<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_11_07_0359204</id>
	<title>John Carmack Says No Dedicated Servers For <em>Rage</em></title>
	<author>Soulskill</author>
	<datestamp>1257618000000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>AndrewDBarker writes <i>"<em>Modern Warfare 2</em> will use a matchmaking setup powered by IWNet for online play (as <a href="http://games.slashdot.org/story/09/10/20/0745221/No-Dedicated-Servers-For-emCoD-Modern-Warfare-2em?from=rss">we've discussed</a>). It's too early to say what <em>Rage</em> will use, but Carmack indicated he believed <a href="http://weblogs.variety.com/the\_cut\_scene/2009/11/dedicated-servers-and-rage-news-you-probably-dont-want-to-hear.html">the servers are something of a remnant of the early days of PC gaming</a>. That said, he realizes the affinity many PC gamers have for them &mdash; and is glad <em>Rage</em> won't be leading the charge away from them. 'The great thing is we won't have to be a pioneer on that,' he says. 'We'll see how it works out for everyone else.'"</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>AndrewDBarker writes " Modern Warfare 2 will use a matchmaking setup powered by IWNet for online play ( as we 've discussed ) .
It 's too early to say what Rage will use , but Carmack indicated he believed the servers are something of a remnant of the early days of PC gaming .
That said , he realizes the affinity many PC gamers have for them    and is glad Rage wo n't be leading the charge away from them .
'The great thing is we wo n't have to be a pioneer on that, ' he says .
'We 'll see how it works out for everyone else .
' "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>AndrewDBarker writes "Modern Warfare 2 will use a matchmaking setup powered by IWNet for online play (as we've discussed).
It's too early to say what Rage will use, but Carmack indicated he believed the servers are something of a remnant of the early days of PC gaming.
That said, he realizes the affinity many PC gamers have for them — and is glad Rage won't be leading the charge away from them.
'The great thing is we won't have to be a pioneer on that,' he says.
'We'll see how it works out for everyone else.
'"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_0359204.30013694</id>
	<title>So where are HIS details?</title>
	<author>7-Vodka</author>
	<datestamp>1257600420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
If the system he is proposing is so much better than dedicated servers, where are his details?</p><p>
If he is suggesting the client/server model is dead... then he's having a stroke. How are you supposed to have lan parties without a dedicated server?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If the system he is proposing is so much better than dedicated servers , where are his details ?
If he is suggesting the client/server model is dead... then he 's having a stroke .
How are you supposed to have lan parties without a dedicated server ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
If the system he is proposing is so much better than dedicated servers, where are his details?
If he is suggesting the client/server model is dead... then he's having a stroke.
How are you supposed to have lan parties without a dedicated server?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_0359204.30014586</id>
	<title>Of Course!</title>
	<author>mambodog</author>
	<datestamp>1257613740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Of course we don't need dedicated servers anymore! Consoles and home PCs can totally host 64 player games, I mean, consumer grade internet these days totally has up speeds to match their down speeds. Its not like Modern Warfare 2 will be <a href="http://kotaku.com/5397149/modern-warfare-2-pc-multiplayer-capped-at-9v9" title="kotaku.com" rel="nofollow">limited to 9v9 players</a> [kotaku.com].

Wait, I gotta stop being sarcastic, even I'm starting to believe this shit now...

Dedicated are the reason we had 64 player multiplayer <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battlefield\_1942" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">back in 2002</a> [wikipedia.org]. Now, I'm all for progress, but it takes some pretty huge balls to say that ded servers are a relic of the past, when the current gen local hosting malarky can't deliver anywhere near what deds could.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Of course we do n't need dedicated servers anymore !
Consoles and home PCs can totally host 64 player games , I mean , consumer grade internet these days totally has up speeds to match their down speeds .
Its not like Modern Warfare 2 will be limited to 9v9 players [ kotaku.com ] .
Wait , I got ta stop being sarcastic , even I 'm starting to believe this shit now.. . Dedicated are the reason we had 64 player multiplayer back in 2002 [ wikipedia.org ] .
Now , I 'm all for progress , but it takes some pretty huge balls to say that ded servers are a relic of the past , when the current gen local hosting malarky ca n't deliver anywhere near what deds could .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Of course we don't need dedicated servers anymore!
Consoles and home PCs can totally host 64 player games, I mean, consumer grade internet these days totally has up speeds to match their down speeds.
Its not like Modern Warfare 2 will be limited to 9v9 players [kotaku.com].
Wait, I gotta stop being sarcastic, even I'm starting to believe this shit now...

Dedicated are the reason we had 64 player multiplayer back in 2002 [wikipedia.org].
Now, I'm all for progress, but it takes some pretty huge balls to say that ded servers are a relic of the past, when the current gen local hosting malarky can't deliver anywhere near what deds could.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_0359204.30012856</id>
	<title>if (NO == dedicated\_servers)</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257625020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"It's not cast in stone yet, but at this point no, we don't think we will have dedicated servers,"</p><p>Then we don't think we will be purchasing Rage, Mr. Carmack.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" It 's not cast in stone yet , but at this point no , we do n't think we will have dedicated servers , " Then we do n't think we will be purchasing Rage , Mr. Carmack .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"It's not cast in stone yet, but at this point no, we don't think we will have dedicated servers,"Then we don't think we will be purchasing Rage, Mr. Carmack.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_0359204.30013450</id>
	<title>mistake</title>
	<author>Turiko</author>
	<datestamp>1257595800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm really not sure about this. Carmack has done a lot of great things, but i still think this is a very big mistake. Unless the game has nothing to form communities around (no deathmatch, capture the flag, anything), anyone who buys this game essentially gets no multiplayer. The pings will be way up, with loads of cheaters and hackers on. After all, it's easy to hack your local files and then click "host".</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm really not sure about this .
Carmack has done a lot of great things , but i still think this is a very big mistake .
Unless the game has nothing to form communities around ( no deathmatch , capture the flag , anything ) , anyone who buys this game essentially gets no multiplayer .
The pings will be way up , with loads of cheaters and hackers on .
After all , it 's easy to hack your local files and then click " host " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm really not sure about this.
Carmack has done a lot of great things, but i still think this is a very big mistake.
Unless the game has nothing to form communities around (no deathmatch, capture the flag, anything), anyone who buys this game essentially gets no multiplayer.
The pings will be way up, with loads of cheaters and hackers on.
After all, it's easy to hack your local files and then click "host".</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_0359204.30018580</id>
	<title>Re:Decentralized gaming IS the ancient remnant</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257606540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>UT3 has what 3 players? Yeah, great example.</htmltext>
<tokenext>UT3 has what 3 players ?
Yeah , great example .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>UT3 has what 3 players?
Yeah, great example.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_0359204.30012914</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_0359204.30014080</id>
	<title>Re:Simply about piracy</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257606180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Authentication and dedicated servers are not mutually exclusive, every game I can think of since Quake 3 (and probably earlier) has authenticated the player against a master server before letting them join.  While possible to run hacked servers, it generally requires everyone involved to have the hacked client, and they have always been few in number and full of hackers and such to make a guaranteed shitty player experience.  This is about selling DLC, plain and simple.  I know that this decision is going to cost them my sale for MW2 and Rage.  I bought the first Modern Warfare and loved it and was already sold on the second one when they announced this nonsense.  They've lost my sale, and it will probably be blamed on piracy and used as an excuse to shove more drm and more DLC down our throats.  Speaking of DLC, it has also cost Bioware a sale of Dragon Age, I was actually credit card in hand ready to buy it when I found out about the 3 or 4 different "editions" with different amounts of content, and even the most expensive one still doesn't get you all the content, theres more DLC to buy.  It's ridiculous!  Why buy and navigate the DLC maze they have created when I can pirate and have all the content and all the DLC and all the pre-oder "rewards" without jumping through hoops?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Authentication and dedicated servers are not mutually exclusive , every game I can think of since Quake 3 ( and probably earlier ) has authenticated the player against a master server before letting them join .
While possible to run hacked servers , it generally requires everyone involved to have the hacked client , and they have always been few in number and full of hackers and such to make a guaranteed shitty player experience .
This is about selling DLC , plain and simple .
I know that this decision is going to cost them my sale for MW2 and Rage .
I bought the first Modern Warfare and loved it and was already sold on the second one when they announced this nonsense .
They 've lost my sale , and it will probably be blamed on piracy and used as an excuse to shove more drm and more DLC down our throats .
Speaking of DLC , it has also cost Bioware a sale of Dragon Age , I was actually credit card in hand ready to buy it when I found out about the 3 or 4 different " editions " with different amounts of content , and even the most expensive one still does n't get you all the content , theres more DLC to buy .
It 's ridiculous !
Why buy and navigate the DLC maze they have created when I can pirate and have all the content and all the DLC and all the pre-oder " rewards " without jumping through hoops ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Authentication and dedicated servers are not mutually exclusive, every game I can think of since Quake 3 (and probably earlier) has authenticated the player against a master server before letting them join.
While possible to run hacked servers, it generally requires everyone involved to have the hacked client, and they have always been few in number and full of hackers and such to make a guaranteed shitty player experience.
This is about selling DLC, plain and simple.
I know that this decision is going to cost them my sale for MW2 and Rage.
I bought the first Modern Warfare and loved it and was already sold on the second one when they announced this nonsense.
They've lost my sale, and it will probably be blamed on piracy and used as an excuse to shove more drm and more DLC down our throats.
Speaking of DLC, it has also cost Bioware a sale of Dragon Age, I was actually credit card in hand ready to buy it when I found out about the 3 or 4 different "editions" with different amounts of content, and even the most expensive one still doesn't get you all the content, theres more DLC to buy.
It's ridiculous!
Why buy and navigate the DLC maze they have created when I can pirate and have all the content and all the DLC and all the pre-oder "rewards" without jumping through hoops?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_0359204.30012736</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_0359204.30015316</id>
	<title>Sure there's a technical reason</title>
	<author>Sycraft-fu</author>
	<datestamp>1257619620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well, a number of them actually. One would be bandwidth. Lots of people don't have good bandwidth on their connection, especially upstream. The majority of consumer connections in the US are highly asymmetric, way more download than upload. So it is easy to find someone without sufficient bandwidth to easily host a game since they are likely to be on a cheap consumer cable connection. Now compare that to a dedicated server. If it is good, and the ones people come back to are, it'll be hosted in a datacenter with plenty of bandwidth. It will have bandwidth guaranteed for it's server slots and thus that'll never be a problem.</p><p>Another technical issue is ping time. Again a lot of consumer connections aren't great with this. DSL in particular seems to add a lot of ping at the bridge, but cable isn't wonderful. The providers also are not always well peered, your data can take a long route to get to them. So this leads to high ping times and again less game performance. If you have a 150-200ms ping to a server it does not feel responsive like a 30-50ms server. Dedicated servers again can solve this, not only by being in well peered datacenters, but you can choose their location. You can have an East Coast, Central, and West Coast server so that people in the geographic area can connect to it.</p><p>Finally there's the issue of how well people's computer actually handle being the server. Who is to say that they have plenty of resources free? Even if their hardware meets the level that it should, what if they have tons of shit running in the background? Maybe they've got spyware eating up tons of CPU time, etc. Again not a problem on a real dedicated server. It can be configured to ensure adequate CPU time is available for the process.</p><p>So there ARE plenty of technical issues. Now while there is the potential for these to exist with a server, after all someone could run a dedicated server on a modem on a slow computer, the good news is you can make lists of good servers and use those. You go back to the servers you like, that work well, and they are always online. Can't do that with player hosted stuff unless they player is one and wants to play with you.</p><p>Heck, I've noticed this with Call of Duty World at War. A couple of my friends like to play, and they encourage me to play because it works better when I host. Why? I've got a quad core and a business class cable connection. They've got dual cores and consumer class lines. They find when I host, the game runs much smoother for them.</p><p>So there really ARE technical reasons for dedicated servers, and gameplay reasons too.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , a number of them actually .
One would be bandwidth .
Lots of people do n't have good bandwidth on their connection , especially upstream .
The majority of consumer connections in the US are highly asymmetric , way more download than upload .
So it is easy to find someone without sufficient bandwidth to easily host a game since they are likely to be on a cheap consumer cable connection .
Now compare that to a dedicated server .
If it is good , and the ones people come back to are , it 'll be hosted in a datacenter with plenty of bandwidth .
It will have bandwidth guaranteed for it 's server slots and thus that 'll never be a problem.Another technical issue is ping time .
Again a lot of consumer connections are n't great with this .
DSL in particular seems to add a lot of ping at the bridge , but cable is n't wonderful .
The providers also are not always well peered , your data can take a long route to get to them .
So this leads to high ping times and again less game performance .
If you have a 150-200ms ping to a server it does not feel responsive like a 30-50ms server .
Dedicated servers again can solve this , not only by being in well peered datacenters , but you can choose their location .
