<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_06_04_236201</id>
	<title>Publishers Want a Slice of Used Game Market</title>
	<author>timothy</author>
	<datestamp>1244113920000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>grigory writes <i>"GameStop's business model depends on a healthy flow of used games: incredibly '[GameStop] enjoys a 48 percent profit margin on used games.' Game publishers do not see a cut of the secondary sale because it falls under the first sale doctrine. Now, some
<a href="http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/06/04/BUDA17R8RG.DTL">publishers and manufacturers want a piece of the pie</a>. 'One marketing executive, who did not want to be identified for fear of angering GameStop and other retailers, said the used game sale market is still depriving publishers of money because it gives consumers an all-too-easy alternative to buying a new game.' Interesting picture of companies fighting for your business, and (surprise!) complaining about being left out of the money stream."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>grigory writes " GameStop 's business model depends on a healthy flow of used games : incredibly ' [ GameStop ] enjoys a 48 percent profit margin on used games .
' Game publishers do not see a cut of the secondary sale because it falls under the first sale doctrine .
Now , some publishers and manufacturers want a piece of the pie .
'One marketing executive , who did not want to be identified for fear of angering GameStop and other retailers , said the used game sale market is still depriving publishers of money because it gives consumers an all-too-easy alternative to buying a new game .
' Interesting picture of companies fighting for your business , and ( surprise !
) complaining about being left out of the money stream .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>grigory writes "GameStop's business model depends on a healthy flow of used games: incredibly '[GameStop] enjoys a 48 percent profit margin on used games.
' Game publishers do not see a cut of the secondary sale because it falls under the first sale doctrine.
Now, some
publishers and manufacturers want a piece of the pie.
'One marketing executive, who did not want to be identified for fear of angering GameStop and other retailers, said the used game sale market is still depriving publishers of money because it gives consumers an all-too-easy alternative to buying a new game.
' Interesting picture of companies fighting for your business, and (surprise!
) complaining about being left out of the money stream.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28217367</id>
	<title>Re:If a used bookstore can sell used books...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244124360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Area = Width * Height, so the paperback publishers should test out how the readers would react to decreasing the Height of the book and increasing the Width by the same difference. It would maintain the same surface area but reduce the length of the inside vertical margin and the amount of wasted space reserved for the binding. If they did so, they should also print in 2 column paragraphs because paperback novels are sized according to paragraph widths optimal for long reading sessions.</p><p>I don't see why it wouldn't work, since comic book collections and art books are often printed in wide format. For larger technical paperbacks (such as manuals), the diagrams could be positioned to the sides of the paragraphs.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Area = Width * Height , so the paperback publishers should test out how the readers would react to decreasing the Height of the book and increasing the Width by the same difference .
It would maintain the same surface area but reduce the length of the inside vertical margin and the amount of wasted space reserved for the binding .
If they did so , they should also print in 2 column paragraphs because paperback novels are sized according to paragraph widths optimal for long reading sessions.I do n't see why it would n't work , since comic book collections and art books are often printed in wide format .
For larger technical paperbacks ( such as manuals ) , the diagrams could be positioned to the sides of the paragraphs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Area = Width * Height, so the paperback publishers should test out how the readers would react to decreasing the Height of the book and increasing the Width by the same difference.
It would maintain the same surface area but reduce the length of the inside vertical margin and the amount of wasted space reserved for the binding.
If they did so, they should also print in 2 column paragraphs because paperback novels are sized according to paragraph widths optimal for long reading sessions.I don't see why it wouldn't work, since comic book collections and art books are often printed in wide format.
For larger technical paperbacks (such as manuals), the diagrams could be positioned to the sides of the paragraphs.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28216635</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28216647</id>
	<title>17 USC 109 distinguishes among formats</title>
	<author>tepples</author>
	<datestamp>1244118960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>If a bookstore can sell used books without giving any money to the publisher, I fail to see why a game store can't sell used games.</p></div><p>First sale laws already distinguish among formats of works. In the United States, for instance, you can't rent phonorecords (copies of sound recordings) or copies of PC games without the copyright owner's consent (17 USC 109).</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If a bookstore can sell used books without giving any money to the publisher , I fail to see why a game store ca n't sell used games.First sale laws already distinguish among formats of works .
In the United States , for instance , you ca n't rent phonorecords ( copies of sound recordings ) or copies of PC games without the copyright owner 's consent ( 17 USC 109 ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If a bookstore can sell used books without giving any money to the publisher, I fail to see why a game store can't sell used games.First sale laws already distinguish among formats of works.
In the United States, for instance, you can't rent phonorecords (copies of sound recordings) or copies of PC games without the copyright owner's consent (17 USC 109).
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28216405</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28216817</id>
	<title>Here's an idea....</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244119980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Make a good game that people will want to play over and over and<nobr> <wbr></nobr>,*gasp*, keep!!!!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Make a good game that people will want to play over and over and , * gasp * , keep ! ! !
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Make a good game that people will want to play over and over and ,*gasp*, keep!!!
!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28218333</id>
	<title>Companies hates sales</title>
	<author>Kjella</author>
	<datestamp>1244135400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A "sale" is really a very specific contract, and one that's quite friendly to the consumers. They've been trying since forever to do an end-run around this with sales-like licenses, which they failed for books yet managed to push through for software. There's absolutely no reason why there should need to be any form of license, what you're not allowed to do is covered by copyright law. The whole idea that I don't OWN a DVD in the same way that I OWN a car, even though there's many other copies of both the DVD and the car is bullshit. I wish countries would have the balls to stand up and declare EULAs basicly null and void, it's sold and covered by copyright law and if you don't like it go away.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A " sale " is really a very specific contract , and one that 's quite friendly to the consumers .
They 've been trying since forever to do an end-run around this with sales-like licenses , which they failed for books yet managed to push through for software .
There 's absolutely no reason why there should need to be any form of license , what you 're not allowed to do is covered by copyright law .
The whole idea that I do n't OWN a DVD in the same way that I OWN a car , even though there 's many other copies of both the DVD and the car is bullshit .
I wish countries would have the balls to stand up and declare EULAs basicly null and void , it 's sold and covered by copyright law and if you do n't like it go away .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A "sale" is really a very specific contract, and one that's quite friendly to the consumers.
They've been trying since forever to do an end-run around this with sales-like licenses, which they failed for books yet managed to push through for software.
There's absolutely no reason why there should need to be any form of license, what you're not allowed to do is covered by copyright law.
The whole idea that I don't OWN a DVD in the same way that I OWN a car, even though there's many other copies of both the DVD and the car is bullshit.
I wish countries would have the balls to stand up and declare EULAs basicly null and void, it's sold and covered by copyright law and if you don't like it go away.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28216633</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28222635</id>
	<title>Re:There will still be publishers</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244217600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Private means they can't just sell stock to raise money.</i></p><p>Private companies can and do sell stock - its just not publicly traded.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Private means they ca n't just sell stock to raise money.Private companies can and do sell stock - its just not publicly traded .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Private means they can't just sell stock to raise money.Private companies can and do sell stock - its just not publicly traded.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28216571</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28221325</id>
	<title>Re:What party games market?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244211900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>However, splitscreen multiplayer sucks more.  That's one advantage of PC, at least -- even if we're playing co-op, I can't see your screen, and we each have a nice, big, high-res, fullscreen picture of whatever we're doing.</p></div><p>I'd still rather play a split screen than have to lug two or more computers into the same room.  Also, many console multiplayer games offer LAN options if you really want separate systems and TVs.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>However , splitscreen multiplayer sucks more .
That 's one advantage of PC , at least -- even if we 're playing co-op , I ca n't see your screen , and we each have a nice , big , high-res , fullscreen picture of whatever we 're doing.I 'd still rather play a split screen than have to lug two or more computers into the same room .
Also , many console multiplayer games offer LAN options if you really want separate systems and TVs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>However, splitscreen multiplayer sucks more.
That's one advantage of PC, at least -- even if we're playing co-op, I can't see your screen, and we each have a nice, big, high-res, fullscreen picture of whatever we're doing.I'd still rather play a split screen than have to lug two or more computers into the same room.
Also, many console multiplayer games offer LAN options if you really want separate systems and TVs.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28216865</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28217409</id>
	<title>Next Gen Sales</title>
	<author>Trailwalker</author>
	<datestamp>1244124780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Whenever I venture into a Gamestop, I have to be careful not to step on small semi-sentient creatures scurrying around at my knee level.  The places are crawling with them.<br> <br>

There is constant buzzing going on, mostly "have you played this one?" and various slang expressions showing approval or no for a game.<br> <br>
If the sales of used games are really eliminated, the next generation of games buyers will be greatly reduced.  Not all kids have the unlimited allowances that permit them to purchase every new game that gets released.<br>I suspect too, that the informal exchanges between these young gamers influence their choices more than any online game review. <br> <br>Publishers need to be very careful, they might get what they wish for.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Whenever I venture into a Gamestop , I have to be careful not to step on small semi-sentient creatures scurrying around at my knee level .
The places are crawling with them .
There is constant buzzing going on , mostly " have you played this one ?
" and various slang expressions showing approval or no for a game .
If the sales of used games are really eliminated , the next generation of games buyers will be greatly reduced .
Not all kids have the unlimited allowances that permit them to purchase every new game that gets released.I suspect too , that the informal exchanges between these young gamers influence their choices more than any online game review .
Publishers need to be very careful , they might get what they wish for .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Whenever I venture into a Gamestop, I have to be careful not to step on small semi-sentient creatures scurrying around at my knee level.
The places are crawling with them.
There is constant buzzing going on, mostly "have you played this one?
" and various slang expressions showing approval or no for a game.
If the sales of used games are really eliminated, the next generation of games buyers will be greatly reduced.
Not all kids have the unlimited allowances that permit them to purchase every new game that gets released.I suspect too, that the informal exchanges between these young gamers influence their choices more than any online game review.
Publishers need to be very careful, they might get what they wish for.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28219023</id>
	<title>Money for Nothing</title>
	<author>InsertCleverUsername</author>
	<datestamp>1244143380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>"the used game sale market is still depriving publishers of money because it gives consumers an all-too-easy alternative to buying a new game."</p></div><p>Logically, these geniuses will be going after sex, food, and sleep next --activities you could be engaged in (instead of gaming) that are stealing money from the pockets of $60+ video game makers.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>" the used game sale market is still depriving publishers of money because it gives consumers an all-too-easy alternative to buying a new game .
" Logically , these geniuses will be going after sex , food , and sleep next --activities you could be engaged in ( instead of gaming ) that are stealing money from the pockets of $ 60 + video game makers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"the used game sale market is still depriving publishers of money because it gives consumers an all-too-easy alternative to buying a new game.
"Logically, these geniuses will be going after sex, food, and sleep next --activities you could be engaged in (instead of gaming) that are stealing money from the pockets of $60+ video game makers.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28230905</id>
	<title>If publishers want my money it's not hard to get</title>
	<author>seventhevening</author>
	<datestamp>1244321400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm perfectly willing to shell out for a new game over a used game, only under certain circumstances: <br> <br>
1. If there is a physical incentive. Give me a pretty artbook or batarang or soundtrack or something. I hate digital incentives though, because it makes me feel like part of the game itself is locked down for people who couldn't preorder it. I think physical incentives are rewards for those who buy it new, while digital incentives are punishments for those who buy used (or hell, sometimes just later). That's more likely to convince me not to buy it.
<br> <br>
2. Limited run games. I always buy things I know I'm going to like, but might be harder to get later. Examples are Atlus games or Fatal Frames. Really not a good business strategy though, I would think.
<br> <br>
3. Desire to vote with my wallet. Not that common, but I'm pre-ordering and buying Monster Hunter Freedom Unite as soon as it is released since I want Capcom to get money for it. I want them to release Monster Hunter 3, so I'm attempting to vote with my wallet.
<br> <br>
While publishers/developers don't have much control about number 3, and 2 isn't really good for business, 1 is pretty cheap and easy for them to do. It's not that hard to compile some art and throw together an artbook, or print a special poster or something, but it goes a long way for me feeling that it is worth the extra money to buy it new.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm perfectly willing to shell out for a new game over a used game , only under certain circumstances : 1 .
If there is a physical incentive .
Give me a pretty artbook or batarang or soundtrack or something .
I hate digital incentives though , because it makes me feel like part of the game itself is locked down for people who could n't preorder it .
I think physical incentives are rewards for those who buy it new , while digital incentives are punishments for those who buy used ( or hell , sometimes just later ) .
That 's more likely to convince me not to buy it .
2. Limited run games .
I always buy things I know I 'm going to like , but might be harder to get later .
Examples are Atlus games or Fatal Frames .
Really not a good business strategy though , I would think .
3. Desire to vote with my wallet .
Not that common , but I 'm pre-ordering and buying Monster Hunter Freedom Unite as soon as it is released since I want Capcom to get money for it .
I want them to release Monster Hunter 3 , so I 'm attempting to vote with my wallet .
While publishers/developers do n't have much control about number 3 , and 2 is n't really good for business , 1 is pretty cheap and easy for them to do .
It 's not that hard to compile some art and throw together an artbook , or print a special poster or something , but it goes a long way for me feeling that it is worth the extra money to buy it new .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm perfectly willing to shell out for a new game over a used game, only under certain circumstances:  
1.
If there is a physical incentive.
Give me a pretty artbook or batarang or soundtrack or something.
I hate digital incentives though, because it makes me feel like part of the game itself is locked down for people who couldn't preorder it.
I think physical incentives are rewards for those who buy it new, while digital incentives are punishments for those who buy used (or hell, sometimes just later).
That's more likely to convince me not to buy it.
2. Limited run games.
I always buy things I know I'm going to like, but might be harder to get later.
Examples are Atlus games or Fatal Frames.
Really not a good business strategy though, I would think.
3. Desire to vote with my wallet.
Not that common, but I'm pre-ordering and buying Monster Hunter Freedom Unite as soon as it is released since I want Capcom to get money for it.
I want them to release Monster Hunter 3, so I'm attempting to vote with my wallet.
While publishers/developers don't have much control about number 3, and 2 isn't really good for business, 1 is pretty cheap and easy for them to do.
It's not that hard to compile some art and throw together an artbook, or print a special poster or something, but it goes a long way for me feeling that it is worth the extra money to buy it new.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28216475</id>
	<title>Re:What used games market?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244118060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Maybe someone should tell you Valve fanboys a couple of things:</p><p>1. There's no Steam for the Nintendo DS.  (as an example)</p><p>2. There's a booming used market for handheld and console games.  I bought all of my Castlevania GBA games used, for example - along with New Super Mario Bros. and several other titles.</p><p>While Sony and Nintendo are slowly moving towards more and more DLC and downloaded games, they don't come with manuals or boxes and they're not <i>portable</i> in the sense that you can pull the cartridge (or optical media or whatever) out of your backpack and toss it to a friend to check out.  The "downloadable" option isn't available for older machines - the heart of the used market, and where the "economically disadvantaged" buy their games.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe someone should tell you Valve fanboys a couple of things : 1 .
There 's no Steam for the Nintendo DS .
( as an example ) 2 .
There 's a booming used market for handheld and console games .
I bought all of my Castlevania GBA games used , for example - along with New Super Mario Bros. and several other titles.While Sony and Nintendo are slowly moving towards more and more DLC and downloaded games , they do n't come with manuals or boxes and they 're not portable in the sense that you can pull the cartridge ( or optical media or whatever ) out of your backpack and toss it to a friend to check out .
The " downloadable " option is n't available for older machines - the heart of the used market , and where the " economically disadvantaged " buy their games .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe someone should tell you Valve fanboys a couple of things:1.
There's no Steam for the Nintendo DS.
(as an example)2.
There's a booming used market for handheld and console games.
I bought all of my Castlevania GBA games used, for example - along with New Super Mario Bros. and several other titles.While Sony and Nintendo are slowly moving towards more and more DLC and downloaded games, they don't come with manuals or boxes and they're not portable in the sense that you can pull the cartridge (or optical media or whatever) out of your backpack and toss it to a friend to check out.
The "downloadable" option isn't available for older machines - the heart of the used market, and where the "economically disadvantaged" buy their games.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28216401</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28221513</id>
	<title>We could have saved GM</title>
	<author>RalphSouth</author>
	<datestamp>1244212680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No need for bankruptcy, just require that every used car lot with a rusted Chevy pay a little stipend to GM when they finally sell the turkey.  You could expand the idea to include a charge for replacing components with non-standard parts (violation of reverse engineering clauses).  Maybe you could even get tow companies to pay.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No need for bankruptcy , just require that every used car lot with a rusted Chevy pay a little stipend to GM when they finally sell the turkey .
You could expand the idea to include a charge for replacing components with non-standard parts ( violation of reverse engineering clauses ) .
Maybe you could even get tow companies to pay .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No need for bankruptcy, just require that every used car lot with a rusted Chevy pay a little stipend to GM when they finally sell the turkey.
You could expand the idea to include a charge for replacing components with non-standard parts (violation of reverse engineering clauses).
Maybe you could even get tow companies to pay.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28223277</id>
	<title>Let's apply this fairly</title>
	<author>Teilo</author>
	<datestamp>1244220000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What do you suppose would happen if the Book publishing industry went to Congress and demanded that all used bookstores pay a percentage of all book sales back to the book publishers?</p><p>How far would the Electronics and Jewelry industry get if they demanded that pawn shops do the same to them?</p><p>Used video games are not infinite goods. A book, a video game, a stereo system, and a diamond ring are, as far as the law is concerned, indistinguishable from one another. When you buy one, it is <i>yours</i>. It no longer belongs to the person who sold it to you. You can do what you wish with it (aside from violating copyright). You can break it, burn it, or give it away.</p><p>I am astounded at the gall of these prima donas.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What do you suppose would happen if the Book publishing industry went to Congress and demanded that all used bookstores pay a percentage of all book sales back to the book publishers ? How far would the Electronics and Jewelry industry get if they demanded that pawn shops do the same to them ? Used video games are not infinite goods .
A book , a video game , a stereo system , and a diamond ring are , as far as the law is concerned , indistinguishable from one another .
When you buy one , it is yours .
It no longer belongs to the person who sold it to you .
You can do what you wish with it ( aside from violating copyright ) .
You can break it , burn it , or give it away.I am astounded at the gall of these prima donas .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What do you suppose would happen if the Book publishing industry went to Congress and demanded that all used bookstores pay a percentage of all book sales back to the book publishers?How far would the Electronics and Jewelry industry get if they demanded that pawn shops do the same to them?Used video games are not infinite goods.
A book, a video game, a stereo system, and a diamond ring are, as far as the law is concerned, indistinguishable from one another.
When you buy one, it is yours.
It no longer belongs to the person who sold it to you.
You can do what you wish with it (aside from violating copyright).
You can break it, burn it, or give it away.I am astounded at the gall of these prima donas.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28218867</id>
	<title>Re:devil's advocate</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244141700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>imho, they should sell the game on a flash-drive with encryption on a chip...  this would be far more effective, and less cumbersome that existing cd/dvd drm attempts.  flash drives are getting to a price point where this is a decent option.</htmltext>
<tokenext>imho , they should sell the game on a flash-drive with encryption on a chip... this would be far more effective , and less cumbersome that existing cd/dvd drm attempts .
flash drives are getting to a price point where this is a decent option .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>imho, they should sell the game on a flash-drive with encryption on a chip...  this would be far more effective, and less cumbersome that existing cd/dvd drm attempts.
flash drives are getting to a price point where this is a decent option.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28216611</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28221177</id>
	<title>Hmmm</title>
	<author>VenomPhallus</author>
	<datestamp>1244211060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't really have a problem with this, subject to one caveat. One of the reasons given for high game prices is that they have only small period of time to recoup their costs - the second hand market effectively prevents stuff selling more than a few months. So the people who want it in the first 6 weeks or so of release pay a hefty premium.</p><p>Drop the release price (and absorb that yourself rather than passing it on to the retailer) and I've no problem with them getting a cut of the 2nd hand costs to make up for it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't really have a problem with this , subject to one caveat .
One of the reasons given for high game prices is that they have only small period of time to recoup their costs - the second hand market effectively prevents stuff selling more than a few months .
So the people who want it in the first 6 weeks or so of release pay a hefty premium.Drop the release price ( and absorb that yourself rather than passing it on to the retailer ) and I 've no problem with them getting a cut of the 2nd hand costs to make up for it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't really have a problem with this, subject to one caveat.
One of the reasons given for high game prices is that they have only small period of time to recoup their costs - the second hand market effectively prevents stuff selling more than a few months.
So the people who want it in the first 6 weeks or so of release pay a hefty premium.Drop the release price (and absorb that yourself rather than passing it on to the retailer) and I've no problem with them getting a cut of the 2nd hand costs to make up for it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28218527</id>
	<title>Re:here's how they could threaten gamestop</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244137080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Right... Selling their product at a loss. That 'ill show them.</p><p>Even the cheapest console game costs several hundred thousand dollars to make. Nintendo Sony and Microsoft wont allow games on their platform unless is meets a minimum bar of quality (for example you need a miracle, suitcase of bribe money, and for the planets to be in alignment to make a 2d game for consoles these days), Nintendo Sony and Microsoft skim around $20 off of every sale, and the physical manufacturing, distribution, and advertisement, of the product is not free. Selling at half price is just not an option as you would loose money on each sale.</p><p>Unless a console game sells a million copies. New, not used. They usually lost money by making the game. And no amount of cost cutting is going to change those numbers in a significant way.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Right... Selling their product at a loss .
That 'ill show them.Even the cheapest console game costs several hundred thousand dollars to make .
Nintendo Sony and Microsoft wont allow games on their platform unless is meets a minimum bar of quality ( for example you need a miracle , suitcase of bribe money , and for the planets to be in alignment to make a 2d game for consoles these days ) , Nintendo Sony and Microsoft skim around $ 20 off of every sale , and the physical manufacturing , distribution , and advertisement , of the product is not free .
Selling at half price is just not an option as you would loose money on each sale.Unless a console game sells a million copies .
New , not used .
They usually lost money by making the game .
And no amount of cost cutting is going to change those numbers in a significant way .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Right... Selling their product at a loss.
That 'ill show them.Even the cheapest console game costs several hundred thousand dollars to make.
Nintendo Sony and Microsoft wont allow games on their platform unless is meets a minimum bar of quality (for example you need a miracle, suitcase of bribe money, and for the planets to be in alignment to make a 2d game for consoles these days), Nintendo Sony and Microsoft skim around $20 off of every sale, and the physical manufacturing, distribution, and advertisement, of the product is not free.
Selling at half price is just not an option as you would loose money on each sale.Unless a console game sells a million copies.
New, not used.
They usually lost money by making the game.
And no amount of cost cutting is going to change those numbers in a significant way.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28217053</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28216485</id>
	<title>What party games market?</title>
	<author>tepples</author>
	<datestamp>1244118180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Someone should tell them that, since Steam appeared there is no used games market.</p></div><p>Steam is for PCs running Windows. Most PC gamers don't think to connect their PC to their TV, despite the VGA input on the majority of HDTVs and the existence of <a href="http://sewelldirect.com/PC-to-TV-Converter.asp" title="sewelldirect.com">affordable VGA-to-SDTV converters</a> [sewelldirect.com]. Therefore, video game genres designed for same-room multiplayer on a large monitor, like Bomberman series or Super Smash Bros. series, tend to be underrepresented on Steam just as they are in the rest of the PC game market. Not everything is a first-person shooter.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Hell, come to think of it, now Steam's here, very soon there won't be such things as publishers!</p></div><p>Publishers exist to separate the wheat from the chaff. Otherwise, you'd have the situation like on Apple's app store, where you don't know which of the 25,000 apps are worthwhile.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Someone should tell them that , since Steam appeared there is no used games market.Steam is for PCs running Windows .
Most PC gamers do n't think to connect their PC to their TV , despite the VGA input on the majority of HDTVs and the existence of affordable VGA-to-SDTV converters [ sewelldirect.com ] .
Therefore , video game genres designed for same-room multiplayer on a large monitor , like Bomberman series or Super Smash Bros. series , tend to be underrepresented on Steam just as they are in the rest of the PC game market .
Not everything is a first-person shooter.Hell , come to think of it , now Steam 's here , very soon there wo n't be such things as publishers ! Publishers exist to separate the wheat from the chaff .
Otherwise , you 'd have the situation like on Apple 's app store , where you do n't know which of the 25,000 apps are worthwhile .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Someone should tell them that, since Steam appeared there is no used games market.Steam is for PCs running Windows.
Most PC gamers don't think to connect their PC to their TV, despite the VGA input on the majority of HDTVs and the existence of affordable VGA-to-SDTV converters [sewelldirect.com].
Therefore, video game genres designed for same-room multiplayer on a large monitor, like Bomberman series or Super Smash Bros. series, tend to be underrepresented on Steam just as they are in the rest of the PC game market.
Not everything is a first-person shooter.Hell, come to think of it, now Steam's here, very soon there won't be such things as publishers!Publishers exist to separate the wheat from the chaff.
Otherwise, you'd have the situation like on Apple's app store, where you don't know which of the 25,000 apps are worthwhile.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28216401</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28220727</id>
	<title>Sorry, am I missing something?</title>
	<author>garyok</author>
	<datestamp>1244208240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Why don't the publishers just buy shares in Gamestop and other second-hand retailers? Is there anything stopping them? Then they'd get a share of the profits on each and every resale with their dividends and they'd be benefitting at every price point. After first sale, every other sale is gravy. It might not be a lot but it's a lot more than nothing. How many other products can you just sell and sell and sell?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why do n't the publishers just buy shares in Gamestop and other second-hand retailers ?
Is there anything stopping them ?
Then they 'd get a share of the profits on each and every resale with their dividends and they 'd be benefitting at every price point .
After first sale , every other sale is gravy .
It might not be a lot but it 's a lot more than nothing .
How many other products can you just sell and sell and sell ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why don't the publishers just buy shares in Gamestop and other second-hand retailers?
Is there anything stopping them?
Then they'd get a share of the profits on each and every resale with their dividends and they'd be benefitting at every price point.
After first sale, every other sale is gravy.
It might not be a lot but it's a lot more than nothing.
How many other products can you just sell and sell and sell?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28218093</id>
	<title>Re:If a used bookstore can sell used books...</title>
	<author>edgr</author>
	<datestamp>1244132760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>
(Maybe I shouldn't be too loud about this but I'm sure the Post Office would love to get money from stamp collectors buying and selling their stamps. Or the Treasure Department and coins...)
</p></div><p>They already do. Stamp collectors buy stamps and never use them for postage - but they still pay the full price. Same with coins - they are bought from the Treasury.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>( Maybe I should n't be too loud about this but I 'm sure the Post Office would love to get money from stamp collectors buying and selling their stamps .
Or the Treasure Department and coins... ) They already do .
Stamp collectors buy stamps and never use them for postage - but they still pay the full price .
Same with coins - they are bought from the Treasury .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
(Maybe I shouldn't be too loud about this but I'm sure the Post Office would love to get money from stamp collectors buying and selling their stamps.
Or the Treasure Department and coins...)
They already do.
Stamp collectors buy stamps and never use them for postage - but they still pay the full price.
Same with coins - they are bought from the Treasury.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28216405</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28216835</id>
	<title>replay value...</title>
	<author>smash</author>
	<datestamp>1244120100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>... hell, first time playability.  concentrate on that rather than eking out 2 more fps or one more coloured lighting effect, and I'll keep your fucking game and replay it, rather than consigning it to the secondhand shop after 12 hours trying to get some of my money back.</htmltext>
<tokenext>... hell , first time playability .
concentrate on that rather than eking out 2 more fps or one more coloured lighting effect , and I 'll keep your fucking game and replay it , rather than consigning it to the secondhand shop after 12 hours trying to get some of my money back .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... hell, first time playability.
concentrate on that rather than eking out 2 more fps or one more coloured lighting effect, and I'll keep your fucking game and replay it, rather than consigning it to the secondhand shop after 12 hours trying to get some of my money back.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28220835</id>
	<title>Re:It's a basic principle</title>
	<author>ggroth9</author>
	<datestamp>1244209020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Maybe if GM forced the used car market to give them kickbacks, they wouldn't be in bankruptcy.

