader100</author>
	<datestamp>1256148720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>ANd i read that the average time between a song being posted on iTunes, and it appearing on peer-to-peer is 180 seconds.<br> <br>
That is average, so uncle fib's country hits take 5 minutes, Neyo's latest single takes, what? 5 seconds? 1 minute?</htmltext>
<tokenext>ANd i read that the average time between a song being posted on iTunes , and it appearing on peer-to-peer is 180 seconds .
That is average , so uncle fib 's country hits take 5 minutes , Neyo 's latest single takes , what ?
5 seconds ?
1 minute ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>ANd i read that the average time between a song being posted on iTunes, and it appearing on peer-to-peer is 180 seconds.
That is average, so uncle fib's country hits take 5 minutes, Neyo's latest single takes, what?
5 seconds?
1 minute?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_071251.29820923</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_071251.29823211</id>
	<title>Re:Legal pirates made me a annoyed panda</title>
	<author>Backward Z</author>
	<datestamp>1256138820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>(accidentally posted anonymously)</p><p><div class="quote"><p>and I&rsquo;ve often thought...but rarely tell the author.</p></div><p>As if you could.</p><p>I mean, there are notable exceptions, but for a lot of games, getting somebody's email address will generally involve more than creative Google-ing.</p><p>Like I played that Plants Vs. Zombies game and I wanted to email the lead dev. and say, "Hey man, your bonus rewards are far too time-expensive. Your game is good, but not 100 hours after I finished it already good."</p><p>And I couldn't find anything resembling a contact that would go anywhere near where I wanted it to.</p><p>But re:re: the parent, while a penny might not cover the actual cost of the transaction or whatever, one has to remember that we live in "The Information Age," where we spout such platitudes as "Information is Power" and somesuch. That 16,852 people paid $0.01 for the game answers the question of, "How many people would only pay $0.01 for the game if we gave them the option?"</p><p>And that, friend, is Power.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>( accidentally posted anonymously ) and I    ve often thought...but rarely tell the author.As if you could.I mean , there are notable exceptions , but for a lot of games , getting somebody 's email address will generally involve more than creative Google-ing.Like I played that Plants Vs. Zombies game and I wanted to email the lead dev .
and say , " Hey man , your bonus rewards are far too time-expensive .
Your game is good , but not 100 hours after I finished it already good .
" And I could n't find anything resembling a contact that would go anywhere near where I wanted it to.But re : re : the parent , while a penny might not cover the actual cost of the transaction or whatever , one has to remember that we live in " The Information Age , " where we spout such platitudes as " Information is Power " and somesuch .
That 16,852 people paid $ 0.01 for the game answers the question of , " How many people would only pay $ 0.01 for the game if we gave them the option ?
" And that , friend , is Power .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>(accidentally posted anonymously)and I’ve often thought...but rarely tell the author.As if you could.I mean, there are notable exceptions, but for a lot of games, getting somebody's email address will generally involve more than creative Google-ing.Like I played that Plants Vs. Zombies game and I wanted to email the lead dev.
and say, "Hey man, your bonus rewards are far too time-expensive.
Your game is good, but not 100 hours after I finished it already good.
"And I couldn't find anything resembling a contact that would go anywhere near where I wanted it to.But re:re: the parent, while a penny might not cover the actual cost of the transaction or whatever, one has to remember that we live in "The Information Age," where we spout such platitudes as "Information is Power" and somesuch.
That 16,852 people paid $0.01 for the game answers the question of, "How many people would only pay $0.01 for the game if we gave them the option?
"And that, friend, is Power.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_071251.29820905</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_071251.29820661</id>
	<title>Who bought this...</title>
	<author>musicalwoods</author>
	<datestamp>1256118360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Who bought this not knowing anything about the game, solely supporting this pricing model?<br> <br>*slowly raises hand*</htmltext>
<tokenext>Who bought this not knowing anything about the game , solely supporting this pricing model ?
* slowly raises hand *</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Who bought this not knowing anything about the game, solely supporting this pricing model?
*slowly raises hand*</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_071251.29820595</id>
	<title>Re:That's very nice, but</title>
	<author>nmg196</author>
	<datestamp>1256117640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt; Why would I have to purchase the game multiple times to be able to play it on different platforms in the first place?</p><p>For all the obvious reasons... Why would Nintendo sell you the Xbox version? Why (and how!) would the Apple App Store send you the PC version?  How would Steam send you the iPhone version? It's pretty obvious really and i'm not sure quite why you asked...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; Why would I have to purchase the game multiple times to be able to play it on different platforms in the first place ? For all the obvious reasons... Why would Nintendo sell you the Xbox version ?
Why ( and how !
) would the Apple App Store send you the PC version ?
How would Steam send you the iPhone version ?
It 's pretty obvious really and i 'm not sure quite why you asked.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; Why would I have to purchase the game multiple times to be able to play it on different platforms in the first place?For all the obvious reasons... Why would Nintendo sell you the Xbox version?
Why (and how!
) would the Apple App Store send you the PC version?
How would Steam send you the iPhone version?
It's pretty obvious really and i'm not sure quite why you asked...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_071251.29820349</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_071251.29822259</id>
	<title>Re:Thinking behind my price</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256134020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Same here, but I paid $5, because <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AHo2pXO\_XAI" title="youtube.com" rel="nofollow">I am considerably richer than you</a> [youtube.com].</htmltext>
<tokenext>Same here , but I paid $ 5 , because I am considerably richer than you [ youtube.com ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Same here, but I paid $5, because I am considerably richer than you [youtube.com].</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_071251.29821381</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_071251.29822521</id>
	<title>Re:That's very nice, but</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256135520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>...or do I just let the "pay what you want" period go by and give them the money they deserve?</i> <br>
<br>
It sounds like you're ENTIRELY missing the point of "pay what you want". "Pay what you want" is EXACTLY the same as giving them "the money they deserve". You DECIDE how much that actually is. But since it seems like you are incapable of even figuring that out, you'll probably wait until the promotion is over and give them the amount they were originally asking for (well, your parents will buy it for you), which isn't necessary "what they deserve". (Their <i>asking</i> price is less than what they deserve, IMHO.)</htmltext>
<tokenext>...or do I just let the " pay what you want " period go by and give them the money they deserve ?
It sounds like you 're ENTIRELY missing the point of " pay what you want " .
" Pay what you want " is EXACTLY the same as giving them " the money they deserve " .
You DECIDE how much that actually is .
But since it seems like you are incapable of even figuring that out , you 'll probably wait until the promotion is over and give them the amount they were originally asking for ( well , your parents will buy it for you ) , which is n't necessary " what they deserve " .
( Their asking price is less than what they deserve , IMHO .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...or do I just let the "pay what you want" period go by and give them the money they deserve?
It sounds like you're ENTIRELY missing the point of "pay what you want".
"Pay what you want" is EXACTLY the same as giving them "the money they deserve".
You DECIDE how much that actually is.
But since it seems like you are incapable of even figuring that out, you'll probably wait until the promotion is over and give them the amount they were originally asking for (well, your parents will buy it for you), which isn't necessary "what they deserve".
(Their asking price is less than what they deserve, IMHO.
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_071251.29820401</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_071251.29822549</id>
	<title>I paid $0.00</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256135640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I intended to pay $5 because that's how much I could afford and how much the game was worth for me. Unfortunately the site was down, timing out and giving me server errors. So I got World of Goo from Rapidshare, but it didn't provide options of payment to the authors. Pity.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I intended to pay $ 5 because that 's how much I could afford and how much the game was worth for me .
Unfortunately the site was down , timing out and giving me server errors .
So I got World of Goo from Rapidshare , but it did n't provide options of payment to the authors .