You can have an East Coast , Central , and West Coast server so that people in the geographic area can connect to it.Finally there 's the issue of how well people 's computer actually handle being the server .
Who is to say that they have plenty of resources free ?
Even if their hardware meets the level that it should , what if they have tons of shit running in the background ?
Maybe they 've got spyware eating up tons of CPU time , etc .
Again not a problem on a real dedicated server .
It can be configured to ensure adequate CPU time is available for the process.So there ARE plenty of technical issues .
Now while there is the potential for these to exist with a server , after all someone could run a dedicated server on a modem on a slow computer , the good news is you can make lists of good servers and use those .
You go back to the servers you like , that work well , and they are always online .
Ca n't do that with player hosted stuff unless they player is one and wants to play with you.Heck , I 've noticed this with Call of Duty World at War .
A couple of my friends like to play , and they encourage me to play because it works better when I host .
Why ? I 've got a quad core and a business class cable connection .
They 've got dual cores and consumer class lines .
They find when I host , the game runs much smoother for them.So there really ARE technical reasons for dedicated servers , and gameplay reasons too .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, a number of them actually.
One would be bandwidth.
Lots of people don't have good bandwidth on their connection, especially upstream.
The majority of consumer connections in the US are highly asymmetric, way more download than upload.
So it is easy to find someone without sufficient bandwidth to easily host a game since they are likely to be on a cheap consumer cable connection.
Now compare that to a dedicated server.
If it is good, and the ones people come back to are, it'll be hosted in a datacenter with plenty of bandwidth.
It will have bandwidth guaranteed for it's server slots and thus that'll never be a problem.Another technical issue is ping time.
Again a lot of consumer connections aren't great with this.
DSL in particular seems to add a lot of ping at the bridge, but cable isn't wonderful.
The providers also are not always well peered, your data can take a long route to get to them.
So this leads to high ping times and again less game performance.
If you have a 150-200ms ping to a server it does not feel responsive like a 30-50ms server.
Dedicated servers again can solve this, not only by being in well peered datacenters, but you can choose their location.
You can have an East Coast, Central, and West Coast server so that people in the geographic area can connect to it.Finally there's the issue of how well people's computer actually handle being the server.
Who is to say that they have plenty of resources free?
Even if their hardware meets the level that it should, what if they have tons of shit running in the background?
Maybe they've got spyware eating up tons of CPU time, etc.
Again not a problem on a real dedicated server.
It can be configured to ensure adequate CPU time is available for the process.So there ARE plenty of technical issues.
Now while there is the potential for these to exist with a server, after all someone could run a dedicated server on a modem on a slow computer, the good news is you can make lists of good servers and use those.
You go back to the servers you like, that work well, and they are always online.
Can't do that with player hosted stuff unless they player is one and wants to play with you.Heck, I've noticed this with Call of Duty World at War.
A couple of my friends like to play, and they encourage me to play because it works better when I host.
Why? I've got a quad core and a business class cable connection.
They've got dual cores and consumer class lines.
They find when I host, the game runs much smoother for them.So there really ARE technical reasons for dedicated servers, and gameplay reasons too.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_0359204.30013002</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_0359204.30012716</id>
	<title>A remnant?</title>
	<author>Shadow of Eternity</author>
	<datestamp>1257535500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I wouldn't call ~200,000 people a day between only three games from ONE COMPANY when the most populous of those three games averages ~80-90K a day peak users despite being about 5 years old a remnant of the early days of PC gaming. I'd call that proof of how important dedicated servers and proper mod support are.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I would n't call ~ 200,000 people a day between only three games from ONE COMPANY when the most populous of those three games averages ~ 80-90K a day peak users despite being about 5 years old a remnant of the early days of PC gaming .
I 'd call that proof of how important dedicated servers and proper mod support are .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I wouldn't call ~200,000 people a day between only three games from ONE COMPANY when the most populous of those three games averages ~80-90K a day peak users despite being about 5 years old a remnant of the early days of PC gaming.
I'd call that proof of how important dedicated servers and proper mod support are.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_0359204.30014234</id>
	<title>Re:This isn't a good thing</title>
	<author>jcupitt65</author>
	<datestamp>1257608640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Yeah, and all of your packets have to go through said remote service as well. If said remote service is hosted in another country, guess how much higher your latency is going to be?</p></div></blockquote><p>
That's not how it works. The central server does matchmaking, but that's about all. The game itself is hosted by one of the clients, with some magic to hand over hosting as clients enter and leave the game. Your game packets do not go through a central server.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , and all of your packets have to go through said remote service as well .
If said remote service is hosted in another country , guess how much higher your latency is going to be ?
That 's not how it works .
The central server does matchmaking , but that 's about all .
The game itself is hosted by one of the clients , with some magic to hand over hosting as clients enter and leave the game .
Your game packets do not go through a central server .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, and all of your packets have to go through said remote service as well.
If said remote service is hosted in another country, guess how much higher your latency is going to be?
That's not how it works.
The central server does matchmaking, but that's about all.
The game itself is hosted by one of the clients, with some magic to hand over hosting as clients enter and leave the game.
Your game packets do not go through a central server.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_0359204.30013184</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_0359204.30050082</id>
	<title>very stupid move</title>
	<author>Criton</author>
	<datestamp>1257885120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I hope he enjoys not getting my money as dedicated servers are part of the reason why online gaming is so fun on the PC and utterly boring on the consoles.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I hope he enjoys not getting my money as dedicated servers are part of the reason why online gaming is so fun on the PC and utterly boring on the consoles .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I hope he enjoys not getting my money as dedicated servers are part of the reason why online gaming is so fun on the PC and utterly boring on the consoles.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_0359204.30013008</id>
	<title>Re:Battlefield Heroes..</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257584640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's worth pointing out that the RAGE demo at QUAKECON was done on a 360 controller. That should be a pretty strong sign that this is a console port design decision, that will ultimately affect the PC port. Let's take a look at console games with PC ports that use the "no dedicated server" model!<br>
&nbsp; <br>The downside to no dedicated servers is that you lose the community aspect, community organization becomes MUCH harder, and the game doesn't live on as long. See also: Left 4 Dead. Great concept, but almost impossible to get dedicated servers running for it. Or you can look at the recently released-for-PC game Borderlands - what a clusterfuck; the community eventually figured out what ports to unblock on their firewall, but even now people are having problems getting people to connect to their game/server. Incredibly frustrating, and I'm not really sure game/community mechanics have progressed far enough to allow the community/communities to grow up around the game that you want to push further away from dedicated servers. The one console game that I saw with a decent community setup was SOCOM 3 for the PS2; it had clans and messageboards, a messaging system and a somewhat steam-like buddy system/join buddy's game function.<br>
&nbsp; <br>Case in point: Rage is a console game, with console server matching system. The fact that it's coming out for the PC means that it's simply going to be a piss-poor PC port of a console game, and last time I checked, PC-ports of console games were fucking terrible (see also: Borderlands).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's worth pointing out that the RAGE demo at QUAKECON was done on a 360 controller .
That should be a pretty strong sign that this is a console port design decision , that will ultimately affect the PC port .
Let 's take a look at console games with PC ports that use the " no dedicated server " model !
  The downside to no dedicated servers is that you lose the community aspect , community organization becomes MUCH harder , and the game does n't live on as long .
See also : Left 4 Dead .
Great concept , but almost impossible to get dedicated servers running for it .
Or you can look at the recently released-for-PC game Borderlands - what a clusterfuck ; the community eventually figured out what ports to unblock on their firewall , but even now people are having problems getting people to connect to their game/server .
Incredibly frustrating , and I 'm not really sure game/community mechanics have progressed far enough to allow the community/communities to grow up around the game that you want to push further away from dedicated servers .
The one console game that I saw with a decent community setup was SOCOM 3 for the PS2 ; it had clans and messageboards , a messaging system and a somewhat steam-like buddy system/join buddy 's game function .
  Case in point : Rage is a console game , with console server matching system .
The fact that it 's coming out for the PC means that it 's simply going to be a piss-poor PC port of a console game , and last time I checked , PC-ports of console games were fucking terrible ( see also : Borderlands ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's worth pointing out that the RAGE demo at QUAKECON was done on a 360 controller.
That should be a pretty strong sign that this is a console port design decision, that will ultimately affect the PC port.
Let's take a look at console games with PC ports that use the "no dedicated server" model!
  The downside to no dedicated servers is that you lose the community aspect, community organization becomes MUCH harder, and the game doesn't live on as long.
See also: Left 4 Dead.
Great concept, but almost impossible to get dedicated servers running for it.
Or you can look at the recently released-for-PC game Borderlands - what a clusterfuck; the community eventually figured out what ports to unblock on their firewall, but even now people are having problems getting people to connect to their game/server.
Incredibly frustrating, and I'm not really sure game/community mechanics have progressed far enough to allow the community/communities to grow up around the game that you want to push further away from dedicated servers.
The one console game that I saw with a decent community setup was SOCOM 3 for the PS2; it had clans and messageboards, a messaging system and a somewhat steam-like buddy system/join buddy's game function.
  Case in point: Rage is a console game, with console server matching system.
The fact that it's coming out for the PC means that it's simply going to be a piss-poor PC port of a console game, and last time I checked, PC-ports of console games were fucking terrible (see also: Borderlands).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_0359204.30012766</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_0359204.30012766</id>
	<title>Battlefield Heroes..</title>
	<author>msimm</author>
	<datestamp>1257536820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Battlefield Heroes uses a similar setup and for the most part servers are a nebulous thing the match making servers put you on. Because for the most part real people don't run the servers admins are less common. There's less incentive to rent a servers (through approved resellers) because the communities that usually grow up around more active servers or more skilled players don't really form. My friends might be good but when we join a game it could be just about anywhere, if we even bother to join. One way I could think of to compensate for all this would be strong team/clan tools because they would cause little communities and host servers their players would spend more time on, but honestly I haven't seen any games with something decent since Tribes 2 (invite system, team management, tag controls, even a messaging system!).<br> <br>
I don't love or hate the matchmaking system, but I would like to see them find a way to do it that doesn't impact the gaming community so much. Until then I'll miss my server browser.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Battlefield Heroes uses a similar setup and for the most part servers are a nebulous thing the match making servers put you on .
Because for the most part real people do n't run the servers admins are less common .
There 's less incentive to rent a servers ( through approved resellers ) because the communities that usually grow up around more active servers or more skilled players do n't really form .
My friends might be good but when we join a game it could be just about anywhere , if we even bother to join .
One way I could think of to compensate for all this would be strong team/clan tools because they would cause little communities and host servers their players would spend more time on , but honestly I have n't seen any games with something decent since Tribes 2 ( invite system , team management , tag controls , even a messaging system ! ) .
I do n't love or hate the matchmaking system , but I would like to see them find a way to do it that does n't impact the gaming community so much .
Until then I 'll miss my server browser .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Battlefield Heroes uses a similar setup and for the most part servers are a nebulous thing the match making servers put you on.
Because for the most part real people don't run the servers admins are less common.
There's less incentive to rent a servers (through approved resellers) because the communities that usually grow up around more active servers or more skilled players don't really form.
My friends might be good but when we join a game it could be just about anywhere, if we even bother to join.
One way I could think of to compensate for all this would be strong team/clan tools because they would cause little communities and host servers their players would spend more time on, but honestly I haven't seen any games with something decent since Tribes 2 (invite system, team management, tag controls, even a messaging system!).
I don't love or hate the matchmaking system, but I would like to see them find a way to do it that doesn't impact the gaming community so much.
Until then I'll miss my server browser.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_0359204.30012714</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_0359204.30014496</id>
	<title>Carmack sold out.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257612540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>He has sold out his beliefs, his passion, and his work.  He once said that DirectX was the worst thing ever (which it is) and now he openly embraces it.  He has supported Linux in the past and now they are moving away from that.  Now he has betrayed PC gaming completely by going to some stupid console-like gaming model that many other PC games are stupidly going toward.  What do you want to bet it will be the absolutely horrible Microsoft Games for Windows thing?</p><p>Fuck Carmack and fuck id.  They have betrayed PC gaming just like everyone else is.  Microsoft flashed id some fucking money and now he's in bed with them.  Screw them and don't give them any more of your money.  Demand PC gaming that supports multiple OSes, a sane 3d API, and most of all, decentralized servers.  You know, PC GAMES, not goddamn console ports.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>He has sold out his beliefs , his passion , and his work .
He once said that DirectX was the worst thing ever ( which it is ) and now he openly embraces it .
He has supported Linux in the past and now they are moving away from that .
Now he has betrayed PC gaming completely by going to some stupid console-like gaming model that many other PC games are stupidly going toward .
What do you want to bet it will be the absolutely horrible Microsoft Games for Windows thing ? Fuck Carmack and fuck id .
They have betrayed PC gaming just like everyone else is .
Microsoft flashed id some fucking money and now he 's in bed with them .