Actually, I wouldn't be surprised if this ends up being part of their restructuring plan.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe if GM forced the used car market to give them kickbacks , they would n't be in bankruptcy .
Actually , I would n't be surprised if this ends up being part of their restructuring plan .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe if GM forced the used car market to give them kickbacks, they wouldn't be in bankruptcy.
Actually, I wouldn't be surprised if this ends up being part of their restructuring plan.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28216809</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28217147</id>
	<title>Sell used Games</title>
	<author>Conficio</author>
	<datestamp>1244122560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There is an easy solution: Sell only used games.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There is an easy solution : Sell only used games .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is an easy solution: Sell only used games.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28216585</id>
	<title>Re:What party games market?</title>
	<author>Zerth</author>
	<datestamp>1244118660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No, publishers exist to provide advance money and get you into brick&amp;mortars.</p><p>Reviews, word-of-mouth, and liberal chargeback policies exist to seperate the wheat from the chaff.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No , publishers exist to provide advance money and get you into brick&amp;mortars.Reviews , word-of-mouth , and liberal chargeback policies exist to seperate the wheat from the chaff .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No, publishers exist to provide advance money and get you into brick&amp;mortars.Reviews, word-of-mouth, and liberal chargeback policies exist to seperate the wheat from the chaff.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28216485</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28216979</id>
	<title>It's the game design, stupid</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244121240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In the age of the internet, games are uniquely poised to capitalize on aftermarket sales (and sales due to piracy) in a way that no medium in history has been able to, and it can all be done just by modifying the design of the product. Here's some examples that work extremely well:</p><p>-DLC. Look at Burnout Paradise. Two years later, it's still getting meaty, significant upgrades on a regular basis. The game has had ELEVEN content updates, 5 of which were paid / premium add-ons. The publisher gets paid for each of those!  Bethesda knows how to nail this too, despite some early mishaps with horse armor. Rockstar's figuring it out too. The right DLC will make you a ton of cash, even from the pirates.</p><p>-Recurring subscriptions: Some MMO's give away their clients, and make their money on premium DLC and monthly subscription fees. Apogee understood this years ago, with the original Wolfenstein shareware. Download it and get 1/6 of the game, which was a meaty, satisfying experience on its own. But pay up and you can get the other 5/6ths!</p><p>-High replay value: Rock Band &amp; Left 4 Dead's co-operative multiplayer emphasis give them huge replay. I almost never see a reasonably priced copy of Rock Band sitting on the used shelf (trust me, I've looked, I want to import the songs into Rock Band 2). Rock Band follows the DLC model, too! The longer you convince someone to hold onto your game, the lower the aftermarket churn, and the higher you can keep your MSRP before you're undercut by the used market. Just ask the creators of Mass Effect, or Super Mario Galaxy (I dare you, get all 242 stars).</p><p>-In-game advertsiing. The people who buy games used are necessarily doing so after the big retail splash of the original launch. These new eyeballs can view ads impressions just as well as the original pair, though, and the value of that digital billboard is only as high as the number of people who can look at it at any given time.</p><p>
&nbsp; Efforts to thwart the aftermarket's existence entirely, through one-time activation keys and emphasizing downloadable games, are just going to piss the customer off. The days of making a 4-hour singleplayer game with no replay value beyond deathmatch/ctf and expecting to have high sell-through are over; The high-budget $60 Terminator: Salvation game is only 4 hours long, it's going to be littering the shelves of used stores. The only way to stop the used market from undercutting the new market is to make the new experience so compelling, people don't want to part with their new game for a long, long time.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In the age of the internet , games are uniquely poised to capitalize on aftermarket sales ( and sales due to piracy ) in a way that no medium in history has been able to , and it can all be done just by modifying the design of the product .
Here 's some examples that work extremely well : -DLC .
Look at Burnout Paradise .
Two years later , it 's still getting meaty , significant upgrades on a regular basis .
The game has had ELEVEN content updates , 5 of which were paid / premium add-ons .
The publisher gets paid for each of those !
Bethesda knows how to nail this too , despite some early mishaps with horse armor .
Rockstar 's figuring it out too .
The right DLC will make you a ton of cash , even from the pirates.-Recurring subscriptions : Some MMO 's give away their clients , and make their money on premium DLC and monthly subscription fees .
Apogee understood this years ago , with the original Wolfenstein shareware .
Download it and get 1/6 of the game , which was a meaty , satisfying experience on its own .
But pay up and you can get the other 5/6ths ! -High replay value : Rock Band &amp; Left 4 Dead 's co-operative multiplayer emphasis give them huge replay .
I almost never see a reasonably priced copy of Rock Band sitting on the used shelf ( trust me , I 've looked , I want to import the songs into Rock Band 2 ) .
Rock Band follows the DLC model , too !
The longer you convince someone to hold onto your game , the lower the aftermarket churn , and the higher you can keep your MSRP before you 're undercut by the used market .
Just ask the creators of Mass Effect , or Super Mario Galaxy ( I dare you , get all 242 stars ) .-In-game advertsiing .
The people who buy games used are necessarily doing so after the big retail splash of the original launch .
These new eyeballs can view ads impressions just as well as the original pair , though , and the value of that digital billboard is only as high as the number of people who can look at it at any given time .
  Efforts to thwart the aftermarket 's existence entirely , through one-time activation keys and emphasizing downloadable games , are just going to piss the customer off .
The days of making a 4-hour singleplayer game with no replay value beyond deathmatch/ctf and expecting to have high sell-through are over ; The high-budget $ 60 Terminator : Salvation game is only 4 hours long , it 's going to be littering the shelves of used stores .
The only way to stop the used market from undercutting the new market is to make the new experience so compelling , people do n't want to part with their new game for a long , long time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In the age of the internet, games are uniquely poised to capitalize on aftermarket sales (and sales due to piracy) in a way that no medium in history has been able to, and it can all be done just by modifying the design of the product.
Here's some examples that work extremely well:-DLC.
Look at Burnout Paradise.
Two years later, it's still getting meaty, significant upgrades on a regular basis.
The game has had ELEVEN content updates, 5 of which were paid / premium add-ons.
The publisher gets paid for each of those!
Bethesda knows how to nail this too, despite some early mishaps with horse armor.
Rockstar's figuring it out too.
The right DLC will make you a ton of cash, even from the pirates.-Recurring subscriptions: Some MMO's give away their clients, and make their money on premium DLC and monthly subscription fees.
Apogee understood this years ago, with the original Wolfenstein shareware.
Download it and get 1/6 of the game, which was a meaty, satisfying experience on its own.
But pay up and you can get the other 5/6ths!-High replay value: Rock Band &amp; Left 4 Dead's co-operative multiplayer emphasis give them huge replay.
I almost never see a reasonably priced copy of Rock Band sitting on the used shelf (trust me, I've looked, I want to import the songs into Rock Band 2).
Rock Band follows the DLC model, too!
The longer you convince someone to hold onto your game, the lower the aftermarket churn, and the higher you can keep your MSRP before you're undercut by the used market.
Just ask the creators of Mass Effect, or Super Mario Galaxy (I dare you, get all 242 stars).-In-game advertsiing.
The people who buy games used are necessarily doing so after the big retail splash of the original launch.
These new eyeballs can view ads impressions just as well as the original pair, though, and the value of that digital billboard is only as high as the number of people who can look at it at any given time.
  Efforts to thwart the aftermarket's existence entirely, through one-time activation keys and emphasizing downloadable games, are just going to piss the customer off.
The days of making a 4-hour singleplayer game with no replay value beyond deathmatch/ctf and expecting to have high sell-through are over; The high-budget $60 Terminator: Salvation game is only 4 hours long, it's going to be littering the shelves of used stores.
The only way to stop the used market from undercutting the new market is to make the new experience so compelling, people don't want to part with their new game for a long, long time.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28217143</id>
	<title>Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain</title>
	<author>langelgjm</author>
	<datestamp>1244122500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Bingo! You've figured out the blatant contradiction that supporters of strong IP are facing. On the one hand, they want it to be just like traditional property, and to act like it's a natural right, and can be stolen, etc. On the other hand, they want to turn around and license up the wazoo.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Bingo !
You 've figured out the blatant contradiction that supporters of strong IP are facing .
On the one hand , they want it to be just like traditional property , and to act like it 's a natural right , and can be stolen , etc .
On the other hand , they want to turn around and license up the wazoo .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Bingo!
You've figured out the blatant contradiction that supporters of strong IP are facing.
On the one hand, they want it to be just like traditional property, and to act like it's a natural right, and can be stolen, etc.
On the other hand, they want to turn around and license up the wazoo.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28216633</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28217053</id>
	<title>here's how they could threaten gamestop</title>
	<author>goombah99</author>
	<datestamp>1244121840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>they could announce they were cutting the price of games by 1/2 unless gamestop revenue shares.  If they did that then the price of used games would drop by half too and game stop would lose half its revenue!</p><p>The price drop would actually not mean fully half revenue loss for the publishers because they would sell more games.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>they could announce they were cutting the price of games by 1/2 unless gamestop revenue shares .
If they did that then the price of used games would drop by half too and game stop would lose half its revenue ! The price drop would actually not mean fully half revenue loss for the publishers because they would sell more games .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>they could announce they were cutting the price of games by 1/2 unless gamestop revenue shares.
If they did that then the price of used games would drop by half too and game stop would lose half its revenue!The price drop would actually not mean fully half revenue loss for the publishers because they would sell more games.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28216717</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28217291</id>
	<title>Re:If a used bookstore can sell used books...</title>
	<author>limber</author>
	<datestamp>1244123700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If the used games market is sooo lucrative that publishers think they should get a cut of it... then from a business perspective really what they should do, is start their own Game Stop equivalent stores that sell used games.</p><p>It would be similar to the (somewhat evil) approach that Ticketmaster took -- they realized there was a huge aftermarket for scalper tickets, and they were missing out on the margins. So they set up a subsidiary business to cater directly to that resale market. (nevermind the ongoing class action lawsuit...).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If the used games market is sooo lucrative that publishers think they should get a cut of it... then from a business perspective really what they should do , is start their own Game Stop equivalent stores that sell used games.It would be similar to the ( somewhat evil ) approach that Ticketmaster took -- they realized there was a huge aftermarket for scalper tickets , and they were missing out on the margins .
So they set up a subsidiary business to cater directly to that resale market .
( nevermind the ongoing class action lawsuit... ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If the used games market is sooo lucrative that publishers think they should get a cut of it... then from a business perspective really what they should do, is start their own Game Stop equivalent stores that sell used games.It would be similar to the (somewhat evil) approach that Ticketmaster took -- they realized there was a huge aftermarket for scalper tickets, and they were missing out on the margins.
So they set up a subsidiary business to cater directly to that resale market.
(nevermind the ongoing class action lawsuit...).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28216405</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28216617</id>
	<title>Re:What used games market?</title>
	<author>rtb61</author>
	<datestamp>1244118840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> Steam used games, no problem, sell your account with all your games. Next person can then change all the details on the account to make it accurate for them. No if steam was really nice it would allow you to transfer game access rights for a minimal fee to other account holders.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Steam used games , no problem , sell your account with all your games .
Next person can then change all the details on the account to make it accurate for them .
No if steam was really nice it would allow you to transfer game access rights for a minimal fee to other account holders .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Steam used games, no problem, sell your account with all your games.
Next person can then change all the details on the account to make it accurate for them.
No if steam was really nice it would allow you to transfer game access rights for a minimal fee to other account holders.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28216401</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28218043</id>
	<title>Re:What used games market?</title>
	<author>RichM</author>
	<datestamp>1244132100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>2. There's a booming used market for handheld and console games.</p></div></blockquote><p>
There's also a booming market for new/used games and consoles from the 90s and 80s.<br>
One only has to search eBay for "NES" to see this...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>2 .
There 's a booming used market for handheld and console games .
There 's also a booming market for new/used games and consoles from the 90s and 80s .
One only has to search eBay for " NES " to see this.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>2.
There's a booming used market for handheld and console games.
There's also a booming market for new/used games and consoles from the 90s and 80s.
One only has to search eBay for "NES" to see this...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28216475</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28218545</id>
	<title>Re:here's how they could threaten gamestop</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244137380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In a functional market, <em>they would sell more games</em> counteracts <em>game stop would lose half its revenue</em> per game. If the demand for games is directly related only to their price, the gross revenue wouldn't change, but the handling cost for changing the number of units transacted to achieve that revenue would increase or decrease. Having the price while doubling the volume would effectively increase gamestop's transaction cost per game, while not increasing the publisher's revenue. That would just be an assholish move with no winners.</p><p>If prices were halved, I suspect that volume would more than double since, as other posters have pointed out, there's less risk to try each game. If the cost/profit ratio does not change (for either the publishers or gamestop) by virtue of halving the price and more than doubling the volume, the effect would result in <b>more</b> revenue to both gamestop and publishers. Who profits more depends on how much the transaction cost proportionately increases per sale for gamestop, versus how much of the publishers' sunk costs per title are distributed to each unit produced.</p><p>Halving the wholesale and retail prices would also generate side effects relating to barriers to entry. It it cost becomes x/2 to stock a video game store, more video game stores would be establishable with current capital reserves. If the market price for a game becomes x/2, smaller market segments may become unprofitable because the total population wouldn't double to make up the volume. If expectations of game quality become halved by virtue of price becoming x/2, new markets could emerge on each side of the quality of games which currently sell for x.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In a functional market , they would sell more games counteracts game stop would lose half its revenue per game .
If the demand for games is directly related only to their price , the gross revenue would n't change , but the handling cost for changing the number of units transacted to achieve that revenue would increase or decrease .
Having the price while doubling the volume would effectively increase gamestop 's transaction cost per game , while not increasing the publisher 's revenue .
That would just be an assholish move with no winners.If prices were halved , I suspect that volume would more than double since , as other posters have pointed out , there 's less risk to try each game .
If the cost/profit ratio does not change ( for either the publishers or gamestop ) by virtue of halving the price and more than doubling the volume , the effect would result in more revenue to both gamestop and publishers .
Who profits more depends on how much the transaction cost proportionately increases per sale for gamestop , versus how much of the publishers ' sunk costs per title are distributed to each unit produced.Halving the wholesale and retail prices would also generate side effects relating to barriers to entry .
It it cost becomes x/2 to stock a video game store , more video game stores would be establishable with current capital reserves .
If the market price for a game becomes x/2 , smaller market segments may become unprofitable because the total population would n't double to make up the volume .
If expectations of game quality become halved by virtue of price becoming x/2 , new markets could emerge on each side of the quality of games which currently sell for x .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In a functional market, they would sell more games counteracts game stop would lose half its revenue per game.
If the demand for games is directly related only to their price, the gross revenue wouldn't change, but the handling cost for changing the number of units transacted to achieve that revenue would increase or decrease.
Having the price while doubling the volume would effectively increase gamestop's transaction cost per game, while not increasing the publisher's revenue.
That would just be an assholish move with no winners.If prices were halved, I suspect that volume would more than double since, as other posters have pointed out, there's less risk to try each game.
If the cost/profit ratio does not change (for either the publishers or gamestop) by virtue of halving the price and more than doubling the volume, the effect would result in more revenue to both gamestop and publishers.
Who profits more depends on how much the transaction cost proportionately increases per sale for gamestop, versus how much of the publishers' sunk costs per title are distributed to each unit produced.Halving the wholesale and retail prices would also generate side effects relating to barriers to entry.
It it cost becomes x/2 to stock a video game store, more video game stores would be establishable with current capital reserves.
If the market price for a game becomes x/2, smaller market segments may become unprofitable because the total population wouldn't double to make up the volume.
If expectations of game quality become halved by virtue of price becoming x/2, new markets could emerge on each side of the quality of games which currently sell for x.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28217053</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28217349</id>
	<title>oh wah wah wah!</title>
	<author>DragonTHC</author>
	<datestamp>1244124180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>cry me a damn river publishers!</p><p>you should never legally be able to pierce the first sale doctrine.</p><p>Used games already gave you the price you were asking.  Get over it.</p><p>gamestop may end up charging $5 less than new for some of the newest used games they stock, and that's their profit, but it doesn't belong to you.</p><p>If anything, they should stop allowing gamestop to give us so little for used games in the first place.  $15 for a $60 game I bought a month ago is an insult to me.</p><p>$45 profit for selling the used game is just too damn bad for the publishers.</p><p>Get over it you whiny multi-national multi-billion dollar media conglomerates!  You make me sick.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>cry me a damn river publishers ! you should never legally be able to pierce the first sale doctrine.Used games already gave you the price you were asking .
Get over it.gamestop may end up charging $ 5 less than new for some of the newest used games they stock , and that 's their profit , but it does n't belong to you.If anything , they should stop allowing gamestop to give us so little for used games in the first place .
$ 15 for a $ 60 game I bought a month ago is an insult to me. $ 45 profit for selling the used game is just too damn bad for the publishers.Get over it you whiny multi-national multi-billion dollar media conglomerates !
You make me sick .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>cry me a damn river publishers!you should never legally be able to pierce the first sale doctrine.Used games already gave you the price you were asking.
Get over it.gamestop may end up charging $5 less than new for some of the newest used games they stock, and that's their profit, but it doesn't belong to you.If anything, they should stop allowing gamestop to give us so little for used games in the first place.
$15 for a $60 game I bought a month ago is an insult to me.$45 profit for selling the used game is just too damn bad for the publishers.Get over it you whiny multi-national multi-billion dollar media conglomerates!
You make me sick.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28217689</id>
	<title>Simplest solution</title>
	<author>fremean</author>
	<datestamp>1244128080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>is to simply lower the prices of new games, second hand game market won't be as valuable, and people will be more likely to buy a new one.</p><p>I sure as hell prefer buying new games then old ones (god only knows what that cd key has been caught doing...) but I'm not going to spend $90 on a new game that gives me 6-8 hours play time when I can go bowling for 3 hours and it only costs me $12.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>is to simply lower the prices of new games , second hand game market wo n't be as valuable , and people will be more likely to buy a new one.I sure as hell prefer buying new games then old ones ( god only knows what that cd key has been caught doing... ) but I 'm not going to spend $ 90 on a new game that gives me 6-8 hours play time when I can go bowling for 3 hours and it only costs me $ 12 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>is to simply lower the prices of new games, second hand game market won't be as valuable, and people will be more likely to buy a new one.I sure as hell prefer buying new games then old ones (god only knows what that cd key has been caught doing...) but I'm not going to spend $90 on a new game that gives me 6-8 hours play time when I can go bowling for 3 hours and it only costs me $12.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28217501</id>
	<title>Re:devil's advocate</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244125800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you're going to go that far, then why not just download a torrent of the game and pay zero? At least then you don't have to take a loss by selling the game to someone else.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you 're going to go that far , then why not just download a torrent of the game and pay zero ?
At least then you do n't have to take a loss by selling the game to someone else .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you're going to go that far, then why not just download a torrent of the game and pay zero?
At least then you don't have to take a loss by selling the game to someone else.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28216611</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28216699</id>
	<title>Re:If a used bookstore can sell used books...</title>
	<author>Brian Gordon</author>
	<datestamp>1244119320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><a href="http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#109" title="copyright.gov">USC Title 17 Chapter 1 Section 109(a)</a> [copyright.gov] (phonorecord = album, software, game, etc)<blockquote><div><p>Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106(3), the owner of a particular copy or phonorecord lawfully made under this title, or any person authorized by such owner, is entitled, without the authority of the copyright owner, to sell or otherwise dispose of the possession of that copy or phonorecord.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</p></div></blockquote><p>
That section also specifically exempts <i>console</i> games from the law prohibiting the rental of phonorecords without the copyright holder's permission:</p><blockquote><div><p>blah blah rental blah
This section does not apply to a computer program embodied in or used in conjunction with a limited purpose computer that is designed for playing video games and may be designed for other purposes.</p></div></blockquote></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>USC Title 17 Chapter 1 Section 109 ( a ) [ copyright.gov ] ( phonorecord = album , software , game , etc ) Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106 ( 3 ) , the owner of a particular copy or phonorecord lawfully made under this title , or any person authorized by such owner , is entitled , without the authority of the copyright owner , to sell or otherwise dispose of the possession of that copy or phonorecord .
.. . That section also specifically exempts console games from the law prohibiting the rental of phonorecords without the copyright holder 's permission : blah blah rental blah This section does not apply to a computer program embodied in or used in conjunction with a limited purpose computer that is designed for playing video games and may be designed for other purposes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>USC Title 17 Chapter 1 Section 109(a) [copyright.gov] (phonorecord = album, software, game, etc)Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106(3), the owner of a particular copy or phonorecord lawfully made under this title, or any person authorized by such owner, is entitled, without the authority of the copyright owner, to sell or otherwise dispose of the possession of that copy or phonorecord.
...
That section also specifically exempts console games from the law prohibiting the rental of phonorecords without the copyright holder's permission:blah blah rental blah
This section does not apply to a computer program embodied in or used in conjunction with a limited purpose computer that is designed for playing video games and may be designed for other purposes.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28216405</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28219009</id>
	<title>WHY IS EVERYONE TRADING THEM IN AT GAMESPOT</title>
	<author>wintermute000</author>
	<datestamp>1244143080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why is everyone talking about trading games into gamestop or other big retailers.</p><p>Classifieds (ebay, craigslist, local company board, whatever) are THE WAY TO GO</p><p>I have never ever sold a second hand game for any less than 30\% its original cost if its under 3 years old. Average is 50\% for say a 1 year old decent current gen console game. Of course YMMV esp if it then becomes a PS3 platinum title for half price or whatever.</p><p>For a game under a year old you can EASILY get half to 2/3rds.</p><p>For a AAA title less than a month old (e.g. you beat it then list it on ebay right away) try 70-80\% return. Heck if say currency exchange rates are in your favour and you buy from somewhere cheap like playasia.com, you can even make a dollar or two, esp if you sell the game BEFORE its released in your area.</p><p>And same goes for BUYING used games: why is everyone going to gamespot and complaining about 5 bucks off. You can easily get a used AAA title for say 20-30\% discount on ebay used. Or trade via gumtree, craiglist, your company's notice board (esp large corporatiosn with thousands of employees and internal mail lol).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why is everyone talking about trading games into gamestop or other big retailers.Classifieds ( ebay , craigslist , local company board , whatever ) are THE WAY TO GOI have never ever sold a second hand game for any less than 30 \ % its original cost if its under 3 years old .
Average is 50 \ % for say a 1 year old decent current gen console game .
Of course YMMV esp if it then becomes a PS3 platinum title for half price or whatever.For a game under a year old you can EASILY get half to 2/3rds.For a AAA title less than a month old ( e.g .
you beat it then list it on ebay right away ) try 70-80 \ % return .
Heck if say currency exchange rates are in your favour and you buy from somewhere cheap like playasia.com , you can even make a dollar or two , esp if you sell the game BEFORE its released in your area.And same goes for BUYING used games : why is everyone going to gamespot and complaining about 5 bucks off .
You can easily get a used AAA title for say 20-30 \ % discount on ebay used .
Or trade via gumtree , craiglist , your company 's notice board ( esp large corporatiosn with thousands of employees and internal mail lol ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why is everyone talking about trading games into gamestop or other big retailers.Classifieds (ebay, craigslist, local company board, whatever) are THE WAY TO GOI have never ever sold a second hand game for any less than 30\% its original cost if its under 3 years old.
Average is 50\% for say a 1 year old decent current gen console game.
Of course YMMV esp if it then becomes a PS3 platinum title for half price or whatever.For a game under a year old you can EASILY get half to 2/3rds.For a AAA title less than a month old (e.g.
you beat it then list it on ebay right away) try 70-80\% return.
Heck if say currency exchange rates are in your favour and you buy from somewhere cheap like playasia.com, you can even make a dollar or two, esp if you sell the game BEFORE its released in your area.And same goes for BUYING used games: why is everyone going to gamespot and complaining about 5 bucks off.
You can easily get a used AAA title for say 20-30\% discount on ebay used.
Or trade via gumtree, craiglist, your company's notice board (esp large corporatiosn with thousands of employees and internal mail lol).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28216627</id>
	<title>Re:If a used bookstore can sell used books...</title>
	<author>stephanruby</author>
	<datestamp>1244118900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Also, the assertion that GameStop is enjoying a 48\% profit margin is a bit disingenuous. </p><p>GameStop has employees and stores located in high-priced malls. That cost money. And if that so-called supposed "48\% profit margin" is enough to go after them, then they should go after Walmart, Barnes &amp; Nobles, and Borders for buying new books and new DVDs at 40\% of their actual retail prices -- and therefore making a supposed profit of 60\% each time.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Also , the assertion that GameStop is enjoying a 48 \ % profit margin is a bit disingenuous .
GameStop has employees and stores located in high-priced malls .
That cost money .
And if that so-called supposed " 48 \ % profit margin " is enough to go after them , then they should go after Walmart , Barnes &amp; Nobles , and Borders for buying new books and new DVDs at 40 \ % of their actual retail prices -- and therefore making a supposed profit of 60 \ % each time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Also, the assertion that GameStop is enjoying a 48\% profit margin is a bit disingenuous.
GameStop has employees and stores located in high-priced malls.
That cost money.
And if that so-called supposed "48\% profit margin" is enough to go after them, then they should go after Walmart, Barnes &amp; Nobles, and Borders for buying new books and new DVDs at 40\% of their actual retail prices -- and therefore making a supposed profit of 60\% each time.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28216405</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28216601</id>
	<title>Re:What used games market?</title>
	<author>brkello</author>
	<datestamp>1244118720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>For the DS, you can just download them for free.  I generally speak out against piracy, but to the publisher, they see as much money either way.<br> <br>But what the GP said has truth.  The used market is going to die.  Yeah, Steam is just for PC.  But the future is digital distribution (even for consoles...handhelds or otherwise).  What about people without the Internet?  Well, they will always have hoop and a stick.</htmltext>
<tokenext>For the DS , you can just download them for free .
I generally speak out against piracy , but to the publisher , they see as much money either way .
But what the GP said has truth .
The used market is going to die .
Yeah , Steam is just for PC .
But the future is digital distribution ( even for consoles...handhelds or otherwise ) .
What about people without the Internet ?
Well , they will always have hoop and a stick .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For the DS, you can just download them for free.
I generally speak out against piracy, but to the publisher, they see as much money either way.
But what the GP said has truth.
The used market is going to die.
Yeah, Steam is just for PC.
But the future is digital distribution (even for consoles...handhelds or otherwise).
What about people without the Internet?
Well, they will always have hoop and a stick.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28216475</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28217019</id>
	<title>cut it tout</title>
	<author>Rdickinson</author>
	<datestamp>1244121660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Incredibly the publisher gets a cut of the new sale because at that point they have part interest in the ownership of the item.</p><p>Once the item is sold to a punter the person owns the item, the publisher then has no interest, no share, no comeback.</p><p>Which is why I guess the games market is trying to move away from media being the product to a download and licence model with no transference of licences.</p><p>I think this guy needs to re-read what ownership actualy means..</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Incredibly the publisher gets a cut of the new sale because at that point they have part interest in the ownership of the item.Once the item is sold to a punter the person owns the item , the publisher then has no interest , no share , no comeback.Which is why I guess the games market is trying to move away from media being the product to a download and licence model with no transference of licences.I think this guy needs to re-read what ownership actualy means. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Incredibly the publisher gets a cut of the new sale because at that point they have part interest in the ownership of the item.Once the item is sold to a punter the person owns the item, the publisher then has no interest, no share, no comeback.Which is why I guess the games market is trying to move away from media being the product to a download and licence model with no transference of licences.I think this guy needs to re-read what ownership actualy means..</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28216809</id>
	<title>It's a basic principle</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244119920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"the used  sale market is still depriving  of money because it gives consumers an all-too-easy alternative to buying a new "</p><p>This is the precise concept that motivates the First Sale Doctrine.  You only get paid for selling something yourself.  Why should you get paid when someone sells something that used to be yours?  When you sell your used car, do you have to give a kickback to the person you bought it from?  It makes no sense at all given the set of commerce rules that we have come to accept over the centuries.</p><p>Really there is no end of the negative consequences that result if you decide that First Sale is not a valid concept.  You have to question the entire meaning of the word "sale" if you do this.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" the used sale market is still depriving of money because it gives consumers an all-too-easy alternative to buying a new " This is the precise concept that motivates the First Sale Doctrine .
You only get paid for selling something yourself .
Why should you get paid when someone sells something that used to be yours ?
When you sell your used car , do you have to give a kickback to the person you bought it from ?
It makes no sense at all given the set of commerce rules that we have come to accept over the centuries.Really there is no end of the negative consequences that result if you decide that First Sale is not a valid concept .
You have to question the entire meaning of the word " sale " if you do this .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"the used  sale market is still depriving  of money because it gives consumers an all-too-easy alternative to buying a new "This is the precise concept that motivates the First Sale Doctrine.
You only get paid for selling something yourself.
Why should you get paid when someone sells something that used to be yours?
When you sell your used car, do you have to give a kickback to the person you bought it from?
It makes no sense at all given the set of commerce rules that we have come to accept over the centuries.Really there is no end of the negative consequences that result if you decide that First Sale is not a valid concept.
You have to question the entire meaning of the word "sale" if you do this.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28217699</id>
	<title>Re:WTF?</title>
	<author>nine-times</author>
	<datestamp>1244128200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>My first reaction to "Publishers want a slice of used game market," was "Well yeah, I want a slice of the used game market too.  Unfortunately for me and game publishers, we have absolutely no legal right to it."  I mean, really, of course we all *want* a share of someone else's profitable business.  That doesn't mean anything.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>My first reaction to " Publishers want a slice of used game market , " was " Well yeah , I want a slice of the used game market too .
Unfortunately for me and game publishers , we have absolutely no legal right to it .
" I mean , really , of course we all * want * a share of someone else 's profitable business .
That does n't mean anything .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My first reaction to "Publishers want a slice of used game market," was "Well yeah, I want a slice of the used game market too.
Unfortunately for me and game publishers, we have absolutely no legal right to it.
"  I mean, really, of course we all *want* a share of someone else's profitable business.
That doesn't mean anything.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28216403</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28216785</id>
	<title>Re:If a used bookstore can sell used books...</title>
	<author>digitig</author>
	<datestamp>1244119800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>
If a bookstore can sell used books without giving any money to the publisher, I fail to see why a game store can't sell used games.</p></div><p>Which might just be why one particular (online) bookstore would like you to use an e-reader that can prevent you selling on the (e)books that you buy.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If a bookstore can sell used books without giving any money to the publisher , I fail to see why a game store ca n't sell used games.Which might just be why one particular ( online ) bookstore would like you to use an e-reader that can prevent you selling on the ( e ) books that you buy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
If a bookstore can sell used books without giving any money to the publisher, I fail to see why a game store can't sell used games.Which might just be why one particular (online) bookstore would like you to use an e-reader that can prevent you selling on the (e)books that you buy.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28216405</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28219557</id>
	<title>GamneStop response...</title>
	<author>SupremoMan</author>
	<datestamp>1244194080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>FUCK YOU!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>FUCK YOU !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>FUCK YOU!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28220587</id>
	<title>Fuck publishers then</title>
	<author>unity100</author>
	<datestamp>1244207040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>people are not born to make middlemen rich. neither this civilization for middlemen. if you try to force any fucking laws by lobbying with money, we will trade games from underhand, illegally. as above, as below.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>people are not born to make middlemen rich .
neither this civilization for middlemen .
if you try to force any fucking laws by lobbying with money , we will trade games from underhand , illegally .
as above , as below .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>people are not born to make middlemen rich.
neither this civilization for middlemen.
if you try to force any fucking laws by lobbying with money, we will trade games from underhand, illegally.
as above, as below.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28218153</id>
	<title>Used games?  Pashaw!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244133600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>PC - nzbmatrix + cracks<br>Mac - nzbmatrix + cracks<br>DS - nzbmatrix + Cyclo Evo + microSD card<br>PS2 - gamefly + HDLoader + hard drive<br>Wii - nzbmatrix + softmod</p><p>Need I go on?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>PC - nzbmatrix + cracksMac - nzbmatrix + cracksDS - nzbmatrix + Cyclo Evo + microSD cardPS2 - gamefly + HDLoader + hard driveWii - nzbmatrix + softmodNeed I go on ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>PC - nzbmatrix + cracksMac - nzbmatrix + cracksDS - nzbmatrix + Cyclo Evo + microSD cardPS2 - gamefly + HDLoader + hard driveWii - nzbmatrix + softmodNeed I go on?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28217947</id>
	<title>Can the publishers guarantee like-new quality?</title>
	<author>posterlogo</author>
	<datestamp>1244131140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If the publishers want a cut from resales, the assumption is that the product is as good as new. (This is why the used-car sale is often considered to be a flawed analogy). But what measures would they implement to guarantee the used product merits their cut of the revenue? Are they going to refurbish it? Are they going to restore the original packaging and manuals, etc? Are they going the guarantee that the disc will be free of scratches or other defects for a certain warranty period of time? If not, then indeed selling a used game (or DVD movie or music CD for that matter) is just the same as a used car or a used anything.
<p>
Of course, digital copies could truly put a dent in that reasoning. However, even then there should not be a cut of revenue to the publisher if the original user discontinues use of the product (so that it's not piracy). It's like someone re-selling artwork. Presumably it's in like-new condition if it was taken care of (on in some cases, would appreciate in value even if its condition deteriorates) -- but you wouldn't hear anyone talk of paying the original artist a cut of its resale value, now would you? From what I hear, book publishers are also gearing up for a fight in this arena. They have already been breathing down the neck of used-book stores, and now e-books are adding a new twist to the debate.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If the publishers want a cut from resales , the assumption is that the product is as good as new .
( This is why the used-car sale is often considered to be a flawed analogy ) .
But what measures would they implement to guarantee the used product merits their cut of the revenue ?
Are they going to refurbish it ?
Are they going to restore the original packaging and manuals , etc ?
Are they going the guarantee that the disc will be free of scratches or other defects for a certain warranty period of time ?
If not , then indeed selling a used game ( or DVD movie or music CD for that matter ) is just the same as a used car or a used anything .
Of course , digital copies could truly put a dent in that reasoning .
However , even then there should not be a cut of revenue to the publisher if the original user discontinues use of the product ( so that it 's not piracy ) .
It 's like someone re-selling artwork .
Presumably it 's in like-new condition if it was taken care of ( on in some cases , would appreciate in value even if its condition deteriorates ) -- but you would n't hear anyone talk of paying the original artist a cut of its resale value , now would you ?
From what I hear , book publishers are also gearing up for a fight in this arena .
They have already been breathing down the neck of used-book stores , and now e-books are adding a new twist to the debate .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If the publishers want a cut from resales, the assumption is that the product is as good as new.
(This is why the used-car sale is often considered to be a flawed analogy).
But what measures would they implement to guarantee the used product merits their cut of the revenue?
Are they going to refurbish it?
Are they going to restore the original packaging and manuals, etc?
Are they going the guarantee that the disc will be free of scratches or other defects for a certain warranty period of time?
If not, then indeed selling a used game (or DVD movie or music CD for that matter) is just the same as a used car or a used anything.
Of course, digital copies could truly put a dent in that reasoning.
However, even then there should not be a cut of revenue to the publisher if the original user discontinues use of the product (so that it's not piracy).
It's like someone re-selling artwork.
Presumably it's in like-new condition if it was taken care of (on in some cases, would appreciate in value even if its condition deteriorates) -- but you wouldn't hear anyone talk of paying the original artist a cut of its resale value, now would you?
From what I hear, book publishers are also gearing up for a fight in this arena.
They have already been breathing down the neck of used-book stores, and now e-books are adding a new twist to the debate.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28219097</id>
	<title>Change your pricing strategy!</title>
	<author>91degrees</author>
	<datestamp>1244144640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>DVDs plummet in price after a few months.  <br> <br>
Reduce the price of games.  Compete directly with the second hand market.  Anyone who wants the newest game right now can buy it at the high price.  Anyone willing to wait a couple of months can get it for less.  They're going to anyway - someone will complete it in a week and sell it on.</htmltext>
<tokenext>DVDs plummet in price after a few months .
Reduce the price of games .
Compete directly with the second hand market .
Anyone who wants the newest game right now can buy it at the high price .
Anyone willing to wait a couple of months can get it for less .
They 're going to anyway - someone will complete it in a week and sell it on .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>DVDs plummet in price after a few months.
Reduce the price of games.
Compete directly with the second hand market.
Anyone who wants the newest game right now can buy it at the high price.
Anyone willing to wait a couple of months can get it for less.
They're going to anyway - someone will complete it in a week and sell it on.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28217703</id>
	<title>Publishes = Idiots</title>
	<author>Anenome</author>
	<datestamp>1244128320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why do publishers think they have a right to used games revenues? Car manufacturers don't and cannot expect revenue from used car sales, nor book publishers, nor clothing-makers, nor any other sector you want to talk about. Actually, all of these makers already get revenue from the used game market, even though they don't realize it, and I'll explain how:</p><p>The new price of any good includes the value of the good on the used market. Its value as a used item is included in the purchase price. So, the truth is, game publishers have -already- been paid for the game's used-value on the used-market, they even get paid up-front. If you were to make limit or eliminate the used game market, you remove that portion of the new-price from its value. The result is that new game prices would have to come down to account for this. The net result: publishers wouldn't gain anything, and would probably lose quite a bit. Because if they refused to lower the price of new games, they would experience lower game sales to reflect the lower value for the same price because their games would now appear to be overprice, since they've now lost value.</p><p>As for the idea that Publishers have a right to money from used sales, how is that even possible? Imagine if car makers tried something like this. The only way to achieve it is by fascist legal bully-tactics, by forcing legislators to pass laws favoring particular companies. That must not happen, that would be a perversion of democracy.</p><p>Some have argued that publishers are hurt by having to give 'free' server rights to the 2nd buyer. But, what's the difference? The first guy isn't using the company servers anymore-- he doesn't own the game! So the total load change is zero. And the price of running those servers is freely accepted by the publishers. No one's forcing them to provide free servers for their game. Let them charge money like WoW for server access if they think they can get away with it. Dirty truth: they know they can't. They don't dare charge for server access.</p><p>I say we send these Publishers back to Econ 101. Any first year college student could explain these things. It's ridiculous.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why do publishers think they have a right to used games revenues ?
Car manufacturers do n't and can not expect revenue from used car sales , nor book publishers , nor clothing-makers , nor any other sector you want to talk about .
Actually , all of these makers already get revenue from the used game market , even though they do n't realize it , and I 'll explain how : The new price of any good includes the value of the good on the used market .
Its value as a used item is included in the purchase price .
So , the truth is , game publishers have -already- been paid for the game 's used-value on the used-market , they even get paid up-front .
If you were to make limit or eliminate the used game market , you remove that portion of the new-price from its value .
The result is that new game prices would have to come down to account for this .
The net result : publishers would n't gain anything , and would probably lose quite a bit .
Because if they refused to lower the price of new games , they would experience lower game sales to reflect the lower value for the same price because their games would now appear to be overprice , since they 've now lost value.As for the idea that Publishers have a right to money from used sales , how is that even possible ?
Imagine if car makers tried something like this .
The only way to achieve it is by fascist legal bully-tactics , by forcing legislators to pass laws favoring particular companies .
That must not happen , that would be a perversion of democracy.Some have argued that publishers are hurt by having to give 'free ' server rights to the 2nd buyer .
But , what 's the difference ?
The first guy is n't using the company servers anymore-- he does n't own the game !
So the total load change is zero .
And the price of running those servers is freely accepted by the publishers .
No one 's forcing them to provide free servers for their game .
Let them charge money like WoW for server access if they think they can get away with it .
Dirty truth : they know they ca n't .
They do n't dare charge for server access.I say we send these Publishers back to Econ 101 .
Any first year college student could explain these things .
It 's ridiculous .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why do publishers think they have a right to used games revenues?
Car manufacturers don't and cannot expect revenue from used car sales, nor book publishers, nor clothing-makers, nor any other sector you want to talk about.
Actually, all of these makers already get revenue from the used game market, even though they don't realize it, and I'll explain how:The new price of any good includes the value of the good on the used market.
Its value as a used item is included in the purchase price.
So, the truth is, game publishers have -already- been paid for the game's used-value on the used-market, they even get paid up-front.
If you were to make limit or eliminate the used game market, you remove that portion of the new-price from its value.
The result is that new game prices would have to come down to account for this.
The net result: publishers wouldn't gain anything, and would probably lose quite a bit.
Because if they refused to lower the price of new games, they would experience lower game sales to reflect the lower value for the same price because their games would now appear to be overprice, since they've now lost value.As for the idea that Publishers have a right to money from used sales, how is that even possible?
Imagine if car makers tried something like this.
The only way to achieve it is by fascist legal bully-tactics, by forcing legislators to pass laws favoring particular companies.
That must not happen, that would be a perversion of democracy.Some have argued that publishers are hurt by having to give 'free' server rights to the 2nd buyer.
But, what's the difference?
The first guy isn't using the company servers anymore-- he doesn't own the game!
So the total load change is zero.
And the price of running those servers is freely accepted by the publishers.
No one's forcing them to provide free servers for their game.
Let them charge money like WoW for server access if they think they can get away with it.
Dirty truth: they know they can't.
They don't dare charge for server access.I say we send these Publishers back to Econ 101.
Any first year college student could explain these things.
It's ridiculous.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28217807</id>
	<title>Re:What if auto makers ...</title>
	<author>drinkypoo</author>
	<datestamp>1244129700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Would GM be thriving if they had a cut of every used car sale?</p> </div><p>They tried this. It's called the Chevrolet Astro. It's such a bitch to work on that you have to take it someplace (they hope that you will bring it to the dealer) and it has numerous expensive consumable parts. Our 2000 Astro LS needs door handles all the way around. They are available only as modules and it's ~$1000 to cover the vehicle's four latches. We're talking a couple bucks in stamped steel and pot metal here.</p><p>Guess what? They're going out of business anyway, because the way to stay in business is to sell products people want to buy.</p><p>The game publishers are trying to get out of paying for new games so they can milk the same old IP eternally. The longer a game has been out the more pirated it is, so you need to keep coming out with new games to get new sales. They want a piece of the old sales so they can make the same money while bringing out less games. (It's easy to see that there's a finite amount of possible per-gamer profit out there. They want all of your gaming budget, but they want to sell you less games, so there's no other way to look at this.)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Would GM be thriving if they had a cut of every used car sale ?
They tried this .
It 's called the Chevrolet Astro .
It 's such a bitch to work on that you have to take it someplace ( they hope that you will bring it to the dealer ) and it has numerous expensive consumable parts .
Our 2000 Astro LS needs door handles all the way around .
They are available only as modules and it 's ~ $ 1000 to cover the vehicle 's four latches .
We 're talking a couple bucks in stamped steel and pot metal here.Guess what ?
They 're going out of business anyway , because the way to stay in business is to sell products people want to buy.The game publishers are trying to get out of paying for new games so they can milk the same old IP eternally .
The longer a game has been out the more pirated it is , so you need to keep coming out with new games to get new sales .
They want a piece of the old sales so they can make the same money while bringing out less games .
( It 's easy to see that there 's a finite amount of possible per-gamer profit out there .
They want all of your gaming budget , but they want to sell you less games , so there 's no other way to look at this .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Would GM be thriving if they had a cut of every used car sale?
They tried this.
It's called the Chevrolet Astro.
It's such a bitch to work on that you have to take it someplace (they hope that you will bring it to the dealer) and it has numerous expensive consumable parts.
Our 2000 Astro LS needs door handles all the way around.
They are available only as modules and it's ~$1000 to cover the vehicle's four latches.
We're talking a couple bucks in stamped steel and pot metal here.Guess what?
They're going out of business anyway, because the way to stay in business is to sell products people want to buy.The game publishers are trying to get out of paying for new games so they can milk the same old IP eternally.
The longer a game has been out the more pirated it is, so you need to keep coming out with new games to get new sales.
They want a piece of the old sales so they can make the same money while bringing out less games.
(It's easy to see that there's a finite amount of possible per-gamer profit out there.
They want all of your gaming budget, but they want to sell you less games, so there's no other way to look at this.
)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28216447</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28216923</id>
	<title>pay to sell? isn't it like taxes?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244120700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>moreover, according to this theory, if i sell my ford, i should pay ford for it?<br>or, if i sell my used mobile phone, should i pay for it to the manufacturer?</p><p>that don't sound right. if anything i should get a refund, since i obviously don't like the game enough to keep it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>moreover , according to this theory , if i sell my ford , i should pay ford for it ? or , if i sell my used mobile phone , should i pay for it to the manufacturer ? that do n't sound right .
if anything i should get a refund , since i obviously do n't like the game enough to keep it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>moreover, according to this theory, if i sell my ford, i should pay ford for it?or, if i sell my used mobile phone, should i pay for it to the manufacturer?that don't sound right.
if anything i should get a refund, since i obviously don't like the game enough to keep it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28221291</id>
	<title>Re:You are missing why they are upset.</title>
	<author>geminidomino</author>
	<datestamp>1244211720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Simple solution then...</p><p>Stop providing Gamestop with distributor access. Send the new games to Best Buy, Target, Walmart, etc...</p><p>If GS won't have the Guitar Hero: John Denver or Final Fantasy XXXVIII on release day, then:</p><p>a) They can't take the proceeds from those goddamn annoying "pre-order" pitches and float it for interest until the game is released</p><p>b) Fewer people will feed the machine with their old games to get the store credit to get the new wizz-bang game.</p><p>If you don't want to fight dirty (who are you and what have you done with the real publishers?) then quit whinging.</p><p>--GeminiDomino,<br>Who loves to watch bad guys fight.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Simple solution then...Stop providing Gamestop with distributor access .
Send the new games to Best Buy , Target , Walmart , etc...If GS wo n't have the Guitar Hero : John Denver or Final Fantasy XXXVIII on release day , then : a ) They ca n't take the proceeds from those goddamn annoying " pre-order " pitches and float it for interest until the game is releasedb ) Fewer people will feed the machine with their old games to get the store credit to get the new wizz-bang game.If you do n't want to fight dirty ( who are you and what have you done with the real publishers ?
) then quit whinging.--GeminiDomino,Who loves to watch bad guys fight .
; )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Simple solution then...Stop providing Gamestop with distributor access.
Send the new games to Best Buy, Target, Walmart, etc...If GS won't have the Guitar Hero: John Denver or Final Fantasy XXXVIII on release day, then:a) They can't take the proceeds from those goddamn annoying "pre-order" pitches and float it for interest until the game is releasedb) Fewer people will feed the machine with their old games to get the store credit to get the new wizz-bang game.If you don't want to fight dirty (who are you and what have you done with the real publishers?
) then quit whinging.--GeminiDomino,Who loves to watch bad guys fight.
;)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28217387</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28218643</id>
	<title>Re:Not to suggest the obvious, but</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244138520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They do. I bought Max Payne and Max Payne 2(a few years later) for $10 each.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They do .
I bought Max Payne and Max Payne 2 ( a few years later ) for $ 10 each .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They do.
I bought Max Payne and Max Payne 2(a few years later) for $10 each.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28216689</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28223377</id>
	<title>Un-f'ing-believable</title>
	<author>omegahelix</author>
	<datestamp>1244220360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's ideas like this that give me no moral qualms about stealing a game.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's ideas like this that give me no moral qualms about stealing a game .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's ideas like this that give me no moral qualms about stealing a game.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28218019</id>
	<title>This happens already in the art world</title>
	<author>benedictaddis</author>
	<datestamp>1244131920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>An identical situation - where the original producer gets a cut of every subsequent sale - has been happening across Europe in one particular very high value market for nearly a decade now. It's called droit de suite, and it's granted on art sold at auctions to make sure that impecunious artists get a cut of the multimillion resale values of their art.

<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resale\_right" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resale\_right</a> [wikipedia.org]

It's a pretty contentious issue, especially for us mercantile Brits.</htmltext>
<tokenext>An identical situation - where the original producer gets a cut of every subsequent sale - has been happening across Europe in one particular very high value market for nearly a decade now .
It 's called droit de suite , and it 's granted on art sold at auctions to make sure that impecunious artists get a cut of the multimillion resale values of their art .
http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resale \ _right [ wikipedia.org ] It 's a pretty contentious issue , especially for us mercantile Brits .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>An identical situation - where the original producer gets a cut of every subsequent sale - has been happening across Europe in one particular very high value market for nearly a decade now.
It's called droit de suite, and it's granted on art sold at auctions to make sure that impecunious artists get a cut of the multimillion resale values of their art.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resale\_right [wikipedia.org]

It's a pretty contentious issue, especially for us mercantile Brits.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28224053</id>
	<title>Re:It's a basic principle</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244222820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>While I agree, there is another minor quirk that is a bit off-topic.</p><p>If a used car, or book, or house can be sold without the manufacturer getting<br>a cut of the deal, and everyone thinks this should apply to software, and games.</p><p>Then why is it that every time any of the above items are resold, the government<br>thinks it should get a new slice of the purchase price via a sales tax.  Didn't the<br>government get its share when the item was first sold, and shouldn't they be<br>satisfied with that?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>While I agree , there is another minor quirk that is a bit off-topic.If a used car , or book , or house can be sold without the manufacturer gettinga cut of the deal , and everyone thinks this should apply to software , and games.Then why is it that every time any of the above items are resold , the governmentthinks it should get a new slice of the purchase price via a sales tax .
Did n't thegovernment get its share when the item was first sold , and should n't they besatisfied with that ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>While I agree, there is another minor quirk that is a bit off-topic.If a used car, or book, or house can be sold without the manufacturer gettinga cut of the deal, and everyone thinks this should apply to software, and games.Then why is it that every time any of the above items are resold, the governmentthinks it should get a new slice of the purchase price via a sales tax.
Didn't thegovernment get its share when the item was first sold, and shouldn't they besatisfied with that?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28216809</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28226921</id>
	<title>So what next? they come after garage sales?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244192460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Little johnny sells his game at a garage sale? Are they gonna complain about that next?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Little johnny sells his game at a garage sale ?
Are they gon na complain about that next ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Little johnny sells his game at a garage sale?
Are they gonna complain about that next?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28216633</id>
	<title>I want my pie and eat it!</title>
	<author>Diddlbiker</author>
	<datestamp>1244118900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>So, copying software is theft, "just like stealing an apple, or stealing a car. There is no difference; you're stealing a product". And yet, when it comes to reselling those products, different rules apply? Once I've bought my apple, or car, or furbie, I can sell it to whoever I want for whatever price I want. Why would software be different if you want it to be treated as a tangible object?</htmltext>
<tokenext>So , copying software is theft , " just like stealing an apple , or stealing a car .
There is no difference ; you 're stealing a product " .
And yet , when it comes to reselling those products , different rules apply ?
Once I 've bought my apple , or car , or furbie , I can sell it to whoever I want for whatever price I want .
Why would software be different if you want it to be treated as a tangible object ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So, copying software is theft, "just like stealing an apple, or stealing a car.
There is no difference; you're stealing a product".
And yet, when it comes to reselling those products, different rules apply?
Once I've bought my apple, or car, or furbie, I can sell it to whoever I want for whatever price I want.
Why would software be different if you want it to be treated as a tangible object?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28216403</id>
	<title>WTF?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244117760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I wonder if these game publishers (and music, movie and book publishers) ever stop to think about what they are saying. If the logic is that they have some ongoing interest in the product they sell us, then doesn't that imply that as a purchaser we have an ongoing interest in the money we give them? So when GPG takes the money I spent and buys new equipment for their offices, shouldn't I be getting a new monitor out of the transaction as well?</p><p>Or do they figure that this only goes one way?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I wonder if these game publishers ( and music , movie and book publishers ) ever stop to think about what they are saying .
If the logic is that they have some ongoing interest in the product they sell us , then does n't that imply that as a purchaser we have an ongoing interest in the money we give them ?
So when GPG takes the money I spent and buys new equipment for their offices , should n't I be getting a new monitor out of the transaction as well ? Or do they figure that this only goes one way ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I wonder if these game publishers (and music, movie and book publishers) ever stop to think about what they are saying.
If the logic is that they have some ongoing interest in the product they sell us, then doesn't that imply that as a purchaser we have an ongoing interest in the money we give them?
So when GPG takes the money I spent and buys new equipment for their offices, shouldn't I be getting a new monitor out of the transaction as well?Or do they figure that this only goes one way?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28217967</id>
	<title>How about...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244131320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Making the new games better than the old ones? Man! Where did the good creative minds that came up with great classic games go? I'll we have today is: "look! there is a new FPS and now with better graphics!". Stop with spending 90\% of the game budget on Visual and a little bit more on fun and you might just convince people that your new title is actually more worth buying then an used one.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Making the new games better than the old ones ?
Man ! Where did the good creative minds that came up with great classic games go ?
I 'll we have today is : " look !
there is a new FPS and now with better graphics ! " .
Stop with spending 90 \ % of the game budget on Visual and a little bit more on fun and you might just convince people that your new title is actually more worth buying then an used one .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Making the new games better than the old ones?
Man! Where did the good creative minds that came up with great classic games go?
I'll we have today is: "look!
there is a new FPS and now with better graphics!".
Stop with spending 90\% of the game budget on Visual and a little bit more on fun and you might just convince people that your new title is actually more worth buying then an used one.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28216883</id>
	<title>Bonkers are Publishers</title>
	<author>stoutpuppy</author>
	<datestamp>1244120460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>All I can say are publishers (games, dvd, cd, etc) are all losing the plot on reality.  I have to say they have the most warped views on ownership, piracy and the internet.

Trade of used goods has ALWAYS been around, and frankly they didn't make it twice so they should only get the cut once.
It's like they think "f*** the customers, this is an opportunity for revenue, or this is costing us, so lets slap it as unethical and wage war."
Get out of the office for a second and realize how the world works. If you want more primary sales, lower the damn prices. Deal with it.

Piracy != theft != resale</htmltext>
<tokenext>All I can say are publishers ( games , dvd , cd , etc ) are all losing the plot on reality .
I have to say they have the most warped views on ownership , piracy and the internet .
Trade of used goods has ALWAYS been around , and frankly they did n't make it twice so they should only get the cut once .
It 's like they think " f * * * the customers , this is an opportunity for revenue , or this is costing us , so lets slap it as unethical and wage war .
" Get out of the office for a second and realize how the world works .
If you want more primary sales , lower the damn prices .
Deal with it .
Piracy ! = theft ! = resale</tokentext>
<sentencetext>All I can say are publishers (games, dvd, cd, etc) are all losing the plot on reality.
I have to say they have the most warped views on ownership, piracy and the internet.
Trade of used goods has ALWAYS been around, and frankly they didn't make it twice so they should only get the cut once.
It's like they think "f*** the customers, this is an opportunity for revenue, or this is costing us, so lets slap it as unethical and wage war.
"
Get out of the office for a second and realize how the world works.
If you want more primary sales, lower the damn prices.
Deal with it.
Piracy != theft != resale</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28223039</id>
	<title>Why stop there!!!</title>
	<author>AngryOnions</author>
	<datestamp>1244219100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>What about used DVDs, used Cars, used Houses.
What about when I resell my 'crap that I'm tired of storing in my closet' at a yard sale?

Let's just make sure everyone gets their 10\%, whether its a legitimate sale or just superfulously related to them.

