<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_12_02_0554243</id>
	<title>EA Flip-Flops On <em>Battlefield: Heroes</em> Pricing, Fans Angry</title>
	<author>Soulskill</author>
	<datestamp>1259754600000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>An anonymous reader writes <i>"Ben Kuchera from Ars Technica is reporting that EA/DICE has substantially changed the game model of <em>Battlefield: Heroes</em>, increasing the cost of weapons in Valor Points (the in-game currency that you earn by playing) to <a href="http://arstechnica.com/gaming/news/2009/12/ea-restructures-battlefied-heroes-pricing-fans-enraged.ars">levels that even hardcore players cannot afford</a>, and making them available in BattleFunds (the in-game currency that you buy with real money). Other consumables in the game, such as bandages to heal the players, suffered the same fate, turning the game into a subscription or pay-to-play model if players want to remain competitive. This goes against the creators' earlier stated objectives of not providing combat advantage to paying customers. Ben Cousins, from EA/DICE, argued, 'We also frankly wanted to make buying Battlefunds more appealing. We <a href="http://www.battlefieldheroes.com/forum/showthread.php?tid=88636&amp;pid=939699#pid939699">have wages to pay here in the <em>Heroes</em> team</a> and in order to keep a team large enough to make new free content like maps and other game features we need to increase the amount of BF that people buy. <em>Battlefield Heroes</em> is a business at the end of the day and for a company like EA who recently laid off 16\% of their workforce, we need to keep an eye on the accounts and make sure we are doing our bit for the company.' The official forums discussion thread is <a href="http://www.battlefieldheroes.com/forum/showthread.php?tid=89646">full of angry responses from upset users</a>, who feel this change is a betrayal of the original stated objectives of the game."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>An anonymous reader writes " Ben Kuchera from Ars Technica is reporting that EA/DICE has substantially changed the game model of Battlefield : Heroes , increasing the cost of weapons in Valor Points ( the in-game currency that you earn by playing ) to levels that even hardcore players can not afford , and making them available in BattleFunds ( the in-game currency that you buy with real money ) .
Other consumables in the game , such as bandages to heal the players , suffered the same fate , turning the game into a subscription or pay-to-play model if players want to remain competitive .
This goes against the creators ' earlier stated objectives of not providing combat advantage to paying customers .
Ben Cousins , from EA/DICE , argued , 'We also frankly wanted to make buying Battlefunds more appealing .
We have wages to pay here in the Heroes team and in order to keep a team large enough to make new free content like maps and other game features we need to increase the amount of BF that people buy .
Battlefield Heroes is a business at the end of the day and for a company like EA who recently laid off 16 \ % of their workforce , we need to keep an eye on the accounts and make sure we are doing our bit for the company .
' The official forums discussion thread is full of angry responses from upset users , who feel this change is a betrayal of the original stated objectives of the game .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>An anonymous reader writes "Ben Kuchera from Ars Technica is reporting that EA/DICE has substantially changed the game model of Battlefield: Heroes, increasing the cost of weapons in Valor Points (the in-game currency that you earn by playing) to levels that even hardcore players cannot afford, and making them available in BattleFunds (the in-game currency that you buy with real money).
Other consumables in the game, such as bandages to heal the players, suffered the same fate, turning the game into a subscription or pay-to-play model if players want to remain competitive.
This goes against the creators' earlier stated objectives of not providing combat advantage to paying customers.
Ben Cousins, from EA/DICE, argued, 'We also frankly wanted to make buying Battlefunds more appealing.
We have wages to pay here in the Heroes team and in order to keep a team large enough to make new free content like maps and other game features we need to increase the amount of BF that people buy.
Battlefield Heroes is a business at the end of the day and for a company like EA who recently laid off 16\% of their workforce, we need to keep an eye on the accounts and make sure we are doing our bit for the company.
' The official forums discussion thread is full of angry responses from upset users, who feel this change is a betrayal of the original stated objectives of the game.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0554243.30297836</id>
	<title>Given up on it.</title>
	<author>rakanishu</author>
	<datestamp>1259599380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I dumped $30 into this game getting outfits for my characters as my way of saying thanks to DICE. I just recently given up on the game. The made changes to the matchmaking service that usually puts you in a near empty server. The number of cheaters has gone up ruining the fun. Now this crap. It was fun while it lasted. They should look a Valve and TF2.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I dumped $ 30 into this game getting outfits for my characters as my way of saying thanks to DICE .
I just recently given up on the game .
The made changes to the matchmaking service that usually puts you in a near empty server .
The number of cheaters has gone up ruining the fun .
Now this crap .
It was fun while it lasted .
They should look a Valve and TF2 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I dumped $30 into this game getting outfits for my characters as my way of saying thanks to DICE.
I just recently given up on the game.
The made changes to the matchmaking service that usually puts you in a near empty server.
The number of cheaters has gone up ruining the fun.
Now this crap.
It was fun while it lasted.
They should look a Valve and TF2.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0554243.30298814</id>
	<title>Unfair change on several levels</title>
	<author>mseeger</author>
	<datestamp>1259603820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The changes are unfair on several levels:</p><p>- People have spent Battlefunds to get weapons permanently which are now obsolete.<br>- Based on Valor Points, prices have increased by a factor of 10-20.<br>- Changes were not announced, so nobody had a chance to spend there now worthless Valor Points.<br>- They have promised not to this. They even mocked games that did this before them.</p><p>I have spent more money on Battlefunds than for a full price game, but i never felt forced. Now i feel forced and my natural reaction is "quit". I feel cheated and not because they want money. I have enough of it to afford Battlefunds. But i dislike changing a deal after i has been made.</p><p>CU, Martin</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The changes are unfair on several levels : - People have spent Battlefunds to get weapons permanently which are now obsolete.- Based on Valor Points , prices have increased by a factor of 10-20.- Changes were not announced , so nobody had a chance to spend there now worthless Valor Points.- They have promised not to this .
They even mocked games that did this before them.I have spent more money on Battlefunds than for a full price game , but i never felt forced .
Now i feel forced and my natural reaction is " quit " .
I feel cheated and not because they want money .
I have enough of it to afford Battlefunds .
But i dislike changing a deal after i has been made.CU , Martin</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The changes are unfair on several levels:- People have spent Battlefunds to get weapons permanently which are now obsolete.- Based on Valor Points, prices have increased by a factor of 10-20.- Changes were not announced, so nobody had a chance to spend there now worthless Valor Points.- They have promised not to this.
They even mocked games that did this before them.I have spent more money on Battlefunds than for a full price game, but i never felt forced.
Now i feel forced and my natural reaction is "quit".
I feel cheated and not because they want money.
I have enough of it to afford Battlefunds.
But i dislike changing a deal after i has been made.CU, Martin</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0554243.30296468</id>
	<title>War is expensive</title>
	<author>halcyon1234</author>
	<datestamp>1259591820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Forcing those in charge of the troops to spend massive amounts of money-- well beyond initial estimates-- in order to properly arm and care for those troops?</p><p>Sounds like they're getting the "realistic" part into the combat simulators after all.</p><p>(Except for that you can still buy armor)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Forcing those in charge of the troops to spend massive amounts of money-- well beyond initial estimates-- in order to properly arm and care for those troops ? Sounds like they 're getting the " realistic " part into the combat simulators after all .
( Except for that you can still buy armor )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Forcing those in charge of the troops to spend massive amounts of money-- well beyond initial estimates-- in order to properly arm and care for those troops?Sounds like they're getting the "realistic" part into the combat simulators after all.
(Except for that you can still buy armor)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0554243.30295814</id>
	<title>Times are a changing..</title>
	<author>saintm</author>
	<datestamp>1259585760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well I guess that the 'stated objectives of the game' have changed then.</p><p>Reminds me a bit of 'Ultimate Team' in FIFA09 (and soon FIFA10) where you can earn points to pay the wages of a top team, but realistically you'd have to buy the card packs in order to fund having a top team, making a two tier system where you can only compete by spending real money.</p><p>It sucks, but it is the way it is.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well I guess that the 'stated objectives of the game ' have changed then.Reminds me a bit of 'Ultimate Team ' in FIFA09 ( and soon FIFA10 ) where you can earn points to pay the wages of a top team , but realistically you 'd have to buy the card packs in order to fund having a top team , making a two tier system where you can only compete by spending real money.It sucks , but it is the way it is .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well I guess that the 'stated objectives of the game' have changed then.Reminds me a bit of 'Ultimate Team' in FIFA09 (and soon FIFA10) where you can earn points to pay the wages of a top team, but realistically you'd have to buy the card packs in order to fund having a top team, making a two tier system where you can only compete by spending real money.It sucks, but it is the way it is.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0554243.30297522</id>
	<title>Game sucks</title>
	<author>Is0m0rph</author>
	<datestamp>1259597760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I downloaded and played this game a bit when I was on the road a couple months ago.  The game was so buggy and full of connection issues I didn't play it again.  Next we'll hear about them shutting the game down.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I downloaded and played this game a bit when I was on the road a couple months ago .
The game was so buggy and full of connection issues I did n't play it again .
Next we 'll hear about them shutting the game down .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I downloaded and played this game a bit when I was on the road a couple months ago.
The game was so buggy and full of connection issues I didn't play it again.
Next we'll hear about them shutting the game down.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0554243.30296856</id>
	<title>Re:Honest from the start</title>
	<author>SharpFang</author>
	<datestamp>1259594280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Nobody plays empty MMOs.</p><p>The game is not new, so it's unlikely to attract many new players.<br>Old players will just abandon it or continue playing free.</p><p>Also, I wonder about aftermarket for items the hardcore players already got. "Not gonna grind another 1000 hours to get X, but I have Y which suddenly costs good $50. So let's sell it to some sucker."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Nobody plays empty MMOs.The game is not new , so it 's unlikely to attract many new players.Old players will just abandon it or continue playing free.Also , I wonder about aftermarket for items the hardcore players already got .
" Not gon na grind another 1000 hours to get X , but I have Y which suddenly costs good $ 50 .
So let 's sell it to some sucker .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nobody plays empty MMOs.The game is not new, so it's unlikely to attract many new players.Old players will just abandon it or continue playing free.Also, I wonder about aftermarket for items the hardcore players already got.
"Not gonna grind another 1000 hours to get X, but I have Y which suddenly costs good $50.
So let's sell it to some sucker.
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0554243.30296266</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0554243.30296668</id>
	<title>Re:BF a dead franchise</title>
	<author>pushf popf</author>
	<datestamp>1259593080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>So I guess instead of paying money to pretend to be someone else, I'll go make and eat a gourmet meal, get laid, then maybe do some SCUBA diving.<br> <br>

Oops! did I say that out loud?<br> <br>

This just in: "Actual reality is much better than virtual reality"</htmltext>
<tokenext>So I guess instead of paying money to pretend to be someone else , I 'll go make and eat a gourmet meal , get laid , then maybe do some SCUBA diving .
Oops ! did I say that out loud ?
This just in : " Actual reality is much better than virtual reality "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So I guess instead of paying money to pretend to be someone else, I'll go make and eat a gourmet meal, get laid, then maybe do some SCUBA diving.
Oops! did I say that out loud?
This just in: "Actual reality is much better than virtual reality"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0554243.30295832</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0554243.30296244</id>
	<title>Re:Times are a changing..</title>
	<author>WhatAmIDoingHere</author>
	<datestamp>1259590020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's actually WORSE than a demo, because when you're playing, you're grouped up with people who have bought the best in-game items with money, while you haven't paid anything.  It creates a negative first opinion of the game.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's actually WORSE than a demo , because when you 're playing , you 're grouped up with people who have bought the best in-game items with money , while you have n't paid anything .
It creates a negative first opinion of the game .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's actually WORSE than a demo, because when you're playing, you're grouped up with people who have bought the best in-game items with money, while you haven't paid anything.
It creates a negative first opinion of the game.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0554243.30296022</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0554243.30301736</id>
	<title>This wasn't expected?</title>
	<author>Raptor851</author>
	<datestamp>1259573220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The "Items bought with real money will not provide a combat advantage" is the same thing they said when they first allowed buying items in Ultima Online, and they started selling collectibles and items to lock down in your home. That lasted about 6 months before they started selling ($10-$15 a piece) armor and weapons that are pretty much top tier, equal to items people spent 7+ years getting.   Result will probably be the same too, everyone who actually enjoys the game for what it is, and likes competitive gameplay will leave for a different game. Thankfully the game was already completely ruined by EA already at that time thanks to the "new expansion pack is pretty much required to stay competitive" game they'd already played a few times, so no huge loss.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The " Items bought with real money will not provide a combat advantage " is the same thing they said when they first allowed buying items in Ultima Online , and they started selling collectibles and items to lock down in your home .
That lasted about 6 months before they started selling ( $ 10- $ 15 a piece ) armor and weapons that are pretty much top tier , equal to items people spent 7 + years getting .
Result will probably be the same too , everyone who actually enjoys the game for what it is , and likes competitive gameplay will leave for a different game .
Thankfully the game was already completely ruined by EA already at that time thanks to the " new expansion pack is pretty much required to stay competitive " game they 'd already played a few times , so no huge loss .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The "Items bought with real money will not provide a combat advantage" is the same thing they said when they first allowed buying items in Ultima Online, and they started selling collectibles and items to lock down in your home.
That lasted about 6 months before they started selling ($10-$15 a piece) armor and weapons that are pretty much top tier, equal to items people spent 7+ years getting.
Result will probably be the same too, everyone who actually enjoys the game for what it is, and likes competitive gameplay will leave for a different game.
Thankfully the game was already completely ruined by EA already at that time thanks to the "new expansion pack is pretty much required to stay competitive" game they'd already played a few times, so no huge loss.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0554243.30295814</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0554243.30297802</id>
	<title>Re:BF a dead franchise</title>
	<author>ckaminski</author>
	<datestamp>1259599140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It was indeed - the whole ranking idea... while nice, it just serves to not get players over to other mods, like Desert Conflict or AOW.  That and a Barrett NOT one-shotting someone into complete oblivion?  ugh.  BF:2142 is horrible.  BF2:SF was a damn good expansion.  I like the "Team/Commander" aspect of the game, I just don't care for the ranking/unlocks.<br><br>And I *REALLY* miss the VSS.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It was indeed - the whole ranking idea... while nice , it just serves to not get players over to other mods , like Desert Conflict or AOW .