Pity .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I intended to pay $5 because that's how much I could afford and how much the game was worth for me.
Unfortunately the site was down, timing out and giving me server errors.
So I got World of Goo from Rapidshare, but it didn't provide options of payment to the authors.
Pity.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_071251.29820375</id>
	<title>What about absolute sales?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256158020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How does the absolute intake compare to what it was before the experiment though?</p><p>I'm reminded of a sale Valve had for L4D a few months after it was released; Jeff Atwood <a href="http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/archives/001293.html" title="codinghorror.com" rel="nofollow">relayed the results</a> [codinghorror.com]. In short, Valve cut the price of L4D in half, and the result brought in more money (not just more sales!) than the launch day.</p><p>So how did World of Goo's experiment do in absolute numbers? Did the revenue increase or decrease from before the experiment? Certainly sales increased, but that's a far cry from revenue increasing.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How does the absolute intake compare to what it was before the experiment though ? I 'm reminded of a sale Valve had for L4D a few months after it was released ; Jeff Atwood relayed the results [ codinghorror.com ] .
In short , Valve cut the price of L4D in half , and the result brought in more money ( not just more sales !
) than the launch day.So how did World of Goo 's experiment do in absolute numbers ?
Did the revenue increase or decrease from before the experiment ?
Certainly sales increased , but that 's a far cry from revenue increasing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How does the absolute intake compare to what it was before the experiment though?I'm reminded of a sale Valve had for L4D a few months after it was released; Jeff Atwood relayed the results [codinghorror.com].
In short, Valve cut the price of L4D in half, and the result brought in more money (not just more sales!
) than the launch day.So how did World of Goo's experiment do in absolute numbers?
Did the revenue increase or decrease from before the experiment?
Certainly sales increased, but that's a far cry from revenue increasing.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_071251.29820963</id>
	<title>Re:Legal pirates made me a annoyed panda</title>
	<author>TheRaven64</author>
	<datestamp>1256122440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Why does this annoy you?  Did you lose money from it?  Did the authors of the game?  I'm not really sure how you accept payments for $0.01 without losing money, but if they had a good micropayment system in place and were paying something close to a flat rate for bandwidth, then that works out at $168.52 from these people.  Maybe $100 after they've covered the costs.  Assuming that these people would otherwise have either pirated or not got the game at all, then that's $100 that they would not have otherwise received.  And each of these people, having bought the game, might be willing to pay $0.50 for the next game.  Not much per sale, but still over $8k, which is a nice addition to the bottom line.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why does this annoy you ?
Did you lose money from it ?
Did the authors of the game ?
I 'm not really sure how you accept payments for $ 0.01 without losing money , but if they had a good micropayment system in place and were paying something close to a flat rate for bandwidth , then that works out at $ 168.52 from these people .
Maybe $ 100 after they 've covered the costs .
Assuming that these people would otherwise have either pirated or not got the game at all , then that 's $ 100 that they would not have otherwise received .
And each of these people , having bought the game , might be willing to pay $ 0.50 for the next game .
Not much per sale , but still over $ 8k , which is a nice addition to the bottom line .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why does this annoy you?
Did you lose money from it?
Did the authors of the game?
I'm not really sure how you accept payments for $0.01 without losing money, but if they had a good micropayment system in place and were paying something close to a flat rate for bandwidth, then that works out at $168.52 from these people.
Maybe $100 after they've covered the costs.
Assuming that these people would otherwise have either pirated or not got the game at all, then that's $100 that they would not have otherwise received.
And each of these people, having bought the game, might be willing to pay $0.50 for the next game.
Not much per sale, but still over $8k, which is a nice addition to the bottom line.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_071251.29820701</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_071251.29822767</id>
	<title>Re:So many others could benefit of similar methods</title>
	<author>Jaysyn</author>
	<datestamp>1256136720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>GOG.com?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>GOG.com ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>GOG.com?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_071251.29820373</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_071251.29826087</id>
	<title>Re:thanks</title>
	<author>Raptor851</author>
	<datestamp>1256151600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm glad it's extended too, this hit the gentoo forums about a week ago and i forgot about it.

$20 to me was asking too much for it, heck, for $20 i can pick up 2-3 playstation store games. $5-$10 is a more acceptable price, and by allowing the price to drop, they just made one more sale they otherwise wouldn't have had.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm glad it 's extended too , this hit the gentoo forums about a week ago and i forgot about it .
$ 20 to me was asking too much for it , heck , for $ 20 i can pick up 2-3 playstation store games .
$ 5- $ 10 is a more acceptable price , and by allowing the price to drop , they just made one more sale they otherwise would n't have had .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm glad it's extended too, this hit the gentoo forums about a week ago and i forgot about it.
$20 to me was asking too much for it, heck, for $20 i can pick up 2-3 playstation store games.
$5-$10 is a more acceptable price, and by allowing the price to drop, they just made one more sale they otherwise wouldn't have had.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_071251.29820369</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_071251.29826353</id>
	<title>Re:Who bought this...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256152620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>me me me</htmltext>
<tokenext>me me me</tokentext>
<sentencetext>me me me</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_071251.29820661</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_071251.29829629</id>
	<title>Re:That's very nice, but</title>
	<author>mhajicek</author>
	<datestamp>1256124240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Perhaps they'll keep track of which version(s) you DL.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Perhaps they 'll keep track of which version ( s ) you DL .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Perhaps they'll keep track of which version(s) you DL.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_071251.29820401</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_071251.29820647</id>
	<title>same experiment</title>
	<author>Tom</author>
	<datestamp>1256118300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I did the same experiment with some <a href="http://web.lemuria.org/projects/wiki/TerrainTools" title="lemuria.org">Unity3D tools/scripts</a> [lemuria.org] of my own, offering them at four different prices with a suggestion as to what I think they equate to, but a very obvious statement that no matter which price you pay, the download will be the same.</p><p>Interestingly, the distribution is 6-2-1-1 over the prices, showing that people do not always pick the lowest price, even if they can. Like the <i>World of Goo</i> makers, I consider the experiment a success and may use the model in the future.</p><p>It even checks out economically. I made ~180 US$ this way. If I had offered the scripts for $20 (2nd price), even assuming that half of the $10 buyers would have bought it at that higher price, I would've made only $140.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I did the same experiment with some Unity3D tools/scripts [ lemuria.org ] of my own , offering them at four different prices with a suggestion as to what I think they equate to , but a very obvious statement that no matter which price you pay , the download will be the same.Interestingly , the distribution is 6-2-1-1 over the prices , showing that people do not always pick the lowest price , even if they can .
Like the World of Goo makers , I consider the experiment a success and may use the model in the future.It even checks out economically .
I made ~ 180 US $ this way .
If I had offered the scripts for $ 20 ( 2nd price ) , even assuming that half of the $ 10 buyers would have bought it at that higher price , I would 've made only $ 140 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I did the same experiment with some Unity3D tools/scripts [lemuria.org] of my own, offering them at four different prices with a suggestion as to what I think they equate to, but a very obvious statement that no matter which price you pay, the download will be the same.Interestingly, the distribution is 6-2-1-1 over the prices, showing that people do not always pick the lowest price, even if they can.
Like the World of Goo makers, I consider the experiment a success and may use the model in the future.It even checks out economically.
I made ~180 US$ this way.
If I had offered the scripts for $20 (2nd price), even assuming that half of the $10 buyers would have bought it at that higher price, I would've made only $140.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_071251.29820369</id>
	<title>thanks</title>
	<author>bencoder</author>
	<datestamp>1256157900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Thanks for the slashvertisment<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:) Didn't know about this. Just grabbed my copy for $5.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Thanks for the slashvertisment : ) Did n't know about this .
Just grabbed my copy for $ 5 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Thanks for the slashvertisment :) Didn't know about this.