Screw them and do n't give them any more of your money .
Demand PC gaming that supports multiple OSes , a sane 3d API , and most of all , decentralized servers .
You know , PC GAMES , not goddamn console ports .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>He has sold out his beliefs, his passion, and his work.
He once said that DirectX was the worst thing ever (which it is) and now he openly embraces it.
He has supported Linux in the past and now they are moving away from that.
Now he has betrayed PC gaming completely by going to some stupid console-like gaming model that many other PC games are stupidly going toward.
What do you want to bet it will be the absolutely horrible Microsoft Games for Windows thing?Fuck Carmack and fuck id.
They have betrayed PC gaming just like everyone else is.
Microsoft flashed id some fucking money and now he's in bed with them.
Screw them and don't give them any more of your money.
Demand PC gaming that supports multiple OSes, a sane 3d API, and most of all, decentralized servers.
You know, PC GAMES, not goddamn console ports.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_0359204.30017712</id>
	<title>The plan is simple</title>
	<author>icsx</author>
	<datestamp>1257597840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>No dedicated servers = no communities to extend game life = no players = game does not last long = they can do another sequel = same thing all over. Did i just reveal their business plan?</htmltext>
<tokenext>No dedicated servers = no communities to extend game life = no players = game does not last long = they can do another sequel = same thing all over .
Did i just reveal their business plan ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No dedicated servers = no communities to extend game life = no players = game does not last long = they can do another sequel = same thing all over.
Did i just reveal their business plan?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_0359204.30014108</id>
	<title>Re:Decentralized gaming IS the ancient remnant</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257606720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>That is until Borderlands came out. This game is a wretched reminder of the 'bad old days'. I spent hours scouring forums and search engines, fiddling with my router, and trying to set it up so that I could host a game for my friend. No dice. Even setting my computer as the DMZ host didn't help. The only way myself and another friend were able to play was through a third friend who didn't have any issues</p></div><p>Yeah I've only tried Borderlands for PC like three times online and all three were awful. Gearbox should be ashamed and embarrassed about the piss poor online play experience they provided to their PC using customers.</p><p>They shouldn't feel any too proud about claiming it was designed for PC either since so many of the UI elements are still quite clearly console oriented, even after releasing the PC version a week after the console versions, allegedly so that they could "optimize" it.  Selling things is a pain in the ass since the dialogs require clicking with the mouse as they don't respond to Enter and Esc the way the text on them claims they do.</p><p>Not to mention that not having a single damn setting for voice chat in the in-game menus or a way to mute players or a push to talk key is simply stupid.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>That is until Borderlands came out .
This game is a wretched reminder of the 'bad old days' .
I spent hours scouring forums and search engines , fiddling with my router , and trying to set it up so that I could host a game for my friend .
No dice .
Even setting my computer as the DMZ host did n't help .
The only way myself and another friend were able to play was through a third friend who did n't have any issuesYeah I 've only tried Borderlands for PC like three times online and all three were awful .
Gearbox should be ashamed and embarrassed about the piss poor online play experience they provided to their PC using customers.They should n't feel any too proud about claiming it was designed for PC either since so many of the UI elements are still quite clearly console oriented , even after releasing the PC version a week after the console versions , allegedly so that they could " optimize " it .
Selling things is a pain in the ass since the dialogs require clicking with the mouse as they do n't respond to Enter and Esc the way the text on them claims they do.Not to mention that not having a single damn setting for voice chat in the in-game menus or a way to mute players or a push to talk key is simply stupid .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That is until Borderlands came out.
This game is a wretched reminder of the 'bad old days'.
I spent hours scouring forums and search engines, fiddling with my router, and trying to set it up so that I could host a game for my friend.
No dice.
Even setting my computer as the DMZ host didn't help.
The only way myself and another friend were able to play was through a third friend who didn't have any issuesYeah I've only tried Borderlands for PC like three times online and all three were awful.
Gearbox should be ashamed and embarrassed about the piss poor online play experience they provided to their PC using customers.They shouldn't feel any too proud about claiming it was designed for PC either since so many of the UI elements are still quite clearly console oriented, even after releasing the PC version a week after the console versions, allegedly so that they could "optimize" it.
Selling things is a pain in the ass since the dialogs require clicking with the mouse as they don't respond to Enter and Esc the way the text on them claims they do.Not to mention that not having a single damn setting for voice chat in the in-game menus or a way to mute players or a push to talk key is simply stupid.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_0359204.30012914</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_0359204.30012854</id>
	<title>sadder than a crying puppy</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257625020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>My earliest experience with gaming was staying up until the wee hours of the morning playing Action quake2 and rail-instagib CTF with those laser hooks they had.  It was punishingly brutal back then, you could die 3 times in less than a second on some servers, and hackers could run rampant until an admin banned his ass.  It was all worth it once you got that midair lag-shot on the top player on the server. These were all community supported mods running on dedicated servers.  No servers, no mods, no community.  This will only end in tears, or pirates, or both.</htmltext>
<tokenext>My earliest experience with gaming was staying up until the wee hours of the morning playing Action quake2 and rail-instagib CTF with those laser hooks they had .
It was punishingly brutal back then , you could die 3 times in less than a second on some servers , and hackers could run rampant until an admin banned his ass .
It was all worth it once you got that midair lag-shot on the top player on the server .
These were all community supported mods running on dedicated servers .
No servers , no mods , no community .
This will only end in tears , or pirates , or both .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My earliest experience with gaming was staying up until the wee hours of the morning playing Action quake2 and rail-instagib CTF with those laser hooks they had.
It was punishingly brutal back then, you could die 3 times in less than a second on some servers, and hackers could run rampant until an admin banned his ass.
It was all worth it once you got that midair lag-shot on the top player on the server.
These were all community supported mods running on dedicated servers.
No servers, no mods, no community.
This will only end in tears, or pirates, or both.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_0359204.30131102</id>
	<title>Re:Simply about piracy</title>
	<author>CaseM</author>
	<datestamp>1258483140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'd argue this is less about piracy and more about upselling DLC to the PC crowd, which they can't currently do as easily as they'd like when gamers have dedicated servers and mod tools to extend the life of the game.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'd argue this is less about piracy and more about upselling DLC to the PC crowd , which they ca n't currently do as easily as they 'd like when gamers have dedicated servers and mod tools to extend the life of the game .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'd argue this is less about piracy and more about upselling DLC to the PC crowd, which they can't currently do as easily as they'd like when gamers have dedicated servers and mod tools to extend the life of the game.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_0359204.30012736</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_0359204.30013016</id>
	<title>Re:Decentralized gaming IS the ancient remnant</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257584700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm thinking back to when Kali was released, and for $20 you had lifetime access.
<br> <br>
I'm thinking back to Madden 2001 and the sheer fun that was online play (through a simple java matchmaker).
<br> <br>
I'm thinking back to D2, and how much fun battle.net was, as long as you pretended cheats didn't exist.
<br> <br>
A centralized service has its benefits, but it has to be a game that is going to be really really good. It's not a secret that poor designs of authenticated matching systems flop in a big way.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm thinking back to when Kali was released , and for $ 20 you had lifetime access .
I 'm thinking back to Madden 2001 and the sheer fun that was online play ( through a simple java matchmaker ) .
I 'm thinking back to D2 , and how much fun battle.net was , as long as you pretended cheats did n't exist .
A centralized service has its benefits , but it has to be a game that is going to be really really good .
It 's not a secret that poor designs of authenticated matching systems flop in a big way .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm thinking back to when Kali was released, and for $20 you had lifetime access.
I'm thinking back to Madden 2001 and the sheer fun that was online play (through a simple java matchmaker).
I'm thinking back to D2, and how much fun battle.net was, as long as you pretended cheats didn't exist.
A centralized service has its benefits, but it has to be a game that is going to be really really good.
It's not a secret that poor designs of authenticated matching systems flop in a big way.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_0359204.30012914</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_0359204.30013166</id>
	<title>Re:Decentralized gaming IS the ancient remnant</title>
	<author>petrus4</author>
	<datestamp>1257589200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Decentralisation = the people doing it by and for themselves, on their own terms, at low or no cost.</p><p>Centralisation = the suits doing it for you, charging you through the nose for it, dictating exactly when, where, and how it's going to happen, and the brainless masses referring to it as being a good thing.</p><p>Some of said sheep will probably respond to this very post, in order to tell me I'm wrong.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Decentralisation = the people doing it by and for themselves , on their own terms , at low or no cost.Centralisation = the suits doing it for you , charging you through the nose for it , dictating exactly when , where , and how it 's going to happen , and the brainless masses referring to it as being a good thing.Some of said sheep will probably respond to this very post , in order to tell me I 'm wrong .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Decentralisation = the people doing it by and for themselves, on their own terms, at low or no cost.Centralisation = the suits doing it for you, charging you through the nose for it, dictating exactly when, where, and how it's going to happen, and the brainless masses referring to it as being a good thing.Some of said sheep will probably respond to this very post, in order to tell me I'm wrong.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_0359204.30012914</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_0359204.30014158</id>
	<title>Whats next?</title>
	<author>Darkness404</author>
	<datestamp>1257607560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>No dedicated servers? Whats next lag that automatically lags with the person with the crappiest connection? No chat features? Sounds like PC gaming is starting to hit the 360 way, I wonder when it will become like the Wii.</htmltext>
<tokenext>No dedicated servers ?
Whats next lag that automatically lags with the person with the crappiest connection ?
No chat features ?
Sounds like PC gaming is starting to hit the 360 way , I wonder when it will become like the Wii .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No dedicated servers?
Whats next lag that automatically lags with the person with the crappiest connection?
No chat features?
Sounds like PC gaming is starting to hit the 360 way, I wonder when it will become like the Wii.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_0359204.30012714</id>
	<title>Glad to see he's not charging forward</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257535500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>But given the mess that has grown up around MW2, it should be pretty clear that the attempt to leave dedicated servers behind is not being taken well.  The mechanism in use there seems destined to cause problems for users, and the fluidity available from dedicated servers can't be easily replaced by any system that has users hosting servers.  It may be that hordes of virtual servers are the future of dedicated servers, but that's still a far better option than things like a five-second pause while the players' systems figure out who is taking over next.</p><p>If there's anyone that I trust to come up with a workable technical solution, it's John Carmack, but that doesn't necessarily mean that it's a good idea.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>But given the mess that has grown up around MW2 , it should be pretty clear that the attempt to leave dedicated servers behind is not being taken well .
The mechanism in use there seems destined to cause problems for users , and the fluidity available from dedicated servers ca n't be easily replaced by any system that has users hosting servers .
It may be that hordes of virtual servers are the future of dedicated servers , but that 's still a far better option than things like a five-second pause while the players ' systems figure out who is taking over next.If there 's anyone that I trust to come up with a workable technical solution , it 's John Carmack , but that does n't necessarily mean that it 's a good idea .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But given the mess that has grown up around MW2, it should be pretty clear that the attempt to leave dedicated servers behind is not being taken well.
The mechanism in use there seems destined to cause problems for users, and the fluidity available from dedicated servers can't be easily replaced by any system that has users hosting servers.
It may be that hordes of virtual servers are the future of dedicated servers, but that's still a far better option than things like a five-second pause while the players' systems figure out who is taking over next.If there's anyone that I trust to come up with a workable technical solution, it's John Carmack, but that doesn't necessarily mean that it's a good idea.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_0359204.30013156</id>
	<title>Re:Technical vs. emotional</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257588840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>ping fairness and the variability of host quality (how many background processes, does the user maintain his system etc).<br>running a modern game in listen mode on a modern comp is no different from running an old game on an old comp in the same way..</p><p>user setup dedicated servers are the backbone of any multiplayer game community.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>ping fairness and the variability of host quality ( how many background processes , does the user maintain his system etc ) .running a modern game in listen mode on a modern comp is no different from running an old game on an old comp in the same way..user setup dedicated servers are the backbone of any multiplayer game community .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>ping fairness and the variability of host quality (how many background processes, does the user maintain his system etc).running a modern game in listen mode on a modern comp is no different from running an old game on an old comp in the same way..user setup dedicated servers are the backbone of any multiplayer game community.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_0359204.30013002</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_0359204.30014480</id>
	<title>Re:Decentralized gaming IS the ancient remnant</title>
	<author>jdkane</author>
	<datestamp>1257612420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><em>a man who is, frankly, one of the forefathers of modern gaming, [...snip...]. He should stick to coding and leave the design to someone who has some idea of what gamers want.</em></p><p>As a forefather of modern gaming he doesn't know what gamers want? Interesting assertion. I suppose the word design can be used in many contexts but still I wouldn't be so sure he doesn't know what gamers want in any of those contexts.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>a man who is , frankly , one of the forefathers of modern gaming , [ ...snip... ] .
He should stick to coding and leave the design to someone who has some idea of what gamers want.As a forefather of modern gaming he does n't know what gamers want ?