That and a Barrett NOT one-shotting someone into complete oblivion ?
ugh. BF : 2142 is horrible .
BF2 : SF was a damn good expansion .
I like the " Team/Commander " aspect of the game , I just do n't care for the ranking/unlocks.And I * REALLY * miss the VSS .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It was indeed - the whole ranking idea... while nice, it just serves to not get players over to other mods, like Desert Conflict or AOW.
That and a Barrett NOT one-shotting someone into complete oblivion?
ugh.  BF:2142 is horrible.
BF2:SF was a damn good expansion.
I like the "Team/Commander" aspect of the game, I just don't care for the ranking/unlocks.And I *REALLY* miss the VSS.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0554243.30295832</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0554243.30300872</id>
	<title>Re:EA has a company wide directive for online reve</title>
	<author>Prien715</author>
	<datestamp>1259613120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Give them uber elite looking weapons and models that offer no gameplay advantages.  Mounts in WoW work like this and people still pay a premium for an "awesome looking" mount.</p><p>The approach they were using wasn't even a bad one...it's worked for Guild Wars (see their PvP versions), it just didn't work for them.</p><p>Maybe the game just wasn't any good?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Give them uber elite looking weapons and models that offer no gameplay advantages .
Mounts in WoW work like this and people still pay a premium for an " awesome looking " mount.The approach they were using was n't even a bad one...it 's worked for Guild Wars ( see their PvP versions ) , it just did n't work for them.Maybe the game just was n't any good ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Give them uber elite looking weapons and models that offer no gameplay advantages.
Mounts in WoW work like this and people still pay a premium for an "awesome looking" mount.The approach they were using wasn't even a bad one...it's worked for Guild Wars (see their PvP versions), it just didn't work for them.Maybe the game just wasn't any good?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0554243.30296940</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0554243.30296904</id>
	<title>Re:Times are a changing..</title>
	<author>sopssa</author>
	<datestamp>1259594520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And you're forgetting here that the actual game is free. So what it basically comes to is if you rather pay $60 for the game fully, or if you rather pay for it as item micro-payments <b>after</b> you've noticed the game actually is fun.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And you 're forgetting here that the actual game is free .
So what it basically comes to is if you rather pay $ 60 for the game fully , or if you rather pay for it as item micro-payments after you 've noticed the game actually is fun .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And you're forgetting here that the actual game is free.
So what it basically comes to is if you rather pay $60 for the game fully, or if you rather pay for it as item micro-payments after you've noticed the game actually is fun.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0554243.30296410</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0554243.30297670</id>
	<title>Re:Times are a changing..</title>
	<author>elrous0</author>
	<datestamp>1259598480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>where you can only compete by spending real money.</p></div></blockquote><p>
Well, in that case, they made it more like real-world sports, didn't they?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>where you can only compete by spending real money .
Well , in that case , they made it more like real-world sports , did n't they ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>where you can only compete by spending real money.
Well, in that case, they made it more like real-world sports, didn't they?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0554243.30295814</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0554243.30296972</id>
	<title>Re:Honest from the start</title>
	<author>Chameleon Man</author>
	<datestamp>1259595000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You're making a lot of assumptions here. In the actual forum post, Ben Cousins has clearly stated that it's not an issue with money but rather with a sustainable business model. Also not mentioned here, was a previous interview where he had stated that only 5\% of players would need purchase clothing items for them to turn a profit. They clearly were not in the negative. Most likely, some corporate heads at EA called DICE and said "Hey, we're losing money from our other shitty games, so you need to pick up the slack".</htmltext>
<tokenext>You 're making a lot of assumptions here .
In the actual forum post , Ben Cousins has clearly stated that it 's not an issue with money but rather with a sustainable business model .
Also not mentioned here , was a previous interview where he had stated that only 5 \ % of players would need purchase clothing items for them to turn a profit .
They clearly were not in the negative .
Most likely , some corporate heads at EA called DICE and said " Hey , we 're losing money from our other shitty games , so you need to pick up the slack " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You're making a lot of assumptions here.
In the actual forum post, Ben Cousins has clearly stated that it's not an issue with money but rather with a sustainable business model.
Also not mentioned here, was a previous interview where he had stated that only 5\% of players would need purchase clothing items for them to turn a profit.
They clearly were not in the negative.
Most likely, some corporate heads at EA called DICE and said "Hey, we're losing money from our other shitty games, so you need to pick up the slack".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0554243.30296266</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0554243.30296786</id>
	<title>Re:Honest from the start</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259593800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They WONT drive players away though. These sorts of games are going strong. Look at Gunbound, for one.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They WONT drive players away though .
These sorts of games are going strong .
Look at Gunbound , for one .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They WONT drive players away though.
These sorts of games are going strong.
Look at Gunbound, for one.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0554243.30296266</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0554243.30296434</id>
	<title>Time to start a sweepstake</title>
	<author>Nighttime</author>
	<datestamp>1259591580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How long before someone launches a class action lawsuit against EA/DICE?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How long before someone launches a class action lawsuit against EA/DICE ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How long before someone launches a class action lawsuit against EA/DICE?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0554243.30301442</id>
	<title>Well, duh.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259572200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's a stupid game design.  Good games are about skill, not how much you spent on them as the player.  This sort of thing should never be in games.. but as business is generally lawful evil, it's what you're going to get increasingly.</p><p>These guys aren't about making awesome games, they are just a business... so it's no surprise that they make business decisions in order to boost short term cash gains.  EA is a game mill; why would you expect them to do anything but?</p><p>They aren't trying to compete for the hardcore gamer market with discriminating tastes and high expectations that they will be able to enjoy the game for years to come, or that the game is fair... they are going for the oo shiny consumer market who doesn't know their ass from a hole in the ground.</p><p>Same bullshit as Hollywood...pump and dump whatever they think the masses want on the surface rather than backing genuinely interesting material.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's a stupid game design .
Good games are about skill , not how much you spent on them as the player .
This sort of thing should never be in games.. but as business is generally lawful evil , it 's what you 're going to get increasingly.These guys are n't about making awesome games , they are just a business... so it 's no surprise that they make business decisions in order to boost short term cash gains .
EA is a game mill ; why would you expect them to do anything but ? They are n't trying to compete for the hardcore gamer market with discriminating tastes and high expectations that they will be able to enjoy the game for years to come , or that the game is fair... they are going for the oo shiny consumer market who does n't know their ass from a hole in the ground.Same bullshit as Hollywood...pump and dump whatever they think the masses want on the surface rather than backing genuinely interesting material .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's a stupid game design.
Good games are about skill, not how much you spent on them as the player.
This sort of thing should never be in games.. but as business is generally lawful evil, it's what you're going to get increasingly.These guys aren't about making awesome games, they are just a business... so it's no surprise that they make business decisions in order to boost short term cash gains.
EA is a game mill; why would you expect them to do anything but?They aren't trying to compete for the hardcore gamer market with discriminating tastes and high expectations that they will be able to enjoy the game for years to come, or that the game is fair... they are going for the oo shiny consumer market who doesn't know their ass from a hole in the ground.Same bullshit as Hollywood...pump and dump whatever they think the masses want on the surface rather than backing genuinely interesting material.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0554243.30296410</id>
	<title>Re:Times are a changing..</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259591460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Imagine if it applied in real world games.  Allow rich clubs to have extra players, for example. When Man U play they'd have 75 players on the field.  And they're allowed to handle the ball.  And they're riding horses.</p><p>Of course, it would be crap to watch and crap to play, which isn't good for business.  Everybody will say sod it, and go and cut the lawn or something.  A balanced game is more exciting.  The NFL don't try to level the teams out for shits and giggles.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Imagine if it applied in real world games .
Allow rich clubs to have extra players , for example .
When Man U play they 'd have 75 players on the field .
And they 're allowed to handle the ball .
And they 're riding horses.Of course , it would be crap to watch and crap to play , which is n't good for business .
Everybody will say sod it , and go and cut the lawn or something .
A balanced game is more exciting .
The NFL do n't try to level the teams out for shits and giggles .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Imagine if it applied in real world games.
Allow rich clubs to have extra players, for example.
When Man U play they'd have 75 players on the field.
And they're allowed to handle the ball.
And they're riding horses.Of course, it would be crap to watch and crap to play, which isn't good for business.
Everybody will say sod it, and go and cut the lawn or something.
A balanced game is more exciting.
The NFL don't try to level the teams out for shits and giggles.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0554243.30296022</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0554243.30296574</id>
	<title>I can't really argue too much with this.</title>
	<author>scumdamn</author>
	<datestamp>1259592540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I play another EA game that has free components (BattleForge) and I'm always worried that they're going to shut it down because it's not making enough money. There are a lot of Free 2 Play people on and I sometimes wish they were spending just a bit more money since I understand about costs of keeping up servers and releasing new cards (it's a trading card RTS). So I can't blame EA too much for trying to snag a little revenue out of one of their investments. In BF there's a market for trading gold, which is earnable in maps, for BattleForge points. I think there's a good balance there but it's not perfect yet.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I play another EA game that has free components ( BattleForge ) and I 'm always worried that they 're going to shut it down because it 's not making enough money .
There are a lot of Free 2 Play people on and I sometimes wish they were spending just a bit more money since I understand about costs of keeping up servers and releasing new cards ( it 's a trading card RTS ) .
So I ca n't blame EA too much for trying to snag a little revenue out of one of their investments .
In BF there 's a market for trading gold , which is earnable in maps , for BattleForge points .
I think there 's a good balance there but it 's not perfect yet .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I play another EA game that has free components (BattleForge) and I'm always worried that they're going to shut it down because it's not making enough money.
There are a lot of Free 2 Play people on and I sometimes wish they were spending just a bit more money since I understand about costs of keeping up servers and releasing new cards (it's a trading card RTS).
So I can't blame EA too much for trying to snag a little revenue out of one of their investments.
In BF there's a market for trading gold, which is earnable in maps, for BattleForge points.
I think there's a good balance there but it's not perfect yet.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0554243.30296024</id>
	<title>Re:Times are a changing..</title>
	<author>Asic Eng</author>
	<datestamp>1259588220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Well, depends if you paid for the game or not. If you paid for a game which you thought would be interesting, then the supplier shouldn't change the game so that it becomes boring. If you didn't pay, then there is no obligation of the company to the player.
<p>
However - regardless whether there is an obligation to the players or not, it's a silly move to make the game boring. There is stuff which you can sell which does not interfere with the game itself: e.g. a nicer user interface, character outfits, access to other levels... However once you sell direct advantages in the game, the gameplay suffers.
</p><p>
Imagine you were watching a tennis game - it's exciting till the end, finally one player scores a decisive point. But wierdly he doesn't actually win, because the other player buys the "smaller tennis court feature" for $10k - now the ball is suddenly declared "out". Would you still watch the game after that? Since the player with the most money wins anyway, it would be too boring for me.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , depends if you paid for the game or not .
If you paid for a game which you thought would be interesting , then the supplier should n't change the game so that it becomes boring .
If you did n't pay , then there is no obligation of the company to the player .
However - regardless whether there is an obligation to the players or not , it 's a silly move to make the game boring .
There is stuff which you can sell which does not interfere with the game itself : e.g .
a nicer user interface , character outfits , access to other levels... However once you sell direct advantages in the game , the gameplay suffers .
Imagine you were watching a tennis game - it 's exciting till the end , finally one player scores a decisive point .
But wierdly he does n't actually win , because the other player buys the " smaller tennis court feature " for $ 10k - now the ball is suddenly declared " out " .
Would you still watch the game after that ?
Since the player with the most money wins anyway , it would be too boring for me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, depends if you paid for the game or not.
If you paid for a game which you thought would be interesting, then the supplier shouldn't change the game so that it becomes boring.
If you didn't pay, then there is no obligation of the company to the player.
However - regardless whether there is an obligation to the players or not, it's a silly move to make the game boring.
There is stuff which you can sell which does not interfere with the game itself: e.g.
a nicer user interface, character outfits, access to other levels... However once you sell direct advantages in the game, the gameplay suffers.
Imagine you were watching a tennis game - it's exciting till the end, finally one player scores a decisive point.
But wierdly he doesn't actually win, because the other player buys the "smaller tennis court feature" for $10k - now the ball is suddenly declared "out".
Would you still watch the game after that?
Since the player with the most money wins anyway, it would be too boring for me.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0554243.30295814</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0554243.30296640</id>
	<title>All too common amongst games.</title>
	<author>hattig</author>
	<datestamp>1259592900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>it's like in Farmville - a very poorly written, underperforming isometric Facebook game that is quite fun despite it's flaws - you have to pay money (and not a small amount either, especially for a game with over a million players allegedly) to do common tasks, like buy fuel for tractors.</p><p>I like the game. It sucks performance wise. I think I'll create FarmYourselfSilly for Android when I get my new phone. Might add hills and dry stone walls for that authentic Yorkshire theme. I'll cloudify it with a Produce Market for trading crops. Too many players growing wheat? Well, sucks!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>it 's like in Farmville - a very poorly written , underperforming isometric Facebook game that is quite fun despite it 's flaws - you have to pay money ( and not a small amount either , especially for a game with over a million players allegedly ) to do common tasks , like buy fuel for tractors.I like the game .
It sucks performance wise .
I think I 'll create FarmYourselfSilly for Android when I get my new phone .
Might add hills and dry stone walls for that authentic Yorkshire theme .
I 'll cloudify it with a Produce Market for trading crops .
Too many players growing wheat ?
Well , sucks !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>it's like in Farmville - a very poorly written, underperforming isometric Facebook game that is quite fun despite it's flaws - you have to pay money (and not a small amount either, especially for a game with over a million players allegedly) to do common tasks, like buy fuel for tractors.I like the game.
It sucks performance wise.