Just grabbed my copy for $5.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_071251.29820399</id>
	<title>one purchase - multiple platforms</title>
	<author>masterQba</author>
	<datestamp>1256158320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>i don't know how many people know about this but if you've bought the game once directly from their website you have access to versions of the game for diffrent platforms. just revisit the download link you got in your mail after your original purchase.</htmltext>
<tokenext>i do n't know how many people know about this but if you 've bought the game once directly from their website you have access to versions of the game for diffrent platforms .
just revisit the download link you got in your mail after your original purchase .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>i don't know how many people know about this but if you've bought the game once directly from their website you have access to versions of the game for diffrent platforms.
just revisit the download link you got in your mail after your original purchase.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_071251.29826497</id>
	<title>.01 the magic number</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256153160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Just got my copy for $0.01</p><p>Makes me happy inside considering I almost bought it the other day for $15 when I saw it in a store.  Now I feel like one of those rare deal finders.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Just got my copy for $ 0.01Makes me happy inside considering I almost bought it the other day for $ 15 when I saw it in a store .
Now I feel like one of those rare deal finders .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just got my copy for $0.01Makes me happy inside considering I almost bought it the other day for $15 when I saw it in a store.
Now I feel like one of those rare deal finders.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_071251.29820449</id>
	<title>Re:That's very nice, but</title>
	<author>saaaammmmm</author>
	<datestamp>1256115720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>There is no making you happy. You aren't happy with naming your own price on WoG, you complain about crappy sales on WoG leading to DRM in a future game and then you threaten to not buy the game. You are truly an enigma.</htmltext>
<tokenext>There is no making you happy .
You are n't happy with naming your own price on WoG , you complain about crappy sales on WoG leading to DRM in a future game and then you threaten to not buy the game .
You are truly an enigma .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is no making you happy.
You aren't happy with naming your own price on WoG, you complain about crappy sales on WoG leading to DRM in a future game and then you threaten to not buy the game.
You are truly an enigma.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_071251.29820349</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_071251.29820813</id>
	<title>Re:What about absolute sales?</title>
	<author>OverZealous.com</author>
	<datestamp>1256120760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I doubt very much they made more with this experiment than before.</p><p>Based on the charts / average price paid from the article, they made about $115,129 (probably about a hundred more, I skipped really low data points) on 56,714 sales.  They admitted that they lost money on every sale below $0.30, and they had to pay up to 13\% to PayPal in fees even when they made money.</p><p>I think for any game to have made 56,000 sales (which implies as many as 56,000 new customers to <i>support</i>), but only bring in a little over $100K, that's not a great revenue, unless you are using the iPhone / other app store model.</p><p>To look at it another way, at $20 per copy, they only had to sell around 5700 copies, and the profit margin should be significantly higher without Paypal fees.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I doubt very much they made more with this experiment than before.Based on the charts / average price paid from the article , they made about $ 115,129 ( probably about a hundred more , I skipped really low data points ) on 56,714 sales .
They admitted that they lost money on every sale below $ 0.30 , and they had to pay up to 13 \ % to PayPal in fees even when they made money.I think for any game to have made 56,000 sales ( which implies as many as 56,000 new customers to support ) , but only bring in a little over $ 100K , that 's not a great revenue , unless you are using the iPhone / other app store model.To look at it another way , at $ 20 per copy , they only had to sell around 5700 copies , and the profit margin should be significantly higher without Paypal fees .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I doubt very much they made more with this experiment than before.Based on the charts / average price paid from the article, they made about $115,129 (probably about a hundred more, I skipped really low data points) on 56,714 sales.
They admitted that they lost money on every sale below $0.30, and they had to pay up to 13\% to PayPal in fees even when they made money.I think for any game to have made 56,000 sales (which implies as many as 56,000 new customers to support), but only bring in a little over $100K, that's not a great revenue, unless you are using the iPhone / other app store model.To look at it another way, at $20 per copy, they only had to sell around 5700 copies, and the profit margin should be significantly higher without Paypal fees.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_071251.29820375</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_071251.29823891</id>
	<title>Re:Legal pirates made me a annoyed panda</title>
	<author>2obvious4u</author>
	<datestamp>1256142480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It is costing the authors something.  It is costing them server space, hosting fees, electricity and bandwidth.  I have no problem paying a minimum fee to cover those costs of distribution.  I don't like the myth of free internet content.  I also don't like the idea of paying $1 for an iTunes song since those distribution costs are probably closer to $.05.  iTunes songs at $0.25 and you've got a new customer and I'm sure other people would join at a $0.10 price point.<br>
<br>
Currently digital publishers are pushing a physical price point model.  What they don't realize is that if they lowered prices the increase in customers would more then cover the lower price of the product.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It is costing the authors something .
It is costing them server space , hosting fees , electricity and bandwidth .
I have no problem paying a minimum fee to cover those costs of distribution .
I do n't like the myth of free internet content .
I also do n't like the idea of paying $ 1 for an iTunes song since those distribution costs are probably closer to $ .05 .
iTunes songs at $ 0.25 and you 've got a new customer and I 'm sure other people would join at a $ 0.10 price point .
Currently digital publishers are pushing a physical price point model .
What they do n't realize is that if they lowered prices the increase in customers would more then cover the lower price of the product .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It is costing the authors something.
It is costing them server space, hosting fees, electricity and bandwidth.
I have no problem paying a minimum fee to cover those costs of distribution.
I don't like the myth of free internet content.
I also don't like the idea of paying $1 for an iTunes song since those distribution costs are probably closer to $.05.
iTunes songs at $0.25 and you've got a new customer and I'm sure other people would join at a $0.10 price point.
Currently digital publishers are pushing a physical price point model.
What they don't realize is that if they lowered prices the increase in customers would more then cover the lower price of the product.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_071251.29820905</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_071251.29820373</id>
	<title>So many others could benefit of similar methods</title>
	<author>Thanshin</author>
	<datestamp>1256158020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Rather than imagining an eternal life for their products, more developers could find ways (not necessarily this one) of selling their obsolete products to pay for the newer ones.</p><p>For example, l4d costs now about 15$ if bought together with the still unreleased l4d2. As they are almost equal and not very distant in time, the developers could wait another year or so and then release l4d for 2$. Make a little cash and go on.</p><p>Instead, they get so attached to IP they end up owning games that nobody wants to buy.</p><p>And, as today's pointless bad analogy, it's like trying and failing to sell the last apples at half the original price after they've started rotting, when they could be sold as fertilizer and use the money to buy more land, even if just a little.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Rather than imagining an eternal life for their products , more developers could find ways ( not necessarily this one ) of selling their obsolete products to pay for the newer ones.For example , l4d costs now about 15 $ if bought together with the still unreleased l4d2 .
As they are almost equal and not very distant in time , the developers could wait another year or so and then release l4d for 2 $ .
Make a little cash and go on.Instead , they get so attached to IP they end up owning games that nobody wants to buy.And , as today 's pointless bad analogy , it 's like trying and failing to sell the last apples at half the original price after they 've started rotting , when they could be sold as fertilizer and use the money to buy more land , even if just a little .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Rather than imagining an eternal life for their products, more developers could find ways (not necessarily this one) of selling their obsolete products to pay for the newer ones.For example, l4d costs now about 15$ if bought together with the still unreleased l4d2.
As they are almost equal and not very distant in time, the developers could wait another year or so and then release l4d for 2$.