This rant has probably been posted before, who do I owe the 10\% to?</htmltext>
<tokenext>What about used DVDs , used Cars , used Houses .
What about when I resell my 'crap that I 'm tired of storing in my closet ' at a yard sale ?
Let 's just make sure everyone gets their 10 \ % , whether its a legitimate sale or just superfulously related to them .
This rant has probably been posted before , who do I owe the 10 \ % to ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What about used DVDs, used Cars, used Houses.
What about when I resell my 'crap that I'm tired of storing in my closet' at a yard sale?
Let's just make sure everyone gets their 10\%, whether its a legitimate sale or just superfulously related to them.
This rant has probably been posted before, who do I owe the 10\% to?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28226809</id>
	<title>Where is my cut of the profit?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244235240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I mean after all, fair is fair.  If publishers are entitled to tax after market sales than so am I.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I mean after all , fair is fair .
If publishers are entitled to tax after market sales than so am I .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I mean after all, fair is fair.
If publishers are entitled to tax after market sales than so am I.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28220057</id>
	<title>Re:I don't think it's so black and white...</title>
	<author>metacell</author>
	<datestamp>1244201340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><ol> <li>The publishers, as a whole, don't 'lose' money. They don't even make less than before. They are complaining because <i>their profit has not increased as much as it could have</i>.</li><li>GameStop doesn't make $55 out of selling a used game. First, they pay the seller $30, then they have to pay rent, staff and other expenses. If people are ok with selling their used games for $30 and buying them for $55, then GameStop is as entitled to their profit as any other dirty capitalist in the market.</li><li>The publisher doesn't get $60 profit from each game either, of course, but they probably have a significantly higher margin per sold game than GameStop does. Comparing the $55 for a used game with the $60 for a new one is comparing apples and oranges.</li><li>It's not like all the publishers will go out of business and nobody will make games anymore. The games market has grown incredibly the last decade, and at worst, some of the publishers will have to close or fire staff (if any). There'll still be many, many publishers out there fighting eachother to sell their newest games to you.</li><li>If the used games market really hurts sales as much as the publishers claim, then why don't they offer their games for rental only? It's their own choice to sell them.<br>
The reason, most likely, is that the used games market doesn't hurt new games sales significantly, or at all. The publishers just want a bigger slice of the pie.</li></ol></htmltext>
<tokenext>The publishers , as a whole , do n't 'lose ' money .
They do n't even make less than before .
They are complaining because their profit has not increased as much as it could have.GameStop does n't make $ 55 out of selling a used game .
First , they pay the seller $ 30 , then they have to pay rent , staff and other expenses .
If people are ok with selling their used games for $ 30 and buying them for $ 55 , then GameStop is as entitled to their profit as any other dirty capitalist in the market.The publisher does n't get $ 60 profit from each game either , of course , but they probably have a significantly higher margin per sold game than GameStop does .
Comparing the $ 55 for a used game with the $ 60 for a new one is comparing apples and oranges.It 's not like all the publishers will go out of business and nobody will make games anymore .
The games market has grown incredibly the last decade , and at worst , some of the publishers will have to close or fire staff ( if any ) .
There 'll still be many , many publishers out there fighting eachother to sell their newest games to you.If the used games market really hurts sales as much as the publishers claim , then why do n't they offer their games for rental only ?
It 's their own choice to sell them .
The reason , most likely , is that the used games market does n't hurt new games sales significantly , or at all .
The publishers just want a bigger slice of the pie .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> The publishers, as a whole, don't 'lose' money.
They don't even make less than before.
They are complaining because their profit has not increased as much as it could have.GameStop doesn't make $55 out of selling a used game.
First, they pay the seller $30, then they have to pay rent, staff and other expenses.
If people are ok with selling their used games for $30 and buying them for $55, then GameStop is as entitled to their profit as any other dirty capitalist in the market.The publisher doesn't get $60 profit from each game either, of course, but they probably have a significantly higher margin per sold game than GameStop does.
Comparing the $55 for a used game with the $60 for a new one is comparing apples and oranges.It's not like all the publishers will go out of business and nobody will make games anymore.
The games market has grown incredibly the last decade, and at worst, some of the publishers will have to close or fire staff (if any).
There'll still be many, many publishers out there fighting eachother to sell their newest games to you.If the used games market really hurts sales as much as the publishers claim, then why don't they offer their games for rental only?
It's their own choice to sell them.
The reason, most likely, is that the used games market doesn't hurt new games sales significantly, or at all.
The publishers just want a bigger slice of the pie.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28217743</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28220971</id>
	<title>Re:Most of these comments don't quite get it</title>
	<author>Late Adopter</author>
	<datestamp>1244209920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>More options:
<br> <br>
Price the new game lower as time goes on.  There's no difference between new and used bits, so if there's a profit margin, get in the game.  People will even place a ($5?) premium on getting an "unopened" copy.
<br> <br>
Build a "starter pack" of DLC into the startup of a game.  New copy purchasers can enter a code from the box, used purchasers can buy it with a credit card.  There's your "slice" of the used game purchase.
<br> <br>
Make your back-catalog available as a digital download.  Like on WiiWare, XBLA, Steam, or GoG.  People are doing this already.</htmltext>
<tokenext>More options : Price the new game lower as time goes on .
There 's no difference between new and used bits , so if there 's a profit margin , get in the game .
People will even place a ( $ 5 ?
) premium on getting an " unopened " copy .
Build a " starter pack " of DLC into the startup of a game .
New copy purchasers can enter a code from the box , used purchasers can buy it with a credit card .
There 's your " slice " of the used game purchase .
Make your back-catalog available as a digital download .
Like on WiiWare , XBLA , Steam , or GoG .
People are doing this already .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>More options:
 
Price the new game lower as time goes on.
There's no difference between new and used bits, so if there's a profit margin, get in the game.
People will even place a ($5?
) premium on getting an "unopened" copy.
Build a "starter pack" of DLC into the startup of a game.
New copy purchasers can enter a code from the box, used purchasers can buy it with a credit card.
There's your "slice" of the used game purchase.
Make your back-catalog available as a digital download.
Like on WiiWare, XBLA, Steam, or GoG.
People are doing this already.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28217563</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28217645</id>
	<title>Goodluckwiththat!.....</title>
	<author>IHC Navistar</author>
	<datestamp>1244127540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Good thing that the VAT Tax (a.k.a. "FAT" Tax) only applies to value added, not value depreciated!</p><p>Anyways, they have a very, VERY small chance of getting anything from re-sales, as everything will go underground (e.g. flea markets, ebay, craigslist, classified adverts, and person-to-person) out of to view of their beady little eyes.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Good thing that the VAT Tax ( a.k.a .
" FAT " Tax ) only applies to value added , not value depreciated ! Anyways , they have a very , VERY small chance of getting anything from re-sales , as everything will go underground ( e.g .
flea markets , ebay , craigslist , classified adverts , and person-to-person ) out of to view of their beady little eyes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Good thing that the VAT Tax (a.k.a.
"FAT" Tax) only applies to value added, not value depreciated!Anyways, they have a very, VERY small chance of getting anything from re-sales, as everything will go underground (e.g.
flea markets, ebay, craigslist, classified adverts, and person-to-person) out of to view of their beady little eyes.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28218675</id>
	<title>Re:If a used bookstore can sell used books...</title>
	<author>Restil</author>
	<datestamp>1244138760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Then the publishers can attempt to refine their advertising in such a way that it doesn't inadvertantly promote the used video game market.</p><p>Publishers can also refine the OEM contract agreements with the Gamestops of the world to attempt to discourage used game resales in exchange for a larger profit margin on new titles.</p><p>The only argument from the publishers that makes any sense is that from the support angle.  Then again, what "support" do you provide for a video game, except perhaps replacing defective media?  I'll let them have that one if they want.  They don't have to provide free replacements for defective media that was purchased used.  Instead, the buyer will just have to pony up the $2 media replacement and shipping cost themselves.<br>Everyone happy now?  Great.</p><p>-Restil</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Then the publishers can attempt to refine their advertising in such a way that it does n't inadvertantly promote the used video game market.Publishers can also refine the OEM contract agreements with the Gamestops of the world to attempt to discourage used game resales in exchange for a larger profit margin on new titles.The only argument from the publishers that makes any sense is that from the support angle .
Then again , what " support " do you provide for a video game , except perhaps replacing defective media ?
I 'll let them have that one if they want .
They do n't have to provide free replacements for defective media that was purchased used .
Instead , the buyer will just have to pony up the $ 2 media replacement and shipping cost themselves.Everyone happy now ?
Great.-Restil</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Then the publishers can attempt to refine their advertising in such a way that it doesn't inadvertantly promote the used video game market.Publishers can also refine the OEM contract agreements with the Gamestops of the world to attempt to discourage used game resales in exchange for a larger profit margin on new titles.The only argument from the publishers that makes any sense is that from the support angle.
Then again, what "support" do you provide for a video game, except perhaps replacing defective media?
I'll let them have that one if they want.
They don't have to provide free replacements for defective media that was purchased used.
Instead, the buyer will just have to pony up the $2 media replacement and shipping cost themselves.Everyone happy now?
Great.-Restil</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28216981</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28217387</id>
	<title>You are missing why they are upset.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244124540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The key reason the console game companies are frustrated is that GameStop purposefully under pre-orders games because they know they will be getting used copies back. So, the game company isn't really making the money it should on release. They are effectively being dicked by GameStop. GameStop is actually quite stupid. All this does is drive companies to make their game solely DLC. They are effectively shitting where they eat.</p><p>Now, I work in the game industry, and on the rare occasion I actually patronize GameStop, I always by the new copy, because I know the direct impacts their sales practices have on my industry and any potential jobs I may try to get out there.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The key reason the console game companies are frustrated is that GameStop purposefully under pre-orders games because they know they will be getting used copies back .
So , the game company is n't really making the money it should on release .
They are effectively being dicked by GameStop .
GameStop is actually quite stupid .
All this does is drive companies to make their game solely DLC .
They are effectively shitting where they eat.Now , I work in the game industry , and on the rare occasion I actually patronize GameStop , I always by the new copy , because I know the direct impacts their sales practices have on my industry and any potential jobs I may try to get out there .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The key reason the console game companies are frustrated is that GameStop purposefully under pre-orders games because they know they will be getting used copies back.
So, the game company isn't really making the money it should on release.
They are effectively being dicked by GameStop.
GameStop is actually quite stupid.
All this does is drive companies to make their game solely DLC.
They are effectively shitting where they eat.Now, I work in the game industry, and on the rare occasion I actually patronize GameStop, I always by the new copy, because I know the direct impacts their sales practices have on my industry and any potential jobs I may try to get out there.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28218843</id>
	<title>Will GE want a cut when I see my microwave.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244141280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Almost everything now has some sort of CPU with SW (or FW if you prefer).  My microwave, frig, and car all absolutely depend on SW to work.  No car made in the last 10 years could run if you removed the code.</p><p>If you list your microwave on CraigList, why shouldn't the orginal copyright holder get a cut.  Make the buyer pay the original manufacturer to get a license.</p><p>I buy a GPS for directions, a microwave to cook and a game CD to entertain.  SW is critical to all three to provide their value.  Why should a game be "special"?  Making a copy of a GPS, microwave or Game is one thing, selling it to another is Completely different.</p><p>(As a side note, what if I give my used game to some one.... what if I give a "new" game to some one.. where does it end.  It just shouldn't start after the Copyright owner got his/her/it's first bite.)</p><p>Lazy people with broken business models appealing to ignorant (or special interest placed) authorities in Government (judges and Congress) have more than a better chance to win.  Any rational business guy would say go for it.  Enough stupid people have voted to put stupid and unprincipled people in office if they can get free medical.</p><p>I just wish we had enough intelligent people in the various branches of Governement to tell the winers to STFU.  Stupid crap like this is sucking billions out of economy feeding lawyers that should be embarrased and who should be an embarrassment to their friends, families and legacy.  If their children have been given the same moral and ethical value systems (anything for a buck) they too should be blackballed.</p><p>I have little hope that any rational set of principles will be reached in my life time.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Almost everything now has some sort of CPU with SW ( or FW if you prefer ) .
My microwave , frig , and car all absolutely depend on SW to work .
No car made in the last 10 years could run if you removed the code.If you list your microwave on CraigList , why should n't the orginal copyright holder get a cut .
Make the buyer pay the original manufacturer to get a license.I buy a GPS for directions , a microwave to cook and a game CD to entertain .
SW is critical to all three to provide their value .
Why should a game be " special " ?
Making a copy of a GPS , microwave or Game is one thing , selling it to another is Completely different .
( As a side note , what if I give my used game to some one.... what if I give a " new " game to some one.. where does it end .
It just should n't start after the Copyright owner got his/her/it 's first bite .
) Lazy people with broken business models appealing to ignorant ( or special interest placed ) authorities in Government ( judges and Congress ) have more than a better chance to win .
Any rational business guy would say go for it .
Enough stupid people have voted to put stupid and unprincipled people in office if they can get free medical.I just wish we had enough intelligent people in the various branches of Governement to tell the winers to STFU .
Stupid crap like this is sucking billions out of economy feeding lawyers that should be embarrased and who should be an embarrassment to their friends , families and legacy .
If their children have been given the same moral and ethical value systems ( anything for a buck ) they too should be blackballed.I have little hope that any rational set of principles will be reached in my life time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Almost everything now has some sort of CPU with SW (or FW if you prefer).
My microwave, frig, and car all absolutely depend on SW to work.
No car made in the last 10 years could run if you removed the code.If you list your microwave on CraigList, why shouldn't the orginal copyright holder get a cut.
Make the buyer pay the original manufacturer to get a license.I buy a GPS for directions, a microwave to cook and a game CD to entertain.
SW is critical to all three to provide their value.
Why should a game be "special"?
Making a copy of a GPS, microwave or Game is one thing, selling it to another is Completely different.
(As a side note, what if I give my used game to some one.... what if I give a "new" game to some one.. where does it end.
It just shouldn't start after the Copyright owner got his/her/it's first bite.
)Lazy people with broken business models appealing to ignorant (or special interest placed) authorities in Government (judges and Congress) have more than a better chance to win.
Any rational business guy would say go for it.
Enough stupid people have voted to put stupid and unprincipled people in office if they can get free medical.I just wish we had enough intelligent people in the various branches of Governement to tell the winers to STFU.
Stupid crap like this is sucking billions out of economy feeding lawyers that should be embarrased and who should be an embarrassment to their friends, families and legacy.
If their children have been given the same moral and ethical value systems (anything for a buck) they too should be blackballed.I have little hope that any rational set of principles will be reached in my life time.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28217397</id>
	<title>Re:WTF?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244124660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Not only that, but the game publishers aren't seeing any of the revenue that gas stations make.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not only that , but the game publishers are n't seeing any of the revenue that gas stations make .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not only that, but the game publishers aren't seeing any of the revenue that gas stations make.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28216403</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28222001</id>
	<title>Re:devil's advocate</title>
	<author>hoooocheymomma</author>
	<datestamp>1244215020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>all they can do is whine and lobby</p></div><p>Correct. Gone are the days when a company could make a game that was actually appealing enough that the vast number of honest gamers out there willing to pay full price offset the lost sales at the hands of pirates. In order pull off something like that, a company would have to:</p><p>-care about its customers<br>-actually have an original idea BEFORE deciding to make the game<br>-know what makes a fun game and actually care enough to work toward creating one</p><p>But that's completely unheard of. Gamespot should really give the shitty companies the money they couldn't entice consumers to give them in the first place. I mean really, come on gamestop, stop support a culture that actually demands a worthy product, and hop on the gravy train to mediocrity.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>all they can do is whine and lobbyCorrect .
Gone are the days when a company could make a game that was actually appealing enough that the vast number of honest gamers out there willing to pay full price offset the lost sales at the hands of pirates .
In order pull off something like that , a company would have to : -care about its customers-actually have an original idea BEFORE deciding to make the game-know what makes a fun game and actually care enough to work toward creating oneBut that 's completely unheard of .
Gamespot should really give the shitty companies the money they could n't entice consumers to give them in the first place .
I mean really , come on gamestop , stop support a culture that actually demands a worthy product , and hop on the gravy train to mediocrity .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>all they can do is whine and lobbyCorrect.
Gone are the days when a company could make a game that was actually appealing enough that the vast number of honest gamers out there willing to pay full price offset the lost sales at the hands of pirates.
In order pull off something like that, a company would have to:-care about its customers-actually have an original idea BEFORE deciding to make the game-know what makes a fun game and actually care enough to work toward creating oneBut that's completely unheard of.
Gamespot should really give the shitty companies the money they couldn't entice consumers to give them in the first place.
I mean really, come on gamestop, stop support a culture that actually demands a worthy product, and hop on the gravy train to mediocrity.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28216611</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28221683</id>
	<title>Whining...</title>
	<author>immakiku</author>
	<datestamp>1244213520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>"We would prefer to participate in the sale of our products, especially when we spend years putting one of these things together and we have to continue to provide support for all these new customers without creating any new revenue from it at all," said Pete Hines, vice president of Bethesda Softworks. "We're not big fans of that."</p></div><p>True they spent years putting one of these things together, but they were already compensated by the first play through. True they have to continue to support these "new customers", but they get to stop supporting the "old customers" - that is, the people who sold the games to the new customers.</p><p>Why not make a game more self sufficient so they don't have to spend as much resources supporting it, or prolong the lifetime of the game so buyers in the primary market won't want to sell it?</p><p>To be clear, my words aren't completely fair to the single player, storyline play-through type of games, like single player RPGs or TPSs. But for those I think they'd have have to suck it up - book publishers have been putting up with the same for years.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>" We would prefer to participate in the sale of our products , especially when we spend years putting one of these things together and we have to continue to provide support for all these new customers without creating any new revenue from it at all , " said Pete Hines , vice president of Bethesda Softworks .
" We 're not big fans of that .
" True they spent years putting one of these things together , but they were already compensated by the first play through .
True they have to continue to support these " new customers " , but they get to stop supporting the " old customers " - that is , the people who sold the games to the new customers.Why not make a game more self sufficient so they do n't have to spend as much resources supporting it , or prolong the lifetime of the game so buyers in the primary market wo n't want to sell it ? To be clear , my words are n't completely fair to the single player , storyline play-through type of games , like single player RPGs or TPSs .
But for those I think they 'd have have to suck it up - book publishers have been putting up with the same for years .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"We would prefer to participate in the sale of our products, especially when we spend years putting one of these things together and we have to continue to provide support for all these new customers without creating any new revenue from it at all," said Pete Hines, vice president of Bethesda Softworks.
"We're not big fans of that.
"True they spent years putting one of these things together, but they were already compensated by the first play through.
True they have to continue to support these "new customers", but they get to stop supporting the "old customers" - that is, the people who sold the games to the new customers.Why not make a game more self sufficient so they don't have to spend as much resources supporting it, or prolong the lifetime of the game so buyers in the primary market won't want to sell it?To be clear, my words aren't completely fair to the single player, storyline play-through type of games, like single player RPGs or TPSs.
But for those I think they'd have have to suck it up - book publishers have been putting up with the same for years.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28219317</id>
	<title>Added selection gets me into the store</title>
	<author>LostMyBeaver</author>
	<datestamp>1244234040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I find that if you just look at new games on the walls, the store looks bare and I don't spend a lot of time looking. Stores near here that are new games only almost never get my business. But, the kicker is, I almost never buy used games. Ok, occassionally I buy a DS game for my kid or I bought the early PS2 Guitar Hero games just to get the songs. But I almost always buy new games, but it's the used game selection that gets me to the store since I know there a 99\% chance that I'll find at least something to play when I go in. Yesterday, I went to the store and ended up buying Rock Band Song Pack 2 even though I wasn't looking for it. But, I was looking for a Wii game, and the new game selection for Wii in Norway sucks, and a new release costs $90 US at most stores.<br><br>Probably the last 5-10 games I bought were new, but I bought them from GameStop because I knew walking in the door, if there wasn't anything new at an "affordable" price point, I could always buy something used.<br><br>Oh and I never sell my games back, I'll give them to friends if they want them instead. Taking a 50\% loss or a 100\% loss makes little difference to me so long as I got my money's worth from the game.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I find that if you just look at new games on the walls , the store looks bare and I do n't spend a lot of time looking .
Stores near here that are new games only almost never get my business .
But , the kicker is , I almost never buy used games .
Ok , occassionally I buy a DS game for my kid or I bought the early PS2 Guitar Hero games just to get the songs .
But I almost always buy new games , but it 's the used game selection that gets me to the store since I know there a 99 \ % chance that I 'll find at least something to play when I go in .
Yesterday , I went to the store and ended up buying Rock Band Song Pack 2 even though I was n't looking for it .
But , I was looking for a Wii game , and the new game selection for Wii in Norway sucks , and a new release costs $ 90 US at most stores.Probably the last 5-10 games I bought were new , but I bought them from GameStop because I knew walking in the door , if there was n't anything new at an " affordable " price point , I could always buy something used.Oh and I never sell my games back , I 'll give them to friends if they want them instead .
Taking a 50 \ % loss or a 100 \ % loss makes little difference to me so long as I got my money 's worth from the game .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I find that if you just look at new games on the walls, the store looks bare and I don't spend a lot of time looking.
Stores near here that are new games only almost never get my business.
But, the kicker is, I almost never buy used games.
Ok, occassionally I buy a DS game for my kid or I bought the early PS2 Guitar Hero games just to get the songs.
But I almost always buy new games, but it's the used game selection that gets me to the store since I know there a 99\% chance that I'll find at least something to play when I go in.
Yesterday, I went to the store and ended up buying Rock Band Song Pack 2 even though I wasn't looking for it.
But, I was looking for a Wii game, and the new game selection for Wii in Norway sucks, and a new release costs $90 US at most stores.Probably the last 5-10 games I bought were new, but I bought them from GameStop because I knew walking in the door, if there wasn't anything new at an "affordable" price point, I could always buy something used.Oh and I never sell my games back, I'll give them to friends if they want them instead.
Taking a 50\% loss or a 100\% loss makes little difference to me so long as I got my money's worth from the game.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28227767</id>
	<title>Why don't Publishers just start buying back games?</title>
	<author>jr0dy</author>
	<datestamp>1244197740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If publishers really want to get in on the action, why don't they just take the initiative to start buy-back programs of their own, and outbid GameStop?  Have you ever actually traded in a game there?  The money you get is laughable - it's akin to selling your textbooks back to the school bookstore at the end of the year.

The publishers would have no problem outbidding GameStop for this reason.  Yeah, they'd be paying out more, but they'd have very little net overhead (assuming most of the games they'd buy would be sold in the immediate future) and could start a reasonable profit stream in no time.

If the publishers started their own program, it could be like Netflix: they send you an envelope that is completely inexpensive to just mail back the disk itself, and sell it online.  They could offer direct cash payouts or credits towards games in their own online stores.

This is just indicative of the trend which was began by anti-trust legislation - why innovate when you can get a piece of your competitor's pie for the (usually) lower cost of some legal fees?</htmltext>
<tokenext>If publishers really want to get in on the action , why do n't they just take the initiative to start buy-back programs of their own , and outbid GameStop ?
Have you ever actually traded in a game there ?
The money you get is laughable - it 's akin to selling your textbooks back to the school bookstore at the end of the year .
The publishers would have no problem outbidding GameStop for this reason .
Yeah , they 'd be paying out more , but they 'd have very little net overhead ( assuming most of the games they 'd buy would be sold in the immediate future ) and could start a reasonable profit stream in no time .
If the publishers started their own program , it could be like Netflix : they send you an envelope that is completely inexpensive to just mail back the disk itself , and sell it online .
They could offer direct cash payouts or credits towards games in their own online stores .
This is just indicative of the trend which was began by anti-trust legislation - why innovate when you can get a piece of your competitor 's pie for the ( usually ) lower cost of some legal fees ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If publishers really want to get in on the action, why don't they just take the initiative to start buy-back programs of their own, and outbid GameStop?
Have you ever actually traded in a game there?
The money you get is laughable - it's akin to selling your textbooks back to the school bookstore at the end of the year.
The publishers would have no problem outbidding GameStop for this reason.
Yeah, they'd be paying out more, but they'd have very little net overhead (assuming most of the games they'd buy would be sold in the immediate future) and could start a reasonable profit stream in no time.
If the publishers started their own program, it could be like Netflix: they send you an envelope that is completely inexpensive to just mail back the disk itself, and sell it online.
They could offer direct cash payouts or credits towards games in their own online stores.
This is just indicative of the trend which was began by anti-trust legislation - why innovate when you can get a piece of your competitor's pie for the (usually) lower cost of some legal fees?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28227697</id>
	<title>Re:here's how they could threaten gamestop</title>
	<author>jr0dy</author>
	<datestamp>1244197260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The price drop would actually not mean fully half revenue loss for the publishers because they would sell more games.</p></div><p>The Laffer Curve in practice!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The price drop would actually not mean fully half revenue loss for the publishers because they would sell more games.The Laffer Curve in practice !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The price drop would actually not mean fully half revenue loss for the publishers because they would sell more games.The Laffer Curve in practice!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28217053</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28217473</id>
	<title>Re:What if auto makers ...</title>
	<author>Golgothaa86</author>
	<datestamp>1244125620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Interestingly enough our wonderful government gets sales tax on vehicles even if its sold from person to person. Sounds like they got the system down to get a cut of every car resold, and resold, and resold, and resold again.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Interestingly enough our wonderful government gets sales tax on vehicles even if its sold from person to person .
Sounds like they got the system down to get a cut of every car resold , and resold , and resold , and resold again .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Interestingly enough our wonderful government gets sales tax on vehicles even if its sold from person to person.
Sounds like they got the system down to get a cut of every car resold, and resold, and resold, and resold again.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28216447</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28216767</id>
	<title>Re:If a used bookstore can sell used books...</title>
	<author>NeutronCowboy</author>
	<datestamp>1244119680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Careful. What sounds ridiculous to you and me sounds perfectly reasonable to an executive who's got more money than brains. I've been around a few of those types, and the way they measure their worth, their family's worth and their contributions to society is by how big their bank account is.</p><p>To them, first-sale doctrine is nothing but a hippy ideology that needs to be stamped out post-haste.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Careful .
What sounds ridiculous to you and me sounds perfectly reasonable to an executive who 's got more money than brains .
I 've been around a few of those types , and the way they measure their worth , their family 's worth and their contributions to society is by how big their bank account is.To them , first-sale doctrine is nothing but a hippy ideology that needs to be stamped out post-haste .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Careful.
What sounds ridiculous to you and me sounds perfectly reasonable to an executive who's got more money than brains.
I've been around a few of those types, and the way they measure their worth, their family's worth and their contributions to society is by how big their bank account is.To them, first-sale doctrine is nothing but a hippy ideology that needs to be stamped out post-haste.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28216405</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28221369</id>
	<title>Its not a loophole, fucktard</title>
	<author>Absolut187</author>
	<datestamp>1244212080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>"It's a real problem right now and it's a loophole that people are using, and we're getting cut out of that model," Denis Dyack</p></div></blockquote><p>Hey Denis,</p><p>It's not a "loophole" its a federal fucking statute, debated, voted, and <b>passed</b> by the United States House of Representatives, the United States Senate, and signed into law by the mother-fucking president of the United States.</p><p>The government giveth your copyright, and the government taketh away.  Crying won't help.  So STFU and go bribe some congressmen.</p><p>Or, here's a revolutionary idea you can have for free:  <b> MAKE BETTER GAMES </b>.  Games that people won't WANT to sell after they play them for 10 minutes.  You fucking dolt.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>" It 's a real problem right now and it 's a loophole that people are using , and we 're getting cut out of that model , " Denis DyackHey Denis,It 's not a " loophole " its a federal fucking statute , debated , voted , and passed by the United States House of Representatives , the United States Senate , and signed into law by the mother-fucking president of the United States.The government giveth your copyright , and the government taketh away .
Crying wo n't help .
So STFU and go bribe some congressmen.Or , here 's a revolutionary idea you can have for free : MAKE BETTER GAMES .
Games that people wo n't WANT to sell after they play them for 10 minutes .
You fucking dolt .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"It's a real problem right now and it's a loophole that people are using, and we're getting cut out of that model," Denis DyackHey Denis,It's not a "loophole" its a federal fucking statute, debated, voted, and passed by the United States House of Representatives, the United States Senate, and signed into law by the mother-fucking president of the United States.The government giveth your copyright, and the government taketh away.
Crying won't help.
So STFU and go bribe some congressmen.Or, here's a revolutionary idea you can have for free:   MAKE BETTER GAMES .
Games that people won't WANT to sell after they play them for 10 minutes.
You fucking dolt.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28218135</id>
	<title>Re:devil's advocate</title>
	<author>pcolaman</author>
	<datestamp>1244133180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I completely agree with you but their argument is simple:  people are buying games new, installing it on their computer, installing any cracks necessary to make it play without the CD, then selling the game second hand (and then the cycle continues).</p><p>They can't stop the NOCD cracks.  They've tried.  They can't run the game from CD, the performance is lousy.  So all they can do is whine and lobby.</p></div><p>Actually, they can sell their games on impulse or steam, which is what a lot of developers are doing now.  There is no CD to resell (or if there is with the case of games that are sold retail but activate via steam, the cd key is already associated in steam) and the NOCD cracks thing is not an issue, because no cd is needed anyways.  It's actually a win-win for devs, publishers, and users, because the devs and publishers get their money, the users get more freedom in how they can run their software (for instance, I can load up steam on my buddies' comp, log in with my account, install the game, and we can play to our hearts' desires without me lugging discs with me) and the middlemen (see also, Gamestop) are not an issue.  I can see a day in the future where consoles do all digital distribution as well, once our country joins the 21st century and gets true broadband and not this 10Mb/s bullshit.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I completely agree with you but their argument is simple : people are buying games new , installing it on their computer , installing any cracks necessary to make it play without the CD , then selling the game second hand ( and then the cycle continues ) .They ca n't stop the NOCD cracks .
They 've tried .
They ca n't run the game from CD , the performance is lousy .
So all they can do is whine and lobby.Actually , they can sell their games on impulse or steam , which is what a lot of developers are doing now .
There is no CD to resell ( or if there is with the case of games that are sold retail but activate via steam , the cd key is already associated in steam ) and the NOCD cracks thing is not an issue , because no cd is needed anyways .
It 's actually a win-win for devs , publishers , and users , because the devs and publishers get their money , the users get more freedom in how they can run their software ( for instance , I can load up steam on my buddies ' comp , log in with my account , install the game , and we can play to our hearts ' desires without me lugging discs with me ) and the middlemen ( see also , Gamestop ) are not an issue .
I can see a day in the future where consoles do all digital distribution as well , once our country joins the 21st century and gets true broadband and not this 10Mb/s bullshit .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I completely agree with you but their argument is simple:  people are buying games new, installing it on their computer, installing any cracks necessary to make it play without the CD, then selling the game second hand (and then the cycle continues).They can't stop the NOCD cracks.
They've tried.
They can't run the game from CD, the performance is lousy.
So all they can do is whine and lobby.Actually, they can sell their games on impulse or steam, which is what a lot of developers are doing now.
There is no CD to resell (or if there is with the case of games that are sold retail but activate via steam, the cd key is already associated in steam) and the NOCD cracks thing is not an issue, because no cd is needed anyways.
It's actually a win-win for devs, publishers, and users, because the devs and publishers get their money, the users get more freedom in how they can run their software (for instance, I can load up steam on my buddies' comp, log in with my account, install the game, and we can play to our hearts' desires without me lugging discs with me) and the middlemen (see also, Gamestop) are not an issue.
I can see a day in the future where consoles do all digital distribution as well, once our country joins the 21st century and gets true broadband and not this 10Mb/s bullshit.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28216611</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28228465</id>
	<title>Resale controls scare me</title>
	<author>readin</author>
	<datestamp>1244202420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm not a particularly savvy customer when it comes to technology.  Yes, I work in software, but my work gets sold to large organizations, not to consumers.  When it comes to consumer electronics I really don't know that much.  It's not that I can't keep up, it's that I don't have time.
<br> <br>
What I haven't been noticing, for quite a long time now, is that companies keep putting limits on what I'm supposed to be able to do with software, songs, and other media after I've paid for it.  I'm frankly scared to buy some things because I don't know whether or for how long I'll be able to use them.
<br> <br>
Example:  I now have an ipod.  I've had it more than 4 months. It has the ability to download songs at a great price.  There are tons of old songs I would gladly pay for...if I knew that I would be able to play them.  Will I be able to copy them to my hard drive?  If I can, then can I copy it to a memory stick or email it so that I can then put it on my office hard drive and listen to the songs at work?  Having done that, will I be able to copy them to CD (my office computer's CD burner works, my home CD burner is flaky) so that I can listen to the music in my car?  The ipod playback is pretty bad, so having it on the Ipod is useless.  How do I know for sure whether I'll be able to put it somewhere I can use it?
<br> <br>
So the recording industry is losing real money because of their attitude about things like resales and copying.  I just don't buy their stuff.
<br> <br>
I still buy video games.  Those are only useful on one platform and when I buy them I have no problem knowing what they're for.  I know that if I buy a new computer I can just install on that new computer.  If I don't want it anymore I can give it to a friend or maybe event sell it, that's just normal stuff.  I'll almost certainly give it to a friend who wouldn't buy it for himself (or he would have already done so).  But if they start down a path of "licensing" rather than "selling", I'll never buy it at all.
<br> <br>
A lot of us comsumers are stupid.  We just want to buy things and own them.  We don't want a lot of complicated rules about what we can do with the stuff we buy.  Keep it simple and stupid or you can kiss away our business.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm not a particularly savvy customer when it comes to technology .
Yes , I work in software , but my work gets sold to large organizations , not to consumers .
When it comes to consumer electronics I really do n't know that much .
It 's not that I ca n't keep up , it 's that I do n't have time .
What I have n't been noticing , for quite a long time now , is that companies keep putting limits on what I 'm supposed to be able to do with software , songs , and other media after I 've paid for it .
I 'm frankly scared to buy some things because I do n't know whether or for how long I 'll be able to use them .
Example : I now have an ipod .
I 've had it more than 4 months .
It has the ability to download songs at a great price .
There are tons of old songs I would gladly pay for...if I knew that I would be able to play them .
Will I be able to copy them to my hard drive ?
If I can , then can I copy it to a memory stick or email it so that I can then put it on my office hard drive and listen to the songs at work ?
Having done that , will I be able to copy them to CD ( my office computer 's CD burner works , my home CD burner is flaky ) so that I can listen to the music in my car ?
The ipod playback is pretty bad , so having it on the Ipod is useless .
How do I know for sure whether I 'll be able to put it somewhere I can use it ?
So the recording industry is losing real money because of their attitude about things like resales and copying .
I just do n't buy their stuff .
I still buy video games .
Those are only useful on one platform and when I buy them I have no problem knowing what they 're for .
I know that if I buy a new computer I can just install on that new computer .
If I do n't want it anymore I can give it to a friend or maybe event sell it , that 's just normal stuff .
I 'll almost certainly give it to a friend who would n't buy it for himself ( or he would have already done so ) .
But if they start down a path of " licensing " rather than " selling " , I 'll never buy it at all .
A lot of us comsumers are stupid .
We just want to buy things and own them .
We do n't want a lot of complicated rules about what we can do with the stuff we buy .
Keep it simple and stupid or you can kiss away our business .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm not a particularly savvy customer when it comes to technology.
Yes, I work in software, but my work gets sold to large organizations, not to consumers.
When it comes to consumer electronics I really don't know that much.
It's not that I can't keep up, it's that I don't have time.
What I haven't been noticing, for quite a long time now, is that companies keep putting limits on what I'm supposed to be able to do with software, songs, and other media after I've paid for it.
I'm frankly scared to buy some things because I don't know whether or for how long I'll be able to use them.
Example:  I now have an ipod.
I've had it more than 4 months.
It has the ability to download songs at a great price.
There are tons of old songs I would gladly pay for...if I knew that I would be able to play them.
Will I be able to copy them to my hard drive?
If I can, then can I copy it to a memory stick or email it so that I can then put it on my office hard drive and listen to the songs at work?
Having done that, will I be able to copy them to CD (my office computer's CD burner works, my home CD burner is flaky) so that I can listen to the music in my car?
The ipod playback is pretty bad, so having it on the Ipod is useless.
How do I know for sure whether I'll be able to put it somewhere I can use it?
So the recording industry is losing real money because of their attitude about things like resales and copying.
I just don't buy their stuff.
I still buy video games.
Those are only useful on one platform and when I buy them I have no problem knowing what they're for.
I know that if I buy a new computer I can just install on that new computer.
If I don't want it anymore I can give it to a friend or maybe event sell it, that's just normal stuff.
I'll almost certainly give it to a friend who wouldn't buy it for himself (or he would have already done so).
But if they start down a path of "licensing" rather than "selling", I'll never buy it at all.
A lot of us comsumers are stupid.
We just want to buy things and own them.
We don't want a lot of complicated rules about what we can do with the stuff we buy.
Keep it simple and stupid or you can kiss away our business.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28216831</id>
	<title>ebay unite!</title>
	<author>markringen</author>
	<datestamp>1244120040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>screw them let us unite against game publishers by selling it at a price whatever we want.
i am willing to trade my resident evil 5 with anyone who has Fable2.</htmltext>
<tokenext>screw them let us unite against game publishers by selling it at a price whatever we want .
i am willing to trade my resident evil 5 with anyone who has Fable2 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>screw them let us unite against game publishers by selling it at a price whatever we want.
i am willing to trade my resident evil 5 with anyone who has Fable2.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28217157</id>
	<title>If a game was a physical item...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244122620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>For that matter, are we going to insist that everytime a geekstore resells pokemon, magic cards, miniature collectibles or other similar items that they need to pay the publisher a fee? Or the same thing for baseball cards.</p></div><p>This doesn't seem fair to me - I'm not claiming that this publisher fee is justified, just that you're being quite disingenuous.  Games are relatively unique in that they often have fairly low re-use value (as opposed to music that you'll listen to again, films that you'll watch with friends etc) and don't really lose any value over time - whereas physical property gets damaged through wear and tear and so on.</p><p>Furthermore, as a high-volume product there is a significant initial expense to recoup - unlike a house/apartment where something is sold once to make a given profit.  If more are built, the ratio between investment and return remains reasonably constant.</p><p>Games, on the other hand, depend on high sales to be profitable and offset frequently high development costs and associated risk, lose little perceived value in the eyes of the consumer (and rightly so - you're paying for the game, not its media), and in many cases there's a short turn-around between buying a game and completing it (it's not unreasonable to complete a single player game in a week - you're paying for an immersive, reasonably long but compact experience).</p><p>However, I do think the answers for publishers is to move towards digital distribution rather than attempting to strong arm retailers but my position could change if developers I appreciate struggle to obtain finance.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>For that matter , are we going to insist that everytime a geekstore resells pokemon , magic cards , miniature collectibles or other similar items that they need to pay the publisher a fee ?
Or the same thing for baseball cards.This does n't seem fair to me - I 'm not claiming that this publisher fee is justified , just that you 're being quite disingenuous .
Games are relatively unique in that they often have fairly low re-use value ( as opposed to music that you 'll listen to again , films that you 'll watch with friends etc ) and do n't really lose any value over time - whereas physical property gets damaged through wear and tear and so on.Furthermore , as a high-volume product there is a significant initial expense to recoup - unlike a house/apartment where something is sold once to make a given profit .
If more are built , the ratio between investment and return remains reasonably constant.Games , on the other hand , depend on high sales to be profitable and offset frequently high development costs and associated risk , lose little perceived value in the eyes of the consumer ( and rightly so - you 're paying for the game , not its media ) , and in many cases there 's a short turn-around between buying a game and completing it ( it 's not unreasonable to complete a single player game in a week - you 're paying for an immersive , reasonably long but compact experience ) .However , I do think the answers for publishers is to move towards digital distribution rather than attempting to strong arm retailers but my position could change if developers I appreciate struggle to obtain finance .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For that matter, are we going to insist that everytime a geekstore resells pokemon, magic cards, miniature collectibles or other similar items that they need to pay the publisher a fee?
Or the same thing for baseball cards.This doesn't seem fair to me - I'm not claiming that this publisher fee is justified, just that you're being quite disingenuous.
Games are relatively unique in that they often have fairly low re-use value (as opposed to music that you'll listen to again, films that you'll watch with friends etc) and don't really lose any value over time - whereas physical property gets damaged through wear and tear and so on.Furthermore, as a high-volume product there is a significant initial expense to recoup - unlike a house/apartment where something is sold once to make a given profit.
If more are built, the ratio between investment and return remains reasonably constant.Games, on the other hand, depend on high sales to be profitable and offset frequently high development costs and associated risk, lose little perceived value in the eyes of the consumer (and rightly so - you're paying for the game, not its media), and in many cases there's a short turn-around between buying a game and completing it (it's not unreasonable to complete a single player game in a week - you're paying for an immersive, reasonably long but compact experience).However, I do think the answers for publishers is to move towards digital distribution rather than attempting to strong arm retailers but my position could change if developers I appreciate struggle to obtain finance.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28216405</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28221273</id>
	<title>Re:devil's advocate</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244211600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why bother with a NOCD crack?</p><p>If the game takes 30, 40, even 60 hours of play to finish, even if you only play a few hours a week, you're still going to be done in a couple months, and if the game is at all interesting and engaging, you're probably going to spend more time and finish it much sooner.  Then you're done and it's just going to collect dust.  You might as well sell it.  I personally prefer to lead if for free to friends.</p><p>Maybe a NOCD crack lets you sell (or lend) it earlier, perhaps while it still has more value?  But if the game is good, it usually remains at full price for quite a long time and also maintains its resale value.  If the game is crappy, the new price falls quickly and generally people don't want to buy it used anyway.</p><p>Nobody can say for sure, but I'd guess the vast majority of used games are sold by their original owners after they've finished playing.</p><p>Ok, you have a point about NOCD cracks speeding up the game, but many (and likely the better designed games that have resale value) can install pretty much everything and only check the CD at startup.  Some games have published updates that thwart various NOCD cracks, which of course are updated, it a tit-for-tat race.  Why bother with that hassle.  You're going to be done with the game soon anyway... for most people it just makes sense to do the right thing and hold on the CD while playing and then sell it when finished.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why bother with a NOCD crack ? If the game takes 30 , 40 , even 60 hours of play to finish , even if you only play a few hours a week , you 're still going to be done in a couple months , and if the game is at all interesting and engaging , you 're probably going to spend more time and finish it much sooner .
Then you 're done and it 's just going to collect dust .
You might as well sell it .
I personally prefer to lead if for free to friends.Maybe a NOCD crack lets you sell ( or lend ) it earlier , perhaps while it still has more value ?
But if the game is good , it usually remains at full price for quite a long time and also maintains its resale value .
If the game is crappy , the new price falls quickly and generally people do n't want to buy it used anyway.Nobody can say for sure , but I 'd guess the vast majority of used games are sold by their original owners after they 've finished playing.Ok , you have a point about NOCD cracks speeding up the game , but many ( and likely the better designed games that have resale value ) can install pretty much everything and only check the CD at startup .
Some games have published updates that thwart various NOCD cracks , which of course are updated , it a tit-for-tat race .
Why bother with that hassle .
You 're going to be done with the game soon anyway... for most people it just makes sense to do the right thing and hold on the CD while playing and then sell it when finished .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why bother with a NOCD crack?If the game takes 30, 40, even 60 hours of play to finish, even if you only play a few hours a week, you're still going to be done in a couple months, and if the game is at all interesting and engaging, you're probably going to spend more time and finish it much sooner.
Then you're done and it's just going to collect dust.
You might as well sell it.
I personally prefer to lead if for free to friends.Maybe a NOCD crack lets you sell (or lend) it earlier, perhaps while it still has more value?
But if the game is good, it usually remains at full price for quite a long time and also maintains its resale value.
If the game is crappy, the new price falls quickly and generally people don't want to buy it used anyway.Nobody can say for sure, but I'd guess the vast majority of used games are sold by their original owners after they've finished playing.Ok, you have a point about NOCD cracks speeding up the game, but many (and likely the better designed games that have resale value) can install pretty much everything and only check the CD at startup.
Some games have published updates that thwart various NOCD cracks, which of course are updated, it a tit-for-tat race.
Why bother with that hassle.
You're going to be done with the game soon anyway... for most people it just makes sense to do the right thing and hold on the CD while playing and then sell it when finished.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28216611</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28219683</id>
	<title>Re:There will still be publishers</title>
	<author>Aceticon</author>
	<datestamp>1244196180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That said, the other point from the OP that Steam is killing the used games market (in the PC arena) still stands. I've bought games from a store, in a box, which require online registration via Steam (and then I proceeded to play the cracked version I had already downloaded).</p><p>Considering that if you have the requirement online connection to use Steam, you also have the necessary setup to easily get a cracked version, I would reason that the real purpose of requiring Steam in a store bought PC game is not to deter piracy, instead the aim is to make resale impossible.</p><p>Game publishers don't really want a slice of the use game market - what they want is to kill it on the expectation that at least some of the people that would buy the games used will instead buy them new.</p><p>Don't be surprised if console games also move more and more in the direction of requiring online registration.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That said , the other point from the OP that Steam is killing the used games market ( in the PC arena ) still stands .
I 've bought games from a store , in a box , which require online registration via Steam ( and then I proceeded to play the cracked version I had already downloaded ) .Considering that if you have the requirement online connection to use Steam , you also have the necessary setup to easily get a cracked version , I would reason that the real purpose of requiring Steam in a store bought PC game is not to deter piracy , instead the aim is to make resale impossible.Game publishers do n't really want a slice of the use game market - what they want is to kill it on the expectation that at least some of the people that would buy the games used will instead buy them new.Do n't be surprised if console games also move more and more in the direction of requiring online registration .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That said, the other point from the OP that Steam is killing the used games market (in the PC arena) still stands.
I've bought games from a store, in a box, which require online registration via Steam (and then I proceeded to play the cracked version I had already downloaded).Considering that if you have the requirement online connection to use Steam, you also have the necessary setup to easily get a cracked version, I would reason that the real purpose of requiring Steam in a store bought PC game is not to deter piracy, instead the aim is to make resale impossible.Game publishers don't really want a slice of the use game market - what they want is to kill it on the expectation that at least some of the people that would buy the games used will instead buy them new.Don't be surprised if console games also move more and more in the direction of requiring online registration.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28216571</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28219549</id>
	<title>I just need a cluestick long enough to reach them.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244194020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Total games rented via lovefilm (netflix in US): 220<br>Average launch price: &#194;&pound;40<br>Cost of 2 lovefilm subscription over same period: &#194;&pound;312<br>Total cost of buying all games at launch: &#194;&pound;8800</p><p>Publishers who *still* don't "get it": Priceless.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Total games rented via lovefilm ( netflix in US ) : 220Average launch price :     40Cost of 2 lovefilm subscription over same period :     312Total cost of buying all games at launch :     8800Publishers who * still * do n't " get it " : Priceless .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Total games rented via lovefilm (netflix in US): 220Average launch price: Â£40Cost of 2 lovefilm subscription over same period: Â£312Total cost of buying all games at launch: Â£8800Publishers who *still* don't "get it": Priceless.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28216431</id>
	<title>dear publishers: don't like it? fight back!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244117880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sell us "second run" games for $20 or less as new/unopened products a few months after release, and we'll cut out the middleman (gamestop).</p><p>I don't buy $60 games unless I *really* want them -- badly. Otherwise I wait until I can get them for under $20 -- any way possible.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sell us " second run " games for $ 20 or less as new/unopened products a few months after release , and we 'll cut out the middleman ( gamestop ) .I do n't buy $ 60 games unless I * really * want them -- badly .
Otherwise I wait until I can get them for under $ 20 -- any way possible .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sell us "second run" games for $20 or less as new/unopened products a few months after release, and we'll cut out the middleman (gamestop).I don't buy $60 games unless I *really* want them -- badly.
Otherwise I wait until I can get them for under $20 -- any way possible.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28217063</id>
	<title>Re:If a used bookstore can sell used books...</title>
	<author>mabhatter654</author>
	<datestamp>1244121960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>game publishers sell a product too... a shiny disc.  The oppressive DRM on most console games makes reproduction by average people not very likely. How is a video game any different from a cookbook publisher...why shouldn't a cookbook or home repair publisher get money for each item you cook/repair too.</p><p>Let's not get started on games like Monpooly!  You could have bought that game once in 1935 and still be playing the same copy!!!!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>game publishers sell a product too... a shiny disc .
The oppressive DRM on most console games makes reproduction by average people not very likely .
How is a video game any different from a cookbook publisher...why should n't a cookbook or home repair publisher get money for each item you cook/repair too.Let 's not get started on games like Monpooly !
You could have bought that game once in 1935 and still be playing the same copy ! ! !
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>game publishers sell a product too... a shiny disc.
The oppressive DRM on most console games makes reproduction by average people not very likely.
How is a video game any different from a cookbook publisher...why shouldn't a cookbook or home repair publisher get money for each item you cook/repair too.Let's not get started on games like Monpooly!
You could have bought that game once in 1935 and still be playing the same copy!!!
!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28216605</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28216841</id>
	<title>Used games market supports high game prices</title>
	<author>Cashlock</author>
	<datestamp>1244120160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Games that you can't resell are worth less. How could anyone think this will lead to more revenue for publishers? People won't be willing to pay as high of prices for new games as they do today if there is no resale value.

