<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_06_15_1654225</id>
	<title>Ubisoft CEO Says Next Gen Consoles Closer Than We Think</title>
	<author>ScuttleMonkey</author>
	<datestamp>1245092820000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>An anonymous reader writes <i>"Ubisoft CEO Yves Guillemot tells CNBC that he believes the <a href="http://www.cnbc.com/id/31331241">next generation of video game systems</a> isn't as far away as the public has been led to believe. Guillemot noted that public demand for the best machine possible, as well as coming competition from companies such as <a href="http://games.slashdot.org/story/09/03/24/135212/New-Service-Aims-To-Replace-Consoles-With-Cloud-Gaming">OnLive</a> could spur Microsoft, Sony and Nintendo to roll out new systems sooner than they want. That's not good news for publishers, though, as he says games in the next generation will likely cost $60 million to create."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>An anonymous reader writes " Ubisoft CEO Yves Guillemot tells CNBC that he believes the next generation of video game systems is n't as far away as the public has been led to believe .
Guillemot noted that public demand for the best machine possible , as well as coming competition from companies such as OnLive could spur Microsoft , Sony and Nintendo to roll out new systems sooner than they want .
That 's not good news for publishers , though , as he says games in the next generation will likely cost $ 60 million to create .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>An anonymous reader writes "Ubisoft CEO Yves Guillemot tells CNBC that he believes the next generation of video game systems isn't as far away as the public has been led to believe.
Guillemot noted that public demand for the best machine possible, as well as coming competition from companies such as OnLive could spur Microsoft, Sony and Nintendo to roll out new systems sooner than they want.
That's not good news for publishers, though, as he says games in the next generation will likely cost $60 million to create.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28341017</id>
	<title>Re:PS/2 Lifespan</title>
	<author>elfprince13</author>
	<datestamp>1245061860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>PS/2 was largely phased out in favor of USB.</htmltext>
<tokenext>PS/2 was largely phased out in favor of USB .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>PS/2 was largely phased out in favor of USB.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28339991</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28339587</id>
	<title>Re:games vs spectacles</title>
	<author>MikeBabcock</author>
	<datestamp>1245099180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Even Killzone 2 supposedly only cost about $30 million to make, and its a pretty huge amount of work.</p><p>Back in 2007, their budget for the game was <a href="http://news.spong.com/article/12979/Killzone\_2\_at\_E3\_Cost\_USD20\_Million\_To\_Date" title="spong.com">$20 million</a> [spong.com].  I can't imagine most high-end games costing much more than that to develop.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Even Killzone 2 supposedly only cost about $ 30 million to make , and its a pretty huge amount of work.Back in 2007 , their budget for the game was $ 20 million [ spong.com ] .
I ca n't imagine most high-end games costing much more than that to develop .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Even Killzone 2 supposedly only cost about $30 million to make, and its a pretty huge amount of work.Back in 2007, their budget for the game was $20 million [spong.com].
I can't imagine most high-end games costing much more than that to develop.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28339255</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28340397</id>
	<title>Re:games vs spectacles</title>
	<author>ivan256</author>
	<datestamp>1245059040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The dirty little secret of this generation is that the cost per unit revenue of the average game went <i>down</i>. Not up. And not by a little bit either.</p><p>The big studios want us all to think the cost to make games goes up with each generation. That justifies cost increases, and big-name licenses.</p><p>In reality, hundreds of millions of dollars in revenue has been generated by low to medium budget downloadable titles that have been the bread and butter of this generation of consoles.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The dirty little secret of this generation is that the cost per unit revenue of the average game went down .
Not up .
And not by a little bit either.The big studios want us all to think the cost to make games goes up with each generation .
That justifies cost increases , and big-name licenses.In reality , hundreds of millions of dollars in revenue has been generated by low to medium budget downloadable titles that have been the bread and butter of this generation of consoles .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The dirty little secret of this generation is that the cost per unit revenue of the average game went down.
Not up.
And not by a little bit either.The big studios want us all to think the cost to make games goes up with each generation.
That justifies cost increases, and big-name licenses.In reality, hundreds of millions of dollars in revenue has been generated by low to medium budget downloadable titles that have been the bread and butter of this generation of consoles.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28339255</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28339513</id>
	<title>Re:This is heresy.</title>
	<author>jameskojiro</author>
	<datestamp>1245098940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>God lied, Adam didn't die.</p><p>Satan was the one who wanted man to be smart and think for himself, god wanted to just be a control freak "the SIMS" player with his little garden.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>God lied , Adam did n't die.Satan was the one who wanted man to be smart and think for himself , god wanted to just be a control freak " the SIMS " player with his little garden .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>God lied, Adam didn't die.Satan was the one who wanted man to be smart and think for himself, god wanted to just be a control freak "the SIMS" player with his little garden.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28338859</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28340325</id>
	<title>Re:I'm not surprised</title>
	<author>Dutch Gun</author>
	<datestamp>1245058620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You do realize that this:</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Xbox 360: Horribly unreliable hardware, even after the jasper redesign.</p></div><p>was caused, in large part, by this:</p><p><div class="quote"><p>The next generation of consoles can not come fast enough.</p></div></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>You do realize that this : Xbox 360 : Horribly unreliable hardware , even after the jasper redesign.was caused , in large part , by this : The next generation of consoles can not come fast enough .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You do realize that this:Xbox 360: Horribly unreliable hardware, even after the jasper redesign.was caused, in large part, by this:The next generation of consoles can not come fast enough.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28338825</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28340085</id>
	<title>I don't see a new generation anytime soon</title>
	<author>Burning1</author>
	<datestamp>1245057900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It seems to me that the Wii, and PS/2 are still in their infancy in many ways. While the 360 has come down in price and stabilized to a degree, all three consoles are still a little expensive for the casual consumer, IMO. There's still a lot of life left in each console.</p><p>Based on previous experience with the Saturn/Dreamcast, as well as with the amount of time, money, and energy spent bootstrapping the PS3, I cant see any of the major manufacturers doing much more than a refresh on their major consoles. Releasing a new console requires a huge amount of tooling effort with the developers, and generally tends to kill the installed base on your old console. With the huge development requirements of today's consoles, I wouldn't be surprised if developers were to see a console refresh as a form of betrayal, and turn their backs on the next gen offering.</p><p>If anything, I expect the current generation of consoles to last even longer than the last generation.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It seems to me that the Wii , and PS/2 are still in their infancy in many ways .
While the 360 has come down in price and stabilized to a degree , all three consoles are still a little expensive for the casual consumer , IMO .
There 's still a lot of life left in each console.Based on previous experience with the Saturn/Dreamcast , as well as with the amount of time , money , and energy spent bootstrapping the PS3 , I cant see any of the major manufacturers doing much more than a refresh on their major consoles .
Releasing a new console requires a huge amount of tooling effort with the developers , and generally tends to kill the installed base on your old console .
With the huge development requirements of today 's consoles , I would n't be surprised if developers were to see a console refresh as a form of betrayal , and turn their backs on the next gen offering.If anything , I expect the current generation of consoles to last even longer than the last generation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It seems to me that the Wii, and PS/2 are still in their infancy in many ways.
While the 360 has come down in price and stabilized to a degree, all three consoles are still a little expensive for the casual consumer, IMO.
There's still a lot of life left in each console.Based on previous experience with the Saturn/Dreamcast, as well as with the amount of time, money, and energy spent bootstrapping the PS3, I cant see any of the major manufacturers doing much more than a refresh on their major consoles.
Releasing a new console requires a huge amount of tooling effort with the developers, and generally tends to kill the installed base on your old console.