I think I'll create FarmYourselfSilly for Android when I get my new phone.
Might add hills and dry stone walls for that authentic Yorkshire theme.
I'll cloudify it with a Produce Market for trading crops.
Too many players growing wheat?
Well, sucks!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0554243.30296214</id>
	<title>Re:Don't like it? Don't pay them.</title>
	<author>RobVB</author>
	<datestamp>1259589780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>In theory, yes. <a href="http://img5.imageshack.us/img5/6062/1258035395841.jpg" title="imageshack.us">In practice</a> [imageshack.us], a lot of gamers aren't stubborn enough.</htmltext>
<tokenext>In theory , yes .
In practice [ imageshack.us ] , a lot of gamers are n't stubborn enough .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In theory, yes.
In practice [imageshack.us], a lot of gamers aren't stubborn enough.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0554243.30295864</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0554243.30296266</id>
	<title>Re:Honest from the start</title>
	<author>AdmiralXyz</author>
	<datestamp>1259590260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Again, though...they need to be honest from the start and not change things suddenly.</p></div><p>I don't think it's dishonesty so much as, "we thought this model would make money and we were wrong". Find me a business that continues to keep its promises even when it means pouring money down the drain and I'll show you a business with shitty management. It sucks for the players, but if they weren't generating enough revenue, EA sort of has no choice here.<br>
<br>
One other note: I'm seeing a lot of people here and on the forums saying things like, "This is a terrible decision! They'll drive the players away and lose money!", which is kind of silly logic. They were <i>already</i> losing money. They could either stick with the plan that <i>is</i> unprofitable, or they can go with a new plan that <i>might be</i> unprofitable. Sort of a no-brainer.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Again , though...they need to be honest from the start and not change things suddenly.I do n't think it 's dishonesty so much as , " we thought this model would make money and we were wrong " .
Find me a business that continues to keep its promises even when it means pouring money down the drain and I 'll show you a business with shitty management .
It sucks for the players , but if they were n't generating enough revenue , EA sort of has no choice here .
One other note : I 'm seeing a lot of people here and on the forums saying things like , " This is a terrible decision !
They 'll drive the players away and lose money !
" , which is kind of silly logic .
They were already losing money .
They could either stick with the plan that is unprofitable , or they can go with a new plan that might be unprofitable .
Sort of a no-brainer .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Again, though...they need to be honest from the start and not change things suddenly.I don't think it's dishonesty so much as, "we thought this model would make money and we were wrong".
Find me a business that continues to keep its promises even when it means pouring money down the drain and I'll show you a business with shitty management.
It sucks for the players, but if they weren't generating enough revenue, EA sort of has no choice here.
One other note: I'm seeing a lot of people here and on the forums saying things like, "This is a terrible decision!
They'll drive the players away and lose money!
", which is kind of silly logic.
They were already losing money.
They could either stick with the plan that is unprofitable, or they can go with a new plan that might be unprofitable.
Sort of a no-brainer.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0554243.30295914</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0554243.30295972</id>
	<title>Bye-bye BF Heroes!</title>
	<author>Brazilian Geek</author>
	<datestamp>1259587560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I really enjoyed playing BF Heroes - it's light, I never felt that other players had unfair advantages, the promise of no grind, easy to pick up and get going game with fun graphics and I was happy.  There was a single problem that use to keep me from giving them some paypal love - the game would disconnect me for no reason after 5 minutes or so of no-lag play.</p><p>I was patiently waiting for this to be fixed or for servers to pop up here in Brazil but alas - the fun of BF Heroes is gone.</p><p>Paying now means serious advantages to gameplay so no more for me, I don't have hours a day to play nor do I think that I should constantly pay for a game so I'll stick to CS:Source or my other free-to-play games and give money to indie game companies.</p><p>EA screwed up BF Heroes, what was fun now became unbalanced - all the best to the players that stick around but I'm having none of it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I really enjoyed playing BF Heroes - it 's light , I never felt that other players had unfair advantages , the promise of no grind , easy to pick up and get going game with fun graphics and I was happy .
There was a single problem that use to keep me from giving them some paypal love - the game would disconnect me for no reason after 5 minutes or so of no-lag play.I was patiently waiting for this to be fixed or for servers to pop up here in Brazil but alas - the fun of BF Heroes is gone.Paying now means serious advantages to gameplay so no more for me , I do n't have hours a day to play nor do I think that I should constantly pay for a game so I 'll stick to CS : Source or my other free-to-play games and give money to indie game companies.EA screwed up BF Heroes , what was fun now became unbalanced - all the best to the players that stick around but I 'm having none of it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I really enjoyed playing BF Heroes - it's light, I never felt that other players had unfair advantages, the promise of no grind, easy to pick up and get going game with fun graphics and I was happy.
There was a single problem that use to keep me from giving them some paypal love - the game would disconnect me for no reason after 5 minutes or so of no-lag play.I was patiently waiting for this to be fixed or for servers to pop up here in Brazil but alas - the fun of BF Heroes is gone.Paying now means serious advantages to gameplay so no more for me, I don't have hours a day to play nor do I think that I should constantly pay for a game so I'll stick to CS:Source or my other free-to-play games and give money to indie game companies.EA screwed up BF Heroes, what was fun now became unbalanced - all the best to the players that stick around but I'm having none of it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0554243.30298214</id>
	<title>EA laid off 16\% of their workers alienating gamers</title>
	<author>Dan667</author>
	<datestamp>1259601060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>EA just does not get it.  If you make the games fun then people will play them and you will make money.  When you constantly piss off your Customers they see EA on the box and don't even bother to look if they might want to play the game.  I have not bought an EA game in years and instantly move on to the next one if I see EA was anywhere involved with it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>EA just does not get it .
If you make the games fun then people will play them and you will make money .
When you constantly piss off your Customers they see EA on the box and do n't even bother to look if they might want to play the game .
I have not bought an EA game in years and instantly move on to the next one if I see EA was anywhere involved with it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>EA just does not get it.
If you make the games fun then people will play them and you will make money.
When you constantly piss off your Customers they see EA on the box and don't even bother to look if they might want to play the game.
I have not bought an EA game in years and instantly move on to the next one if I see EA was anywhere involved with it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0554243.30297534</id>
	<title>Upset users?</title>
	<author>Culture20</author>
	<datestamp>1259597820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Users or potential customers who now will not buy the game?  EA doesn't care; they already sold all their copies to game stores; they just want to kill the title as fast as possible to shift the Heroes team to other products.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Users or potential customers who now will not buy the game ?
EA does n't care ; they already sold all their copies to game stores ; they just want to kill the title as fast as possible to shift the Heroes team to other products .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Users or potential customers who now will not buy the game?
EA doesn't care; they already sold all their copies to game stores; they just want to kill the title as fast as possible to shift the Heroes team to other products.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0554243.30297940</id>
	<title>Not  Really a Huge Deal</title>
	<author>Conchobair</author>
	<datestamp>1259599800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>What this means is that if you plan to play for free is that you will need to stick to the all around weapon you are given to start with.  Each class has a choice of three primary weapons, one that you are given that is general purpose, and then one each for long range and close range.  There are some specialty weapons, like as Gunner class, I will have to stick to using dynamite and powder kegs rather than my trusty bazooka.  That much hurts, but it's still going to be a free and fun game I can play when the WoW servers are down.<br> <br>
This is a fun little game and I even tossed them a few bucks due to enjoying it that much.</htmltext>
<tokenext>What this means is that if you plan to play for free is that you will need to stick to the all around weapon you are given to start with .
Each class has a choice of three primary weapons , one that you are given that is general purpose , and then one each for long range and close range .
There are some specialty weapons , like as Gunner class , I will have to stick to using dynamite and powder kegs rather than my trusty bazooka .
That much hurts , but it 's still going to be a free and fun game I can play when the WoW servers are down .
This is a fun little game and I even tossed them a few bucks due to enjoying it that much .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What this means is that if you plan to play for free is that you will need to stick to the all around weapon you are given to start with.
Each class has a choice of three primary weapons, one that you are given that is general purpose, and then one each for long range and close range.
There are some specialty weapons, like as Gunner class, I will have to stick to using dynamite and powder kegs rather than my trusty bazooka.
That much hurts, but it's still going to be a free and fun game I can play when the WoW servers are down.
This is a fun little game and I even tossed them a few bucks due to enjoying it that much.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0554243.30300520</id>
	<title>PC users screwed again...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259611380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What EA tried to do here is make money off their starved PC users.  The last Battlefield franchise game we got was BF:2142, which IMO wasn't very good and I know a lot of others feel the same way.  So then really the last real BF PC game was BF2, which most of us have grown tired of.  1943 has been out for the consoles for months and the projected release date iirc is March 2010.</p><p>So I did try Heroes.  Its a total gimmick.  Don't waste your time.  There are far less players per map than any PC version ever.  Even the original 1942.  There are far less vehicles.  Each side has like a tank, jeep, and plane.  You don't get to choose which server or map you want to play.  You are just thrown in a queue and off you go.  For the experience you get its about 20\% of a real Battlefield PC release game.  Maybe if they priced it at $10 it would be worth it.</p><p>Even the content you pay for isn't really worth it.  The guns you buy aren't yours permanently.  They expire and you have to buy them again.  You can also buy bonus experience points but again, this lasts a day or two and expires.</p><p>Just pretty much everything of Heroes reeks of EA upper management trying to squeeze everything they can even out of the cheapest of bastards.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What EA tried to do here is make money off their starved PC users .
The last Battlefield franchise game we got was BF : 2142 , which IMO was n't very good and I know a lot of others feel the same way .
So then really the last real BF PC game was BF2 , which most of us have grown tired of .
1943 has been out for the consoles for months and the projected release date iirc is March 2010.So I did try Heroes .
Its a total gimmick .
Do n't waste your time .
There are far less players per map than any PC version ever .
Even the original 1942 .
There are far less vehicles .
Each side has like a tank , jeep , and plane .
You do n't get to choose which server or map you want to play .
You are just thrown in a queue and off you go .
For the experience you get its about 20 \ % of a real Battlefield PC release game .
Maybe if they priced it at $ 10 it would be worth it.Even the content you pay for is n't really worth it .
The guns you buy are n't yours permanently .
They expire and you have to buy them again .
You can also buy bonus experience points but again , this lasts a day or two and expires.Just pretty much everything of Heroes reeks of EA upper management trying to squeeze everything they can even out of the cheapest of bastards .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What EA tried to do here is make money off their starved PC users.
The last Battlefield franchise game we got was BF:2142, which IMO wasn't very good and I know a lot of others feel the same way.
So then really the last real BF PC game was BF2, which most of us have grown tired of.
1943 has been out for the consoles for months and the projected release date iirc is March 2010.So I did try Heroes.
Its a total gimmick.
Don't waste your time.
There are far less players per map than any PC version ever.
Even the original 1942.
There are far less vehicles.
Each side has like a tank, jeep, and plane.
You don't get to choose which server or map you want to play.
You are just thrown in a queue and off you go.
For the experience you get its about 20\% of a real Battlefield PC release game.
Maybe if they priced it at $10 it would be worth it.Even the content you pay for isn't really worth it.
The guns you buy aren't yours permanently.
They expire and you have to buy them again.
You can also buy bonus experience points but again, this lasts a day or two and expires.Just pretty much everything of Heroes reeks of EA upper management trying to squeeze everything they can even out of the cheapest of bastards.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0554243.30296232</id>
	<title>Re:So?</title>
	<author>teg</author>
	<datestamp>1259589960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> <i>Sorry, but paying to be playing competitively is something I'd expect in a F2P game with an ingame store, but not in a game that I buy at full price.</i> </p><p>
That's exactly what <a href="http://www.battlefieldheroes.com/" title="battlefieldheroes.com">Battlefield Heroes</a> [battlefieldheroes.com] is - it's free to play. Apparently, the revenue wasn't enough so they are adjusting aspect of the game to get more money.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sorry , but paying to be playing competitively is something I 'd expect in a F2P game with an ingame store , but not in a game that I buy at full price .
That 's exactly what Battlefield Heroes [ battlefieldheroes.com ] is - it 's free to play .
Apparently , the revenue was n't enough so they are adjusting aspect of the game to get more money .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Sorry, but paying to be playing competitively is something I'd expect in a F2P game with an ingame store, but not in a game that I buy at full price.
That's exactly what Battlefield Heroes [battlefieldheroes.com] is - it's free to play.
Apparently, the revenue wasn't enough so they are adjusting aspect of the game to get more money.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0554243.30295906</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0554243.30297236</id>
	<title>Re:So?</title>
	<author>Chameleon Man</author>
	<datestamp>1259596440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's easy to say "just don't spend the money" when you haven't played the game. I've been a casual player of the game since April, and I must say, this is the definition of bait-and-switch. The business model of cheapening everything, but forcing players to buy them, is a horrible one to go buy. Given it's accessibility and cartoony environment, this game attracts many younger kids who find paying for items online a huge hurdle.

Also, to suggest that they weren't making money before is simply wrong. I had mentioned this in another response here on<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/., but I'll say it again. In the actual forum post, Ben Cousins has clearly stated that it's not an issue with money but rather with a sustainable business model. Also not mentioned here was a previous interview where he had stated that only 5\% of players would need purchase clothing items for them to turn a profit. As a player, I can tell you they clearly were not in the negative. Most likely, some corporate heads at EA called DICE and said "Hey, we're losing money from our other shitty games, so you need to pick up the slack".

To do what they did is not illegal, but it sure as hell is professionally unethical. It's a great game, but doesn't have enough to offer to keep it's fan base. Trust me, the fans aren't going to just swallow this one.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's easy to say " just do n't spend the money " when you have n't played the game .
I 've been a casual player of the game since April , and I must say , this is the definition of bait-and-switch .
The business model of cheapening everything , but forcing players to buy them , is a horrible one to go buy .
Given it 's accessibility and cartoony environment , this game attracts many younger kids who find paying for items online a huge hurdle .
Also , to suggest that they were n't making money before is simply wrong .
I had mentioned this in another response here on /. , but I 'll say it again .