For example, the market for used cars supports high new car prices. You're less hesitant to spend $30k on a new car if you can sell the car after a few years and recoup some of your investment.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Games that you ca n't resell are worth less .
How could anyone think this will lead to more revenue for publishers ?
People wo n't be willing to pay as high of prices for new games as they do today if there is no resale value .
For example , the market for used cars supports high new car prices .
You 're less hesitant to spend $ 30k on a new car if you can sell the car after a few years and recoup some of your investment .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Games that you can't resell are worth less.
How could anyone think this will lead to more revenue for publishers?
People won't be willing to pay as high of prices for new games as they do today if there is no resale value.
For example, the market for used cars supports high new car prices.
You're less hesitant to spend $30k on a new car if you can sell the car after a few years and recoup some of your investment.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28217259</id>
	<title>Re:If a used bookstore can sell used books...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244123520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So all book publishers have to do is include a EULA to stop people selling used books? And people wonder why some of us think the world would be better off without things like copyright.</p><p>In the publishers' mind people should be forced to pay for things that have no material value and the many comply out of misplaced good will. I was going to do an analogy, it was probably going to involve a chair.. but I shall spare everyone, this time. The options boil down to this; either publishers and their like can convince skeptics like me that they know better than we do or they can fuck off and let us spend our money how we see fit. It is unfortunate that we do not live in a society where people are free to make decisions in ways that effect no one else but considering society apparently can't tell a con artist from a businessman I don't think we have much to worry about.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So all book publishers have to do is include a EULA to stop people selling used books ?
And people wonder why some of us think the world would be better off without things like copyright.In the publishers ' mind people should be forced to pay for things that have no material value and the many comply out of misplaced good will .
I was going to do an analogy , it was probably going to involve a chair.. but I shall spare everyone , this time .
The options boil down to this ; either publishers and their like can convince skeptics like me that they know better than we do or they can fuck off and let us spend our money how we see fit .
It is unfortunate that we do not live in a society where people are free to make decisions in ways that effect no one else but considering society apparently ca n't tell a con artist from a businessman I do n't think we have much to worry about .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So all book publishers have to do is include a EULA to stop people selling used books?
And people wonder why some of us think the world would be better off without things like copyright.In the publishers' mind people should be forced to pay for things that have no material value and the many comply out of misplaced good will.
I was going to do an analogy, it was probably going to involve a chair.. but I shall spare everyone, this time.
The options boil down to this; either publishers and their like can convince skeptics like me that they know better than we do or they can fuck off and let us spend our money how we see fit.
It is unfortunate that we do not live in a society where people are free to make decisions in ways that effect no one else but considering society apparently can't tell a con artist from a businessman I don't think we have much to worry about.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28216605</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28216705</id>
	<title>alternatives = competition</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244119320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>the used game sale market is still depriving publishers of money because it gives consumers an all-too-easy alternative to buying a new game</p></div><p>Good.  All-too-easy alternatives are usually called "competition" where I come from, and competition is generally considered a good thing in a capitalistic economy.  This bozo is essentially claiming that it's unethical for someone to choose a different product over his.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>some publishers and manufacturers want a piece of the pie</p></div><p>I have no problem with them getting a piece of the pie, if they add some kind of value to the piece.  Set up a used game market, for instance, and take a cut of the transactions that utilize it.  But if someone bypasses it and sells direct, they have no right to complain.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>the used game sale market is still depriving publishers of money because it gives consumers an all-too-easy alternative to buying a new gameGood .
All-too-easy alternatives are usually called " competition " where I come from , and competition is generally considered a good thing in a capitalistic economy .
This bozo is essentially claiming that it 's unethical for someone to choose a different product over his.some publishers and manufacturers want a piece of the pieI have no problem with them getting a piece of the pie , if they add some kind of value to the piece .
Set up a used game market , for instance , and take a cut of the transactions that utilize it .
But if someone bypasses it and sells direct , they have no right to complain .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>the used game sale market is still depriving publishers of money because it gives consumers an all-too-easy alternative to buying a new gameGood.
All-too-easy alternatives are usually called "competition" where I come from, and competition is generally considered a good thing in a capitalistic economy.
This bozo is essentially claiming that it's unethical for someone to choose a different product over his.some publishers and manufacturers want a piece of the pieI have no problem with them getting a piece of the pie, if they add some kind of value to the piece.
Set up a used game market, for instance, and take a cut of the transactions that utilize it.
But if someone bypasses it and sells direct, they have no right to complain.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28217087</id>
	<title>Chicken and egg issue</title>
	<author>Tronster</author>
	<datestamp>1244122140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Every time I buy a used game I'm contributing to the problem, but as a consumer I think it's foolish to buy a new game if a used one is equally as entertaining but $5-$25 cheaper.</p><p>If everyone stopped buying used games, the prices would go down, and lifetimes of game studios would dramatically increase.  But I know very few consumers (including myself) who would turn down a bargin on a matter of principal unless it crossed the line of legality (and many consumers cross that line.)</p><p>I'm hoping for a future with services like Valve's "Steam" for non-PCs.  The ease of use (e.g., lack of cumbersome DRM) and convenience make it a win-win for publishers and consumers.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Every time I buy a used game I 'm contributing to the problem , but as a consumer I think it 's foolish to buy a new game if a used one is equally as entertaining but $ 5- $ 25 cheaper.If everyone stopped buying used games , the prices would go down , and lifetimes of game studios would dramatically increase .
But I know very few consumers ( including myself ) who would turn down a bargin on a matter of principal unless it crossed the line of legality ( and many consumers cross that line .
) I 'm hoping for a future with services like Valve 's " Steam " for non-PCs .
The ease of use ( e.g. , lack of cumbersome DRM ) and convenience make it a win-win for publishers and consumers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Every time I buy a used game I'm contributing to the problem, but as a consumer I think it's foolish to buy a new game if a used one is equally as entertaining but $5-$25 cheaper.If everyone stopped buying used games, the prices would go down, and lifetimes of game studios would dramatically increase.
But I know very few consumers (including myself) who would turn down a bargin on a matter of principal unless it crossed the line of legality (and many consumers cross that line.
)I'm hoping for a future with services like Valve's "Steam" for non-PCs.
The ease of use (e.g., lack of cumbersome DRM) and convenience make it a win-win for publishers and consumers.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28220655</id>
	<title>What about Amazon Market Place &amp; Ebay?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244207520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Who really sells their used games to a highstreet store anyway? The amounts they offer are just laughable.<br>Selling used games online using either Amazon market place or Ebay is a much better idea.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Who really sells their used games to a highstreet store anyway ?
The amounts they offer are just laughable.Selling used games online using either Amazon market place or Ebay is a much better idea .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Who really sells their used games to a highstreet store anyway?
The amounts they offer are just laughable.Selling used games online using either Amazon market place or Ebay is a much better idea.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28216865</id>
	<title>Re:What party games market?</title>
	<author>SanityInAnarchy</author>
	<datestamp>1244120340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>despite the VGA input on the majority of HDTVs and the existence of affordable VGA-to-SDTV converters.</p></div><p>Never mind the existence of HDMI out on laptops now.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Therefore, video game genres designed for same-room multiplayer on a large monitor, like Bomberman series or Super Smash Bros. series, tend to be underrepresented on Steam just as they are in the rest of the PC game market.</p></div><p>Yeah, that does suck. I really wish we saw more of these.</p><p>However, splitscreen multiplayer sucks more. That's one advantage of PC, at least -- even if we're playing co-op, I can't see your screen, and we each have a nice, big, high-res, fullscreen picture of whatever we're doing.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Publishers exist to separate the wheat from the chaff. Otherwise, you'd have the situation like on Apple's app store, where you don't know which of the 25,000 apps are worthwhile.</p></div><p>That's not a question of publisher vs no publisher, it's a question of Apple being a shitty publisher.</p><p>As an example: How do you separate the wheat from the chaff on blogs? Or webcomics? Or anything on the Internet? Answer: Word of mouth, links (a more direct form of word-of-mouth), and trying it out (which is why they publish demo versions).</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>despite the VGA input on the majority of HDTVs and the existence of affordable VGA-to-SDTV converters.Never mind the existence of HDMI out on laptops now.Therefore , video game genres designed for same-room multiplayer on a large monitor , like Bomberman series or Super Smash Bros. series , tend to be underrepresented on Steam just as they are in the rest of the PC game market.Yeah , that does suck .
I really wish we saw more of these.However , splitscreen multiplayer sucks more .
That 's one advantage of PC , at least -- even if we 're playing co-op , I ca n't see your screen , and we each have a nice , big , high-res , fullscreen picture of whatever we 're doing.Publishers exist to separate the wheat from the chaff .
Otherwise , you 'd have the situation like on Apple 's app store , where you do n't know which of the 25,000 apps are worthwhile.That 's not a question of publisher vs no publisher , it 's a question of Apple being a shitty publisher.As an example : How do you separate the wheat from the chaff on blogs ?
Or webcomics ?
Or anything on the Internet ?
Answer : Word of mouth , links ( a more direct form of word-of-mouth ) , and trying it out ( which is why they publish demo versions ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>despite the VGA input on the majority of HDTVs and the existence of affordable VGA-to-SDTV converters.Never mind the existence of HDMI out on laptops now.Therefore, video game genres designed for same-room multiplayer on a large monitor, like Bomberman series or Super Smash Bros. series, tend to be underrepresented on Steam just as they are in the rest of the PC game market.Yeah, that does suck.
I really wish we saw more of these.However, splitscreen multiplayer sucks more.
That's one advantage of PC, at least -- even if we're playing co-op, I can't see your screen, and we each have a nice, big, high-res, fullscreen picture of whatever we're doing.Publishers exist to separate the wheat from the chaff.
Otherwise, you'd have the situation like on Apple's app store, where you don't know which of the 25,000 apps are worthwhile.That's not a question of publisher vs no publisher, it's a question of Apple being a shitty publisher.As an example: How do you separate the wheat from the chaff on blogs?
Or webcomics?
Or anything on the Internet?
Answer: Word of mouth, links (a more direct form of word-of-mouth), and trying it out (which is why they publish demo versions).
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28216485</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28218053</id>
	<title>Dude, you didn't make that money</title>
	<author>xant</author>
	<datestamp>1244132280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The government did.  At least, they printed it.  They should get a cut of the money every time it changes hands.  Oh, and by the way, <a href="http://irs.gov/" title="irs.gov">they do</a> [irs.gov].</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The government did .
At least , they printed it .
They should get a cut of the money every time it changes hands .
Oh , and by the way , they do [ irs.gov ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The government did.
At least, they printed it.
They should get a cut of the money every time it changes hands.
Oh, and by the way, they do [irs.gov].</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28216403</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28219797</id>
	<title>Re:devil's advocate</title>
	<author>L4t3r4lu5</author>
	<datestamp>1244198100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>NOCD crack? You mean I can play Mass Effect / Mirror's Edge / [InsertEAtitlehere] <b>without</b> having to:<ul> <li>Activate online?</li><li>Have the disk in my machine?</li><li>Have a valid license key?</li><li>Pay the artificially inflated price for a new game?</li></ul><p>Thanks, Publishers! You've just saved me a lot of money. I'm so glad that generous, consumer-oriented entities like yourselves like to keep the public informed of alternative markets.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>NOCD crack ?
You mean I can play Mass Effect / Mirror 's Edge / [ InsertEAtitlehere ] without having to : Activate online ? Have the disk in my machine ? Have a valid license key ? Pay the artificially inflated price for a new game ? Thanks , Publishers !
You 've just saved me a lot of money .
I 'm so glad that generous , consumer-oriented entities like yourselves like to keep the public informed of alternative markets .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>NOCD crack?
You mean I can play Mass Effect / Mirror's Edge / [InsertEAtitlehere] without having to: Activate online?Have the disk in my machine?Have a valid license key?Pay the artificially inflated price for a new game?Thanks, Publishers!
You've just saved me a lot of money.
I'm so glad that generous, consumer-oriented entities like yourselves like to keep the public informed of alternative markets.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28216611</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28220097</id>
	<title>Re:devil's advocate</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244201760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Does GameSpot even buy used PC games?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Does GameSpot even buy used PC games ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Does GameSpot even buy used PC games?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28216611</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28217537</id>
	<title>This is really a Pawn Shop Business Model</title>
	<author>Orion Blastar</author>
	<datestamp>1244126100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>of selling used stuff.</p><p>Before the used game stores there were used record and CD stores and used Video tape and DVD stores. Pawn Shops buy and sell all of them and did this sort of thing before the "Used X" Stores.</p><p>Even Comic Book stores do that, buy used comics for pennies on the dollar and sell them for "retail" or "collector's price" based on how rare the comic is and in what condition it is in.</p><p>What next, Game Publishers want a piece of eBay and other auction sites that sell used games? Give me a break!</p><p>Game Publishers already got a sale from whomever bought the game new, but the person got tired or bored of the game or it didn't meet the expectations and they sold it to the Used Game store to get some of their money back. Game Publishers should love the Used Game Stores because it stops people from pirating the game because it costs so much to buy new and the used price is more reasonable.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>of selling used stuff.Before the used game stores there were used record and CD stores and used Video tape and DVD stores .
Pawn Shops buy and sell all of them and did this sort of thing before the " Used X " Stores.Even Comic Book stores do that , buy used comics for pennies on the dollar and sell them for " retail " or " collector 's price " based on how rare the comic is and in what condition it is in.What next , Game Publishers want a piece of eBay and other auction sites that sell used games ?
Give me a break ! Game Publishers already got a sale from whomever bought the game new , but the person got tired or bored of the game or it did n't meet the expectations and they sold it to the Used Game store to get some of their money back .
Game Publishers should love the Used Game Stores because it stops people from pirating the game because it costs so much to buy new and the used price is more reasonable .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>of selling used stuff.Before the used game stores there were used record and CD stores and used Video tape and DVD stores.
Pawn Shops buy and sell all of them and did this sort of thing before the "Used X" Stores.Even Comic Book stores do that, buy used comics for pennies on the dollar and sell them for "retail" or "collector's price" based on how rare the comic is and in what condition it is in.What next, Game Publishers want a piece of eBay and other auction sites that sell used games?
Give me a break!Game Publishers already got a sale from whomever bought the game new, but the person got tired or bored of the game or it didn't meet the expectations and they sold it to the Used Game store to get some of their money back.
Game Publishers should love the Used Game Stores because it stops people from pirating the game because it costs so much to buy new and the used price is more reasonable.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28216715</id>
	<title>They got their cut at time of first sale</title>
	<author>Jerf</author>
	<datestamp>1244119380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The game companies get their cut at the time of first sale. The selling cost of the game already includes in the price the value to the customer of the ability to resell the product. The assumption the game companies are making is that if they lock this out, they can sell more product at the current prices, but instead what will happen is that they will be have to drop their prices some amount to account for the fact that it is less valuable to the purchasers.</p><p>This is a fairly standard element of elementary economics; for instance, see <a href="http://www.daviddfriedman.com/Academic/Price\_Theory/PThy\_Chapter\_2/PThy\_CHAP\_2.html" title="daviddfriedman.com">this chapter of Price Theory</a> [daviddfriedman.com], where virtually this exact problem is problem number 12 in chapter two of the book.</p><p>Which just goes to show that for all the supposed value of an MBA, people in business still routinely fail to apply even the simplest economics to their own worlds.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The game companies get their cut at the time of first sale .
The selling cost of the game already includes in the price the value to the customer of the ability to resell the product .
The assumption the game companies are making is that if they lock this out , they can sell more product at the current prices , but instead what will happen is that they will be have to drop their prices some amount to account for the fact that it is less valuable to the purchasers.This is a fairly standard element of elementary economics ; for instance , see this chapter of Price Theory [ daviddfriedman.com ] , where virtually this exact problem is problem number 12 in chapter two of the book.Which just goes to show that for all the supposed value of an MBA , people in business still routinely fail to apply even the simplest economics to their own worlds .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The game companies get their cut at the time of first sale.
The selling cost of the game already includes in the price the value to the customer of the ability to resell the product.
The assumption the game companies are making is that if they lock this out, they can sell more product at the current prices, but instead what will happen is that they will be have to drop their prices some amount to account for the fact that it is less valuable to the purchasers.This is a fairly standard element of elementary economics; for instance, see this chapter of Price Theory [daviddfriedman.com], where virtually this exact problem is problem number 12 in chapter two of the book.Which just goes to show that for all the supposed value of an MBA, people in business still routinely fail to apply even the simplest economics to their own worlds.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28217029</id>
	<title>Re:WTF?</title>
	<author>interkin3tic</author>
	<datestamp>1244121720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I wonder if these game publishers (and music, movie and book publishers) ever stop to think about what they are saying. If the logic is that they have some ongoing interest in the product they sell us, then doesn't that imply that as a purchaser we have an ongoing interest in the money we give them? So when GPG takes the money I spent and buys new equipment for their offices, shouldn't I be getting a new monitor out of the transaction as well?</p></div><p>The answer is: yes, they do think about it.  And their thoughts boil down to "If we get money from used game sales, then WE GET MORE MONEY!  WOOOO!!!!"</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I wonder if these game publishers ( and music , movie and book publishers ) ever stop to think about what they are saying .
If the logic is that they have some ongoing interest in the product they sell us , then does n't that imply that as a purchaser we have an ongoing interest in the money we give them ?
So when GPG takes the money I spent and buys new equipment for their offices , should n't I be getting a new monitor out of the transaction as well ? The answer is : yes , they do think about it .
And their thoughts boil down to " If we get money from used game sales , then WE GET MORE MONEY !
WOOOO ! ! ! ! "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I wonder if these game publishers (and music, movie and book publishers) ever stop to think about what they are saying.
If the logic is that they have some ongoing interest in the product they sell us, then doesn't that imply that as a purchaser we have an ongoing interest in the money we give them?
So when GPG takes the money I spent and buys new equipment for their offices, shouldn't I be getting a new monitor out of the transaction as well?The answer is: yes, they do think about it.
And their thoughts boil down to "If we get money from used game sales, then WE GET MORE MONEY!
WOOOO!!!!"
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28216403</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28216611</id>
	<title>devil's advocate</title>
	<author>QuantumG</author>
	<datestamp>1244118780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I completely agree with you but their argument is simple:  people are buying games new, installing it on their computer, installing any cracks necessary to make it play without the CD, then selling the game second hand (and then the cycle continues).</p><p>They can't stop the NOCD cracks.  They've tried.  They can't run the game from CD, the performance is lousy.  So all they can do is whine and lobby.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I completely agree with you but their argument is simple : people are buying games new , installing it on their computer , installing any cracks necessary to make it play without the CD , then selling the game second hand ( and then the cycle continues ) .They ca n't stop the NOCD cracks .
They 've tried .
They ca n't run the game from CD , the performance is lousy .
So all they can do is whine and lobby .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I completely agree with you but their argument is simple:  people are buying games new, installing it on their computer, installing any cracks necessary to make it play without the CD, then selling the game second hand (and then the cycle continues).They can't stop the NOCD cracks.
They've tried.
They can't run the game from CD, the performance is lousy.
So all they can do is whine and lobby.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28216405</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28216981</id>
	<title>Re:If a used bookstore can sell used books...</title>
	<author>merreborn</author>
	<datestamp>1244121240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>If a bookstore can sell used books without giving any money to the publisher, I fail to see why a game store can't sell used games</p></div></blockquote><p>It's been pointed out that brick and mortar bookstores generally sell either used OR new books.</p><p>You won't find used books in Borders or Barnes and Noble.</p><p>Gamestop, on the other hand, carries both used AND new titles.  And a lot of publisher money is spent on advertising that drives customers to GameStop's door.</p><p>While I think the "we deserve a cut of used sales!" argument is bullshit, GameStop would make the publishers a lot happier if it split its used game business off into a separate entity.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If a bookstore can sell used books without giving any money to the publisher , I fail to see why a game store ca n't sell used gamesIt 's been pointed out that brick and mortar bookstores generally sell either used OR new books.You wo n't find used books in Borders or Barnes and Noble.Gamestop , on the other hand , carries both used AND new titles .
And a lot of publisher money is spent on advertising that drives customers to GameStop 's door.While I think the " we deserve a cut of used sales !
" argument is bullshit , GameStop would make the publishers a lot happier if it split its used game business off into a separate entity .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If a bookstore can sell used books without giving any money to the publisher, I fail to see why a game store can't sell used gamesIt's been pointed out that brick and mortar bookstores generally sell either used OR new books.You won't find used books in Borders or Barnes and Noble.Gamestop, on the other hand, carries both used AND new titles.
And a lot of publisher money is spent on advertising that drives customers to GameStop's door.While I think the "we deserve a cut of used sales!
" argument is bullshit, GameStop would make the publishers a lot happier if it split its used game business off into a separate entity.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28216405</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28217613</id>
	<title>Right of first sale</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244126880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The real reason for SecuROM malware is finally admitted.</p><p>We have the legally established RIGHT of first sale, jackasses.</p><p>A judge would laugh this rubbish out of court, moreover you'll be lucky if you don't ultimately face a class action suit over stripping customers of their right of first sale.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The real reason for SecuROM malware is finally admitted.We have the legally established RIGHT of first sale , jackasses.A judge would laugh this rubbish out of court , moreover you 'll be lucky if you do n't ultimately face a class action suit over stripping customers of their right of first sale .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The real reason for SecuROM malware is finally admitted.We have the legally established RIGHT of first sale, jackasses.A judge would laugh this rubbish out of court, moreover you'll be lucky if you don't ultimately face a class action suit over stripping customers of their right of first sale.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28216805</id>
	<title>Re:If a used bookstore can sell used books...</title>
	<author>hurfy</author>
	<datestamp>1244119920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Who all has missed out on a cut of the action from me...</p><p>Ford<br>Maytag<br>Chinon<br>Argus<br>Koden (sic?)<br>Kodak<br>HP<br>Eldon<br>Compaq<br>Lionel<br>Okidata<br>Opel<br>Schwinn<br>Craftsman<br>Virtually every record label (1000 used CDs/records/cass/8tracks)<br>Virtually all book publishers (1000 used books)</p><p>oh, and</p><p>Microprose and Activision(i think)</p><p>If a publisher wishes to sell me some suitable new games on 5-1/4" floppies i am willing......</p><p>If someone publishes a quadraphonic 8-track of the right bands, you might actually profit. The holes in my collection are $25-$75 on ebay and risky<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:(  My copy of Tommy was bad for almost $50. Never seen a 4-channel torrent so i can't even fix it.....</p><p>I wonder if those are viable niches in any way?</p><p>To carry on...</p><p>WAAAAA...wake up and join the rest of the world guys. You aren't that special.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Who all has missed out on a cut of the action from me...FordMaytagChinonArgusKoden ( sic ?
) KodakHPEldonCompaqLionelOkidataOpelSchwinnCraftsmanVirtually every record label ( 1000 used CDs/records/cass/8tracks ) Virtually all book publishers ( 1000 used books ) oh , andMicroprose and Activision ( i think ) If a publisher wishes to sell me some suitable new games on 5-1/4 " floppies i am willing......If someone publishes a quadraphonic 8-track of the right bands , you might actually profit .
The holes in my collection are $ 25- $ 75 on ebay and risky : ( My copy of Tommy was bad for almost $ 50 .
Never seen a 4-channel torrent so i ca n't even fix it.....I wonder if those are viable niches in any way ? To carry on...WAAAAA...wake up and join the rest of the world guys .
You are n't that special .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Who all has missed out on a cut of the action from me...FordMaytagChinonArgusKoden (sic?
)KodakHPEldonCompaqLionelOkidataOpelSchwinnCraftsmanVirtually every record label (1000 used CDs/records/cass/8tracks)Virtually all book publishers (1000 used books)oh, andMicroprose and Activision(i think)If a publisher wishes to sell me some suitable new games on 5-1/4" floppies i am willing......If someone publishes a quadraphonic 8-track of the right bands, you might actually profit.
The holes in my collection are $25-$75 on ebay and risky :(  My copy of Tommy was bad for almost $50.
Never seen a 4-channel torrent so i can't even fix it.....I wonder if those are viable niches in any way?To carry on...WAAAAA...wake up and join the rest of the world guys.
You aren't that special.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28216405</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28217197</id>
	<title>Game Industry as smart as the Music Industry</title>
	<author>Conficio</author>
	<datestamp>1244122980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The Music industry did not learn that Apple was successful with its ITunes in large part for the simple pricing scheme of 99c each song what ever it was. That made the buying decision simpler and people started to buy music online and make their IPods worth a fortune fully loaded.</p><p>Now the Game industry does not seem to understand that the risk of buying a new game gets lower if there is a flourishing attractive secondary market. If I put down $49 for a new game and happen to not like it or my friends don't like it, and I can sell it easily for $35 at a place like GameStop, then I'm only $14 in the risk. If that risk gets larger I won't buy that often a new game just for try or kicks.</p><p>And if the original publisher wants a piece of the resale in the secondary market every time, then it means that the resale price for every non commercial owner is lower, because he has to pay the publisher on the original purchase and on the sale to the second market. Which means again it will dampen the new sales.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The Music industry did not learn that Apple was successful with its ITunes in large part for the simple pricing scheme of 99c each song what ever it was .
That made the buying decision simpler and people started to buy music online and make their IPods worth a fortune fully loaded.Now the Game industry does not seem to understand that the risk of buying a new game gets lower if there is a flourishing attractive secondary market .
If I put down $ 49 for a new game and happen to not like it or my friends do n't like it , and I can sell it easily for $ 35 at a place like GameStop , then I 'm only $ 14 in the risk .
If that risk gets larger I wo n't buy that often a new game just for try or kicks.And if the original publisher wants a piece of the resale in the secondary market every time , then it means that the resale price for every non commercial owner is lower , because he has to pay the publisher on the original purchase and on the sale to the second market .
Which means again it will dampen the new sales .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Music industry did not learn that Apple was successful with its ITunes in large part for the simple pricing scheme of 99c each song what ever it was.
That made the buying decision simpler and people started to buy music online and make their IPods worth a fortune fully loaded.Now the Game industry does not seem to understand that the risk of buying a new game gets lower if there is a flourishing attractive secondary market.
If I put down $49 for a new game and happen to not like it or my friends don't like it, and I can sell it easily for $35 at a place like GameStop, then I'm only $14 in the risk.
If that risk gets larger I won't buy that often a new game just for try or kicks.And if the original publisher wants a piece of the resale in the secondary market every time, then it means that the resale price for every non commercial owner is lower, because he has to pay the publisher on the original purchase and on the sale to the second market.
Which means again it will dampen the new sales.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28219093</id>
	<title>Re:here's how they could threaten gamestop</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244144520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Excellent point. My biggest gripe about video games is the outrageous prices for new titles. I would certainly pay for titles if their retail value reflected their entertainment value. For $50, I can be entertained for significantly longer if I purchase 5 grams of marijuana (instead of a game I would play for roughly 20 hours before I becoming bored). Even a modest price drop to $40 for new major publisher titles would likely spur a hefty increase in sales.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Excellent point .
My biggest gripe about video games is the outrageous prices for new titles .
I would certainly pay for titles if their retail value reflected their entertainment value .
For $ 50 , I can be entertained for significantly longer if I purchase 5 grams of marijuana ( instead of a game I would play for roughly 20 hours before I becoming bored ) .
Even a modest price drop to $ 40 for new major publisher titles would likely spur a hefty increase in sales .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Excellent point.
My biggest gripe about video games is the outrageous prices for new titles.
I would certainly pay for titles if their retail value reflected their entertainment value.
For $50, I can be entertained for significantly longer if I purchase 5 grams of marijuana (instead of a game I would play for roughly 20 hours before I becoming bored).
Even a modest price drop to $40 for new major publisher titles would likely spur a hefty increase in sales.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28217053</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28217441</id>
	<title>Re:If a used bookstore can sell used books...</title>
	<author>1729</author>
	<datestamp>1244125200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>You won't find used books in Borders or Barnes and Noble.</p></div><p>My local Barnes and Noble has a large used book section.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>You wo n't find used books in Borders or Barnes and Noble.My local Barnes and Noble has a large used book section .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You won't find used books in Borders or Barnes and Noble.My local Barnes and Noble has a large used book section.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28216981</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28218653</id>
	<title>Related: GM asks Obama to rid US of used car sales</title>
	<author>inmytaxi</author>
	<datestamp>1244138580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>And how much more would McD's make if dumpster divers didn't get access to free food at shelters?</htmltext>
<tokenext>And how much more would McD 's make if dumpster divers did n't get access to free food at shelters ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And how much more would McD's make if dumpster divers didn't get access to free food at shelters?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28227651</id>
	<title>People need to look at the bigger picture</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244197020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What some people can't seem to realize is that in order to make better games that are more compelling with replay value and anything else a gamer wants, they need more money. If 1/2 to 3/4 of the gamers are buying used or stealing copies of the game that leaves developers with very little money to "upgrade" their next games with. I agree that developers shouldn't charge quite as much, but it's getting to the point they have to in order to sustain themselves and create more games in the future. If you disagree with this simply look at all the gaming companies going out of business right now.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What some people ca n't seem to realize is that in order to make better games that are more compelling with replay value and anything else a gamer wants , they need more money .
If 1/2 to 3/4 of the gamers are buying used or stealing copies of the game that leaves developers with very little money to " upgrade " their next games with .
I agree that developers should n't charge quite as much , but it 's getting to the point they have to in order to sustain themselves and create more games in the future .
If you disagree with this simply look at all the gaming companies going out of business right now .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What some people can't seem to realize is that in order to make better games that are more compelling with replay value and anything else a gamer wants, they need more money.
If 1/2 to 3/4 of the gamers are buying used or stealing copies of the game that leaves developers with very little money to "upgrade" their next games with.
I agree that developers shouldn't charge quite as much, but it's getting to the point they have to in order to sustain themselves and create more games in the future.
If you disagree with this simply look at all the gaming companies going out of business right now.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28221491</id>
	<title>Guns anyone?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244212620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Like, why even bother with this IP stuff... Just grab a gun and show up at peoples houses.</p><p>When the cops show up, tell them that the nice folks you just retrieved your hard earned money from might have stolen something from the Internet.</p><p>Everyone will understand, and it's win win.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Like , why even bother with this IP stuff... Just grab a gun and show up at peoples houses.When the cops show up , tell them that the nice folks you just retrieved your hard earned money from might have stolen something from the Internet.Everyone will understand , and it 's win win .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Like, why even bother with this IP stuff... Just grab a gun and show up at peoples houses.When the cops show up, tell them that the nice folks you just retrieved your hard earned money from might have stolen something from the Internet.Everyone will understand, and it's win win.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28218173</id>
	<title>Re:I want my pie and eat it!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244133720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
&nbsp; Copying Software is not necessarily theft.<br>You can download,copy and install software<br>that is free and legal to use and implement.<br>And there are hundreds and tons of free and legal sites.<br>
&nbsp; Here are four sites: Freeware Guide, Reiners' Tilesets, the freecountry.com and File Planet. Although File Planet has a mixture of both Freeware and Shareware. And the download server in use to download many free Quake 3d models from PlanetQuake and other sites too.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)</p><p>
&nbsp; Besides, I don't buy games nor music anymore.<br>A lot of them are too expensive and also with these free and legal<br>sites to download free games, free apps and other various media resources and content.<br>
&nbsp; I also play a few free online games. And I have and own a lot of games<br>that I haven't finished playing yet. I'm replaying Might and Magic<br>8: The Day of the Destroyer.<br>
&nbsp; Very good game. =0)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>  Copying Software is not necessarily theft.You can download,copy and install softwarethat is free and legal to use and implement.And there are hundreds and tons of free and legal sites .
  Here are four sites : Freeware Guide , Reiners ' Tilesets , the freecountry.com and File Planet .
Although File Planet has a mixture of both Freeware and Shareware .
And the download server in use to download many free Quake 3d models from PlanetQuake and other sites too .
; )   Besides , I do n't buy games nor music anymore.A lot of them are too expensive and also with these free and legalsites to download free games , free apps and other various media resources and content .
  I also play a few free online games .
And I have and own a lot of gamesthat I have n't finished playing yet .
I 'm replaying Might and Magic8 : The Day of the Destroyer .
  Very good game .
= 0 )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
  Copying Software is not necessarily theft.You can download,copy and install softwarethat is free and legal to use and implement.And there are hundreds and tons of free and legal sites.
  Here are four sites: Freeware Guide, Reiners' Tilesets, the freecountry.com and File Planet.
Although File Planet has a mixture of both Freeware and Shareware.
And the download server in use to download many free Quake 3d models from PlanetQuake and other sites too.
;)
  Besides, I don't buy games nor music anymore.A lot of them are too expensive and also with these free and legalsites to download free games, free apps and other various media resources and content.
  I also play a few free online games.
And I have and own a lot of gamesthat I haven't finished playing yet.
I'm replaying Might and Magic8: The Day of the Destroyer.
  Very good game.
=0)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28216633</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28217451</id>
	<title>I want lots of things I don't deserve!</title>
	<author>erroneus</author>
	<datestamp>1244125260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If the car I sell gets sold again, I want a piece of it.  I sold some books the other day and when half-price books sells them, I want a piece of their sales.  If I had a daughter and she got married to a rich man, I'd want a pei... oh wait, that's wrong...  But you get the idea.  It's absurd!  They sold their legally published media and made their profit.  That was the deal they signed up for when they bought the rights to publish the software.  Now they are saying they want more?  This has nothing to do with copyright.  The right to copy is theirs.  They sold that copy which was their right.  But after it's sold, how can they even show the audacity of wanting more than they are legally and clearly entitled to?  When someone rents or buys a used copy of something that is not a "lost sale."  Is there anything else like this in the world?  Keep in mind that was is being sold is the media and the license to use and access the content on the media which is most certainly implied.  They are publishers.  They sell media.  They do not sell licenses for use.  That would make them licensors.  Do they have the right to license?  I should hope not.  That should be a right retained by the copyright holder.  And in any case, if holding the originally purchased media does not imply license to use the content, then the whole matter of copyright needs to be revisited from the ground up.  (That probably needs to be done anyway.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If the car I sell gets sold again , I want a piece of it .
I sold some books the other day and when half-price books sells them , I want a piece of their sales .
If I had a daughter and she got married to a rich man , I 'd want a pei... oh wait , that 's wrong... But you get the idea .
It 's absurd !
They sold their legally published media and made their profit .
That was the deal they signed up for when they bought the rights to publish the software .
Now they are saying they want more ?
This has nothing to do with copyright .
The right to copy is theirs .
They sold that copy which was their right .
But after it 's sold , how can they even show the audacity of wanting more than they are legally and clearly entitled to ?
When someone rents or buys a used copy of something that is not a " lost sale .
" Is there anything else like this in the world ?
Keep in mind that was is being sold is the media and the license to use and access the content on the media which is most certainly implied .
They are publishers .
They sell media .
They do not sell licenses for use .
That would make them licensors .
Do they have the right to license ?
I should hope not .
That should be a right retained by the copyright holder .
And in any case , if holding the originally purchased media does not imply license to use the content , then the whole matter of copyright needs to be revisited from the ground up .
( That probably needs to be done anyway .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If the car I sell gets sold again, I want a piece of it.
I sold some books the other day and when half-price books sells them, I want a piece of their sales.
If I had a daughter and she got married to a rich man, I'd want a pei... oh wait, that's wrong...  But you get the idea.
It's absurd!
They sold their legally published media and made their profit.
That was the deal they signed up for when they bought the rights to publish the software.
Now they are saying they want more?
This has nothing to do with copyright.
The right to copy is theirs.
They sold that copy which was their right.
But after it's sold, how can they even show the audacity of wanting more than they are legally and clearly entitled to?
When someone rents or buys a used copy of something that is not a "lost sale.
"  Is there anything else like this in the world?
Keep in mind that was is being sold is the media and the license to use and access the content on the media which is most certainly implied.
They are publishers.
They sell media.
They do not sell licenses for use.
That would make them licensors.
Do they have the right to license?
I should hope not.
That should be a right retained by the copyright holder.
And in any case, if holding the originally purchased media does not imply license to use the content, then the whole matter of copyright needs to be revisited from the ground up.
(That probably needs to be done anyway.
)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28216823</id>
	<title>What we want</title>
	<author>digitig</author>
	<datestamp>1244120040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>"Publishers Want a Slice of Used Game Market". And I want a torrid night of passion with Keira Knightley. I'm expecting to be disappointed. I hope the publishers are, too.</htmltext>
<tokenext>" Publishers Want a Slice of Used Game Market " .
And I want a torrid night of passion with Keira Knightley .
I 'm expecting to be disappointed .
I hope the publishers are , too .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Publishers Want a Slice of Used Game Market".
And I want a torrid night of passion with Keira Knightley.
I'm expecting to be disappointed.
I hope the publishers are, too.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28218207</id>
	<title>Re:Just like....</title>
	<author>williamhb</author>
	<datestamp>1244133960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>This is just like with a car, or some other item, where the original manufacturer gets a kickback every time it is resold because -- hey, wait, they don't get anything from it because that's a stupid idea!  The original manufacturer has already sold it and given up any future interest in it for a fair price!</p></div><p>It depends on what class of good you try to categorise it as.  For instance, actors under union deals do get a kickback every time their program is repeated [legal stoushes about online delivery aside for the mo], and are not seen to have "given up any future interest in their performance" when they were originally paid for it.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is just like with a car , or some other item , where the original manufacturer gets a kickback every time it is resold because -- hey , wait , they do n't get anything from it because that 's a stupid idea !
The original manufacturer has already sold it and given up any future interest in it for a fair price ! It depends on what class of good you try to categorise it as .
For instance , actors under union deals do get a kickback every time their program is repeated [ legal stoushes about online delivery aside for the mo ] , and are not seen to have " given up any future interest in their performance " when they were originally paid for it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is just like with a car, or some other item, where the original manufacturer gets a kickback every time it is resold because -- hey, wait, they don't get anything from it because that's a stupid idea!
The original manufacturer has already sold it and given up any future interest in it for a fair price!It depends on what class of good you try to categorise it as.
For instance, actors under union deals do get a kickback every time their program is repeated [legal stoushes about online delivery aside for the mo], and are not seen to have "given up any future interest in their performance" when they were originally paid for it.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28216449</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28216505</id>
	<title>Re:WTF?</title>
	<author>Chuck Chunder</author>
	<datestamp>1244118240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>That is a very astute observation.</htmltext>
<tokenext>That is a very astute observation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That is a very astute observation.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28216403</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28217895</id>
	<title>Re:There will still be publishers</title>
	<author>dkleinsc</author>
	<datestamp>1244130660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Had Epic incurred that cost, it would be real hard.</p></div><p>So in other words, game publishers prevent Fail from turning into Epic Fail. Got it.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Had Epic incurred that cost , it would be real hard.So in other words , game publishers prevent Fail from turning into Epic Fail .
Got it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Had Epic incurred that cost, it would be real hard.So in other words, game publishers prevent Fail from turning into Epic Fail.
Got it.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28216571</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28216755</id>
	<title>Re:WTF?</title>
	<author>Mistlefoot</author>
	<datestamp>1244119620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>They are spot on.   Used games do cut into their business.  There needs to be a stop to this.  No more used items!<br><br>Heck, if people stopped buying used cars GM and Chrysler and the american economy would not be challenged.  And I'm sick of living in my 'used' house.  I want a new one.</htmltext>
<tokenext>They are spot on .
Used games do cut into their business .
There needs to be a stop to this .
No more used items ! Heck , if people stopped buying used cars GM and Chrysler and the american economy would not be challenged .
And I 'm sick of living in my 'used ' house .
I want a new one .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They are spot on.
Used games do cut into their business.
There needs to be a stop to this.
No more used items!Heck, if people stopped buying used cars GM and Chrysler and the american economy would not be challenged.
And I'm sick of living in my 'used' house.
I want a new one.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28216403</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28220239</id>
	<title>And it distinguishes among lenders too</title>
	<author>tepples</author>
	<datestamp>1244203620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>But you can lend it out for free at the library?</p></div><p>Yes. From <a href="http://www.bitlaw.com/source/17usc/109.html" title="bitlaw.com">the statute in question</a> [bitlaw.com], with my emphasis:</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Nothing in the preceding sentence shall apply to the rental, lease, or lending of a phonorecord <strong>for nonprofit purposes by a nonprofit library or nonprofit educational institution</strong>. [...] Nothing in this subsection shall apply to the lending of a computer program <strong>for nonprofit purposes by a nonprofit library</strong>, if each copy of a computer program which is lent by such library has affixed to the packaging containing the program a warning of copyright in accordance with requirements that the Register of Copyrights shall prescribe by regulation.</p></div></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>But you can lend it out for free at the library ? Yes .
From the statute in question [ bitlaw.com ] , with my emphasis : Nothing in the preceding sentence shall apply to the rental , lease , or lending of a phonorecord for nonprofit purposes by a nonprofit library or nonprofit educational institution .
[ ... ] Nothing in this subsection shall apply to the lending of a computer program for nonprofit purposes by a nonprofit library , if each copy of a computer program which is lent by such library has affixed to the packaging containing the program a warning of copyright in accordance with requirements that the Register of Copyrights shall prescribe by regulation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But you can lend it out for free at the library?Yes.
From the statute in question [bitlaw.com], with my emphasis:Nothing in the preceding sentence shall apply to the rental, lease, or lending of a phonorecord for nonprofit purposes by a nonprofit library or nonprofit educational institution.
[...] Nothing in this subsection shall apply to the lending of a computer program for nonprofit purposes by a nonprofit library, if each copy of a computer program which is lent by such library has affixed to the packaging containing the program a warning of copyright in accordance with requirements that the Register of Copyrights shall prescribe by regulation.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28217599</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28218809</id>
	<title>Blargh. Corporate whiney bitches.</title>
	<author>vegiVamp</author>
	<datestamp>1244140740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>In other news, car manufacturers complain that they're still being deprived of important revenue streams because the used car market offers consumers a convenient alternative for buying a new car.<br><br>No, wait. Car companies *don't* complain, they got into the secondhand market themselves, and offered an added value by doing a full checkup and offering limited brand warranty on the used cars, too.<br><br>I realise engine checkups aren't really possible on used games, but if they want a piece of the pie they should work for it, not sit on their arses complaining.<br><br>As a related item, btw, the renting of video games is being put to a stop in Belgium - no more additions to existing rental collections as of a few days ago, and no more renting at all from the end of the year. Is this a trend that's happening in other countries, too ?</htmltext>
<tokenext>In other news , car manufacturers complain that they 're still being deprived of important revenue streams because the used car market offers consumers a convenient alternative for buying a new car.No , wait .
Car companies * do n't * complain , they got into the secondhand market themselves , and offered an added value by doing a full checkup and offering limited brand warranty on the used cars , too.I realise engine checkups are n't really possible on used games , but if they want a piece of the pie they should work for it , not sit on their arses complaining.As a related item , btw , the renting of video games is being put to a stop in Belgium - no more additions to existing rental collections as of a few days ago , and no more renting at all from the end of the year .
Is this a trend that 's happening in other countries , too ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In other news, car manufacturers complain that they're still being deprived of important revenue streams because the used car market offers consumers a convenient alternative for buying a new car.No, wait.
Car companies *don't* complain, they got into the secondhand market themselves, and offered an added value by doing a full checkup and offering limited brand warranty on the used cars, too.I realise engine checkups aren't really possible on used games, but if they want a piece of the pie they should work for it, not sit on their arses complaining.As a related item, btw, the renting of video games is being put to a stop in Belgium - no more additions to existing rental collections as of a few days ago, and no more renting at all from the end of the year.
Is this a trend that's happening in other countries, too ?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28216597</id>
	<title>Oh com'on!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244118720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I've been a gamer for over a decade now.  The fact of the matter is the market is diluted with crap, and even a lot of the "hits" are a lot less fun/shorter than the games from last decade.  I mean, sure, Gears of War is fun for a time, but how does it even compare to Deus Ex or Jedi Knight?   I mean, you can even see how video games have progressed in the sequels of some titles.  For example, compare Deus Ex 1 &amp; 2, or Thief 2 &amp; 3.  Mario Party 2 and Mario Party 8.</p><p>Then there's the sheer amount of crap, even from "trusted" and "quality" companies.  Like Soulcalibur Legends.  My friend is a big fighter game fan and bought that game.  Usually Soulcalibur is a "quality" title, but that game was so shitty!  It seemed like a demo it was so short and lacking features.</p><p>You raised the prices of games by $10 and eroded their value.  People aren't paying for new games because the price of a "new game" isn't worth it to them anymore.  And it shows.  It used to be that a New game would cost $50 and GS would be selling it used for $35.  That means there's a lot of people buying the new game and few buying the used game  (high supply of used games, low demand.)  Now, the games costs $60 new and $55 used.  Which means the exact opposite (low supply of used games, high demand.)</p><p>If I was a game publisher and I wanted to kill the market for used video games, I'd lower my prices to $30 and probably sell more than twice as many copies, making it up in volume.  I mean, if you want the new Gears of War, you'll try and save $5 off of it because it already costs so much.  But the difference between $25 and $30?  Not many people care.  In addition, when I get sick of GoW and return it, I'm getting $30 bucks back.  That's like a tank of gas.   What would you get back for a $30 game, $15 bucks?  That's not enough motivation.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've been a gamer for over a decade now .
The fact of the matter is the market is diluted with crap , and even a lot of the " hits " are a lot less fun/shorter than the games from last decade .
I mean , sure , Gears of War is fun for a time , but how does it even compare to Deus Ex or Jedi Knight ?
I mean , you can even see how video games have progressed in the sequels of some titles .
For example , compare Deus Ex 1 &amp; 2 , or Thief 2 &amp; 3 .
Mario Party 2 and Mario Party 8.Then there 's the sheer amount of crap , even from " trusted " and " quality " companies .
Like Soulcalibur Legends .
My friend is a big fighter game fan and bought that game .
Usually Soulcalibur is a " quality " title , but that game was so shitty !
It seemed like a demo it was so short and lacking features.You raised the prices of games by $ 10 and eroded their value .
People are n't paying for new games because the price of a " new game " is n't worth it to them anymore .
And it shows .
It used to be that a New game would cost $ 50 and GS would be selling it used for $ 35 .
That means there 's a lot of people buying the new game and few buying the used game ( high supply of used games , low demand .
) Now , the games costs $ 60 new and $ 55 used .
Which means the exact opposite ( low supply of used games , high demand .
) If I was a game publisher and I wanted to kill the market for used video games , I 'd lower my prices to $ 30 and probably sell more than twice as many copies , making it up in volume .
I mean , if you want the new Gears of War , you 'll try and save $ 5 off of it because it already costs so much .
But the difference between $ 25 and $ 30 ?
Not many people care .
In addition , when I get sick of GoW and return it , I 'm getting $ 30 bucks back .
That 's like a tank of gas .
What would you get back for a $ 30 game , $ 15 bucks ?
That 's not enough motivation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've been a gamer for over a decade now.
The fact of the matter is the market is diluted with crap, and even a lot of the "hits" are a lot less fun/shorter than the games from last decade.
I mean, sure, Gears of War is fun for a time, but how does it even compare to Deus Ex or Jedi Knight?
I mean, you can even see how video games have progressed in the sequels of some titles.
For example, compare Deus Ex 1 &amp; 2, or Thief 2 &amp; 3.
Mario Party 2 and Mario Party 8.Then there's the sheer amount of crap, even from "trusted" and "quality" companies.
Like Soulcalibur Legends.
My friend is a big fighter game fan and bought that game.
Usually Soulcalibur is a "quality" title, but that game was so shitty!
It seemed like a demo it was so short and lacking features.You raised the prices of games by $10 and eroded their value.
People aren't paying for new games because the price of a "new game" isn't worth it to them anymore.
And it shows.
It used to be that a New game would cost $50 and GS would be selling it used for $35.
That means there's a lot of people buying the new game and few buying the used game  (high supply of used games, low demand.
)  Now, the games costs $60 new and $55 used.
Which means the exact opposite (low supply of used games, high demand.
)If I was a game publisher and I wanted to kill the market for used video games, I'd lower my prices to $30 and probably sell more than twice as many copies, making it up in volume.
I mean, if you want the new Gears of War, you'll try and save $5 off of it because it already costs so much.
But the difference between $25 and $30?
Not many people care.
In addition, when I get sick of GoW and return it, I'm getting $30 bucks back.
That's like a tank of gas.
What would you get back for a $30 game, $15 bucks?
That's not enough motivation.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28217561</id>
	<title>It's simple, really</title>
	<author>aarroneous</author>
	<datestamp>1244126400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Simply create content that either:

