<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_03_15_1835209</id>
	<title><em>BioShock 2's</em> First DLC Already On Disc</title>
	<author>Soulskill</author>
	<datestamp>1268681280000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>An anonymous reader writes with this quote from 1Up:
<i>"Trouble is brewing in Rapture. The recently released <em>Sinclair Solutions</em> multiplayer pack for <em>BioShock 2</em> is facing upset players over the revelation that <a href="http://www.1up.com/do/newsStory?cId=3178326">the content is already on the disc</a>, and the $5 premium is an unlock code. It started when users on the 2K Forums noticed that the content is incredibly small: 24KB on the PC, 103KB on the PlayStation 3, and 108KB on the Xbox 360. 2K Games responded with a post explaining that <a href="http://forums.2kgames.com/forums/showpost.php?p=719075&amp;postcount=138">the decision was made in order to keep the player base intact</a>, without splitting it between the haves and have-nots."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>An anonymous reader writes with this quote from 1Up : " Trouble is brewing in Rapture .
The recently released Sinclair Solutions multiplayer pack for BioShock 2 is facing upset players over the revelation that the content is already on the disc , and the $ 5 premium is an unlock code .
It started when users on the 2K Forums noticed that the content is incredibly small : 24KB on the PC , 103KB on the PlayStation 3 , and 108KB on the Xbox 360 .
2K Games responded with a post explaining that the decision was made in order to keep the player base intact , without splitting it between the haves and have-nots .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>An anonymous reader writes with this quote from 1Up:
"Trouble is brewing in Rapture.
The recently released Sinclair Solutions multiplayer pack for BioShock 2 is facing upset players over the revelation that the content is already on the disc, and the $5 premium is an unlock code.
It started when users on the 2K Forums noticed that the content is incredibly small: 24KB on the PC, 103KB on the PlayStation 3, and 108KB on the Xbox 360.
2K Games responded with a post explaining that the decision was made in order to keep the player base intact, without splitting it between the haves and have-nots.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1835209.31492244</id>
	<title>A better view would be...</title>
	<author>tindiin</author>
	<datestamp>1268678640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Imagine if Disney started charging you for to download "Bonus material" such as behind the scene stuff on DVDs, stuff that traditionally was free and is ON the disk.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Imagine if Disney started charging you for to download " Bonus material " such as behind the scene stuff on DVDs , stuff that traditionally was free and is ON the disk .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Imagine if Disney started charging you for to download "Bonus material" such as behind the scene stuff on DVDs, stuff that traditionally was free and is ON the disk.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1835209.31490622</id>
	<title>Re:Price Elasticity is a GOOD thing!</title>
	<author>mjwx</author>
	<datestamp>1268662860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>This is a classic example of Price Elasticity, and it's actually GOOD for gamers <b> if it ever existed</b>.</p></div></blockquote><p>

There, fixed that for you.<br> <br>

DLC is not Price Elasticity because the price of the original game does not change one iota. It still costs me A$80 to by a PC game locally no matter how much DLC available for it, it does not matter which PC game this is or who published it they are all the same price. Most markets call this price fixing and is illegal. Price Elasticity is when price fluctuate due to changes in market conditions, this does not happen with games and media products in general.<br> <br>