In the actual forum post , Ben Cousins has clearly stated that it 's not an issue with money but rather with a sustainable business model .
Also not mentioned here was a previous interview where he had stated that only 5 \ % of players would need purchase clothing items for them to turn a profit .
As a player , I can tell you they clearly were not in the negative .
Most likely , some corporate heads at EA called DICE and said " Hey , we 're losing money from our other shitty games , so you need to pick up the slack " .
To do what they did is not illegal , but it sure as hell is professionally unethical .
It 's a great game , but does n't have enough to offer to keep it 's fan base .
Trust me , the fans are n't going to just swallow this one .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's easy to say "just don't spend the money" when you haven't played the game.
I've been a casual player of the game since April, and I must say, this is the definition of bait-and-switch.
The business model of cheapening everything, but forcing players to buy them, is a horrible one to go buy.
Given it's accessibility and cartoony environment, this game attracts many younger kids who find paying for items online a huge hurdle.
Also, to suggest that they weren't making money before is simply wrong.
I had mentioned this in another response here on /., but I'll say it again.
In the actual forum post, Ben Cousins has clearly stated that it's not an issue with money but rather with a sustainable business model.
Also not mentioned here was a previous interview where he had stated that only 5\% of players would need purchase clothing items for them to turn a profit.
As a player, I can tell you they clearly were not in the negative.
Most likely, some corporate heads at EA called DICE and said "Hey, we're losing money from our other shitty games, so you need to pick up the slack".
To do what they did is not illegal, but it sure as hell is professionally unethical.
It's a great game, but doesn't have enough to offer to keep it's fan base.
Trust me, the fans aren't going to just swallow this one.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0554243.30295906</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0554243.30295850</id>
	<title>Relevant</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259586060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GGmcVUheFa0<br>1:09</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //www.youtube.com/watch ? v = GGmcVUheFa01 : 09</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GGmcVUheFa01:09</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0554243.30301216</id>
	<title>Re:Don't like it? Don't pay them.</title>
	<author>festers</author>
	<datestamp>1259614560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Are you aware that you can buy other characters using ingame money?  So you buy a bunch of PLEXs with real money, sell them for ingame money, then use that to buy yourself a 60mil skillpoint character.  Yeah, sounds really fair.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/eyeroll.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Are you aware that you can buy other characters using ingame money ?
So you buy a bunch of PLEXs with real money , sell them for ingame money , then use that to buy yourself a 60mil skillpoint character .
Yeah , sounds really fair .
/eyeroll .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Are you aware that you can buy other characters using ingame money?
So you buy a bunch of PLEXs with real money, sell them for ingame money, then use that to buy yourself a 60mil skillpoint character.
Yeah, sounds really fair.
/eyeroll.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0554243.30296254</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0554243.30303388</id>
	<title>Increasing revenue</title>
	<author>Well-Fed Troll</author>
	<datestamp>1259578260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If they wanted to increase revenue for an FPS the answer is simple:  <br> <b>Costuming gear.</b> <br>
<br>Doesn't affect gameplay and guarantees a significant revenue stream.<br>
Cmon, who wouldn't pay a coupla bucks to look like their favorite movie star.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If they wanted to increase revenue for an FPS the answer is simple : Costuming gear .
Does n't affect gameplay and guarantees a significant revenue stream .
Cmon , who would n't pay a coupla bucks to look like their favorite movie star .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If they wanted to increase revenue for an FPS the answer is simple:   Costuming gear.
Doesn't affect gameplay and guarantees a significant revenue stream.
Cmon, who wouldn't pay a coupla bucks to look like their favorite movie star.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0554243.30296940</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0554243.30295864</id>
	<title>Don't like it?  Don't pay them.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259586180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Pardon my good sense, but isn't the only real response to this for anyone who isn't satisfied to just stop paying them anything at all and go play something else?</p><p>As with any situation where a dev doesn't give the players what they want, the only way to send a message is to stop paying for a sub-par product and go support something that you enjoy.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Pardon my good sense , but is n't the only real response to this for anyone who is n't satisfied to just stop paying them anything at all and go play something else ? As with any situation where a dev does n't give the players what they want , the only way to send a message is to stop paying for a sub-par product and go support something that you enjoy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Pardon my good sense, but isn't the only real response to this for anyone who isn't satisfied to just stop paying them anything at all and go play something else?As with any situation where a dev doesn't give the players what they want, the only way to send a message is to stop paying for a sub-par product and go support something that you enjoy.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0554243.30296960</id>
	<title>Re:EA</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259594940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yeah those bastards. getting to work on something as fun as writing games AND expecting to get paid for it too!!!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah those bastards .
getting to work on something as fun as writing games AND expecting to get paid for it too ! !
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah those bastards.
getting to work on something as fun as writing games AND expecting to get paid for it too!!
!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0554243.30295808</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0554243.30299960</id>
	<title>The game industry needs a shakeup</title>
	<author>SnapperHead</author>
	<datestamp>1259608740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>When I see things like this, I know its a game I won't be playing.  I will NOT spend additionally money on a game after I purchase it.  World of Warcraft is slightly different in its subscription fees.  But, everyone who pays the $13 a month gets the same game.  Not different tiers of things depending on how much you spend.</p><p>EA is going to be in some serious trouble if they think this will work well as a long term business plan.  As it is, I generally don't buy EA games anymore because most of the games they produce are cloned out versions of the same game over and over.  Not to mention the quality of the games is piss poor.  Command and Conquer vs Warcraft or Starcraft ?  EA can't touch Blizzard with a 10' pole here.  I will always buy a Blizzard game over EA because they are quality.</p><p>EA is going to be in serious shit if they continue down this road.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>When I see things like this , I know its a game I wo n't be playing .
I will NOT spend additionally money on a game after I purchase it .
World of Warcraft is slightly different in its subscription fees .
But , everyone who pays the $ 13 a month gets the same game .
Not different tiers of things depending on how much you spend.EA is going to be in some serious trouble if they think this will work well as a long term business plan .
As it is , I generally do n't buy EA games anymore because most of the games they produce are cloned out versions of the same game over and over .
Not to mention the quality of the games is piss poor .
Command and Conquer vs Warcraft or Starcraft ?
EA ca n't touch Blizzard with a 10 ' pole here .
I will always buy a Blizzard game over EA because they are quality.EA is going to be in serious shit if they continue down this road .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When I see things like this, I know its a game I won't be playing.
I will NOT spend additionally money on a game after I purchase it.
World of Warcraft is slightly different in its subscription fees.
But, everyone who pays the $13 a month gets the same game.
Not different tiers of things depending on how much you spend.EA is going to be in some serious trouble if they think this will work well as a long term business plan.
As it is, I generally don't buy EA games anymore because most of the games they produce are cloned out versions of the same game over and over.
Not to mention the quality of the games is piss poor.
Command and Conquer vs Warcraft or Starcraft ?
EA can't touch Blizzard with a 10' pole here.
I will always buy a Blizzard game over EA because they are quality.EA is going to be in serious shit if they continue down this road.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0554243.30296022</id>
	<title>Re:Times are a changing..</title>
	<author>sopssa</author>
	<datestamp>1259588160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well it's not like games industry is completely changing. Even DICE is still mostly making games that are sold the normal way (bad company 2 in a few months!), but I think this is a venture to see if the korean "offer free game, profit from ingame items" works in western countries too.</p><p>It's not really that bad model either, from customer point. You get to see the game without spending anything, so it's even better than just a demo. But the developers obviously have to cover costs and make income somehow, so it comes from the ingame items. And programmers, art team and all that game developing aspect costs quite a lot and western players probably aren't used for the micro-payments in games, so you have to create more incentive for players to spend some money on the game.</p><p>While I hate the "buy to be better" aspect in multiplayer games, it's good companies are experiencing these things. I tried the game too, but Bad Company was more for me. But at least I got to test it without spending anything and regretting that later.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well it 's not like games industry is completely changing .
Even DICE is still mostly making games that are sold the normal way ( bad company 2 in a few months !
) , but I think this is a venture to see if the korean " offer free game , profit from ingame items " works in western countries too.It 's not really that bad model either , from customer point .
You get to see the game without spending anything , so it 's even better than just a demo .
But the developers obviously have to cover costs and make income somehow , so it comes from the ingame items .
And programmers , art team and all that game developing aspect costs quite a lot and western players probably are n't used for the micro-payments in games , so you have to create more incentive for players to spend some money on the game.While I hate the " buy to be better " aspect in multiplayer games , it 's good companies are experiencing these things .
I tried the game too , but Bad Company was more for me .
But at least I got to test it without spending anything and regretting that later .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well it's not like games industry is completely changing.
Even DICE is still mostly making games that are sold the normal way (bad company 2 in a few months!
), but I think this is a venture to see if the korean "offer free game, profit from ingame items" works in western countries too.It's not really that bad model either, from customer point.
You get to see the game without spending anything, so it's even better than just a demo.
But the developers obviously have to cover costs and make income somehow, so it comes from the ingame items.
And programmers, art team and all that game developing aspect costs quite a lot and western players probably aren't used for the micro-payments in games, so you have to create more incentive for players to spend some money on the game.While I hate the "buy to be better" aspect in multiplayer games, it's good companies are experiencing these things.
I tried the game too, but Bad Company was more for me.
But at least I got to test it without spending anything and regretting that later.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0554243.30295814</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0554243.30297576</id>
	<title>Re:Honest from the start</title>
	<author>dtolman</author>
	<datestamp>1259598060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The problem here is that they continue to insist nothing has changed - while it is quite clear that the new business model is completely different. Thats what is so infuriating - the refusal to admit that anything has changed, while the core philosophy of the game is completely different.</p><p>Previously you could only buy "fluff" (emotes, costumes, skins for your weapons) - and they asked you to spend your $$$ to "help the game".</p><p>Now the in-game currency you could earn from play is worthless, no one can afford to purchase weapons with these earned credits. But... no problem. Now you can buy weapons for REAL money (which you previously could not) - even better, you can get "super" versions of the same weapon for MORE real money.</p><p>So now there is a two tier system - players who pay and players who don't. The players who pay, win. That simple.</p><p>If thats what they want to do, fine. But don't tell me that free players are not at a disadvantage in all your advertising - thats blatantly false.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The problem here is that they continue to insist nothing has changed - while it is quite clear that the new business model is completely different .
Thats what is so infuriating - the refusal to admit that anything has changed , while the core philosophy of the game is completely different.Previously you could only buy " fluff " ( emotes , costumes , skins for your weapons ) - and they asked you to spend your $ $ $ to " help the game " .Now the in-game currency you could earn from play is worthless , no one can afford to purchase weapons with these earned credits .
But... no problem .
Now you can buy weapons for REAL money ( which you previously could not ) - even better , you can get " super " versions of the same weapon for MORE real money.So now there is a two tier system - players who pay and players who do n't .
The players who pay , win .
That simple.If thats what they want to do , fine .
But do n't tell me that free players are not at a disadvantage in all your advertising - thats blatantly false .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The problem here is that they continue to insist nothing has changed - while it is quite clear that the new business model is completely different.
Thats what is so infuriating - the refusal to admit that anything has changed, while the core philosophy of the game is completely different.Previously you could only buy "fluff" (emotes, costumes, skins for your weapons) - and they asked you to spend your $$$ to "help the game".Now the in-game currency you could earn from play is worthless, no one can afford to purchase weapons with these earned credits.
But... no problem.
Now you can buy weapons for REAL money (which you previously could not) - even better, you can get "super" versions of the same weapon for MORE real money.So now there is a two tier system - players who pay and players who don't.
The players who pay, win.
That simple.If thats what they want to do, fine.
But don't tell me that free players are not at a disadvantage in all your advertising - thats blatantly false.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0554243.30296266</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0554243.30298514</id>
	<title>What do you expect?</title>
	<author>MaWeiTao</author>
	<datestamp>1259602500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Game developers are getting away with this because the consumers let them. For every gamer outraged there are two others pouncing on him with criticism. Those others are perfectly comfortable and more than happy to part with their money. They're the sort of people who value entertainment more highly than principles.</p><p>If there were solidarity amongst the gaming public where everyone stood up against this these practices would end overnight. But what do you expect from a segment of the consumer population that is willing to stand in line at midnight to pick up a game the split second it's released.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Game developers are getting away with this because the consumers let them .
For every gamer outraged there are two others pouncing on him with criticism .
Those others are perfectly comfortable and more than happy to part with their money .
They 're the sort of people who value entertainment more highly than principles.If there were solidarity amongst the gaming public where everyone stood up against this these practices would end overnight .
But what do you expect from a segment of the consumer population that is willing to stand in line at midnight to pick up a game the split second it 's released .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Game developers are getting away with this because the consumers let them.
For every gamer outraged there are two others pouncing on him with criticism.
Those others are perfectly comfortable and more than happy to part with their money.
They're the sort of people who value entertainment more highly than principles.If there were solidarity amongst the gaming public where everyone stood up against this these practices would end overnight.
But what do you expect from a segment of the consumer population that is willing to stand in line at midnight to pick up a game the split second it's released.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0554243.30296922</id>
	<title>Re:Don't like it? Don't pay them.</title>
	<author>sleeponthemic</author>
	<datestamp>1259594640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Pardon my good sense, but isn't the only real response to this for anyone who isn't satisfied to just stop paying them anything at all and go play something else?</p><p>As with any situation where a dev doesn't give the players what they want, the only way to send a message is to stop paying for a sub-par product and go support something that you enjoy.</p></div><p>Yes, it is.  But, good sense and "real" has nothing to do with a lot of complaints in this type of situation, where a largely free service goes paid.  Much of it has to do with Customer Nazi Syndrome and the notion that companies are immediately evil for vulgar displays of seeking profit.   After all, if one mentions revenue and such, one must be engaged in ripping someone off.

<br> <br>In a situation such as this, where there is very little comment necessary other than the negative, it might seem as if they are the majority - but actually it's mostly just the tossers demanding the earth.  The rest of us just move on or get onboard.