A) Is worth keeping beyond the initial period it takes to complete your game,
B) Is an evolving product which gets updates to retain your customers.
C) Is geared toward online/interactive use with multiple users, so that the gameplay itself is ever-changing (think RTS)

I *still* have my original copies of Starcraft, Diablo, and Warcraft, with all their sequels as well. Even without the CD-key requirements to play Ladder games on Battle.net, I'd still keep the original discs around.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Simply create content that either : A ) Is worth keeping beyond the initial period it takes to complete your game , B ) Is an evolving product which gets updates to retain your customers .
C ) Is geared toward online/interactive use with multiple users , so that the gameplay itself is ever-changing ( think RTS ) I * still * have my original copies of Starcraft , Diablo , and Warcraft , with all their sequels as well .
Even without the CD-key requirements to play Ladder games on Battle.net , I 'd still keep the original discs around .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Simply create content that either:

A) Is worth keeping beyond the initial period it takes to complete your game,
B) Is an evolving product which gets updates to retain your customers.
C) Is geared toward online/interactive use with multiple users, so that the gameplay itself is ever-changing (think RTS)

I *still* have my original copies of Starcraft, Diablo, and Warcraft, with all their sequels as well.
Even without the CD-key requirements to play Ladder games on Battle.net, I'd still keep the original discs around.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28216605</id>
	<title>Re:If a used bookstore can sell used books...</title>
	<author>Threni</author>
	<datestamp>1244118720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt; If a bookstore can sell used books without giving any money to the publisher, I fail to see why a game store can't sell used games.</p><p>I think the argument is that bookstores sell a product, whereas when you 'buy' software you're actually entering into a licencing agreement to use the software but you don't have the right to sell/give it to anyone else.  Sort of a little like when you buy travelcards (ticket in London which lets you travel an unlimited number of times in a given time period, ie day/week) you can't give/lend them to your partner - you're both supposed to buy one even if you always travel on alternate days.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; If a bookstore can sell used books without giving any money to the publisher , I fail to see why a game store ca n't sell used games.I think the argument is that bookstores sell a product , whereas when you 'buy ' software you 're actually entering into a licencing agreement to use the software but you do n't have the right to sell/give it to anyone else .
Sort of a little like when you buy travelcards ( ticket in London which lets you travel an unlimited number of times in a given time period , ie day/week ) you ca n't give/lend them to your partner - you 're both supposed to buy one even if you always travel on alternate days .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; If a bookstore can sell used books without giving any money to the publisher, I fail to see why a game store can't sell used games.I think the argument is that bookstores sell a product, whereas when you 'buy' software you're actually entering into a licencing agreement to use the software but you don't have the right to sell/give it to anyone else.
Sort of a little like when you buy travelcards (ticket in London which lets you travel an unlimited number of times in a given time period, ie day/week) you can't give/lend them to your partner - you're both supposed to buy one even if you always travel on alternate days.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28216405</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28216447</id>
	<title>What if auto makers ...</title>
	<author>JustNilt</author>
	<datestamp>1244117940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>had done this also?  Would they have managed to get their way, one is forced to wonder?  Would GM be thriving if they had a cut of every used car sale?  Who the F--- do these publishers think they are anyway?!  If this happens will I have to pay Dell every time my business sells a refurbished Dell PC?  Hell, the pawnbrokers alone will never allow such a thing to go through.</p><p>These are somewhat rhetorical questions and the slippery slope fallacy applies a bit.  Still, the principle is sound as a reason why the publishers shouldn't get a cut of used game sales, in my opinion.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>had done this also ?
Would they have managed to get their way , one is forced to wonder ?
Would GM be thriving if they had a cut of every used car sale ?
Who the F--- do these publishers think they are anyway ? !
If this happens will I have to pay Dell every time my business sells a refurbished Dell PC ?
Hell , the pawnbrokers alone will never allow such a thing to go through.These are somewhat rhetorical questions and the slippery slope fallacy applies a bit .
Still , the principle is sound as a reason why the publishers should n't get a cut of used game sales , in my opinion .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>had done this also?
Would they have managed to get their way, one is forced to wonder?
Would GM be thriving if they had a cut of every used car sale?
Who the F--- do these publishers think they are anyway?!
If this happens will I have to pay Dell every time my business sells a refurbished Dell PC?
Hell, the pawnbrokers alone will never allow such a thing to go through.These are somewhat rhetorical questions and the slippery slope fallacy applies a bit.
Still, the principle is sound as a reason why the publishers shouldn't get a cut of used game sales, in my opinion.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28216571</id>
	<title>There will still be publishers</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244118660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In the context of a game "publisher" usually means "Guys with the cash." Basically the publisher is the company that ponies up the money to have the game made. That is why you'll see even companies like Epic have publishers. It isn't as though Epic needs someone else's name to sell their game. It is that they don't want to incur all the financial risk. So you get a publisher to pay for it, often a much bigger company.</p><p>Gears of War was published by Microsoft, for example. So suppose they spent $20 million on making it. Not an unreasonable amount for a game that quality, maybe they even spent more. Now let's suppose it had bombed for whatever reason. Had Epic incurred that cost, it would be real hard. They are a private company that employs about 75 people. Private means they can't just sell stock to raise money. A $20 million loss would equal over a quarter million dollar loss per employee.</p><p>Now MS is a massive public company. They've got the cash sitting around that $20 million is peanuts. What's more they can sell stock if they need to raise money. Thus the risk is something they can afford to take.</p><p>More over, many dev studios aren't sitting on much cash at all. So they need money during the development time of the game. After all you have to pay the programmers and artists and such while the game is being written, not after it sells. So even if they were willing to assume the risk, they just can't since they just don't have the money it would take.</p><p>You do see some companies that self publish. Stardock has done this. Galactic Civilizations II was written by them and published by them. Means they self financed the game. All the risk and all the rewards are theirs alone. They've now gotten in to publishing other games as well.</p><p>So publishers probably aren't going away. Many development studios will want someone to pay for their game, and that is what a publisher does. The publisher won't actually distribute the game, they'll just fund it, and then sign agreements with services like Steam and Impulse to get the game to consumers.</p><p>Also, as big as Steam is, you are kidding yourself if you think it is more than a fraction of the market. There are plenty of publishers that don't release games on Steam, and even those that do are often not exclusive. EA sells many of their games on Steam now which gives Steam a huge boost in titles since EA is massive, however EA also sells their games in stores. The store copies don't use Steamworks or anything, they are totally independent of Steam.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In the context of a game " publisher " usually means " Guys with the cash .
" Basically the publisher is the company that ponies up the money to have the game made .
That is why you 'll see even companies like Epic have publishers .
It is n't as though Epic needs someone else 's name to sell their game .
It is that they do n't want to incur all the financial risk .
So you get a publisher to pay for it , often a much bigger company.Gears of War was published by Microsoft , for example .
So suppose they spent $ 20 million on making it .
Not an unreasonable amount for a game that quality , maybe they even spent more .
Now let 's suppose it had bombed for whatever reason .
Had Epic incurred that cost , it would be real hard .
They are a private company that employs about 75 people .
Private means they ca n't just sell stock to raise money .
A $ 20 million loss would equal over a quarter million dollar loss per employee.Now MS is a massive public company .
They 've got the cash sitting around that $ 20 million is peanuts .
What 's more they can sell stock if they need to raise money .
Thus the risk is something they can afford to take.More over , many dev studios are n't sitting on much cash at all .
So they need money during the development time of the game .
After all you have to pay the programmers and artists and such while the game is being written , not after it sells .
So even if they were willing to assume the risk , they just ca n't since they just do n't have the money it would take.You do see some companies that self publish .
Stardock has done this .
Galactic Civilizations II was written by them and published by them .
Means they self financed the game .
All the risk and all the rewards are theirs alone .
They 've now gotten in to publishing other games as well.So publishers probably are n't going away .
Many development studios will want someone to pay for their game , and that is what a publisher does .
The publisher wo n't actually distribute the game , they 'll just fund it , and then sign agreements with services like Steam and Impulse to get the game to consumers.Also , as big as Steam is , you are kidding yourself if you think it is more than a fraction of the market .
There are plenty of publishers that do n't release games on Steam , and even those that do are often not exclusive .
EA sells many of their games on Steam now which gives Steam a huge boost in titles since EA is massive , however EA also sells their games in stores .
The store copies do n't use Steamworks or anything , they are totally independent of Steam .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In the context of a game "publisher" usually means "Guys with the cash.
" Basically the publisher is the company that ponies up the money to have the game made.
That is why you'll see even companies like Epic have publishers.
It isn't as though Epic needs someone else's name to sell their game.
It is that they don't want to incur all the financial risk.
So you get a publisher to pay for it, often a much bigger company.Gears of War was published by Microsoft, for example.
So suppose they spent $20 million on making it.
Not an unreasonable amount for a game that quality, maybe they even spent more.
Now let's suppose it had bombed for whatever reason.
Had Epic incurred that cost, it would be real hard.
They are a private company that employs about 75 people.
Private means they can't just sell stock to raise money.
A $20 million loss would equal over a quarter million dollar loss per employee.Now MS is a massive public company.
They've got the cash sitting around that $20 million is peanuts.
What's more they can sell stock if they need to raise money.
Thus the risk is something they can afford to take.More over, many dev studios aren't sitting on much cash at all.
So they need money during the development time of the game.
After all you have to pay the programmers and artists and such while the game is being written, not after it sells.
So even if they were willing to assume the risk, they just can't since they just don't have the money it would take.You do see some companies that self publish.
Stardock has done this.
Galactic Civilizations II was written by them and published by them.
Means they self financed the game.
All the risk and all the rewards are theirs alone.
They've now gotten in to publishing other games as well.So publishers probably aren't going away.
Many development studios will want someone to pay for their game, and that is what a publisher does.
The publisher won't actually distribute the game, they'll just fund it, and then sign agreements with services like Steam and Impulse to get the game to consumers.Also, as big as Steam is, you are kidding yourself if you think it is more than a fraction of the market.
There are plenty of publishers that don't release games on Steam, and even those that do are often not exclusive.
EA sells many of their games on Steam now which gives Steam a huge boost in titles since EA is massive, however EA also sells their games in stores.
The store copies don't use Steamworks or anything, they are totally independent of Steam.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28216401</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28216963</id>
	<title>Re:What party games market?</title>
	<author>geekoid</author>
	<datestamp>1244121120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Publishers exist to separate the wheat from the chaff. Otherwise, you'd have the situation like on Apple's app store, where you don't know which of the 25,000 apps are worthwhile."</p><p>Yes we do, through social networking.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Publishers exist to separate the wheat from the chaff .
Otherwise , you 'd have the situation like on Apple 's app store , where you do n't know which of the 25,000 apps are worthwhile .
" Yes we do , through social networking .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Publishers exist to separate the wheat from the chaff.
Otherwise, you'd have the situation like on Apple's app store, where you don't know which of the 25,000 apps are worthwhile.
"Yes we do, through social networking.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28216485</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28217599</id>
	<title>Re:17 USC 109 distinguishes among formats</title>
	<author>CastrTroy</author>
	<datestamp>1244126700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>But you can lend it out for free at the library? Lot's of phono records at my local library. If I'm not mistaken, there's a couple copies of certain software titles too.</htmltext>
<tokenext>But you can lend it out for free at the library ?
Lot 's of phono records at my local library .
If I 'm not mistaken , there 's a couple copies of certain software titles too .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But you can lend it out for free at the library?
Lot's of phono records at my local library.
If I'm not mistaken, there's a couple copies of certain software titles too.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28216647</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28217585</id>
	<title>Re:What used games market?</title>
	<author>TubeSteak</author>
	<datestamp>1244126580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Steam is a publisher.</p></div><p>Steam is a distributor.<br>Developer --&gt; Publisher ---&gt; Distributor</p><p>Example: Grand Theft Auto IV (PC)<br>Dev = Rockstar Toronto<br>Publisher = Rockstar Games<br>Distributor = Take Two Interactive (Retail) &amp; Steam (Online)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Steam is a publisher.Steam is a distributor.Developer -- &gt; Publisher --- &gt; DistributorExample : Grand Theft Auto IV ( PC ) Dev = Rockstar TorontoPublisher = Rockstar GamesDistributor = Take Two Interactive ( Retail ) &amp; Steam ( Online )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Steam is a publisher.Steam is a distributor.Developer --&gt; Publisher ---&gt; DistributorExample: Grand Theft Auto IV (PC)Dev = Rockstar TorontoPublisher = Rockstar GamesDistributor = Take Two Interactive (Retail) &amp; Steam (Online)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28216479</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28220747</id>
	<title>Books, cars, etc...</title>
	<author>Registered Coward v2</author>
	<datestamp>1244208360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The interesting part of the article was where one exec pointed out creating additional content to sell or making the game have a longer initial life so it enters teh used market later - gee make a good product and people will hold on to it.  Publishers could lower price s- gasp - but don't want to do that so they complain about the unfairness of it all

<p>It's  a model that has existed for a long time - books, cars, houses, computers, records - maybe teh developers would like to pay a little extra for every usd item they buy to reward the original creator of that item as well.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The interesting part of the article was where one exec pointed out creating additional content to sell or making the game have a longer initial life so it enters teh used market later - gee make a good product and people will hold on to it .
Publishers could lower price s- gasp - but do n't want to do that so they complain about the unfairness of it all It 's a model that has existed for a long time - books , cars , houses , computers , records - maybe teh developers would like to pay a little extra for every usd item they buy to reward the original creator of that item as well .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The interesting part of the article was where one exec pointed out creating additional content to sell or making the game have a longer initial life so it enters teh used market later - gee make a good product and people will hold on to it.
Publishers could lower price s- gasp - but don't want to do that so they complain about the unfairness of it all

It's  a model that has existed for a long time - books, cars, houses, computers, records - maybe teh developers would like to pay a little extra for every usd item they buy to reward the original creator of that item as well.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28217179</id>
	<title>Pay no attention to the publishers.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244122800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>These people are just whiners who want to infect your system with rootkits and hidden device drivers.<br>Everyone who avoids paying them is doing the right thing.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>These people are just whiners who want to infect your system with rootkits and hidden device drivers.Everyone who avoids paying them is doing the right thing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>These people are just whiners who want to infect your system with rootkits and hidden device drivers.Everyone who avoids paying them is doing the right thing.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28216973</id>
	<title>Re:What party games market?</title>
	<author>sbeckstead</author>
	<datestamp>1244121180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If that's what publishers are for they are failing seriously!</htmltext>
<tokenext>If that 's what publishers are for they are failing seriously !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If that's what publishers are for they are failing seriously!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28216485</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28219613</id>
	<title>Re:I don't think it's so black and white...</title>
	<author>daveime</author>
	<datestamp>1244194920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>people are giving $55 dollars to a company that does nothing, rather than $60 to the studio that actually made the game</i></p><p>Possibly because the people that made the game ALREADY got their $60 dollars when they sold it the first time around. These are used games we are talking about.</p><p>And the "company that does nothing", except buying used games from joe public without any guarantee that they will be able to resell them ever, is a huge risk. I'd bet for every game they resell, there's another 3 that they end up binning because no one wants it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>people are giving $ 55 dollars to a company that does nothing , rather than $ 60 to the studio that actually made the gamePossibly because the people that made the game ALREADY got their $ 60 dollars when they sold it the first time around .
These are used games we are talking about.And the " company that does nothing " , except buying used games from joe public without any guarantee that they will be able to resell them ever , is a huge risk .
I 'd bet for every game they resell , there 's another 3 that they end up binning because no one wants it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>people are giving $55 dollars to a company that does nothing, rather than $60 to the studio that actually made the gamePossibly because the people that made the game ALREADY got their $60 dollars when they sold it the first time around.
These are used games we are talking about.And the "company that does nothing", except buying used games from joe public without any guarantee that they will be able to resell them ever, is a huge risk.
I'd bet for every game they resell, there's another 3 that they end up binning because no one wants it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28217743</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28218169</id>
	<title>Re:What if auto makers ...</title>
	<author>williamhb</author>
	<datestamp>1244133720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>had done this also? Would they have managed to get their way, one is forced to wonder? Would GM be thriving if they had a cut of every used car sale? Who the F--- do these publishers think they are anyway?!</p></div><p>You have to understand the political perspective.  Cars are bought by "hard-working families" and it would be wrong to disadvantage them by preventing them from being able to sell their old cars on.  Games are bought by "criminally-minded juveniles who must be kept in check" and allowing them to sell them on would just encourage their illegal online activities...  It sounds corny and cynical (and I'm one of the hard-working family class so perhaps I should just keep quiet about this) but the political connotations are rather different depending on what product you are talking about, and that has a big effect on what legislation gets passed.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>had done this also ?
Would they have managed to get their way , one is forced to wonder ?
Would GM be thriving if they had a cut of every used car sale ?
Who the F--- do these publishers think they are anyway ?
! You have to understand the political perspective .
Cars are bought by " hard-working families " and it would be wrong to disadvantage them by preventing them from being able to sell their old cars on .
Games are bought by " criminally-minded juveniles who must be kept in check " and allowing them to sell them on would just encourage their illegal online activities... It sounds corny and cynical ( and I 'm one of the hard-working family class so perhaps I should just keep quiet about this ) but the political connotations are rather different depending on what product you are talking about , and that has a big effect on what legislation gets passed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>had done this also?
Would they have managed to get their way, one is forced to wonder?
Would GM be thriving if they had a cut of every used car sale?
Who the F--- do these publishers think they are anyway?
!You have to understand the political perspective.
Cars are bought by "hard-working families" and it would be wrong to disadvantage them by preventing them from being able to sell their old cars on.
Games are bought by "criminally-minded juveniles who must be kept in check" and allowing them to sell them on would just encourage their illegal online activities...  It sounds corny and cynical (and I'm one of the hard-working family class so perhaps I should just keep quiet about this) but the political connotations are rather different depending on what product you are talking about, and that has a big effect on what legislation gets passed.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28216447</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28221567</id>
	<title>I'd rather they do this</title>
	<author>HalAtWork</author>
	<datestamp>1244212980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'd rather they do this than doing away with the used market altogether with the market heading towards DRMed digital distribution that ties a copy to one system.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'd rather they do this than doing away with the used market altogether with the market heading towards DRMed digital distribution that ties a copy to one system .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'd rather they do this than doing away with the used market altogether with the market heading towards DRMed digital distribution that ties a copy to one system.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28226655</id>
	<title>Contractor</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244234460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I am a contractor and after i build a house and sell it, i want a piece of any revenue that the new home owner gets from selling the house in the future. The houseing resale market deprives builders of money because it gives consumers an all-too-easy alternative to building a new house.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I am a contractor and after i build a house and sell it , i want a piece of any revenue that the new home owner gets from selling the house in the future .
The houseing resale market deprives builders of money because it gives consumers an all-too-easy alternative to building a new house .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I am a contractor and after i build a house and sell it, i want a piece of any revenue that the new home owner gets from selling the house in the future.
The houseing resale market deprives builders of money because it gives consumers an all-too-easy alternative to building a new house.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28216407</id>
	<title>What's Next?</title>
	<author>nate\_in\_ME</author>
	<datestamp>1244117760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>If they are actually successful in doing anything about this, what next?  Car manufacturers complaining because they don't get a "cut" of used car sales, because used car dealers are providing an "easy alternative" to buying new?
<br> <br>
Either that, or game publishers will be the next on the bailout list...</htmltext>
<tokenext>If they are actually successful in doing anything about this , what next ?
Car manufacturers complaining because they do n't get a " cut " of used car sales , because used car dealers are providing an " easy alternative " to buying new ?
Either that , or game publishers will be the next on the bailout list.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If they are actually successful in doing anything about this, what next?
Car manufacturers complaining because they don't get a "cut" of used car sales, because used car dealers are providing an "easy alternative" to buying new?
Either that, or game publishers will be the next on the bailout list...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28217761</id>
	<title>what used games ?</title>
	<author>giorgist</author>
	<datestamp>1244128860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Isn't a used item that has shown some wear due to use ?<br>A used computer game is as good as the day you baught it.<br>It's only devaluation is that it is not the newest thing.<br><br>The problem with games publishes is that there is very little<br>new under the sun. In fact they are publishing "used" games<br>in the concept that the games have already 'used" ideas<br>and people are not prepared to pay top dollar<br><br>They do not see enough difference between "used" games and "new" games<br><br>G</htmltext>
<tokenext>Is n't a used item that has shown some wear due to use ? A used computer game is as good as the day you baught it.It 's only devaluation is that it is not the newest thing.The problem with games publishes is that there is very littlenew under the sun .
In fact they are publishing " used " gamesin the concept that the games have already 'used " ideasand people are not prepared to pay top dollarThey do not see enough difference between " used " games and " new " gamesG</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Isn't a used item that has shown some wear due to use ?A used computer game is as good as the day you baught it.It's only devaluation is that it is not the newest thing.The problem with games publishes is that there is very littlenew under the sun.
In fact they are publishing "used" gamesin the concept that the games have already 'used" ideasand people are not prepared to pay top dollarThey do not see enough difference between "used" games and "new" gamesG</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28218179</id>
	<title>TFB</title>
	<author>Jane Q. Public</author>
	<datestamp>1244133720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>They knew the rules when they manufactured the goddamned games. People have been selling games for hundreds of years, and they didn't bitch too much about it until now. If they don't like it now, too f*ing bad. I have exactly zero sympathy.</htmltext>
<tokenext>They knew the rules when they manufactured the goddamned games .
People have been selling games for hundreds of years , and they did n't bitch too much about it until now .
If they do n't like it now , too f * ing bad .
I have exactly zero sympathy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They knew the rules when they manufactured the goddamned games.
People have been selling games for hundreds of years, and they didn't bitch too much about it until now.
If they don't like it now, too f*ing bad.
I have exactly zero sympathy.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28216911</id>
	<title>Re:devil's advocate</title>
	<author>deathy\_epl+ccs</author>
	<datestamp>1244120640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Maybe the GameStops in your part of the world are different than the ones here, but I am unaware of anywhere that sells used PC games - for exactly the reason you quote above.  This entire conversation is NOT about PC games, it's about Console games.</div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe the GameStops in your part of the world are different than the ones here , but I am unaware of anywhere that sells used PC games - for exactly the reason you quote above .
This entire conversation is NOT about PC games , it 's about Console games .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe the GameStops in your part of the world are different than the ones here, but I am unaware of anywhere that sells used PC games - for exactly the reason you quote above.
This entire conversation is NOT about PC games, it's about Console games.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28216611</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28249091</id>
	<title>Re:What are these guys on?</title>
	<author>\_2Karl</author>
	<datestamp>1244462580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Working in the games industry myself, I can tell you that you're right on the ball with the "petulant children" remark. Many of the people in control are exactly that - kids who never grew up. They want to live this rockstar lifestyle which they feel they're entitled to. I suggested in order to keep costs down we cap pay at a sensible level, develop smaller scale titles on a more frequent release schedule, reuse tech in different games instead of redesigning each time. I was laughed out the office, I believe primarily because of the pay suggestion. Working in the games industry has brought on clinical depression. Not a day passes where I don't think of taking my own life. I pray for collapse, and judging from the current environment, that may not be far off.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Working in the games industry myself , I can tell you that you 're right on the ball with the " petulant children " remark .
Many of the people in control are exactly that - kids who never grew up .
They want to live this rockstar lifestyle which they feel they 're entitled to .
I suggested in order to keep costs down we cap pay at a sensible level , develop smaller scale titles on a more frequent release schedule , reuse tech in different games instead of redesigning each time .
I was laughed out the office , I believe primarily because of the pay suggestion .
Working in the games industry has brought on clinical depression .
Not a day passes where I do n't think of taking my own life .
I pray for collapse , and judging from the current environment , that may not be far off .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Working in the games industry myself, I can tell you that you're right on the ball with the "petulant children" remark.
Many of the people in control are exactly that - kids who never grew up.
They want to live this rockstar lifestyle which they feel they're entitled to.
I suggested in order to keep costs down we cap pay at a sensible level, develop smaller scale titles on a more frequent release schedule, reuse tech in different games instead of redesigning each time.
I was laughed out the office, I believe primarily because of the pay suggestion.
Working in the games industry has brought on clinical depression.
Not a day passes where I don't think of taking my own life.
I pray for collapse, and judging from the current environment, that may not be far off.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28216665</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28217265</id>
	<title>Re:If a used bookstore can sell used books...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244123580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>US law says otherwise.  As defined by 17 USC 101, a "copy" is a physical instance of the physical media (game cartage, CD, etc.).  Under 17 USC 117, ownership of a "copy" of software confers the right to install and use the software on that copy.  As long as the transaction at the store counter relative to the physical media is a physical property purchase, then you get the intellectual property rights to install and use the intellectual property contained in that physical property.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>US law says otherwise .
As defined by 17 USC 101 , a " copy " is a physical instance of the physical media ( game cartage , CD , etc. ) .
Under 17 USC 117 , ownership of a " copy " of software confers the right to install and use the software on that copy .
As long as the transaction at the store counter relative to the physical media is a physical property purchase , then you get the intellectual property rights to install and use the intellectual property contained in that physical property .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>US law says otherwise.
As defined by 17 USC 101, a "copy" is a physical instance of the physical media (game cartage, CD, etc.).
Under 17 USC 117, ownership of a "copy" of software confers the right to install and use the software on that copy.
As long as the transaction at the store counter relative to the physical media is a physical property purchase, then you get the intellectual property rights to install and use the intellectual property contained in that physical property.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28216605</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28229829</id>
	<title>Re:Oh com'on!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244218320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Valve knows this and proved it, as demonstrated over a weekend in February 09 (I think?) and reported here:<br>http://arstechnica.com/gaming/news/2009/02/left-4-dead-sees-3000-jump-in-sales-on-steam.ars</p><p>"10 percent sale = 35 percent increase in sales<br>25 percent sale = 245 percent increase in sales<br>50 percent sale = 320 percent increase in sales<br>75 sale sale = 1470 percent increase in sales"</p><p>Another un-named game got a 36,000\% increase in sales over that weekend, while L4D sales increased a more modest 3,000\%, as reported.</p><p>I recently bought all the Unreals, including UT3 &amp; UT2K4, for US$24.99 last weekend.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Valve knows this and proved it , as demonstrated over a weekend in February 09 ( I think ?
) and reported here : http : //arstechnica.com/gaming/news/2009/02/left-4-dead-sees-3000-jump-in-sales-on-steam.ars " 10 percent sale = 35 percent increase in sales25 percent sale = 245 percent increase in sales50 percent sale = 320 percent increase in sales75 sale sale = 1470 percent increase in sales " Another un-named game got a 36,000 \ % increase in sales over that weekend , while L4D sales increased a more modest 3,000 \ % , as reported.I recently bought all the Unreals , including UT3 &amp; UT2K4 , for US $ 24.99 last weekend .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Valve knows this and proved it, as demonstrated over a weekend in February 09 (I think?
) and reported here:http://arstechnica.com/gaming/news/2009/02/left-4-dead-sees-3000-jump-in-sales-on-steam.ars"10 percent sale = 35 percent increase in sales25 percent sale = 245 percent increase in sales50 percent sale = 320 percent increase in sales75 sale sale = 1470 percent increase in sales"Another un-named game got a 36,000\% increase in sales over that weekend, while L4D sales increased a more modest 3,000\%, as reported.I recently bought all the Unreals, including UT3 &amp; UT2K4, for US$24.99 last weekend.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28216597</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28217533</id>
	<title>The DO get the used game sales.</title>
	<author>BitZtream</author>
	<datestamp>1244126100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They are just too fucking greedy to realize it.</p><p>I don't sell games, though I have a couple of friends who do.  Personally I just use gamefly and occasionnally buy a game that I've played and know is a keeper.</p><p>But let me tell you about my friends.  When they sell a game, the money either immediately is applied to the purchase of a new game, or is basically put aside until the new game they want comes out.  Rarely does that money not get put back into again,  hell, it must, their game library is growing, not shrinking, and I hear about the new games they've purchased (from places that doesn't sell used).</p><p>So you go ahead and cut off used games and watch how your new game sales drop by an almost identical amount since those people no effectively went from paying $20 every month for the new bad ass game to paying $60, so they just don't buy games anymore.  See how well it works out for you, ya greedy ignorant bastards.</p><p>Yours Truely,<br>Customer</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They are just too fucking greedy to realize it.I do n't sell games , though I have a couple of friends who do .
Personally I just use gamefly and occasionnally buy a game that I 've played and know is a keeper.But let me tell you about my friends .
When they sell a game , the money either immediately is applied to the purchase of a new game , or is basically put aside until the new game they want comes out .
Rarely does that money not get put back into again , hell , it must , their game library is growing , not shrinking , and I hear about the new games they 've purchased ( from places that does n't sell used ) .So you go ahead and cut off used games and watch how your new game sales drop by an almost identical amount since those people no effectively went from paying $ 20 every month for the new bad ass game to paying $ 60 , so they just do n't buy games anymore .
See how well it works out for you , ya greedy ignorant bastards.Yours Truely,Customer</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They are just too fucking greedy to realize it.I don't sell games, though I have a couple of friends who do.
Personally I just use gamefly and occasionnally buy a game that I've played and know is a keeper.But let me tell you about my friends.
When they sell a game, the money either immediately is applied to the purchase of a new game, or is basically put aside until the new game they want comes out.
Rarely does that money not get put back into again,  hell, it must, their game library is growing, not shrinking, and I hear about the new games they've purchased (from places that doesn't sell used).So you go ahead and cut off used games and watch how your new game sales drop by an almost identical amount since those people no effectively went from paying $20 every month for the new bad ass game to paying $60, so they just don't buy games anymore.
See how well it works out for you, ya greedy ignorant bastards.Yours Truely,Customer</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28220527</id>
	<title>Re:Most of these comments don't quite get it</title>
	<author>Drakkenmensch</author>
	<datestamp>1244206560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Option #3: Publishers create additional content so that people hold-on to their games. The article states that this is what publishers are doing - trying to incentivize customers to hold-on to their games, thus lowering the number of people selling them. Again, nothing wrong with this.</p></div><p> Not only is this the only viable option, but it's also the one <i>least</i> likely to happen because it means that publishers will have to stop putting out crap games for fear that their developers will hold out on their next huge hit game as backlash. Which of course doesn't make sense, because if they're coming to you with utter garbage to begin with, what's their incentive to put in MORE effort into their NEXT junk software?</p><p>
There's always been a market for used games, all the way back to the Atari 2600. It's just more noticible now that Gamestop and EBgames have made it a star feature of their chain. You want to know which games are bad? It's easy. Go to one of those chains, and look at <i>which</i> games have ten or more used copies for sale that nobody wants. You'll quickly notice a large chunk of this market is 2-3 years old sports franchises. Those are the usually also the companies that don't get it - if you want to kill second hand sales, give us games that we <i>want to hold on to.</i></p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Option # 3 : Publishers create additional content so that people hold-on to their games .
The article states that this is what publishers are doing - trying to incentivize customers to hold-on to their games , thus lowering the number of people selling them .
Again , nothing wrong with this .
Not only is this the only viable option , but it 's also the one least likely to happen because it means that publishers will have to stop putting out crap games for fear that their developers will hold out on their next huge hit game as backlash .
Which of course does n't make sense , because if they 're coming to you with utter garbage to begin with , what 's their incentive to put in MORE effort into their NEXT junk software ?
There 's always been a market for used games , all the way back to the Atari 2600 .
It 's just more noticible now that Gamestop and EBgames have made it a star feature of their chain .
You want to know which games are bad ?
It 's easy .
Go to one of those chains , and look at which games have ten or more used copies for sale that nobody wants .
You 'll quickly notice a large chunk of this market is 2-3 years old sports franchises .
Those are the usually also the companies that do n't get it - if you want to kill second hand sales , give us games that we want to hold on to .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Option #3: Publishers create additional content so that people hold-on to their games.
The article states that this is what publishers are doing - trying to incentivize customers to hold-on to their games, thus lowering the number of people selling them.
Again, nothing wrong with this.
Not only is this the only viable option, but it's also the one least likely to happen because it means that publishers will have to stop putting out crap games for fear that their developers will hold out on their next huge hit game as backlash.
Which of course doesn't make sense, because if they're coming to you with utter garbage to begin with, what's their incentive to put in MORE effort into their NEXT junk software?
There's always been a market for used games, all the way back to the Atari 2600.
It's just more noticible now that Gamestop and EBgames have made it a star feature of their chain.
You want to know which games are bad?
It's easy.
Go to one of those chains, and look at which games have ten or more used copies for sale that nobody wants.
You'll quickly notice a large chunk of this market is 2-3 years old sports franchises.
Those are the usually also the companies that don't get it - if you want to kill second hand sales, give us games that we want to hold on to.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28217563</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28216635</id>
	<title>Re:If a used bookstore can sell used books...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244118900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Over the years, paperback publishers have attempted to cut into the used market simply by narrowing the inside margins of their books. This forces you to spread the book open farther, leading to increased deterioration of the spine.  Combine that with crappy glue, and you have a book that will fall apart after just a few readings.<br> <br>I have paperbacks from the 60s that are holding up better than ones from the 90s.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Over the years , paperback publishers have attempted to cut into the used market simply by narrowing the inside margins of their books .
This forces you to spread the book open farther , leading to increased deterioration of the spine .
Combine that with crappy glue , and you have a book that will fall apart after just a few readings .
I have paperbacks from the 60s that are holding up better than ones from the 90s .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Over the years, paperback publishers have attempted to cut into the used market simply by narrowing the inside margins of their books.
This forces you to spread the book open farther, leading to increased deterioration of the spine.
Combine that with crappy glue, and you have a book that will fall apart after just a few readings.
I have paperbacks from the 60s that are holding up better than ones from the 90s.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28216405</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28223785</id>
	<title>OK, and let's apply this to used car market too</title>
	<author>keysdisease</author>
	<datestamp>1244221920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>GM, Ford &amp; Chrysler get a taste on the resale of every one of their used cars...   Margin problem solved, bailouts repaid.  Yehaw.</htmltext>
<tokenext>GM , Ford &amp; Chrysler get a taste on the resale of every one of their used cars... Margin problem solved , bailouts repaid .
Yehaw .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>GM, Ford &amp; Chrysler get a taste on the resale of every one of their used cars...   Margin problem solved, bailouts repaid.
Yehaw.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28217001</id>
	<title>Re:What if auto makers ...</title>
	<author>MWoody</author>
	<datestamp>1244121480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So your reasoning for why game makers shouldn't get a cut of used sales is to point out how GE didn't get a cut of used sales?  A company you even admit is going belly-up?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So your reasoning for why game makers should n't get a cut of used sales is to point out how GE did n't get a cut of used sales ?
A company you even admit is going belly-up ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So your reasoning for why game makers shouldn't get a cut of used sales is to point out how GE didn't get a cut of used sales?
A company you even admit is going belly-up?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28216447</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28221237</id>
	<title>Too bad this is not how the real world works...</title>
	<author>RsJtSu</author>
	<datestamp>1244211360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I would be rich! RICH I TELL YOU! Just think, you buy a few thousand dollars of stock and then sell it. Someone else buys your shares and you should be entitled to part of their profit too! And the next person after that, why not! Just think, your few thousand dollars of stocks would pay you huge gains because you would be entitled to part of the gains of each sale.
<p>
I'm really sick of these greedy bastards trying to rip off customers and the middle man. If you want to have complete control over your product, install a self destruct mechanism in the discs and make them explode after X number of hours. I bet that would kill the used game market.
</p><p>
Customer: "Do you have game X used?"<br>
Store: "Why, yes we do, but I will tell you that it only has 4 hours left on it till it explodes."<br>
Customer: "Well from what I hear the explosion may be more entertaining than the game is, I'll take it."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I would be rich !
RICH I TELL YOU !
Just think , you buy a few thousand dollars of stock and then sell it .
Someone else buys your shares and you should be entitled to part of their profit too !
And the next person after that , why not !
Just think , your few thousand dollars of stocks would pay you huge gains because you would be entitled to part of the gains of each sale .
I 'm really sick of these greedy bastards trying to rip off customers and the middle man .
If you want to have complete control over your product , install a self destruct mechanism in the discs and make them explode after X number of hours .
I bet that would kill the used game market .
Customer : " Do you have game X used ?
" Store : " Why , yes we do , but I will tell you that it only has 4 hours left on it till it explodes .
" Customer : " Well from what I hear the explosion may be more entertaining than the game is , I 'll take it .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I would be rich!
RICH I TELL YOU!
Just think, you buy a few thousand dollars of stock and then sell it.
Someone else buys your shares and you should be entitled to part of their profit too!
And the next person after that, why not!
Just think, your few thousand dollars of stocks would pay you huge gains because you would be entitled to part of the gains of each sale.
I'm really sick of these greedy bastards trying to rip off customers and the middle man.
If you want to have complete control over your product, install a self destruct mechanism in the discs and make them explode after X number of hours.
I bet that would kill the used game market.
Customer: "Do you have game X used?
"
Store: "Why, yes we do, but I will tell you that it only has 4 hours left on it till it explodes.
"
Customer: "Well from what I hear the explosion may be more entertaining than the game is, I'll take it.
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28216405</id>
	<title>If a used bookstore can sell used books...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244117760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
If a bookstore can sell used books without giving any money to the publisher, I fail to see why a game store can't sell used games. For that matter, are we going to insist that everytime a geekstore resells pokemon, magic cards, miniature collectibles or other similar items that they need to pay the publisher a fee? Or the same thing for baseball cards. And if the stores need to, why not the individuals? (Maybe I shouldn't be too loud about this but I'm sure the Post Office would love to get money from stamp collectors buying and selling their stamps. Or the Treasure Department and coins...)
</p><p>
If your idea sounds ridiculous when the product is replaced by a functionally identical product, the idea is probably ridiculous.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If a bookstore can sell used books without giving any money to the publisher , I fail to see why a game store ca n't sell used games .
For that matter , are we going to insist that everytime a geekstore resells pokemon , magic cards , miniature collectibles or other similar items that they need to pay the publisher a fee ?
Or the same thing for baseball cards .
And if the stores need to , why not the individuals ?
( Maybe I should n't be too loud about this but I 'm sure the Post Office would love to get money from stamp collectors buying and selling their stamps .
Or the Treasure Department and coins... ) If your idea sounds ridiculous when the product is replaced by a functionally identical product , the idea is probably ridiculous .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
If a bookstore can sell used books without giving any money to the publisher, I fail to see why a game store can't sell used games.
For that matter, are we going to insist that everytime a geekstore resells pokemon, magic cards, miniature collectibles or other similar items that they need to pay the publisher a fee?
Or the same thing for baseball cards.
And if the stores need to, why not the individuals?
(Maybe I shouldn't be too loud about this but I'm sure the Post Office would love to get money from stamp collectors buying and selling their stamps.
Or the Treasure Department and coins...)