What DLC is, is nickel and diming customers.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is a classic example of Price Elasticity , and it 's actually GOOD for gamers if it ever existed .
There , fixed that for you .
DLC is not Price Elasticity because the price of the original game does not change one iota .
It still costs me A $ 80 to by a PC game locally no matter how much DLC available for it , it does not matter which PC game this is or who published it they are all the same price .
Most markets call this price fixing and is illegal .
Price Elasticity is when price fluctuate due to changes in market conditions , this does not happen with games and media products in general .
What DLC is , is nickel and diming customers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is a classic example of Price Elasticity, and it's actually GOOD for gamers  if it ever existed.
There, fixed that for you.
DLC is not Price Elasticity because the price of the original game does not change one iota.
It still costs me A$80 to by a PC game locally no matter how much DLC available for it, it does not matter which PC game this is or who published it they are all the same price.
Most markets call this price fixing and is illegal.
Price Elasticity is when price fluctuate due to changes in market conditions, this does not happen with games and media products in general.
What DLC is, is nickel and diming customers.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1835209.31488964</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1835209.31486382</id>
	<title>I will never pay for DLC</title>
	<author>Rix</author>
	<datestamp>1268685660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm sorry, but that's just not negotiable. I will pay once, no more.</p><p>But, I expect the full game for my $60. If you hold back any of the content, you won't get my $60. I'll still play whatever I want to, I just won't pay you. The presence of DLC causes me to pirate games I would otherwise (joyfully) pay for.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm sorry , but that 's just not negotiable .
I will pay once , no more.But , I expect the full game for my $ 60 .
If you hold back any of the content , you wo n't get my $ 60 .
I 'll still play whatever I want to , I just wo n't pay you .
The presence of DLC causes me to pirate games I would otherwise ( joyfully ) pay for .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm sorry, but that's just not negotiable.
I will pay once, no more.But, I expect the full game for my $60.
If you hold back any of the content, you won't get my $60.
I'll still play whatever I want to, I just won't pay you.
The presence of DLC causes me to pirate games I would otherwise (joyfully) pay for.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1835209.31486602</id>
	<title>Re:I will never pay for DLC</title>
	<author>rxan</author>
	<datestamp>1268686320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I take a more value based approach.</p><p>I remember the days when you might shell out $80 for a 6 to 15 hour game. Would I pay for DLC when the core experience is only 10 hours long? I wouldn't because the DLC is likely to not be worth it.</p><p>But take a game like Mass Effect 2, where I spent upwards of 40 hours on my first play alone, and the game only cost $60. Sure, I'll buy the DLC, but because it's more likely to be worth it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I take a more value based approach.I remember the days when you might shell out $ 80 for a 6 to 15 hour game .
Would I pay for DLC when the core experience is only 10 hours long ?
I would n't because the DLC is likely to not be worth it.But take a game like Mass Effect 2 , where I spent upwards of 40 hours on my first play alone , and the game only cost $ 60 .
Sure , I 'll buy the DLC , but because it 's more likely to be worth it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I take a more value based approach.I remember the days when you might shell out $80 for a 6 to 15 hour game.
Would I pay for DLC when the core experience is only 10 hours long?
I wouldn't because the DLC is likely to not be worth it.But take a game like Mass Effect 2, where I spent upwards of 40 hours on my first play alone, and the game only cost $60.
Sure, I'll buy the DLC, but because it's more likely to be worth it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1835209.31486382</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1835209.31503868</id>
	<title>Re:5 dollar patch</title>
	<author>JThundley</author>
	<datestamp>1268750100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I bought Bioshock on sale on Steam for either $5 or $10. This patch is half or the same that I already paid for the whole game!</p><p>Not to mention the game lost all my ammo part way through the game somehow...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I bought Bioshock on sale on Steam for either $ 5 or $ 10 .
This patch is half or the same that I already paid for the whole game ! Not to mention the game lost all my ammo part way through the game somehow.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I bought Bioshock on sale on Steam for either $5 or $10.
This patch is half or the same that I already paid for the whole game!Not to mention the game lost all my ammo part way through the game somehow...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1835209.31486306</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1835209.31486700</id>
	<title>Re:I will never pay for DLC</title>
	<author>Totenglocke</author>
	<datestamp>1268686620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I'm sorry, but that's just not negotiable. I will pay once, no more.</p><p>But, I expect the full game for my $60. If you hold back any of the content, you won't get my $60. I'll still play whatever I want to, I just won't pay you. The presence of DLC causes me to pirate games I would otherwise (joyfully) pay for.</p></div><p>Bingo.  I never would have considered pirating games until companies went gung-ho with raping their customers with DRM.  I only pirate games with DRM and I gladly buy games that don't have DRM (my massive stack of video games attests to the fact that I gladly buy).  If DLC is done a year or two down the road and is used in place of releasing an expansion on a disc, I can understand it.  However, this recent trend of having DLC right from the beginning is just removing content from the game and then charging you multiple times to get the full game.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm sorry , but that 's just not negotiable .
I will pay once , no more.But , I expect the full game for my $ 60 .
If you hold back any of the content , you wo n't get my $ 60 .
I 'll still play whatever I want to , I just wo n't pay you .
The presence of DLC causes me to pirate games I would otherwise ( joyfully ) pay for.Bingo .
I never would have considered pirating games until companies went gung-ho with raping their customers with DRM .
I only pirate games with DRM and I gladly buy games that do n't have DRM ( my massive stack of video games attests to the fact that I gladly buy ) .
If DLC is done a year or two down the road and is used in place of releasing an expansion on a disc , I can understand it .
However , this recent trend of having DLC right from the beginning is just removing content from the game and then charging you multiple times to get the full game .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm sorry, but that's just not negotiable.
I will pay once, no more.But, I expect the full game for my $60.
If you hold back any of the content, you won't get my $60.
I'll still play whatever I want to, I just won't pay you.
The presence of DLC causes me to pirate games I would otherwise (joyfully) pay for.Bingo.
I never would have considered pirating games until companies went gung-ho with raping their customers with DRM.
I only pirate games with DRM and I gladly buy games that don't have DRM (my massive stack of video games attests to the fact that I gladly buy).
If DLC is done a year or two down the road and is used in place of releasing an expansion on a disc, I can understand it.
However, this recent trend of having DLC right from the beginning is just removing content from the game and then charging you multiple times to get the full game.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1835209.31486382</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1835209.31488612</id>
	<title>Arsehats</title>
	<author>Carrot007</author>
	<datestamp>1268651160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>To be honest I am against thius as much as the average sane rest of you.</p><p>However the thing that pees me off most is trhe use of the term DLC.</p><p>If they called it "pay for additional features" then it would not be half as bad in my view.</p><p>DLC is downloadable add ons.</p><p>Additional featues are things you pay to enable that are already there.</p><p>Personally I like neither, I just however would like the abuse of langage to stop.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>To be honest I am against thius as much as the average sane rest of you.However the thing that pees me off most is trhe use of the term DLC.If they called it " pay for additional features " then it would not be half as bad in my view.DLC is downloadable add ons.Additional featues are things you pay to enable that are already there.Personally I like neither , I just however would like the abuse of langage to stop .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>To be honest I am against thius as much as the average sane rest of you.However the thing that pees me off most is trhe use of the term DLC.If they called it "pay for additional features" then it would not be half as bad in my view.DLC is downloadable add ons.Additional featues are things you pay to enable that are already there.Personally I like neither, I just however would like the abuse of langage to stop.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1835209.31490322</id>
	<title>I'm not doing anything unethical</title>
	<author>Rix</author>
	<datestamp>1268660940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm sorry if you don't like it, but most people see copyright as equivalent to drug laws and have no issue with ignoring it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm sorry if you do n't like it , but most people see copyright as equivalent to drug laws and have no issue with ignoring it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm sorry if you don't like it, but most people see copyright as equivalent to drug laws and have no issue with ignoring it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1835209.31486686</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1835209.31487510</id>
	<title>Nothing new.</title>
	<author>MaWeiTao</author>
	<datestamp>1268646540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is not a test. This sort of thing has been happening for a few years now.  2K was just following standard procedure. Although, admittedly, usually this isn't done with such a substantial bit of content.</p><p>I'll tell you what the real problem here is: gamers let publishers walk all over them. They're so obsessed with getting their gaming fix that they're willing to give up their principles. They'll piss and moan online, run these meaningless campaigns where they rate games a 0, but they'll still go out and buy the damn game. Or they'll openly proclaim that they're going to pirate the game in protest. Nice way of justifying to the publishers that they should keep pushing DRM on us. Although, what's worse are the ones who see no problem with this, apparently they can't part with their money quickly enough.</p><p>If you want to send a message, boycott any game that features these unlock codes. They'll only notice once you've hurt their bottom line. As long as suckers keep paying for this stuff what the hell do the publishers care about the complaints. This might mean giving up on some popular games, but then I've found that the biggest games are routinely overrated and gaming isn't the most important thing in the world anyway.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is not a test .
This sort of thing has been happening for a few years now .
2K was just following standard procedure .
Although , admittedly , usually this is n't done with such a substantial bit of content.I 'll tell you what the real problem here is : gamers let publishers walk all over them .
They 're so obsessed with getting their gaming fix that they 're willing to give up their principles .
They 'll piss and moan online , run these meaningless campaigns where they rate games a 0 , but they 'll still go out and buy the damn game .
Or they 'll openly proclaim that they 're going to pirate the game in protest .
Nice way of justifying to the publishers that they should keep pushing DRM on us .
Although , what 's worse are the ones who see no problem with this , apparently they ca n't part with their money quickly enough.If you want to send a message , boycott any game that features these unlock codes .
They 'll only notice once you 've hurt their bottom line .
As long as suckers keep paying for this stuff what the hell do the publishers care about the complaints .
This might mean giving up on some popular games , but then I 've found that the biggest games are routinely overrated and gaming is n't the most important thing in the world anyway .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is not a test.
This sort of thing has been happening for a few years now.
2K was just following standard procedure.
Although, admittedly, usually this isn't done with such a substantial bit of content.I'll tell you what the real problem here is: gamers let publishers walk all over them.
They're so obsessed with getting their gaming fix that they're willing to give up their principles.
They'll piss and moan online, run these meaningless campaigns where they rate games a 0, but they'll still go out and buy the damn game.
Or they'll openly proclaim that they're going to pirate the game in protest.
Nice way of justifying to the publishers that they should keep pushing DRM on us.
Although, what's worse are the ones who see no problem with this, apparently they can't part with their money quickly enough.If you want to send a message, boycott any game that features these unlock codes.
They'll only notice once you've hurt their bottom line.
As long as suckers keep paying for this stuff what the hell do the publishers care about the complaints.
This might mean giving up on some popular games, but then I've found that the biggest games are routinely overrated and gaming isn't the most important thing in the world anyway.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1835209.31487664</id>
	<title>Licenses</title>
	<author>Rizz</author>
	<datestamp>1268647200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So if the $60 I spent for the 360 version lets me use and transfer the license for the content that's provided by the game developer and the distributor (i.e., I can sell the CD on the used market), shouldn't the DLC license also be transferable as I already posses the physical media with said content?</p><p>Honestly, I don't mind paying for the DLCs.  I just wish they had been up front about how they were being distributed -- they've lost some of my trust simply because they didn't disclose the method they were planning to use.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So if the $ 60 I spent for the 360 version lets me use and transfer the license for the content that 's provided by the game developer and the distributor ( i.e. , I can sell the CD on the used market ) , should n't the DLC license also be transferable as I already posses the physical media with said content ? Honestly , I do n't mind paying for the DLCs .
I just wish they had been up front about how they were being distributed -- they 've lost some of my trust simply because they did n't disclose the method they were planning to use .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So if the $60 I spent for the 360 version lets me use and transfer the license for the content that's provided by the game developer and the distributor (i.e., I can sell the CD on the used market), shouldn't the DLC license also be transferable as I already posses the physical media with said content?Honestly, I don't mind paying for the DLCs.
I just wish they had been up front about how they were being distributed -- they've lost some of my trust simply because they didn't disclose the method they were planning to use.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1835209.31487504</id>
	<title>Re:Complete scam</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268646480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>It's just an awful way of bumping up the price of the game without doing so on the box. If they had offered the game cheaper upon the initial purchase then fair enough that would be a bit more acceptable but that's not the case.</p> </div><p>Essentially its a false advertising argument.</p><p>You can play the game on this disk for $X.  You pay $X.  Ha Ha Sucker to play the game on this disk you have to pay an extra $5.  Ha Ha Ha.</p><p>That's blatant false advertising.  Like buying a steak at the store for a fair and agreed upon price, taking it home, opening the package, and discovering you actually have to pay even more to eat the entire steak.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's just an awful way of bumping up the price of the game without doing so on the box .
If they had offered the game cheaper upon the initial purchase then fair enough that would be a bit more acceptable but that 's not the case .
Essentially its a false advertising argument.You can play the game on this disk for $ X .
You pay $ X .
Ha Ha Sucker to play the game on this disk you have to pay an extra $ 5 .
Ha Ha Ha.That 's blatant false advertising .
Like buying a steak at the store for a fair and agreed upon price , taking it home , opening the package , and discovering you actually have to pay even more to eat the entire steak .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's just an awful way of bumping up the price of the game without doing so on the box.
If they had offered the game cheaper upon the initial purchase then fair enough that would be a bit more acceptable but that's not the case.
Essentially its a false advertising argument.You can play the game on this disk for $X.
You pay $X.
Ha Ha Sucker to play the game on this disk you have to pay an extra $5.
Ha Ha Ha.That's blatant false advertising.
Like buying a steak at the store for a fair and agreed upon price, taking it home, opening the package, and discovering you actually have to pay even more to eat the entire steak.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1835209.31486910</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1835209.31488052</id>
	<title>Re:5 dollar game</title>
	<author>greyline</author>
	<datestamp>1268648700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Team Fortress 2 got it right. Look at all the free content Valve has been giving away over the course of a couple years with it. Not just a couple maps, either, but major, huge game updates.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Team Fortress 2 got it right .
Look at all the free content Valve has been giving away over the course of a couple years with it .
Not just a couple maps , either , but major , huge game updates .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Team Fortress 2 got it right.
Look at all the free content Valve has been giving away over the course of a couple years with it.
Not just a couple maps, either, but major, huge game updates.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1835209.31486426</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1835209.31489064</id>
	<title>Re:I will never pay for DLC</title>
	<author>VoltageX</author>
	<datestamp>1268653680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I bought the game this time. I won't make that mistake again.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I bought the game this time .
I wo n't make that mistake again .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I bought the game this time.
I won't make that mistake again.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1835209.31486686</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1835209.31488432</id>
	<title>Assassin's Creed 2 deserves a mention here</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268650380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The DLC in Assassin's Creed 2 is very obviously held back from the game. They are chapters ripped right out of the late-middle of the game. The main character even grows a beard for a very specific reason in the DLC and he just suddenly has a beard in the game. There's even a map icon that is never used and suddenly with the DLC there it is.</p><p>That said the game is truly massive in scope. It's a real pity they did the DLC by redacting kep parts of the main plot.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The DLC in Assassin 's Creed 2 is very obviously held back from the game .
They are chapters ripped right out of the late-middle of the game .
The main character even grows a beard for a very specific reason in the DLC and he just suddenly has a beard in the game .
There 's even a map icon that is never used and suddenly with the DLC there it is.That said the game is truly massive in scope .
It 's a real pity they did the DLC by redacting kep parts of the main plot .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The DLC in Assassin's Creed 2 is very obviously held back from the game.
They are chapters ripped right out of the late-middle of the game.
The main character even grows a beard for a very specific reason in the DLC and he just suddenly has a beard in the game.
There's even a map icon that is never used and suddenly with the DLC there it is.That said the game is truly massive in scope.
It's a real pity they did the DLC by redacting kep parts of the main plot.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1835209.31487084</id>
	<title>lsl:mcl</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268644920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>this is nothing compared to how badly pre-order buyers of Leisure Suit Larry: Magna Cum Laude got burned. first the pre-order was supposed to come with a bonus cd, instead there was just a little slip of paper where the cd should be saying to visit a web site that just had censored versions of the promo wallpapers. the much other thing they did was much worse, the game was promoted as having nudity which was why people pre-ordered, what the customers actually got (at least in america) was a hollow shell with most of the content stripped out and giant censored panels over what was left. shortly after they advertised an "uncut and uncensored" version for online purchase only. i don't know if that version lived up to the promise since i wasn't going to get burned again for a product i had already bought. scams like this, computer games with viruses (psychotoxic, anything touched by sony, etc), bad drm, and games that unnecessarily require net (beyond good and evil)(the money i now spend on net used to be part of my gaming budget) resulted in me finally giving up on purchased games. so when they burned me the industry lost a 100$ a week customer. now i mainly play pbbg's and flash games</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>this is nothing compared to how badly pre-order buyers of Leisure Suit Larry : Magna Cum Laude got burned .
first the pre-order was supposed to come with a bonus cd , instead there was just a little slip of paper where the cd should be saying to visit a web site that just had censored versions of the promo wallpapers .
the much other thing they did was much worse , the game was promoted as having nudity which was why people pre-ordered , what the customers actually got ( at least in america ) was a hollow shell with most of the content stripped out and giant censored panels over what was left .
shortly after they advertised an " uncut and uncensored " version for online purchase only .
i do n't know if that version lived up to the promise since i was n't going to get burned again for a product i had already bought .
scams like this , computer games with viruses ( psychotoxic , anything touched by sony , etc ) , bad drm , and games that unnecessarily require net ( beyond good and evil ) ( the money i now spend on net used to be part of my gaming budget ) resulted in me finally giving up on purchased games .
so when they burned me the industry lost a 100 $ a week customer .
now i mainly play pbbg 's and flash games</tokentext>
<sentencetext>this is nothing compared to how badly pre-order buyers of Leisure Suit Larry: Magna Cum Laude got burned.
first the pre-order was supposed to come with a bonus cd, instead there was just a little slip of paper where the cd should be saying to visit a web site that just had censored versions of the promo wallpapers.
the much other thing they did was much worse, the game was promoted as having nudity which was why people pre-ordered, what the customers actually got (at least in america) was a hollow shell with most of the content stripped out and giant censored panels over what was left.
shortly after they advertised an "uncut and uncensored" version for online purchase only.
i don't know if that version lived up to the promise since i wasn't going to get burned again for a product i had already bought.
scams like this, computer games with viruses (psychotoxic, anything touched by sony, etc), bad drm, and games that unnecessarily require net (beyond good and evil)(the money i now spend on net used to be part of my gaming budget) resulted in me finally giving up on purchased games.
so when they burned me the industry lost a 100$ a week customer.
now i mainly play pbbg's and flash games</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1835209.31486426</id>
	<title>5 dollar game</title>
	<author>BikeHelmet</author>
	<datestamp>1268685780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Heh, seems like only indy game companies get it right. About a year back I bought Defense Grid (TD) on Steam. Played through it - definitely worth the $5 I paid. A few days ago I fired it up again, and what do I find? More levels, and more game modes. The company just keeps on giving!</p><p>I guess what it comes down to is, indy game companies want to do a good job and provide a fun game, while building up their name. Big game studios want your money, and want to figure out ways to get your money. Both sorts of companies seem to be reaching their goals.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Heh , seems like only indy game companies get it right .