<br> <br>If the cost of items goes up and to "stay competitive" one has to spend more money, I think it's fairly obvious that the cost of staying competitive is likely to change.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Pardon my good sense , but is n't the only real response to this for anyone who is n't satisfied to just stop paying them anything at all and go play something else ? As with any situation where a dev does n't give the players what they want , the only way to send a message is to stop paying for a sub-par product and go support something that you enjoy.Yes , it is .
But , good sense and " real " has nothing to do with a lot of complaints in this type of situation , where a largely free service goes paid .
Much of it has to do with Customer Nazi Syndrome and the notion that companies are immediately evil for vulgar displays of seeking profit .
After all , if one mentions revenue and such , one must be engaged in ripping someone off .
In a situation such as this , where there is very little comment necessary other than the negative , it might seem as if they are the majority - but actually it 's mostly just the tossers demanding the earth .
The rest of us just move on or get onboard .
If the cost of items goes up and to " stay competitive " one has to spend more money , I think it 's fairly obvious that the cost of staying competitive is likely to change .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Pardon my good sense, but isn't the only real response to this for anyone who isn't satisfied to just stop paying them anything at all and go play something else?As with any situation where a dev doesn't give the players what they want, the only way to send a message is to stop paying for a sub-par product and go support something that you enjoy.Yes, it is.
But, good sense and "real" has nothing to do with a lot of complaints in this type of situation, where a largely free service goes paid.
Much of it has to do with Customer Nazi Syndrome and the notion that companies are immediately evil for vulgar displays of seeking profit.
After all, if one mentions revenue and such, one must be engaged in ripping someone off.
In a situation such as this, where there is very little comment necessary other than the negative, it might seem as if they are the majority - but actually it's mostly just the tossers demanding the earth.
The rest of us just move on or get onboard.
If the cost of items goes up and to "stay competitive" one has to spend more money, I think it's fairly obvious that the cost of staying competitive is likely to change.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0554243.30295864</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0554243.30295994</id>
	<title>Advertising Supported</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259587800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They don't solely make money from battlefunds, they also have ingame advertising, everytime the map switches you get a advert now, which is fine, I'd happily play a free game in return for being shown adverts, but to get adverts, and also be at a disadvantage compared to players who bought battlefunds for better weapons leaves a rather bitter taste.</p><p>I used to be a avid BFH player, but to be honest, while fun, the game is too simplistic (compared to other online team based FPS games) to be worth paying for, and as such I won't be logging in anymore.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They do n't solely make money from battlefunds , they also have ingame advertising , everytime the map switches you get a advert now , which is fine , I 'd happily play a free game in return for being shown adverts , but to get adverts , and also be at a disadvantage compared to players who bought battlefunds for better weapons leaves a rather bitter taste.I used to be a avid BFH player , but to be honest , while fun , the game is too simplistic ( compared to other online team based FPS games ) to be worth paying for , and as such I wo n't be logging in anymore .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They don't solely make money from battlefunds, they also have ingame advertising, everytime the map switches you get a advert now, which is fine, I'd happily play a free game in return for being shown adverts, but to get adverts, and also be at a disadvantage compared to players who bought battlefunds for better weapons leaves a rather bitter taste.I used to be a avid BFH player, but to be honest, while fun, the game is too simplistic (compared to other online team based FPS games) to be worth paying for, and as such I won't be logging in anymore.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0554243.30295946</id>
	<title>It doesn't work in Hong Kong</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259587320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It doesn't work in Hong Kong</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; Access Denied<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; The server returned a 403 response.</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; You can't access this page from your country.</p><p>Oh well =(</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It does n't work in Hong Kong             Access Denied             The server returned a 403 response .
            You ca n't access this page from your country.Oh well = (</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It doesn't work in Hong Kong
            Access Denied
            The server returned a 403 response.
            You can't access this page from your country.Oh well =(</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0554243.30295914</id>
	<title>Honest from the start</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259586840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You have to admit that he's right about needing to pay wages and such...but they should have been honest from the start.  "Bait and switch" comes to mind here.</p><p>I don't play this particular game and I'm very selective about what I do play for reasons such as this.  I was leery about my Steam account before all the crap with Modern Warfare 2 and was annoyed that I had to register for Steam when I bought my copy of Portal off a retail shelf a while back.  I had to go online, but was able to tweak the settings so that I didn't have to be logged in to play it.</p><p>The simple fact is this:  online play is big time now, and game developers will need to make money off of it to stay in business.</p><p>Again, though...they need to be honest from the start and not change things suddenly.</p><p>-JJS</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You have to admit that he 's right about needing to pay wages and such...but they should have been honest from the start .
" Bait and switch " comes to mind here.I do n't play this particular game and I 'm very selective about what I do play for reasons such as this .
I was leery about my Steam account before all the crap with Modern Warfare 2 and was annoyed that I had to register for Steam when I bought my copy of Portal off a retail shelf a while back .
I had to go online , but was able to tweak the settings so that I did n't have to be logged in to play it.The simple fact is this : online play is big time now , and game developers will need to make money off of it to stay in business.Again , though...they need to be honest from the start and not change things suddenly.-JJS</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You have to admit that he's right about needing to pay wages and such...but they should have been honest from the start.
"Bait and switch" comes to mind here.I don't play this particular game and I'm very selective about what I do play for reasons such as this.
I was leery about my Steam account before all the crap with Modern Warfare 2 and was annoyed that I had to register for Steam when I bought my copy of Portal off a retail shelf a while back.
I had to go online, but was able to tweak the settings so that I didn't have to be logged in to play it.The simple fact is this:  online play is big time now, and game developers will need to make money off of it to stay in business.Again, though...they need to be honest from the start and not change things suddenly.-JJS</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0554243.30301088</id>
	<title>Re:Charging a monthly fee is more palatable</title>
	<author>Fnord666</author>
	<datestamp>1259614080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Losing to someone not because you play worse or you have bad luck, but rather because that guy simply outspent you, is just completely demoralizing and I'd abandon any competitive game that allowed this.</p></div>
</blockquote><p>
I guess you won't be playing "Magic: The Gathering" any time soon then.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Losing to someone not because you play worse or you have bad luck , but rather because that guy simply outspent you , is just completely demoralizing and I 'd abandon any competitive game that allowed this .
I guess you wo n't be playing " Magic : The Gathering " any time soon then .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Losing to someone not because you play worse or you have bad luck, but rather because that guy simply outspent you, is just completely demoralizing and I'd abandon any competitive game that allowed this.
I guess you won't be playing "Magic: The Gathering" any time soon then.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0554243.30296502</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0554243.30297994</id>
	<title>BFH Will Fail</title>
	<author>don\_carnage</author>
	<datestamp>1259600040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Without players (paying and free alike), there won't be enough people in game. Sell the initial game, allow players to set up their own servers and mod content. It worked for Valve.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Without players ( paying and free alike ) , there wo n't be enough people in game .
Sell the initial game , allow players to set up their own servers and mod content .
It worked for Valve .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Without players (paying and free alike), there won't be enough people in game.
Sell the initial game, allow players to set up their own servers and mod content.
It worked for Valve.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0554243.30296254</id>
	<title>Re:Don't like it? Don't pay them.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259590080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Oh, but you forgot the addiction and competitive behavior.<br>
I've seen this countless times. Duels, OGame, Popmundo, etc., etc. Producer implements pay-for-advantage stuff, players get angry, they yell, grumble, gnash their teeth then silently go ahead and buy the stuff. It's the addiction and the fear of losing the edge that drives them to buy and buy, just like a herd.<br>
In Ogame, hardcore players organized special alliances to hunt and destroy those who pay for advantages in game. This lasted for a couple months, then most of those angered players started buying stuff themselves. And now it's all peace and quiet.<br>
IMO, best payment approach was done in EVE Online. They implemented a method for players to buy a special item called PLEX (30 days Pilot License Extension) and they are able to sell it for ingame currency. Nothing else. This doesn't give a large ingame advantage to players who buy PLEX for real money, because it doesn't make you advance faster. It only gives you more ingame currency, so you afford to buy a ship fast if yours is destroyed. Apart from that, you still need skills to pilot it properly, and those can not be trained faster.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Oh , but you forgot the addiction and competitive behavior .
I 've seen this countless times .
Duels , OGame , Popmundo , etc. , etc .
Producer implements pay-for-advantage stuff , players get angry , they yell , grumble , gnash their teeth then silently go ahead and buy the stuff .
It 's the addiction and the fear of losing the edge that drives them to buy and buy , just like a herd .
In Ogame , hardcore players organized special alliances to hunt and destroy those who pay for advantages in game .
This lasted for a couple months , then most of those angered players started buying stuff themselves .
And now it 's all peace and quiet .
IMO , best payment approach was done in EVE Online .
They implemented a method for players to buy a special item called PLEX ( 30 days Pilot License Extension ) and they are able to sell it for ingame currency .
Nothing else .
This does n't give a large ingame advantage to players who buy PLEX for real money , because it does n't make you advance faster .
It only gives you more ingame currency , so you afford to buy a ship fast if yours is destroyed .
Apart from that , you still need skills to pilot it properly , and those can not be trained faster .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oh, but you forgot the addiction and competitive behavior.
I've seen this countless times.
Duels, OGame, Popmundo, etc., etc.
Producer implements pay-for-advantage stuff, players get angry, they yell, grumble, gnash their teeth then silently go ahead and buy the stuff.
It's the addiction and the fear of losing the edge that drives them to buy and buy, just like a herd.
In Ogame, hardcore players organized special alliances to hunt and destroy those who pay for advantages in game.
This lasted for a couple months, then most of those angered players started buying stuff themselves.
And now it's all peace and quiet.
IMO, best payment approach was done in EVE Online.
They implemented a method for players to buy a special item called PLEX (30 days Pilot License Extension) and they are able to sell it for ingame currency.
Nothing else.
This doesn't give a large ingame advantage to players who buy PLEX for real money, because it doesn't make you advance faster.
It only gives you more ingame currency, so you afford to buy a ship fast if yours is destroyed.
Apart from that, you still need skills to pilot it properly, and those can not be trained faster.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0554243.30295864</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0554243.30296008</id>
	<title>Er what?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259588040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>in order to keep a team large enough to make new free content like maps and other game features we need to increase the amount of BF that people buy</i>
<p>
So people have to buy stuff from you to get free content?
</p><p>
Run that by me again?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>in order to keep a team large enough to make new free content like maps and other game features we need to increase the amount of BF that people buy So people have to buy stuff from you to get free content ?
Run that by me again ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>in order to keep a team large enough to make new free content like maps and other game features we need to increase the amount of BF that people buy

So people have to buy stuff from you to get free content?
Run that by me again?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0554243.30297110</id>
	<title>Re:Bye-bye BF Heroes!</title>
	<author>ErikZ</author>
	<datestamp>1259595900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I highly recommend Team Fortress 2.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I highly recommend Team Fortress 2 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I highly recommend Team Fortress 2.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0554243.30295972</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0554243.30297904</id>
	<title>EA Should Have Sold The Game Outright</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259599680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm a big fan of Battlefield Heroes and I'm afraid that this decision will be the last I play of the game. Like any player out there, I have a finite amount of funds that can be used towards the purchase of games. For my money, I could go out and purchase Left4Dead2, Counterstrike, or even Fat Princess and have unlimited play. For less than $50. The only thing that BFH added was the ability to customize your character -- which isn't worth $10 per month. New maps don't count -- Counterstrike modders produced new maps all the time.</p><p>EA should have just charged $40 for the game outright.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm a big fan of Battlefield Heroes and I 'm afraid that this decision will be the last I play of the game .
Like any player out there , I have a finite amount of funds that can be used towards the purchase of games .
For my money , I could go out and purchase Left4Dead2 , Counterstrike , or even Fat Princess and have unlimited play .
For less than $ 50 .
The only thing that BFH added was the ability to customize your character -- which is n't worth $ 10 per month .
New maps do n't count -- Counterstrike modders produced new maps all the time.EA should have just charged $ 40 for the game outright .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm a big fan of Battlefield Heroes and I'm afraid that this decision will be the last I play of the game.
Like any player out there, I have a finite amount of funds that can be used towards the purchase of games.
For my money, I could go out and purchase Left4Dead2, Counterstrike, or even Fat Princess and have unlimited play.
For less than $50.
The only thing that BFH added was the ability to customize your character -- which isn't worth $10 per month.
New maps don't count -- Counterstrike modders produced new maps all the time.EA should have just charged $40 for the game outright.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0554243.30295934</id>
	<title>Re:Don't like it? Don't pay them.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259587260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The problem is that some of us have already paid them money before this change. Of course I will go and play somewhere else and not ever buy anything else from EA. I feel scammed.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The problem is that some of us have already paid them money before this change .
Of course I will go and play somewhere else and not ever buy anything else from EA .
I feel scammed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The problem is that some of us have already paid them money before this change.
Of course I will go and play somewhere else and not ever buy anything else from EA.
I feel scammed.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0554243.30295864</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0554243.30296650</id>
	<title>Free as in Pay</title>
	<author>Rockoon</author>
	<datestamp>1259592960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This is some new definition of the term <i>Free Content</i> that I wasn't previously aware of.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is some new definition of the term Free Content that I was n't previously aware of .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is some new definition of the term Free Content that I wasn't previously aware of.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0554243.30295896</id>
	<title>So stop playing?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259586540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You don't have to play. Ok its fun but if its not worth paying to continue that fun move on to something else. Its not like it does anything new or better than the many many other games out there. This is the one time a boycott of a game would actually make a difference, they don't have your money yet so stop playing and a more amenable pricing policy may be worked out if it isnt there are many other choices out there.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You do n't have to play .
Ok its fun but if its not worth paying to continue that fun move on to something else .
Its not like it does anything new or better than the many many other games out there .
This is the one time a boycott of a game would actually make a difference , they do n't have your money yet so stop playing and a more amenable pricing policy may be worked out if it isnt there are many other choices out there .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You don't have to play.
Ok its fun but if its not worth paying to continue that fun move on to something else.
Its not like it does anything new or better than the many many other games out there.