If your idea sounds ridiculous when the product is replaced by a functionally identical product, the idea is probably ridiculous.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28217681</id>
	<title>Re:Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244128020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's no contradiction at all: they just want money.  They don't need to have a firm philosophical foundation for that.  In fact it's a very flexible place to be, philosophically.  They don't care who wins the 'philosophy' argument, as long as they get compensated.<br> <br>
Nor can I particularly blame them, if I had made a $20million dollar game, and Gamestop were making more off it than I was, I would be upset too.  Honestly now, wouldn't you?</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's no contradiction at all : they just want money .
They do n't need to have a firm philosophical foundation for that .
In fact it 's a very flexible place to be , philosophically .
They do n't care who wins the 'philosophy ' argument , as long as they get compensated .
Nor can I particularly blame them , if I had made a $ 20million dollar game , and Gamestop were making more off it than I was , I would be upset too .
Honestly now , would n't you ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's no contradiction at all: they just want money.
They don't need to have a firm philosophical foundation for that.
In fact it's a very flexible place to be, philosophically.
They don't care who wins the 'philosophy' argument, as long as they get compensated.
Nor can I particularly blame them, if I had made a $20million dollar game, and Gamestop were making more off it than I was, I would be upset too.
Honestly now, wouldn't you?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28217143</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28219117</id>
	<title>This is rediculous</title>
	<author>Chrisq</author>
	<datestamp>1244144880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>They could equally argue that they should have a share of their competitors revenue because people see it as an alternative to buying their games. I hope any moves to stifle competition are heavily resisted</htmltext>
<tokenext>They could equally argue that they should have a share of their competitors revenue because people see it as an alternative to buying their games .
I hope any moves to stifle competition are heavily resisted</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They could equally argue that they should have a share of their competitors revenue because people see it as an alternative to buying their games.
I hope any moves to stifle competition are heavily resisted</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28217379</id>
	<title>Re:What's Next?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244124480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>If they are actually successful in doing anything about this, what next?  Car manufacturers complaining because they don't get a "cut" of used car sales, because used car dealers are providing an "easy alternative" to buying new?</p></div><p>Shh! Don't give them ideas!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If they are actually successful in doing anything about this , what next ?
Car manufacturers complaining because they do n't get a " cut " of used car sales , because used car dealers are providing an " easy alternative " to buying new ? Shh !
Do n't give them ideas !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If they are actually successful in doing anything about this, what next?
Car manufacturers complaining because they don't get a "cut" of used car sales, because used car dealers are providing an "easy alternative" to buying new?Shh!
Don't give them ideas!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28216407</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28219733</id>
	<title>Nothing stopping them.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244196960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If they want a share of the used game market, they only have to get out there and compete in it. No-one is stopping them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If they want a share of the used game market , they only have to get out there and compete in it .
No-one is stopping them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If they want a share of the used game market, they only have to get out there and compete in it.
No-one is stopping them.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28216391</id>
	<title>anonymous coward wants slice of first post market</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244117700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>and gets it!</htmltext>
<tokenext>and gets it !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>and gets it!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28217365</id>
	<title>the publishers should sell used games</title>
	<author>bonds</author>
	<datestamp>1244124360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>There's a really simple solution for the publishers: become the preferred buyer and seller of their own used games.  It would offer them another opportunity to interact with their customers, sell them another game, see how long they are playing, and ask them about what they liked and didn't like.  Oh, and they'll earn the revenue instead of Gamestop or Amazon.</htmltext>
<tokenext>There 's a really simple solution for the publishers : become the preferred buyer and seller of their own used games .
It would offer them another opportunity to interact with their customers , sell them another game , see how long they are playing , and ask them about what they liked and did n't like .
Oh , and they 'll earn the revenue instead of Gamestop or Amazon .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There's a really simple solution for the publishers: become the preferred buyer and seller of their own used games.
It would offer them another opportunity to interact with their customers, sell them another game, see how long they are playing, and ask them about what they liked and didn't like.
Oh, and they'll earn the revenue instead of Gamestop or Amazon.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28218251</id>
	<title>There is no right to profit</title>
	<author>WCMI92</author>
	<datestamp>1244134440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If the publishers want to compete with the used market, it seems to me their best option is to either:</p><p>1. Produce such a high quality product with so much content and replay value that everyone will WANT to own it first hand, and that it's so good that it will be months or never that a first sale customer is willing to let it go.</p><p>2. Sell at a price that makes it make no sense to wait for used copies to become widely available.</p><p>Neither of which the game publishing industry is willing to even seriously consider.  Instead they want to use RIAA tactics to force the used market out of existence.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If the publishers want to compete with the used market , it seems to me their best option is to either : 1 .
Produce such a high quality product with so much content and replay value that everyone will WANT to own it first hand , and that it 's so good that it will be months or never that a first sale customer is willing to let it go.2 .
Sell at a price that makes it make no sense to wait for used copies to become widely available.Neither of which the game publishing industry is willing to even seriously consider .
Instead they want to use RIAA tactics to force the used market out of existence .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If the publishers want to compete with the used market, it seems to me their best option is to either:1.
Produce such a high quality product with so much content and replay value that everyone will WANT to own it first hand, and that it's so good that it will be months or never that a first sale customer is willing to let it go.2.
Sell at a price that makes it make no sense to wait for used copies to become widely available.Neither of which the game publishing industry is willing to even seriously consider.
Instead they want to use RIAA tactics to force the used market out of existence.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28216669</id>
	<title>Property rights are now a "loophole"</title>
	<author>bnenning</author>
	<datestamp>1244119080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>"It's a real problem right now and it's a loophole that people are using, and we're getting cut out of that model," Denis Dyack, president of developer Silicon Knights, said at a gaming conference in the spring.</i></p><p>Just wow.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" It 's a real problem right now and it 's a loophole that people are using , and we 're getting cut out of that model , " Denis Dyack , president of developer Silicon Knights , said at a gaming conference in the spring.Just wow .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"It's a real problem right now and it's a loophole that people are using, and we're getting cut out of that model," Denis Dyack, president of developer Silicon Knights, said at a gaming conference in the spring.Just wow.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28216955</id>
	<title>Re:If a used bookstore can sell used books...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244121060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Where do I sign on the dotted line?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Where do I sign on the dotted line ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Where do I sign on the dotted line?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28216605</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28220111</id>
	<title>Re:What used games market?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244201940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Us Valve fanboys laugh in the face of all who use the lowly console.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Us Valve fanboys laugh in the face of all who use the lowly console .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Us Valve fanboys laugh in the face of all who use the lowly console.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28216475</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28218275</id>
	<title>Re:WTF?</title>
	<author>Skippy\_kangaroo</author>
	<datestamp>1244134680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What the publishers fail to realise is that the price they can sell new games for reflects the fact that buyers are factoring in the ability to sell the product on the used market. While some people buy to keep, others buy to play and resell. If you kill the used game market the price they can sell a new copy for will drop as all the people who were planning on reselling refuse to buy the game now. Only people who buy to keep will pay the currently inflated prices. (Unless they drop the price.)</p><p>The net effect is actually that the amount publishers make will be exactly the same regardless of whether there is a used game market or not. Or whether they take a cut from Gamestop or not (because any cut they take from Gamestop is going to be reflected in lower prices paid by Gamestop for used games, which is going to affect how many people actually buy the game new).</p><p>Lots of other industries seem to indulge in this short-sighted thinking. If you offer people an inferior product - use of something for a limited amount of time versus use for an indefinite amount of time the price they are willing to pay for it is reduced. This is even more so where people don't know what the value to them is and are taking a risk by buying it. If there is a possibility a game will suck, the ability to resell it on the used market makes it much more likely that people will take the risk. If the used market gets destroyed there will be fewer customers like that and, once again, the publishers will have to drop their prices if they want to keep making as much money as they currently are.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What the publishers fail to realise is that the price they can sell new games for reflects the fact that buyers are factoring in the ability to sell the product on the used market .
While some people buy to keep , others buy to play and resell .
If you kill the used game market the price they can sell a new copy for will drop as all the people who were planning on reselling refuse to buy the game now .
Only people who buy to keep will pay the currently inflated prices .
( Unless they drop the price .
) The net effect is actually that the amount publishers make will be exactly the same regardless of whether there is a used game market or not .
Or whether they take a cut from Gamestop or not ( because any cut they take from Gamestop is going to be reflected in lower prices paid by Gamestop for used games , which is going to affect how many people actually buy the game new ) .Lots of other industries seem to indulge in this short-sighted thinking .
If you offer people an inferior product - use of something for a limited amount of time versus use for an indefinite amount of time the price they are willing to pay for it is reduced .
This is even more so where people do n't know what the value to them is and are taking a risk by buying it .
If there is a possibility a game will suck , the ability to resell it on the used market makes it much more likely that people will take the risk .
If the used market gets destroyed there will be fewer customers like that and , once again , the publishers will have to drop their prices if they want to keep making as much money as they currently are .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What the publishers fail to realise is that the price they can sell new games for reflects the fact that buyers are factoring in the ability to sell the product on the used market.
While some people buy to keep, others buy to play and resell.
If you kill the used game market the price they can sell a new copy for will drop as all the people who were planning on reselling refuse to buy the game now.
Only people who buy to keep will pay the currently inflated prices.
(Unless they drop the price.
)The net effect is actually that the amount publishers make will be exactly the same regardless of whether there is a used game market or not.
Or whether they take a cut from Gamestop or not (because any cut they take from Gamestop is going to be reflected in lower prices paid by Gamestop for used games, which is going to affect how many people actually buy the game new).Lots of other industries seem to indulge in this short-sighted thinking.
If you offer people an inferior product - use of something for a limited amount of time versus use for an indefinite amount of time the price they are willing to pay for it is reduced.
This is even more so where people don't know what the value to them is and are taking a risk by buying it.
If there is a possibility a game will suck, the ability to resell it on the used market makes it much more likely that people will take the risk.
If the used market gets destroyed there will be fewer customers like that and, once again, the publishers will have to drop their prices if they want to keep making as much money as they currently are.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28216403</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28218629</id>
	<title>Re:WTF?</title>
	<author>Bob9113</author>
	<datestamp>1244138340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>If the logic is that they have some ongoing interest in the product they sell us, then doesn't that imply that as a purchaser we have an ongoing interest in the money we give them?</i></p><p>Thank you.</p><p>It took me a bit to turn that one around in my mind and really grasp the simple beauty of it. I go out for 8 - 10 hours a day to harvest dollars. I collect them into bundles and decide who to give them to. That process is hard, time consuming, and is the fundamental backbone of the gross domestic product.</p><p>For that effort, I earn a right to the value created in the transaction when I spend that bundle of dollars. Exactly the same sort of right to the value of the transaction as the vendor has for collecting materials, talent, machinery, and energy to create a complex form.</p><p>What portion of the transaction value do we each get? How is the transaction value divided? That is a matter for the free market to decide.</p><p>How does the free market decide in a truly neutral fashion? By equating all value to dollars, a truly neutral representation of wealth (or at least, as close to neutral as is practical, barring outside forces on currency value like export restrictions on Krugerands or standardization on the US Dollar in some international markets -- but I digress).</p><p>The dollars are a representation of the wealth I created at the office. The item being sold is the embodiment of the wealth created by the manufacturer. Why would one of those forms of wealth have more post-sale rights than another?</p><p>Can I reproduce and distribute the item being sold to me? Supposing it is a pure copyright good, the answer is no. Can the manufacturer reproduce and distribute the money I give them? Well, no -- that would be counterfeiting.</p><p>But how true is that, really? Actually, under certain conditions, the manufacturer can reproduce and distribute that money. What conditions are those? Why they are called interest rates! How simple is that? How long does it take to copy a stack of dollars using interest? Well, at about 7\% compounding, it would be 10 years. At about 3.5\%, it would be 20 years.<br>I guess that tells us how long copyright should be.</p><p>But wait! Dollars devalue over time!</p><p>And, what? You're saying Britney Spears songs don't?!?</p><p>Damn. You spun my head off in a really fun direction. Thank you.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If the logic is that they have some ongoing interest in the product they sell us , then does n't that imply that as a purchaser we have an ongoing interest in the money we give them ? Thank you.It took me a bit to turn that one around in my mind and really grasp the simple beauty of it .
I go out for 8 - 10 hours a day to harvest dollars .
I collect them into bundles and decide who to give them to .
That process is hard , time consuming , and is the fundamental backbone of the gross domestic product.For that effort , I earn a right to the value created in the transaction when I spend that bundle of dollars .
Exactly the same sort of right to the value of the transaction as the vendor has for collecting materials , talent , machinery , and energy to create a complex form.What portion of the transaction value do we each get ?
How is the transaction value divided ?
That is a matter for the free market to decide.How does the free market decide in a truly neutral fashion ?
By equating all value to dollars , a truly neutral representation of wealth ( or at least , as close to neutral as is practical , barring outside forces on currency value like export restrictions on Krugerands or standardization on the US Dollar in some international markets -- but I digress ) .The dollars are a representation of the wealth I created at the office .
The item being sold is the embodiment of the wealth created by the manufacturer .
Why would one of those forms of wealth have more post-sale rights than another ? Can I reproduce and distribute the item being sold to me ?
Supposing it is a pure copyright good , the answer is no .
Can the manufacturer reproduce and distribute the money I give them ?
Well , no -- that would be counterfeiting.But how true is that , really ?
Actually , under certain conditions , the manufacturer can reproduce and distribute that money .
What conditions are those ?
Why they are called interest rates !
How simple is that ?
How long does it take to copy a stack of dollars using interest ?
Well , at about 7 \ % compounding , it would be 10 years .
At about 3.5 \ % , it would be 20 years.I guess that tells us how long copyright should be.But wait !
Dollars devalue over time ! And , what ?
You 're saying Britney Spears songs do n't ? ! ? Damn .
You spun my head off in a really fun direction .
Thank you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If the logic is that they have some ongoing interest in the product they sell us, then doesn't that imply that as a purchaser we have an ongoing interest in the money we give them?Thank you.It took me a bit to turn that one around in my mind and really grasp the simple beauty of it.
I go out for 8 - 10 hours a day to harvest dollars.
I collect them into bundles and decide who to give them to.
That process is hard, time consuming, and is the fundamental backbone of the gross domestic product.For that effort, I earn a right to the value created in the transaction when I spend that bundle of dollars.
Exactly the same sort of right to the value of the transaction as the vendor has for collecting materials, talent, machinery, and energy to create a complex form.What portion of the transaction value do we each get?
How is the transaction value divided?
That is a matter for the free market to decide.How does the free market decide in a truly neutral fashion?
By equating all value to dollars, a truly neutral representation of wealth (or at least, as close to neutral as is practical, barring outside forces on currency value like export restrictions on Krugerands or standardization on the US Dollar in some international markets -- but I digress).The dollars are a representation of the wealth I created at the office.
The item being sold is the embodiment of the wealth created by the manufacturer.
Why would one of those forms of wealth have more post-sale rights than another?Can I reproduce and distribute the item being sold to me?
Supposing it is a pure copyright good, the answer is no.
Can the manufacturer reproduce and distribute the money I give them?
Well, no -- that would be counterfeiting.But how true is that, really?
Actually, under certain conditions, the manufacturer can reproduce and distribute that money.
What conditions are those?
Why they are called interest rates!
How simple is that?
How long does it take to copy a stack of dollars using interest?
Well, at about 7\% compounding, it would be 10 years.
At about 3.5\%, it would be 20 years.I guess that tells us how long copyright should be.But wait!
Dollars devalue over time!And, what?
You're saying Britney Spears songs don't?!?Damn.
You spun my head off in a really fun direction.
Thank you.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28216403</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28216769</id>
	<title>Re:WTF?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244119680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A modern game cost what? 15 millions on average? When was the last time you paid 15 millions for a game you played?</p><p>The thing is you don't buy a game. You can view the right to play the game as a reward for you giving money to a game developer. It's more of an indirect participation to a project than anything else. In that sense, when you resell a game you already played, it is like you are acting like a game developer yourself. The problem is you never created anything. You just use the work of someone else to make money. To me, the best word this behavior is parasitism.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A modern game cost what ?
15 millions on average ?
When was the last time you paid 15 millions for a game you played ? The thing is you do n't buy a game .
You can view the right to play the game as a reward for you giving money to a game developer .
It 's more of an indirect participation to a project than anything else .
In that sense , when you resell a game you already played , it is like you are acting like a game developer yourself .
The problem is you never created anything .
You just use the work of someone else to make money .
To me , the best word this behavior is parasitism .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A modern game cost what?
15 millions on average?
When was the last time you paid 15 millions for a game you played?The thing is you don't buy a game.
You can view the right to play the game as a reward for you giving money to a game developer.
It's more of an indirect participation to a project than anything else.
In that sense, when you resell a game you already played, it is like you are acting like a game developer yourself.
The problem is you never created anything.
You just use the work of someone else to make money.
To me, the best word this behavior is parasitism.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28216403</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28217227</id>
	<title>Seems to me</title>
	<author>gebbeth</author>
	<datestamp>1244123220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>People buy used games because of price.  It seems to be that as a game ages, publishers could more aggressively lower the price of a game to continue to attract sales.  Just as there are some people who wait for a computer component to be on the market for 6-12 months before purchasing so as to not pay an arm and a leg for performance, there will also be people who do the same thing with games.  If the publisher lowers their prices to be competitive with what used shops charge, they would automatically attract sales away the used market.  There is no need to use draconian DRM or strong-handed licenses or government legislation.</htmltext>
<tokenext>People buy used games because of price .
It seems to be that as a game ages , publishers could more aggressively lower the price of a game to continue to attract sales .
Just as there are some people who wait for a computer component to be on the market for 6-12 months before purchasing so as to not pay an arm and a leg for performance , there will also be people who do the same thing with games .
If the publisher lowers their prices to be competitive with what used shops charge , they would automatically attract sales away the used market .
There is no need to use draconian DRM or strong-handed licenses or government legislation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>People buy used games because of price.
It seems to be that as a game ages, publishers could more aggressively lower the price of a game to continue to attract sales.
Just as there are some people who wait for a computer component to be on the market for 6-12 months before purchasing so as to not pay an arm and a leg for performance, there will also be people who do the same thing with games.
If the publisher lowers their prices to be competitive with what used shops charge, they would automatically attract sales away the used market.
There is no need to use draconian DRM or strong-handed licenses or government legislation.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28217733</id>
	<title>Avoid the middle man completley</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244128560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Use a game trading site.  I've tried a couple, and the best by far IMO, is Goozex.com</p><p>You send out games you don't want and accumulate points depending on their MARKET value (not rape-me-in-the-ass trade in value @ gamestop), and use those earned points to request games that you want, (which are also worth market value).  The currency isn't $$, it's goozex points.</p><p>You pay shipping (usually $2/game) when you SEND games to other people, and it costs $1 when you REQUEST a game you want.  Great way to get rid of stuff you haven't played in years, and you save a ton of cash to boot.  Plus no middle man bending you over.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Use a game trading site .
I 've tried a couple , and the best by far IMO , is Goozex.comYou send out games you do n't want and accumulate points depending on their MARKET value ( not rape-me-in-the-ass trade in value @ gamestop ) , and use those earned points to request games that you want , ( which are also worth market value ) .
The currency is n't $ $ , it 's goozex points.You pay shipping ( usually $ 2/game ) when you SEND games to other people , and it costs $ 1 when you REQUEST a game you want .
Great way to get rid of stuff you have n't played in years , and you save a ton of cash to boot .
Plus no middle man bending you over .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Use a game trading site.
I've tried a couple, and the best by far IMO, is Goozex.comYou send out games you don't want and accumulate points depending on their MARKET value (not rape-me-in-the-ass trade in value @ gamestop), and use those earned points to request games that you want, (which are also worth market value).
The currency isn't $$, it's goozex points.You pay shipping (usually $2/game) when you SEND games to other people, and it costs $1 when you REQUEST a game you want.
Great way to get rid of stuff you haven't played in years, and you save a ton of cash to boot.
Plus no middle man bending you over.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28219939</id>
	<title>Re:17 USC 109 distinguishes among formats</title>
	<author>L4t3r4lu5</author>
	<datestamp>1244200020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p><div class="quote"><p>If a bookstore can <b>sell</b> used books without giving any money to the publisher, I fail to see why a game store can't sell used games.</p></div><p>First sale laws already distinguish among formats of works. In the United States, for instance, you can't <b>rent</b> phonorecords (copies of sound recordings) or copies of PC games without the copyright owner's consent (17 USC 109).</p></div><p>You seem to have distinguished between methods of remuneration as well as formats. Which is it?<br> <br>First sale won't apply to rents, of course, as you expect the product to be returned to you.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If a bookstore can sell used books without giving any money to the publisher , I fail to see why a game store ca n't sell used games.First sale laws already distinguish among formats of works .
In the United States , for instance , you ca n't rent phonorecords ( copies of sound recordings ) or copies of PC games without the copyright owner 's consent ( 17 USC 109 ) .You seem to have distinguished between methods of remuneration as well as formats .
Which is it ?
First sale wo n't apply to rents , of course , as you expect the product to be returned to you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If a bookstore can sell used books without giving any money to the publisher, I fail to see why a game store can't sell used games.First sale laws already distinguish among formats of works.
In the United States, for instance, you can't rent phonorecords (copies of sound recordings) or copies of PC games without the copyright owner's consent (17 USC 109).You seem to have distinguished between methods of remuneration as well as formats.
Which is it?
First sale won't apply to rents, of course, as you expect the product to be returned to you.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28216647</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28217041</id>
	<title>Game companies already get money from used games</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244121780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What the game companies fail to realize, is that they make money of the used game market as well.  Here are two possible scenarios:</p><p>1. Gamer sells back some games to gamestop, takes that money, and buys/reserves a new game.  I don't go to gamestop often, but when i do, they always seem to have a special where you get extra store credit when you turn in something like 3 games and put it towards reserving an upcoming title.</p><p>2. A sequel to a popular game is about to come out, and a potential customer has never played the original.  He buys a used copy of the original, likes it, and decides to buy the sequel when it is released.</p><p>Maybe, if game companies don't want people selling their games, they should make ones with more replay value, or at least aknowledge that used game sales already benefit them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What the game companies fail to realize , is that they make money of the used game market as well .
Here are two possible scenarios : 1 .
Gamer sells back some games to gamestop , takes that money , and buys/reserves a new game .
I do n't go to gamestop often , but when i do , they always seem to have a special where you get extra store credit when you turn in something like 3 games and put it towards reserving an upcoming title.2 .
A sequel to a popular game is about to come out , and a potential customer has never played the original .
He buys a used copy of the original , likes it , and decides to buy the sequel when it is released.Maybe , if game companies do n't want people selling their games , they should make ones with more replay value , or at least aknowledge that used game sales already benefit them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What the game companies fail to realize, is that they make money of the used game market as well.
Here are two possible scenarios:1.
Gamer sells back some games to gamestop, takes that money, and buys/reserves a new game.
I don't go to gamestop often, but when i do, they always seem to have a special where you get extra store credit when you turn in something like 3 games and put it towards reserving an upcoming title.2.
A sequel to a popular game is about to come out, and a potential customer has never played the original.
He buys a used copy of the original, likes it, and decides to buy the sequel when it is released.Maybe, if game companies don't want people selling their games, they should make ones with more replay value, or at least aknowledge that used game sales already benefit them.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28216779</id>
	<title>Ahahahaha...</title>
	<author>kitsunewarlock</author>
	<datestamp>1244119800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>They can get a cut from my sales of used games when I get a cut from their sale of non-used games.
<br>
Yeah, I understand this is more focused towards large B&amp;M places.  But honestly the logic behind this is as unreasonable as the idea that Wizards of the Coast should be able to tax trades/sales of single Magic the Gathering cards.  Or that Ikea should get a share of the profit when you sell their old furniture away at a garage sale.  How far back can one go on this, though?  Can the publisher ask for extra money?  The people who made the physical units?  The people who shipped the units?  The voice actors?</htmltext>
<tokenext>They can get a cut from my sales of used games when I get a cut from their sale of non-used games .
Yeah , I understand this is more focused towards large B&amp;M places .
But honestly the logic behind this is as unreasonable as the idea that Wizards of the Coast should be able to tax trades/sales of single Magic the Gathering cards .
Or that Ikea should get a share of the profit when you sell their old furniture away at a garage sale .
How far back can one go on this , though ?
Can the publisher ask for extra money ?
The people who made the physical units ?
The people who shipped the units ?
The voice actors ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They can get a cut from my sales of used games when I get a cut from their sale of non-used games.
Yeah, I understand this is more focused towards large B&amp;M places.
But honestly the logic behind this is as unreasonable as the idea that Wizards of the Coast should be able to tax trades/sales of single Magic the Gathering cards.
Or that Ikea should get a share of the profit when you sell their old furniture away at a garage sale.
How far back can one go on this, though?
Can the publisher ask for extra money?
The people who made the physical units?
The people who shipped the units?
The voice actors?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28218535</id>
	<title>In related news,</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244137260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>New car manufacturers are complaining about being "cut out" of the used car market. Some are considering pushing for legislation that would make it illegal for anyone but a properly licensed new car dealer to sell a car.</p><p>A top auto industry exec was quoted as stating, "After all, if we put all the effort into making the car, why should we not expect to be able to continue to get a cut anytime its sold? Perhaps its time we started licensing cars, instead of selling them outright."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>New car manufacturers are complaining about being " cut out " of the used car market .
Some are considering pushing for legislation that would make it illegal for anyone but a properly licensed new car dealer to sell a car.A top auto industry exec was quoted as stating , " After all , if we put all the effort into making the car , why should we not expect to be able to continue to get a cut anytime its sold ?
Perhaps its time we started licensing cars , instead of selling them outright .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>New car manufacturers are complaining about being "cut out" of the used car market.
Some are considering pushing for legislation that would make it illegal for anyone but a properly licensed new car dealer to sell a car.A top auto industry exec was quoted as stating, "After all, if we put all the effort into making the car, why should we not expect to be able to continue to get a cut anytime its sold?
Perhaps its time we started licensing cars, instead of selling them outright.
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28217743</id>
	<title>I don't think it's so black and white...</title>
	<author>Kuukai</author>
	<datestamp>1244128680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Whenever a new game comes out, Gamestop is immediately competing with the retail price, offering it for about $5 less.  In many cases, they will even deliberately not stock new copies.  To save $5, people are giving $55 dollars to a company that does nothing, rather than $60 to the studio that actually made the game (minus cuts to all sorts of people, but you get the point).  If you're against ticket scalping, (which should be protected under "normal" docrtine, but doing so makes life suck) I don't think it's very hard to see that game companies have a case here.  Right now, studios are turning towards more cheaply priced digital distribution as a solution to this.  Are you really satisfied with <i>no</i> resale rights?  The article also talks about ongoing content, which can be a plus but for many companies (I'm looking at you, Namco Bandai!) it creates a dangerous temptation to simply reduce the originally intended amount of content.<br> <br>

That said, they still can and really need to take matters into their own hands.  Publishers still sell new games to Gamestop, and even provide them with special content/items.  That's insane.  If their losses are really that great, publishers need to stop providing these things to Gamestop.  If Billy the Casual Gamer needs to find a pure retail store because Gamestop can't get Mario Party 8 at launch, that's probably where he's going to be shopping from now on.  And if Gamestop no longer has the coolest freaking preorder items, guess where the ubergamers are shopping?  I assume the only reason they have access to all these preorder items to begin with is because they won't stock anything <i>but</i> preorders, and companies feel garnering those is better than nothing.  It's not.  Cut them off if you're so unified about this, and I guarantee they'll offer a cut the next day.  Slowly killing them through digital distribution is like boiling a toad, and it hurts the consumer a <i>lot</i> more.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Whenever a new game comes out , Gamestop is immediately competing with the retail price , offering it for about $ 5 less .
In many cases , they will even deliberately not stock new copies .
To save $ 5 , people are giving $ 55 dollars to a company that does nothing , rather than $ 60 to the studio that actually made the game ( minus cuts to all sorts of people , but you get the point ) .
If you 're against ticket scalping , ( which should be protected under " normal " docrtine , but doing so makes life suck ) I do n't think it 's very hard to see that game companies have a case here .
Right now , studios are turning towards more cheaply priced digital distribution as a solution to this .
Are you really satisfied with no resale rights ?
The article also talks about ongoing content , which can be a plus but for many companies ( I 'm looking at you , Namco Bandai !
) it creates a dangerous temptation to simply reduce the originally intended amount of content .
That said , they still can and really need to take matters into their own hands .
Publishers still sell new games to Gamestop , and even provide them with special content/items .
That 's insane .
If their losses are really that great , publishers need to stop providing these things to Gamestop .
If Billy the Casual Gamer needs to find a pure retail store because Gamestop ca n't get Mario Party 8 at launch , that 's probably where he 's going to be shopping from now on .
And if Gamestop no longer has the coolest freaking preorder items , guess where the ubergamers are shopping ?
I assume the only reason they have access to all these preorder items to begin with is because they wo n't stock anything but preorders , and companies feel garnering those is better than nothing .
It 's not .
Cut them off if you 're so unified about this , and I guarantee they 'll offer a cut the next day .
Slowly killing them through digital distribution is like boiling a toad , and it hurts the consumer a lot more .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Whenever a new game comes out, Gamestop is immediately competing with the retail price, offering it for about $5 less.
In many cases, they will even deliberately not stock new copies.
To save $5, people are giving $55 dollars to a company that does nothing, rather than $60 to the studio that actually made the game (minus cuts to all sorts of people, but you get the point).
If you're against ticket scalping, (which should be protected under "normal" docrtine, but doing so makes life suck) I don't think it's very hard to see that game companies have a case here.
Right now, studios are turning towards more cheaply priced digital distribution as a solution to this.
Are you really satisfied with no resale rights?
The article also talks about ongoing content, which can be a plus but for many companies (I'm looking at you, Namco Bandai!
) it creates a dangerous temptation to simply reduce the originally intended amount of content.
That said, they still can and really need to take matters into their own hands.
Publishers still sell new games to Gamestop, and even provide them with special content/items.
That's insane.
If their losses are really that great, publishers need to stop providing these things to Gamestop.
If Billy the Casual Gamer needs to find a pure retail store because Gamestop can't get Mario Party 8 at launch, that's probably where he's going to be shopping from now on.
And if Gamestop no longer has the coolest freaking preorder items, guess where the ubergamers are shopping?
I assume the only reason they have access to all these preorder items to begin with is because they won't stock anything but preorders, and companies feel garnering those is better than nothing.
It's not.
Cut them off if you're so unified about this, and I guarantee they'll offer a cut the next day.
Slowly killing them through digital distribution is like boiling a toad, and it hurts the consumer a lot more.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28216501</id>
	<title>Re:What used games market?</title>
	<author>Ractive</author>
	<datestamp>1244118240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Not only Steam, it's just natural because of the very substance of their product and of course their users, that the whole game industry (and movies and music for that matter) just move their bussiness model altogether to digital distribution, so this is a market that was born dead, no matter ho many of these gamespot is selling right now.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Not only Steam , it 's just natural because of the very substance of their product and of course their users , that the whole game industry ( and movies and music for that matter ) just move their bussiness model altogether to digital distribution , so this is a market that was born dead , no matter ho many of these gamespot is selling right now .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not only Steam, it's just natural because of the very substance of their product and of course their users, that the whole game industry (and movies and music for that matter) just move their bussiness model altogether to digital distribution, so this is a market that was born dead, no matter ho many of these gamespot is selling right now.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28216401</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28221049</id>
	<title>Don't Forget The Return Policy</title>
	<author>KnowOne256</author>
	<datestamp>1244210400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>One of the biggest reasons I buy used games at Gamestop is the return policy. You can play a used game for 7 days before deciding whether to keep it. Publishers, I think, underrate the importance of this policy. Essentially, it allows me to buy a game I am not sure I will like without any real consequences.</p><p>The fact of the matter is, there is sea of crap games out there. Even so called AAA games often suck. If I buy a game new and don't like it, I am stuck with it. If, on the other hand, I buy it used then I have a week to try it out. This makes me much more likely to try a game that just looks like it might be good.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>One of the biggest reasons I buy used games at Gamestop is the return policy .
You can play a used game for 7 days before deciding whether to keep it .
Publishers , I think , underrate the importance of this policy .
Essentially , it allows me to buy a game I am not sure I will like without any real consequences.The fact of the matter is , there is sea of crap games out there .
Even so called AAA games often suck .
If I buy a game new and do n't like it , I am stuck with it .
If , on the other hand , I buy it used then I have a week to try it out .
This makes me much more likely to try a game that just looks like it might be good .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One of the biggest reasons I buy used games at Gamestop is the return policy.
You can play a used game for 7 days before deciding whether to keep it.
Publishers, I think, underrate the importance of this policy.
Essentially, it allows me to buy a game I am not sure I will like without any real consequences.The fact of the matter is, there is sea of crap games out there.
Even so called AAA games often suck.
If I buy a game new and don't like it, I am stuck with it.
If, on the other hand, I buy it used then I have a week to try it out.
This makes me much more likely to try a game that just looks like it might be good.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28219079</id>
	<title>Re:What if auto makers ...</title>
	<author>91degrees</author>
	<datestamp>1244144280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Cars are different though.  They're a major investment.  Resale value is a significant factor in the purchasing decision, and usually 100\% of the sale cost goes into purchasing a new car; usually from the same manufacturer.  <br> <br>
Some of this applies to used games but not to such a degree.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Cars are different though .
They 're a major investment .
Resale value is a significant factor in the purchasing decision , and usually 100 \ % of the sale cost goes into purchasing a new car ; usually from the same manufacturer .
Some of this applies to used games but not to such a degree .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Cars are different though.
They're a major investment.
Resale value is a significant factor in the purchasing decision, and usually 100\% of the sale cost goes into purchasing a new car; usually from the same manufacturer.
Some of this applies to used games but not to such a degree.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28216447</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28221299</id>
	<title>Ha! Ha!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244211780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Reality check: Game are not made to last. They have a life span of a few months only. Obviously, when they are done, people resell them.</p><p>This situation is the result of bad management policies. I have no pity for them.</p><p>Time to assume the consequences.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Reality check : Game are not made to last .
They have a life span of a few months only .
Obviously , when they are done , people resell them.This situation is the result of bad management policies .
I have no pity for them.Time to assume the consequences .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Reality check: Game are not made to last.
They have a life span of a few months only.
Obviously, when they are done, people resell them.This situation is the result of bad management policies.
I have no pity for them.Time to assume the consequences.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28216751</id>
	<title>Re:What used games market?</title>
	<author>amicusNYCL</author>
	<datestamp>1244119620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think that person should be you.  I think that you should call GameStop up and inform them that there is actually no used games market and that the revenue they bring in from selling used games actually does not exist.  I'm sure they would be grateful to be informed of that so that they can adjust their business model from the insight that you can provide.  I would offer to do this myself, but clearly I do not possess the same insight as you.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think that person should be you .
I think that you should call GameStop up and inform them that there is actually no used games market and that the revenue they bring in from selling used games actually does not exist .
I 'm sure they would be grateful to be informed of that so that they can adjust their business model from the insight that you can provide .
I would offer to do this myself , but clearly I do not possess the same insight as you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think that person should be you.
I think that you should call GameStop up and inform them that there is actually no used games market and that the revenue they bring in from selling used games actually does not exist.
I'm sure they would be grateful to be informed of that so that they can adjust their business model from the insight that you can provide.
I would offer to do this myself, but clearly I do not possess the same insight as you.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28216401</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28221127</id>
	<title>Bricks</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244210880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The automakers are thinking about joining in this campaign.  GM would not be bankrupt if they were getting 20\% from the sale of used cars.  They are also loosing money because people are going to independent shops to have cars repaired and buying their own repair parts from discount auto parts stores and not directly from GM.  OMG, think of money people are stealing from the pockets of GM execs and designers.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The automakers are thinking about joining in this campaign .
GM would not be bankrupt if they were getting 20 \ % from the sale of used cars .
They are also loosing money because people are going to independent shops to have cars repaired and buying their own repair parts from discount auto parts stores and not directly from GM .
OMG , think of money people are stealing from the pockets of GM execs and designers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The automakers are thinking about joining in this campaign.
GM would not be bankrupt if they were getting 20\% from the sale of used cars.
They are also loosing money because people are going to independent shops to have cars repaired and buying their own repair parts from discount auto parts stores and not directly from GM.
OMG, think of money people are stealing from the pockets of GM execs and designers.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28307141</id>
	<title>Re:Difference Between Video Games And Cars</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244816940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>The main difference, in my opinion, is that in the first year of owning a car or TV, only the first owner can get value from it.</p></div></blockquote><p>

WTF?  If I carry passengers in my car, don't my passengers get value?  If I lend my car to my wife/girlfriend/best friend don't they get value from it?  If I have friends over and we all watch my TV, don't we all get value?</p><blockquote><div><p>I think more than the disc, game companies, movie companies, etc are selling you the experience. The experience of playing through the game or the experience of watching the movie. And I believe they should be compensated for each experience they provide.</p></div></blockquote><p>

Again, WTF?  So if I buy a DVD and watch it myself that's fine, but if three of my friends watch it with me then I owe the movie studio some extra cash?  Utterly insane.  Luckily the law has slightly more sanity than you do.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The main difference , in my opinion , is that in the first year of owning a car or TV , only the first owner can get value from it .
WTF ? If I carry passengers in my car , do n't my passengers get value ?
If I lend my car to my wife/girlfriend/best friend do n't they get value from it ?
If I have friends over and we all watch my TV , do n't we all get value ? I think more than the disc , game companies , movie companies , etc are selling you the experience .
The experience of playing through the game or the experience of watching the movie .
And I believe they should be compensated for each experience they provide .
Again , WTF ?
So if I buy a DVD and watch it myself that 's fine , but if three of my friends watch it with me then I owe the movie studio some extra cash ?
Utterly insane .
Luckily the law has slightly more sanity than you do .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The main difference, in my opinion, is that in the first year of owning a car or TV, only the first owner can get value from it.
WTF?  If I carry passengers in my car, don't my passengers get value?
If I lend my car to my wife/girlfriend/best friend don't they get value from it?
If I have friends over and we all watch my TV, don't we all get value?I think more than the disc, game companies, movie companies, etc are selling you the experience.
The experience of playing through the game or the experience of watching the movie.
And I believe they should be compensated for each experience they provide.
Again, WTF?
So if I buy a DVD and watch it myself that's fine, but if three of my friends watch it with me then I owe the movie studio some extra cash?
Utterly insane.
Luckily the law has slightly more sanity than you do.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28217879</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28218055</id>
	<title>Re:here's how they could threaten gamestop</title>
	<author>ctmurray</author>
	<datestamp>1244132340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Just don't have any emails around stating this is your "anti-competitive" reason. Send only emails highlighting your desire to help mankind by making games more affordable to the masses. (This is meant to be humorous).</htmltext>
<tokenext>Just do n't have any emails around stating this is your " anti-competitive " reason .
Send only emails highlighting your desire to help mankind by making games more affordable to the masses .
( This is meant to be humorous ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just don't have any emails around stating this is your "anti-competitive" reason.
Send only emails highlighting your desire to help mankind by making games more affordable to the masses.
(This is meant to be humorous).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28217053</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28216919</id>
	<title>Re:What party games market?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244120640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Most PC gamers don't think to connect their PC to their TV</p></div><p>Wow, you're right!</p><p><nobr> <wbr></nobr>/me plugs his PC in to his TV</p><p>Holy fuck, what's this fuzzy crap!!! Give me back my PC!</p><p><nobr> <wbr></nobr>/me plugs his monitor back in</p><p>Ahhhh, that's better! So it was all a bad dream!!!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Most PC gamers do n't think to connect their PC to their TVWow , you 're right !
/me plugs his PC in to his TVHoly fuck , what 's this fuzzy crap ! ! !
Give me back my PC !
/me plugs his monitor back inAhhhh , that 's better !
So it was all a bad dream ! !
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Most PC gamers don't think to connect their PC to their TVWow, you're right!
/me plugs his PC in to his TVHoly fuck, what's this fuzzy crap!!!
Give me back my PC!
/me plugs his monitor back inAhhhh, that's better!
So it was all a bad dream!!
!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28216485</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28217347</id>
	<title>Re:Oh com'on!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244124180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Wouldn't people be more likely to buy the used game for $5 less when it's $30 new instead of $60? At $55, what's another $5? It's a 10\% discount on the game. $25 vs $30 is a 16.667\% discount. If we keep up the pattern of $5 off, Why get a $10 new game when I can get 2 $5 used games?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Would n't people be more likely to buy the used game for $ 5 less when it 's $ 30 new instead of $ 60 ?
At $ 55 , what 's another $ 5 ?
It 's a 10 \ % discount on the game .
$ 25 vs $ 30 is a 16.667 \ % discount .
If we keep up the pattern of $ 5 off , Why get a $ 10 new game when I can get 2 $ 5 used games ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wouldn't people be more likely to buy the used game for $5 less when it's $30 new instead of $60?
At $55, what's another $5?
It's a 10\% discount on the game.
$25 vs $30 is a 16.667\% discount.
If we keep up the pattern of $5 off, Why get a $10 new game when I can get 2 $5 used games?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28216597</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28220019</id>
	<title>Re:It's a basic principle</title>
	<author>L4t3r4lu5</author>
	<datestamp>1244200980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>That's why they claim not to "sell" you the software, but "license" you to use it by their terms. <br> <br>Pretty much the whole point of this story, really.</htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's why they claim not to " sell " you the software , but " license " you to use it by their terms .
Pretty much the whole point of this story , really .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's why they claim not to "sell" you the software, but "license" you to use it by their terms.
Pretty much the whole point of this story, really.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28216809</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28216717</id>
	<title>Re:anonymous coward wants slice of first post mark</title>
	<author>Shikaku</author>
	<datestamp>1244119380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How about they actually make games that have replay value and don't suck so that nobody will want to trade them in?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How about they actually make games that have replay value and do n't suck so that nobody will want to trade them in ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How about they actually make games that have replay value and don't suck so that nobody will want to trade them in?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28216391</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28218793</id>
	<title>Re:here's how they could threaten gamestop</title>
	<author>darthvader100</author>
	<datestamp>1244140500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Game publishers want more money, not less.  While dropping their prices by half would cut gamestop's revenue it would also greatly cut their revenue.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Game publishers want more money , not less .
While dropping their prices by half would cut gamestop 's revenue it would also greatly cut their revenue .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Game publishers want more money, not less.
While dropping their prices by half would cut gamestop's revenue it would also greatly cut their revenue.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28217053</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28218915</id>
	<title>Re:devil's advocate</title>
	<author>Koiu Lpoi</author>
	<datestamp>1244142180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>So what? Many modern games work perfectly without a CD. In fact, on some older games, it was a <b>feature</b> that you could install it on multiple computers. "Oh no we're not making money" is not an excuse.