About a year back I bought Defense Grid ( TD ) on Steam .
Played through it - definitely worth the $ 5 I paid .
A few days ago I fired it up again , and what do I find ?
More levels , and more game modes .
The company just keeps on giving ! I guess what it comes down to is , indy game companies want to do a good job and provide a fun game , while building up their name .
Big game studios want your money , and want to figure out ways to get your money .
Both sorts of companies seem to be reaching their goals .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Heh, seems like only indy game companies get it right.
About a year back I bought Defense Grid (TD) on Steam.
Played through it - definitely worth the $5 I paid.
A few days ago I fired it up again, and what do I find?
More levels, and more game modes.
The company just keeps on giving!I guess what it comes down to is, indy game companies want to do a good job and provide a fun game, while building up their name.
Big game studios want your money, and want to figure out ways to get your money.
Both sorts of companies seem to be reaching their goals.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1835209.31486178</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1835209.31487756</id>
	<title>Re:5 dollar patch</title>
	<author>shutdown -p now</author>
	<datestamp>1268647620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>It gives customer the impression that they're being nickel-and-dimed to death. Maybe if the main game were cheap ($20 or so) they could get away with a $5 multiplayer addon, but at normal videogame prices that stuff's not going to fly.</p></div><p>My thoughts exactly. I can actually understand and accept the "pay for what you get" model with several tiers, regardless of whether the "extra" content is contained in the box or not (so long as you can still complete the game on the most basic tier) - so that people can have N hours of playing experience for $X, or M extra hours for an extra $Y. That is fine. Among other things, it lets you go for the cheapest option to try it out, and buy the rest of the content if you really enjoy it.</p><p>The problem is that, for such model to be reasonable, either the "basic tier" needs to be cheaper than what the full game usually costs, or the "extra tier" should offer noticeably more than we normally expect to get in the box - not some minor add-ons.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It gives customer the impression that they 're being nickel-and-dimed to death .
Maybe if the main game were cheap ( $ 20 or so ) they could get away with a $ 5 multiplayer addon , but at normal videogame prices that stuff 's not going to fly.My thoughts exactly .
I can actually understand and accept the " pay for what you get " model with several tiers , regardless of whether the " extra " content is contained in the box or not ( so long as you can still complete the game on the most basic tier ) - so that people can have N hours of playing experience for $ X , or M extra hours for an extra $ Y .
That is fine .
Among other things , it lets you go for the cheapest option to try it out , and buy the rest of the content if you really enjoy it.The problem is that , for such model to be reasonable , either the " basic tier " needs to be cheaper than what the full game usually costs , or the " extra tier " should offer noticeably more than we normally expect to get in the box - not some minor add-ons .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It gives customer the impression that they're being nickel-and-dimed to death.
Maybe if the main game were cheap ($20 or so) they could get away with a $5 multiplayer addon, but at normal videogame prices that stuff's not going to fly.My thoughts exactly.
I can actually understand and accept the "pay for what you get" model with several tiers, regardless of whether the "extra" content is contained in the box or not (so long as you can still complete the game on the most basic tier) - so that people can have N hours of playing experience for $X, or M extra hours for an extra $Y.
That is fine.
Among other things, it lets you go for the cheapest option to try it out, and buy the rest of the content if you really enjoy it.The problem is that, for such model to be reasonable, either the "basic tier" needs to be cheaper than what the full game usually costs, or the "extra tier" should offer noticeably more than we normally expect to get in the box - not some minor add-ons.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1835209.31486306</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1835209.31487466</id>
	<title>Re:I will never pay for DLC</title>
	<author>misexistentialist</author>
	<datestamp>1268646300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The old "two wrongs don't make a right" fallacy. Once the first wrong removes the right there is no more wrong.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The old " two wrongs do n't make a right " fallacy .
Once the first wrong removes the right there is no more wrong .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The old "two wrongs don't make a right" fallacy.
Once the first wrong removes the right there is no more wrong.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1835209.31486686</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1835209.31489458</id>
	<title>Re:I will never pay for DLC</title>
	<author>Roxton</author>
	<datestamp>1268656200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>But if you don't like DLC (or in this case, paying to unlock content) then don't buy it.  But saying that DLC "causes me to pirate games" [emphasis mine] is utter nonsense.</p></div></blockquote><p>I think you'll agree there's a game theory problem here.  Pretend, for a moment, that 90\% of users dislike this use of DLC and would agree to boycott the product if the other 90\% did the same until the developer relented.</p><p>But there's no collaborative mechanism.  Any single person boycotting is a futile response, and that person loses the benefit of the product for no gain.  Basic game theory, everybody plays the spoiler, we get abusive terms.</p><p>This is why we needed an act of Congress to get phone companies to break phone number lock-in.</p><p>Some people want to hurt the industry by fostering a pirate culture, prick and needle them until they at least return to the pretense that they're acting like there's a reasonable bargain between producer and consumer.</p><p>Now, if you want, you can argue that such a bargain reflects an entitlement attitude.  I call that a crass form of libertarianism, likely derived from rationalizing the status quo.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>But if you do n't like DLC ( or in this case , paying to unlock content ) then do n't buy it .
But saying that DLC " causes me to pirate games " [ emphasis mine ] is utter nonsense.I think you 'll agree there 's a game theory problem here .
Pretend , for a moment , that 90 \ % of users dislike this use of DLC and would agree to boycott the product if the other 90 \ % did the same until the developer relented.But there 's no collaborative mechanism .
Any single person boycotting is a futile response , and that person loses the benefit of the product for no gain .
Basic game theory , everybody plays the spoiler , we get abusive terms.This is why we needed an act of Congress to get phone companies to break phone number lock-in.Some people want to hurt the industry by fostering a pirate culture , prick and needle them until they at least return to the pretense that they 're acting like there 's a reasonable bargain between producer and consumer.Now , if you want , you can argue that such a bargain reflects an entitlement attitude .
I call that a crass form of libertarianism , likely derived from rationalizing the status quo .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But if you don't like DLC (or in this case, paying to unlock content) then don't buy it.
But saying that DLC "causes me to pirate games" [emphasis mine] is utter nonsense.I think you'll agree there's a game theory problem here.
Pretend, for a moment, that 90\% of users dislike this use of DLC and would agree to boycott the product if the other 90\% did the same until the developer relented.But there's no collaborative mechanism.
Any single person boycotting is a futile response, and that person loses the benefit of the product for no gain.
Basic game theory, everybody plays the spoiler, we get abusive terms.This is why we needed an act of Congress to get phone companies to break phone number lock-in.Some people want to hurt the industry by fostering a pirate culture, prick and needle them until they at least return to the pretense that they're acting like there's a reasonable bargain between producer and consumer.Now, if you want, you can argue that such a bargain reflects an entitlement attitude.
I call that a crass form of libertarianism, likely derived from rationalizing the status quo.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1835209.31486688</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1835209.31488988</id>
	<title>Re:U buy X, u get X. I dont see whats wrong here.</title>
	<author>Lemming Mark</author>
	<datestamp>1268653260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Situations like this irritate people because they're one of the most extreme embodiments so far of the true intent of DLC (and DRM, for that matter).  People don't like being asked to pay money to buy incremental updates on something they paid a fairly decent amount for.  And they don't like it when the incremental updates were available at release time but held back.  When the updates that were held back were on the same disk it feels worse but it is still highlighting an eagerness to nickel-and-dime that the customers would object to anyhow, if it were sufficiently obvious.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Situations like this irritate people because they 're one of the most extreme embodiments so far of the true intent of DLC ( and DRM , for that matter ) .
People do n't like being asked to pay money to buy incremental updates on something they paid a fairly decent amount for .
And they do n't like it when the incremental updates were available at release time but held back .
When the updates that were held back were on the same disk it feels worse but it is still highlighting an eagerness to nickel-and-dime that the customers would object to anyhow , if it were sufficiently obvious .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Situations like this irritate people because they're one of the most extreme embodiments so far of the true intent of DLC (and DRM, for that matter).
People don't like being asked to pay money to buy incremental updates on something they paid a fairly decent amount for.
And they don't like it when the incremental updates were available at release time but held back.
When the updates that were held back were on the same disk it feels worse but it is still highlighting an eagerness to nickel-and-dime that the customers would object to anyhow, if it were sufficiently obvious.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1835209.31486884</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1835209.31504448</id>
	<title>Re:Waters are being tested</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268755500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think this may be a valid business decision: Sony charges the publisher for distributing DLC, so it makes sense to keep it small.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think this may be a valid business decision : Sony charges the publisher for distributing DLC , so it makes sense to keep it small .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think this may be a valid business decision: Sony charges the publisher for distributing DLC, so it makes sense to keep it small.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1835209.31487416</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1835209.31487312</id>
	<title>Hot Coffee Anyone?</title>
	<author>WebmasterNeal</author>
	<datestamp>1268645820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Ah, if the hidden content would have been the Hot Coffee portion of Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas there would be a much different reaction to this. I guess its not the first time a product has been shipped 110\% complete.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Ah , if the hidden content would have been the Hot Coffee portion of Grand Theft Auto : San Andreas there would be a much different reaction to this .
I guess its not the first time a product has been shipped 110 \ % complete .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ah, if the hidden content would have been the Hot Coffee portion of Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas there would be a much different reaction to this.
I guess its not the first time a product has been shipped 110\% complete.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1835209.31504908</id>
	<title>Re:Faulty premise</title>
	<author>BlackHawk-666</author>
	<datestamp>1268760480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Please post statistics from a reliable source indicating that the vast population of this planet accept there is nothing wrong with piracy. Note: just asking the doodz at thepiratebay.com what they think is not acceptable.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Please post statistics from a reliable source indicating that the vast population of this planet accept there is nothing wrong with piracy .
Note : just asking the doodz at thepiratebay.com what they think is not acceptable .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Please post statistics from a reliable source indicating that the vast population of this planet accept there is nothing wrong with piracy.
Note: just asking the doodz at thepiratebay.com what they think is not acceptable.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1835209.31490410</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1835209.31487516</id>
	<title>Re:5 dollar patch</title>
	<author>jollyreaper</author>
	<datestamp>1268646540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>It gives customer the impression that they're being nickel-and-dimed to death. Maybe if the main game were cheap ($20 or so) they could get away with a $5 multiplayer addon, but at normal videogame prices that stuff's not going to fly.</p></div><p>Games seemed to have longer shelf lives back in the day. The add-ons to the first two Wing Commander games really felt right. More content, more gameplay, not that much more money. It was honest. The GTAIV add-ons are like getting new games added to the original. That's honest. But I hate paying for stuff that should already be there, that was already developed beforehand.</p><p>We're going to keep seeing more of this nickel and dime crap. I never play sports games so the EA thing of putting in a new roster and rereleasing the same sports game the following year didn't affect me. But DLC means we're going to keep seeing more and more of this crap.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It gives customer the impression that they 're being nickel-and-dimed to death .
Maybe if the main game were cheap ( $ 20 or so ) they could get away with a $ 5 multiplayer addon , but at normal videogame prices that stuff 's not going to fly.Games seemed to have longer shelf lives back in the day .
The add-ons to the first two Wing Commander games really felt right .
More content , more gameplay , not that much more money .
It was honest .
The GTAIV add-ons are like getting new games added to the original .
That 's honest .
But I hate paying for stuff that should already be there , that was already developed beforehand.We 're going to keep seeing more of this nickel and dime crap .
I never play sports games so the EA thing of putting in a new roster and rereleasing the same sports game the following year did n't affect me .
But DLC means we 're going to keep seeing more and more of this crap .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It gives customer the impression that they're being nickel-and-dimed to death.
Maybe if the main game were cheap ($20 or so) they could get away with a $5 multiplayer addon, but at normal videogame prices that stuff's not going to fly.Games seemed to have longer shelf lives back in the day.
The add-ons to the first two Wing Commander games really felt right.
More content, more gameplay, not that much more money.
It was honest.
The GTAIV add-ons are like getting new games added to the original.
That's honest.
But I hate paying for stuff that should already be there, that was already developed beforehand.We're going to keep seeing more of this nickel and dime crap.
I never play sports games so the EA thing of putting in a new roster and rereleasing the same sports game the following year didn't affect me.
But DLC means we're going to keep seeing more and more of this crap.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1835209.31486306</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1835209.31487876</id>
	<title>Reason: Kill second sale</title>
	<author>Tei</author>
	<datestamp>1268648100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This type of DLC that is included in the box is not new, theres also some in Mass Effect 2. Is included as a bonus for these people that have buy the game AND have pay the game. Good people buy it, pirates pirate it, friends and brothers can't have it. If you sell the game, will *not* have it.  Is a way to make part of the game "server side".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This type of DLC that is included in the box is not new , theres also some in Mass Effect 2 .
Is included as a bonus for these people that have buy the game AND have pay the game .
Good people buy it , pirates pirate it , friends and brothers ca n't have it .
If you sell the game , will * not * have it .
Is a way to make part of the game " server side " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This type of DLC that is included in the box is not new, theres also some in Mass Effect 2.
Is included as a bonus for these people that have buy the game AND have pay the game.
Good people buy it, pirates pirate it, friends and brothers can't have it.
If you sell the game, will *not* have it.
Is a way to make part of the game "server side".</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1835209.31486954</id>
	<title>Gamers' bill of rights?</title>
	<author>Gizzmonic</author>
	<datestamp>1268644380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Gamers are getting shafted more and more these days.</p><p>I think we should bond together and form some kind of consumer advocacy group, maybe offer some kind of "Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval" type trade mark for compliant games.</p><p>Here's what I would put in my own bill of rights:</p><p>1)Right to resell games - either on virtual games or real, at a price that I set.</p><p>2)Ability to play my game at a friend's house without having to redownload (there are broadband caps, you know-and the next generation of consoles probably won't even have a disc player).</p><p>3)No DLC that is on the physical disk.</p><p>4)No DRM. That is not to be confused with copy protection measures as it so often is on Slashdot.  I mean actual DRM, where the OS enforces whether or not a game is "pirated."</p><p>These are my rules, what do you think?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Gamers are getting shafted more and more these days.I think we should bond together and form some kind of consumer advocacy group , maybe offer some kind of " Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval " type trade mark for compliant games.Here 's what I would put in my own bill of rights : 1 ) Right to resell games - either on virtual games or real , at a price that I set.2 ) Ability to play my game at a friend 's house without having to redownload ( there are broadband caps , you know-and the next generation of consoles probably wo n't even have a disc player ) .3 ) No DLC that is on the physical disk.4 ) No DRM .
That is not to be confused with copy protection measures as it so often is on Slashdot .
I mean actual DRM , where the OS enforces whether or not a game is " pirated .
" These are my rules , what do you think ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Gamers are getting shafted more and more these days.I think we should bond together and form some kind of consumer advocacy group, maybe offer some kind of "Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval" type trade mark for compliant games.Here's what I would put in my own bill of rights:1)Right to resell games - either on virtual games or real, at a price that I set.2)Ability to play my game at a friend's house without having to redownload (there are broadband caps, you know-and the next generation of consoles probably won't even have a disc player).3)No DLC that is on the physical disk.4)No DRM.
That is not to be confused with copy protection measures as it so often is on Slashdot.
I mean actual DRM, where the OS enforces whether or not a game is "pirated.
"These are my rules, what do you think?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1835209.31487852</id>
	<title>Re:Complete scam</title>
	<author>shutdown -p now</author>
	<datestamp>1268647980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>It's just an awful way of bumping up the price of the game without doing so on the box. If they had offered the game cheaper upon the initial purchase then fair enough that would be a bit more acceptable but that's not the case.</p></div><p>"Cheaper" then what, though?</p><p>If they offered the game $10 cheaper, do you seriously think there wouldn't be all that outrage, with people saying that "it would have been fine if it wasn't cheaper"?</p><p>Don't get me wrong - I fully understand the argument... but who decides what the fair price for the content that you get without DLC is? Since you claim that you want it to be "illegal", someone aside from developers will have to do so.</p><p>I say, let the market settle this. If people feel that the content they get without buying DLC to unlock extras is worth the price that's being asked for it, then what's the problem?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's just an awful way of bumping up the price of the game without doing so on the box .
If they had offered the game cheaper upon the initial purchase then fair enough that would be a bit more acceptable but that 's not the case .
" Cheaper " then what , though ? If they offered the game $ 10 cheaper , do you seriously think there would n't be all that outrage , with people saying that " it would have been fine if it was n't cheaper " ? Do n't get me wrong - I fully understand the argument... but who decides what the fair price for the content that you get without DLC is ?
Since you claim that you want it to be " illegal " , someone aside from developers will have to do so.I say , let the market settle this .
If people feel that the content they get without buying DLC to unlock extras is worth the price that 's being asked for it , then what 's the problem ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's just an awful way of bumping up the price of the game without doing so on the box.
If they had offered the game cheaper upon the initial purchase then fair enough that would be a bit more acceptable but that's not the case.
"Cheaper" then what, though?If they offered the game $10 cheaper, do you seriously think there wouldn't be all that outrage, with people saying that "it would have been fine if it wasn't cheaper"?Don't get me wrong - I fully understand the argument... but who decides what the fair price for the content that you get without DLC is?
Since you claim that you want it to be "illegal", someone aside from developers will have to do so.I say, let the market settle this.
If people feel that the content they get without buying DLC to unlock extras is worth the price that's being asked for it, then what's the problem?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1835209.31486910</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1835209.31488296</id>
	<title>Re:I will never pay for DLC</title>
	<author>The End Of Days</author>
	<datestamp>1268649660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Pirates will latch onto any justification they can to make themselves feel like heroes.  I find it wonderfully poetic that they need these justifications, it proves to me that they know they are doing the wrong thing.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Pirates will latch onto any justification they can to make themselves feel like heroes .
I find it wonderfully poetic that they need these justifications , it proves to me that they know they are doing the wrong thing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Pirates will latch onto any justification they can to make themselves feel like heroes.
I find it wonderfully poetic that they need these justifications, it proves to me that they know they are doing the wrong thing.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1835209.31486688</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1835209.31490298</id>
	<title>Re:5 dollar game</title>
	<author>waspleg</author>
	<datestamp>1268660760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Try Shadowgrounds, it's an awesome indie game (also on Steam).  It reminds me of the *very* old Crusader series from like 1994 only with better graphics and cool physics.  I played the whole thing through in like 8 or 10 hours but it was only $5 or so too.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Try Shadowgrounds , it 's an awesome indie game ( also on Steam ) .
It reminds me of the * very * old Crusader series from like 1994 only with better graphics and cool physics .
I played the whole thing through in like 8 or 10 hours but it was only $ 5 or so too .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Try Shadowgrounds, it's an awesome indie game (also on Steam).
It reminds me of the *very* old Crusader series from like 1994 only with better graphics and cool physics.
I played the whole thing through in like 8 or 10 hours but it was only $5 or so too.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1835209.31486426</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1835209.31490534</id>
	<title>BZZZZT, but thanks for playing.</title>
	<author>mjwx</author>
	<datestamp>1268662320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>You do realize that's entirely stupid, right? It's like saying that you're going to steal a Whopper because fucking Burger King wouldn't give you the cheese for free...and the cheese is sitting right there!</p></div></blockquote><p>