Make a little cash and go on.Instead, they get so attached to IP they end up owning games that nobody wants to buy.And, as today's pointless bad analogy, it's like trying and failing to sell the last apples at half the original price after they've started rotting, when they could be sold as fertilizer and use the money to buy more land, even if just a little.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_071251.29823031</id>
	<title>Lost Revenue?</title>
	<author>sleeponthemic</author>
	<datestamp>1256137920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I see the figure of 17k as a particularly effective way of rebutting many of the so-called, inflated "lost revenue" figures we read/ hear.<br> <br>

Nothing quite says "you were never getting the money, anyway" better than offering them the chance to pay 2c, and having them pay the absolute minimum.<br> <br>

If you read this report and have trouble / get angry at the 17k, you're missed the point. The point is, some will NEVER pay for it. But hey, many will. They're the ones we're selling to. They're the ones suffering when we remove features / lockdown / DRM our software. I suppose it's easier to be optimistic when you're made 100k in a few days and the only opportunity cost was the realisation that a pirate is infact, a pirate though.

<br> <br>
Personally, I wasn't interested in this game (played the demo), but I am interested in donating $2 to see that that the experience of using this model is furthered, so I'll definitely buy it, simply to show support. Much to the contradiction of popular gaming industry opinion, they haven't lost money by me not paying full price, they've gained $2 they would have never seen, otherwise.

<br> <br>
If you scroll down to the bottom of this page and reload, you will just how quickly sales are occurring (and this represents only a fraction who take the survey, I believe).

<a href="http://www.surveymonkey.com/sr.aspx?sm=MZpIFVRQn99e\_2fJukiNVWR9Rm3Xg1MSQ85QQk09BNH3s\_3d" title="surveymonkey.com">http://www.surveymonkey.com/sr.aspx?sm=MZpIFVRQn99e\_2fJukiNVWR9Rm3Xg1MSQ85QQk09BNH3s\_3d</a> [surveymonkey.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>I see the figure of 17k as a particularly effective way of rebutting many of the so-called , inflated " lost revenue " figures we read/ hear .
Nothing quite says " you were never getting the money , anyway " better than offering them the chance to pay 2c , and having them pay the absolute minimum .
If you read this report and have trouble / get angry at the 17k , you 're missed the point .
The point is , some will NEVER pay for it .
But hey , many will .
They 're the ones we 're selling to .
They 're the ones suffering when we remove features / lockdown / DRM our software .
I suppose it 's easier to be optimistic when you 're made 100k in a few days and the only opportunity cost was the realisation that a pirate is infact , a pirate though .
Personally , I was n't interested in this game ( played the demo ) , but I am interested in donating $ 2 to see that that the experience of using this model is furthered , so I 'll definitely buy it , simply to show support .
Much to the contradiction of popular gaming industry opinion , they have n't lost money by me not paying full price , they 've gained $ 2 they would have never seen , otherwise .
If you scroll down to the bottom of this page and reload , you will just how quickly sales are occurring ( and this represents only a fraction who take the survey , I believe ) .
http : //www.surveymonkey.com/sr.aspx ? sm = MZpIFVRQn99e \ _2fJukiNVWR9Rm3Xg1MSQ85QQk09BNH3s \ _3d [ surveymonkey.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I see the figure of 17k as a particularly effective way of rebutting many of the so-called, inflated "lost revenue" figures we read/ hear.
Nothing quite says "you were never getting the money, anyway" better than offering them the chance to pay 2c, and having them pay the absolute minimum.
If you read this report and have trouble / get angry at the 17k, you're missed the point.
The point is, some will NEVER pay for it.
But hey, many will.
They're the ones we're selling to.
They're the ones suffering when we remove features / lockdown / DRM our software.
I suppose it's easier to be optimistic when you're made 100k in a few days and the only opportunity cost was the realisation that a pirate is infact, a pirate though.
Personally, I wasn't interested in this game (played the demo), but I am interested in donating $2 to see that that the experience of using this model is furthered, so I'll definitely buy it, simply to show support.
Much to the contradiction of popular gaming industry opinion, they haven't lost money by me not paying full price, they've gained $2 they would have never seen, otherwise.
If you scroll down to the bottom of this page and reload, you will just how quickly sales are occurring (and this represents only a fraction who take the survey, I believe).
http://www.surveymonkey.com/sr.aspx?sm=MZpIFVRQn99e\_2fJukiNVWR9Rm3Xg1MSQ85QQk09BNH3s\_3d [surveymonkey.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_071251.29866611</id>
	<title>Re:Bill me later</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256503200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They did provide a free demo, which is the first Chapter of the game, that is almost a quarter of the content.  So why didn't you play the demo first?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They did provide a free demo , which is the first Chapter of the game , that is almost a quarter of the content .
So why did n't you play the demo first ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They did provide a free demo, which is the first Chapter of the game, that is almost a quarter of the content.
So why didn't you play the demo first?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_071251.29822073</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_071251.29822033</id>
	<title>Re:So many others could benefit of similar methods</title>
	<author>Ash-Fox</author>
	<datestamp>1256132460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>For example, l4d costs now about 15$ if bought together with the still unreleased l4d2.</p></div></blockquote><p>I already have l4d, I don't want to purchase it again and I am not buying l4d2 because I spent a pretty penny already for l4d and got a underwhelming experience.</p><p>In my opinion the l4d2 stuff hasn't really worked out as well as VALVe planned with some of their hardcore players.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>For example , l4d costs now about 15 $ if bought together with the still unreleased l4d2.I already have l4d , I do n't want to purchase it again and I am not buying l4d2 because I spent a pretty penny already for l4d and got a underwhelming experience.In my opinion the l4d2 stuff has n't really worked out as well as VALVe planned with some of their hardcore players .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For example, l4d costs now about 15$ if bought together with the still unreleased l4d2.I already have l4d, I don't want to purchase it again and I am not buying l4d2 because I spent a pretty penny already for l4d and got a underwhelming experience.In my opinion the l4d2 stuff hasn't really worked out as well as VALVe planned with some of their hardcore players.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_071251.29820373</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_071251.29825497</id>
	<title>Re:That's very nice, but</title>
	<author>thePowerOfGrayskull</author>
	<datestamp>1256149440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>How do we know that AC isn't making things up to stir up discussion?<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)</htmltext>
<tokenext>How do we know that AC is n't making things up to stir up discussion ?
; )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How do we know that AC isn't making things up to stir up discussion?
;)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_071251.29820923</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_071251.29821871</id>
	<title>Pay afterward...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256131320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why make someone pick a price to pay up front when they don't know what the game is like?  Have them get the game for free then pay after they've played it for a while and know how much its worth to them (basically a demo).</p><p>With how much I've played Fallout 3 and Mass Effect I probably would have ended up paying full price for them...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why make someone pick a price to pay up front when they do n't know what the game is like ?
Have them get the game for free then pay after they 've played it for a while and know how much its worth to them ( basically a demo ) .With how much I 've played Fallout 3 and Mass Effect I probably would have ended up paying full price for them.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why make someone pick a price to pay up front when they don't know what the game is like?
Have them get the game for free then pay after they've played it for a while and know how much its worth to them (basically a demo).With how much I've played Fallout 3 and Mass Effect I probably would have ended up paying full price for them...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_071251.29821217</id>
	<title>are people stupid?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256125800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>I don't see any reason why any rational person would pay more than a penny on this. It's not a school fundraiser, it's a commercial business selling a product. If you go to your favorite retail store and see 100 copies of this game on the shelf with all different prices, you'd have to be stupid to not get the cheapest one.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't see any reason why any rational person would pay more than a penny on this .
It 's not a school fundraiser , it 's a commercial business selling a product .
If you go to your favorite retail store and see 100 copies of this game on the shelf with all different prices , you 'd have to be stupid to not get the cheapest one .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't see any reason why any rational person would pay more than a penny on this.
It's not a school fundraiser, it's a commercial business selling a product.