Interesting assertion .
I suppose the word design can be used in many contexts but still I would n't be so sure he does n't know what gamers want in any of those contexts .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>a man who is, frankly, one of the forefathers of modern gaming, [...snip...].
He should stick to coding and leave the design to someone who has some idea of what gamers want.As a forefather of modern gaming he doesn't know what gamers want?
Interesting assertion.
I suppose the word design can be used in many contexts but still I wouldn't be so sure he doesn't know what gamers want in any of those contexts.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_0359204.30012914</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_0359204.30012808</id>
	<title>News Flash: Carmack No Longer Relevant</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257624360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Thank god I didn't have to figure it out!!"</p><p>What happened to Carmack the innovator?  Nowdays it seems hes happy to take backseat to bolder devs like Valve and Infinity Ward.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Thank god I did n't have to figure it out ! !
" What happened to Carmack the innovator ?
Nowdays it seems hes happy to take backseat to bolder devs like Valve and Infinity Ward .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Thank god I didn't have to figure it out!!
"What happened to Carmack the innovator?
Nowdays it seems hes happy to take backseat to bolder devs like Valve and Infinity Ward.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_0359204.30013280</id>
	<title>Re:A remnant?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257592920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think it is just more proof that they are doing their best to kill the communities and mods so they can shove DLC down our throats. All my favorite games were made favorites NOT by the designers, but by the communities and mods that built up around them and gave me MORE for my money and extended my fun, not screwing me over so they can "maximize profit potential".</p><p>

No mods? No money from me. No dedicated servers? Again no money from me. If we PC gamers get together and make damned sure that any game that screws us over rots on the shelves, while buying up the ones that treat us right, maybe then we won't end up in x360 hell, which is what they seem to be pushing us towards. I <em>don't want</em> a damned 360, thanks ever so much!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think it is just more proof that they are doing their best to kill the communities and mods so they can shove DLC down our throats .
All my favorite games were made favorites NOT by the designers , but by the communities and mods that built up around them and gave me MORE for my money and extended my fun , not screwing me over so they can " maximize profit potential " .
No mods ?
No money from me .
No dedicated servers ?
Again no money from me .
If we PC gamers get together and make damned sure that any game that screws us over rots on the shelves , while buying up the ones that treat us right , maybe then we wo n't end up in x360 hell , which is what they seem to be pushing us towards .
I do n't want a damned 360 , thanks ever so much !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think it is just more proof that they are doing their best to kill the communities and mods so they can shove DLC down our throats.
All my favorite games were made favorites NOT by the designers, but by the communities and mods that built up around them and gave me MORE for my money and extended my fun, not screwing me over so they can "maximize profit potential".
No mods?
No money from me.
No dedicated servers?
Again no money from me.
If we PC gamers get together and make damned sure that any game that screws us over rots on the shelves, while buying up the ones that treat us right, maybe then we won't end up in x360 hell, which is what they seem to be pushing us towards.
I don't want a damned 360, thanks ever so much!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_0359204.30012716</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_0359204.30013434</id>
	<title>Re:boycott</title>
	<author>drsquare</author>
	<datestamp>1257595500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>all games using technology licensed from id</p></div></blockquote><p>Both of them?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>all games using technology licensed from idBoth of them ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>all games using technology licensed from idBoth of them?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_0359204.30012850</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_0359204.30013398</id>
	<title>Xbox Live gimping all platforms.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257595080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You can all thank Microsoft and Xbox Lives reliance on laggy P2P networking for this.   Any multiplatform titles that includes Xbox360, will mean all the other platforms that usually have dedicated servers (PC and PS3) will get gimped due to the Xbox's limitations.</p><p>THANKS MICROSOFT, YOUR CRAPPY HARDWARE AND CRAPPY  SOFTWARE IS SLOWLY DESTROYING GAMING NOT ONLY ON YOUR SYSTEMS BUT YOUR COMPETITORS TOO.</p><p>Thankfully I only mostly support PS3 exclusive titles, not only because they are better, but don't have to play to Microsofts gimped P2P networking.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You can all thank Microsoft and Xbox Lives reliance on laggy P2P networking for this .
Any multiplatform titles that includes Xbox360 , will mean all the other platforms that usually have dedicated servers ( PC and PS3 ) will get gimped due to the Xbox 's limitations.THANKS MICROSOFT , YOUR CRAPPY HARDWARE AND CRAPPY SOFTWARE IS SLOWLY DESTROYING GAMING NOT ONLY ON YOUR SYSTEMS BUT YOUR COMPETITORS TOO.Thankfully I only mostly support PS3 exclusive titles , not only because they are better , but do n't have to play to Microsofts gimped P2P networking .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You can all thank Microsoft and Xbox Lives reliance on laggy P2P networking for this.
Any multiplatform titles that includes Xbox360, will mean all the other platforms that usually have dedicated servers (PC and PS3) will get gimped due to the Xbox's limitations.THANKS MICROSOFT, YOUR CRAPPY HARDWARE AND CRAPPY  SOFTWARE IS SLOWLY DESTROYING GAMING NOT ONLY ON YOUR SYSTEMS BUT YOUR COMPETITORS TOO.Thankfully I only mostly support PS3 exclusive titles, not only because they are better, but don't have to play to Microsofts gimped P2P networking.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_0359204.30017276</id>
	<title>Re:A remnant?</title>
	<author>RobDollar</author>
	<datestamp>1257593460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As others have said, current "business models" just don't allow for the dedicated server approach, mainly because the suits seem to think that change is always a good thing.</p><p>Without dedicated servers and forced authentication (which is why I don't understand the borderlands / operation flashpoint DR business model of no auth, p2p multiplayer) "downloadable content" can be charged for with ease.</p><p>My point is, one of the most popular ever FPS games using the dedicated server setup is Counterstrike, a game which is 10 years old and started life as a  free modification of a commercial game. The game and it's remake still sell, and the worldwide dedicated server business is huge.</p><p>The big publishers now just want control of the whole darn kaboodle, and while it doesn't prolong the life of the game, it nets revenue in a way that at the very most makes the suits feel good about themselves. Big publishers aren't about gamers, they really are just about the cash.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As others have said , current " business models " just do n't allow for the dedicated server approach , mainly because the suits seem to think that change is always a good thing.Without dedicated servers and forced authentication ( which is why I do n't understand the borderlands / operation flashpoint DR business model of no auth , p2p multiplayer ) " downloadable content " can be charged for with ease.My point is , one of the most popular ever FPS games using the dedicated server setup is Counterstrike , a game which is 10 years old and started life as a free modification of a commercial game .
The game and it 's remake still sell , and the worldwide dedicated server business is huge.The big publishers now just want control of the whole darn kaboodle , and while it does n't prolong the life of the game , it nets revenue in a way that at the very most makes the suits feel good about themselves .
Big publishers are n't about gamers , they really are just about the cash .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As others have said, current "business models" just don't allow for the dedicated server approach, mainly because the suits seem to think that change is always a good thing.Without dedicated servers and forced authentication (which is why I don't understand the borderlands / operation flashpoint DR business model of no auth, p2p multiplayer) "downloadable content" can be charged for with ease.My point is, one of the most popular ever FPS games using the dedicated server setup is Counterstrike, a game which is 10 years old and started life as a  free modification of a commercial game.
The game and it's remake still sell, and the worldwide dedicated server business is huge.The big publishers now just want control of the whole darn kaboodle, and while it doesn't prolong the life of the game, it nets revenue in a way that at the very most makes the suits feel good about themselves.
Big publishers aren't about gamers, they really are just about the cash.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_0359204.30012716</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_0359204.30012910</id>
	<title>Re:A remnant?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257626040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Amazing. They do not learn from success and call it remnant of the early days of PC gaming like it is a bad thing. Carmack and the other out of touch with reality greedy people that is.</p><p>I have been playing games since C64. I never once bought a game in my life. You just copied tapes, floppy disk etc from a friend of a friend.</p><p>Then Orange Box with TF2 came along. Bought and paid for it once. Still playing regularly several hours a week after 2 years. Dedicated Servers. Great community. Strong competitive scene still growing. Updates and new content every once in a while for nil.</p><p>Now just give me my hat already.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Amazing .
They do not learn from success and call it remnant of the early days of PC gaming like it is a bad thing .
Carmack and the other out of touch with reality greedy people that is.I have been playing games since C64 .
I never once bought a game in my life .
You just copied tapes , floppy disk etc from a friend of a friend.Then Orange Box with TF2 came along .
Bought and paid for it once .
Still playing regularly several hours a week after 2 years .
Dedicated Servers .
Great community .
Strong competitive scene still growing .
Updates and new content every once in a while for nil.Now just give me my hat already .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Amazing.
They do not learn from success and call it remnant of the early days of PC gaming like it is a bad thing.
Carmack and the other out of touch with reality greedy people that is.I have been playing games since C64.
I never once bought a game in my life.
You just copied tapes, floppy disk etc from a friend of a friend.Then Orange Box with TF2 came along.
Bought and paid for it once.
Still playing regularly several hours a week after 2 years.
Dedicated Servers.
Great community.
Strong competitive scene still growing.
Updates and new content every once in a while for nil.Now just give me my hat already.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_0359204.30012716</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_0359204.30012938</id>
	<title>Not everyone can host a game via p2p</title>
	<author>Mistakill</author>
	<datestamp>1257626460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>you need a very decent upstream connection (sans throttling by overzealous ISP's - thats a whole different ballgame) to host a game in the way IW, and perhaps Carmack are suggesting... ie this is from the FAQ of Call Of Duty 2
<br> <br>
to host a game (upload speed)<br>
128kbps upload: 4 players<br>
384kbps upload: 8 players<br>
768kbps upload: 10 players <br>
<br>
<br>
Id suggest that alot of people just dont have the upstream speed to cope with hosting a game... especially those of us in New Zealand, and Australia</htmltext>
<tokenext>you need a very decent upstream connection ( sans throttling by overzealous ISP 's - thats a whole different ballgame ) to host a game in the way IW , and perhaps Carmack are suggesting... ie this is from the FAQ of Call Of Duty 2 to host a game ( upload speed ) 128kbps upload : 4 players 384kbps upload : 8 players 768kbps upload : 10 players Id suggest that alot of people just dont have the upstream speed to cope with hosting a game... especially those of us in New Zealand , and Australia</tokentext>
<sentencetext>you need a very decent upstream connection (sans throttling by overzealous ISP's - thats a whole different ballgame) to host a game in the way IW, and perhaps Carmack are suggesting... ie this is from the FAQ of Call Of Duty 2
 
to host a game (upload speed)
128kbps upload: 4 players
384kbps upload: 8 players
768kbps upload: 10 players 


Id suggest that alot of people just dont have the upstream speed to cope with hosting a game... especially those of us in New Zealand, and Australia</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_0359204.30013798</id>
	<title>Cmdr Taco says ...</title>
	<author>daveime</author>
	<datestamp>1257601920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Cmdr Taco says no &lt;em&gt;tags&lt;/em&gt; in story titles on the<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. homepage !</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Cmdr Taco says no tags in story titles on the / .
homepage !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Cmdr Taco says no tags in story titles on the /.
homepage !</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_0359204.30012914</id>
	<title>Decentralized gaming IS the ancient remnant</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257626160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Anyone remember the days before dedicated gaming and reliable, integrated server browsers? Remember not too long ago when Gamespy was just being started and provided the revolutionary service or helping people connect to servers, but had to be run outside the game and started the game?</p><p>Think back even further. Remember trying to set up peer to peer games? Yeah, I'd almost forgotten about it to.</p><p>That is until Borderlands came out. This game is a wretched reminder of the 'bad old days'. I spent hours scouring forums and search engines, fiddling with my router, and trying to set it up so that I could host a game for my friend. No dice. Even setting my computer as the DMZ host didn't help. The only way myself and another friend were able to play was through a third friend who didn't have any issues.</p><p>Meanwhile, games like UT3 and TF2 work like a charm. Not to mention it's frankly a really cool social experience of having a server you frequent and getting to know the other people who frequent it rather than only ever getting to see the friends you've already got or a continuous parade of people you play with once and then never see again.</p><p>With all due respect to a man who is, frankly, one of the forefathers of modern gaming, saying that dedicated servers are an artifact of the past is just a blatantly stupid assertion to make. He should stick to coding and leave the design to someone who has some idea of what gamers want.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Anyone remember the days before dedicated gaming and reliable , integrated server browsers ?
Remember not too long ago when Gamespy was just being started and provided the revolutionary service or helping people connect to servers , but had to be run outside the game and started the game ? Think back even further .
Remember trying to set up peer to peer games ?
Yeah , I 'd almost forgotten about it to.That is until Borderlands came out .
This game is a wretched reminder of the 'bad old days' .
I spent hours scouring forums and search engines , fiddling with my router , and trying to set it up so that I could host a game for my friend .