You do realise that is ridiculously stupid and incorrect.<br> <br>

2K is doing a bait and switch, they have put the content on the disk you've already paid for and then 2K require you to pay more to use all the content you've already got.<br> <br>

This is the equivalent of Hungry Jacks (Burger King) selling you a whopper but giving you a whopper with cheese and then expressly forbidding you to eat the cheese without paying an extra $0.50. Of fucking course I'm going to eat the cheese without paying as they already gave it to me, it's already on the burger, I am are protected by law even if I eat the cheese without paying. In any other industry this kind of scam is illegal, commonly refereed to as "fraud" or "extortion".<br> <br>

Perhaps Burger King need to start using some DRM (Dairy Rights Management) on their burgers in order to prevent people from consuming the cheese that they have not paid for... or they could keep doing what they are currently doing and not putting cheese on the burger unless you ask (and pay) for it before getting the burger.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>You do realize that 's entirely stupid , right ?
It 's like saying that you 're going to steal a Whopper because fucking Burger King would n't give you the cheese for free...and the cheese is sitting right there !
You do realise that is ridiculously stupid and incorrect .
2K is doing a bait and switch , they have put the content on the disk you 've already paid for and then 2K require you to pay more to use all the content you 've already got .
This is the equivalent of Hungry Jacks ( Burger King ) selling you a whopper but giving you a whopper with cheese and then expressly forbidding you to eat the cheese without paying an extra $ 0.50 .
Of fucking course I 'm going to eat the cheese without paying as they already gave it to me , it 's already on the burger , I am are protected by law even if I eat the cheese without paying .
In any other industry this kind of scam is illegal , commonly refereed to as " fraud " or " extortion " .
Perhaps Burger King need to start using some DRM ( Dairy Rights Management ) on their burgers in order to prevent people from consuming the cheese that they have not paid for... or they could keep doing what they are currently doing and not putting cheese on the burger unless you ask ( and pay ) for it before getting the burger .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You do realize that's entirely stupid, right?
It's like saying that you're going to steal a Whopper because fucking Burger King wouldn't give you the cheese for free...and the cheese is sitting right there!
You do realise that is ridiculously stupid and incorrect.
2K is doing a bait and switch, they have put the content on the disk you've already paid for and then 2K require you to pay more to use all the content you've already got.
This is the equivalent of Hungry Jacks (Burger King) selling you a whopper but giving you a whopper with cheese and then expressly forbidding you to eat the cheese without paying an extra $0.50.
Of fucking course I'm going to eat the cheese without paying as they already gave it to me, it's already on the burger, I am are protected by law even if I eat the cheese without paying.
In any other industry this kind of scam is illegal, commonly refereed to as "fraud" or "extortion".
Perhaps Burger King need to start using some DRM (Dairy Rights Management) on their burgers in order to prevent people from consuming the cheese that they have not paid for... or they could keep doing what they are currently doing and not putting cheese on the burger unless you ask (and pay) for it before getting the burger.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1835209.31486922</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1835209.31487936</id>
	<title>Who cares?</title>
	<author>PopeRatzo</author>
	<datestamp>1268648280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't see multiplayer as being much of a big deal for Bioshock 2.  There are just too many great games that were made for multiplayer, instead of a game like Bioshock, where multiplayer was clearly an afterthought.</p><p>A lot of people who haven't yet bought Bioshock are just going to see if maybe there's a scene release of the single-payer instead of enriching a company that has such hostility toward their customers.</p><p>I'm not condoning it, but I can understand it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't see multiplayer as being much of a big deal for Bioshock 2 .
There are just too many great games that were made for multiplayer , instead of a game like Bioshock , where multiplayer was clearly an afterthought.A lot of people who have n't yet bought Bioshock are just going to see if maybe there 's a scene release of the single-payer instead of enriching a company that has such hostility toward their customers.I 'm not condoning it , but I can understand it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't see multiplayer as being much of a big deal for Bioshock 2.
There are just too many great games that were made for multiplayer, instead of a game like Bioshock, where multiplayer was clearly an afterthought.A lot of people who haven't yet bought Bioshock are just going to see if maybe there's a scene release of the single-payer instead of enriching a company that has such hostility toward their customers.I'm not condoning it, but I can understand it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1835209.31487456</id>
	<title>Shareware</title>
	<author>Torodung</author>
	<datestamp>1268646300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Wasn't this the same basic concept behind "shareware?" I vaguely remember Wolfenstein 3d doing this to me a few times, many years ago. So long as the game is complete, and the DLC treadmill is plainly advertised on the box, does it really matter where the data comes from?</p><p>--<br>Toro</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Was n't this the same basic concept behind " shareware ?
" I vaguely remember Wolfenstein 3d doing this to me a few times , many years ago .
So long as the game is complete , and the DLC treadmill is plainly advertised on the box , does it really matter where the data comes from ? --Toro</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wasn't this the same basic concept behind "shareware?
" I vaguely remember Wolfenstein 3d doing this to me a few times, many years ago.
So long as the game is complete, and the DLC treadmill is plainly advertised on the box, does it really matter where the data comes from?--Toro</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1835209.31486922</id>
	<title>Re:I will never pay for DLC</title>
	<author>jim\_v2000</author>
	<datestamp>1268644260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>"The presence of DLC causes me to pirate games I would otherwise (joyfully) pay for."
<br> <br>
You do realize that's entirely stupid, right?  It's like saying that you're going to steal a Whopper because fucking Burger King wouldn't give you the cheese for free...and the cheese is sitting right there!</htmltext>
<tokenext>" The presence of DLC causes me to pirate games I would otherwise ( joyfully ) pay for .
" You do realize that 's entirely stupid , right ?
It 's like saying that you 're going to steal a Whopper because fucking Burger King would n't give you the cheese for free...and the cheese is sitting right there !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"The presence of DLC causes me to pirate games I would otherwise (joyfully) pay for.
"
 
You do realize that's entirely stupid, right?
It's like saying that you're going to steal a Whopper because fucking Burger King wouldn't give you the cheese for free...and the cheese is sitting right there!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1835209.31486382</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1835209.31486912</id>
	<title>I dont know...</title>
	<author>Reapy</author>
	<datestamp>1268644200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>who to be more angry with, the company, or the idiots that pay for it giving them a reason to justify doing it again.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>who to be more angry with , the company , or the idiots that pay for it giving them a reason to justify doing it again .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>who to be more angry with, the company, or the idiots that pay for it giving them a reason to justify doing it again.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1835209.31489164</id>
	<title>Re:I will never pay for DLC</title>
	<author>GasparGMSwordsman</author>
	<datestamp>1268654340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>He is accurately stating the cause and effect of 2K's (or theoretical companies action) on his decision.  It is not to play or not to play.  It is to pay or not to pay.<br> <br>

1) He *WILL* play the game he is interested in.  Possibly this decision was made the second the game was announced.<br>

2) He *WONT* pay for a game that contains for-fee DLC.<br> <br>

The only question (if statement if you will) is "will the game have for-fee DLC"?<br> <br>

In code form, it might look like this:<br> <br>


boolean willPlay = true;<br>
if( willPlay ){<br>
if(mustBuyDLC){<br>
pirate();<br>
}else{<br>
doNotPirate();<br>
}<br>
}<br> <br>

That is a simple logical construct and unarguable.<br> <br>

If you want to take an exception to his ethics that is a whole other statement.  We can debate ethics and legality all you want, but that is not what *THIS* was about.  The man stated clearly, this is what it causes, a loss of sale.</htmltext>
<tokenext>He is accurately stating the cause and effect of 2K 's ( or theoretical companies action ) on his decision .
It is not to play or not to play .
It is to pay or not to pay .
1 ) He * WILL * play the game he is interested in .
Possibly this decision was made the second the game was announced .
2 ) He * WONT * pay for a game that contains for-fee DLC .
The only question ( if statement if you will ) is " will the game have for-fee DLC " ?
In code form , it might look like this : boolean willPlay = true ; if ( willPlay ) { if ( mustBuyDLC ) { pirate ( ) ; } else { doNotPirate ( ) ; } } That is a simple logical construct and unarguable .
If you want to take an exception to his ethics that is a whole other statement .
We can debate ethics and legality all you want , but that is not what * THIS * was about .
The man stated clearly , this is what it causes , a loss of sale .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>He is accurately stating the cause and effect of 2K's (or theoretical companies action) on his decision.
It is not to play or not to play.
It is to pay or not to pay.
1) He *WILL* play the game he is interested in.
Possibly this decision was made the second the game was announced.
2) He *WONT* pay for a game that contains for-fee DLC.
The only question (if statement if you will) is "will the game have for-fee DLC"?
In code form, it might look like this: 


boolean willPlay = true;
if( willPlay ){
if(mustBuyDLC){
pirate();
}else{
doNotPirate();
}
} 

That is a simple logical construct and unarguable.
If you want to take an exception to his ethics that is a whole other statement.
We can debate ethics and legality all you want, but that is not what *THIS* was about.
The man stated clearly, this is what it causes, a loss of sale.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1835209.31486688</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1835209.31489222</id>
	<title>Re:I will never pay for DLC</title>
	<author>GF678</author>
	<datestamp>1268654580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I know the reason why pirates don't understand the analogy/comparison - if you pirate a game, you've only made a copy; you haven't deprived the owner of the original. You steal that Whopper, you're taking a physical object that doesn't have an identical copy made for free.</p><p>The ability to duplicate content for free is the reason why pirates don't consider their actions to be equivalent to other examples.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I know the reason why pirates do n't understand the analogy/comparison - if you pirate a game , you 've only made a copy ; you have n't deprived the owner of the original .
You steal that Whopper , you 're taking a physical object that does n't have an identical copy made for free.The ability to duplicate content for free is the reason why pirates do n't consider their actions to be equivalent to other examples .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I know the reason why pirates don't understand the analogy/comparison - if you pirate a game, you've only made a copy; you haven't deprived the owner of the original.
You steal that Whopper, you're taking a physical object that doesn't have an identical copy made for free.The ability to duplicate content for free is the reason why pirates don't consider their actions to be equivalent to other examples.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1835209.31486922</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1835209.31490338</id>
	<title>Of course I do</title>
	<author>Rix</author>
	<datestamp>1268661000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Like the vast majority, I pay for some things and pirate others. I also use the public library. The horror!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Like the vast majority , I pay for some things and pirate others .
I also use the public library .
The horror !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Like the vast majority, I pay for some things and pirate others.
I also use the public library.
The horror!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1835209.31486688</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1835209.31487146</id>
	<title>I don't mind paying for expansions</title>
	<author>GodfatherofSoul</author>
	<datestamp>1268645160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>In fact, by paying for expansions I think you encourage developers to continue popular games.  But, as technically irrelevant as the notion of *where* the expansion content lives before you purchase it is (how is it any different from a locked demo?) this does have a bad air about it to the layman.  I'd consider this more of a marketing fail.</htmltext>
<tokenext>In fact , by paying for expansions I think you encourage developers to continue popular games .
But , as technically irrelevant as the notion of * where * the expansion content lives before you purchase it is ( how is it any different from a locked demo ?
) this does have a bad air about it to the layman .
I 'd consider this more of a marketing fail .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In fact, by paying for expansions I think you encourage developers to continue popular games.
But, as technically irrelevant as the notion of *where* the expansion content lives before you purchase it is (how is it any different from a locked demo?
) this does have a bad air about it to the layman.
I'd consider this more of a marketing fail.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1835209.31488630</id>
	<title>Re:5 dollar game</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268651280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And because of your post, I'm gonna go see if that game is something I want. Never would have heard about it or looked for it otherwise.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And because of your post , I 'm gon na go see if that game is something I want .
Never would have heard about it or looked for it otherwise .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And because of your post, I'm gonna go see if that game is something I want.
Never would have heard about it or looked for it otherwise.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1835209.31486426</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1835209.31488966</id>
	<title>Re:I will never pay for DLC</title>
	<author>Chris Burke</author>
	<datestamp>1268653200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>But saying that DLC "causes me to pirate games" [emphasis mine] is utter nonsense. </i></p><p>I don't think it's nonsense to say that DLC causes him to pirate, as long as we're all clear that the cause-effect relationship was created by his brain, not the game companies.</p><p>"Talking about Open Source and Free Software as if they were the same causes RMS to go into apoplectic fits" is a reasonable statement.  It should not be taken to mean that talking about them as if they were the same does or should cause everyone to have that reaction, or that RMS' militant pedantry was created by people confusing the terms.</p><p>He's just stating the obvious -- he's willing to pirate games that use DLC.  Ergo, DLC in a game he would (hypothetically) otherwise buy causes him to pirate.</p><p>And yes, it's a flimsy and pathetic excuse.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>But saying that DLC " causes me to pirate games " [ emphasis mine ] is utter nonsense .
I do n't think it 's nonsense to say that DLC causes him to pirate , as long as we 're all clear that the cause-effect relationship was created by his brain , not the game companies .
" Talking about Open Source and Free Software as if they were the same causes RMS to go into apoplectic fits " is a reasonable statement .
It should not be taken to mean that talking about them as if they were the same does or should cause everyone to have that reaction , or that RMS ' militant pedantry was created by people confusing the terms.He 's just stating the obvious -- he 's willing to pirate games that use DLC .
Ergo , DLC in a game he would ( hypothetically ) otherwise buy causes him to pirate.And yes , it 's a flimsy and pathetic excuse .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But saying that DLC "causes me to pirate games" [emphasis mine] is utter nonsense.
I don't think it's nonsense to say that DLC causes him to pirate, as long as we're all clear that the cause-effect relationship was created by his brain, not the game companies.
"Talking about Open Source and Free Software as if they were the same causes RMS to go into apoplectic fits" is a reasonable statement.
It should not be taken to mean that talking about them as if they were the same does or should cause everyone to have that reaction, or that RMS' militant pedantry was created by people confusing the terms.He's just stating the obvious -- he's willing to pirate games that use DLC.
Ergo, DLC in a game he would (hypothetically) otherwise buy causes him to pirate.And yes, it's a flimsy and pathetic excuse.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1835209.31486688</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1835209.31487472</id>
	<title>Revolutionary Idea</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268646360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I am of the opinion that if you own the disc, you should own *everything* on the disc.</p><p>I know this is a little bit of crazy talk, but it just might work.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I am of the opinion that if you own the disc , you should own * everything * on the disc.I know this is a little bit of crazy talk , but it just might work .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I am of the opinion that if you own the disc, you should own *everything* on the disc.I know this is a little bit of crazy talk, but it just might work.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1835209.31487630</id>
	<title>Improvements?</title>
	<author>guysmilee</author>
	<datestamp>1268647080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>So will user feedback be included in the update? Will the game be any better?