If you go to your favorite retail store and see 100 copies of this game on the shelf with all different prices, you'd have to be stupid to not get the cheapest one.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_071251.29821105</id>
	<title>Re:That's very nice, but</title>
	<author>BikeHelmet</author>
	<datestamp>1256124420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I paid $2 so I could get it outside of steam.</p><p>But I'm not sure their survey percentages are accurate. I never got a link in the email, and never got to vote. I heard about the sale quite late, so I suspect there's several days of buyers that haven't been included.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I paid $ 2 so I could get it outside of steam.But I 'm not sure their survey percentages are accurate .
I never got a link in the email , and never got to vote .
I heard about the sale quite late , so I suspect there 's several days of buyers that have n't been included .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I paid $2 so I could get it outside of steam.But I'm not sure their survey percentages are accurate.
I never got a link in the email, and never got to vote.
I heard about the sale quite late, so I suspect there's several days of buyers that haven't been included.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_071251.29820387</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_071251.29820401</id>
	<title>Re:That's very nice, but</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256158320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Either I'm reading things wrong or people are doing it because they feel they should support the developer. Their <a href="http://2dboy.com/games.php" title="2dboy.com">World of Goo page</a> [2dboy.com] says:</p><blockquote><div><p>This will get you the Windows and Mac and Linux versions downloadable right away</p></div></blockquote><p>In a way it is good and bad that you get it for all platforms. I want it for Linux, so it'd have been nice to specifically say "look, I'm supporting your port to Linux", but at the same time it is good to get it on whatever platforms you want without having to pay multiple times.</p><p>Now, I had this on my Christmas list. Do I tell my family so that they can get it cheap and do the developers out of some money when a lack of DRM and an innovative game should be welcomed, or do I just let the "pay what you want" period go by and give them the money they deserve?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Either I 'm reading things wrong or people are doing it because they feel they should support the developer .
Their World of Goo page [ 2dboy.com ] says : This will get you the Windows and Mac and Linux versions downloadable right awayIn a way it is good and bad that you get it for all platforms .
I want it for Linux , so it 'd have been nice to specifically say " look , I 'm supporting your port to Linux " , but at the same time it is good to get it on whatever platforms you want without having to pay multiple times.Now , I had this on my Christmas list .
Do I tell my family so that they can get it cheap and do the developers out of some money when a lack of DRM and an innovative game should be welcomed , or do I just let the " pay what you want " period go by and give them the money they deserve ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Either I'm reading things wrong or people are doing it because they feel they should support the developer.
Their World of Goo page [2dboy.com] says:This will get you the Windows and Mac and Linux versions downloadable right awayIn a way it is good and bad that you get it for all platforms.
I want it for Linux, so it'd have been nice to specifically say "look, I'm supporting your port to Linux", but at the same time it is good to get it on whatever platforms you want without having to pay multiple times.Now, I had this on my Christmas list.
Do I tell my family so that they can get it cheap and do the developers out of some money when a lack of DRM and an innovative game should be welcomed, or do I just let the "pay what you want" period go by and give them the money they deserve?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_071251.29820349</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_071251.29820591</id>
	<title>I bought it</title>
	<author>monkeySauce</author>
	<datestamp>1256117640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>for $10. I had considered buying WoG in the past but always hesitated because I wasn't sure it was worth $20 to me.
<br> <br>
Sure, I could have got it for $1 or $0.10 or $0.01, but the site says "Pay whatever you think it is worth" which isn't quite the same as "name the amount you want to spend". Considering the game is fairly simple but a lot of fun, Linux native, and DRM free; I think it's definitely worth what I paid.</htmltext>
<tokenext>for $ 10 .
I had considered buying WoG in the past but always hesitated because I was n't sure it was worth $ 20 to me .
Sure , I could have got it for $ 1 or $ 0.10 or $ 0.01 , but the site says " Pay whatever you think it is worth " which is n't quite the same as " name the amount you want to spend " .
Considering the game is fairly simple but a lot of fun , Linux native , and DRM free ; I think it 's definitely worth what I paid .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>for $10.
I had considered buying WoG in the past but always hesitated because I wasn't sure it was worth $20 to me.
Sure, I could have got it for $1 or $0.10 or $0.01, but the site says "Pay whatever you think it is worth" which isn't quite the same as "name the amount you want to spend".
Considering the game is fairly simple but a lot of fun, Linux native, and DRM free; I think it's definitely worth what I paid.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_071251.29822737</id>
	<title>Re:That's very nice, but</title>
	<author>Svartalf</author>
	<datestamp>1256136540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They're basing it off of the online play results indicating at least 10\% of the people might have been using an infringed copy.  The reality is- you're going to find people committing "piracy" on a given title.</p><p>However, the leap they make that the infringements were costing them sales is tenuous at best.  And the further leap that DRM will somehow make the sales better is even more so.</p><p>In any group of infringers there will be a mix of population of people that can't afford the game and those that will never buy period (I called them "won't"s in an earlier post...)</p><p>The "can't' crowd is a prospective customer- they would buy if they had the ability to do so, because of lack of credit card in the case of online sales, or due to things like pure lack of funds.  You may or may not get into a position to have them be their customer.   2DBoy did that with me and I paid them what I thought was a fair price and what I had to spare ($15...as much to reward them as to buy the game.  They didn't have to do this or make the Linux version after all.).  Had they lowered the price to $10 or even $5, the result would have been the same.   I was a "can't" because of budget concerns- there's other reasons and they're all over the place on the spectrum of things.  You want to try to convert those to sales if possible.</p><p>The "won't" crowd is not, nor will they ever be your customer.  The people that paid one cent are really, if they're honest with themselves", part of the "won't" crowd.  They didn't pay even remotely a fair price for the game.  The "won't" crowd will almost always pirate the game, either because they don't believe in paying for any of it, don't believe your game is worth any real money (but yet they made an illegal copy thereof and are playing it...go figure...), or similar.  No amount of DRM will preclude them taking what they feel they're due from you if they want the title bad enough.  If it is barring them, there's a very, very good chance that your game is not fun enough to rate cracking it.  If it's not that much fun, you might want to re-think your thinking on why it's not selling better as it's not infringements that are your problem.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They 're basing it off of the online play results indicating at least 10 \ % of the people might have been using an infringed copy .
The reality is- you 're going to find people committing " piracy " on a given title.However , the leap they make that the infringements were costing them sales is tenuous at best .
And the further leap that DRM will somehow make the sales better is even more so.In any group of infringers there will be a mix of population of people that ca n't afford the game and those that will never buy period ( I called them " wo n't " s in an earlier post... ) The " ca n't ' crowd is a prospective customer- they would buy if they had the ability to do so , because of lack of credit card in the case of online sales , or due to things like pure lack of funds .
You may or may not get into a position to have them be their customer .
2DBoy did that with me and I paid them what I thought was a fair price and what I had to spare ( $ 15...as much to reward them as to buy the game .
They did n't have to do this or make the Linux version after all. ) .
Had they lowered the price to $ 10 or even $ 5 , the result would have been the same .
I was a " ca n't " because of budget concerns- there 's other reasons and they 're all over the place on the spectrum of things .
You want to try to convert those to sales if possible.The " wo n't " crowd is not , nor will they ever be your customer .
The people that paid one cent are really , if they 're honest with themselves " , part of the " wo n't " crowd .
They did n't pay even remotely a fair price for the game .
The " wo n't " crowd will almost always pirate the game , either because they do n't believe in paying for any of it , do n't believe your game is worth any real money ( but yet they made an illegal copy thereof and are playing it...go figure... ) , or similar .
No amount of DRM will preclude them taking what they feel they 're due from you if they want the title bad enough .
If it is barring them , there 's a very , very good chance that your game is not fun enough to rate cracking it .