With the huge development requirements of today's consoles, I wouldn't be surprised if developers were to see a console refresh as a form of betrayal, and turn their backs on the next gen offering.If anything, I expect the current generation of consoles to last even longer than the last generation.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28343649</id>
	<title>Re:games vs spectacles</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245080400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Games don't take $60 Million to make. Spectacular extravaganzas with high-detail hero models, high-detail set designs, high-detail world designs, full-orchestral scores, full-cinematic cuts, companion toy merchandising, and highly-predictable-never-escapes-the-rails storylines. That's what takes $60 Million to make.<br> <br>

The cat will enjoy a ball of tinfoil more than the eighty dollar robo-mouse. Give the player an enjoyable challenge, something they'll understand on the first play but want to play again and again. Don't try to reinvent the concept of gameplay.</p></div>
</blockquote><p>

Exactly, Portal was made as a side project, Sins of a Solar Empire cost less then 1 Million to make, I'm fairly certain that Civilisation 4 wasn't that expensive, once the work on the engine is done making a game becomes quite cheap when you concentrate on gameplay. How many good games has Valve has made with the Source engine.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Games do n't take $ 60 Million to make .
Spectacular extravaganzas with high-detail hero models , high-detail set designs , high-detail world designs , full-orchestral scores , full-cinematic cuts , companion toy merchandising , and highly-predictable-never-escapes-the-rails storylines .
That 's what takes $ 60 Million to make .
The cat will enjoy a ball of tinfoil more than the eighty dollar robo-mouse .
Give the player an enjoyable challenge , something they 'll understand on the first play but want to play again and again .
Do n't try to reinvent the concept of gameplay .
Exactly , Portal was made as a side project , Sins of a Solar Empire cost less then 1 Million to make , I 'm fairly certain that Civilisation 4 was n't that expensive , once the work on the engine is done making a game becomes quite cheap when you concentrate on gameplay .
How many good games has Valve has made with the Source engine .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Games don't take $60 Million to make.
Spectacular extravaganzas with high-detail hero models, high-detail set designs, high-detail world designs, full-orchestral scores, full-cinematic cuts, companion toy merchandising, and highly-predictable-never-escapes-the-rails storylines.
That's what takes $60 Million to make.
The cat will enjoy a ball of tinfoil more than the eighty dollar robo-mouse.
Give the player an enjoyable challenge, something they'll understand on the first play but want to play again and again.
Don't try to reinvent the concept of gameplay.
Exactly, Portal was made as a side project, Sins of a Solar Empire cost less then 1 Million to make, I'm fairly certain that Civilisation 4 wasn't that expensive, once the work on the engine is done making a game becomes quite cheap when you concentrate on gameplay.
How many good games has Valve has made with the Source engine.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28339255</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28338821</id>
	<title>Can I Ubisift</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245096540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>a frist P0st?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>a frist P0st ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>a frist P0st?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28339219</id>
	<title>Re:Well, 5 years has always been the standard</title>
	<author>Hatta</author>
	<datestamp>1245097740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You included Atari in that timeline, but left out Sega?  For shame.</p><p>Sega Master System - 1986<br>Sega Genesis - 1989<br>Sega Saturn - 1995<br>Sega Dreamcast - 1999</p><p>So 3 years, 6 years, and 4 years.  Almost 5 on average.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You included Atari in that timeline , but left out Sega ?
For shame.Sega Master System - 1986Sega Genesis - 1989Sega Saturn - 1995Sega Dreamcast - 1999So 3 years , 6 years , and 4 years .
Almost 5 on average .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You included Atari in that timeline, but left out Sega?
For shame.Sega Master System - 1986Sega Genesis - 1989Sega Saturn - 1995Sega Dreamcast - 1999So 3 years, 6 years, and 4 years.
Almost 5 on average.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28338857</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28339617</id>
	<title>Re:I'm interested in...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245099360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>exactly, customers don't want this. It seems just the big publishers do so they can make some quick easy cash-in's so they can sell their software.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>exactly , customers do n't want this .
It seems just the big publishers do so they can make some quick easy cash-in 's so they can sell their software .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>exactly, customers don't want this.
It seems just the big publishers do so they can make some quick easy cash-in's so they can sell their software.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28339149</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28340439</id>
	<title>Nonsense</title>
	<author>PopeRatzo</author>
	<datestamp>1245059220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>he says games in the next generation will likely cost $60 million to create.</p></div></blockquote><p>What a load of BS.</p><p>It sounds like someone is looking to convince consumers that a 50\% increase in the price of games is reasonable.</p><p>Isn't anyone learning anything from what's happening in the world's economy?  People paid about the same retail price for Halo as for Oblivion as for Half-Life 2.  Obviously, their production budgets were different.</p><p>When I read that Grand Theft Auto 4 cost "$100 million" to make, I just have to assume that they must have used military contractors to produce it.</p><p>What it basically means is that there are going to be a lot fewer games produced and most of them are going to suck.  Then, someone will produce a game on a small budget that will make huge profits and then that developer/designer is going to get $100 million to make a game and it will suck.</p><p>We've seen this wash/spin/rinse/repeat cycle in the movie industry for the past few decades.  Tell me, for those of you who watch a lot of movies, how many of them are really the huge blockbusters and how many are the low-budget indie films.  Now think of the ones you liked the best, the ones that stayed in your head long after the movie was over.  How many of <i>those</i> were the huge blockbuster?</p><p>Now, a show of hands:  how many of you spent full price to go see the Tom Cruise movie where he plays the nazi with the eye-patch?  How many of you saw Superbad?  Which one did you like better?</p><p>Why do entertainment providers think that huge budgets are going to impress us?  Or is it, as I suppose, a matter of them looking to excuse  their having to keep raising prices and using draconian copyright protection measures?</p><p>100 million to produce a video game...  They really believe all their customers are morons.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>he says games in the next generation will likely cost $ 60 million to create.What a load of BS.It sounds like someone is looking to convince consumers that a 50 \ % increase in the price of games is reasonable.Is n't anyone learning anything from what 's happening in the world 's economy ?
People paid about the same retail price for Halo as for Oblivion as for Half-Life 2 .
Obviously , their production budgets were different.When I read that Grand Theft Auto 4 cost " $ 100 million " to make , I just have to assume that they must have used military contractors to produce it.What it basically means is that there are going to be a lot fewer games produced and most of them are going to suck .
Then , someone will produce a game on a small budget that will make huge profits and then that developer/designer is going to get $ 100 million to make a game and it will suck.We 've seen this wash/spin/rinse/repeat cycle in the movie industry for the past few decades .
Tell me , for those of you who watch a lot of movies , how many of them are really the huge blockbusters and how many are the low-budget indie films .
Now think of the ones you liked the best , the ones that stayed in your head long after the movie was over .
How many of those were the huge blockbuster ? Now , a show of hands : how many of you spent full price to go see the Tom Cruise movie where he plays the nazi with the eye-patch ?
How many of you saw Superbad ?
Which one did you like better ? Why do entertainment providers think that huge budgets are going to impress us ?
Or is it , as I suppose , a matter of them looking to excuse their having to keep raising prices and using draconian copyright protection measures ? 100 million to produce a video game... They really believe all their customers are morons .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>he says games in the next generation will likely cost $60 million to create.What a load of BS.It sounds like someone is looking to convince consumers that a 50\% increase in the price of games is reasonable.Isn't anyone learning anything from what's happening in the world's economy?
People paid about the same retail price for Halo as for Oblivion as for Half-Life 2.
Obviously, their production budgets were different.When I read that Grand Theft Auto 4 cost "$100 million" to make, I just have to assume that they must have used military contractors to produce it.What it basically means is that there are going to be a lot fewer games produced and most of them are going to suck.
Then, someone will produce a game on a small budget that will make huge profits and then that developer/designer is going to get $100 million to make a game and it will suck.We've seen this wash/spin/rinse/repeat cycle in the movie industry for the past few decades.
Tell me, for those of you who watch a lot of movies, how many of them are really the huge blockbusters and how many are the low-budget indie films.
Now think of the ones you liked the best, the ones that stayed in your head long after the movie was over.
How many of those were the huge blockbuster?Now, a show of hands:  how many of you spent full price to go see the Tom Cruise movie where he plays the nazi with the eye-patch?
How many of you saw Superbad?
Which one did you like better?Why do entertainment providers think that huge budgets are going to impress us?