I expect no on both accounts. Sounds like someone needs to take some lessons from Valve.</htmltext>
<tokenext>So will user feedback be included in the update ?
Will the game be any better ?
I expect no on both accounts .
Sounds like someone needs to take some lessons from Valve .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So will user feedback be included in the update?
Will the game be any better?
I expect no on both accounts.
Sounds like someone needs to take some lessons from Valve.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1835209.31490330</id>
	<title>Re:I will never pay for DLC</title>
	<author>waspleg</author>
	<datestamp>1268660940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes, I do.  Good people break bad laws, it's called civil disobedience.  I was going to buy this game until I read this, I was just waiting for the price to come down a bit since the reviews say it's good but not much different than the original (which was amazing).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , I do .
Good people break bad laws , it 's called civil disobedience .
I was going to buy this game until I read this , I was just waiting for the price to come down a bit since the reviews say it 's good but not much different than the original ( which was amazing ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, I do.
Good people break bad laws, it's called civil disobedience.
I was going to buy this game until I read this, I was just waiting for the price to come down a bit since the reviews say it's good but not much different than the original (which was amazing).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1835209.31486688</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1835209.31492038</id>
	<title>Re:I dont know...</title>
	<author>TheVelvetFlamebait</author>
	<datestamp>1268675520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Tell me: how has 2K victimised you?</p><p>Did they infringe any of your rights? Well, no. You have no obligation to buy from them.</p><p>Assuming that you did buy from them, did they infringe any of your rights, or at least inconvenience you in some way? No, you still have the same game, pixel for pixel. You were given what exactly what you paid for, no more, no less. Oh, except for a, for all intents and purposes, useless block of data on the disc that you were never going to access anyway.</p><p>Assuming you did buy from them, and you wanted to buy the DLC, did they<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... yada yada yada? Hmm, still no. The price, the transaction, all of it is the same. The only difference is that you don't have to download the data in order to play it. How cool is that!?</p><p>The only possible way you could feel victimised after this is if you believe that you are entitled to play the DLC for free, just for buying the original game. All I can say is that this mentality doesn't lead to better, more extensive games for the same price, rather it just leads to games being more limited or games being more expensive.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Tell me : how has 2K victimised you ? Did they infringe any of your rights ?
Well , no .
You have no obligation to buy from them.Assuming that you did buy from them , did they infringe any of your rights , or at least inconvenience you in some way ?
No , you still have the same game , pixel for pixel .
You were given what exactly what you paid for , no more , no less .
Oh , except for a , for all intents and purposes , useless block of data on the disc that you were never going to access anyway.Assuming you did buy from them , and you wanted to buy the DLC , did they ... yada yada yada ?
Hmm , still no .
The price , the transaction , all of it is the same .
The only difference is that you do n't have to download the data in order to play it .
How cool is that !
? The only possible way you could feel victimised after this is if you believe that you are entitled to play the DLC for free , just for buying the original game .
All I can say is that this mentality does n't lead to better , more extensive games for the same price , rather it just leads to games being more limited or games being more expensive .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Tell me: how has 2K victimised you?Did they infringe any of your rights?
Well, no.
You have no obligation to buy from them.Assuming that you did buy from them, did they infringe any of your rights, or at least inconvenience you in some way?
No, you still have the same game, pixel for pixel.
You were given what exactly what you paid for, no more, no less.
Oh, except for a, for all intents and purposes, useless block of data on the disc that you were never going to access anyway.Assuming you did buy from them, and you wanted to buy the DLC, did they ... yada yada yada?
Hmm, still no.
The price, the transaction, all of it is the same.
The only difference is that you don't have to download the data in order to play it.
How cool is that!
?The only possible way you could feel victimised after this is if you believe that you are entitled to play the DLC for free, just for buying the original game.
All I can say is that this mentality doesn't lead to better, more extensive games for the same price, rather it just leads to games being more limited or games being more expensive.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1835209.31486912</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1835209.31487822</id>
	<title>Re:I will never pay for DLC</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268647920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Here's an idea, rather than resorting to an unethical practice why don't you just not play the game? Or is being annoyed a license to do whatever you want?</p></div><p>Yes it is.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Here 's an idea , rather than resorting to an unethical practice why do n't you just not play the game ?
Or is being annoyed a license to do whatever you want ? Yes it is .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Here's an idea, rather than resorting to an unethical practice why don't you just not play the game?
Or is being annoyed a license to do whatever you want?Yes it is.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1835209.31486686</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1835209.31486884</id>
	<title>U buy X, u get X. I dont see whats wrong here.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268644080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I see people feel bad about this.</p><p>I wanted to say i dont get that, and dont feel that way at all about this DLC X being stored on the disc Y.<br>Don't act all surprised and sad now. Nothing new here. DLC is for making money, and its quite efficient this way.</p><p>Rationale:<br>its just some dusty bits named X that happened to be in your physical proximity because you once bought Y.<br>Plus the fact you bought X and got X. No problem there, except incorrect feeling of already owning X in the first place.<br>Wrong. You previously bought Y, not X.</p><p>Pull yourself together trolls and whiners..</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I see people feel bad about this.I wanted to say i dont get that , and dont feel that way at all about this DLC X being stored on the disc Y.Do n't act all surprised and sad now .
Nothing new here .
DLC is for making money , and its quite efficient this way.Rationale : its just some dusty bits named X that happened to be in your physical proximity because you once bought Y.Plus the fact you bought X and got X. No problem there , except incorrect feeling of already owning X in the first place.Wrong .
You previously bought Y , not X.Pull yourself together trolls and whiners. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I see people feel bad about this.I wanted to say i dont get that, and dont feel that way at all about this DLC X being stored on the disc Y.Don't act all surprised and sad now.
Nothing new here.
DLC is for making money, and its quite efficient this way.Rationale:its just some dusty bits named X that happened to be in your physical proximity because you once bought Y.Plus the fact you bought X and got X. No problem there, except incorrect feeling of already owning X in the first place.Wrong.
You previously bought Y, not X.Pull yourself together trolls and whiners..</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1835209.31491970</id>
	<title>Re:I will never pay for DLC</title>
	<author>lennier</author>
	<datestamp>1268674740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think it's more like saying 'I don't like that when I buy a Whopper from Burger King you first ask me for a mandatory blood sample, drug test, and retina scan, infect me with anthrax and clip an explosive collar to my neck... so instead of buying a Whopper on those terms I'm going to put on my wizard hat, wave my magic wand at your Whopper, shout 'GIGANTUS DUPLICATUS' and make me a thousand brand new magic-cloned Whoppers, without explosive collars, for free. And then give them out to all my friends right in the middle of your store.'</p><p>Which is of course way illegal, but it's what all the kids at Hogwarts are doing these days. I blame the butterbeer, and all those owls.</p><p>Azkaban Notice: You wouldn't cast the Cruciatus Curse on a Muggle... so why Duplicatus a Whopper? Think of the house elves! Magicing food is a Dementable offense.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think it 's more like saying 'I do n't like that when I buy a Whopper from Burger King you first ask me for a mandatory blood sample , drug test , and retina scan , infect me with anthrax and clip an explosive collar to my neck... so instead of buying a Whopper on those terms I 'm going to put on my wizard hat , wave my magic wand at your Whopper , shout 'GIGANTUS DUPLICATUS ' and make me a thousand brand new magic-cloned Whoppers , without explosive collars , for free .
And then give them out to all my friends right in the middle of your store .
'Which is of course way illegal , but it 's what all the kids at Hogwarts are doing these days .
I blame the butterbeer , and all those owls.Azkaban Notice : You would n't cast the Cruciatus Curse on a Muggle... so why Duplicatus a Whopper ?
Think of the house elves !
Magicing food is a Dementable offense .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think it's more like saying 'I don't like that when I buy a Whopper from Burger King you first ask me for a mandatory blood sample, drug test, and retina scan, infect me with anthrax and clip an explosive collar to my neck... so instead of buying a Whopper on those terms I'm going to put on my wizard hat, wave my magic wand at your Whopper, shout 'GIGANTUS DUPLICATUS' and make me a thousand brand new magic-cloned Whoppers, without explosive collars, for free.
And then give them out to all my friends right in the middle of your store.
'Which is of course way illegal, but it's what all the kids at Hogwarts are doing these days.
I blame the butterbeer, and all those owls.Azkaban Notice: You wouldn't cast the Cruciatus Curse on a Muggle... so why Duplicatus a Whopper?
Think of the house elves!
Magicing food is a Dementable offense.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1835209.31486922</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1835209.31486674</id>
	<title>Re:I will never pay for DLC</title>
	<author>Lunix Nutcase</author>
	<datestamp>1268686560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The presence of DLC causes me to pirate games I would otherwise (joyfully) pay for.</p></div><p>Because you are <i>entitled</i> to play the game?  Two wrongs don't make a right.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The presence of DLC causes me to pirate games I would otherwise ( joyfully ) pay for.Because you are entitled to play the game ?
Two wrongs do n't make a right .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The presence of DLC causes me to pirate games I would otherwise (joyfully) pay for.Because you are entitled to play the game?
Two wrongs don't make a right.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1835209.31486382</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1835209.31496344</id>
	<title>One word says it all...</title>
	<author>McKing</author>
	<datestamp>1268757180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Cocks!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Cocks !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Cocks!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1835209.31490410</id>
	<title>Faulty premise</title>
	<author>Rix</author>
	<datestamp>1268661480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You're starting from the position that there's something wrong piracy. I, like the vast majority, have absolutely no problem with it.</p><p>You have every right to your opinion, but keep in mind that to the rest of us, you sound like a Catholic haranguing people for eating meat on Fridays.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You 're starting from the position that there 's something wrong piracy .
I , like the vast majority , have absolutely no problem with it.You have every right to your opinion , but keep in mind that to the rest of us , you sound like a Catholic haranguing people for eating meat on Fridays .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You're starting from the position that there's something wrong piracy.
I, like the vast majority, have absolutely no problem with it.You have every right to your opinion, but keep in mind that to the rest of us, you sound like a Catholic haranguing people for eating meat on Fridays.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1835209.31486922</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1835209.31488726</id>
	<title>Re:I will never pay for DLC</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268651820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Don't act like the business peeps are the good guys here, extortion is another kind of thievery.  What's good for the goose is good for the gander.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Do n't act like the business peeps are the good guys here , extortion is another kind of thievery .
What 's good for the goose is good for the gander .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Don't act like the business peeps are the good guys here, extortion is another kind of thievery.
What's good for the goose is good for the gander.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1835209.31486686</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1835209.31486688</id>
	<title>Re:I will never pay for DLC</title>
	<author>Jim Hall</author>
	<datestamp>1268686620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The presence of DLC causes me to pirate games I would otherwise (joyfully) pay for.</p></div><p>That statement disturbs me. Yes, having to pay for "DLC" that was already on-disc is a total sham, a ripoff. But if you don't like DLC (or in this case, paying to unlock content) <b>then don't buy it.</b> </p><p>But saying that DLC "<b>causes</b> me to pirate games" [emphasis mine] is utter nonsense. By extension, do you pirate other software?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The presence of DLC causes me to pirate games I would otherwise ( joyfully ) pay for.That statement disturbs me .
Yes , having to pay for " DLC " that was already on-disc is a total sham , a ripoff .
But if you do n't like DLC ( or in this case , paying to unlock content ) then do n't buy it .
But saying that DLC " causes me to pirate games " [ emphasis mine ] is utter nonsense .
By extension , do you pirate other software ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The presence of DLC causes me to pirate games I would otherwise (joyfully) pay for.That statement disturbs me.
Yes, having to pay for "DLC" that was already on-disc is a total sham, a ripoff.
But if you don't like DLC (or in this case, paying to unlock content) then don't buy it.
But saying that DLC "causes me to pirate games" [emphasis mine] is utter nonsense.
By extension, do you pirate other software?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1835209.31486382</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1835209.31497934</id>
	<title>Re:Nothing new.</title>
	<author>CaseM</author>
	<datestamp>1268762700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>If you want to send a message, boycott any game that features these unlock codes.</i></p><p>That would be a splendid idea if the back of the case said "Some content on this disc must be purchased before it is unlocked", but they don't, do they? Many people have already purchased the game and are just finding out <i>now</i> that 2K was planning on doing this the entire time. And since they don't accept returns of opened content, you now have no way of boycotting the game <i>a posteriori</i>.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you want to send a message , boycott any game that features these unlock codes.That would be a splendid idea if the back of the case said " Some content on this disc must be purchased before it is unlocked " , but they do n't , do they ?
Many people have already purchased the game and are just finding out now that 2K was planning on doing this the entire time .
And since they do n't accept returns of opened content , you now have no way of boycotting the game a posteriori .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you want to send a message, boycott any game that features these unlock codes.That would be a splendid idea if the back of the case said "Some content on this disc must be purchased before it is unlocked", but they don't, do they?
Many people have already purchased the game and are just finding out now that 2K was planning on doing this the entire time.
And since they don't accept returns of opened content, you now have no way of boycotting the game a posteriori.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1835209.31487510</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1835209.31487570</id>
	<title>What's the problem?</title>
	<author>samael</author>
	<datestamp>1268646840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You agreed to pay for content X.  Then they offer you access to content Y for an extra sum.  When they wrote Y, and how they deliver it to you is \_none of your business\_.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You agreed to pay for content X. Then they offer you access to content Y for an extra sum .
When they wrote Y , and how they deliver it to you is \ _none of your business \ _ .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You agreed to pay for content X.  Then they offer you access to content Y for an extra sum.
When they wrote Y, and how they deliver it to you is \_none of your business\_.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1835209.31488026</id>
	<title>Vote with your pocket book</title>
	<author>Dan667</author>
	<datestamp>1268648580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I stopped buying anything from EA when they started doing things like this and I did not buy Bioshock 2 because I heard 2K was going to start doing this.  Glad I did.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I stopped buying anything from EA when they started doing things like this and I did not buy Bioshock 2 because I heard 2K was going to start doing this .
Glad I did .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I stopped buying anything from EA when they started doing things like this and I did not buy Bioshock 2 because I heard 2K was going to start doing this.
Glad I did.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1835209.31490158</id>
	<title>Re:5 dollar game</title>
	<author>Fallingcow</author>
	<datestamp>1268659980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>All of us who pre-ordered L4D thought they were going to do the same thing with it (in no small part because Valve <i>said they would</i>).  We got burned.</p><p>Excellent job with TF2, which no-one expected them to support so well or so long.  Awful job with L4D, which they <i>said</i> they'd support very well but didn't.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>All of us who pre-ordered L4D thought they were going to do the same thing with it ( in no small part because Valve said they would ) .