Besides, do you know what you get back on a used game sale these days? Maybe 10-20\%? Totally worth it man!</htmltext>
<tokenext>So what ?
Many modern games work perfectly without a CD .
In fact , on some older games , it was a feature that you could install it on multiple computers .
" Oh no we 're not making money " is not an excuse .
Besides , do you know what you get back on a used game sale these days ?
Maybe 10-20 \ % ?
Totally worth it man !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So what?
Many modern games work perfectly without a CD.
In fact, on some older games, it was a feature that you could install it on multiple computers.
"Oh no we're not making money" is not an excuse.
Besides, do you know what you get back on a used game sale these days?
Maybe 10-20\%?
Totally worth it man!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28216611</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28216983</id>
	<title>Re:Anonymous Coward</title>
	<author>nmosfet</author>
	<datestamp>1244121300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Or they realized that in order for resale to occur, there must be a sale of that item in the first place.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Or they realized that in order for resale to occur , there must be a sale of that item in the first place .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Or they realized that in order for resale to occur, there must be a sale of that item in the first place.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28216409</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28218247</id>
	<title>Re:It's the game design, stupid</title>
	<author>pcolaman</author>
	<datestamp>1244134380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You aren't kidding about DLC or expansions, and no one has it figured out better than EA with The Sims franchise.  Look at all of the expansions, etc to Sims and Sims 2, and I'm sure it will be a similar experience with Sims 3.  EA is probably keeping themselves in or near the black simply because of the sims franchise.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You are n't kidding about DLC or expansions , and no one has it figured out better than EA with The Sims franchise .
Look at all of the expansions , etc to Sims and Sims 2 , and I 'm sure it will be a similar experience with Sims 3 .
EA is probably keeping themselves in or near the black simply because of the sims franchise .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You aren't kidding about DLC or expansions, and no one has it figured out better than EA with The Sims franchise.
Look at all of the expansions, etc to Sims and Sims 2, and I'm sure it will be a similar experience with Sims 3.
EA is probably keeping themselves in or near the black simply because of the sims franchise.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28216979</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28220369</id>
	<title>Try improving the quality of games first</title>
	<author>thetoadwarrior</author>
	<datestamp>1244205300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Let's see, the companies that make rehashes of the same games and give us bug filled games at a higher price than the previous generation feel they deserve money from used games?
<br> <br>
I don't think so.
<br> <br>
If they want to increase their revenue they have to make games that are actually worth $60 or lower the price.
<br> <br>
If you put out a game of little value that is broken then how in the world can you expect consumers to value your game? They'll want to pay as little as possible because there is no perceived benefit in paying a premium for the content.
<br> <br>
The gaming industry is less professional and in a worse state than they'd like to admit and no matter how often they boast about their numbers in relation to movies that isn't going to change.
<br> <br>
Publishers do no get money from used comics, books, movies or music. Why in earth do they feel they deserve money for used games?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Let 's see , the companies that make rehashes of the same games and give us bug filled games at a higher price than the previous generation feel they deserve money from used games ?
I do n't think so .
If they want to increase their revenue they have to make games that are actually worth $ 60 or lower the price .
If you put out a game of little value that is broken then how in the world can you expect consumers to value your game ?
They 'll want to pay as little as possible because there is no perceived benefit in paying a premium for the content .
The gaming industry is less professional and in a worse state than they 'd like to admit and no matter how often they boast about their numbers in relation to movies that is n't going to change .
Publishers do no get money from used comics , books , movies or music .
Why in earth do they feel they deserve money for used games ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Let's see, the companies that make rehashes of the same games and give us bug filled games at a higher price than the previous generation feel they deserve money from used games?
I don't think so.
If they want to increase their revenue they have to make games that are actually worth $60 or lower the price.
If you put out a game of little value that is broken then how in the world can you expect consumers to value your game?
They'll want to pay as little as possible because there is no perceived benefit in paying a premium for the content.
The gaming industry is less professional and in a worse state than they'd like to admit and no matter how often they boast about their numbers in relation to movies that isn't going to change.
Publishers do no get money from used comics, books, movies or music.
Why in earth do they feel they deserve money for used games?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28227205</id>
	<title>Re:What are these guys on?</title>
	<author>webscathe</author>
	<datestamp>1244194020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Sony and Panasonic aren't complaining about used TV sales, Toyota isn't complaining about used car sales, and Dell isn't complaining about people reselling their computers.</p></div><p>The point being missed here is that a used product like a TV or a car actually has less value than a used game because they experience "wear and tear." A game (unless it has a scratch on the disc, or maybe a missing manual..) is still the identical game you could have bought new; your experience with the product doesn't change.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Sony and Panasonic are n't complaining about used TV sales , Toyota is n't complaining about used car sales , and Dell is n't complaining about people reselling their computers.The point being missed here is that a used product like a TV or a car actually has less value than a used game because they experience " wear and tear .
" A game ( unless it has a scratch on the disc , or maybe a missing manual.. ) is still the identical game you could have bought new ; your experience with the product does n't change .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sony and Panasonic aren't complaining about used TV sales, Toyota isn't complaining about used car sales, and Dell isn't complaining about people reselling their computers.The point being missed here is that a used product like a TV or a car actually has less value than a used game because they experience "wear and tear.
" A game (unless it has a scratch on the disc, or maybe a missing manual..) is still the identical game you could have bought new; your experience with the product doesn't change.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28216665</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28229499</id>
	<title>Support</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244214120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I suppose those publishers will also provide continual and active support for these products.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I suppose those publishers will also provide continual and active support for these products .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I suppose those publishers will also provide continual and active support for these products.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28221985</id>
	<title>Oh please</title>
	<author>Nerdposeur</author>
	<datestamp>1244214900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>"The used game sale market is still depriving publishers of money because it gives consumers an all-too-easy alternative to buying a new game."</p></div></blockquote><p>It's also depriving ME of money because these resellers aren't sharing the cash they make with Yours Truly.</p><p>Too bad that I have no more rights to a cut of resales than the publishers do.</p><p>In other news, video game publishers are hacked that you can still ride a REAL bicycle down a REAL trail, thereby depriving them of sales of their biking games.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>" The used game sale market is still depriving publishers of money because it gives consumers an all-too-easy alternative to buying a new game .
" It 's also depriving ME of money because these resellers are n't sharing the cash they make with Yours Truly.Too bad that I have no more rights to a cut of resales than the publishers do.In other news , video game publishers are hacked that you can still ride a REAL bicycle down a REAL trail , thereby depriving them of sales of their biking games .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"The used game sale market is still depriving publishers of money because it gives consumers an all-too-easy alternative to buying a new game.
"It's also depriving ME of money because these resellers aren't sharing the cash they make with Yours Truly.Too bad that I have no more rights to a cut of resales than the publishers do.In other news, video game publishers are hacked that you can still ride a REAL bicycle down a REAL trail, thereby depriving them of sales of their biking games.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28216479</id>
	<title>Re:What used games market?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244118120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>now Steam's here, very soon there won't be such things as publishers!</p></div><p>Steam is a publisher.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>now Steam 's here , very soon there wo n't be such things as publishers ! Steam is a publisher .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>now Steam's here, very soon there won't be such things as publishers!Steam is a publisher.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28216401</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28217771</id>
	<title>This is why...</title>
	<author>Schnoogs</author>
	<datestamp>1244129160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>things like Steam and XBox Live are the future.  No more middle man.  No more losing out on sales because of the used game market.</p><p>Brick and mortar will be a thing of the past in 5 to 10 years.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>things like Steam and XBox Live are the future .
No more middle man .
No more losing out on sales because of the used game market.Brick and mortar will be a thing of the past in 5 to 10 years .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>things like Steam and XBox Live are the future.
No more middle man.
No more losing out on sales because of the used game market.Brick and mortar will be a thing of the past in 5 to 10 years.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28216899</id>
	<title>Government?</title>
	<author>Tablizer</author>
	<datestamp>1244120520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They want to be like the government:</p><p>* Tax it when it's born<br>* Tax it when it lives<br>* Tax it when it's traded<br>* Tax it when it's moved<br>* Tax it when it crosses borders<br>* Tax it when it has a building put on top of it<br>* Tax it when it dies.<br>* Tax it when it seeps into ground water.<br>* Tax it when it's posted on slashdot.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They want to be like the government : * Tax it when it 's born * Tax it when it lives * Tax it when it 's traded * Tax it when it 's moved * Tax it when it crosses borders * Tax it when it has a building put on top of it * Tax it when it dies .
* Tax it when it seeps into ground water .
* Tax it when it 's posted on slashdot .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They want to be like the government:* Tax it when it's born* Tax it when it lives* Tax it when it's traded* Tax it when it's moved* Tax it when it crosses borders* Tax it when it has a building put on top of it* Tax it when it dies.
* Tax it when it seeps into ground water.
* Tax it when it's posted on slashdot.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28217783</id>
	<title>secondary sale?</title>
	<author>theleoandtherat</author>
	<datestamp>1244129400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> "Game publishers do not see a cut of the secondary sale because it falls under the first sale doctrine."</p><p>#1 sell - I buy the game<br>#2 sell - GameStop buy the game<br>#3 sell - You buy the game....</p><p>Are we going to give publishers more money to sell a game to a third party? If they just drop the prices quicker then GameStop would lose their sell to the publishers.</p><p>They would have a better shot at getting 50 cent each time their game/s are rented.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Game publishers do not see a cut of the secondary sale because it falls under the first sale doctrine .
" # 1 sell - I buy the game # 2 sell - GameStop buy the game # 3 sell - You buy the game....Are we going to give publishers more money to sell a game to a third party ?
If they just drop the prices quicker then GameStop would lose their sell to the publishers.They would have a better shot at getting 50 cent each time their game/s are rented .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> "Game publishers do not see a cut of the secondary sale because it falls under the first sale doctrine.
"#1 sell - I buy the game#2 sell - GameStop buy the game#3 sell - You buy the game....Are we going to give publishers more money to sell a game to a third party?
If they just drop the prices quicker then GameStop would lose their sell to the publishers.They would have a better shot at getting 50 cent each time their game/s are rented.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28218655</id>
	<title>Hypocrisy? Greed?</title>
	<author>jandersen</author>
	<datestamp>1244138580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What the matter with these people? On one hand they want to be able to patent "Computer Implemented Inventions" (ie SW) - where the traditional, or at least the popular view is that patents are for significant, real-world inventions like machines or tools; something tangible. So they seem to argue that software, such as cmoputer games, are tangible enough to be patented. But on the other hand they want money for each time it is being sold, copied or even looked at - because now it is suddenly "intellectual property" on par with works of art, like music, paintings and novels.</p><p>Either way, I don't see the merit in their arguments - if you sell tangible goods, you pass on the ownership, and if it turns out that the thing you sold for $100 can be sold on for $100000, shame on you for not seeing that opportunity. The same goes for works of art, as far as I can see; isn't that almost the way it goes - a painter sells his work for pennies, and later it goes on Sotheby's in London and sells for &pound;10000000?</p><p>It is this kind of behaviour that time and again show us all that those in the self-proclaimed "upper class" are in fact not rich because they have worked hard and been extremely clever and intelligent, but because they are greedy low-life who lack a few basic building blocks in their moral and social instincts. Is it any wonder that socialism seems like a good idea sometimes?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What the matter with these people ?
On one hand they want to be able to patent " Computer Implemented Inventions " ( ie SW ) - where the traditional , or at least the popular view is that patents are for significant , real-world inventions like machines or tools ; something tangible .
So they seem to argue that software , such as cmoputer games , are tangible enough to be patented .
But on the other hand they want money for each time it is being sold , copied or even looked at - because now it is suddenly " intellectual property " on par with works of art , like music , paintings and novels.Either way , I do n't see the merit in their arguments - if you sell tangible goods , you pass on the ownership , and if it turns out that the thing you sold for $ 100 can be sold on for $ 100000 , shame on you for not seeing that opportunity .
The same goes for works of art , as far as I can see ; is n't that almost the way it goes - a painter sells his work for pennies , and later it goes on Sotheby 's in London and sells for   10000000 ? It is this kind of behaviour that time and again show us all that those in the self-proclaimed " upper class " are in fact not rich because they have worked hard and been extremely clever and intelligent , but because they are greedy low-life who lack a few basic building blocks in their moral and social instincts .
Is it any wonder that socialism seems like a good idea sometimes ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What the matter with these people?
On one hand they want to be able to patent "Computer Implemented Inventions" (ie SW) - where the traditional, or at least the popular view is that patents are for significant, real-world inventions like machines or tools; something tangible.
So they seem to argue that software, such as cmoputer games, are tangible enough to be patented.
But on the other hand they want money for each time it is being sold, copied or even looked at - because now it is suddenly "intellectual property" on par with works of art, like music, paintings and novels.Either way, I don't see the merit in their arguments - if you sell tangible goods, you pass on the ownership, and if it turns out that the thing you sold for $100 can be sold on for $100000, shame on you for not seeing that opportunity.
The same goes for works of art, as far as I can see; isn't that almost the way it goes - a painter sells his work for pennies, and later it goes on Sotheby's in London and sells for £10000000?It is this kind of behaviour that time and again show us all that those in the self-proclaimed "upper class" are in fact not rich because they have worked hard and been extremely clever and intelligent, but because they are greedy low-life who lack a few basic building blocks in their moral and social instincts.
Is it any wonder that socialism seems like a good idea sometimes?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28220025</id>
	<title>PSN/WiiWare/Marketplace</title>
	<author>Colourspace</author>
	<datestamp>1244201040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This is exactly why we need to be resisting these digital download services starting now. While it is nice to get the retro downloads etc (and there is some great stuff out there, granted), this is the way digital distribution will reach critical mass, bricks and mortar stores will fail, and we will have no physical copy in the first place to do with what we want. Just say no now, before it's too late (though it probably is).</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is exactly why we need to be resisting these digital download services starting now .
While it is nice to get the retro downloads etc ( and there is some great stuff out there , granted ) , this is the way digital distribution will reach critical mass , bricks and mortar stores will fail , and we will have no physical copy in the first place to do with what we want .
Just say no now , before it 's too late ( though it probably is ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is exactly why we need to be resisting these digital download services starting now.
While it is nice to get the retro downloads etc (and there is some great stuff out there, granted), this is the way digital distribution will reach critical mass, bricks and mortar stores will fail, and we will have no physical copy in the first place to do with what we want.
Just say no now, before it's too late (though it probably is).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28216793</id>
	<title>Same is true!</title>
	<author>PortHaven</author>
	<datestamp>1244119860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"because it gives consumers an all-too-easy alternative to buying a new "</p><p>For the used car industry, used firearms, used washers and dryers.</p><p>OMG</p><p>Can we say screw you publishers.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" because it gives consumers an all-too-easy alternative to buying a new " For the used car industry , used firearms , used washers and dryers.OMGCan we say screw you publishers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"because it gives consumers an all-too-easy alternative to buying a new "For the used car industry, used firearms, used washers and dryers.OMGCan we say screw you publishers.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28222143</id>
	<title>Re:Just like....</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244215740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Cars, by their nature, physically depreciate over time.  It doesn't matter how many times a car is resold, it will eventually break down beyond repair and then all that's left is for it to be junked for parts.  Conversely, an Xbox 360 game can, with proper care, have no discernible physical depreciation over extremely long periods of time and use.  Sure, the disc could be damaged by neglect, or a faulty console, but I doubt that repurchases due to damaged disks are a significant source of income for most companies of physical media.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Cars , by their nature , physically depreciate over time .
It does n't matter how many times a car is resold , it will eventually break down beyond repair and then all that 's left is for it to be junked for parts .
Conversely , an Xbox 360 game can , with proper care , have no discernible physical depreciation over extremely long periods of time and use .
Sure , the disc could be damaged by neglect , or a faulty console , but I doubt that repurchases due to damaged disks are a significant source of income for most companies of physical media .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Cars, by their nature, physically depreciate over time.
It doesn't matter how many times a car is resold, it will eventually break down beyond repair and then all that's left is for it to be junked for parts.
Conversely, an Xbox 360 game can, with proper care, have no discernible physical depreciation over extremely long periods of time and use.
Sure, the disc could be damaged by neglect, or a faulty console, but I doubt that repurchases due to damaged disks are a significant source of income for most companies of physical media.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28216449</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28218517</id>
	<title>Re:If a used bookstore can sell used books...</title>
	<author>causality</author>
	<datestamp>1244136900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>While I think the "we deserve a cut of used sales!" argument is bullshit, GameStop would make the publishers a lot happier if it split its used game business off into a separate entity.</p></div></blockquote><p>
Well, sure.  That's a general principle of this sort of politicking:  someone who does what you don't want them to do is much easier to demonize and bully than someone who does what you want them to do and also does what you don't want them to do.  Thinking of it that way, in those terms and in that spirit, is not generally the first and most natural reaction of the average person.  It may occur to them and they may be capable of it, but they have to put some effort into it.  This isn't the case for the suits, control freaks, greedy bastards, maladaptive manipulators, fevered egos -- whatever you want to call them -- and they got where they are today by having no qualms whatsoever that would interfere with their use of such tactics or of this kind of thinking.  When they successfully manipulate, it's nothing personal; it's just business.
<br> <br>
This kind of Machiavellian politicking and the act of believing it is valid, left unchecked, is what destroyed the balance that once existed between the profit incentive of copyright and the benefit of society.  It's also a great enabler of the many other issues which cause thinking persons to realize that throughout much of the world, our governments and corporations seldom represent our interests anymore.  They claim to represent them fully while doing so only minimally or not at all.  You see it when public commercials say "police ticket you for seatbelt violations because they care about you" but they're unwilling to donate the ticket money to charity.  You see it too when smiling people on commercials tell you that the company really cares, but you know they would stop pretending to if it would raise their profits.  The message from this mentality is that we're not really human beings but just a means to an end, like one step in the solution of an everyday problem.  It's not intentionally evil but ends up that way because it's dehumanizing.
<br> <br>
More specifically, GameStop sells the new titles which does give the publishers a cut of the money, and they sell the used titles that don't.  If the publishers play too much hardball against GameStop for the sales of used games, they harm relations with a customer that also produces profit for them.  If a separate entity performs the uses game sales exclusively, then the publishers have nothing to lose, and thus no incentive, against doing everything they can do to stop them.  That's why your idea may work well in the short term but long-term, it would make that company an easy target for publishers who have already revealed that they want a piece of this market.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>While I think the " we deserve a cut of used sales !
" argument is bullshit , GameStop would make the publishers a lot happier if it split its used game business off into a separate entity .
Well , sure .
That 's a general principle of this sort of politicking : someone who does what you do n't want them to do is much easier to demonize and bully than someone who does what you want them to do and also does what you do n't want them to do .
Thinking of it that way , in those terms and in that spirit , is not generally the first and most natural reaction of the average person .
It may occur to them and they may be capable of it , but they have to put some effort into it .
This is n't the case for the suits , control freaks , greedy bastards , maladaptive manipulators , fevered egos -- whatever you want to call them -- and they got where they are today by having no qualms whatsoever that would interfere with their use of such tactics or of this kind of thinking .
When they successfully manipulate , it 's nothing personal ; it 's just business .
This kind of Machiavellian politicking and the act of believing it is valid , left unchecked , is what destroyed the balance that once existed between the profit incentive of copyright and the benefit of society .
It 's also a great enabler of the many other issues which cause thinking persons to realize that throughout much of the world , our governments and corporations seldom represent our interests anymore .
They claim to represent them fully while doing so only minimally or not at all .
You see it when public commercials say " police ticket you for seatbelt violations because they care about you " but they 're unwilling to donate the ticket money to charity .
You see it too when smiling people on commercials tell you that the company really cares , but you know they would stop pretending to if it would raise their profits .
The message from this mentality is that we 're not really human beings but just a means to an end , like one step in the solution of an everyday problem .
It 's not intentionally evil but ends up that way because it 's dehumanizing .
More specifically , GameStop sells the new titles which does give the publishers a cut of the money , and they sell the used titles that do n't .
If the publishers play too much hardball against GameStop for the sales of used games , they harm relations with a customer that also produces profit for them .
If a separate entity performs the uses game sales exclusively , then the publishers have nothing to lose , and thus no incentive , against doing everything they can do to stop them .
That 's why your idea may work well in the short term but long-term , it would make that company an easy target for publishers who have already revealed that they want a piece of this market .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>While I think the "we deserve a cut of used sales!
" argument is bullshit, GameStop would make the publishers a lot happier if it split its used game business off into a separate entity.
Well, sure.
That's a general principle of this sort of politicking:  someone who does what you don't want them to do is much easier to demonize and bully than someone who does what you want them to do and also does what you don't want them to do.
Thinking of it that way, in those terms and in that spirit, is not generally the first and most natural reaction of the average person.
It may occur to them and they may be capable of it, but they have to put some effort into it.
This isn't the case for the suits, control freaks, greedy bastards, maladaptive manipulators, fevered egos -- whatever you want to call them -- and they got where they are today by having no qualms whatsoever that would interfere with their use of such tactics or of this kind of thinking.
When they successfully manipulate, it's nothing personal; it's just business.
This kind of Machiavellian politicking and the act of believing it is valid, left unchecked, is what destroyed the balance that once existed between the profit incentive of copyright and the benefit of society.
It's also a great enabler of the many other issues which cause thinking persons to realize that throughout much of the world, our governments and corporations seldom represent our interests anymore.
They claim to represent them fully while doing so only minimally or not at all.
You see it when public commercials say "police ticket you for seatbelt violations because they care about you" but they're unwilling to donate the ticket money to charity.
You see it too when smiling people on commercials tell you that the company really cares, but you know they would stop pretending to if it would raise their profits.
The message from this mentality is that we're not really human beings but just a means to an end, like one step in the solution of an everyday problem.
It's not intentionally evil but ends up that way because it's dehumanizing.
More specifically, GameStop sells the new titles which does give the publishers a cut of the money, and they sell the used titles that don't.
If the publishers play too much hardball against GameStop for the sales of used games, they harm relations with a customer that also produces profit for them.
If a separate entity performs the uses game sales exclusively, then the publishers have nothing to lose, and thus no incentive, against doing everything they can do to stop them.
That's why your idea may work well in the short term but long-term, it would make that company an easy target for publishers who have already revealed that they want a piece of this market.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28216981</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28216931</id>
	<title>Re:Just like....</title>
	<author>TheRealMindChild</author>
	<datestamp>1244120760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Just like music and movies, the game industry cranks out mostly crap and tries to put the blame of their failing business on something/someone else.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Just like music and movies , the game industry cranks out mostly crap and tries to put the blame of their failing business on something/someone else .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just like music and movies, the game industry cranks out mostly crap and tries to put the blame of their failing business on something/someone else.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28216449</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28219471</id>
	<title>Re:devil's advocate</title>
	<author>clickety6</author>
	<datestamp>1244193120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I doubt many would pay $60 for a new game, install it, download cracks and then sell the CD to Gamestop for $30.</p><p>If they know about cracks and have internet access, they'd just download a cracked copy straight off and save themselves $30 and a trip to the store.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I doubt many would pay $ 60 for a new game , install it , download cracks and then sell the CD to Gamestop for $ 30.If they know about cracks and have internet access , they 'd just download a cracked copy straight off and save themselves $ 30 and a trip to the store .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I doubt many would pay $60 for a new game, install it, download cracks and then sell the CD to Gamestop for $30.If they know about cracks and have internet access, they'd just download a cracked copy straight off and save themselves $30 and a trip to the store.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28216611</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28216401</id>
	<title>What used games market?</title>
	<author>telchine</author>
	<datestamp>1244117760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Someone should tell them that, since Steam appeared there is no used games market.</p><p>Hell, come to think of it, now Steam's here, very soon there won't be such things as publishers!</p><p>Sucks to be them! Maybe someone should tell them?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Someone should tell them that , since Steam appeared there is no used games market.Hell , come to think of it , now Steam 's here , very soon there wo n't be such things as publishers ! Sucks to be them !
Maybe someone should tell them ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Someone should tell them that, since Steam appeared there is no used games market.Hell, come to think of it, now Steam's here, very soon there won't be such things as publishers!Sucks to be them!
Maybe someone should tell them?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28220939</id>
	<title>Re:here's how they could threaten gamestop</title>
	<author>riboch</author>
	<datestamp>1244209680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Would this not be some sort of collusion?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Would this not be some sort of collusion ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Would this not be some sort of collusion?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28217053</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28218955</id>
	<title>Re:Oh com'on!</title>
	<author>Koiu Lpoi</author>
	<datestamp>1244142480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>What if I told you that I thought that Deus Ex 2 was better than one, Jedi Knight was a crappy game, and Twilight Princess was better than Ocarina of Time? Nostalgia does a lot to make crappy games (Jedi Knight? Seriously?) look wonderful.</htmltext>
<tokenext>What if I told you that I thought that Deus Ex 2 was better than one , Jedi Knight was a crappy game , and Twilight Princess was better than Ocarina of Time ?
Nostalgia does a lot to make crappy games ( Jedi Knight ?
Seriously ? ) look wonderful .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What if I told you that I thought that Deus Ex 2 was better than one, Jedi Knight was a crappy game, and Twilight Princess was better than Ocarina of Time?
Nostalgia does a lot to make crappy games (Jedi Knight?
Seriously?) look wonderful.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28216597</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28218023</id>
	<title>Clueless</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244131920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>When you sell a used car, does the car manufacturer see any money?<br>When you sell old playboy magazines, does playboy see any new money?</p><p>When you sell an old video game, exactly why should the publisher get any new money?  If they are losing money due to network-based play, they need a different revenue model.</p><p>If they aren't happy with the current store selling model, then they should change to a subscription system with a download instead.  Then they can charge people - assuming the customers don't say screw you and walk.</p><p>I'd walk.  I don't do DRM either. Period.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>When you sell a used car , does the car manufacturer see any money ? When you sell old playboy magazines , does playboy see any new money ? When you sell an old video game , exactly why should the publisher get any new money ?
If they are losing money due to network-based play , they need a different revenue model.If they are n't happy with the current store selling model , then they should change to a subscription system with a download instead .
Then they can charge people - assuming the customers do n't say screw you and walk.I 'd walk .
I do n't do DRM either .
Period .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When you sell a used car, does the car manufacturer see any money?When you sell old playboy magazines, does playboy see any new money?When you sell an old video game, exactly why should the publisher get any new money?
If they are losing money due to network-based play, they need a different revenue model.If they aren't happy with the current store selling model, then they should change to a subscription system with a download instead.
Then they can charge people - assuming the customers don't say screw you and walk.I'd walk.
I don't do DRM either.
Period.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28217669</id>
	<title>Re:What used games market?</title>
	<author>robinesque</author>
	<datestamp>1244127840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p><div class="quote"><p>now Steam's here, very soon there won't be such things as publishers!</p></div><p>Steam is a publisher.</p></div><p>Steam is a <b>distributor</b>.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>now Steam 's here , very soon there wo n't be such things as publishers ! Steam is a publisher.Steam is a distributor .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>now Steam's here, very soon there won't be such things as publishers!Steam is a publisher.Steam is a distributor.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28216479</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28217563</id>
	<title>Most of these comments don't quite get it</title>
	<author>brit74</author>
	<datestamp>1244126400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Most of the comments here don't seem to get the situation.  Publishers don't like the fact that GameStop is getting 48\% profit margins from selling these used games.  Now, here's where most of the Slashdot comments get it wrong: they assume the Publishers are pushing a particular (and unfair) solution to this problem.
<br> <br>
In the past, I've defended the idea of stores getting involved in second-hand sales.  I still stand by the first-sale principle.  So, let's look at some possibilities here.
<br> <br>
Option #1: Publishers don't like second-hand sales, so they enact legislation to stop second-hand sales OR they require a cut of every second-hand sale.  This would be wrong.  The first-sale doctrine prohibits this.  And, consumers should be angry if this is what publishers were doing.  Most of the Slashdot comments seem to assume that this is what publishers are doing, and they make comparisons to used books and car sales.  This is not what publishers are doing.
<br> <br>
Option #2: Publishers get involved in the used-game sales.  If GameStop is enjoying 48\% profit margins, then there's a strong impetus for competition from the publishers themselves.  There's nothing wrong with Publishers doing this.  They're just jumping in and competing the used-game market, just like everyone else.  (In fact, Stardock is attempting to setup a "used game" sales system along with their "impulse" DRM system.  You can sell-back your serial-code and someone else can "buy" it.  Admittedly, this gets odd.  "Used bits" are no different than "new bits".  And, what's to stop Stardock from always saying "sorry, we're all out of used copies of our game; you'll have to buy a new one"?)
<br> <br>
Option #3: Publishers create additional content so that people hold-on to their games.  The article states that this is what publishers are doing - trying to incentivize customers to hold-on to their games, thus lowering the number of people selling them.  Again, nothing wrong with this.
<br> <br>
I'm sure there are plenty of other options people could come up with.
<br> <br>
There is nothing wrong with publishers getting perturbed over used-game sales, and there is nothing wrong with their attempts to get money in the used-game market.  The only issue is whether or not they go about it the right way.  Option #1 is the wrong way, but there are good ways to go about it.  Most of the Slashdot comments seem to assume that publishers are trying Option #1 - and then complaining that publishers are greedy and underhanded.  I see nothing wrong - in principle - with publishers trying to make money off used-game sales or being disturbed by GameStop's 48\% profit margins.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Most of the comments here do n't seem to get the situation .
Publishers do n't like the fact that GameStop is getting 48 \ % profit margins from selling these used games .
Now , here 's where most of the Slashdot comments get it wrong : they assume the Publishers are pushing a particular ( and unfair ) solution to this problem .
In the past , I 've defended the idea of stores getting involved in second-hand sales .
I still stand by the first-sale principle .
So , let 's look at some possibilities here .
Option # 1 : Publishers do n't like second-hand sales , so they enact legislation to stop second-hand sales OR they require a cut of every second-hand sale .
This would be wrong .
The first-sale doctrine prohibits this .
And , consumers should be angry if this is what publishers were doing .
Most of the Slashdot comments seem to assume that this is what publishers are doing , and they make comparisons to used books and car sales .
This is not what publishers are doing .
Option # 2 : Publishers get involved in the used-game sales .
If GameStop is enjoying 48 \ % profit margins , then there 's a strong impetus for competition from the publishers themselves .
There 's nothing wrong with Publishers doing this .
They 're just jumping in and competing the used-game market , just like everyone else .
( In fact , Stardock is attempting to setup a " used game " sales system along with their " impulse " DRM system .
You can sell-back your serial-code and someone else can " buy " it .
Admittedly , this gets odd .
" Used bits " are no different than " new bits " .
And , what 's to stop Stardock from always saying " sorry , we 're all out of used copies of our game ; you 'll have to buy a new one " ?
) Option # 3 : Publishers create additional content so that people hold-on to their games .
The article states that this is what publishers are doing - trying to incentivize customers to hold-on to their games , thus lowering the number of people selling them .
Again , nothing wrong with this .
I 'm sure there are plenty of other options people could come up with .
There is nothing wrong with publishers getting perturbed over used-game sales , and there is nothing wrong with their attempts to get money in the used-game market .
The only issue is whether or not they go about it the right way .
Option # 1 is the wrong way , but there are good ways to go about it .
Most of the Slashdot comments seem to assume that publishers are trying Option # 1 - and then complaining that publishers are greedy and underhanded .
I see nothing wrong - in principle - with publishers trying to make money off used-game sales or being disturbed by GameStop 's 48 \ % profit margins .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Most of the comments here don't seem to get the situation.
Publishers don't like the fact that GameStop is getting 48\% profit margins from selling these used games.
Now, here's where most of the Slashdot comments get it wrong: they assume the Publishers are pushing a particular (and unfair) solution to this problem.
In the past, I've defended the idea of stores getting involved in second-hand sales.
I still stand by the first-sale principle.
So, let's look at some possibilities here.
Option #1: Publishers don't like second-hand sales, so they enact legislation to stop second-hand sales OR they require a cut of every second-hand sale.
This would be wrong.
The first-sale doctrine prohibits this.
And, consumers should be angry if this is what publishers were doing.
Most of the Slashdot comments seem to assume that this is what publishers are doing, and they make comparisons to used books and car sales.
This is not what publishers are doing.
Option #2: Publishers get involved in the used-game sales.
If GameStop is enjoying 48\% profit margins, then there's a strong impetus for competition from the publishers themselves.
There's nothing wrong with Publishers doing this.
They're just jumping in and competing the used-game market, just like everyone else.
(In fact, Stardock is attempting to setup a "used game" sales system along with their "impulse" DRM system.
You can sell-back your serial-code and someone else can "buy" it.
Admittedly, this gets odd.
"Used bits" are no different than "new bits".
And, what's to stop Stardock from always saying "sorry, we're all out of used copies of our game; you'll have to buy a new one"?
)
 