This is the one time a boycott of a game would actually make a difference, they don't have your money yet so stop playing and a more amenable pricing policy may be worked out if it isnt there are many other choices out there.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0554243.30302276</id>
	<title>All that was sold before was costumes!</title>
	<author>Just Justin</author>
	<datestamp>1259574900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The only thing they charged real money for before in BF Heroes was just the costumes.  I don't know how many people would spend real money to dress up their virtual character, but I can tell you that I was not one of them.  There really must not have been that many people that wanted to pay for clothing for their character.</p><p>The pricing for the weapons and bandages and such were so cheap.  It took 15 to 20 minutes of playing to be able to buy the upgraded weapon for your character that was good for 7 days and a package of band-aids.  It looks like the prices have shot up 10x.  So now you'd have to play 150 to 200 minutes to be able to buy that upgraded weapon.  That's a level of time where it feels like you've actually earned something.  Why do so many people complain on the internet?</p><p>Anyways the game kind of sucks and so I don't care much what is happening with it now.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The only thing they charged real money for before in BF Heroes was just the costumes .
I do n't know how many people would spend real money to dress up their virtual character , but I can tell you that I was not one of them .
There really must not have been that many people that wanted to pay for clothing for their character.The pricing for the weapons and bandages and such were so cheap .
It took 15 to 20 minutes of playing to be able to buy the upgraded weapon for your character that was good for 7 days and a package of band-aids .
It looks like the prices have shot up 10x .
So now you 'd have to play 150 to 200 minutes to be able to buy that upgraded weapon .
That 's a level of time where it feels like you 've actually earned something .
Why do so many people complain on the internet ? Anyways the game kind of sucks and so I do n't care much what is happening with it now .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The only thing they charged real money for before in BF Heroes was just the costumes.
I don't know how many people would spend real money to dress up their virtual character, but I can tell you that I was not one of them.
There really must not have been that many people that wanted to pay for clothing for their character.The pricing for the weapons and bandages and such were so cheap.
It took 15 to 20 minutes of playing to be able to buy the upgraded weapon for your character that was good for 7 days and a package of band-aids.
It looks like the prices have shot up 10x.
So now you'd have to play 150 to 200 minutes to be able to buy that upgraded weapon.
That's a level of time where it feels like you've actually earned something.
Why do so many people complain on the internet?Anyways the game kind of sucks and so I don't care much what is happening with it now.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0554243.30298038</id>
	<title>Re:Honest from the start</title>
	<author>Dunkirk</author>
	<datestamp>1259600280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The only way to get different outfits in the game is to buy them. Nearly everyone but myself seems to do this. I guess they weren't making enough with that approach. Maybe you should need to rent your clothes?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The only way to get different outfits in the game is to buy them .
Nearly everyone but myself seems to do this .
I guess they were n't making enough with that approach .
Maybe you should need to rent your clothes ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The only way to get different outfits in the game is to buy them.
Nearly everyone but myself seems to do this.
I guess they weren't making enough with that approach.
Maybe you should need to rent your clothes?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0554243.30296266</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0554243.30296556</id>
	<title>games</title>
	<author>Dale512</author>
	<datestamp>1259592420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I play games to have fun.  Part of that fun when playing with others is an even playing field.  Games, unlike life, have rules to make things fair.  Buying your way changes that.  I do not play games that put the unfairness of life back into a game.  For now, there are still plenty of other games that play within the sandbox just fine that will get my time/attention/money and I can ignore games that do this.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I play games to have fun .
Part of that fun when playing with others is an even playing field .
Games , unlike life , have rules to make things fair .
Buying your way changes that .
I do not play games that put the unfairness of life back into a game .
For now , there are still plenty of other games that play within the sandbox just fine that will get my time/attention/money and I can ignore games that do this .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I play games to have fun.
Part of that fun when playing with others is an even playing field.
Games, unlike life, have rules to make things fair.
Buying your way changes that.
I do not play games that put the unfairness of life back into a game.
For now, there are still plenty of other games that play within the sandbox just fine that will get my time/attention/money and I can ignore games that do this.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0554243.30309062</id>
	<title>Re:Times are a changing..</title>
	<author>One Monkey</author>
	<datestamp>1259844360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I dunno. Maybe it's just my Roman heritage but if you chuck handheld weapons and wild beasts in I think it would make the sport just about watchable.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I dunno .
Maybe it 's just my Roman heritage but if you chuck handheld weapons and wild beasts in I think it would make the sport just about watchable .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I dunno.
Maybe it's just my Roman heritage but if you chuck handheld weapons and wild beasts in I think it would make the sport just about watchable.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0554243.30296410</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0554243.30299228</id>
	<title>Maybe this will curb the hacking problem</title>
	<author>BrianRoach</author>
	<datestamp>1259605380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>BFH had been going downhill for some time due to rampant hacking that EA/DICE were doing nothing to stop. It had already lost a lot of players due to this, and about 3 weeks ago a new free aimbot hit the scene which increased the problem (unlike TF2, the game is fairly unfinished and there's no in-game tools for players or admins - vote kick, spectator mode, etc, so you're pretty much hosed).</p><p>In typical EA fashion<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... this move kinda makes sense. Rather than fix the problem, make people pay for things they need, and in addition to the game actually making money hopefully the script kiddies will stop playing.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>::shrug:: I was part of the closed beta and it really was a fun little game. Was totally hooked for a while. When the hacking epidemic started a few weeks ago... I gave up and moved on. You literally couldn't find a game without multiple cheaters in it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>BFH had been going downhill for some time due to rampant hacking that EA/DICE were doing nothing to stop .
It had already lost a lot of players due to this , and about 3 weeks ago a new free aimbot hit the scene which increased the problem ( unlike TF2 , the game is fairly unfinished and there 's no in-game tools for players or admins - vote kick , spectator mode , etc , so you 're pretty much hosed ) .In typical EA fashion ... this move kinda makes sense .
Rather than fix the problem , make people pay for things they need , and in addition to the game actually making money hopefully the script kiddies will stop playing .
: : shrug : : I was part of the closed beta and it really was a fun little game .
Was totally hooked for a while .
When the hacking epidemic started a few weeks ago... I gave up and moved on .
You literally could n't find a game without multiple cheaters in it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>BFH had been going downhill for some time due to rampant hacking that EA/DICE were doing nothing to stop.
It had already lost a lot of players due to this, and about 3 weeks ago a new free aimbot hit the scene which increased the problem (unlike TF2, the game is fairly unfinished and there's no in-game tools for players or admins - vote kick, spectator mode, etc, so you're pretty much hosed).In typical EA fashion ... this move kinda makes sense.
Rather than fix the problem, make people pay for things they need, and in addition to the game actually making money hopefully the script kiddies will stop playing.
::shrug:: I was part of the closed beta and it really was a fun little game.
Was totally hooked for a while.
When the hacking epidemic started a few weeks ago... I gave up and moved on.
You literally couldn't find a game without multiple cheaters in it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0554243.30296064</id>
	<title>Re:BF a dead franchise</title>
	<author>sopssa</author>
	<datestamp>1259588460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>While I didn't like the games in between, BF: Bad Company is actually a great game. Tons of fun in multiplayer; I like hiding in bushes and snipering, and this is the only game besides the original Operation Flashpoint that has done that part good. And BF: Bad Company 2 will be released in a few months and for PC this time too, so I'm greatly waiting for that (and so are users disappointed at MW2's no-dedicated-servers thingie)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>While I did n't like the games in between , BF : Bad Company is actually a great game .
Tons of fun in multiplayer ; I like hiding in bushes and snipering , and this is the only game besides the original Operation Flashpoint that has done that part good .
And BF : Bad Company 2 will be released in a few months and for PC this time too , so I 'm greatly waiting for that ( and so are users disappointed at MW2 's no-dedicated-servers thingie )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>While I didn't like the games in between, BF: Bad Company is actually a great game.
Tons of fun in multiplayer; I like hiding in bushes and snipering, and this is the only game besides the original Operation Flashpoint that has done that part good.
And BF: Bad Company 2 will be released in a few months and for PC this time too, so I'm greatly waiting for that (and so are users disappointed at MW2's no-dedicated-servers thingie)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0554243.30295832</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0554243.30299750</id>
	<title>Did they not consider users quitting?</title>
	<author>moxley</author>
	<datestamp>1259607720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Are they so stupid they can't understand the user part of the equation? They will destroy their game like this because nobody will want to play.</p><p>It's like that Mafia Wars game on facebook - right now you can play it free and keep advancing and having fun, but you can also pay money for points that enable to you take shortcuts and jack your player up faster. This is accceptable to free players, because they can continue to play for free without having to pay for anything - however, when this sort of model is changed to the point that players HAVE to purchase something in order to continue to progress in the game, I'd say that 8 or 9 out of 10 people are going to quit playing because they don't want to start paying for something that has always been free to have the same experience, and on top of that many would quit out of anger and feeling betrayed by being sucked in by a freebie then baited and switched.</p><p>Bad move all of the way around.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Are they so stupid they ca n't understand the user part of the equation ?
They will destroy their game like this because nobody will want to play.It 's like that Mafia Wars game on facebook - right now you can play it free and keep advancing and having fun , but you can also pay money for points that enable to you take shortcuts and jack your player up faster .
This is accceptable to free players , because they can continue to play for free without having to pay for anything - however , when this sort of model is changed to the point that players HAVE to purchase something in order to continue to progress in the game , I 'd say that 8 or 9 out of 10 people are going to quit playing because they do n't want to start paying for something that has always been free to have the same experience , and on top of that many would quit out of anger and feeling betrayed by being sucked in by a freebie then baited and switched.Bad move all of the way around .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Are they so stupid they can't understand the user part of the equation?
They will destroy their game like this because nobody will want to play.It's like that Mafia Wars game on facebook - right now you can play it free and keep advancing and having fun, but you can also pay money for points that enable to you take shortcuts and jack your player up faster.
This is accceptable to free players, because they can continue to play for free without having to pay for anything - however, when this sort of model is changed to the point that players HAVE to purchase something in order to continue to progress in the game, I'd say that 8 or 9 out of 10 people are going to quit playing because they don't want to start paying for something that has always been free to have the same experience, and on top of that many would quit out of anger and feeling betrayed by being sucked in by a freebie then baited and switched.Bad move all of the way around.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0554243.30298336</id>
	<title>Charge for a Client or a Subscription</title>
	<author>AP31R0N</author>
	<datestamp>1259601600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Charge for a Client or a Subscription, NEVER BOTH, and not for anything else.  One or the other.  The occasional expansion is OK.</p><p>i don't play any games that allow player trade or have currency.  When i have, i found it to a be dick in the eye when someone would buy what i spent hours earning.  i quit WoW the day i had my credit card in hand about to buy gold.</p><p>Howabout this, let's allow football teams to field as many players as they can afford.  The teams that try to play honestly will find themselves outnumbered 3 to 1 or worse.</p><p>Ugh.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Charge for a Client or a Subscription , NEVER BOTH , and not for anything else .
One or the other .
The occasional expansion is OK.i do n't play any games that allow player trade or have currency .
When i have , i found it to a be dick in the eye when someone would buy what i spent hours earning .
i quit WoW the day i had my credit card in hand about to buy gold.Howabout this , let 's allow football teams to field as many players as they can afford .
The teams that try to play honestly will find themselves outnumbered 3 to 1 or worse.Ugh .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Charge for a Client or a Subscription, NEVER BOTH, and not for anything else.
One or the other.
The occasional expansion is OK.i don't play any games that allow player trade or have currency.
When i have, i found it to a be dick in the eye when someone would buy what i spent hours earning.
i quit WoW the day i had my credit card in hand about to buy gold.Howabout this, let's allow football teams to field as many players as they can afford.
The teams that try to play honestly will find themselves outnumbered 3 to 1 or worse.Ugh.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0554243.30305186</id>
	<title>It sucks, anyway.</title>
	<author>incognito84</author>
	<datestamp>1259584740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I played it a few months ago and didn't find the game appealing at all. Its half TF2 and half Battlefield 1942. Its not even that fun.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I played it a few months ago and did n't find the game appealing at all .
Its half TF2 and half Battlefield 1942 .
Its not even that fun .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I played it a few months ago and didn't find the game appealing at all.
Its half TF2 and half Battlefield 1942.
Its not even that fun.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0554243.30296474</id>
	<title>Re:So?</title>
	<author>Threni</author>
	<datestamp>1259591880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Boycott it.  I have.  I'm no longer playing until they fix it.  Already the servers were quite the last few days.  I'll check it out in a few weeks to see if they've apologized and fixed it, but until then there are plenty of other free games (plus games which I've bought, because they were worth it) to be getting on with.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Boycott it .
I have .
I 'm no longer playing until they fix it .
Already the servers were quite the last few days .
I 'll check it out in a few weeks to see if they 've apologized and fixed it , but until then there are plenty of other free games ( plus games which I 've bought , because they were worth it ) to be getting on with .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Boycott it.
I have.
I'm no longer playing until they fix it.
Already the servers were quite the last few days.
I'll check it out in a few weeks to see if they've apologized and fixed it, but until then there are plenty of other free games (plus games which I've bought, because they were worth it) to be getting on with.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0554243.30295906</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0554243.30296306</id>
	<title>Re:Honest from the start</title>
	<author>teg</author>
	<datestamp>1259590620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> <i>"Bait and switch" comes to mind here.</i> </p><p>
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bait\_and\_switch" title="wikipedia.org">"Bait and switch"</a> [wikipedia.org] would mean that there are malicious intent behind it. I find it more likely that they tried the revenue model, found that it doesn't provide enough money and are tweaking the game to make it more attractive to send them money. The alternative, eventually, would be to shut it down - or at least put less developer effort and/or servers at it.

</p><p>
As users haven't invested anything in the product - just played which is supposed to be fun - I don't think "bait and switch" is the appropriate term.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Bait and switch " comes to mind here .
" Bait and switch " [ wikipedia.org ] would mean that there are malicious intent behind it .
I find it more likely that they tried the revenue model , found that it does n't provide enough money and are tweaking the game to make it more attractive to send them money .