If it 's not that much fun , you might want to re-think your thinking on why it 's not selling better as it 's not infringements that are your problem .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They're basing it off of the online play results indicating at least 10\% of the people might have been using an infringed copy.
The reality is- you're going to find people committing "piracy" on a given title.However, the leap they make that the infringements were costing them sales is tenuous at best.
And the further leap that DRM will somehow make the sales better is even more so.In any group of infringers there will be a mix of population of people that can't afford the game and those that will never buy period (I called them "won't"s in an earlier post...)The "can't' crowd is a prospective customer- they would buy if they had the ability to do so, because of lack of credit card in the case of online sales, or due to things like pure lack of funds.
You may or may not get into a position to have them be their customer.
2DBoy did that with me and I paid them what I thought was a fair price and what I had to spare ($15...as much to reward them as to buy the game.
They didn't have to do this or make the Linux version after all.).
Had they lowered the price to $10 or even $5, the result would have been the same.
I was a "can't" because of budget concerns- there's other reasons and they're all over the place on the spectrum of things.
You want to try to convert those to sales if possible.The "won't" crowd is not, nor will they ever be your customer.
The people that paid one cent are really, if they're honest with themselves", part of the "won't" crowd.
They didn't pay even remotely a fair price for the game.
The "won't" crowd will almost always pirate the game, either because they don't believe in paying for any of it, don't believe your game is worth any real money (but yet they made an illegal copy thereof and are playing it...go figure...), or similar.
No amount of DRM will preclude them taking what they feel they're due from you if they want the title bad enough.
If it is barring them, there's a very, very good chance that your game is not fun enough to rate cracking it.
If it's not that much fun, you might want to re-think your thinking on why it's not selling better as it's not infringements that are your problem.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_071251.29820923</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_071251.29820387</id>
	<title>Re:That's very nice, but</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256158200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>This is a pretty cool experiment. But...</p><p>Why would I have to purchase the game multiple times to be able to play it on different platforms in the first place?</p></div><p>Well, if you buy from them directly, you get all of the PC/Mac/Linux versions at once for $20 (before this experiment), which is quite reasonable.  However, the WiiWare/Xbox Arcade versions are obviously separate; there's no way the console manufacturers are going to allow cross-platform buys, and the only recourse developers like 2D Boy have against this is to not put it on consoles, which would be pretty stupid for the developer.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is a pretty cool experiment .
But...Why would I have to purchase the game multiple times to be able to play it on different platforms in the first place ? Well , if you buy from them directly , you get all of the PC/Mac/Linux versions at once for $ 20 ( before this experiment ) , which is quite reasonable .
However , the WiiWare/Xbox Arcade versions are obviously separate ; there 's no way the console manufacturers are going to allow cross-platform buys , and the only recourse developers like 2D Boy have against this is to not put it on consoles , which would be pretty stupid for the developer .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is a pretty cool experiment.
But...Why would I have to purchase the game multiple times to be able to play it on different platforms in the first place?Well, if you buy from them directly, you get all of the PC/Mac/Linux versions at once for $20 (before this experiment), which is quite reasonable.
However, the WiiWare/Xbox Arcade versions are obviously separate; there's no way the console manufacturers are going to allow cross-platform buys, and the only recourse developers like 2D Boy have against this is to not put it on consoles, which would be pretty stupid for the developer.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_071251.29820349</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_071251.29820983</id>
	<title>Re:My own experience</title>
	<author>Twinbee</author>
	<datestamp>1256122680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I also have been offering software at "choose your price" for quite a while. Interestingly, a good number of people pay twice as much as the 'recommended' price. I suppose it depends on the market.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I also have been offering software at " choose your price " for quite a while .
Interestingly , a good number of people pay twice as much as the 'recommended ' price .
I suppose it depends on the market .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I also have been offering software at "choose your price" for quite a while.
Interestingly, a good number of people pay twice as much as the 'recommended' price.
I suppose it depends on the market.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_071251.29820393</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_071251.29820923</id>
	<title>Re:That's very nice, but</title>
	<author>Alioth</author>
	<datestamp>1256122080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How do they know disappointing sales were caused by piracy? Perhaps disappointing sales were caused because, well, not every game is going to be a massive blockbuster.</p><p>Also wasting money on DRM isn't going to stop the game from being pirated, it'll be cracked within days (possibly hours). DRM has been a failure since the days of the ZX Spectrum. You'd have thought developers would have learned it's a waste of time by now.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How do they know disappointing sales were caused by piracy ?
Perhaps disappointing sales were caused because , well , not every game is going to be a massive blockbuster.Also wasting money on DRM is n't going to stop the game from being pirated , it 'll be cracked within days ( possibly hours ) .
DRM has been a failure since the days of the ZX Spectrum .
You 'd have thought developers would have learned it 's a waste of time by now .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How do they know disappointing sales were caused by piracy?
Perhaps disappointing sales were caused because, well, not every game is going to be a massive blockbuster.Also wasting money on DRM isn't going to stop the game from being pirated, it'll be cracked within days (possibly hours).
DRM has been a failure since the days of the ZX Spectrum.
You'd have thought developers would have learned it's a waste of time by now.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_071251.29820349</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_071251.29832213</id>
	<title>Re:But I thought pick-your-price didn't work...</title>
	<author>darthvader100</author>
	<datestamp>1256151420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Anybody care to guess how much they'd have made off the same 57,000 people if they hadn't held this promotion?</p></div><p>
Answer: $0<br>
I always thought it looked nice, but $20? not so much.  Even though i shouldn't be spending, i still gave them $2 for a copy</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Anybody care to guess how much they 'd have made off the same 57,000 people if they had n't held this promotion ?
Answer : $ 0 I always thought it looked nice , but $ 20 ?
not so much .
Even though i should n't be spending , i still gave them $ 2 for a copy</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Anybody care to guess how much they'd have made off the same 57,000 people if they hadn't held this promotion?
Answer: $0
I always thought it looked nice, but $20?
not so much.
Even though i shouldn't be spending, i still gave them $2 for a copy
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_071251.29822029</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_071251.29831485</id>
	<title>Re:Pricing Models</title>
	<author>Just Justin</author>
	<datestamp>1256141040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I know exactly what you're talking about, and I've thought the same thing before too, not just with games but with other things too.  Really with anything that comes out in a limited edition amount.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I know exactly what you 're talking about , and I 've thought the same thing before too , not just with games but with other things too .
Really with anything that comes out in a limited edition amount .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I know exactly what you're talking about, and I've thought the same thing before too, not just with games but with other things too.
Really with anything that comes out in a limited edition amount.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_071251.29820739</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_071251.29825599</id>
	<title>Why pay more?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256149800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Pick Your Price" sounds to me like "We want to give you this game for 1 cent". I don't understand why so many people payed more.</p><p>If VW suddenly offered Jettas for $100, would you opt to pay them $5000 or more because of your perceived value, or would you take advantage of an almost free car?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Pick Your Price " sounds to me like " We want to give you this game for 1 cent " .
I do n't understand why so many people payed more.If VW suddenly offered Jettas for $ 100 , would you opt to pay them $ 5000 or more because of your perceived value , or would you take advantage of an almost free car ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Pick Your Price" sounds to me like "We want to give you this game for 1 cent".
I don't understand why so many people payed more.If VW suddenly offered Jettas for $100, would you opt to pay them $5000 or more because of your perceived value, or would you take advantage of an almost free car?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_071251.29821569</id>
	<title>World of Boogers</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256128980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>World of Boogers try pick-your-own-nose experiment.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>World of Boogers try pick-your-own-nose experiment .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>World of Boogers try pick-your-own-nose experiment.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_071251.29821995</id>
	<title>Re:Legal pirates made me a annoyed panda</title>
	<author>clone53421</author>
	<datestamp>1256132160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Fuck off. They permitted it, it was a huge success, and you're bitching just because some people (essentially) got their way paid by the folks who paid more.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Fuck off .