Or is it, as I suppose, a matter of them looking to excuse  their having to keep raising prices and using draconian copyright protection measures?100 million to produce a video game...  They really believe all their customers are morons.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28338859</id>
	<title>This is heresy.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245096660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The Lord Jesus will appear and the rapture will be nigh.  Renounce, sinners, lest you miss your opportunity for endless heaven.  You that do not believe are doomed to eternal torment in the bowels of the pit.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The Lord Jesus will appear and the rapture will be nigh .
Renounce , sinners , lest you miss your opportunity for endless heaven .
You that do not believe are doomed to eternal torment in the bowels of the pit .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Lord Jesus will appear and the rapture will be nigh.
Renounce, sinners, lest you miss your opportunity for endless heaven.
You that do not believe are doomed to eternal torment in the bowels of the pit.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28340515</id>
	<title>Re:Incremental "New" Machines</title>
	<author>SouprMage</author>
	<datestamp>1245059520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I agree that if any changes are in the works, it would be tweaks to current consoles, not new consoles.  The primary goal would be to focus on reducing costs per unit, not adding significant features.<br>
<br>
I think the next revolution will occur in a few years.  The new HDMI spec that includes support for 3D video will be that catalyst.  It is speculated that TVs that support it will start appearing by the holiday season this year.  Once those hit some critical mass amongst technophiles, the console makers will be right there to capitalize and spur the shift in technology.<br>
<br>
I know I for one will be right there with my wallet open.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I agree that if any changes are in the works , it would be tweaks to current consoles , not new consoles .
The primary goal would be to focus on reducing costs per unit , not adding significant features .
I think the next revolution will occur in a few years .
The new HDMI spec that includes support for 3D video will be that catalyst .
It is speculated that TVs that support it will start appearing by the holiday season this year .
Once those hit some critical mass amongst technophiles , the console makers will be right there to capitalize and spur the shift in technology .
I know I for one will be right there with my wallet open .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I agree that if any changes are in the works, it would be tweaks to current consoles, not new consoles.
The primary goal would be to focus on reducing costs per unit, not adding significant features.
I think the next revolution will occur in a few years.
The new HDMI spec that includes support for 3D video will be that catalyst.
It is speculated that TVs that support it will start appearing by the holiday season this year.
Once those hit some critical mass amongst technophiles, the console makers will be right there to capitalize and spur the shift in technology.
I know I for one will be right there with my wallet open.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28339163</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28339271</id>
	<title>Re:Title's spelt wrong</title>
	<author>InsaneProcessor</author>
	<datestamp>1245097860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This is just a simple case of game maker wishful thinking.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is just a simple case of game maker wishful thinking .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is just a simple case of game maker wishful thinking.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28338837</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28341553</id>
	<title>Re:I'm interested in...</title>
	<author>PitaBred</author>
	<datestamp>1245064920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>As an owner of a 61" DLP... get the component cables. They make the Wii a lot nicer on an high-def box, the overlays are a lot crisper and the games just look better. It's still not high-definition, but it made the Wii a lot more playable and fun for me.</htmltext>
<tokenext>As an owner of a 61 " DLP... get the component cables .
They make the Wii a lot nicer on an high-def box , the overlays are a lot crisper and the games just look better .
It 's still not high-definition , but it made the Wii a lot more playable and fun for me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As an owner of a 61" DLP... get the component cables.
They make the Wii a lot nicer on an high-def box, the overlays are a lot crisper and the games just look better.
It's still not high-definition, but it made the Wii a lot more playable and fun for me.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28339149</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28339453</id>
	<title>Re:Well, 5 years has always been the standard</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245098640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is the first gen of consoles that can really leverage the internet, so past performance is a bad indicator in this case. All 3 machines have digital money printing services and all 3 are acceptable. At this point there isnt a huge pent up need for more detailed graphics like in previous gens. We have reached the 'good enough' stage. Ill be conservative and say we are looking at a 6-8 year cycle on this gen of hardware.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is the first gen of consoles that can really leverage the internet , so past performance is a bad indicator in this case .
All 3 machines have digital money printing services and all 3 are acceptable .
At this point there isnt a huge pent up need for more detailed graphics like in previous gens .
We have reached the 'good enough ' stage .
Ill be conservative and say we are looking at a 6-8 year cycle on this gen of hardware .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is the first gen of consoles that can really leverage the internet, so past performance is a bad indicator in this case.
All 3 machines have digital money printing services and all 3 are acceptable.
At this point there isnt a huge pent up need for more detailed graphics like in previous gens.
We have reached the 'good enough' stage.
Ill be conservative and say we are looking at a 6-8 year cycle on this gen of hardware.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28338857</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28340851</id>
	<title>Re:games vs spectacles</title>
	<author>Hadlock</author>
	<datestamp>1245060960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Considering the game engine, which is usually at least 40\% of the programming (modifying it being the other 60\%), and licensing the engine can't cost more than $10 million there seems to be a lot of hollywood style waste going on, which is what they're after it seems. Without the multimillion dollar movie star eating up a large portion of the budget.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Considering the game engine , which is usually at least 40 \ % of the programming ( modifying it being the other 60 \ % ) , and licensing the engine ca n't cost more than $ 10 million there seems to be a lot of hollywood style waste going on , which is what they 're after it seems .
Without the multimillion dollar movie star eating up a large portion of the budget .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Considering the game engine, which is usually at least 40\% of the programming (modifying it being the other 60\%), and licensing the engine can't cost more than $10 million there seems to be a lot of hollywood style waste going on, which is what they're after it seems.
Without the multimillion dollar movie star eating up a large portion of the budget.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28339255</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28339317</id>
	<title>Does he know what the Wii is?</title>
	<author>T Murphy</author>
	<datestamp>1245098040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>He seems to overlook the fact that the most popular console is the weakest machine, and its popular games (Wii Fit, Wii Sports...) are simple enough that I am not sure how they could benefit from a hardware upgrade beyond input devices. Add to that the motion-control expansions for all the consoles and you have consoles with longer life than usual. Add in the fact that PC gaming tends to work better for the big-ticket games that push performace, and I see no reason why a console maker or game publisher would care to start a new cycle already (I'll leave it to other comments to provide reasons for Ubisoft to want this).</htmltext>
<tokenext>He seems to overlook the fact that the most popular console is the weakest machine , and its popular games ( Wii Fit , Wii Sports... ) are simple enough that I am not sure how they could benefit from a hardware upgrade beyond input devices .
Add to that the motion-control expansions for all the consoles and you have consoles with longer life than usual .
Add in the fact that PC gaming tends to work better for the big-ticket games that push performace , and I see no reason why a console maker or game publisher would care to start a new cycle already ( I 'll leave it to other comments to provide reasons for Ubisoft to want this ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>He seems to overlook the fact that the most popular console is the weakest machine, and its popular games (Wii Fit, Wii Sports...) are simple enough that I am not sure how they could benefit from a hardware upgrade beyond input devices.
Add to that the motion-control expansions for all the consoles and you have consoles with longer life than usual.
Add in the fact that PC gaming tends to work better for the big-ticket games that push performace, and I see no reason why a console maker or game publisher would care to start a new cycle already (I'll leave it to other comments to provide reasons for Ubisoft to want this).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28344005</id>
	<title>Re:Why would they kill this generation? No more us</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245083700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A marketing strategy that makes it *harder* for people to give you money? Brilliant!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A marketing strategy that makes it * harder * for people to give you money ?
Brilliant !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A marketing strategy that makes it *harder* for people to give you money?
Brilliant!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28339355</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28340951</id>
	<title>TNG consoles?</title>
	<author>canonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245061560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Why would you want the Next Gen consoles? They explode every time the Enterprise gets fired on!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why would you want the Next Gen consoles ?
They explode every time the Enterprise gets fired on !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why would you want the Next Gen consoles?