No dice .
Even setting my computer as the DMZ host did n't help .
The only way myself and another friend were able to play was through a third friend who did n't have any issues.Meanwhile , games like UT3 and TF2 work like a charm .
Not to mention it 's frankly a really cool social experience of having a server you frequent and getting to know the other people who frequent it rather than only ever getting to see the friends you 've already got or a continuous parade of people you play with once and then never see again.With all due respect to a man who is , frankly , one of the forefathers of modern gaming , saying that dedicated servers are an artifact of the past is just a blatantly stupid assertion to make .
He should stick to coding and leave the design to someone who has some idea of what gamers want .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Anyone remember the days before dedicated gaming and reliable, integrated server browsers?
Remember not too long ago when Gamespy was just being started and provided the revolutionary service or helping people connect to servers, but had to be run outside the game and started the game?Think back even further.
Remember trying to set up peer to peer games?
Yeah, I'd almost forgotten about it to.That is until Borderlands came out.
This game is a wretched reminder of the 'bad old days'.
I spent hours scouring forums and search engines, fiddling with my router, and trying to set it up so that I could host a game for my friend.
No dice.
Even setting my computer as the DMZ host didn't help.
The only way myself and another friend were able to play was through a third friend who didn't have any issues.Meanwhile, games like UT3 and TF2 work like a charm.
Not to mention it's frankly a really cool social experience of having a server you frequent and getting to know the other people who frequent it rather than only ever getting to see the friends you've already got or a continuous parade of people you play with once and then never see again.With all due respect to a man who is, frankly, one of the forefathers of modern gaming, saying that dedicated servers are an artifact of the past is just a blatantly stupid assertion to make.
He should stick to coding and leave the design to someone who has some idea of what gamers want.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_0359204.30013378</id>
	<title>Re:Battlefield Heroes..</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257594780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>See: Left 4 Dead. Great concept, but almost impossible to get dedicated servers running for it. Or you can look at the recently released-for-PC game Borderlands - what a clusterfuck; the community eventually figured out what ports to unblock on their firewall, but even now people are having problems getting people to connect to their game/server.</p></div><p>We have an INX dedicated server we can switch between Left 4 Dead and the Left 4 Dead 2 demo. Actually using it is a pain in the arse though. We haven't used the feature of associating it to our steam group since they added it, because it didn't support grouping up in a lobby and choosing gamemode, level, characters etc before playing. You had to restart the server to change gamemodes! Setting a search key and force\_dedicated\_servers list seem to work though, so we've been using that.</p><p>For Borderlands, only the one of us with a public IP (actually multiple static IPs and a router that supports multiple DMZs with different IPs, so he's technically still behind NAT) has ever hosted a game successfully. Even better, it never works first time, he always has to restart Borderlands before we can actually connect.<br>The game itself though (apart from a few minor pre-first-patch bugs) is awesome. Who doesn't want a rocket launcher that fires a spread of five rockets that set everything on fire when they explode?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>See : Left 4 Dead .
Great concept , but almost impossible to get dedicated servers running for it .
Or you can look at the recently released-for-PC game Borderlands - what a clusterfuck ; the community eventually figured out what ports to unblock on their firewall , but even now people are having problems getting people to connect to their game/server.We have an INX dedicated server we can switch between Left 4 Dead and the Left 4 Dead 2 demo .
Actually using it is a pain in the arse though .
We have n't used the feature of associating it to our steam group since they added it , because it did n't support grouping up in a lobby and choosing gamemode , level , characters etc before playing .
You had to restart the server to change gamemodes !
Setting a search key and force \ _dedicated \ _servers list seem to work though , so we 've been using that.For Borderlands , only the one of us with a public IP ( actually multiple static IPs and a router that supports multiple DMZs with different IPs , so he 's technically still behind NAT ) has ever hosted a game successfully .
Even better , it never works first time , he always has to restart Borderlands before we can actually connect.The game itself though ( apart from a few minor pre-first-patch bugs ) is awesome .
Who does n't want a rocket launcher that fires a spread of five rockets that set everything on fire when they explode ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>See: Left 4 Dead.
Great concept, but almost impossible to get dedicated servers running for it.
Or you can look at the recently released-for-PC game Borderlands - what a clusterfuck; the community eventually figured out what ports to unblock on their firewall, but even now people are having problems getting people to connect to their game/server.We have an INX dedicated server we can switch between Left 4 Dead and the Left 4 Dead 2 demo.
Actually using it is a pain in the arse though.
We haven't used the feature of associating it to our steam group since they added it, because it didn't support grouping up in a lobby and choosing gamemode, level, characters etc before playing.
You had to restart the server to change gamemodes!
Setting a search key and force\_dedicated\_servers list seem to work though, so we've been using that.For Borderlands, only the one of us with a public IP (actually multiple static IPs and a router that supports multiple DMZs with different IPs, so he's technically still behind NAT) has ever hosted a game successfully.
Even better, it never works first time, he always has to restart Borderlands before we can actually connect.The game itself though (apart from a few minor pre-first-patch bugs) is awesome.
Who doesn't want a rocket launcher that fires a spread of five rockets that set everything on fire when they explode?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_0359204.30013008</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_0359204.30012736</id>
	<title>Simply about piracy</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257536040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>They could give a damn about matchmaking. It's a trojan horse.<br>They want everyone to use matchmaking, which really means they want everyone to use an authentication system.</htmltext>
<tokenext>They could give a damn about matchmaking .
It 's a trojan horse.They want everyone to use matchmaking , which really means they want everyone to use an authentication system .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They could give a damn about matchmaking.
It's a trojan horse.They want everyone to use matchmaking, which really means they want everyone to use an authentication system.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_0359204.30016334</id>
	<title>Re:Technical vs. emotional</title>
	<author>citizenr</author>
	<datestamp>1257627120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> <i>With the CPU/GPU horsepower available, there is no reason why you can't host a game and still get stellar framerates.</i></p> </div><p>its not about frames, its about pings/lag</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>With the CPU/GPU horsepower available , there is no reason why you ca n't host a game and still get stellar framerates .
its not about frames , its about pings/lag</tokentext>
<sentencetext> With the CPU/GPU horsepower available, there is no reason why you can't host a game and still get stellar framerates.
its not about frames, its about pings/lag
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_0359204.30013002</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_0359204.30012712</id>
	<title>More getting the shaft</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257535380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Thanks game devs for getting those with only lan access in moms baement the shaft.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Thanks game devs for getting those with only lan access in moms baement the shaft .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Thanks game devs for getting those with only lan access in moms baement the shaft.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_0359204.30013530</id>
	<title>New trends, new counter-trends</title>
	<author>4D6963</author>
	<datestamp>1257597480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So, if the new trend is to lock PC players into closed matchmaking services, wouldn't it start a trend of disgruntled players moding the game into having a satisfactory multiplayer service with dedicated services? Think about it, PC players have already modded single player games into adding entirely a multiplayer service (and quite successfully at that, I'm thinking about GTA San Andreas' two multiplayer mods, MTA SA and SA-MP).

</p><p>An hypothetical example : Modern Warfare 2. It has both generated epic levels of interest from players, arguably even historical levels, and simultaneously no less historical and epic levels of discontent from PC players due to the drop of dedicated servers. So imagine the scenario : MW2 is released, discontent hardcore PC gamers boycott it and pirate it en masse, and to get the multiplayer experience they want out of their new favourite game they create their own dedicated servers and the accompanying mod for the original game, resulting in an online community of multiplayer gamers who control entirely the multiplayer aspect.

</p><p>The net result being everybody pirating the game and running the mod and everybody's happy with it except the game's publishers who lost control of the multiplayer on PC and who lost tens (if not hundreds) of thousands of sales. Could this be a forthcoming counter-trend?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So , if the new trend is to lock PC players into closed matchmaking services , would n't it start a trend of disgruntled players moding the game into having a satisfactory multiplayer service with dedicated services ?
Think about it , PC players have already modded single player games into adding entirely a multiplayer service ( and quite successfully at that , I 'm thinking about GTA San Andreas ' two multiplayer mods , MTA SA and SA-MP ) .
An hypothetical example : Modern Warfare 2 .
It has both generated epic levels of interest from players , arguably even historical levels , and simultaneously no less historical and epic levels of discontent from PC players due to the drop of dedicated servers .
So imagine the scenario : MW2 is released , discontent hardcore PC gamers boycott it and pirate it en masse , and to get the multiplayer experience they want out of their new favourite game they create their own dedicated servers and the accompanying mod for the original game , resulting in an online community of multiplayer gamers who control entirely the multiplayer aspect .
The net result being everybody pirating the game and running the mod and everybody 's happy with it except the game 's publishers who lost control of the multiplayer on PC and who lost tens ( if not hundreds ) of thousands of sales .
Could this be a forthcoming counter-trend ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So, if the new trend is to lock PC players into closed matchmaking services, wouldn't it start a trend of disgruntled players moding the game into having a satisfactory multiplayer service with dedicated services?
Think about it, PC players have already modded single player games into adding entirely a multiplayer service (and quite successfully at that, I'm thinking about GTA San Andreas' two multiplayer mods, MTA SA and SA-MP).
An hypothetical example : Modern Warfare 2.
It has both generated epic levels of interest from players, arguably even historical levels, and simultaneously no less historical and epic levels of discontent from PC players due to the drop of dedicated servers.
So imagine the scenario : MW2 is released, discontent hardcore PC gamers boycott it and pirate it en masse, and to get the multiplayer experience they want out of their new favourite game they create their own dedicated servers and the accompanying mod for the original game, resulting in an online community of multiplayer gamers who control entirely the multiplayer aspect.
The net result being everybody pirating the game and running the mod and everybody's happy with it except the game's publishers who lost control of the multiplayer on PC and who lost tens (if not hundreds) of thousands of sales.
Could this be a forthcoming counter-trend?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_0359204.30012824</id>
	<title>What rage will be like.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257624480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm thinking rage will be a tricked up Far Cry 2, FPS with some wafer thin role playing elements, you drive around, shoot some stuff, drive around, repeat. Like any FPS it will have implausibly located exploding barrels, and crates... everywhere. We are long past the era significant innovation in the FPS genre.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm thinking rage will be a tricked up Far Cry 2 , FPS with some wafer thin role playing elements , you drive around , shoot some stuff , drive around , repeat .
Like any FPS it will have implausibly located exploding barrels , and crates... everywhere. We are long past the era significant innovation in the FPS genre .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm thinking rage will be a tricked up Far Cry 2, FPS with some wafer thin role playing elements, you drive around, shoot some stuff, drive around, repeat.
Like any FPS it will have implausibly located exploding barrels, and crates... everywhere. We are long past the era significant innovation in the FPS genre.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_0359204.30012838</id>
	<title>John Carmack is something of a remnant himself</title>
	<author>kbrasee</author>
	<datestamp>1257624660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Just sayin'.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Just sayin' .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just sayin'.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_0359204.30013432</id>
	<title>Re:Having no dedicated servers is a bad idea</title>
	<author>Zoidbot</author>
	<datestamp>1257595440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You can all thank Microsoft and Xbox Lives reliance on laggy P2P networking for this.   Any multiplatform titles that includes Xbox360, will mean all the other platforms that usually have dedicated servers (PC and PS3) will get gimped due to the Xbox's limitations.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You can all thank Microsoft and Xbox Lives reliance on laggy P2P networking for this .
Any multiplatform titles that includes Xbox360 , will mean all the other platforms that usually have dedicated servers ( PC and PS3 ) will get gimped due to the Xbox 's limitations .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You can all thank Microsoft and Xbox Lives reliance on laggy P2P networking for this.
Any multiplatform titles that includes Xbox360, will mean all the other platforms that usually have dedicated servers (PC and PS3) will get gimped due to the Xbox's limitations.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_0359204.30012836</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_0359204.30012874</id>
	<title>I'd care</title>
	<author>tengeta</author>
	<datestamp>1257625380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>But I stopped playing games a year ago... what a great year its been.</htmltext>
<tokenext>But I stopped playing games a year ago... what a great year its been .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But I stopped playing games a year ago... what a great year its been.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_0359204.30013134</id>
	<title>Doesn't really matter</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257588180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>RAGE, from what I understand, won't have anything like deathmatches; last I heard, it would have a two-player co-op mode, and some head-to-head racing.  Dedicated servers may simply be overkill in that situation.  I think this may be a big ado over nothing.</htmltext>
<tokenext>RAGE , from what I understand , wo n't have anything like deathmatches ; last I heard , it would have a two-player co-op mode , and some head-to-head racing .
Dedicated servers may simply be overkill in that situation .
I think this may be a big ado over nothing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>RAGE, from what I understand, won't have anything like deathmatches; last I heard, it would have a two-player co-op mode, and some head-to-head racing.
Dedicated servers may simply be overkill in that situation.