They permitted it , it was a huge success , and you 're bitching just because some people ( essentially ) got their way paid by the folks who paid more .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Fuck off.
They permitted it, it was a huge success, and you're bitching just because some people (essentially) got their way paid by the folks who paid more.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_071251.29820701</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_071251.29834491</id>
	<title>Re:Legal pirates made me a annoyed panda</title>
	<author>AP31R0N</author>
	<datestamp>1256222160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>1) Unless they pulled their corsair along side a frigate full of copies of WoG, it isn't piracy.  Piracy is ship to ship armed robbery.  Unauthorized copying of copyrighted material is copyright infringement.</p><p>2) If we make light of real world murderers and hostage takers like those operating off the coast of Somalia, this STILL isn't piracy, these people paid.  It may not be enough to please your highness, but they paid.  So again, not piracy.  If i buy a CD from the penny bin i haven't "pirated" it just because you paid more.  i still paid more than the people who shoplifted it or DLed it from BT.</p><p>3) If the creators wanted to set a higher price, it was within their rights to do so.  If they wanted to set the price at a minimum of $1, they could have. They set up the situation to allow one cent purchases.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>1 ) Unless they pulled their corsair along side a frigate full of copies of WoG , it is n't piracy .
Piracy is ship to ship armed robbery .
Unauthorized copying of copyrighted material is copyright infringement.2 ) If we make light of real world murderers and hostage takers like those operating off the coast of Somalia , this STILL is n't piracy , these people paid .
It may not be enough to please your highness , but they paid .
So again , not piracy .
If i buy a CD from the penny bin i have n't " pirated " it just because you paid more .
i still paid more than the people who shoplifted it or DLed it from BT.3 ) If the creators wanted to set a higher price , it was within their rights to do so .
If they wanted to set the price at a minimum of $ 1 , they could have .
They set up the situation to allow one cent purchases .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>1) Unless they pulled their corsair along side a frigate full of copies of WoG, it isn't piracy.
Piracy is ship to ship armed robbery.
Unauthorized copying of copyrighted material is copyright infringement.2) If we make light of real world murderers and hostage takers like those operating off the coast of Somalia, this STILL isn't piracy, these people paid.
It may not be enough to please your highness, but they paid.
So again, not piracy.
If i buy a CD from the penny bin i haven't "pirated" it just because you paid more.
i still paid more than the people who shoplifted it or DLed it from BT.3) If the creators wanted to set a higher price, it was within their rights to do so.
If they wanted to set the price at a minimum of $1, they could have.
They set up the situation to allow one cent purchases.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_071251.29820701</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_071251.29821521</id>
	<title>Re:Legal pirates made me a annoyed panda</title>
	<author>JayGuerette</author>
	<datestamp>1256128560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Consider it a loss leader. If those people play the game, love it as much as the average person, and mention it to others or directly expose them to the game, while also sharing the great value in the deal, then those people will probably go an and buy the game as well. Most people wouldn't admit to paying $0.01, so their friends are likely to spend more than that. Personally, if someone introduced me to the game, and I found out they paid $0.01 for it, I'd pay MORE just to make up for them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Consider it a loss leader .
If those people play the game , love it as much as the average person , and mention it to others or directly expose them to the game , while also sharing the great value in the deal , then those people will probably go an and buy the game as well .
Most people would n't admit to paying $ 0.01 , so their friends are likely to spend more than that .
Personally , if someone introduced me to the game , and I found out they paid $ 0.01 for it , I 'd pay MORE just to make up for them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Consider it a loss leader.
If those people play the game, love it as much as the average person, and mention it to others or directly expose them to the game, while also sharing the great value in the deal, then those people will probably go an and buy the game as well.
Most people wouldn't admit to paying $0.01, so their friends are likely to spend more than that.
Personally, if someone introduced me to the game, and I found out they paid $0.01 for it, I'd pay MORE just to make up for them.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_071251.29820701</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_071251.29820511</id>
	<title>Worth the $20</title>
	<author>lgftsa</author>
	<datestamp>1256116620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I downloaded the demo a couple of weeks ago and when I went back to buy the full game, the sale had started. I still paid full price though, because it's quite easily $20 worth of fun.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I downloaded the demo a couple of weeks ago and when I went back to buy the full game , the sale had started .
I still paid full price though , because it 's quite easily $ 20 worth of fun .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I downloaded the demo a couple of weeks ago and when I went back to buy the full game, the sale had started.
I still paid full price though, because it's quite easily $20 worth of fun.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_071251.29824287</id>
	<title>Re:That's very nice, but</title>
	<author>jargon82</author>
	<datestamp>1256144160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Ok, so we have 2 responses here... one says that 10\% of users are pirates. The other says 10\% of users aren't pirates.
<br>
So I took a moment to look up the information available: <a href="http://2dboy.com/2008/11/13/90/" title="2dboy.com">http://2dboy.com/2008/11/13/90/</a> [2dboy.com]
<br>
Maybe it's accurate, maybe it's not, but I'd like to know where the "only 10\% are pirates" guy got his information from.  The game has good reviews, no DRM, and is fairly popular so it seems all the usual arguments for a high rate of piracy are out the window, leaving behind only "we're a bunch of cheapskates."  Oh well.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Ok , so we have 2 responses here... one says that 10 \ % of users are pirates .
The other says 10 \ % of users are n't pirates .
So I took a moment to look up the information available : http : //2dboy.com/2008/11/13/90/ [ 2dboy.com ] Maybe it 's accurate , maybe it 's not , but I 'd like to know where the " only 10 \ % are pirates " guy got his information from .
The game has good reviews , no DRM , and is fairly popular so it seems all the usual arguments for a high rate of piracy are out the window , leaving behind only " we 're a bunch of cheapskates .
" Oh well .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ok, so we have 2 responses here... one says that 10\% of users are pirates.
The other says 10\% of users aren't pirates.
So I took a moment to look up the information available: http://2dboy.com/2008/11/13/90/ [2dboy.com]

Maybe it's accurate, maybe it's not, but I'd like to know where the "only 10\% are pirates" guy got his information from.
The game has good reviews, no DRM, and is fairly popular so it seems all the usual arguments for a high rate of piracy are out the window, leaving behind only "we're a bunch of cheapskates.
"  Oh well.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_071251.29820923</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_071251.29825205</id>
	<title>Re:That's very nice, but</title>
	<author>ZerdZerd</author>
	<datestamp>1256148300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I got this game as a Steam gift on Christmas, but the Steam version doesn't give you access to the Linux version. So I just had to buy it again to support the Linux port, and play the game on Linux!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I got this game as a Steam gift on Christmas , but the Steam version does n't give you access to the Linux version .
So I just had to buy it again to support the Linux port , and play the game on Linux !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I got this game as a Steam gift on Christmas, but the Steam version doesn't give you access to the Linux version.
So I just had to buy it again to support the Linux port, and play the game on Linux!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_071251.29820401</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_071251.29821257</id>
	<title>I'm sorry...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256126100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm sorry, but why should I have to re-buy the game just to be able to get the Linux binary? I got World of Goo a couple days ago for $4 on clearence at a retail store. Why should I have to pay more just to get the Linux binary? iD doesn't do this. Nor do any of the other Linux game compaines do this.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm sorry , but why should I have to re-buy the game just to be able to get the Linux binary ?
I got World of Goo a couple days ago for $ 4 on clearence at a retail store .
Why should I have to pay more just to get the Linux binary ?
iD does n't do this .