They explode every time the Enterprise gets fired on!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28339419</id>
	<title>Re:Subject's spelled wrong</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245098520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There is no more annoying creature on the Internet than the one who condescendingly gives a correction that is, itself, incorrect or unnecessary. My personal favorite example is the smug bastard who responded to the sentence "Emacs is my favorite text editor" by saying, "That should be, 'Emacs <em>are</em> my favorite text <em>editors</em>.'"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There is no more annoying creature on the Internet than the one who condescendingly gives a correction that is , itself , incorrect or unnecessary .
My personal favorite example is the smug bastard who responded to the sentence " Emacs is my favorite text editor " by saying , " That should be , 'Emacs are my favorite text editors .
' "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is no more annoying creature on the Internet than the one who condescendingly gives a correction that is, itself, incorrect or unnecessary.
My personal favorite example is the smug bastard who responded to the sentence "Emacs is my favorite text editor" by saying, "That should be, 'Emacs are my favorite text editors.
'"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28338885</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28344997</id>
	<title>Re:Nonsense</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245095580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Both were Hollywood films. Valkyrie certainly had a larger budget, but its not like it was an order of magnitude larger than Superbad.  Also, Valkyrie had a larger box office gross.  That would imply that more people saw Valkyrie in the movie theater.  That being said, Superbad was a better movie.</p><p>Point being:  You extrapolated the opinion of your small segment of society to that of a much larger world.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Both were Hollywood films .
Valkyrie certainly had a larger budget , but its not like it was an order of magnitude larger than Superbad .
Also , Valkyrie had a larger box office gross .
That would imply that more people saw Valkyrie in the movie theater .
That being said , Superbad was a better movie.Point being : You extrapolated the opinion of your small segment of society to that of a much larger world .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Both were Hollywood films.
Valkyrie certainly had a larger budget, but its not like it was an order of magnitude larger than Superbad.
Also, Valkyrie had a larger box office gross.
That would imply that more people saw Valkyrie in the movie theater.
That being said, Superbad was a better movie.Point being:  You extrapolated the opinion of your small segment of society to that of a much larger world.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28340439</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28341273</id>
	<title>Re:PS/2 Lifespan</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245063300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>As someone who just recently purchased a PS/2</p></div></blockquote><p>
Get on with the times, everyone uses USB these days!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>As someone who just recently purchased a PS/2 Get on with the times , everyone uses USB these days !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As someone who just recently purchased a PS/2
Get on with the times, everyone uses USB these days!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28339991</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28342515</id>
	<title>Re:Well, 5 years has always been the standard</title>
	<author>Eli Gottlieb</author>
	<datestamp>1245070980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Excuse me, but I fucking loved Assassin's Creed.  One of the best gameplay ideas I've ever played!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Excuse me , but I fucking loved Assassin 's Creed .
One of the best gameplay ideas I 've ever played !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Excuse me, but I fucking loved Assassin's Creed.
One of the best gameplay ideas I've ever played!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28339097</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28339913</id>
	<title>Re:Public demand for the best machine possible?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245057240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yup, and as a testament, indie games are becoming popular despite inferiority of the presentation compared to huge budget titles.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yup , and as a testament , indie games are becoming popular despite inferiority of the presentation compared to huge budget titles .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yup, and as a testament, indie games are becoming popular despite inferiority of the presentation compared to huge budget titles.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28339015</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28341205</id>
	<title>Re:Where are the games I want?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245062880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Look on PSN or Xbox Live.  There's a ton of 2D platformers available as DLC, some with today's graphics (2.5D).  Bionic Commando comes to mind as a recent remake of a classic 2D platformer.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Look on PSN or Xbox Live .
There 's a ton of 2D platformers available as DLC , some with today 's graphics ( 2.5D ) .
Bionic Commando comes to mind as a recent remake of a classic 2D platformer .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Look on PSN or Xbox Live.
There's a ton of 2D platformers available as DLC, some with today's graphics (2.5D).
Bionic Commando comes to mind as a recent remake of a classic 2D platformer.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28339817</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28341595</id>
	<title>Re:Does he know what the Wii is?</title>
	<author>PitaBred</author>
	<datestamp>1245065100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If Nintendo came out with a fully backwards-compatible HDWii, I'd buy it right now, and give my current one to my parents or my brother.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If Nintendo came out with a fully backwards-compatible HDWii , I 'd buy it right now , and give my current one to my parents or my brother .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If Nintendo came out with a fully backwards-compatible HDWii, I'd buy it right now, and give my current one to my parents or my brother.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28339317</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28339731</id>
	<title>Re:games vs spectacles</title>
	<author>YourExperiment</author>
	<datestamp>1245056580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Don't try to reinvent the concept of gameplay.</p></div><p>That's the whole problem - generally speaking, they're not.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Do n't try to reinvent the concept of gameplay.That 's the whole problem - generally speaking , they 're not .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Don't try to reinvent the concept of gameplay.That's the whole problem - generally speaking, they're not.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28339255</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28339089</id>
	<title>I doubt it</title>
	<author>Itchyeyes</author>
	<datestamp>1245097320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Something tells me that if consumers aren't ready to fork over money for new hardware, console makers aren't ready to turn their backs on products that still haven't, or are just now starting to, turn a profit, and game developers aren't ready to start making games for hardware with even higher development costs, it's not going to happen.  Anyone who jumps the gun here is going to see exactly what Sony did with the PS3, that is consumers and developers clinging to older hardware as long as they can while the newer, overpriced machines languish on shelves for a couple years until everyone is ready.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Something tells me that if consumers are n't ready to fork over money for new hardware , console makers are n't ready to turn their backs on products that still have n't , or are just now starting to , turn a profit , and game developers are n't ready to start making games for hardware with even higher development costs , it 's not going to happen .
Anyone who jumps the gun here is going to see exactly what Sony did with the PS3 , that is consumers and developers clinging to older hardware as long as they can while the newer , overpriced machines languish on shelves for a couple years until everyone is ready .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Something tells me that if consumers aren't ready to fork over money for new hardware, console makers aren't ready to turn their backs on products that still haven't, or are just now starting to, turn a profit, and game developers aren't ready to start making games for hardware with even higher development costs, it's not going to happen.
Anyone who jumps the gun here is going to see exactly what Sony did with the PS3, that is consumers and developers clinging to older hardware as long as they can while the newer, overpriced machines languish on shelves for a couple years until everyone is ready.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28339581</id>
	<title>Re:Subject's spelled wrong</title>
	<author>vectorious</author>
	<datestamp>1245099180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Spelt is fine in British English

<a href="http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/spelt\%5B2\%5D" title="merriam-webster.com" rel="nofollow">Spelt (2)</a> [merriam-webster.com] (www.merriam-webster.com)</htmltext>
<tokenext>Spelt is fine in British English Spelt ( 2 ) [ merriam-webster.com ] ( www.merriam-webster.com )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Spelt is fine in British English

Spelt (2) [merriam-webster.com] (www.merriam-webster.com)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28338885</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28347507</id>
	<title>Re:Where are the games I want?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245166980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How about Warioland The Shake Dimension on Wii and the upcoming New Super Mario Brothers Wii or Little Big Planet on PS3. I think the developers have realised there's still a lot of people that want 2d platformers, I expect more to come.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How about Warioland The Shake Dimension on Wii and the upcoming New Super Mario Brothers Wii or Little Big Planet on PS3 .
I think the developers have realised there 's still a lot of people that want 2d platformers , I expect more to come .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How about Warioland The Shake Dimension on Wii and the upcoming New Super Mario Brothers Wii or Little Big Planet on PS3.
I think the developers have realised there's still a lot of people that want 2d platformers, I expect more to come.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28339817</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28339433</id>
	<title>Wha about diminishing returns</title>
	<author>91degrees</author>
	<datestamp>1245098580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>The 16 bit consoles were clearly miles ahead of the 8 bit machines, but each generation the improvement has been less significant.  PS2 games and original XBox games still don't look that bad.  The real advantage with the latest generation is higher resolutions. Reflections and shadows are just eye candy.