I think this may be a big ado over nothing.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_0359204.30012850</id>
	<title>boycott</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257624900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>forget a petition, if id wants to screw over PC gamers then a boycott of all id games and all games using technology licensed from id is in order.</htmltext>
<tokenext>forget a petition , if id wants to screw over PC gamers then a boycott of all id games and all games using technology licensed from id is in order .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>forget a petition, if id wants to screw over PC gamers then a boycott of all id games and all games using technology licensed from id is in order.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_0359204.30013372</id>
	<title>Re:Battlefield Heroes..</title>
	<author>spire3661</author>
	<datestamp>1257594660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I see your Borderlands and raise you a Dragon Age: Origins</htmltext>
<tokenext>I see your Borderlands and raise you a Dragon Age : Origins</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I see your Borderlands and raise you a Dragon Age: Origins</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_0359204.30013008</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_0359204.30015246</id>
	<title>What happened to posterity?</title>
	<author>Viper2026</author>
	<datestamp>1257619200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Would so many people still be playing counter-strike if it weren't for the huge number of highly customized and pimped out servers? I don't think so</htmltext>
<tokenext>Would so many people still be playing counter-strike if it were n't for the huge number of highly customized and pimped out servers ?
I do n't think so</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Would so many people still be playing counter-strike if it weren't for the huge number of highly customized and pimped out servers?
I don't think so</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_0359204.30013212</id>
	<title>Re:Decentralized gaming IS the ancient remnant</title>
	<author>Scott Kevill</author>
	<datestamp>1257590820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>That is until Borderlands came out. This game is a wretched reminder of the 'bad old days'. I spent hours scouring forums and search engines, fiddling with my router, and trying to set it up so that I could host a game for my friend. No dice. Even setting my computer as the DMZ host didn't help. The only way myself and another friend were able to play was through a third friend who didn't have any issues.</p></div><p>For what it's worth, most people are playing Borderlands online now using GameRanger for exactly this reason, because it eliminates all these problems. Gearbox has unofficially recommended it as a solution as well.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>That is until Borderlands came out .
This game is a wretched reminder of the 'bad old days' .
I spent hours scouring forums and search engines , fiddling with my router , and trying to set it up so that I could host a game for my friend .
No dice .
Even setting my computer as the DMZ host did n't help .
The only way myself and another friend were able to play was through a third friend who did n't have any issues.For what it 's worth , most people are playing Borderlands online now using GameRanger for exactly this reason , because it eliminates all these problems .
Gearbox has unofficially recommended it as a solution as well .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That is until Borderlands came out.
This game is a wretched reminder of the 'bad old days'.
I spent hours scouring forums and search engines, fiddling with my router, and trying to set it up so that I could host a game for my friend.
No dice.
Even setting my computer as the DMZ host didn't help.
The only way myself and another friend were able to play was through a third friend who didn't have any issues.For what it's worth, most people are playing Borderlands online now using GameRanger for exactly this reason, because it eliminates all these problems.
Gearbox has unofficially recommended it as a solution as well.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_0359204.30012914</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_0359204.30013184</id>
	<title>This isn't a good thing</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257589920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There is way, way, *way* too much of a push away from open, transparent, decentralised internet protocols in pretty much every area, to centralised, proprietary, suit-run messes.</p><p>The benefit of being able to run a decentralised server wasn't about doing the gaming equivalent of channel surfing.  It was about being able to throw together a LAN in a basement, bedroom, or living room with some local RL friends whenever you wanted.</p><p>I can just hear the brainless, ovine responses now.</p><p>"But we'll still be able to do that!  We can just go through the remote service to do so!"</p><p>Yeah, and all of your packets have to go through said remote service as well.  If said remote service is hosted in another country, guess how much higher your latency is going to be?</p><p>Add to that, the fact that you're paying money for no good reason other than your own stupidity and laziness.  You should not want to give a company the ability to dictate terms of use to you, and you especially shouldn't want to give said company money when you don't have to.</p><p>It doesn't really bother me, though.  I don't play contemporary games, and the single main reason why is because they've been dumbed down in order to give the Guitar Hero demographic what they want; something to serve as a centrepiece in the living room on a Friday night, while people are getting drunk and/or stoned with their friends.</p><p>If you care about actually having any kind of real challenge in a game now, you're accused of having no life.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There is way , way , * way * too much of a push away from open , transparent , decentralised internet protocols in pretty much every area , to centralised , proprietary , suit-run messes.The benefit of being able to run a decentralised server was n't about doing the gaming equivalent of channel surfing .
It was about being able to throw together a LAN in a basement , bedroom , or living room with some local RL friends whenever you wanted.I can just hear the brainless , ovine responses now .
" But we 'll still be able to do that !
We can just go through the remote service to do so !
" Yeah , and all of your packets have to go through said remote service as well .
If said remote service is hosted in another country , guess how much higher your latency is going to be ? Add to that , the fact that you 're paying money for no good reason other than your own stupidity and laziness .
You should not want to give a company the ability to dictate terms of use to you , and you especially should n't want to give said company money when you do n't have to.It does n't really bother me , though .
I do n't play contemporary games , and the single main reason why is because they 've been dumbed down in order to give the Guitar Hero demographic what they want ; something to serve as a centrepiece in the living room on a Friday night , while people are getting drunk and/or stoned with their friends.If you care about actually having any kind of real challenge in a game now , you 're accused of having no life .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is way, way, *way* too much of a push away from open, transparent, decentralised internet protocols in pretty much every area, to centralised, proprietary, suit-run messes.The benefit of being able to run a decentralised server wasn't about doing the gaming equivalent of channel surfing.
It was about being able to throw together a LAN in a basement, bedroom, or living room with some local RL friends whenever you wanted.I can just hear the brainless, ovine responses now.
"But we'll still be able to do that!
We can just go through the remote service to do so!
"Yeah, and all of your packets have to go through said remote service as well.
If said remote service is hosted in another country, guess how much higher your latency is going to be?Add to that, the fact that you're paying money for no good reason other than your own stupidity and laziness.
You should not want to give a company the ability to dictate terms of use to you, and you especially shouldn't want to give said company money when you don't have to.It doesn't really bother me, though.
I don't play contemporary games, and the single main reason why is because they've been dumbed down in order to give the Guitar Hero demographic what they want; something to serve as a centrepiece in the living room on a Friday night, while people are getting drunk and/or stoned with their friends.If you care about actually having any kind of real challenge in a game now, you're accused of having no life.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_0359204.30013002</id>
	<title>Technical vs. emotional</title>
	<author>TiggertheMad</author>
	<datestamp>1257584640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>With all due respect to a man who is, frankly, one of the forefathers of modern gaming, saying that dedicated servers are an artifact of the past is just a blatantly stupid assertion to make. He should stick to coding and leave the design to someone who has some idea of what gamers want.</i>
<br> <br>
That didn't sound very respectful. I think that JC was implying that there is no <i>technical</i> reason for dedicated servers anymore. With the CPU/GPU horsepower available, there is no reason why you can't host a game and still get stellar framerates. I think you are reading things into his comments that aren't there.</htmltext>
<tokenext>With all due respect to a man who is , frankly , one of the forefathers of modern gaming , saying that dedicated servers are an artifact of the past is just a blatantly stupid assertion to make .
He should stick to coding and leave the design to someone who has some idea of what gamers want .
That did n't sound very respectful .
I think that JC was implying that there is no technical reason for dedicated servers anymore .
With the CPU/GPU horsepower available , there is no reason why you ca n't host a game and still get stellar framerates .
I think you are reading things into his comments that are n't there .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>With all due respect to a man who is, frankly, one of the forefathers of modern gaming, saying that dedicated servers are an artifact of the past is just a blatantly stupid assertion to make.
He should stick to coding and leave the design to someone who has some idea of what gamers want.
That didn't sound very respectful.
I think that JC was implying that there is no technical reason for dedicated servers anymore.
With the CPU/GPU horsepower available, there is no reason why you can't host a game and still get stellar framerates.
I think you are reading things into his comments that aren't there.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_0359204.30012914</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_0359204.30013928</id>
	<title>Re:Technical vs. emotional</title>
	<author>TheRaven64</author>
	<datestamp>1257604140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There are still a few reasons for wanting a dedicated server.  You can have a dedicated server that keeps running when the person who started the game gets bored.  With a proper p2p architecture that can still happen, but it's difficult to get right.  With a client-server architecture, the person who started the game quitting generally leads to everyone being kicked off.  With a dedicated server you can have a game running 24 hours a day and just have people drop in and leave when they have some time.  </p><p>
As another poster pointed out, the person running a non-dedicated server has an effective ping of 0, which gives a noticeable advantage on Internet games (and a slight one on LAN games).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There are still a few reasons for wanting a dedicated server .
You can have a dedicated server that keeps running when the person who started the game gets bored .
With a proper p2p architecture that can still happen , but it 's difficult to get right .
With a client-server architecture , the person who started the game quitting generally leads to everyone being kicked off .
With a dedicated server you can have a game running 24 hours a day and just have people drop in and leave when they have some time .
As another poster pointed out , the person running a non-dedicated server has an effective ping of 0 , which gives a noticeable advantage on Internet games ( and a slight one on LAN games ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There are still a few reasons for wanting a dedicated server.
You can have a dedicated server that keeps running when the person who started the game gets bored.
With a proper p2p architecture that can still happen, but it's difficult to get right.
With a client-server architecture, the person who started the game quitting generally leads to everyone being kicked off.
With a dedicated server you can have a game running 24 hours a day and just have people drop in and leave when they have some time.
As another poster pointed out, the person running a non-dedicated server has an effective ping of 0, which gives a noticeable advantage on Internet games (and a slight one on LAN games).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_0359204.30013002</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_0359204.30015352</id>
	<title>community</title>
	<author>DaveGod</author>
	<datestamp>1257619860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Every MP game I've played for more than a week I've spent probably 90\% of my game time in a single communities' servers. This goes right back to Quake and stands true today (TF2). Probably &gt;99.999\% of that time the server had some kind of mod too.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Every MP game I 've played for more than a week I 've spent probably 90 \ % of my game time in a single communities ' servers .
This goes right back to Quake and stands true today ( TF2 ) .
Probably &gt; 99.999 \ % of that time the server had some kind of mod too .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Every MP game I've played for more than a week I've spent probably 90\% of my game time in a single communities' servers.
This goes right back to Quake and stands true today (TF2).
Probably &gt;99.999\% of that time the server had some kind of mod too.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_0359204.30012836</id>
	<title>Having no dedicated servers is a bad idea</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257624660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A lot of today's FPSes seem to prefer a ping of less than 100ms.  Many of them become very frustrating to play at 150ms -- I can only assume this is due to whatever cheat protection they use forcing them to use less and less lag compensation, and forcing them to run less of the simulation locally.</p><p>I live on the west coast, and a lot of the people I play with live on the east coast.  So when we have the option of buying a server, we get one somewhere in the middle so that we all have pings in the 50-100ms range instead of the 150-200ms range.  Taking this option away will really, really suck.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A lot of today 's FPSes seem to prefer a ping of less than 100ms .
Many of them become very frustrating to play at 150ms -- I can only assume this is due to whatever cheat protection they use forcing them to use less and less lag compensation , and forcing them to run less of the simulation locally.I live on the west coast , and a lot of the people I play with live on the east coast .
So when we have the option of buying a server , we get one somewhere in the middle so that we all have pings in the 50-100ms range instead of the 150-200ms range .
Taking this option away will really , really suck .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A lot of today's FPSes seem to prefer a ping of less than 100ms.
Many of them become very frustrating to play at 150ms -- I can only assume this is due to whatever cheat protection they use forcing them to use less and less lag compensation, and forcing them to run less of the simulation locally.I live on the west coast, and a lot of the people I play with live on the east coast.
So when we have the option of buying a server, we get one somewhere in the middle so that we all have pings in the 50-100ms range instead of the 150-200ms range.
Taking this option away will really, really suck.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_0359204.30015442</id>
	<title>Re:Having no dedicated servers is a bad idea</title>
	<author>RiotingPacifist</author>
	<datestamp>1257620520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>American internet sucks? I suppose living in the UK is why i avoid playing on servers that ping more than 50 (avg). The physical distance is dwarfed by c, so how come it takes 200ms to get a signal from one cost to the other?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>American internet sucks ?
I suppose living in the UK is why i avoid playing on servers that ping more than 50 ( avg ) .
The physical distance is dwarfed by c , so how come it takes 200ms to get a signal from one cost to the other ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>American internet sucks?
I suppose living in the UK is why i avoid playing on servers that ping more than 50 (avg).