Nor do any of the other Linux game compaines do this .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm sorry, but why should I have to re-buy the game just to be able to get the Linux binary?
I got World of Goo a couple days ago for $4 on clearence at a retail store.
Why should I have to pay more just to get the Linux binary?
iD doesn't do this.
Nor do any of the other Linux game compaines do this.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_071251.29823583</id>
	<title>Wow.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256140740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The majority of the people who bought the game were nerds trying to support the payment model.  I wonder what the outcome would have been if these buyers were removed from the data?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The majority of the people who bought the game were nerds trying to support the payment model .
I wonder what the outcome would have been if these buyers were removed from the data ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The majority of the people who bought the game were nerds trying to support the payment model.
I wonder what the outcome would have been if these buyers were removed from the data?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_071251.29820739</id>
	<title>Pricing Models</title>
	<author>Swanktastic</author>
	<datestamp>1256119620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There's all sorts of interesting pricing models an indie developer with zero retail distribution could try if they're controlling the sales.</p><p>I think an interesting experiment would be to auction say X copies a day, with the price being set at the lowest winning bid.  Folks who MUST have the product on day one can pay more, those who wait can pay less.  Obviously there are some challenges, but it's at least an interesting intellectual exercise.</p><p>It would be fascinating to see what folks would pay for, say, a week of exclusive access to WoW: Cataclysm.  Sort of ruins the spirit of the game, but interesting nonetheless.</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp;</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There 's all sorts of interesting pricing models an indie developer with zero retail distribution could try if they 're controlling the sales.I think an interesting experiment would be to auction say X copies a day , with the price being set at the lowest winning bid .
Folks who MUST have the product on day one can pay more , those who wait can pay less .
Obviously there are some challenges , but it 's at least an interesting intellectual exercise.It would be fascinating to see what folks would pay for , say , a week of exclusive access to WoW : Cataclysm .
Sort of ruins the spirit of the game , but interesting nonetheless .
   </tokentext>
<sentencetext>There's all sorts of interesting pricing models an indie developer with zero retail distribution could try if they're controlling the sales.I think an interesting experiment would be to auction say X copies a day, with the price being set at the lowest winning bid.
Folks who MUST have the product on day one can pay more, those who wait can pay less.
Obviously there are some challenges, but it's at least an interesting intellectual exercise.It would be fascinating to see what folks would pay for, say, a week of exclusive access to WoW: Cataclysm.
Sort of ruins the spirit of the game, but interesting nonetheless.
   </sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_071251.29820861</id>
	<title>Re:Legal pirates made me a annoyed panda</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256121480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Which is nothing but legally pirating the game."</p><p>Piracy is illegal copying of works, legal pirating is an oxymoron.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Which is nothing but legally pirating the game .
" Piracy is illegal copying of works , legal pirating is an oxymoron .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Which is nothing but legally pirating the game.
"Piracy is illegal copying of works, legal pirating is an oxymoron.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_071251.29820701</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_21_071251_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_071251.29822259
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_071251.29821381
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_21_071251_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_071251.29822557
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_071251.29820349
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_21_071251_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_071251.29821521
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_071251.29820701
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_21_071251_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_071251.29822421
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_071251.29820373
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_21_071251_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_071251.29834491
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_071251.29820701
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_21_071251_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_071251.29837975
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_071251.29820813
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_071251.29820375
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_21_071251_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_071251.29823891
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_071251.29820905
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_071251.29820701
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_21_071251_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_071251.29824543
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_071251.29820739
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_21_071251_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_071251.29820449
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_071251.29820349
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_21_071251_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_071251.29820983
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_071251.29820393
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_21_071251_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_071251.29829629
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_071251.29820401
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_071251.29820349
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_21_071251_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_071251.29822595
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_071251.29820661
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_21_071251_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_071251.29831419
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_071251.29820813
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_071251.29820375
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_21_071251_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_071251.29822767
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_071251.29820373
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_21_071251_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_071251.29821105
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_071251.29820387
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_071251.29820349
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_21_071251_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_071251.29823211
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_071251.29820905
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_071251.29820701
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_21_071251_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_071251.29831339
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_071251.29820369
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_21_071251_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_071251.29820699
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_071251.29820373
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_21_071251_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_071251.29825655
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_071251.29820349
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_21_071251_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_071251.29822521
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_071251.29820401
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_071251.29820349
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_21_071251_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_071251.29820963
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_071251.29820701
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_21_071251_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_071251.29821995
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_071251.29820701
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_21_071251_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_071251.29825201
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_071251.29822737
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_071251.29820923
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_071251.29820349
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_21_071251_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_071251.29824287
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_071251.29820923
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_071251.29820349
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_21_071251_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_071251.29826087
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_071251.29820369
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_21_071251_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_071251.29827589
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_071251.29820661
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_21_071251_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_071251.29832213
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_071251.29822029
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_21_071251_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_071251.29866611
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_071251.29822073
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_21_071251_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_071251.29831485
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_071251.29820739
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_21_071251_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_071251.29826353
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_071251.29820661
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_21_071251_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_071251.29832059
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_071251.29820923
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_071251.29820349
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_21_071251_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_071251.29824085
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_071251.29820597
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_071251.29820375
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_21_071251_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_071251.29831307
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_071251.29820923
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_071251.29820349
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_21_071251_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_071251.29822033
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_071251.29820373
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_21_071251_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_071251.29825205
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_071251.29820401
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_071251.29820349
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_21_071251_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_071251.29823791
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_071251.29820349
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_21_071251_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_071251.29822679
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_071251.29820701
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_21_071251_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_071251.29825497
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_071251.29820923
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_071251.29820349
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_21_071251_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_071251.29820595
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_071251.29820349
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_21_071251_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_071251.29821169
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_071251.29820375
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_21_071251_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_071251.29820861
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_071251.29820701
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_21_071251.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_071251.29822549
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_21_071251.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_071251.29820661
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_071251.29822595
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_071251.29827589
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_071251.29826353
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_21_071251.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_071251.29821381
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_071251.29822259
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_21_071251.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_071251.29820591
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_21_071251.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_071251.29820373
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_071251.29822767
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_071251.29822033
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_071251.29822421
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_071251.29820699
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_21_071251.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_071251.29821217
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_21_071251.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_071251.29821257
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_21_071251.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_071251.29821871
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_21_071251.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_071251.29820393
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_071251.29820983
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_21_071251.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_071251.29825599
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_21_071251.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_071251.29820739
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_071251.29831485
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_071251.29824543
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_21_071251.21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_071251.29823031
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_21_071251.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_071251.29822073
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_071251.29866611
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_21_071251.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_071251.29820375
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_071251.29820813
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_071251.29837975
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_071251.29831419
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_071251.29821169
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_071251.29820597
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_071251.29824085
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_21_071251.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_071251.29821277
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_21_071251.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_071251.29820369
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_071251.29826087
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_071251.29831339
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_21_071251.20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_071251.29821173
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_21_071251.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_071251.29820399
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_21_071251.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_071251.29820349
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_071251.29820401
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_071251.29829629
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_071251.29825205
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_071251.29822521
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_071251.29825655
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_071251.29822557
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_071251.29820387
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_071251.29821105
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_071251.29820595
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_071251.29820449
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_071251.29823791
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_071251.29820923
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_071251.29831307
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_071251.29824287
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_071251.29822737
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_071251.29825201
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_071251.29832059
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_071251.29825497
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_21_071251.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_071251.29822029
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_071251.29832213
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_21_071251.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_071251.29820359
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_21_071251.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_071251.29820701
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_071251.29821995
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_071251.29822679
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_071251.29820905
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_071251.29823211
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_071251.29823891
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_071251.29820861
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_071251.29834491
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_071251.29821521
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_071251.29820963
</commentlist>
</conversation>