We got burned.Excellent job with TF2 , which no-one expected them to support so well or so long .
Awful job with L4D , which they said they 'd support very well but did n't .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>All of us who pre-ordered L4D thought they were going to do the same thing with it (in no small part because Valve said they would).
We got burned.Excellent job with TF2, which no-one expected them to support so well or so long.
Awful job with L4D, which they said they'd support very well but didn't.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1835209.31488052</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1835209.31487824</id>
	<title>DLC almost always sucks.</title>
	<author>drej</author>
	<datestamp>1268647920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yes, this is complete and utter bullshit. But in my opinion DLC is almost always some form of ripoff, because most developers are "doing it wrong". Nowadays it's become usual practice to announce DLC even BEFORE the game is out. Sure, it lets the customer know that the developers will continue supporting the game after it's released - but seriously, who in their right mind would think that games like Mass Effect 2 and Bad Company 2 *won't* receive any DLC? If the developers are already working on the content for the DLC along with the main game they should either a) push back the release date a little and integrate it into the main game or b) release the game and then offer the DLC for free when it's ready, like it was done with the first Bad Company (the Conquest Mode was included later). There should be a rule as to when DLC is allowed to be published - I assume everyone would love to download some more dungeons for Ocarina of Time or Twilight Princess, but paying for DLC the day the main game is released (see Dragon Age) it just a complete fuckover for the customer. And when the content is already on the disc...well, fuck you, developers. I'm not gonna pay for something I already own.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , this is complete and utter bullshit .
But in my opinion DLC is almost always some form of ripoff , because most developers are " doing it wrong " .
Nowadays it 's become usual practice to announce DLC even BEFORE the game is out .
Sure , it lets the customer know that the developers will continue supporting the game after it 's released - but seriously , who in their right mind would think that games like Mass Effect 2 and Bad Company 2 * wo n't * receive any DLC ?
If the developers are already working on the content for the DLC along with the main game they should either a ) push back the release date a little and integrate it into the main game or b ) release the game and then offer the DLC for free when it 's ready , like it was done with the first Bad Company ( the Conquest Mode was included later ) .
There should be a rule as to when DLC is allowed to be published - I assume everyone would love to download some more dungeons for Ocarina of Time or Twilight Princess , but paying for DLC the day the main game is released ( see Dragon Age ) it just a complete fuckover for the customer .
And when the content is already on the disc...well , fuck you , developers .
I 'm not gon na pay for something I already own .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, this is complete and utter bullshit.
But in my opinion DLC is almost always some form of ripoff, because most developers are "doing it wrong".
Nowadays it's become usual practice to announce DLC even BEFORE the game is out.
Sure, it lets the customer know that the developers will continue supporting the game after it's released - but seriously, who in their right mind would think that games like Mass Effect 2 and Bad Company 2 *won't* receive any DLC?
If the developers are already working on the content for the DLC along with the main game they should either a) push back the release date a little and integrate it into the main game or b) release the game and then offer the DLC for free when it's ready, like it was done with the first Bad Company (the Conquest Mode was included later).
There should be a rule as to when DLC is allowed to be published - I assume everyone would love to download some more dungeons for Ocarina of Time or Twilight Princess, but paying for DLC the day the main game is released (see Dragon Age) it just a complete fuckover for the customer.
And when the content is already on the disc...well, fuck you, developers.
I'm not gonna pay for something I already own.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1835209.31486944</id>
	<title>How is this new?</title>
	<author>Amarantine</author>
	<datestamp>1268644320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I seem to remember that the so-called DLC for EA games years ago (Madden NFL 06, Godfather, Need For Speed) also took 100KB to download on an Xbox 360. This was 4 years ago. Did nobody wonder back then how they fitted entire football arenas, weapon arsenals and sportscars in just a few thousand bytes?</htmltext>
<tokenext>I seem to remember that the so-called DLC for EA games years ago ( Madden NFL 06 , Godfather , Need For Speed ) also took 100KB to download on an Xbox 360 .
This was 4 years ago .
Did nobody wonder back then how they fitted entire football arenas , weapon arsenals and sportscars in just a few thousand bytes ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I seem to remember that the so-called DLC for EA games years ago (Madden NFL 06, Godfather, Need For Speed) also took 100KB to download on an Xbox 360.
This was 4 years ago.
Did nobody wonder back then how they fitted entire football arenas, weapon arsenals and sportscars in just a few thousand bytes?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1835209.31488964</id>
	<title>Price Elasticity is a GOOD thing!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268653200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is a classic example of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price\_elasticity\_of\_demand" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">Price Elasticity</a> [wikipedia.org], and it's actually GOOD for gamers. Managing the demand curve is how game companies stay in business.
</p><p>Price Elasticity is simple: different people are willing to pay more/less for the same thing. Gamers are already familiar with this; it's why prices drop over time. At launch a new game sells to people who think it's worth $60. Over time, the price drops so they can sell the game to people who don't think it's worth $60 -- first to the $40 folks, then the $30 folks, and finally the $20 folks. DLC is just another way to recoup the investment of making a game (and hopefully turn a profit). You create additional content, and sell it to the people who are willing to pay for it.
</p><p>
Complaining about content on the disc is just idiotic--who cares where it is? Would it be better if Bioshock 2 padded the 24kb with an extra 20mb? The only valid complaint (and the only complaint developers and publishers will listen to), is that the base game was unsatisfying or felt incomplete without the DLC. And I haven't heard a single person say that.
</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is a classic example of Price Elasticity [ wikipedia.org ] , and it 's actually GOOD for gamers .
Managing the demand curve is how game companies stay in business .
Price Elasticity is simple : different people are willing to pay more/less for the same thing .
Gamers are already familiar with this ; it 's why prices drop over time .
At launch a new game sells to people who think it 's worth $ 60 .
Over time , the price drops so they can sell the game to people who do n't think it 's worth $ 60 -- first to the $ 40 folks , then the $ 30 folks , and finally the $ 20 folks .
DLC is just another way to recoup the investment of making a game ( and hopefully turn a profit ) .
You create additional content , and sell it to the people who are willing to pay for it .
Complaining about content on the disc is just idiotic--who cares where it is ?
Would it be better if Bioshock 2 padded the 24kb with an extra 20mb ?
The only valid complaint ( and the only complaint developers and publishers will listen to ) , is that the base game was unsatisfying or felt incomplete without the DLC .
And I have n't heard a single person say that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is a classic example of Price Elasticity [wikipedia.org], and it's actually GOOD for gamers.
Managing the demand curve is how game companies stay in business.
Price Elasticity is simple: different people are willing to pay more/less for the same thing.
Gamers are already familiar with this; it's why prices drop over time.
At launch a new game sells to people who think it's worth $60.
Over time, the price drops so they can sell the game to people who don't think it's worth $60 -- first to the $40 folks, then the $30 folks, and finally the $20 folks.
DLC is just another way to recoup the investment of making a game (and hopefully turn a profit).
You create additional content, and sell it to the people who are willing to pay for it.
Complaining about content on the disc is just idiotic--who cares where it is?
Would it be better if Bioshock 2 padded the 24kb with an extra 20mb?
The only valid complaint (and the only complaint developers and publishers will listen to), is that the base game was unsatisfying or felt incomplete without the DLC.
And I haven't heard a single person say that.
</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1835209.31533512</id>
	<title>Happening again?</title>
	<author>Fussen</author>
	<datestamp>1268941140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This sort of reminds me of when ID Software released their Quake Shareware CD. The disc had the shareware release as well as the full version of all the ID top titles, nicely tucked away in an encrypted mass, ready for ID authorization to unlock, that was until qcrack.exe came around<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</htmltext>
<tokenext>This sort of reminds me of when ID Software released their Quake Shareware CD .
The disc had the shareware release as well as the full version of all the ID top titles , nicely tucked away in an encrypted mass , ready for ID authorization to unlock , that was until qcrack.exe came around : )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This sort of reminds me of when ID Software released their Quake Shareware CD.
The disc had the shareware release as well as the full version of all the ID top titles, nicely tucked away in an encrypted mass, ready for ID authorization to unlock, that was until qcrack.exe came around :)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1835209.31487416</id>
	<title>Waters are being tested</title>
	<author>MisterJones</author>
	<datestamp>1268646180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This whole thing is interesting to me.  I think we're sort of watching a paradigm shift in the way publishers and consumers interact.</p><p>Just isolating at the economics of it, why does it being on the disc matter?  Everyone who purchased a copy of the game knew what they were getting into.  They willingly exchanged money for the game as it was.  This unlock was not included in that transaction.  Then, the publisher asks people to pay more money for additional content.  People decide whether or not they want that content.</p><p>However, we have this notion that once we've bought a 'thing' we should have full access to it.  I like this idea, personally.  I think most of us here do.  When they reveal that you bought the disc, and it had the content ready to go and you are locked out, that's evil.</p><p>However, if they did the same thing but shipped it without this content on the disc, that would be OK?  If they COULD have put it on the disc, but they didn't - does the publisher have an obligation to release the content if it is finished?  I think that gets a bit more gray.</p><p>What if they finished this the week after the disc shipped?  Is that OK?</p><p>Is it that we're theoretically 'covering the cost' of the development of the game with our $60 or $50?  And then the price of DLC is an incentive for them to continue expanding the game?  On the other hand, they delivered a game in a state that you can choose to buy or not.  What is hidden in the disc's dead space is of little concern, right?</p><p>DLC has caused some interesting ethical and financial quandries.  One the one hand, it seems like game prices are going up by degrees.  We're paying $60 for a game, PLUS another $5 here and $10 there.  Some games, especially multiplayer titles, may cost you upwards of $100 by the time you're finished.  Are we getting our money's worth?  Are we getting a good deal for our gaming value?  At the same time, do publishers have an obligation to tell us up front what we're getting into: ie, you will pay $60 for this game and an estimated $x/interval for DLC in order to have the 'complete' experience.</p><p>Not to mention the whole 'project $10' initiative - where there's a code in the box that you can only use once, and it locks used owners out of content that you would otherwise have to pay for as DLC...</p><p>Complicating matters is that there's not any competition in the market - if you want a COD:MW2 map, for instance, you're getting it from IW/Activision/MS Live.  There's not a competitor that can sell you a similar product at a competitive price.</p><p>I think the future is going to be full of more of these practices.  And, by and large, the average gamer is going to be oblivious.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This whole thing is interesting to me .
I think we 're sort of watching a paradigm shift in the way publishers and consumers interact.Just isolating at the economics of it , why does it being on the disc matter ?
Everyone who purchased a copy of the game knew what they were getting into .
They willingly exchanged money for the game as it was .
This unlock was not included in that transaction .
Then , the publisher asks people to pay more money for additional content .
People decide whether or not they want that content.However , we have this notion that once we 've bought a 'thing ' we should have full access to it .
I like this idea , personally .
I think most of us here do .
When they reveal that you bought the disc , and it had the content ready to go and you are locked out , that 's evil.However , if they did the same thing but shipped it without this content on the disc , that would be OK ?
If they COULD have put it on the disc , but they did n't - does the publisher have an obligation to release the content if it is finished ?
I think that gets a bit more gray.What if they finished this the week after the disc shipped ?
Is that OK ? Is it that we 're theoretically 'covering the cost ' of the development of the game with our $ 60 or $ 50 ?
And then the price of DLC is an incentive for them to continue expanding the game ?
On the other hand , they delivered a game in a state that you can choose to buy or not .
What is hidden in the disc 's dead space is of little concern , right ? DLC has caused some interesting ethical and financial quandries .
One the one hand , it seems like game prices are going up by degrees .
We 're paying $ 60 for a game , PLUS another $ 5 here and $ 10 there .
Some games , especially multiplayer titles , may cost you upwards of $ 100 by the time you 're finished .
Are we getting our money 's worth ?
Are we getting a good deal for our gaming value ?
At the same time , do publishers have an obligation to tell us up front what we 're getting into : ie , you will pay $ 60 for this game and an estimated $ x/interval for DLC in order to have the 'complete ' experience.Not to mention the whole 'project $ 10 ' initiative - where there 's a code in the box that you can only use once , and it locks used owners out of content that you would otherwise have to pay for as DLC...Complicating matters is that there 's not any competition in the market - if you want a COD : MW2 map , for instance , you 're getting it from IW/Activision/MS Live .
There 's not a competitor that can sell you a similar product at a competitive price.I think the future is going to be full of more of these practices .
And , by and large , the average gamer is going to be oblivious .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This whole thing is interesting to me.
I think we're sort of watching a paradigm shift in the way publishers and consumers interact.Just isolating at the economics of it, why does it being on the disc matter?
Everyone who purchased a copy of the game knew what they were getting into.
They willingly exchanged money for the game as it was.
This unlock was not included in that transaction.
Then, the publisher asks people to pay more money for additional content.
People decide whether or not they want that content.However, we have this notion that once we've bought a 'thing' we should have full access to it.
I like this idea, personally.
I think most of us here do.
When they reveal that you bought the disc, and it had the content ready to go and you are locked out, that's evil.However, if they did the same thing but shipped it without this content on the disc, that would be OK?
If they COULD have put it on the disc, but they didn't - does the publisher have an obligation to release the content if it is finished?
I think that gets a bit more gray.What if they finished this the week after the disc shipped?
Is that OK?Is it that we're theoretically 'covering the cost' of the development of the game with our $60 or $50?
And then the price of DLC is an incentive for them to continue expanding the game?
On the other hand, they delivered a game in a state that you can choose to buy or not.
What is hidden in the disc's dead space is of little concern, right?DLC has caused some interesting ethical and financial quandries.
One the one hand, it seems like game prices are going up by degrees.
We're paying $60 for a game, PLUS another $5 here and $10 there.
Some games, especially multiplayer titles, may cost you upwards of $100 by the time you're finished.
Are we getting our money's worth?
Are we getting a good deal for our gaming value?
At the same time, do publishers have an obligation to tell us up front what we're getting into: ie, you will pay $60 for this game and an estimated $x/interval for DLC in order to have the 'complete' experience.Not to mention the whole 'project $10' initiative - where there's a code in the box that you can only use once, and it locks used owners out of content that you would otherwise have to pay for as DLC...Complicating matters is that there's not any competition in the market - if you want a COD:MW2 map, for instance, you're getting it from IW/Activision/MS Live.
There's not a competitor that can sell you a similar product at a competitive price.I think the future is going to be full of more of these practices.
And, by and large, the average gamer is going to be oblivious.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1835209.31488380</id>
	<title>Re:I will never pay for DLC</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268650080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Are you really suggesting that not supporting the monstrosities that have turned our legal system into a protection racket is unethical?  Put down the remote Joe six-pack you have some thinking to do.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Are you really suggesting that not supporting the monstrosities that have turned our legal system into a protection racket is unethical ?
Put down the remote Joe six-pack you have some thinking to do .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Are you really suggesting that not supporting the monstrosities that have turned our legal system into a protection racket is unethical?
Put down the remote Joe six-pack you have some thinking to do.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1835209.31486686</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1835209.31486178</id>
	<title>5 dollar patch</title>
	<author>Aphoxema</author>
	<datestamp>1268684880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Double dipping.<br> <br>