The alternative , eventually , would be to shut it down - or at least put less developer effort and/or servers at it .
As users have n't invested anything in the product - just played which is supposed to be fun - I do n't think " bait and switch " is the appropriate term .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> "Bait and switch" comes to mind here.
"Bait and switch" [wikipedia.org] would mean that there are malicious intent behind it.
I find it more likely that they tried the revenue model, found that it doesn't provide enough money and are tweaking the game to make it more attractive to send them money.
The alternative, eventually, would be to shut it down - or at least put less developer effort and/or servers at it.
As users haven't invested anything in the product - just played which is supposed to be fun - I don't think "bait and switch" is the appropriate term.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0554243.30295914</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0554243.30295832</id>
	<title>BF a dead franchise</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259585880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I've stopped playing the Battlefield titles after BF2 came out and was such a flop.  I mean, Desert Combat was such an awesome mod, but lost in translation when Dice sold out to EA.<br>Then they came out with that pitiful title Battlefield: 2142, which included ad-ware, and all the commercials in the world wouldn't even get me to install a cracked copy.</p><p>Now this?</p><p>As far as I'm concerned, BF died after Desert Combat.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've stopped playing the Battlefield titles after BF2 came out and was such a flop .
I mean , Desert Combat was such an awesome mod , but lost in translation when Dice sold out to EA.Then they came out with that pitiful title Battlefield : 2142 , which included ad-ware , and all the commercials in the world would n't even get me to install a cracked copy.Now this ? As far as I 'm concerned , BF died after Desert Combat .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've stopped playing the Battlefield titles after BF2 came out and was such a flop.
I mean, Desert Combat was such an awesome mod, but lost in translation when Dice sold out to EA.Then they came out with that pitiful title Battlefield: 2142, which included ad-ware, and all the commercials in the world wouldn't even get me to install a cracked copy.Now this?As far as I'm concerned, BF died after Desert Combat.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0554243.30298176</id>
	<title>Re:Don't like it? Don't pay them.</title>
	<author>Symbha</author>
	<datestamp>1259600940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Didn't a bunch of folks buy a game, with a stated pricing and gameplay model?<br>And then later, EA changed the pricing and gameplay model to something that makes more money?</p><p>Sounds like classic bait and switch to me.<br>They probably need to be sued for this one...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Did n't a bunch of folks buy a game , with a stated pricing and gameplay model ? And then later , EA changed the pricing and gameplay model to something that makes more money ? Sounds like classic bait and switch to me.They probably need to be sued for this one.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Didn't a bunch of folks buy a game, with a stated pricing and gameplay model?And then later, EA changed the pricing and gameplay model to something that makes more money?Sounds like classic bait and switch to me.They probably need to be sued for this one...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0554243.30295864</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0554243.30296568</id>
	<title>Re:Times are a changing..</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259592480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"It sucks, but that's the way it is"? That's the most pathetic thing I've ever heard. If it sucks, then it's simple - don't buy that game. There is no game in the history of gaming that is so good that it's worth bending over for a game company and encouraging this sort of thing.</p><p>Or, do things your way, and buy games that screw you. I think my plan is better - there are tons of amazing games out there not trying to nickle and dime me to death. I'll give them my money.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" It sucks , but that 's the way it is " ?
That 's the most pathetic thing I 've ever heard .
If it sucks , then it 's simple - do n't buy that game .
There is no game in the history of gaming that is so good that it 's worth bending over for a game company and encouraging this sort of thing.Or , do things your way , and buy games that screw you .
I think my plan is better - there are tons of amazing games out there not trying to nickle and dime me to death .
I 'll give them my money .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"It sucks, but that's the way it is"?
That's the most pathetic thing I've ever heard.
If it sucks, then it's simple - don't buy that game.
There is no game in the history of gaming that is so good that it's worth bending over for a game company and encouraging this sort of thing.Or, do things your way, and buy games that screw you.
I think my plan is better - there are tons of amazing games out there not trying to nickle and dime me to death.
I'll give them my money.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0554243.30295814</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0554243.30296868</id>
	<title>robbery?</title>
	<author>aquabat</author>
	<datestamp>1259594340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Too bad you can't just get a bunch of other noobs together and gang mug some player for his shiny new toys. That would be hilarious to watch play out in a real world courtroom.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Too bad you ca n't just get a bunch of other noobs together and gang mug some player for his shiny new toys .
That would be hilarious to watch play out in a real world courtroom .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Too bad you can't just get a bunch of other noobs together and gang mug some player for his shiny new toys.
That would be hilarious to watch play out in a real world courtroom.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0554243.30296208</id>
	<title>Re:Times are a changing..</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259589720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I tried D&amp;D Online recently, and it seems to follow this kind of model too.  I honestly would give the micropayment model a go for a game I'm truly interested in, but the feeling of it was wrong somehow.  I don't really want to play a game where I can get my character something, using real money, that the character isn't entitled to in-game.</p><p>Why not just charge micropayments to play through an instance of a dungeon, and leave it at that?  Charging for items just ruins the game for me; even if I'm not opposed to the idea of paying real money for them, it detracts from the experience.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I tried D&amp;D Online recently , and it seems to follow this kind of model too .
I honestly would give the micropayment model a go for a game I 'm truly interested in , but the feeling of it was wrong somehow .
I do n't really want to play a game where I can get my character something , using real money , that the character is n't entitled to in-game.Why not just charge micropayments to play through an instance of a dungeon , and leave it at that ?
Charging for items just ruins the game for me ; even if I 'm not opposed to the idea of paying real money for them , it detracts from the experience .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I tried D&amp;D Online recently, and it seems to follow this kind of model too.
I honestly would give the micropayment model a go for a game I'm truly interested in, but the feeling of it was wrong somehow.
I don't really want to play a game where I can get my character something, using real money, that the character isn't entitled to in-game.Why not just charge micropayments to play through an instance of a dungeon, and leave it at that?
Charging for items just ruins the game for me; even if I'm not opposed to the idea of paying real money for them, it detracts from the experience.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0554243.30296022</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0554243.30297594</id>
	<title>Re:Don't like it? Don't pay them.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259598180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>^^^^^ PROBLEM SOLVED  ^^^^^. Let's start the revolution!! haha</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>^ ^ ^ ^ ^ PROBLEM SOLVED ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ .
Let 's start the revolution ! !
haha</tokentext>
<sentencetext>^^^^^ PROBLEM SOLVED  ^^^^^.
Let's start the revolution!!
haha</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0554243.30295864</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0554243.30296722</id>
	<title>Once upon a time</title>
	<author>onyxruby</author>
	<datestamp>1259593380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Once upon a time there was a saying "May the best player win". I think we need to amend that saying to reflect the new corporate model "May the richest player win".</htmltext>
<tokenext>Once upon a time there was a saying " May the best player win " .
I think we need to amend that saying to reflect the new corporate model " May the richest player win " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Once upon a time there was a saying "May the best player win".
I think we need to amend that saying to reflect the new corporate model "May the richest player win".</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0554243.30296940</id>
	<title>EA has a company wide directive for online revenue</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259594760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Electronic Arts has an internal mandate to have about 15\% or more of the games revenue happen from online activities.  The top management does not care too much about how this goal is acheived.  For some games, this is from premium content (extra levels).  Some games get more creative with it.</p><p>Multiplayer FPS games though are in a bit of a bind.  The point of such games is to make sure you can play with anyone else who is online.  The most popular levels will never be premium content that you had to pay to own.  But powerups that anyone can use in any map?  Those are something you can try to monetize.</p><p>As a player, I am not convinced that these sort of powerups are the optimal way to monetize that content.  There is just too narrow a window for the power and utility of those power ups.  If they are really worth paying for, then the rest of the customers become 2nd class players.  If they are not very powerful, who the hell would actually buy them?</p><p>If they catch enough blowback on this, they will probably abandon this type of effort and try to come up with a better idea.  But everyone knew that this particular kind of fee based content had to be tried at least once, and even 8 years ago, you would probably have guessed that EA would be the first company to actually try to do it.</p><p>I am not really annoyed that they tried this.  I just hope it does not become an industry wide trend to let customers buy an advantage against the other players.</p><p>END COMMUNICATION</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Electronic Arts has an internal mandate to have about 15 \ % or more of the games revenue happen from online activities .
The top management does not care too much about how this goal is acheived .
For some games , this is from premium content ( extra levels ) .
Some games get more creative with it.Multiplayer FPS games though are in a bit of a bind .
The point of such games is to make sure you can play with anyone else who is online .
The most popular levels will never be premium content that you had to pay to own .
But powerups that anyone can use in any map ?
Those are something you can try to monetize.As a player , I am not convinced that these sort of powerups are the optimal way to monetize that content .
There is just too narrow a window for the power and utility of those power ups .
If they are really worth paying for , then the rest of the customers become 2nd class players .
If they are not very powerful , who the hell would actually buy them ? If they catch enough blowback on this , they will probably abandon this type of effort and try to come up with a better idea .
But everyone knew that this particular kind of fee based content had to be tried at least once , and even 8 years ago , you would probably have guessed that EA would be the first company to actually try to do it.I am not really annoyed that they tried this .
I just hope it does not become an industry wide trend to let customers buy an advantage against the other players.END COMMUNICATION</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Electronic Arts has an internal mandate to have about 15\% or more of the games revenue happen from online activities.
The top management does not care too much about how this goal is acheived.
For some games, this is from premium content (extra levels).
Some games get more creative with it.Multiplayer FPS games though are in a bit of a bind.
The point of such games is to make sure you can play with anyone else who is online.
The most popular levels will never be premium content that you had to pay to own.
But powerups that anyone can use in any map?
Those are something you can try to monetize.As a player, I am not convinced that these sort of powerups are the optimal way to monetize that content.
There is just too narrow a window for the power and utility of those power ups.
If they are really worth paying for, then the rest of the customers become 2nd class players.
If they are not very powerful, who the hell would actually buy them?If they catch enough blowback on this, they will probably abandon this type of effort and try to come up with a better idea.
But everyone knew that this particular kind of fee based content had to be tried at least once, and even 8 years ago, you would probably have guessed that EA would be the first company to actually try to do it.I am not really annoyed that they tried this.
I just hope it does not become an industry wide trend to let customers buy an advantage against the other players.END COMMUNICATION</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0554243.30296062</id>
	<title>Just say to no to Microtransaction games</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259588460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And this is why you should not waste time with "free to play" games - there is no such thing as a free lunch and once the publisher/developer finds out that their pipe dreams about microtransaction income are not happening (especially today, very limited disposable income), they will simply say "We are altering the deal, pray we don't alter it any further". The obvious way to squeeze more is to ensure that anyone serious about playing have to spend money on microtransactions, turning the whole affair into a contest of "who has most disposable income and least amount of sense?"</p><p>Microtransaction-based games are always going to be "won" by people who have most disposable income and the "total cost" of buying all the benefits and advantages is usually completely ridiculous compared to games that have just one pricetag. Only real answer is not to play them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And this is why you should not waste time with " free to play " games - there is no such thing as a free lunch and once the publisher/developer finds out that their pipe dreams about microtransaction income are not happening ( especially today , very limited disposable income ) , they will simply say " We are altering the deal , pray we do n't alter it any further " .
The obvious way to squeeze more is to ensure that anyone serious about playing have to spend money on microtransactions , turning the whole affair into a contest of " who has most disposable income and least amount of sense ?
" Microtransaction-based games are always going to be " won " by people who have most disposable income and the " total cost " of buying all the benefits and advantages is usually completely ridiculous compared to games that have just one pricetag .
Only real answer is not to play them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And this is why you should not waste time with "free to play" games - there is no such thing as a free lunch and once the publisher/developer finds out that their pipe dreams about microtransaction income are not happening (especially today, very limited disposable income), they will simply say "We are altering the deal, pray we don't alter it any further".
The obvious way to squeeze more is to ensure that anyone serious about playing have to spend money on microtransactions, turning the whole affair into a contest of "who has most disposable income and least amount of sense?
"Microtransaction-based games are always going to be "won" by people who have most disposable income and the "total cost" of buying all the benefits and advantages is usually completely ridiculous compared to games that have just one pricetag.
Only real answer is not to play them.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0554243.30295808</id>
	<title>EA</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259585640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Showing it's true colors, once again.</p><p>Getting "hooked" into a free game by EA is just asking for it. Without lube.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Showing it 's true colors , once again.Getting " hooked " into a free game by EA is just asking for it .
Without lube .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Showing it's true colors, once again.Getting "hooked" into a free game by EA is just asking for it.
Without lube.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0554243.30296158</id>
	<title>What is their definition of free?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259589240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>We have wages to pay here in the Heroes team and in order to keep a team large enough to make new free content like maps and other game features we need to increase the amount of BF that people buy.</p></div></blockquote><p>

By earning more money of some players they will be able to release "free" content?
</p><p>
Battlefield was a really nice game<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... but with Version 2 they have screwed up. DICE released unfinished addons for half the price of a new game (1-2 new maps, 1-2 new weapons). The addon's were bug ridden (more than the original game) and patches came in slowly.
</p><p>
This in combination with the usually EA stunts lead me to abandon Battlefield entirely (altough I like the game when it works).</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>We have wages to pay here in the Heroes team and in order to keep a team large enough to make new free content like maps and other game features we need to increase the amount of BF that people buy .
By earning more money of some players they will be able to release " free " content ?
Battlefield was a really nice game ... but with Version 2 they have screwed up .
DICE released unfinished addons for half the price of a new game ( 1-2 new maps , 1-2 new weapons ) .
The addon 's were bug ridden ( more than the original game ) and patches came in slowly .
This in combination with the usually EA stunts lead me to abandon Battlefield entirely ( altough I like the game when it works ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We have wages to pay here in the Heroes team and in order to keep a team large enough to make new free content like maps and other game features we need to increase the amount of BF that people buy.
By earning more money of some players they will be able to release "free" content?
Battlefield was a really nice game ... but with Version 2 they have screwed up.
DICE released unfinished addons for half the price of a new game (1-2 new maps, 1-2 new weapons).