<br> <br>
Now, the question is, why will it cost so much more to develop for a newer generation?  Doubling the number of polygons isn't double the work.  A lot of effects have already been written so they just need to use existing libraries for them.  Game worlds may well get larger but games themselves don't need to do so substantially.  <br> <br>
And the main point to realise is that budgets will not magically expand to match the cost of developing a game.  The budget for a game is the amount that it can be expected to make in terms of sales so that the investors have a decent profit.  The game will have to shrink to match that budget.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The 16 bit consoles were clearly miles ahead of the 8 bit machines , but each generation the improvement has been less significant .
PS2 games and original XBox games still do n't look that bad .
The real advantage with the latest generation is higher resolutions .
Reflections and shadows are just eye candy .
Now , the question is , why will it cost so much more to develop for a newer generation ?
Doubling the number of polygons is n't double the work .
A lot of effects have already been written so they just need to use existing libraries for them .
Game worlds may well get larger but games themselves do n't need to do so substantially .
And the main point to realise is that budgets will not magically expand to match the cost of developing a game .
The budget for a game is the amount that it can be expected to make in terms of sales so that the investors have a decent profit .
The game will have to shrink to match that budget .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The 16 bit consoles were clearly miles ahead of the 8 bit machines, but each generation the improvement has been less significant.
PS2 games and original XBox games still don't look that bad.
The real advantage with the latest generation is higher resolutions.
Reflections and shadows are just eye candy.
Now, the question is, why will it cost so much more to develop for a newer generation?
Doubling the number of polygons isn't double the work.
A lot of effects have already been written so they just need to use existing libraries for them.
Game worlds may well get larger but games themselves don't need to do so substantially.
And the main point to realise is that budgets will not magically expand to match the cost of developing a game.
The budget for a game is the amount that it can be expected to make in terms of sales so that the investors have a decent profit.
The game will have to shrink to match that budget.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28339363</id>
	<title>Re:Public demand for the best machine possible?</title>
	<author>InsaneProcessor</author>
	<datestamp>1245098220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>That is right.  Games are way to much a "me too" industry.  We are waiting for the next really "new" thing.  The WII was a new thing and it sold like gangbusters.</htmltext>
<tokenext>That is right .
Games are way to much a " me too " industry .
We are waiting for the next really " new " thing .
The WII was a new thing and it sold like gangbusters .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That is right.
Games are way to much a "me too" industry.
We are waiting for the next really "new" thing.
The WII was a new thing and it sold like gangbusters.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28339015</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28340333</id>
	<title>Re:I'm not surprised</title>
	<author>legirons</author>
	<datestamp>1245058620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>[Microsoft] have pretty much guaranteed my return to PC gaming once they release their next system and stop supporting the 360.</p></div><p>yeah that'll show them...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>[ Microsoft ] have pretty much guaranteed my return to PC gaming once they release their next system and stop supporting the 360.yeah that 'll show them.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>[Microsoft] have pretty much guaranteed my return to PC gaming once they release their next system and stop supporting the 360.yeah that'll show them...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28339121</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28339627</id>
	<title>Re:Title's spelt wrong</title>
	<author>koolfy</author>
	<datestamp>1245099360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>How in Hell can this post be modded 5 informative ?<br>
Did I land in a world where reporting typos were capital "+5 values" pieces of information ?
<br> <br>
Sure I did, it's called Slashdot and I <b>love</b> it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>How in Hell can this post be modded 5 informative ?
Did I land in a world where reporting typos were capital " + 5 values " pieces of information ?
Sure I did , it 's called Slashdot and I love it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How in Hell can this post be modded 5 informative ?
Did I land in a world where reporting typos were capital "+5 values" pieces of information ?
Sure I did, it's called Slashdot and I love it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28338837</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28338959</id>
	<title>Re:Subject's spelled wrong</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245096900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Get yo facts rite: <a href="http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/spelt" title="reference.com" rel="nofollow">http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/spelt</a> [reference.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>Get yo facts rite : http : //dictionary.reference.com/browse/spelt [ reference.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Get yo facts rite: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/spelt [reference.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28338885</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28345375</id>
	<title>I doubt that</title>
	<author>Rocketship Underpant</author>
	<datestamp>1245143820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Maybe Microsoft wants to go download-only and nickel-and-dime its users even more, but Nintendo relies heavily on its retail ecosystem (including the used market), which provides massive amounts of free marketing for the company. This is particularly true in Japan.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe Microsoft wants to go download-only and nickel-and-dime its users even more , but Nintendo relies heavily on its retail ecosystem ( including the used market ) , which provides massive amounts of free marketing for the company .
This is particularly true in Japan .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe Microsoft wants to go download-only and nickel-and-dime its users even more, but Nintendo relies heavily on its retail ecosystem (including the used market), which provides massive amounts of free marketing for the company.
This is particularly true in Japan.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28339355</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28341323</id>
	<title>Re:I'm not surprised</title>
	<author>PitaBred</author>
	<datestamp>1245063720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Get the component cables... it really does improve the Wii's output, and it will let you properly use a widescreen TV. It's still not HD, but 480p is a lot nicer than 480i</htmltext>
<tokenext>Get the component cables... it really does improve the Wii 's output , and it will let you properly use a widescreen TV .
It 's still not HD , but 480p is a lot nicer than 480i</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Get the component cables... it really does improve the Wii's output, and it will let you properly use a widescreen TV.
It's still not HD, but 480p is a lot nicer than 480i</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28339431</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28347111</id>
	<title>I'm sorry, but...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245164580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm sorry, but you really have no idea what you're talking about.</p><p>Modern AAA games for the Xbox360/PS3/PC are developed by large teams of 100-200 people or more.  They can have as many as 50 programmers working on them FULL-TIME for 2-3 years.  (Programmers are not cheap; do the math).</p><p>I'm an engine programmer whose worked on a couple of AAA games you might have heard of.  Let me tell you, the codebases are millions of lines of code, and a LOT of that code (possibly as much as a third) is written from scratch or reworked, for each project.  We typically have between 10 and 20 engine programmers who work full-time on JUST THE ENGINE, for each AAA game.  We don't just take a ready-made engine and slap it into the box!  It takes a *helluva* lot of work to make everything fit and run fast and add all the little touches that make a game polished and high-quality.</p><p>These numbers like $60 million that they are throwing around, are not as ridiculous as they sound.  The development budgets of my last 3 projects were all 7-digit budgets.  (Then there is the marketing budget, which is often as large as the development budget.  That's part of why GTA 4 reportedly cost $100 million; a lot of that cost is marketing, not development).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm sorry , but you really have no idea what you 're talking about.Modern AAA games for the Xbox360/PS3/PC are developed by large teams of 100-200 people or more .
They can have as many as 50 programmers working on them FULL-TIME for 2-3 years .
( Programmers are not cheap ; do the math ) .I 'm an engine programmer whose worked on a couple of AAA games you might have heard of .
Let me tell you , the codebases are millions of lines of code , and a LOT of that code ( possibly as much as a third ) is written from scratch or reworked , for each project .
We typically have between 10 and 20 engine programmers who work full-time on JUST THE ENGINE , for each AAA game .
We do n't just take a ready-made engine and slap it into the box !
It takes a * helluva * lot of work to make everything fit and run fast and add all the little touches that make a game polished and high-quality.These numbers like $ 60 million that they are throwing around , are not as ridiculous as they sound .
The development budgets of my last 3 projects were all 7-digit budgets .
( Then there is the marketing budget , which is often as large as the development budget .
That 's part of why GTA 4 reportedly cost $ 100 million ; a lot of that cost is marketing , not development ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm sorry, but you really have no idea what you're talking about.Modern AAA games for the Xbox360/PS3/PC are developed by large teams of 100-200 people or more.
They can have as many as 50 programmers working on them FULL-TIME for 2-3 years.
(Programmers are not cheap; do the math).I'm an engine programmer whose worked on a couple of AAA games you might have heard of.
Let me tell you, the codebases are millions of lines of code, and a LOT of that code (possibly as much as a third) is written from scratch or reworked, for each project.
We typically have between 10 and 20 engine programmers who work full-time on JUST THE ENGINE, for each AAA game.
We don't just take a ready-made engine and slap it into the box!