Option #3: Publishers create additional content so that people hold-on to their games.
The article states that this is what publishers are doing - trying to incentivize customers to hold-on to their games, thus lowering the number of people selling them.
Again, nothing wrong with this.
I'm sure there are plenty of other options people could come up with.
There is nothing wrong with publishers getting perturbed over used-game sales, and there is nothing wrong with their attempts to get money in the used-game market.
The only issue is whether or not they go about it the right way.
Option #1 is the wrong way, but there are good ways to go about it.
Most of the Slashdot comments seem to assume that publishers are trying Option #1 - and then complaining that publishers are greedy and underhanded.
I see nothing wrong - in principle - with publishers trying to make money off used-game sales or being disturbed by GameStop's 48\% profit margins.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28216449</id>
	<title>Just like....</title>
	<author>SirLoadALot</author>
	<datestamp>1244117940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is just like with a car, or some other item, where the original manufacturer gets a kickback every time it is resold because -- hey, wait, they don't get anything from it because that's a stupid idea!  The original manufacturer has already sold it and given up any future interest in it for a fair price!  Why the hell would the maker of a bad video game get more money every time EB manages to fob it off again on an unsuspecting customer?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is just like with a car , or some other item , where the original manufacturer gets a kickback every time it is resold because -- hey , wait , they do n't get anything from it because that 's a stupid idea !
The original manufacturer has already sold it and given up any future interest in it for a fair price !
Why the hell would the maker of a bad video game get more money every time EB manages to fob it off again on an unsuspecting customer ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is just like with a car, or some other item, where the original manufacturer gets a kickback every time it is resold because -- hey, wait, they don't get anything from it because that's a stupid idea!
The original manufacturer has already sold it and given up any future interest in it for a fair price!
Why the hell would the maker of a bad video game get more money every time EB manages to fob it off again on an unsuspecting customer?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28216665</id>
	<title>What are these guys on?</title>
	<author>Rycross</author>
	<datestamp>1244119080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sony and Panasonic aren't complaining about used TV sales, Toyota isn't complaining about used car sales, and Dell isn't complaining about people reselling their computers.  In what world is someone reselling the game considered taking away money from the publishers?  Lets set aside the fact that some people will pay full price for a game because they know that they can resell it later and recoup some of the cost...</p><p>Its not like people are going out to buy used games.  They want cheap games.  If they kept publishing their old games, and dropped the prices as the games got older, I'm sure they could take a huge chunk out of used game sales.  Its not like I'm falling all over myself to save $5 off of a new game at GameStop.  Seriously, every time I buy a recently released game, they offer me a used copy for $5 less.  Oh boy, sign me up!</p><p>It looks like that, instead of thinking about the problem and adjusting their business strategy, they've chosen to whine like petulant children about something that every other industry in the world (well, at least those based on real physical objects) doesn't have a problem with.  Or maybe my brain just isn't sophisticated enough to understand their business genius.  Either way, their little rant makes me feel like I'm taking crazy pills.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sony and Panasonic are n't complaining about used TV sales , Toyota is n't complaining about used car sales , and Dell is n't complaining about people reselling their computers .
In what world is someone reselling the game considered taking away money from the publishers ?
Lets set aside the fact that some people will pay full price for a game because they know that they can resell it later and recoup some of the cost...Its not like people are going out to buy used games .
They want cheap games .
If they kept publishing their old games , and dropped the prices as the games got older , I 'm sure they could take a huge chunk out of used game sales .
Its not like I 'm falling all over myself to save $ 5 off of a new game at GameStop .
Seriously , every time I buy a recently released game , they offer me a used copy for $ 5 less .
Oh boy , sign me up ! It looks like that , instead of thinking about the problem and adjusting their business strategy , they 've chosen to whine like petulant children about something that every other industry in the world ( well , at least those based on real physical objects ) does n't have a problem with .
Or maybe my brain just is n't sophisticated enough to understand their business genius .
Either way , their little rant makes me feel like I 'm taking crazy pills .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sony and Panasonic aren't complaining about used TV sales, Toyota isn't complaining about used car sales, and Dell isn't complaining about people reselling their computers.
In what world is someone reselling the game considered taking away money from the publishers?
Lets set aside the fact that some people will pay full price for a game because they know that they can resell it later and recoup some of the cost...Its not like people are going out to buy used games.
They want cheap games.
If they kept publishing their old games, and dropped the prices as the games got older, I'm sure they could take a huge chunk out of used game sales.
Its not like I'm falling all over myself to save $5 off of a new game at GameStop.
Seriously, every time I buy a recently released game, they offer me a used copy for $5 less.
Oh boy, sign me up!It looks like that, instead of thinking about the problem and adjusting their business strategy, they've chosen to whine like petulant children about something that every other industry in the world (well, at least those based on real physical objects) doesn't have a problem with.
Or maybe my brain just isn't sophisticated enough to understand their business genius.
Either way, their little rant makes me feel like I'm taking crazy pills.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28216965</id>
	<title>Re:WTF?</title>
	<author>sqldr</author>
	<datestamp>1244121120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'd be more prepared to listen to them if they first started giving a slice of their profits to the underpaid developers who made the games in the first place.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'd be more prepared to listen to them if they first started giving a slice of their profits to the underpaid developers who made the games in the first place .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'd be more prepared to listen to them if they first started giving a slice of their profits to the underpaid developers who made the games in the first place.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28216403</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28219937</id>
	<title>And the developers?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244200020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Somehow I really do doubt that these publishers are also concerned that developers are being deprived of money too.<br>In fact I'm guessing that if they could get a cut of used sales that they wouldn't pay developers a cent more. I don't know who added "and developers" to TFA but that certainly would not be what the source said because any developer knows that there's no way in hell the publisher would compensate them if the publisher somehow managed to tap used game sales.</p><p>Their greed really does disgust me. It really is quite wrong to use the word 'deprived' in relation to publishers because they didn't create the game to begin with! They remind me of the RIAA who also want the maximise their profits for something they may have published but didn't create and don't give a **** about the party who created it. The party to which the work REALLY belongs.</p><p>It's amazing how immoral these companies can be. To think they can reshape the world around their desire for more money. Licenses don't mean a thing, the game is still a physical property that is owned by whoever bought it. After someone buys it the publisher has ZERO right to that copy. Do they think they're the only company who would love to be able to be paid for every single further sale of a product they once made between other persons. I don't think a single company in existence would object to free money for nothing like that. Imagine if you had a garage sale and afterwards an inspector came buy to reallocate percentages of your take for each item you sold to the individual companies that made those items.</p><p>Interesting line in the article: </p><p><div class="quote"><p> Bartel said the average selling price for used games is $14 compared with about $40 for new games</p></div><p>Wow, either the way that Gamestop operates in the US is so radically different from my country or this guy is lying through his teeth. The way that Gamestop operates in here and I'd be quite certain everywhere is that generally all new games are 60$/Euro (Or more like $80 if you convert from Euros) and the used games are almost never more than a fiver less than the price of the new game. Usually it's only a couple of Euro/dollar difference. $14? Absolutely NEVER! Try $57. What they give you for your used games is also typically negligible. Usually only &#226;5-&#226;10. That's for a game they're going to sell for &#226;55. That's more like an 89\% profit margin. This is why I don't understand why anyone would buy or sell used games to Gamestop. What's the point of saving only a few quid on a game that's probably been quite abused, has scratches on the disc and weird residues like adhesive all over the box.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Somehow I really do doubt that these publishers are also concerned that developers are being deprived of money too.In fact I 'm guessing that if they could get a cut of used sales that they would n't pay developers a cent more .
I do n't know who added " and developers " to TFA but that certainly would not be what the source said because any developer knows that there 's no way in hell the publisher would compensate them if the publisher somehow managed to tap used game sales.Their greed really does disgust me .
It really is quite wrong to use the word 'deprived ' in relation to publishers because they did n't create the game to begin with !
They remind me of the RIAA who also want the maximise their profits for something they may have published but did n't create and do n't give a * * * * about the party who created it .
The party to which the work REALLY belongs.It 's amazing how immoral these companies can be .
To think they can reshape the world around their desire for more money .
Licenses do n't mean a thing , the game is still a physical property that is owned by whoever bought it .
After someone buys it the publisher has ZERO right to that copy .
Do they think they 're the only company who would love to be able to be paid for every single further sale of a product they once made between other persons .
I do n't think a single company in existence would object to free money for nothing like that .
Imagine if you had a garage sale and afterwards an inspector came buy to reallocate percentages of your take for each item you sold to the individual companies that made those items.Interesting line in the article : Bartel said the average selling price for used games is $ 14 compared with about $ 40 for new gamesWow , either the way that Gamestop operates in the US is so radically different from my country or this guy is lying through his teeth .
The way that Gamestop operates in here and I 'd be quite certain everywhere is that generally all new games are 60 $ /Euro ( Or more like $ 80 if you convert from Euros ) and the used games are almost never more than a fiver less than the price of the new game .
Usually it 's only a couple of Euro/dollar difference .
$ 14 ? Absolutely NEVER !
Try $ 57 .
What they give you for your used games is also typically negligible .
Usually only   5-   10 .
That 's for a game they 're going to sell for   55 .
That 's more like an 89 \ % profit margin .
This is why I do n't understand why anyone would buy or sell used games to Gamestop .
What 's the point of saving only a few quid on a game that 's probably been quite abused , has scratches on the disc and weird residues like adhesive all over the box .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Somehow I really do doubt that these publishers are also concerned that developers are being deprived of money too.In fact I'm guessing that if they could get a cut of used sales that they wouldn't pay developers a cent more.
I don't know who added "and developers" to TFA but that certainly would not be what the source said because any developer knows that there's no way in hell the publisher would compensate them if the publisher somehow managed to tap used game sales.Their greed really does disgust me.
It really is quite wrong to use the word 'deprived' in relation to publishers because they didn't create the game to begin with!
They remind me of the RIAA who also want the maximise their profits for something they may have published but didn't create and don't give a **** about the party who created it.
The party to which the work REALLY belongs.It's amazing how immoral these companies can be.
To think they can reshape the world around their desire for more money.
Licenses don't mean a thing, the game is still a physical property that is owned by whoever bought it.
After someone buys it the publisher has ZERO right to that copy.
Do they think they're the only company who would love to be able to be paid for every single further sale of a product they once made between other persons.
I don't think a single company in existence would object to free money for nothing like that.
Imagine if you had a garage sale and afterwards an inspector came buy to reallocate percentages of your take for each item you sold to the individual companies that made those items.Interesting line in the article:  Bartel said the average selling price for used games is $14 compared with about $40 for new gamesWow, either the way that Gamestop operates in the US is so radically different from my country or this guy is lying through his teeth.
The way that Gamestop operates in here and I'd be quite certain everywhere is that generally all new games are 60$/Euro (Or more like $80 if you convert from Euros) and the used games are almost never more than a fiver less than the price of the new game.
Usually it's only a couple of Euro/dollar difference.
$14? Absolutely NEVER!
Try $57.
What they give you for your used games is also typically negligible.
Usually only â5-â10.
That's for a game they're going to sell for â55.
That's more like an 89\% profit margin.
This is why I don't understand why anyone would buy or sell used games to Gamestop.
What's the point of saving only a few quid on a game that's probably been quite abused, has scratches on the disc and weird residues like adhesive all over the box.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28219513</id>
	<title>Re:devil's advocate</title>
	<author>TheThiefMaster</author>
	<datestamp>1244193540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>They can't run the game from CD, the performance is lousy.</p></div><p>Really? That's why all xbox 360 games, original xbox games, Wii games, PS2 games, PS1 games, Sega Saturn and MegaCD games require installing to a hard-disk.</p><p>Wait, they don't?</p><p>The last game I worked on, "Wheelman", actually streams better from the 360 DVD than from some peoples' PCs' hard-disks.<br>We had reviews all the way from "awesome" to "bad". Out of the few bad reviews, most were GTA fanboys not getting that Wheelman != GTA, but some were playing the PC version on PCs that weren't up to the task, and blaming us for the resulting problems.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>They ca n't run the game from CD , the performance is lousy.Really ?
That 's why all xbox 360 games , original xbox games , Wii games , PS2 games , PS1 games , Sega Saturn and MegaCD games require installing to a hard-disk.Wait , they do n't ? The last game I worked on , " Wheelman " , actually streams better from the 360 DVD than from some peoples ' PCs ' hard-disks.We had reviews all the way from " awesome " to " bad " .
Out of the few bad reviews , most were GTA fanboys not getting that Wheelman ! = GTA , but some were playing the PC version on PCs that were n't up to the task , and blaming us for the resulting problems .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They can't run the game from CD, the performance is lousy.Really?
That's why all xbox 360 games, original xbox games, Wii games, PS2 games, PS1 games, Sega Saturn and MegaCD games require installing to a hard-disk.Wait, they don't?The last game I worked on, "Wheelman", actually streams better from the 360 DVD than from some peoples' PCs' hard-disks.We had reviews all the way from "awesome" to "bad".
Out of the few bad reviews, most were GTA fanboys not getting that Wheelman != GTA, but some were playing the PC version on PCs that weren't up to the task, and blaming us for the resulting problems.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28216611</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28217917</id>
	<title>Toposhaba</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244130840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why dont they just do some sort of reward system for not buying a game used or not selling it to retailers.You could send in a game and get like a coupon or something.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why dont they just do some sort of reward system for not buying a game used or not selling it to retailers.You could send in a game and get like a coupon or something .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why dont they just do some sort of reward system for not buying a game used or not selling it to retailers.You could send in a game and get like a coupon or something.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28217587</id>
	<title>Subject</title>
	<author>Legion303</author>
	<datestamp>1244126640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>$20-25 is my price limit for games. If the game is released new at around $20 (Introversion's excellent library, for example), I'm happy to buy new. Publishers who want $60 for a new game don't get my money unless it's actually worth it (see X-Plane, with 6 DL DVDs full of satellite imagery). Publishers who collude to drive used places out of business or force them to raise prices will only send me back to my warez pup days, because frankly, fuck them and their inflated value.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>$ 20-25 is my price limit for games .
If the game is released new at around $ 20 ( Introversion 's excellent library , for example ) , I 'm happy to buy new .
Publishers who want $ 60 for a new game do n't get my money unless it 's actually worth it ( see X-Plane , with 6 DL DVDs full of satellite imagery ) .
Publishers who collude to drive used places out of business or force them to raise prices will only send me back to my warez pup days , because frankly , fuck them and their inflated value .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>$20-25 is my price limit for games.
If the game is released new at around $20 (Introversion's excellent library, for example), I'm happy to buy new.
Publishers who want $60 for a new game don't get my money unless it's actually worth it (see X-Plane, with 6 DL DVDs full of satellite imagery).
Publishers who collude to drive used places out of business or force them to raise prices will only send me back to my warez pup days, because frankly, fuck them and their inflated value.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28218697</id>
	<title>Re:here's how they could threaten gamestop</title>
	<author>Ihmhi</author>
	<datestamp>1244139000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well, when Valve cut the price of Left 4 Dead by half, they saw a <a href="http://www.shacknews.com/onearticle.x/57308" title="shacknews.com">3000\% increase in sales</a> [shacknews.com]. That goes to show that there is a large enough market of people holding out for a better price. (With Steam and its constant sales, a better price is inevitable - especially around the end of the year.</p><p>Valve can get away with it because they are only transmitting data. They don't have to worry as much about the physical media, transportation, and other logistics that come into play when they are selling a physical game.</p><p>I recalled reading in EGM about how prior to the current generation of consoles they were selling "special editions" of games with cheap plastic trinkets and whatnot for like $70. It was all basically a ploy to see if consumers were willing to pay USD$60 for software, and many of them were. That's one of the reasons why new games often retail for $65.</p><p>I have to wonder if slashing the prices of games will work at all when there's the consideration of physical media. It's a risk that I don't think very many game companies would like to take.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , when Valve cut the price of Left 4 Dead by half , they saw a 3000 \ % increase in sales [ shacknews.com ] .
That goes to show that there is a large enough market of people holding out for a better price .
( With Steam and its constant sales , a better price is inevitable - especially around the end of the year.Valve can get away with it because they are only transmitting data .
They do n't have to worry as much about the physical media , transportation , and other logistics that come into play when they are selling a physical game.I recalled reading in EGM about how prior to the current generation of consoles they were selling " special editions " of games with cheap plastic trinkets and whatnot for like $ 70 .
It was all basically a ploy to see if consumers were willing to pay USD $ 60 for software , and many of them were .
That 's one of the reasons why new games often retail for $ 65.I have to wonder if slashing the prices of games will work at all when there 's the consideration of physical media .
It 's a risk that I do n't think very many game companies would like to take .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, when Valve cut the price of Left 4 Dead by half, they saw a 3000\% increase in sales [shacknews.com].
That goes to show that there is a large enough market of people holding out for a better price.
(With Steam and its constant sales, a better price is inevitable - especially around the end of the year.Valve can get away with it because they are only transmitting data.
They don't have to worry as much about the physical media, transportation, and other logistics that come into play when they are selling a physical game.I recalled reading in EGM about how prior to the current generation of consoles they were selling "special editions" of games with cheap plastic trinkets and whatnot for like $70.
It was all basically a ploy to see if consumers were willing to pay USD$60 for software, and many of them were.
That's one of the reasons why new games often retail for $65.I have to wonder if slashing the prices of games will work at all when there's the consideration of physical media.
It's a risk that I don't think very many game companies would like to take.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28217053</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28216689</id>
	<title>Not to suggest the obvious, but</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244119200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Not to suggest the obvious, but the publishers seriously want to sell used games then they could take the games that aren't sold after a period of time and sell the at half the price of new games.</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; It's just software.  And with software you have relatively high fixed costs for development and then you have practically no marginal costs for selling the product.  Suppose for the first year, you sell X number of games of a title at $69,<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.3X at $69 the second year, and<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.1X units at $69 in the third year.  Used games are selling<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.4X units at $30 in the third year.  0.4X times $30 brings more revenue than 0.1X times $69.</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; So just price the unsold new games of that title at slightly less than the used games of that title are selling for.  Since you have no marginal costs on your sales product, you will be profitable.  But no, you're a fucking marketing major and math is hard, so you want to pass a law to prohibit any 'advanced' business model that your little brain doesn't understand.</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; I'm surprised that with so many game companies in New England, no one seems to have adopted the sales model of Filene's basement.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not to suggest the obvious , but the publishers seriously want to sell used games then they could take the games that are n't sold after a period of time and sell the at half the price of new games .
    It 's just software .
And with software you have relatively high fixed costs for development and then you have practically no marginal costs for selling the product .
Suppose for the first year , you sell X number of games of a title at $ 69 , .3X at $ 69 the second year , and .1X units at $ 69 in the third year .
Used games are selling .4X units at $ 30 in the third year .
0.4X times $ 30 brings more revenue than 0.1X times $ 69 .
    So just price the unsold new games of that title at slightly less than the used games of that title are selling for .
Since you have no marginal costs on your sales product , you will be profitable .
But no , you 're a fucking marketing major and math is hard , so you want to pass a law to prohibit any 'advanced ' business model that your little brain does n't understand .
    I 'm surprised that with so many game companies in New England , no one seems to have adopted the sales model of Filene 's basement .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not to suggest the obvious, but the publishers seriously want to sell used games then they could take the games that aren't sold after a period of time and sell the at half the price of new games.
    It's just software.
And with software you have relatively high fixed costs for development and then you have practically no marginal costs for selling the product.
Suppose for the first year, you sell X number of games of a title at $69, .3X at $69 the second year, and .1X units at $69 in the third year.
Used games are selling .4X units at $30 in the third year.
0.4X times $30 brings more revenue than 0.1X times $69.
    So just price the unsold new games of that title at slightly less than the used games of that title are selling for.
Since you have no marginal costs on your sales product, you will be profitable.
But no, you're a fucking marketing major and math is hard, so you want to pass a law to prohibit any 'advanced' business model that your little brain doesn't understand.
    I'm surprised that with so many game companies in New England, no one seems to have adopted the sales model of Filene's basement.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28218899</id>
	<title>Too Bad!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244142000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So the game publishers don't think they make enough money?  TOO BAD!!!!!  Their games have been way overpriced for many years now!  It is the high prices of new games that drives the used game market!  Why should Game Stop (or anyone else selling a used game) have to pay the game publisher anything?  The publisher has already made their profit.  Not that I approve of Game Stop's pricing on used games.  They pay $5 to \%10 for a used game, and then sell it for a few dollars less than the full price when the game was new!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So the game publishers do n't think they make enough money ?
TOO BAD ! ! ! ! !
Their games have been way overpriced for many years now !
It is the high prices of new games that drives the used game market !
Why should Game Stop ( or anyone else selling a used game ) have to pay the game publisher anything ?
The publisher has already made their profit .
Not that I approve of Game Stop 's pricing on used games .
They pay $ 5 to \ % 10 for a used game , and then sell it for a few dollars less than the full price when the game was new !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So the game publishers don't think they make enough money?
TOO BAD!!!!!
Their games have been way overpriced for many years now!
It is the high prices of new games that drives the used game market!
Why should Game Stop (or anyone else selling a used game) have to pay the game publisher anything?
The publisher has already made their profit.
Not that I approve of Game Stop's pricing on used games.
They pay $5 to \%10 for a used game, and then sell it for a few dollars less than the full price when the game was new!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28220419</id>
	<title>Re:Most of these comments don't quite get it</title>
	<author>thetoadwarrior</author>
	<datestamp>1244205720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If publishers wouldn't give shops no profit on the console hardware and minimal profits on new software that is hard to sell because it's all the same and pretty much only caters to one demographic then shops wouldn't have to find profit elsewhere.
<br> <br>
The fault lies directly with the publisher and them getting money for used games (which they had no part in anyway) is wrong.
<br> <br>
Will they take a loss when a used game is returned? They do their best to stop new games from being return which means they store won't take it back and the consumer is left with a buggy $60 piece of software. How is that fair?</htmltext>
<tokenext>If publishers would n't give shops no profit on the console hardware and minimal profits on new software that is hard to sell because it 's all the same and pretty much only caters to one demographic then shops would n't have to find profit elsewhere .
The fault lies directly with the publisher and them getting money for used games ( which they had no part in anyway ) is wrong .
Will they take a loss when a used game is returned ?
They do their best to stop new games from being return which means they store wo n't take it back and the consumer is left with a buggy $ 60 piece of software .
How is that fair ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If publishers wouldn't give shops no profit on the console hardware and minimal profits on new software that is hard to sell because it's all the same and pretty much only caters to one demographic then shops wouldn't have to find profit elsewhere.
The fault lies directly with the publisher and them getting money for used games (which they had no part in anyway) is wrong.
Will they take a loss when a used game is returned?
They do their best to stop new games from being return which means they store won't take it back and the consumer is left with a buggy $60 piece of software.
How is that fair?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28217563</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28216853</id>
	<title>They are entitled to a second slice of the pie!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244120280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They are certainly welcome to a second slice of the pie...  All they need to do is create a buy-back program, and re-market the game.</p><p>Problem solved! (Without employing rocket science - I think)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They are certainly welcome to a second slice of the pie... All they need to do is create a buy-back program , and re-market the game.Problem solved !
( Without employing rocket science - I think )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They are certainly welcome to a second slice of the pie...  All they need to do is create a buy-back program, and re-market the game.Problem solved!
(Without employing rocket science - I think)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28217777</id>
	<title>Me Too!</title>
	<author>Bob9113</author>
	<datestamp>1244129340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>some publishers and manufacturers want a piece of the pie.</i></p><p>Ooo Ooo! Me too! Can I have some of that money too, please? I have just as much of a property right over that copy as the publisher does, so I'd like to have some of GameStop's money too, please!</p><p>Thanks!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>some publishers and manufacturers want a piece of the pie.Ooo Ooo !
Me too !
Can I have some of that money too , please ?
I have just as much of a property right over that copy as the publisher does , so I 'd like to have some of GameStop 's money too , please ! Thanks !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>some publishers and manufacturers want a piece of the pie.Ooo Ooo!
Me too!
Can I have some of that money too, please?
I have just as much of a property right over that copy as the publisher does, so I'd like to have some of GameStop's money too, please!Thanks!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28221295</id>
	<title>Re:here's how they could threaten gamestop</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244211780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I can't imagine the big publishers are going to try to do anything about this, regardless of how pissed they are.</p><p>Just like I don't think Ford, Toyota, Honda, etc are going to claim "wah fucking wah we're losing sales to used car lots."</p><p>Fucking greedy, whiny, asshole CEO's. Die in a fire.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I ca n't imagine the big publishers are going to try to do anything about this , regardless of how pissed they are.Just like I do n't think Ford , Toyota , Honda , etc are going to claim " wah fucking wah we 're losing sales to used car lots .
" Fucking greedy , whiny , asshole CEO 's .
Die in a fire .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I can't imagine the big publishers are going to try to do anything about this, regardless of how pissed they are.Just like I don't think Ford, Toyota, Honda, etc are going to claim "wah fucking wah we're losing sales to used car lots.
"Fucking greedy, whiny, asshole CEO's.
Die in a fire.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28217053</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28216409</id>
	<title>Anonymous Coward</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244117760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Executives at G.M. are wondering why they never thought of this one.....could've saved them from bankruptcy.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Executives at G.M .
are wondering why they never thought of this one.....could 've saved them from bankruptcy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Executives at G.M.
are wondering why they never thought of this one.....could've saved them from bankruptcy.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28222697</id>
	<title>Re:Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain</title>
	<author>Dusty101</author>
	<datestamp>1244217900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Nor can I particularly blame them, if I had made a $20million dollar game, and Gamestop were making more off it than I was, I would be upset too.  Honestly now, wouldn't you?</p></div><p>Nope. In their capacity as a business, they already ran all their cost/risk/profit analyses before they greenlit the development of the software. They are the ones that chose to produce the game, and accept the first sale profits arising from that initial investment. If they'd wanted to make money on resales of games instead, then they should've opened a string of retail outlets with that money instead, like GameStop did. It's not like the resale business is a whole new idea at this point. They paid their money and made their choice - it's as simple as that. "Wah! Wah! Wah! We want more money!" is hardly a legitimate argument, although it is philosophically flexible (as you correctly note).</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Nor can I particularly blame them , if I had made a $ 20million dollar game , and Gamestop were making more off it than I was , I would be upset too .
Honestly now , would n't you ? Nope .
In their capacity as a business , they already ran all their cost/risk/profit analyses before they greenlit the development of the software .
They are the ones that chose to produce the game , and accept the first sale profits arising from that initial investment .
If they 'd wanted to make money on resales of games instead , then they should 've opened a string of retail outlets with that money instead , like GameStop did .
It 's not like the resale business is a whole new idea at this point .
They paid their money and made their choice - it 's as simple as that .
" Wah ! Wah !
Wah ! We want more money !
" is hardly a legitimate argument , although it is philosophically flexible ( as you correctly note ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nor can I particularly blame them, if I had made a $20million dollar game, and Gamestop were making more off it than I was, I would be upset too.
Honestly now, wouldn't you?Nope.
In their capacity as a business, they already ran all their cost/risk/profit analyses before they greenlit the development of the software.
They are the ones that chose to produce the game, and accept the first sale profits arising from that initial investment.
If they'd wanted to make money on resales of games instead, then they should've opened a string of retail outlets with that money instead, like GameStop did.
It's not like the resale business is a whole new idea at this point.
They paid their money and made their choice - it's as simple as that.
"Wah! Wah!
Wah! We want more money!
" is hardly a legitimate argument, although it is philosophically flexible (as you correctly note).
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28217681</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28216799</id>
	<title>The Underlying Scaryness is they'll Figure out how</title>
	<author>thinktech</author>
	<datestamp>1244119860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>On the face of this, the game companies realize that the idea is crazy as is. But seriously, the un-voiced issue here is that if this is on their mind, they're going to figure out a way to make it happen. Rather than reply with other wacky examples of why this is a stupid Idea, I think people should be focused on what this story really means. It means that game companies are going to figure out a way to keep their hands on your game. PC publishers have already done this to the point where Gamestop can't resell PC games. Now the publishers are eying the console market. Within a year, I'd wager they'll have some system in place that makes reselling console games nearly impossible.</htmltext>
<tokenext>On the face of this , the game companies realize that the idea is crazy as is .
But seriously , the un-voiced issue here is that if this is on their mind , they 're going to figure out a way to make it happen .
Rather than reply with other wacky examples of why this is a stupid Idea , I think people should be focused on what this story really means .
It means that game companies are going to figure out a way to keep their hands on your game .
PC publishers have already done this to the point where Gamestop ca n't resell PC games .
Now the publishers are eying the console market .
Within a year , I 'd wager they 'll have some system in place that makes reselling console games nearly impossible .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>On the face of this, the game companies realize that the idea is crazy as is.
But seriously, the un-voiced issue here is that if this is on their mind, they're going to figure out a way to make it happen.
Rather than reply with other wacky examples of why this is a stupid Idea, I think people should be focused on what this story really means.
It means that game companies are going to figure out a way to keep their hands on your game.
PC publishers have already done this to the point where Gamestop can't resell PC games.
Now the publishers are eying the console market.
Within a year, I'd wager they'll have some system in place that makes reselling console games nearly impossible.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28219369</id>
	<title>Re:What are these guys on?</title>
	<author>jrhawk42</author>
	<datestamp>1244234940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You probably don't realize this, but most other goods have a certain wear and tear that video games (and other digital media) don't have.  A used car, or TV is not going to be as good as the day it was bought due to everyday wear and tear of the buttons, tubes, engine, and just about every other component.  Unlike other goods a video game isn't going break due to it being used therefore a used game is pretty much just as good as a new one (assuming it's fully working when you get it).  If this applied to cars, or TVs or any other industry they'd definitely be complaining.

Now let's look at the numbers.  Currently the video game industry does about $10billion worth of sales per year.  Now gamestop's used game sales are about $2billion, and that's just one company.  No other industry has 20\% of their sales matched by a used market let alone a used market from a single company.  With companies like Amazon, and Best Buy are looking at ways to break into the used game market it's pretty clear the used game market is going to be growing, and it's only going to hurt the companies making the games.

Now I'm not expecting the game industry to completely dissolve used games (I mean look how well that worked for the PC), but I think there should be some small re-licensing fees associated with used game sales that will help fund new a better games in the future.

Hypothetically let's say a company that does over $1 million in used media sales pays a 10\% used tax on the sale of each title to the publishers that own the rights to said media.  If gamestop passes the tax onto those selling the games (I should also mention a lot of games sold to gamestop are stolen) than they can profit even more.

For example let's say they buy a game for $10 with the intention of selling it for $30.  If they apply the 10\% tax to the seller that would knock the price down to 7$ since the tax is paid at the resale, not the trade in.  Now as time goes on the game doesn't sell and the game price drops to $20.  If gamespot sells the game for $20 they are paying $1 less tax than originally planed and technically profiting.  Now you're probably saying they would of made more had they sold it for $30, but it doesn't work that way tax or no tax.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You probably do n't realize this , but most other goods have a certain wear and tear that video games ( and other digital media ) do n't have .
A used car , or TV is not going to be as good as the day it was bought due to everyday wear and tear of the buttons , tubes , engine , and just about every other component .
Unlike other goods a video game is n't going break due to it being used therefore a used game is pretty much just as good as a new one ( assuming it 's fully working when you get it ) .
If this applied to cars , or TVs or any other industry they 'd definitely be complaining .
Now let 's look at the numbers .
Currently the video game industry does about $ 10billion worth of sales per year .
Now gamestop 's used game sales are about $ 2billion , and that 's just one company .
No other industry has 20 \ % of their sales matched by a used market let alone a used market from a single company .
With companies like Amazon , and Best Buy are looking at ways to break into the used game market it 's pretty clear the used game market is going to be growing , and it 's only going to hurt the companies making the games .
Now I 'm not expecting the game industry to completely dissolve used games ( I mean look how well that worked for the PC ) , but I think there should be some small re-licensing fees associated with used game sales that will help fund new a better games in the future .
Hypothetically let 's say a company that does over $ 1 million in used media sales pays a 10 \ % used tax on the sale of each title to the publishers that own the rights to said media .
If gamestop passes the tax onto those selling the games ( I should also mention a lot of games sold to gamestop are stolen ) than they can profit even more .
For example let 's say they buy a game for $ 10 with the intention of selling it for $ 30 .
If they apply the 10 \ % tax to the seller that would knock the price down to 7 $ since the tax is paid at the resale , not the trade in .
Now as time goes on the game does n't sell and the game price drops to $ 20 .
If gamespot sells the game for $ 20 they are paying $ 1 less tax than originally planed and technically profiting .
Now you 're probably saying they would of made more had they sold it for $ 30 , but it does n't work that way tax or no tax .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You probably don't realize this, but most other goods have a certain wear and tear that video games (and other digital media) don't have.
A used car, or TV is not going to be as good as the day it was bought due to everyday wear and tear of the buttons, tubes, engine, and just about every other component.
Unlike other goods a video game isn't going break due to it being used therefore a used game is pretty much just as good as a new one (assuming it's fully working when you get it).
If this applied to cars, or TVs or any other industry they'd definitely be complaining.
Now let's look at the numbers.
Currently the video game industry does about $10billion worth of sales per year.
Now gamestop's used game sales are about $2billion, and that's just one company.
No other industry has 20\% of their sales matched by a used market let alone a used market from a single company.
With companies like Amazon, and Best Buy are looking at ways to break into the used game market it's pretty clear the used game market is going to be growing, and it's only going to hurt the companies making the games.
Now I'm not expecting the game industry to completely dissolve used games (I mean look how well that worked for the PC), but I think there should be some small re-licensing fees associated with used game sales that will help fund new a better games in the future.
Hypothetically let's say a company that does over $1 million in used media sales pays a 10\% used tax on the sale of each title to the publishers that own the rights to said media.
If gamestop passes the tax onto those selling the games (I should also mention a lot of games sold to gamestop are stolen) than they can profit even more.
For example let's say they buy a game for $10 with the intention of selling it for $30.
If they apply the 10\% tax to the seller that would knock the price down to 7$ since the tax is paid at the resale, not the trade in.
Now as time goes on the game doesn't sell and the game price drops to $20.
If gamespot sells the game for $20 they are paying $1 less tax than originally planed and technically profiting.
Now you're probably saying they would of made more had they sold it for $30, but it doesn't work that way tax or no tax.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28216665</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28217879</id>
	<title>Difference Between Video Games And Cars</title>
	<author>mastershake82</author>
	<datestamp>1244130480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>I see a lot of comments here comparing the "First Sale" profits of video games to cars or TVs or other physical utilitarian devices.<br> <br>
The main difference, in my opinion, is that in the first year of owning a car or TV, only the first owner can get value from it.  In the first year of life of a game disc, 12 people can get value from that one disc.<br> <br>
I don't think you'll see Bungie, Epic, or Infinity Ward complaining about this.  They've figured it out... you sell people the game and give them a great multiplayer mode (or some other reason) to hang onto it, and they will.  Used copies will be few and far between.<br> <br>
The people who are really suffering are those that make truly fantastic single player games.  Prince of Persia comes to mind... it was great, I thoroughly enjoyed it.  All 20 hours of it... and on my schedule, that's 5 days of having the game to do 100\% of everything there is to do.  So I rent it.  I actually rent all games that have no multiplayer aspect.  The only games I purchase are the ones I can see myself playing online still, 6 months down the line.  You might say make the games longer, which is an option, but I personally don't WANT to invest more than 20 hours into any single player experience, and to be honest, when it is longer, like 100+ hours for a Final Fantasy game, you spend most of that time not having fun, just trying to level up to do everything.<br> <br>
This applies to DVDs and to a lesser extend music as well.  One DVD can easily fully serve a group of 20 people in one week if they pass it around and watch it in groups.<br> <br>
I'll leave you with this... I think more than the disc, game companies, movie companies, etc are selling you the experience.  The experience of playing through the game or the experience of watching the movie.  And I believe they should be compensated for each experience they provide.  I do think that $60 is a bit much for a video game, but I think it's to compensate for rentals and used game sales.  Once everything goes digital, we will see a shift.  Let's say that for every 1 copy of a new game that is bought, 2 people probably play that disc, on average, could be more or less, not sure.  So $60 provides 2 play experiences.  The publisher sees approx $30 per experience in this model, but assuming the first copy was $60 and the used copy was $55.  That's $115 spent, and Gamestop probably paid the original owner about $25 for it, so they paid $35 for the experience.  If the second owner sells it back very quickly for $25, then he would have paid only $30, bringing this in line with the above of $30 per experience.  So $65 spent total for two plays, or $32.5 per experience.  If the publishers had complete control over this, the players could have each spent less money for the same amount of, or more (because they get to keep the game), game.<br> <br>
However, it may be be a utopian thought to think the publishers would pass these savings onto us completely, I like to dream.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I see a lot of comments here comparing the " First Sale " profits of video games to cars or TVs or other physical utilitarian devices .
The main difference , in my opinion , is that in the first year of owning a car or TV , only the first owner can get value from it .
In the first year of life of a game disc , 12 people can get value from that one disc .
I do n't think you 'll see Bungie , Epic , or Infinity Ward complaining about this .
They 've figured it out... you sell people the game and give them a great multiplayer mode ( or some other reason ) to hang onto it , and they will .
Used copies will be few and far between .
The people who are really suffering are those that make truly fantastic single player games .
Prince of Persia comes to mind... it was great , I thoroughly enjoyed it .
All 20 hours of it... and on my schedule , that 's 5 days of having the game to do 100 \ % of everything there is to do .
So I rent it .
I actually rent all games that have no multiplayer aspect .
The only games I purchase are the ones I can see myself playing online still , 6 months down the line .
You might say make the games longer , which is an option , but I personally do n't WANT to invest more than 20 hours into any single player experience , and to be honest , when it is longer , like 100 + hours for a Final Fantasy game , you spend most of that time not having fun , just trying to level up to do everything .
This applies to DVDs and to a lesser extend music as well .
One DVD can easily fully serve a group of 20 people in one week if they pass it around and watch it in groups .
I 'll leave you with this... I think more than the disc , game companies , movie companies , etc are selling you the experience .
The experience of playing through the game or the experience of watching the movie .
And I believe they should be compensated for each experience they provide .
I do think that $ 60 is a bit much for a video game , but I think it 's to compensate for rentals and used game sales .
Once everything goes digital , we will see a shift .
Let 's say that for every 1 copy of a new game that is bought , 2 people probably play that disc , on average , could be more or less , not sure .
So $ 60 provides 2 play experiences .
The publisher sees approx $ 30 per experience in this model , but assuming the first copy was $ 60 and the used copy was $ 55 .
That 's $ 115 spent , and Gamestop probably paid the original owner about $ 25 for it , so they paid $ 35 for the experience .
If the second owner sells it back very quickly for $ 25 , then he would have paid only $ 30 , bringing this in line with the above of $ 30 per experience .
So $ 65 spent total for two plays , or $ 32.5 per experience .
If the publishers had complete control over this , the players could have each spent less money for the same amount of , or more ( because they get to keep the game ) , game .
However , it may be be a utopian thought to think the publishers would pass these savings onto us completely , I like to dream .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I see a lot of comments here comparing the "First Sale" profits of video games to cars or TVs or other physical utilitarian devices.
The main difference, in my opinion, is that in the first year of owning a car or TV, only the first owner can get value from it.
In the first year of life of a game disc, 12 people can get value from that one disc.
I don't think you'll see Bungie, Epic, or Infinity Ward complaining about this.
They've figured it out... you sell people the game and give them a great multiplayer mode (or some other reason) to hang onto it, and they will.
Used copies will be few and far between.
The people who are really suffering are those that make truly fantastic single player games.
Prince of Persia comes to mind... it was great, I thoroughly enjoyed it.
All 20 hours of it... and on my schedule, that's 5 days of having the game to do 100\% of everything there is to do.
So I rent it.
I actually rent all games that have no multiplayer aspect.
The only games I purchase are the ones I can see myself playing online still, 6 months down the line.
You might say make the games longer, which is an option, but I personally don't WANT to invest more than 20 hours into any single player experience, and to be honest, when it is longer, like 100+ hours for a Final Fantasy game, you spend most of that time not having fun, just trying to level up to do everything.
This applies to DVDs and to a lesser extend music as well.
One DVD can easily fully serve a group of 20 people in one week if they pass it around and watch it in groups.
I'll leave you with this... I think more than the disc, game companies, movie companies, etc are selling you the experience.
The experience of playing through the game or the experience of watching the movie.
And I believe they should be compensated for each experience they provide.
I do think that $60 is a bit much for a video game, but I think it's to compensate for rentals and used game sales.
Once everything goes digital, we will see a shift.
Let's say that for every 1 copy of a new game that is bought, 2 people probably play that disc, on average, could be more or less, not sure.
So $60 provides 2 play experiences.
The publisher sees approx $30 per experience in this model, but assuming the first copy was $60 and the used copy was $55.
That's $115 spent, and Gamestop probably paid the original owner about $25 for it, so they paid $35 for the experience.
If the second owner sells it back very quickly for $25, then he would have paid only $30, bringing this in line with the above of $30 per experience.
So $65 spent total for two plays, or $32.5 per experience.
If the publishers had complete control over this, the players could have each spent less money for the same amount of, or more (because they get to keep the game), game.
However, it may be be a utopian thought to think the publishers would pass these savings onto us completely, I like to dream.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28218347</id>
	<title>They adjust the price of new titles in Japan</title>
	<author>Anonymous Froward</author>
	<datestamp>1244135580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>and they're making more money for the lower price!
I think this guy can learn something from what some of the Japanese publishers are doing in Japan.
<p>
Take for example a successful title, Gyakuten-Saiban: Yomigaeru Gyakuten. This is one of the titles known as "Ace Attorney" series in the USA.
</p><p>
There are three versions of this exact same title in Japan, i.e. the original (Sep.2005, sold at 5040 JPY or about 50 bucks), "Best Price" version (June 2006, sold at 3129 JPY or 31 bucks), and "New Best Price" (Apr. 2008, 2100 JPY or about 21 bucks).
</p><p>
<a href="http://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/\%E9\%80\%86\%E8\%BB\%A2\%E8\%A3\%81\%E5\%88\%A4#.E8.98.87.E3.82.8B.E9.80.86.E8.BB.A2" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">130000 copies of the original version were sold, but they sold 200000 copies of the "Best" and "New Best" combined</a> [wikipedia.org], so apparently they made more money from the budget-priced versions.
</p><p>
This is not an isolated case, it seems many publishers are lowering the price of popular but older games in Japan.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>and they 're making more money for the lower price !
I think this guy can learn something from what some of the Japanese publishers are doing in Japan .
Take for example a successful title , Gyakuten-Saiban : Yomigaeru Gyakuten .
This is one of the titles known as " Ace Attorney " series in the USA .
There are three versions of this exact same title in Japan , i.e .
the original ( Sep.2005 , sold at 5040 JPY or about 50 bucks ) , " Best Price " version ( June 2006 , sold at 3129 JPY or 31 bucks ) , and " New Best Price " ( Apr .
2008 , 2100 JPY or about 21 bucks ) .
130000 copies of the original version were sold , but they sold 200000 copies of the " Best " and " New Best " combined [ wikipedia.org ] , so apparently they made more money from the budget-priced versions .
This is not an isolated case , it seems many publishers are lowering the price of popular but older games in Japan .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>and they're making more money for the lower price!
I think this guy can learn something from what some of the Japanese publishers are doing in Japan.
Take for example a successful title, Gyakuten-Saiban: Yomigaeru Gyakuten.
This is one of the titles known as "Ace Attorney" series in the USA.
There are three versions of this exact same title in Japan, i.e.
the original (Sep.2005, sold at 5040 JPY or about 50 bucks), "Best Price" version (June 2006, sold at 3129 JPY or 31 bucks), and "New Best Price" (Apr.
2008, 2100 JPY or about 21 bucks).
130000 copies of the original version were sold, but they sold 200000 copies of the "Best" and "New Best" combined [wikipedia.org], so apparently they made more money from the budget-priced versions.
This is not an isolated case, it seems many publishers are lowering the price of popular but older games in Japan.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_04_236201_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28216809
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28220835
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_04_236201_87</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28216403
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28217397
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_04_236201_78</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28216405
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28217157
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_04_236201_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28216633
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28218173
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_04_236201_81</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28216391
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28216717
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28217053
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28219093
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_04_236201_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28216391
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28216717
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28217053
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28227697
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_04_236201_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28216405
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28216611
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28216911
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_04_236201_77</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28216405
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28216627
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_04_236201_68</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28216401
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28216475
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28220111
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_04_236201_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28216403
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28217029
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_04_236201_71</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28216405
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28216635
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28217367
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_04_236201_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28216405
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28216611
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28219471
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_04_236201_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28216405
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28216605
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28217259
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_04_236201_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28216405
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28216605
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28216955
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_04_236201_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28216405
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28216981
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28218675
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_04_236201_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28216405
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28216611
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28218915
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_04_236201_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28217387
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28221291
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_04_236201_76</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28216391
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28216717
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28217053
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28218055
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_04_236201_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28216449
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28222143
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_04_236201_70</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28216405
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28218093
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_04_236201_93</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28216401
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28216751
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_04_236201_66</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28216401
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28216571
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28217895
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_04_236201_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28216665
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28249091
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_04_236201_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28216403
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28216505
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_04_236201_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28216409
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28216983
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_04_236201_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28216391
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28216717
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28217053
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28218545
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_04_236201_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28216809
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28224053
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_04_236201_60</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28216405
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28216647
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28217599
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28220239
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_04_236201_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28216391
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28216717
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28217053
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28218697
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_04_236201_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28216401
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28216475
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28216601
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_04_236201_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28216405
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28216611
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28219513
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_04_236201_92</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28216401
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28216485
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28216973
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_04_236201_63</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28216447
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28218169
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_04_236201_88</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28216407
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28217379
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_04_236201_58</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28216405
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28216605
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28217265
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_04_236201_91</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28216405
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28216611
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28221273
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_04_236201_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28216391
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28216717
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28217053
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28220939
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_04_236201_82</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28216405
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28216647
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28219939
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_04_236201_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28216405
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28216611
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28220097
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_04_236201_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28216405
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28216611
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28218135
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_04_236201_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28216597
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28218955
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_04_236201_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28216401
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28216479
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28217585
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_04_236201_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28217563
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28220971
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_04_236201_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28216447
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28217807
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_04_236201_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28216405
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28216785
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_04_236201_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28217563
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28220527
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_04_236201_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28216665
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28219369
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_04_236201_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28216401
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28216571
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28222635
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_04_236201_83</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28217743
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28220057
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_04_236201_85</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28216405
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28216699
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_04_236201_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28216403
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28218629
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_04_236201_90</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28216403
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28218053
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_04_236201_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28216405
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28216605
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28217063
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_04_236201_61</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28216403
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28216755
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_04_236201_75</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28216405
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28216981
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28218517
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_04_236201_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28217879
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28307141
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_04_236201_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28216449
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28216931
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_04_236201_80</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28216403
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28216965
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_04_236201_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28216405
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28216611
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28222001
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_04_236201_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28217743
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28219613
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_04_236201_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28216665
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28227205
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_04_236201_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28216597
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28217347
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_04_236201_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28216391
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28216717
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28217053
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28221295
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_04_236201_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28216405
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28217291
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_04_236201_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28216401
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28216485
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28216865
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28221325
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_04_236201_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28217563
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28220419
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_04_236201_67</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28216401
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28216485
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28216585
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_04_236201_69</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28216449
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28218207
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_04_236201_72</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28216401
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28216501
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_04_236201_74</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28216597
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28229829
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_04_236201_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28216401
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28216485
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28216919
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_04_236201_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28216405
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28216981
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28217441
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_04_236201_73</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28216403
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28218275
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_04_236201_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28216447
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28217473
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_04_236201_64</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28216403
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28216769
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_04_236201_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28216447
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28219079
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_04_236201_57</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28216391
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28216717
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28217053
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28218793
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_04_236201_59</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28216401
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28216475
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28218043
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_04_236201_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28216405
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28216805
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_04_236201_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28216401
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28216571
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28219683
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_04_236201_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28216633
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28218333
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_04_236201_89</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28216391
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28216717
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28217053
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28218527
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_04_236201_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28216405
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28216611
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28219797
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_04_236201_94</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28216689
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28218643
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_04_236201_65</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28216809
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28220019
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_04_236201_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28216403
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28217699
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_04_236201_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28216401
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28216485
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28216963
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_04_236201_79</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28216405
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28216767
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_04_236201_84</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28216401
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28216617
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_04_236201_86</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28216401
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28216479
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28217669
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_04_236201_56</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28216405
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28216611
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28217501
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_04_236201_62</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28216633
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28217143
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28217681
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28222697
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_04_236201_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28216979
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28218247
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_04_236201_55</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28216405
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28216611
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28218867
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_04_236201_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28216447
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28217001
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_04_236201.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28216979
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28218247
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_04_236201.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28216409
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28216983
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_04_236201.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28218809
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_04_236201.30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28218019
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_04_236201.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28217563
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28220971
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28220419
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28220527
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_04_236201.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28216401
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28216475
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28220111
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28216601
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28218043
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28216479
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28217585
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28217669
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28216751
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28216501
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28216485
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28216585
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28216973
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28216919
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28216963
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28216865
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28221325
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28216571
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28222635
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28219683
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28217895
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28216617
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_04_236201.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28216405
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28217291
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28216611
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28221273
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28219797
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28217501
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28216911
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28222001
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28218867
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28218135
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28218915
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28219513
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28219471
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28220097
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28216605
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28217259
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28217265
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28216955
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28217063
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28216627
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28216647
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28219939
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28217599
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28220239
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28216785
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28217157
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28216981
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28218675
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28218517
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28217441
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28216635
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28217367
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28216699
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28218093
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28216805
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28216767
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_04_236201.29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28217743
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28219613
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28220057
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_04_236201.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28216665
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28219369
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28227205
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28249091
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_04_236201.23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28216809
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28220019
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28220835
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28224053
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_04_236201.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28216447
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28219079
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28217001
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28217807
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28218169
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28217473
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_04_236201.21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28216715
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_04_236201.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28216633
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28218173
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28218333
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28217143
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28217681
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28222697
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_04_236201.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28216799
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_04_236201.27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28216403
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28217397
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28216769
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28216965
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28217699
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28217029
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28218275
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28218629
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28218053
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28216755
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28216505
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_04_236201.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28218655
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_04_236201.25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28217533
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_04_236201.28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28216597
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28217347
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28229829
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28218955
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_04_236201.22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28216689
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28218643
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_04_236201.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28216391
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28216717
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28217053
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28218545
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28218055
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28218793
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28220939
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28227697
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28218697
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28219093
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28221295
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28218527
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_04_236201.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28217879
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28307141
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_04_236201.20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28217733
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_04_236201.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28216449
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28218207
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28216931
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28222143
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_04_236201.26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28216853
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_04_236201.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28217041
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_04_236201.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28217387
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28221291
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_04_236201.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28217761
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_04_236201.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28217777
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_04_236201.24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28216831
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_04_236201.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28216823
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_04_236201.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28216407
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_236201.28217379
</commentlist>
</conversation>