The addon's were bug ridden (more than the original game) and patches came in slowly.
This in combination with the usually EA stunts lead me to abandon Battlefield entirely (altough I like the game when it works).
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0554243.30295906</id>
	<title>So?</title>
	<author>Opportunist</author>
	<datestamp>1259586720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Since EA/DICE are the only makers of FPS, we have to buy this game...</p><p>'scuse me, I'll be in Team Fortress 2 if you need me. There I get weapon upgrades for free and they're more fluff and fun than necessary to be competing. Sorry, but paying to be playing competitively is something I'd expect in a F2P game with an ingame store, but not in a game that I buy at full price. No sale.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Since EA/DICE are the only makers of FPS , we have to buy this game...'scuse me , I 'll be in Team Fortress 2 if you need me .
There I get weapon upgrades for free and they 're more fluff and fun than necessary to be competing .
Sorry , but paying to be playing competitively is something I 'd expect in a F2P game with an ingame store , but not in a game that I buy at full price .
No sale .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Since EA/DICE are the only makers of FPS, we have to buy this game...'scuse me, I'll be in Team Fortress 2 if you need me.
There I get weapon upgrades for free and they're more fluff and fun than necessary to be competing.
Sorry, but paying to be playing competitively is something I'd expect in a F2P game with an ingame store, but not in a game that I buy at full price.
No sale.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0554243.30298114</id>
	<title>Re:Don't like it? Don't pay them.</title>
	<author>harl</author>
	<datestamp>1259600580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes that's correct.  However gamers tend to fall into the bitch but play it anyways crowd.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes that 's correct .
However gamers tend to fall into the bitch but play it anyways crowd .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes that's correct.
However gamers tend to fall into the bitch but play it anyways crowd.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0554243.30295864</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0554243.30296502</id>
	<title>Charging a monthly fee is more palatable</title>
	<author>PeterM from Berkeley</author>
	<datestamp>1259592120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'd be much more willing to start paying a monthly fee for game access if the company were going bankrupt than to tolerate corruption of the game by allowing externalities like paying real money for game advantage.</p><p>Losing to someone not because you play worse or you have bad luck, but rather because that guy simply outspent you, is just completely demoralizing and I'd abandon any competitive game that allowed this.</p><p>A monthly access fee seems fair and equitable, though.  They're providing you a valuable entertainment service and its only fair to shoulder a portion of the cost!!!</p><p>--PeterM</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'd be much more willing to start paying a monthly fee for game access if the company were going bankrupt than to tolerate corruption of the game by allowing externalities like paying real money for game advantage.Losing to someone not because you play worse or you have bad luck , but rather because that guy simply outspent you , is just completely demoralizing and I 'd abandon any competitive game that allowed this.A monthly access fee seems fair and equitable , though .
They 're providing you a valuable entertainment service and its only fair to shoulder a portion of the cost ! !
! --PeterM</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'd be much more willing to start paying a monthly fee for game access if the company were going bankrupt than to tolerate corruption of the game by allowing externalities like paying real money for game advantage.Losing to someone not because you play worse or you have bad luck, but rather because that guy simply outspent you, is just completely demoralizing and I'd abandon any competitive game that allowed this.A monthly access fee seems fair and equitable, though.
They're providing you a valuable entertainment service and its only fair to shoulder a portion of the cost!!
!--PeterM</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0554243.30303804</id>
	<title>MW2 all over again</title>
	<author>DragonTHC</author>
	<datestamp>1259579700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>just wait and see how they bend gamers over for bad company 2.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>just wait and see how they bend gamers over for bad company 2 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>just wait and see how they bend gamers over for bad company 2.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0554243.30296906</id>
	<title>wish they'd learn from layoffs</title>
	<author>hort\_wort</author>
	<datestamp>1259594580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> Battlefield Heroes is a business at the end of the day and for a company like EA who recently laid off 16\% of their workforce, we need to keep an eye on the accounts and make sure we are doing our bit for the company.'</p> </div><p>You know, most businesses take a step back to figure out <i>why</i> they had to lay people off.  If EA took a moment to figure out that customers don't like it when they get screwed and pirate their games in vengeance, then maybe they'd be doing better.  I don't know about you guys, but I'm still sore about the whole DRM thing.
<br> <br>
Sorry, I guess this is a redundant comment for "EA strikes again".</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Battlefield Heroes is a business at the end of the day and for a company like EA who recently laid off 16 \ % of their workforce , we need to keep an eye on the accounts and make sure we are doing our bit for the company .
' You know , most businesses take a step back to figure out why they had to lay people off .
If EA took a moment to figure out that customers do n't like it when they get screwed and pirate their games in vengeance , then maybe they 'd be doing better .
I do n't know about you guys , but I 'm still sore about the whole DRM thing .
Sorry , I guess this is a redundant comment for " EA strikes again " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Battlefield Heroes is a business at the end of the day and for a company like EA who recently laid off 16\% of their workforce, we need to keep an eye on the accounts and make sure we are doing our bit for the company.
' You know, most businesses take a step back to figure out why they had to lay people off.
If EA took a moment to figure out that customers don't like it when they get screwed and pirate their games in vengeance, then maybe they'd be doing better.
I don't know about you guys, but I'm still sore about the whole DRM thing.
Sorry, I guess this is a redundant comment for "EA strikes again".
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0554243.30300596</id>
	<title>Build, don't destroy community....</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259611740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>I completely agree with those that are saying EA tried a business model and it isn't working so they needed to change it. But what they seem to have not considered is that they have built up a loyal BF Heroes community around the game. By changing things up the way they did with no prior notice they basically told the community that EA does not value them.

In 2009 dissing your loyal customers is just not a smart move. I remember one of my all time favorite games was Virgin's Subspace. They had a free beta for months/years getting it ready. When it finally shipped and they turned off free access the community was up in arms that they would now have to 'pay' for what had been free. A hack was issued almost immediately that let people play for free. I bought my copy to support the company but many had grown to feel entitled. I believe that Virgin games went under within a year of that.

So we have evidence that people don't like to pay for what was once free and we have the knowledge that people don't like their loyalty being treated lightly or with disdain. A recipe for battlefield heroes to be gutted by players leaving, cheating, hacking and making things worse for the game. With all the cheaters on FPS games the one thing that is needed above all else is a good community to police the game-even if it is just peer pressure rather than kick votes. I don't think Heroes will have that any more, if they had it in the first place.

i'd guess this was slammed down the throats of the team running the game by someone at a VP level. Up there they don't care if it works or not-there are always other projects to assign the engineers to. Too bad they didn't get the time to make some more thoughtful changes, with community input that would let them grow loyalty, player base as well as revenue.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I completely agree with those that are saying EA tried a business model and it is n't working so they needed to change it .
But what they seem to have not considered is that they have built up a loyal BF Heroes community around the game .
By changing things up the way they did with no prior notice they basically told the community that EA does not value them .
In 2009 dissing your loyal customers is just not a smart move .
I remember one of my all time favorite games was Virgin 's Subspace .
They had a free beta for months/years getting it ready .
When it finally shipped and they turned off free access the community was up in arms that they would now have to 'pay ' for what had been free .
A hack was issued almost immediately that let people play for free .
I bought my copy to support the company but many had grown to feel entitled .
I believe that Virgin games went under within a year of that .
So we have evidence that people do n't like to pay for what was once free and we have the knowledge that people do n't like their loyalty being treated lightly or with disdain .
A recipe for battlefield heroes to be gutted by players leaving , cheating , hacking and making things worse for the game .
With all the cheaters on FPS games the one thing that is needed above all else is a good community to police the game-even if it is just peer pressure rather than kick votes .
I do n't think Heroes will have that any more , if they had it in the first place .
i 'd guess this was slammed down the throats of the team running the game by someone at a VP level .
Up there they do n't care if it works or not-there are always other projects to assign the engineers to .
Too bad they did n't get the time to make some more thoughtful changes , with community input that would let them grow loyalty , player base as well as revenue .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I completely agree with those that are saying EA tried a business model and it isn't working so they needed to change it.
But what they seem to have not considered is that they have built up a loyal BF Heroes community around the game.
By changing things up the way they did with no prior notice they basically told the community that EA does not value them.
In 2009 dissing your loyal customers is just not a smart move.
I remember one of my all time favorite games was Virgin's Subspace.
They had a free beta for months/years getting it ready.
When it finally shipped and they turned off free access the community was up in arms that they would now have to 'pay' for what had been free.
A hack was issued almost immediately that let people play for free.
I bought my copy to support the company but many had grown to feel entitled.
I believe that Virgin games went under within a year of that.
So we have evidence that people don't like to pay for what was once free and we have the knowledge that people don't like their loyalty being treated lightly or with disdain.
A recipe for battlefield heroes to be gutted by players leaving, cheating, hacking and making things worse for the game.
With all the cheaters on FPS games the one thing that is needed above all else is a good community to police the game-even if it is just peer pressure rather than kick votes.
I don't think Heroes will have that any more, if they had it in the first place.
i'd guess this was slammed down the throats of the team running the game by someone at a VP level.
Up there they don't care if it works or not-there are always other projects to assign the engineers to.
Too bad they didn't get the time to make some more thoughtful changes, with community input that would let them grow loyalty, player base as well as revenue.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0554243.30298370</id>
	<title>BR?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259601780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>HuahuehuahueHUAHUEHUAHUEHUA</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>HuahuehuahueHUAHUEHUAHUEHUA</tokentext>
<sentencetext>HuahuehuahueHUAHUEHUAHUEHUA</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0554243.30295972</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0554243.30296402</id>
	<title>Whatever, read a book.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259591400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You mean they are forcing people to stop and buy games and forcing them to actually read a book?  The horror.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You mean they are forcing people to stop and buy games and forcing them to actually read a book ?
The horror .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You mean they are forcing people to stop and buy games and forcing them to actually read a book?
The horror.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0554243.30296826</id>
	<title>Re:Er what?</title>
	<author>PhilHibbs</author>
	<datestamp>1259594040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Simple. Some people need to buy stuff in order that everyone can get the free content.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Simple .
Some people need to buy stuff in order that everyone can get the free content .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Simple.
Some people need to buy stuff in order that everyone can get the free content.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0554243.30296008</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_02_0554243_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0554243.30296972
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0554243.30296266
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0554243.30295914
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_02_0554243_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0554243.30296214
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0554243.30295864
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_02_0554243_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0554243.30296668
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0554243.30295832
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_02_0554243_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0554243.30297670
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0554243.30295814
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_02_0554243_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0554243.30296244
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0554243.30296022
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0554243.30295814
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_02_0554243_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0554243.30296568
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0554243.30295814
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_02_0554243_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0554243.30296786
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0554243.30296266
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0554243.30295914
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_02_0554243_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0554243.30298114
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0554243.30295864
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_02_0554243_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0554243.30297594
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0554243.30295864
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_02_0554243_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0554243.30296208
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0554243.30296022
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0554243.30295814
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_02_0554243_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0554243.30295934
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0554243.30295864
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_02_0554243_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0554243.30296306
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0554243.30295914
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_02_0554243_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0554243.30301088
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0554243.30296502
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_02_0554243_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0554243.30296826
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0554243.30296008
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_02_0554243_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0554243.30300872
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0554243.30296940
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_02_0554243_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0554243.30303388
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0554243.30296940
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_02_0554243_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0554243.30298176
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0554243.30295864
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_02_0554243_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0554243.30298370
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0554243.30295972
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_02_0554243_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0554243.30296904
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0554243.30296410
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0554243.30296022
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0554243.30295814
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_02_0554243_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0554243.30296856
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0554243.30296266
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0554243.30295914
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_02_0554243_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0554243.30301736
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0554243.30295814
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_02_0554243_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0554243.30296024
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0554243.30295814
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_02_0554243_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0554243.30298038
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0554243.30296266
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0554243.30295914
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_02_0554243_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0554243.30296232
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0554243.30295906
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_02_0554243_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0554243.30296064
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0554243.30295832
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_02_0554243_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0554243.30297802
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0554243.30295832
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_02_0554243_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0554243.30297576
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0554243.30296266
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0554243.30295914
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_02_0554243_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0554243.30309062
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0554243.30296410
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0554243.30296022
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0554243.30295814
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_02_0554243_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0554243.30297236
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0554243.30295906
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_02_0554243_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0554243.30297110
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0554243.30295972
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_02_0554243_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0554243.30296474
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0554243.30295906
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_02_0554243_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0554243.30296960
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0554243.30295808
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_02_0554243_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0554243.30296922
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0554243.30295864
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_02_0554243_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0554243.30301216
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0554243.30296254
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0554243.30295864
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_02_0554243.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0554243.30296502
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0554243.30301088
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_02_0554243.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0554243.30295864
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0554243.30297594
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0554243.30298176
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0554243.30296214
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0554243.30298114
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0554243.30296254
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0554243.30301216
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0554243.30296922
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0554243.30295934
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_02_0554243.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0554243.30295808
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0554243.30296960
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_02_0554243.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0554243.30295914
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0554243.30296266
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0554243.30296972
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0554243.30296856
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0554243.30296786
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0554243.30297576
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0554243.30298038
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0554243.30296306
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_02_0554243.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0554243.30296940
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0554243.30300872
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0554243.30303388
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_02_0554243.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0554243.30298336
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_02_0554243.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0554243.30295906
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0554243.30297236
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0554243.30296232
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0554243.30296474
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_02_0554243.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0554243.30295832
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0554243.30296668
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0554243.30296064
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0554243.30297802
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_02_0554243.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0554243.30295814
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0554243.30297670
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0554243.30301736
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0554243.30296024
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0554243.30296022
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0554243.30296410
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0554243.30309062
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0554243.30296904
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0554243.30296208
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0554243.30296244
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0554243.30296568
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_02_0554243.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0554243.30295850
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_02_0554243.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0554243.30296008
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0554243.30296826
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_02_0554243.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0554243.30296158
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_02_0554243.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0554243.30295972
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0554243.30298370
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_0554243.30297110
</commentlist>
</conversation>