It takes a *helluva* lot of work to make everything fit and run fast and add all the little touches that make a game polished and high-quality.These numbers like $60 million that they are throwing around, are not as ridiculous as they sound.
The development budgets of my last 3 projects were all 7-digit budgets.
(Then there is the marketing budget, which is often as large as the development budget.
That's part of why GTA 4 reportedly cost $100 million; a lot of that cost is marketing, not development).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28340845</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28339817</id>
	<title>Where are the games I want?</title>
	<author>Stormwatch</author>
	<datestamp>1245056820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I love 2D platformers. The last one that truly impressed me was <i>Astal</i> on the Saturn. Imagine what today's machines could do for this genre; imagine a new <i>Turrican</i> or <i>Shinobi</i>, in high-res 2D, all hand-drawn, with multiple layers of parallax and translucency, with more action and animation than the old systems could dream of handling. To sum it up: something that would be to platformers what <i>The King of Fighters XII</i> is to fighting games.</p><p>But sadly, no. These days, 2D platformers are relegated to portable systems. And I'm stuck playing a genre I love with emulators.</p><p>Won't somebody think of the platformer fans?!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I love 2D platformers .
The last one that truly impressed me was Astal on the Saturn .
Imagine what today 's machines could do for this genre ; imagine a new Turrican or Shinobi , in high-res 2D , all hand-drawn , with multiple layers of parallax and translucency , with more action and animation than the old systems could dream of handling .
To sum it up : something that would be to platformers what The King of Fighters XII is to fighting games.But sadly , no .
These days , 2D platformers are relegated to portable systems .
And I 'm stuck playing a genre I love with emulators.Wo n't somebody think of the platformer fans ?
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I love 2D platformers.
The last one that truly impressed me was Astal on the Saturn.
Imagine what today's machines could do for this genre; imagine a new Turrican or Shinobi, in high-res 2D, all hand-drawn, with multiple layers of parallax and translucency, with more action and animation than the old systems could dream of handling.
To sum it up: something that would be to platformers what The King of Fighters XII is to fighting games.But sadly, no.
These days, 2D platformers are relegated to portable systems.
And I'm stuck playing a genre I love with emulators.Won't somebody think of the platformer fans?
!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28350973</id>
	<title>Re:Public demand for the best machine possible?</title>
	<author>Medievalist</author>
	<datestamp>1245179580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The best machine possible weighs less than an ounce, fits in a cigarette pack, and has both a full size keyboard and a 50 inch flatscreen.  And you can use it on a plane without bothering your seatmate.</p><p>The public doesn't care about the so-called "laws" of physics.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The best machine possible weighs less than an ounce , fits in a cigarette pack , and has both a full size keyboard and a 50 inch flatscreen .
And you can use it on a plane without bothering your seatmate.The public does n't care about the so-called " laws " of physics .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The best machine possible weighs less than an ounce, fits in a cigarette pack, and has both a full size keyboard and a 50 inch flatscreen.
And you can use it on a plane without bothering your seatmate.The public doesn't care about the so-called "laws" of physics.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28339015</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28338865</id>
	<title>$60 Million wants to be free.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245096720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"That's not good news for publishers, though, as he says games in the next generation will likely cost $60 million to create.""</p><p>And only $0 Million to BT all over the planet.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" That 's not good news for publishers , though , as he says games in the next generation will likely cost $ 60 million to create .
" " And only $ 0 Million to BT all over the planet .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"That's not good news for publishers, though, as he says games in the next generation will likely cost $60 million to create.
""And only $0 Million to BT all over the planet.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28339737</id>
	<title>Re:games vs spectacles</title>
	<author>Magreger\_V</author>
	<datestamp>1245056580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>"Don't try to reinvent the concept of gameplay"

I disagree</htmltext>
<tokenext>" Do n't try to reinvent the concept of gameplay " I disagree</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Don't try to reinvent the concept of gameplay"

I disagree</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28339255</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28343709</id>
	<title>From 640P to 720P for real?</title>
	<author>AHuxley</author>
	<datestamp>1245080940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Can we have world size, lots of monsters and HD for real this time?<br>
The interweb detectives will find out again<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</htmltext>
<tokenext>Can we have world size , lots of monsters and HD for real this time ?
The interweb detectives will find out again : )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Can we have world size, lots of monsters and HD for real this time?
The interweb detectives will find out again :)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28345633</id>
	<title>Re:Well, 5 years has always been the standard</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245148200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>the next gen console has always been something really shocking to everybody because of its tremendous hardware power. i dont think that we have already entered a new gen in hardware power because the ps3 and xbox360 still are trying to consume all the power the consoles have. i rather think that the next gen console wont be way different or way more powerful than 360 and ps3, but more something changing the gameplay like the Wii.<br>ive seen a console at the E3 news transferring every motion of the player with cameras into the game... 1:1<br>thats more like the change we have to expect within the next years. a next gen console not really detaching the 360 and ps3</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>the next gen console has always been something really shocking to everybody because of its tremendous hardware power .
i dont think that we have already entered a new gen in hardware power because the ps3 and xbox360 still are trying to consume all the power the consoles have .
i rather think that the next gen console wont be way different or way more powerful than 360 and ps3 , but more something changing the gameplay like the Wii.ive seen a console at the E3 news transferring every motion of the player with cameras into the game... 1 : 1thats more like the change we have to expect within the next years .
a next gen console not really detaching the 360 and ps3</tokentext>
<sentencetext>the next gen console has always been something really shocking to everybody because of its tremendous hardware power.
i dont think that we have already entered a new gen in hardware power because the ps3 and xbox360 still are trying to consume all the power the consoles have.
i rather think that the next gen console wont be way different or way more powerful than 360 and ps3, but more something changing the gameplay like the Wii.ive seen a console at the E3 news transferring every motion of the player with cameras into the game... 1:1thats more like the change we have to expect within the next years.
a next gen console not really detaching the 360 and ps3</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28339097</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28338975</id>
	<title>Re:Well, 5 years has always been the standard</title>
	<author>El\_Muerte\_TDS</author>
	<datestamp>1245096960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>But <a href="http://www.yearoftheps3.info/" title="yearoftheps3.info">2015 will be the year of the PS3</a> [yearoftheps3.info]...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>But 2015 will be the year of the PS3 [ yearoftheps3.info ] .. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But 2015 will be the year of the PS3 [yearoftheps3.info]...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28338857</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28340123</id>
	<title>Re:games vs spectacles</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245058020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And that is why a game like Braid is great. $15 for one of the most amazing games I've played since the Super NES era.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And that is why a game like Braid is great .
$ 15 for one of the most amazing games I 've played since the Super NES era .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And that is why a game like Braid is great.
$15 for one of the most amazing games I've played since the Super NES era.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28339255</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28339655</id>
	<title>Re:I'm not surprised</title>
	<author>Hatta</author>
	<datestamp>1245099480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>I'd strongly disagree that "graphics suck" on the Wii. The Wii is probably somewhat more powerful than the original Xbox.</i></p><p>I wouldn't say they suck, but they're not what you'd expect from a next generation console.  You said as much yourself right there.  If all I'm getting is last generation graphics with a nifty controller, why do I need new hardware?</p><p>I still play 2600 and PS1 games regularly, so I'm not bothered by shitty graphics.  I am bothered by the lack of technological advance between console generations however.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'd strongly disagree that " graphics suck " on the Wii .
The Wii is probably somewhat more powerful than the original Xbox.I would n't say they suck , but they 're not what you 'd expect from a next generation console .
You said as much yourself right there .
If all I 'm getting is last generation graphics with a nifty controller , why do I need new hardware ? I still play 2600 and PS1 games regularly , so I 'm not bothered by shitty graphics .
I am bothered by the lack of technological advance between console generations however .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'd strongly disagree that "graphics suck" on the Wii.
The Wii is probably somewhat more powerful than the original Xbox.I wouldn't say they suck, but they're not what you'd expect from a next generation console.
You said as much yourself right there.