<em>If</em> this were an update after release, it would make sense. I wish Resident Evil 5 had done the same instead of requiring people to purchase the DLC to view others who had the costume packs. But this is different... it was already <em>on the disk!</em> <br> <br>

That means they were planning all along on making an already completed work a cost accessory.<br> <br>

When I think DLC, I think of things that were created or finished after the final release. Maybe things that were meant to be a part of the final product but were left out due to lack of necessity or space constraints (unlikely with Blu-Ray) that would be released through download for free.<br> <br>

Essentially, they charged players 5 dollars for a patch to correct a bug in the game; access to the existing content was broken. They have the right to choose to do business this way, but that doesn't make it any less bullshit and this practice isn't going to impress customers.<br> <br>

Now, cue the jackasses thinking they did the right thing. I'll cut out my kidney with a disposable drinking straw if anyone can reasonably argue this as ethical.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Double dipping .
If this were an update after release , it would make sense .
I wish Resident Evil 5 had done the same instead of requiring people to purchase the DLC to view others who had the costume packs .
But this is different... it was already on the disk !
That means they were planning all along on making an already completed work a cost accessory .
When I think DLC , I think of things that were created or finished after the final release .
Maybe things that were meant to be a part of the final product but were left out due to lack of necessity or space constraints ( unlikely with Blu-Ray ) that would be released through download for free .
Essentially , they charged players 5 dollars for a patch to correct a bug in the game ; access to the existing content was broken .
They have the right to choose to do business this way , but that does n't make it any less bullshit and this practice is n't going to impress customers .
Now , cue the jackasses thinking they did the right thing .
I 'll cut out my kidney with a disposable drinking straw if anyone can reasonably argue this as ethical .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Double dipping.
If this were an update after release, it would make sense.
I wish Resident Evil 5 had done the same instead of requiring people to purchase the DLC to view others who had the costume packs.
But this is different... it was already on the disk!
That means they were planning all along on making an already completed work a cost accessory.
When I think DLC, I think of things that were created or finished after the final release.
Maybe things that were meant to be a part of the final product but were left out due to lack of necessity or space constraints (unlikely with Blu-Ray) that would be released through download for free.
Essentially, they charged players 5 dollars for a patch to correct a bug in the game; access to the existing content was broken.
They have the right to choose to do business this way, but that doesn't make it any less bullshit and this practice isn't going to impress customers.
Now, cue the jackasses thinking they did the right thing.
I'll cut out my kidney with a disposable drinking straw if anyone can reasonably argue this as ethical.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1835209.31487668</id>
	<title>This isn't new....</title>
	<author>master811</author>
	<datestamp>1268647200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This isn't new, IIRC, the same was done with Street Fighter 4 and Resident Evil 5.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is n't new , IIRC , the same was done with Street Fighter 4 and Resident Evil 5 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This isn't new, IIRC, the same was done with Street Fighter 4 and Resident Evil 5.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1835209.31487372</id>
	<title>Re:Complete scam</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268646060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This is why I don't play MMOs. If I pay $60 for a disk, I better get a game on it. If I then have to pay $15 a month to play the game I own, then it's a scam. If you want me to pay $15 a month, that's fine. Give me the game for free.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is why I do n't play MMOs .
If I pay $ 60 for a disk , I better get a game on it .
If I then have to pay $ 15 a month to play the game I own , then it 's a scam .
If you want me to pay $ 15 a month , that 's fine .
Give me the game for free .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is why I don't play MMOs.
If I pay $60 for a disk, I better get a game on it.
If I then have to pay $15 a month to play the game I own, then it's a scam.
If you want me to pay $15 a month, that's fine.
Give me the game for free.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1835209.31486910</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1835209.31487658</id>
	<title>Re:I will never pay for DLC</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268647200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Here's an idea, rather than resorting to an unethical practice why don't you just not play the game? Or is being annoyed a license to do whatever you want?</p></div><p>I agree. Consumers should do the ethical thing and buy a law that allows them to reverse engineer the key. Wait, what, consumers cannot afford the politicians to buy laws like this? Only big money like game companies and the MMPA can?<br>Boy, I think it is time for consumers to learn their place and just shut up and take it.</p><p>As this is the internet and I'm not clarifying, you can make up your own mind about whether  "shut up and take it" is suggesting piracy as a fair countermeasure or whether it is sarcasm suggesting that consumers learn to live like domestic abuse victims or prison b1tches.</p><p>PS: hey look this DVD I just bought has an unskippable "you're a thief" add and warnings. I'm so glad I can't return it, due to the DMCA.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Here 's an idea , rather than resorting to an unethical practice why do n't you just not play the game ?
Or is being annoyed a license to do whatever you want ? I agree .
Consumers should do the ethical thing and buy a law that allows them to reverse engineer the key .
Wait , what , consumers can not afford the politicians to buy laws like this ?
Only big money like game companies and the MMPA can ? Boy , I think it is time for consumers to learn their place and just shut up and take it.As this is the internet and I 'm not clarifying , you can make up your own mind about whether " shut up and take it " is suggesting piracy as a fair countermeasure or whether it is sarcasm suggesting that consumers learn to live like domestic abuse victims or prison b1tches.PS : hey look this DVD I just bought has an unskippable " you 're a thief " add and warnings .
I 'm so glad I ca n't return it , due to the DMCA .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Here's an idea, rather than resorting to an unethical practice why don't you just not play the game?
Or is being annoyed a license to do whatever you want?I agree.
Consumers should do the ethical thing and buy a law that allows them to reverse engineer the key.
Wait, what, consumers cannot afford the politicians to buy laws like this?
Only big money like game companies and the MMPA can?Boy, I think it is time for consumers to learn their place and just shut up and take it.As this is the internet and I'm not clarifying, you can make up your own mind about whether  "shut up and take it" is suggesting piracy as a fair countermeasure or whether it is sarcasm suggesting that consumers learn to live like domestic abuse victims or prison b1tches.PS: hey look this DVD I just bought has an unskippable "you're a thief" add and warnings.
I'm so glad I can't return it, due to the DMCA.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1835209.31486686</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1835209.31486686</id>
	<title>Re:I will never pay for DLC</title>
	<author>Gulthek</author>
	<datestamp>1268686620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Here's an idea, rather than resorting to an unethical practice why don't you just not play the game? Or is being annoyed a license to do whatever you want?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Here 's an idea , rather than resorting to an unethical practice why do n't you just not play the game ?
Or is being annoyed a license to do whatever you want ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Here's an idea, rather than resorting to an unethical practice why don't you just not play the game?
Or is being annoyed a license to do whatever you want?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1835209.31486382</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1835209.31486306</id>
	<title>Re:5 dollar patch</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268685420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
It gives customer the impression that they're being nickel-and-dimed to death.
Maybe if the main game were cheap ($20 or so) they could get away with a $5 multiplayer addon, but at normal videogame prices that stuff's not going to fly.
</p><p>
I was following <i>Cities XL</i> when they tried to pull that sort of garbage on people, and laughed when they pulled their "planet offer" for not attracting enough interest. Yeah, $5/mo for something like that's a little steep, guys, especially when you leave out features which the demo implied would be present (like mass transit: buses, trains, and such...) All in all, that was rather sad. (I found <i>Societies</i> to be more fun, and that's saying something.) The amazing part was the extent to which the fanboys went out of their way to justify this pricing model, and lashed out at people who felt they were duped and set out complaining about it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It gives customer the impression that they 're being nickel-and-dimed to death .
Maybe if the main game were cheap ( $ 20 or so ) they could get away with a $ 5 multiplayer addon , but at normal videogame prices that stuff 's not going to fly .
I was following Cities XL when they tried to pull that sort of garbage on people , and laughed when they pulled their " planet offer " for not attracting enough interest .
Yeah , $ 5/mo for something like that 's a little steep , guys , especially when you leave out features which the demo implied would be present ( like mass transit : buses , trains , and such... ) All in all , that was rather sad .
( I found Societies to be more fun , and that 's saying something .
) The amazing part was the extent to which the fanboys went out of their way to justify this pricing model , and lashed out at people who felt they were duped and set out complaining about it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
It gives customer the impression that they're being nickel-and-dimed to death.
Maybe if the main game were cheap ($20 or so) they could get away with a $5 multiplayer addon, but at normal videogame prices that stuff's not going to fly.
I was following Cities XL when they tried to pull that sort of garbage on people, and laughed when they pulled their "planet offer" for not attracting enough interest.
Yeah, $5/mo for something like that's a little steep, guys, especially when you leave out features which the demo implied would be present (like mass transit: buses, trains, and such...) All in all, that was rather sad.
(I found Societies to be more fun, and that's saying something.
) The amazing part was the extent to which the fanboys went out of their way to justify this pricing model, and lashed out at people who felt they were duped and set out complaining about it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1835209.31486178</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1835209.31488972</id>
	<title>Re:I will never pay for DLC</title>
	<author>Lord\_Alex</author>
	<datestamp>1268653200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Absolutely it is a license to do whatever you want, simply because they don't offer refunds.<p>
My particular gripe: Fallout 3 for Playstation 3. I purchased the game, had great fun. Purchased all the expansion packs and 1 of them just doesn't work (system locks up within 20 minutes max) and the other I can't get into at all (system locks up trying to enter it). </p><p>Search the forums for these issues and they are well known bugs. That is unacceptable. I bought two products and can't use them at all. It's almost as if nobody even play-tested the DLC for PS3.
</p><p>
Can I return the defective product? Absolutely not. So I pirated the game for PC because it works better. Will I purchase DLC again? Probably not until I've play-tested it. </p><p>There's an old saying in Tennessee &mdash; I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee &mdash; that says, fool me once, shame on... shame on you. Fool me..... You can't get fooled again.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Absolutely it is a license to do whatever you want , simply because they do n't offer refunds .
My particular gripe : Fallout 3 for Playstation 3 .
I purchased the game , had great fun .
Purchased all the expansion packs and 1 of them just does n't work ( system locks up within 20 minutes max ) and the other I ca n't get into at all ( system locks up trying to enter it ) .
Search the forums for these issues and they are well known bugs .
That is unacceptable .
I bought two products and ca n't use them at all .
It 's almost as if nobody even play-tested the DLC for PS3 .
Can I return the defective product ?
Absolutely not .
So I pirated the game for PC because it works better .
Will I purchase DLC again ?
Probably not until I 've play-tested it .
There 's an old saying in Tennessee    I know it 's in Texas , probably in Tennessee    that says , fool me once , shame on... shame on you .
Fool me..... You ca n't get fooled again .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Absolutely it is a license to do whatever you want, simply because they don't offer refunds.
My particular gripe: Fallout 3 for Playstation 3.
I purchased the game, had great fun.
Purchased all the expansion packs and 1 of them just doesn't work (system locks up within 20 minutes max) and the other I can't get into at all (system locks up trying to enter it).
Search the forums for these issues and they are well known bugs.
That is unacceptable.
I bought two products and can't use them at all.
It's almost as if nobody even play-tested the DLC for PS3.
Can I return the defective product?
Absolutely not.
So I pirated the game for PC because it works better.
Will I purchase DLC again?
Probably not until I've play-tested it.
There's an old saying in Tennessee — I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee — that says, fool me once, shame on... shame on you.
Fool me..... You can't get fooled again.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1835209.31486686</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1835209.31490348</id>
	<title>Re:I will never pay for DLC</title>
	<author>waspleg</author>
	<datestamp>1268661120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No, it's more akin to them putting wax paper around the cheese and putting it on the burger then wanting to charge you for removing it, after you already got the burger and paid for it.  (sorry I'm working within your bad analogy)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No , it 's more akin to them putting wax paper around the cheese and putting it on the burger then wanting to charge you for removing it , after you already got the burger and paid for it .
( sorry I 'm working within your bad analogy )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No, it's more akin to them putting wax paper around the cheese and putting it on the burger then wanting to charge you for removing it, after you already got the burger and paid for it.
(sorry I'm working within your bad analogy)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1835209.31486922</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1835209.31486910</id>
	<title>Complete scam</title>
	<author>thetoadwarrior</author>
	<datestamp>1268644200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Personally I think it should be illegal to make someone pay for a bit of game they already have on the disk. Compatibility isn't a problem. An models that users don't have can default to something else just like the Quake games have always done.
<br> <br>
It's just an awful way of bumping up the price of the game without doing so on the box. If they had offered the game cheaper upon the initial purchase then fair enough that would be a bit more acceptable but that's not the case.
<br> <br>
If they can't afford to make these games then either their games aren't good enough of there is something  fundamentally wrong with their business model and it needs to change so they don't have to nickel&amp; dime people to death.
<br> <br>
Let's not forget this game shipped some of it's development off shore to China where they almost certainly saved boats by paying those developers what is almost certainly a fraction of what they would have paid western developers.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Personally I think it should be illegal to make someone pay for a bit of game they already have on the disk .
Compatibility is n't a problem .
An models that users do n't have can default to something else just like the Quake games have always done .
It 's just an awful way of bumping up the price of the game without doing so on the box .
If they had offered the game cheaper upon the initial purchase then fair enough that would be a bit more acceptable but that 's not the case .
If they ca n't afford to make these games then either their games are n't good enough of there is something fundamentally wrong with their business model and it needs to change so they do n't have to nickel&amp; dime people to death .
Let 's not forget this game shipped some of it 's development off shore to China where they almost certainly saved boats by paying those developers what is almost certainly a fraction of what they would have paid western developers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Personally I think it should be illegal to make someone pay for a bit of game they already have on the disk.
Compatibility isn't a problem.
An models that users don't have can default to something else just like the Quake games have always done.
It's just an awful way of bumping up the price of the game without doing so on the box.
If they had offered the game cheaper upon the initial purchase then fair enough that would be a bit more acceptable but that's not the case.
If they can't afford to make these games then either their games aren't good enough of there is something  fundamentally wrong with their business model and it needs to change so they don't have to nickel&amp; dime people to death.
Let's not forget this game shipped some of it's development off shore to China where they almost certainly saved boats by paying those developers what is almost certainly a fraction of what they would have paid western developers.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1835209.31488244</id>
	<title>Re:I will never pay for DLC</title>
	<author>Idiomatick</author>
	<datestamp>1268649420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>In the case of a whopper you would actually be depriving them of something. In the case of a person not buying the game anyways they aren't losing fuck all.<br> <br>Today I was at KFC, got some chicken they asked if i wanted gravy with my fries and i said sure. I notice 5 minutes later that they charged me $1.40 (the fries were markedly less)! This is sort of the same situation, they sneakily charge you a bunch extra or withhold part of the product. Clearly that is underhanded. In my case I bitched and got my money back. Similarly, Bioshock should be prepared to get a lot of backlash, either in the form of massive piracy or people wanting their money back (which sadly will likely not be given).</htmltext>
<tokenext>In the case of a whopper you would actually be depriving them of something .
In the case of a person not buying the game anyways they are n't losing fuck all .
Today I was at KFC , got some chicken they asked if i wanted gravy with my fries and i said sure .
I notice 5 minutes later that they charged me $ 1.40 ( the fries were markedly less ) !
This is sort of the same situation , they sneakily charge you a bunch extra or withhold part of the product .
Clearly that is underhanded .
In my case I bitched and got my money back .
Similarly , Bioshock should be prepared to get a lot of backlash , either in the form of massive piracy or people wanting their money back ( which sadly will likely not be given ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In the case of a whopper you would actually be depriving them of something.
In the case of a person not buying the game anyways they aren't losing fuck all.
Today I was at KFC, got some chicken they asked if i wanted gravy with my fries and i said sure.
I notice 5 minutes later that they charged me $1.40 (the fries were markedly less)!