The physical distance is dwarfed by c, so how come it takes 200ms to get a signal from one cost to the other?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_0359204.30012836</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_0359204.30015432</id>
	<title>What's really funny to me</title>
	<author>Sycraft-fu</author>
	<datestamp>1257620460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Is I'd think you'd want to go the other way. Not just have dedicated servers, but allow for dedicated servers for consoles too. UT3 does just that, you can get a server that runs on PCs, but is designed to serve the PS3 version of the game. So you can have dedicated servers even for console games. Great idea IMO. You allow for peer to peer games, but support dedicated servers for all platforms. That way people can play how they like. Also dedicated servers are clearly loved by a non-trivial amount of people as there are businesses out there set up for selling servers. You specify what kind of server you want how many slots etc and they make it and bill you for it. Wouldn't be going on if people weren't buying.</p><p>Basically to me this indicates that Carmack has lost touch. He's decided to become the console designer, perhaps because he buys in to the arguments that you can't make money on PC games because of piracy (Valve and Stardock beg to disagree). Ok, fine, in that case I'm probalby done with iD's games. No big loss from what I can see, I really didn't much are for Doom 3 and Quake 4. iD Tech 4 really underwhelmed me, even compared to Unreal Engine 2, and certainly compared to Unreal Engine 3.</p><p>I think we are witnessing the slow sunset of iD. They aren't going to die, they are just going to become another samey games produces cranking out console titles that generate some minor interest. They don't seem to be interested in trying to forge ahead anymore.</p><p>Whatever makes them happy I guess.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Is I 'd think you 'd want to go the other way .
Not just have dedicated servers , but allow for dedicated servers for consoles too .
UT3 does just that , you can get a server that runs on PCs , but is designed to serve the PS3 version of the game .
So you can have dedicated servers even for console games .
Great idea IMO .
You allow for peer to peer games , but support dedicated servers for all platforms .
That way people can play how they like .
Also dedicated servers are clearly loved by a non-trivial amount of people as there are businesses out there set up for selling servers .
You specify what kind of server you want how many slots etc and they make it and bill you for it .
Would n't be going on if people were n't buying.Basically to me this indicates that Carmack has lost touch .
He 's decided to become the console designer , perhaps because he buys in to the arguments that you ca n't make money on PC games because of piracy ( Valve and Stardock beg to disagree ) .
Ok , fine , in that case I 'm probalby done with iD 's games .
No big loss from what I can see , I really did n't much are for Doom 3 and Quake 4. iD Tech 4 really underwhelmed me , even compared to Unreal Engine 2 , and certainly compared to Unreal Engine 3.I think we are witnessing the slow sunset of iD .
They are n't going to die , they are just going to become another samey games produces cranking out console titles that generate some minor interest .
They do n't seem to be interested in trying to forge ahead anymore.Whatever makes them happy I guess .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is I'd think you'd want to go the other way.
Not just have dedicated servers, but allow for dedicated servers for consoles too.
UT3 does just that, you can get a server that runs on PCs, but is designed to serve the PS3 version of the game.
So you can have dedicated servers even for console games.
Great idea IMO.
You allow for peer to peer games, but support dedicated servers for all platforms.
That way people can play how they like.
Also dedicated servers are clearly loved by a non-trivial amount of people as there are businesses out there set up for selling servers.
You specify what kind of server you want how many slots etc and they make it and bill you for it.
Wouldn't be going on if people weren't buying.Basically to me this indicates that Carmack has lost touch.
He's decided to become the console designer, perhaps because he buys in to the arguments that you can't make money on PC games because of piracy (Valve and Stardock beg to disagree).
Ok, fine, in that case I'm probalby done with iD's games.
No big loss from what I can see, I really didn't much are for Doom 3 and Quake 4. iD Tech 4 really underwhelmed me, even compared to Unreal Engine 2, and certainly compared to Unreal Engine 3.I think we are witnessing the slow sunset of iD.
They aren't going to die, they are just going to become another samey games produces cranking out console titles that generate some minor interest.
They don't seem to be interested in trying to forge ahead anymore.Whatever makes them happy I guess.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_0359204.30013008</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_0359204.30013772</id>
	<title>Dedicated servers  are a must</title>
	<author>thetoadwarrior</author>
	<datestamp>1257601620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>The only reason to get rid of dedicated servers is to kill the community when you want and force people to move on your next game.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The only reason to get rid of dedicated servers is to kill the community when you want and force people to move on your next game .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The only reason to get rid of dedicated servers is to kill the community when you want and force people to move on your next game.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_0359204.30017174</id>
	<title>Re:Decentralized gaming IS the ancient remnant</title>
	<author>wintermute000</author>
	<datestamp>1257592260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Mate if you can't port forward / open firewall ports to get borderlands to work, then how are you getting any other port forwarding requirements to work for anything else?</p><p>took me less than 5 minutes and most of that was spent in notepad cutting and pasting lines out of access lists (in addition to static NAT mappings, I am running a CBAC firewall so I need to open that up in my router as well), for a typical point and click home router gui I can't see how it could have been difficult. Esp if you have a DMZ option. Did you remember to open up your PC's firewall as well?</p><p>Agreed though that for non technical gamers its a no-no, and explains why you can't join 3 out of 4 servers visible. I just start a game labelled 'ports open' myself and people flock to it instantly, I get 0 ping, it works for me... but damn I wish it was steam and had a dedicated server (steam + dedicated left4dead server = good times)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Mate if you ca n't port forward / open firewall ports to get borderlands to work , then how are you getting any other port forwarding requirements to work for anything else ? took me less than 5 minutes and most of that was spent in notepad cutting and pasting lines out of access lists ( in addition to static NAT mappings , I am running a CBAC firewall so I need to open that up in my router as well ) , for a typical point and click home router gui I ca n't see how it could have been difficult .
Esp if you have a DMZ option .
Did you remember to open up your PC 's firewall as well ? Agreed though that for non technical gamers its a no-no , and explains why you ca n't join 3 out of 4 servers visible .
I just start a game labelled 'ports open ' myself and people flock to it instantly , I get 0 ping , it works for me... but damn I wish it was steam and had a dedicated server ( steam + dedicated left4dead server = good times )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Mate if you can't port forward / open firewall ports to get borderlands to work, then how are you getting any other port forwarding requirements to work for anything else?took me less than 5 minutes and most of that was spent in notepad cutting and pasting lines out of access lists (in addition to static NAT mappings, I am running a CBAC firewall so I need to open that up in my router as well), for a typical point and click home router gui I can't see how it could have been difficult.
Esp if you have a DMZ option.
Did you remember to open up your PC's firewall as well?Agreed though that for non technical gamers its a no-no, and explains why you can't join 3 out of 4 servers visible.
I just start a game labelled 'ports open' myself and people flock to it instantly, I get 0 ping, it works for me... but damn I wish it was steam and had a dedicated server (steam + dedicated left4dead server = good times)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_0359204.30012914</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_0359204.30015156</id>
	<title>Re:A remnant?</title>
	<author>Deosyne</author>
	<datestamp>1257618660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yeah, on one hand I still want to support titles which provide fun single player gameplay, even if they rape the online experience (see Modern Warfare 2; at least; I'm presuming that the single player experience will be solid and that it didn't go to consoleville as well). On the other, I would almost like to try driving games that do this shit off of our platform, except that considering what a bastard child that PC SKUs are already treated as, I'm concerned that the majority of the publishers will just say, "fuck the PC," and we'll end up with a game catalog as pathetic as that for the Mac.</p><p>I figure there will always be a few companies that will go for quality over forcing extended revenue streams by parting out games like a chop shop, so maybe we reserve our PC dollars for those gold titles and skip the crumbs that bossman sees fit to sprinkle our way. If we really want to play those games, I suppose we can just pick up a console and play them the way that developers like these obviously intend them to be played.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , on one hand I still want to support titles which provide fun single player gameplay , even if they rape the online experience ( see Modern Warfare 2 ; at least ; I 'm presuming that the single player experience will be solid and that it did n't go to consoleville as well ) .
On the other , I would almost like to try driving games that do this shit off of our platform , except that considering what a bastard child that PC SKUs are already treated as , I 'm concerned that the majority of the publishers will just say , " fuck the PC , " and we 'll end up with a game catalog as pathetic as that for the Mac.I figure there will always be a few companies that will go for quality over forcing extended revenue streams by parting out games like a chop shop , so maybe we reserve our PC dollars for those gold titles and skip the crumbs that bossman sees fit to sprinkle our way .
If we really want to play those games , I suppose we can just pick up a console and play them the way that developers like these obviously intend them to be played .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, on one hand I still want to support titles which provide fun single player gameplay, even if they rape the online experience (see Modern Warfare 2; at least; I'm presuming that the single player experience will be solid and that it didn't go to consoleville as well).
On the other, I would almost like to try driving games that do this shit off of our platform, except that considering what a bastard child that PC SKUs are already treated as, I'm concerned that the majority of the publishers will just say, "fuck the PC," and we'll end up with a game catalog as pathetic as that for the Mac.I figure there will always be a few companies that will go for quality over forcing extended revenue streams by parting out games like a chop shop, so maybe we reserve our PC dollars for those gold titles and skip the crumbs that bossman sees fit to sprinkle our way.
If we really want to play those games, I suppose we can just pick up a console and play them the way that developers like these obviously intend them to be played.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_0359204.30013280</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_0359204.30014256</id>
	<title>Re:sadder than a crying puppy</title>
	<author>Zak3056</author>
	<datestamp>1257609000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>My earliest experience with gaming was staying up until the wee hours of the morning playing Action quake2</p></div></blockquote><p>Lights... Camera... Action!!</p><p>Man, that brings back memories.  AQ2 was awesome, and likely the inspiration for many of the things we take for granted in current FPS games.</p><blockquote><div><p>No servers, no mods, no community. This will only end in tears, or pirates, or both.</p></div></blockquote><p>I can't help but agree with this completely.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>My earliest experience with gaming was staying up until the wee hours of the morning playing Action quake2Lights... Camera... Action !
! Man , that brings back memories .
AQ2 was awesome , and likely the inspiration for many of the things we take for granted in current FPS games.No servers , no mods , no community .
This will only end in tears , or pirates , or both.I ca n't help but agree with this completely .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My earliest experience with gaming was staying up until the wee hours of the morning playing Action quake2Lights... Camera... Action!
!Man, that brings back memories.
AQ2 was awesome, and likely the inspiration for many of the things we take for granted in current FPS games.No servers, no mods, no community.
This will only end in tears, or pirates, or both.I can't help but agree with this completely.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_0359204.30012854</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_0359204.30012770</id>
	<title>This is a bonus</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257536880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I don't pirate games I like and if it curbs cheating central servers is fine with me.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't pirate games I like and if it curbs cheating central servers is fine with me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't pirate games I like and if it curbs cheating central servers is fine with me.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_0359204.30027494</id>
	<title>Re:Not everyone can host a game via p2p</title>
	<author>incognito84</author>
	<datestamp>1257690660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Infinity Ward has said that they will select the host depending on their upstream and other factors. In this system, some people will always be hosts and others will never be hosts.
<br>
<br>
Lets see how well it works.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Infinity Ward has said that they will select the host depending on their upstream and other factors .
In this system , some people will always be hosts and others will never be hosts .
Lets see how well it works .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Infinity Ward has said that they will select the host depending on their upstream and other factors.
In this system, some people will always be hosts and others will never be hosts.
Lets see how well it works.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_0359204.30012938</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_0359204.30012880</id>
	<title>A remnant?</title>
	<author>deweyhewson</author>
	<datestamp>1257625500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Really, when was the last time Carmack's games were relevant? Doom 3, maybe? Even that was overshadowed by other, better, games at the time.

If anything is a leftover remnant of the 90s, it's id Software.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Really , when was the last time Carmack 's games were relevant ?
Doom 3 , maybe ?
Even that was overshadowed by other , better , games at the time .
If anything is a leftover remnant of the 90s , it 's id Software .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Really, when was the last time Carmack's games were relevant?
Doom 3, maybe?
Even that was overshadowed by other, better, games at the time.
If anything is a leftover remnant of the 90s, it's id Software.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_0359204.30015350</id>
	<title>Re:A remnant?</title>
	<author>RiotingPacifist</author>
	<datestamp>1257619800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt;I think it is just more proof that they are doing their best to kill the communities and mods</p><p>They can't be that stupid? Valve make a shit-load of money of Counter-strike(:source) and Day of Defeat:source, which all started out as mods (I was only an avid video gamer for a while so I'm sure there are lots more examples). Additionaly many people only buy thier latest game for the mods and to play with the community that has moved to them (i only got hl2, to play dod:s, to play dod with the clans i knew)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; I think it is just more proof that they are doing their best to kill the communities and modsThey ca n't be that stupid ?
Valve make a shit-load of money of Counter-strike ( : source ) and Day of Defeat : source , which all started out as mods ( I was only an avid video gamer for a while so I 'm sure there are lots more examples ) .
Additionaly many people only buy thier latest game for the mods and to play with the community that has moved to them ( i only got hl2 , to play dod : s , to play dod with the clans i knew )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt;I think it is just more proof that they are doing their best to kill the communities and modsThey can't be that stupid?