If all I'm getting is last generation graphics with a nifty controller, why do I need new hardware?I still play 2600 and PS1 games regularly, so I'm not bothered by shitty graphics.
I am bothered by the lack of technological advance between console generations however.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28339431</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28338885</id>
	<title>Subject's spelled wrong</title>
	<author>ericrost</author>
	<datestamp>1245096720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It should be SPELLED.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It should be SPELLED .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It should be SPELLED.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28338837</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28339439</id>
	<title>Re:This is heresy.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245098640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>heaven : harps, clouds, christians<br>
hell: strippers, hookers, playboy models, alcohol, year long campfire
<br> <br>
Why should I pick heaven?</htmltext>
<tokenext>heaven : harps , clouds , christians hell : strippers , hookers , playboy models , alcohol , year long campfire Why should I pick heaven ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>heaven : harps, clouds, christians
hell: strippers, hookers, playboy models, alcohol, year long campfire
 
Why should I pick heaven?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28338859</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28341005</id>
	<title>Re:Well, 5 years has always been the standard</title>
	<author>Sj0</author>
	<datestamp>1245061800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I've got a bit of an issue there.</p><p>See, even though it's been about every 5 years, that's partially because of the rapid growth of capability. By the time 5 years had passed, there was new and incredible things that current hardware simply couldn't do.</p><p>In 2001, you'd be playing games on a Geforce 2, with the Geforce 3 just coming out in March. In 2005, by contrast, you'd be playing on a 6800 or 7800. The playing field fundamentally changed.</p><p>Contrast this with today. There are new video cards, but the 6800 and 7800 are perfectly reasonable video cards for most games. There have been incremental changes, but nothing that popped out of nowhere to change the landscape.</p><p>In processing power, the same was true. In 2001, you'd be playing on an Athlon XP, tops. By 2005, you'd be running on a dual-core Athlon 64. Today, you're running on....a dual-core Athlon 64.</p><p>I'm not saying we'll see the lifespan double, but we're going to have to see much more improvements in technology to justify both consumers and companies spending the money rolling out new consoles.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've got a bit of an issue there.See , even though it 's been about every 5 years , that 's partially because of the rapid growth of capability .
By the time 5 years had passed , there was new and incredible things that current hardware simply could n't do.In 2001 , you 'd be playing games on a Geforce 2 , with the Geforce 3 just coming out in March .
In 2005 , by contrast , you 'd be playing on a 6800 or 7800 .
The playing field fundamentally changed.Contrast this with today .
There are new video cards , but the 6800 and 7800 are perfectly reasonable video cards for most games .
There have been incremental changes , but nothing that popped out of nowhere to change the landscape.In processing power , the same was true .
In 2001 , you 'd be playing on an Athlon XP , tops .
By 2005 , you 'd be running on a dual-core Athlon 64 .
Today , you 're running on....a dual-core Athlon 64.I 'm not saying we 'll see the lifespan double , but we 're going to have to see much more improvements in technology to justify both consumers and companies spending the money rolling out new consoles .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've got a bit of an issue there.See, even though it's been about every 5 years, that's partially because of the rapid growth of capability.
By the time 5 years had passed, there was new and incredible things that current hardware simply couldn't do.In 2001, you'd be playing games on a Geforce 2, with the Geforce 3 just coming out in March.
In 2005, by contrast, you'd be playing on a 6800 or 7800.
The playing field fundamentally changed.Contrast this with today.
There are new video cards, but the 6800 and 7800 are perfectly reasonable video cards for most games.
There have been incremental changes, but nothing that popped out of nowhere to change the landscape.In processing power, the same was true.
In 2001, you'd be playing on an Athlon XP, tops.
By 2005, you'd be running on a dual-core Athlon 64.
Today, you're running on....a dual-core Athlon 64.I'm not saying we'll see the lifespan double, but we're going to have to see much more improvements in technology to justify both consumers and companies spending the money rolling out new consoles.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28338857</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28343441</id>
	<title>Graphics don't make games</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245078540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you make a good game people will want to buy it, they will want to support it, build on it, mod it. It doesn't need perfect graphics just something new and interesting. We really don't give a crap if you spent $ X millions of dollars on developing a physics engine that makes the hero's shoe laces move when he/she runs. And we don't care if you spent 5 years making a revolutionary lighting and shadow system that is indistinguishable from the real world. Graphics enhance games they don't make them, GAMEplay makes games. Graphics, physics engines, they should all be secondary to gameplay.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you make a good game people will want to buy it , they will want to support it , build on it , mod it .
It does n't need perfect graphics just something new and interesting .
We really do n't give a crap if you spent $ X millions of dollars on developing a physics engine that makes the hero 's shoe laces move when he/she runs .
And we do n't care if you spent 5 years making a revolutionary lighting and shadow system that is indistinguishable from the real world .
Graphics enhance games they do n't make them , GAMEplay makes games .
Graphics , physics engines , they should all be secondary to gameplay .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you make a good game people will want to buy it, they will want to support it, build on it, mod it.
It doesn't need perfect graphics just something new and interesting.
We really don't give a crap if you spent $ X millions of dollars on developing a physics engine that makes the hero's shoe laces move when he/she runs.
And we don't care if you spent 5 years making a revolutionary lighting and shadow system that is indistinguishable from the real world.
Graphics enhance games they don't make them, GAMEplay makes games.
Graphics, physics engines, they should all be secondary to gameplay.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28340327</id>
	<title>Horse Shit</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245058620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>With Ubisoft putting out such fantastic titles such as "Imagine: Horsez" by the bucketload, they'll need to show me their full financials before I buy into the $60 million argument.</p><p>Developers had no problem jumping ship to the current gen and making money.  Games went up $10 on average if you own a 360 or a PS3.  They charge you for updates that used to be free, and they charge you to download unlock codes for maps, levels, game modes, costumes, and fucking furniture for your virtual corporate tool.  Developers will work out plenty of ways to make morons pay through the nose to cover increasing costs.</p><p>OnLive as competition?<br>Yeah, and I hear that Apple is going to be seriously entering the game market aaaaaaaaaaaany second now.</p><p>This is a fucking joke.<br>The next generation will come around when the current players decide that it's strategically viable.</p><p>Let's look at the charts, shall we?</p><p>Nintendo has won.  They want the current generation to last for as long as they are making buckets and buckets of money.<br>Nintendo will be the last of the three to go to the next generation (in terms of hard announcements).  The ONLY possible scenario that would cause Nintendo to be the first to announce would be the motion controllers from MS or Sony taking away from Nintendo's profits.  Nintendo would then make an announcement merely to fuck with the competitors' time tables.  (Hint:  Natal and Sony's tech will NOT save the 360 or PS3.)</p><p>Nintendo will be the last to announce.</p><p>MS is in second place, and will likely be the first to announce their next console.  MS really want to push Natal to try and steal Nintendo's thunder, but despite their lines about Natal being the next generation XBOX, the fact is the only way MS can capitalize on it is if it's bundled with ALL systems.  MS will push this generation as long as it can sell Natal units or Natal + 360 bundles.  They need to recoup major cash from their warranty fiasco.  MS likely wants Natal to get an extra 18 months to 2 years out of the 360.  I don't think it'll be the hot shit they want it to be, but who knows.</p><p>MS will announce their next-gen hardware first.</p><p>Sony is fucked.  I own a PS3 myself and enjoy it, but there's no denying that it simply didn't have the success of the PS2.  I think five hundred and ninety-nine US dollars may have had a part to play with that.  And with the 360 a year ahead, no one wanted to learn how to develop for the Cell.  The bottom line is that Sony will announce the slim PS3 this fall and try to get some momentum, especially in Japan.  Sony can capitalize on the release of Final Fantasy XIII along with the slim PS3 in Japan at the end of this year.  I don't know if they can do the same thing in the US, especially since FFXIII is on the 360 as well.  I expect Sony to keep trying for the "year of the PS3" until someone else makes an announcement.  Sony has lost so much cash with the PS3 that they need to get as much mileage out of it as they can and can't risk jumping ship too early.  Once MS reveals their hand, Sony will be free to show theirs without much risk of cutting off the PS3 before it's prime, or being one-upped tech wise or timewise for the next gen.</p><p>Sony will be second to announce.</p><p>The timeline as I see it is basically:</p><p>MS releases Natal and Natal + 360 bundles in 2010.<br>Sales aren't great.<br>MS announces E3 2011.<br>Details about the PS4 "leak" in the fall of 2011.<br>Sony announces E3 2012.<br>Nintendo teases E3 2012, in response to Sony's announcement.  Nintendo won't have a full reveal until E3 2013.</p><p>Late 2013 MS launches.<br>Early 2014 Sony launches.<br>Fall 2014 Nintendo launches.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>With Ubisoft putting out such fantastic titles such as " Imagine : Horsez " by the bucketload , they 'll need to show me their full financials before I buy into the $ 60 million argument.Developers had no problem jumping ship to the current gen and making money .