This is sort of the same situation, they sneakily charge you a bunch extra or withhold part of the product.
Clearly that is underhanded.
In my case I bitched and got my money back.
Similarly, Bioshock should be prepared to get a lot of backlash, either in the form of massive piracy or people wanting their money back (which sadly will likely not be given).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1835209.31486922</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1835209.31490300</id>
	<title>Meh</title>
	<author>Rix</author>
	<datestamp>1268660820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Like most people, I don't really give a shit about copyright. I don't see anything wrong with piracy, but I do buy some things.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Like most people , I do n't really give a shit about copyright .
I do n't see anything wrong with piracy , but I do buy some things .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Like most people, I don't really give a shit about copyright.
I don't see anything wrong with piracy, but I do buy some things.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1835209.31486674</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1835209.31487054</id>
	<title>I'm sorry, what?</title>
	<author>Dorkmaster Flek</author>
	<datestamp>1268644740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>So your game doesn't support playing with people if they don't have the exact same code?  Sounds to me like your game is broken.  Why the hell can't you make it work so that I can play with my friend who has the DLC when I don't?  As long as we're not using the new DLC maps/weapons/whatever, that shouldn't be a problem.  Admittedly, I haven't played Bioshock 2 and I don't know exactly how the multiplayer works, but that sure sounds like a bullshit excuse to me.</htmltext>
<tokenext>So your game does n't support playing with people if they do n't have the exact same code ?
Sounds to me like your game is broken .
Why the hell ca n't you make it work so that I can play with my friend who has the DLC when I do n't ?
As long as we 're not using the new DLC maps/weapons/whatever , that should n't be a problem .
Admittedly , I have n't played Bioshock 2 and I do n't know exactly how the multiplayer works , but that sure sounds like a bullshit excuse to me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So your game doesn't support playing with people if they don't have the exact same code?
Sounds to me like your game is broken.
Why the hell can't you make it work so that I can play with my friend who has the DLC when I don't?
As long as we're not using the new DLC maps/weapons/whatever, that shouldn't be a problem.
Admittedly, I haven't played Bioshock 2 and I don't know exactly how the multiplayer works, but that sure sounds like a bullshit excuse to me.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1835209.31486628</id>
	<title>Re:I will never pay for DLC</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268686440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Right, so you feel entitled to playing these games. Good for you.</p><p>Do you also agree with other similar situations? For example, I'm aware of several GPL violations in commercial products I work on, in fact, I have worked quite a bit in these code bases and I have also used GPL'd code myself. These softwares aren't sold as services so they are in direct violation of the GPL. And no, you can't have the source, even if you paid for it. I also know for a fact that this company feel entitled to using GPL'd code, we have even had meetings about it. Our product manager more or less said the exact same thing as you, "I'll pay once, no more". And in this context of course meaning the developers' salaries, and the no more part about not paying for code that has already been written.</p><p>No, I don't respect the GPL and just as you a going somewhat for the troll moderation, I also get warm inside knowing that many Linux fanboys will be directly offended by my post, without being able to do anything about it (code from the Linux kernel has been used for example).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Right , so you feel entitled to playing these games .
Good for you.Do you also agree with other similar situations ?
For example , I 'm aware of several GPL violations in commercial products I work on , in fact , I have worked quite a bit in these code bases and I have also used GPL 'd code myself .
These softwares are n't sold as services so they are in direct violation of the GPL .
And no , you ca n't have the source , even if you paid for it .
I also know for a fact that this company feel entitled to using GPL 'd code , we have even had meetings about it .
Our product manager more or less said the exact same thing as you , " I 'll pay once , no more " .
And in this context of course meaning the developers ' salaries , and the no more part about not paying for code that has already been written.No , I do n't respect the GPL and just as you a going somewhat for the troll moderation , I also get warm inside knowing that many Linux fanboys will be directly offended by my post , without being able to do anything about it ( code from the Linux kernel has been used for example ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Right, so you feel entitled to playing these games.
Good for you.Do you also agree with other similar situations?
For example, I'm aware of several GPL violations in commercial products I work on, in fact, I have worked quite a bit in these code bases and I have also used GPL'd code myself.
These softwares aren't sold as services so they are in direct violation of the GPL.
And no, you can't have the source, even if you paid for it.
I also know for a fact that this company feel entitled to using GPL'd code, we have even had meetings about it.
Our product manager more or less said the exact same thing as you, "I'll pay once, no more".
And in this context of course meaning the developers' salaries, and the no more part about not paying for code that has already been written.No, I don't respect the GPL and just as you a going somewhat for the troll moderation, I also get warm inside knowing that many Linux fanboys will be directly offended by my post, without being able to do anything about it (code from the Linux kernel has been used for example).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1835209.31486382</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_15_1835209_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1835209.31488296
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1835209.31486688
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1835209.31486382
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_15_1835209_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1835209.31488972
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1835209.31486686
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1835209.31486382
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_15_1835209_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1835209.31490298
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1835209.31486426
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1835209.31486178
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_15_1835209_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1835209.31487516
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1835209.31486306
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1835209.31486178
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_15_1835209_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1835209.31486628
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1835209.31486382
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_15_1835209_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1835209.31488244
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1835209.31486922
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1835209.31486382
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_15_1835209_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1835209.31487372
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1835209.31486910
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_15_1835209_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1835209.31488630
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1835209.31486426
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1835209.31486178
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_15_1835209_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1835209.31503868
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1835209.31486306
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1835209.31486178
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_15_1835209_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1835209.31490158
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1835209.31488052
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1835209.31486426
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1835209.31486178
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_15_1835209_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1835209.31491970
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1835209.31486922
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1835209.31486382
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_15_1835209_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1835209.31487822
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1835209.31486686
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1835209.31486382
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_15_1835209_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1835209.31489164
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1835209.31486688
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1835209.31486382
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_15_1835209_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1835209.31490534
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1835209.31486922
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1835209.31486382
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_15_1835209_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1835209.31489064
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1835209.31486686
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1835209.31486382
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_15_1835209_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1835209.31488726
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1835209.31486686
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1835209.31486382
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_15_1835209_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1835209.31490338
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1835209.31486688
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1835209.31486382
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_15_1835209_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1835209.31489222
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1835209.31486922
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1835209.31486382
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_15_1835209_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1835209.31497934
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1835209.31487510
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_15_1835209_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1835209.31486700
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1835209.31486382
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_15_1835209_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1835209.31487504
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1835209.31486910
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_15_1835209_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1835209.31489458
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1835209.31486688
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1835209.31486382
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_15_1835209_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1835209.31487756
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1835209.31486306
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1835209.31486178
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_15_1835209_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1835209.31487658
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1835209.31486686
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1835209.31486382
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_15_1835209_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1835209.31486602
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1835209.31486382
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_15_1835209_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1835209.31490330
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1835209.31486688
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1835209.31486382
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_15_1835209_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1835209.31488966
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1835209.31486688
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1835209.31486382
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_15_1835209_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1835209.31488380
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1835209.31486686
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1835209.31486382
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_15_1835209_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1835209.31487466
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1835209.31486686
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1835209.31486382
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_15_1835209_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1835209.31490322
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1835209.31486686
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1835209.31486382
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_15_1835209_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1835209.31490348
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1835209.31486922
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1835209.31486382
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_15_1835209_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1835209.31504908
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1835209.31490410
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1835209.31486922
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1835209.31486382
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_15_1835209_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1835209.31492038
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1835209.31486912
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_15_1835209_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1835209.31488988
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1835209.31486884
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_15_1835209_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1835209.31490622
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1835209.31488964
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_15_1835209_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1835209.31487852
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1835209.31486910
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_15_1835209_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1835209.31504448
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1835209.31487416
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_15_1835209_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1835209.31490300
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1835209.31486674
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1835209.31486382
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_15_1835209.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1835209.31486912
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1835209.31492038
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_15_1835209.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1835209.31487456
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_15_1835209.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1835209.31487668
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_15_1835209.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1835209.31487312
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_15_1835209.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1835209.31488964
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1835209.31490622
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_15_1835209.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1835209.31533512
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_15_1835209.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1835209.31487510
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1835209.31497934
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_15_1835209.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1835209.31487146
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_15_1835209.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1835209.31492244
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_15_1835209.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1835209.31486884
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1835209.31488988
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_15_1835209.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1835209.31486178
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1835209.31486426
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1835209.31488630
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1835209.31488052
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1835209.31490158
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1835209.31490298
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1835209.31486306
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1835209.31487756
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1835209.31503868
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1835209.31487516
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_15_1835209.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1835209.31486910
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1835209.31487372
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1835209.31487852
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1835209.31487504
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_15_1835209.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1835209.31487054
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_15_1835209.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1835209.31487570
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_15_1835209.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1835209.31487416
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1835209.31504448
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_15_1835209.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1835209.31486382
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1835209.31486674
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1835209.31490300
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1835209.31486688
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1835209.31489458
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1835209.31490338
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1835209.31490330
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1835209.31489164
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1835209.31488966
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1835209.31488296
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1835209.31486700
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1835209.31486922
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1835209.31490348
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1835209.31491970
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1835209.31489222
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1835209.31488244
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1835209.31490410
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1835209.31504908
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1835209.31490534
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1835209.31486686
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1835209.31488972
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1835209.31487658
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1835209.31488380
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1835209.31487466
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1835209.31488726
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1835209.31490322
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1835209.31487822
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1835209.31489064
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1835209.31486602
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_15_1835209.31486628
</commentlist>
</conversation>