Valve make a shit-load of money of Counter-strike(:source) and Day of Defeat:source, which all started out as mods (I was only an avid video gamer for a while so I'm sure there are lots more examples).
Additionaly many people only buy thier latest game for the mods and to play with the community that has moved to them (i only got hl2, to play dod:s, to play dod with the clans i knew)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_0359204.30013280</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_0359204.30019534</id>
	<title>Re:A remnant?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257620460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>PC gaming is 'dead' as it were.  We get the crap ports now instead of the consoles getting the crap ports.</p><p>All that is left is DRM infested stuff which we do not want (and for good reasons that we brought on ourselves).</p><p>Also go into a gamestop/eb games and you will see a very small shelf dedicated to PC games.  They used to be *THE* place to get PC games.</p><p>Best Buy shelf space is shrinking.  With a GOOD area dedicated to WoW.</p><p>Console is where it is at to make money in games these days.</p><p>These days the best place to buy PC games brick and mortar?  Target.</p><p>Everyone thinks Steam and other download services is where it is at.  That is until your account is jacked up or you want to offload a game for some cash.  Also good luck if you have crap broadband.</p><p>In many ways it is a sad era to be a PC gamer<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:(</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>PC gaming is 'dead ' as it were .
We get the crap ports now instead of the consoles getting the crap ports.All that is left is DRM infested stuff which we do not want ( and for good reasons that we brought on ourselves ) .Also go into a gamestop/eb games and you will see a very small shelf dedicated to PC games .
They used to be * THE * place to get PC games.Best Buy shelf space is shrinking .
With a GOOD area dedicated to WoW.Console is where it is at to make money in games these days.These days the best place to buy PC games brick and mortar ?
Target.Everyone thinks Steam and other download services is where it is at .
That is until your account is jacked up or you want to offload a game for some cash .
Also good luck if you have crap broadband.In many ways it is a sad era to be a PC gamer : (</tokentext>
<sentencetext>PC gaming is 'dead' as it were.
We get the crap ports now instead of the consoles getting the crap ports.All that is left is DRM infested stuff which we do not want (and for good reasons that we brought on ourselves).Also go into a gamestop/eb games and you will see a very small shelf dedicated to PC games.
They used to be *THE* place to get PC games.Best Buy shelf space is shrinking.
With a GOOD area dedicated to WoW.Console is where it is at to make money in games these days.These days the best place to buy PC games brick and mortar?
Target.Everyone thinks Steam and other download services is where it is at.
That is until your account is jacked up or you want to offload a game for some cash.
Also good luck if you have crap broadband.In many ways it is a sad era to be a PC gamer :(</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_0359204.30013280</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_0359204.30016018</id>
	<title>Re:Decentralized gaming IS the ancient remnant</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257624360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Carmack, just like Miyamoto, is not God. Neither of them know everything. (Even Yokoi made mistakes, though his worst were in the realm of hardware design.)</p><p>That said, it doesn't matter if Carmack is becoming an obedient mouthpiece of his new masters or if he's just getting senile. <b>The elimination of the dedicated server damages the value of the product and shortens its lifespan.</b> It also doesn't matter if this is about piracy or content control, because one thing it can't possibly be about is adding value. That, my friends, is a poor decision.</p><p>This 'charge' away from dedicated servers is just another lurch toward the total MMOGification of the game industry. Publishers know that they're competing not only for your disposable income but your time, and if you're going to spend the same amount of time playing which ever game you choose, you might as well pay the most for it - so you won't buy into anything else, while giving the publisher the most money you can per purchase. If you don't see more subscription fees on the horizon, you've got to be blind. At least with the Korean business model, the game is free.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Carmack , just like Miyamoto , is not God .
Neither of them know everything .
( Even Yokoi made mistakes , though his worst were in the realm of hardware design .
) That said , it does n't matter if Carmack is becoming an obedient mouthpiece of his new masters or if he 's just getting senile .
The elimination of the dedicated server damages the value of the product and shortens its lifespan .
It also does n't matter if this is about piracy or content control , because one thing it ca n't possibly be about is adding value .
That , my friends , is a poor decision.This 'charge ' away from dedicated servers is just another lurch toward the total MMOGification of the game industry .
Publishers know that they 're competing not only for your disposable income but your time , and if you 're going to spend the same amount of time playing which ever game you choose , you might as well pay the most for it - so you wo n't buy into anything else , while giving the publisher the most money you can per purchase .
If you do n't see more subscription fees on the horizon , you 've got to be blind .
At least with the Korean business model , the game is free .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Carmack, just like Miyamoto, is not God.
Neither of them know everything.
(Even Yokoi made mistakes, though his worst were in the realm of hardware design.
)That said, it doesn't matter if Carmack is becoming an obedient mouthpiece of his new masters or if he's just getting senile.
The elimination of the dedicated server damages the value of the product and shortens its lifespan.
It also doesn't matter if this is about piracy or content control, because one thing it can't possibly be about is adding value.
That, my friends, is a poor decision.This 'charge' away from dedicated servers is just another lurch toward the total MMOGification of the game industry.
Publishers know that they're competing not only for your disposable income but your time, and if you're going to spend the same amount of time playing which ever game you choose, you might as well pay the most for it - so you won't buy into anything else, while giving the publisher the most money you can per purchase.
If you don't see more subscription fees on the horizon, you've got to be blind.
At least with the Korean business model, the game is free.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_0359204.30012914</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_0359204.30013906</id>
	<title>Re:Not everyone can host a game via p2p</title>
	<author>Fumus</author>
	<datestamp>1257604020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Id suggest that alot of people just dont have the upstream speed to cope with hosting a game... especially those of us in New Zealand, and Australia</p></div><p>Huh? I thought dedicated servers were just that - dedicated servers. A program running among many others on rented servers that have the upload speeds and everything needed to host games without problems.</p><p>I feel like I'm either missing something or others don't quite grasp the difference between a game hosted on your PC from your game, a game hosted by the developers, and a game hosted by players on dedicated servers.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Id suggest that alot of people just dont have the upstream speed to cope with hosting a game... especially those of us in New Zealand , and AustraliaHuh ?
I thought dedicated servers were just that - dedicated servers .
A program running among many others on rented servers that have the upload speeds and everything needed to host games without problems.I feel like I 'm either missing something or others do n't quite grasp the difference between a game hosted on your PC from your game , a game hosted by the developers , and a game hosted by players on dedicated servers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Id suggest that alot of people just dont have the upstream speed to cope with hosting a game... especially those of us in New Zealand, and AustraliaHuh?
I thought dedicated servers were just that - dedicated servers.
A program running among many others on rented servers that have the upload speeds and everything needed to host games without problems.I feel like I'm either missing something or others don't quite grasp the difference between a game hosted on your PC from your game, a game hosted by the developers, and a game hosted by players on dedicated servers.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_0359204.30012938</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_0359204.30013636</id>
	<title>Re:Technical vs. emotional</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257599220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't buy it. For example, I can run a Doom 3 dedicated server with a max of 4 players on a P3 1Ghz. I have to admit that I don't know how it scales on modern CPUs. Also Doom 3 is not primarily a multiplayer game so the multiplayer code might not be well optimized.<br>But even if one has the CPU power to host a server and play on the same machine there's still the issue of network bandwidth. Most people I know simply don't have the bandwidth to host games with more than 4 people.<br>Finally, I don't think it matters whether people have enough CPU power and/or network bandwidth. Id's game engines have always had a dedicated server<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... so why stop now? It just doesn't make sense.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't buy it .
For example , I can run a Doom 3 dedicated server with a max of 4 players on a P3 1Ghz .
I have to admit that I do n't know how it scales on modern CPUs .
Also Doom 3 is not primarily a multiplayer game so the multiplayer code might not be well optimized.But even if one has the CPU power to host a server and play on the same machine there 's still the issue of network bandwidth .
Most people I know simply do n't have the bandwidth to host games with more than 4 people.Finally , I do n't think it matters whether people have enough CPU power and/or network bandwidth .
Id 's game engines have always had a dedicated server ... so why stop now ?
It just does n't make sense .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't buy it.
For example, I can run a Doom 3 dedicated server with a max of 4 players on a P3 1Ghz.
I have to admit that I don't know how it scales on modern CPUs.
Also Doom 3 is not primarily a multiplayer game so the multiplayer code might not be well optimized.But even if one has the CPU power to host a server and play on the same machine there's still the issue of network bandwidth.
Most people I know simply don't have the bandwidth to host games with more than 4 people.Finally, I don't think it matters whether people have enough CPU power and/or network bandwidth.
Id's game engines have always had a dedicated server ... so why stop now?
It just doesn't make sense.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_0359204.30013002</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_07_0359204_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_0359204.30016018
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_0359204.30012914
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_07_0359204_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_0359204.30014256
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_0359204.30012854
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_07_0359204_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_0359204.30015442
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_0359204.30012836
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_07_0359204_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_0359204.30013212
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_0359204.30012914
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_07_0359204_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_0359204.30016334
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_0359204.30013002
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_0359204.30012914
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_07_0359204_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_0359204.30014080
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_0359204.30012736
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_07_0359204_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_0359204.30013434
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_0359204.30012850
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_07_0359204_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_0359204.30015350
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_0359204.30013280
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_0359204.30012716
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_07_0359204_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_0359204.30017174
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_0359204.30012914
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_07_0359204_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_0359204.30015316
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_0359204.30013002
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_0359204.30012914
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_07_0359204_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_0359204.30013156
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_0359204.30013002
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_0359204.30012914
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_07_0359204_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_0359204.30013378
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_0359204.30013008
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_0359204.30012766
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_0359204.30012714
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_07_0359204_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_0359204.30013906
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_0359204.30012938
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_07_0359204_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_0359204.30131102
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_0359204.30012736
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_07_0359204_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_0359204.30015432
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_0359204.30013008
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_0359204.30012766
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_0359204.30012714
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_07_0359204_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_0359204.30019534
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_0359204.30013280
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_0359204.30012716
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_07_0359204_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_0359204.30013372
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_0359204.30013008
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_0359204.30012766
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_0359204.30012714
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_07_0359204_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_0359204.30015156
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_0359204.30013280
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_0359204.30012716
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_07_0359204_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_0359204.30013166
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_0359204.30012914
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_07_0359204_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_0359204.30017276
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_0359204.30012716
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_07_0359204_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_0359204.30013432
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_0359204.30012836
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_07_0359204_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_0359204.30013928
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_0359204.30013002
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_0359204.30012914
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_07_0359204_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_0359204.30018580
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_0359204.30012914
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_07_0359204_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_0359204.30013636
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_0359204.30013002
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_0359204.30012914
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_07_0359204_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_0359204.30014480
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_0359204.30012914
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_07_0359204_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_0359204.30013016
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_0359204.30012914
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_07_0359204_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_0359204.30014108
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_0359204.30012914
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_07_0359204_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_0359204.30014234
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_0359204.30013184
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_07_0359204_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_0359204.30027494
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_0359204.30012938
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_07_0359204_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_0359204.30012910
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_0359204.30012716
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_07_0359204.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_0359204.30012880
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_07_0359204.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_0359204.30012770
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_07_0359204.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_0359204.30013184
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_0359204.30014234
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_07_0359204.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_0359204.30012824
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_07_0359204.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_0359204.30013694
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_07_0359204.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_0359204.30012716
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_0359204.30013280
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_0359204.30019534
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_0359204.30015350
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_0359204.30015156
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_0359204.30017276
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_0359204.30012910
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_07_0359204.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_0359204.30014496
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_07_0359204.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_0359204.30012836
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_0359204.30013432
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_0359204.30015442
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_07_0359204.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_0359204.30012874
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_07_0359204.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_0359204.30012736
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_0359204.30131102
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_0359204.30014080
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_07_0359204.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_0359204.30013134
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_07_0359204.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_0359204.30012938
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_0359204.30013906
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_0359204.30027494
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_07_0359204.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_0359204.30013798
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_07_0359204.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_0359204.30012914
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_0359204.30018580
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_0359204.30013016
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_0359204.30013212
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_0359204.30016018
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_0359204.30013166
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_0359204.30013002
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_0359204.30013928
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_0359204.30016334
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_0359204.30013156
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_0359204.30013636
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_0359204.30015316
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_0359204.30014480
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_0359204.30014108
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_0359204.30017174
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_07_0359204.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_0359204.30012850
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_0359204.30013434
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_07_0359204.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_0359204.30012714
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_0359204.30012766
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_0359204.30013008
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_0359204.30015432
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_0359204.30013378
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_0359204.30013372
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_07_0359204.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_0359204.30012856
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_07_0359204.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_0359204.30012712
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_07_0359204.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_0359204.30013530
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_07_0359204.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_0359204.30012854
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_07_0359204.30014256
</commentlist>
</conversation>