Games went up $ 10 on average if you own a 360 or a PS3 .
They charge you for updates that used to be free , and they charge you to download unlock codes for maps , levels , game modes , costumes , and fucking furniture for your virtual corporate tool .
Developers will work out plenty of ways to make morons pay through the nose to cover increasing costs.OnLive as competition ? Yeah , and I hear that Apple is going to be seriously entering the game market aaaaaaaaaaaany second now.This is a fucking joke.The next generation will come around when the current players decide that it 's strategically viable.Let 's look at the charts , shall we ? Nintendo has won .
They want the current generation to last for as long as they are making buckets and buckets of money.Nintendo will be the last of the three to go to the next generation ( in terms of hard announcements ) .
The ONLY possible scenario that would cause Nintendo to be the first to announce would be the motion controllers from MS or Sony taking away from Nintendo 's profits .
Nintendo would then make an announcement merely to fuck with the competitors ' time tables .
( Hint : Natal and Sony 's tech will NOT save the 360 or PS3 .
) Nintendo will be the last to announce.MS is in second place , and will likely be the first to announce their next console .
MS really want to push Natal to try and steal Nintendo 's thunder , but despite their lines about Natal being the next generation XBOX , the fact is the only way MS can capitalize on it is if it 's bundled with ALL systems .
MS will push this generation as long as it can sell Natal units or Natal + 360 bundles .
They need to recoup major cash from their warranty fiasco .
MS likely wants Natal to get an extra 18 months to 2 years out of the 360 .
I do n't think it 'll be the hot shit they want it to be , but who knows.MS will announce their next-gen hardware first.Sony is fucked .
I own a PS3 myself and enjoy it , but there 's no denying that it simply did n't have the success of the PS2 .
I think five hundred and ninety-nine US dollars may have had a part to play with that .
And with the 360 a year ahead , no one wanted to learn how to develop for the Cell .
The bottom line is that Sony will announce the slim PS3 this fall and try to get some momentum , especially in Japan .
Sony can capitalize on the release of Final Fantasy XIII along with the slim PS3 in Japan at the end of this year .
I do n't know if they can do the same thing in the US , especially since FFXIII is on the 360 as well .
I expect Sony to keep trying for the " year of the PS3 " until someone else makes an announcement .
Sony has lost so much cash with the PS3 that they need to get as much mileage out of it as they can and ca n't risk jumping ship too early .
Once MS reveals their hand , Sony will be free to show theirs without much risk of cutting off the PS3 before it 's prime , or being one-upped tech wise or timewise for the next gen.Sony will be second to announce.The timeline as I see it is basically : MS releases Natal and Natal + 360 bundles in 2010.Sales are n't great.MS announces E3 2011.Details about the PS4 " leak " in the fall of 2011.Sony announces E3 2012.Nintendo teases E3 2012 , in response to Sony 's announcement .
Nintendo wo n't have a full reveal until E3 2013.Late 2013 MS launches.Early 2014 Sony launches.Fall 2014 Nintendo launches .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>With Ubisoft putting out such fantastic titles such as "Imagine: Horsez" by the bucketload, they'll need to show me their full financials before I buy into the $60 million argument.Developers had no problem jumping ship to the current gen and making money.
Games went up $10 on average if you own a 360 or a PS3.
They charge you for updates that used to be free, and they charge you to download unlock codes for maps, levels, game modes, costumes, and fucking furniture for your virtual corporate tool.
Developers will work out plenty of ways to make morons pay through the nose to cover increasing costs.OnLive as competition?Yeah, and I hear that Apple is going to be seriously entering the game market aaaaaaaaaaaany second now.This is a fucking joke.The next generation will come around when the current players decide that it's strategically viable.Let's look at the charts, shall we?Nintendo has won.
They want the current generation to last for as long as they are making buckets and buckets of money.Nintendo will be the last of the three to go to the next generation (in terms of hard announcements).
The ONLY possible scenario that would cause Nintendo to be the first to announce would be the motion controllers from MS or Sony taking away from Nintendo's profits.
Nintendo would then make an announcement merely to fuck with the competitors' time tables.
(Hint:  Natal and Sony's tech will NOT save the 360 or PS3.
)Nintendo will be the last to announce.MS is in second place, and will likely be the first to announce their next console.
MS really want to push Natal to try and steal Nintendo's thunder, but despite their lines about Natal being the next generation XBOX, the fact is the only way MS can capitalize on it is if it's bundled with ALL systems.
MS will push this generation as long as it can sell Natal units or Natal + 360 bundles.
They need to recoup major cash from their warranty fiasco.
MS likely wants Natal to get an extra 18 months to 2 years out of the 360.
I don't think it'll be the hot shit they want it to be, but who knows.MS will announce their next-gen hardware first.Sony is fucked.
I own a PS3 myself and enjoy it, but there's no denying that it simply didn't have the success of the PS2.
I think five hundred and ninety-nine US dollars may have had a part to play with that.
And with the 360 a year ahead, no one wanted to learn how to develop for the Cell.
The bottom line is that Sony will announce the slim PS3 this fall and try to get some momentum, especially in Japan.
Sony can capitalize on the release of Final Fantasy XIII along with the slim PS3 in Japan at the end of this year.
I don't know if they can do the same thing in the US, especially since FFXIII is on the 360 as well.
I expect Sony to keep trying for the "year of the PS3" until someone else makes an announcement.
Sony has lost so much cash with the PS3 that they need to get as much mileage out of it as they can and can't risk jumping ship too early.
Once MS reveals their hand, Sony will be free to show theirs without much risk of cutting off the PS3 before it's prime, or being one-upped tech wise or timewise for the next gen.Sony will be second to announce.The timeline as I see it is basically:MS releases Natal and Natal + 360 bundles in 2010.Sales aren't great.MS announces E3 2011.Details about the PS4 "leak" in the fall of 2011.Sony announces E3 2012.Nintendo teases E3 2012, in response to Sony's announcement.
Nintendo won't have a full reveal until E3 2013.Late 2013 MS launches.Early 2014 Sony launches.Fall 2014 Nintendo launches.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28345347</id>
	<title>Re:Nonsense</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245143580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It cost 100 million to produce GTA because the designers/modelers/writers/producers etc milked it for all it was worth rather than because the game itself required a lot to create.</p><p>If you're the best in the business, or anywhere near the top, you can set your own rates meaning that you'll make a shitton of money as long as you can convince your bosses that they'll be shooting themselves in the foot by hiring anyone else.</p><p>Also, look at this.</p><p>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Video\_game\_publisher</p><p>"When publishing for game consoles, game publishers take on the burden of a great deal of inventory risk. All significant console manufacturers since Nintendo with its NES (1985) have monopolized the manufacture of every game made for their console, and have required all publishers to pay a royalty for every game so manufactured. This royalty must be paid at the time of manufacturing, as opposed to royalty payments in almost all other industries, where royalties are paid upon actual sales of the product&#226;"and, importantly, are payable for games that did not sell to a consumer. So, if a game publisher orders one million copies of its game, but half of them do not sell, the publisher has already paid the full console manufacturer royalty on one million copies of the game, and has to absorb that cost."</p><p>That is one hell of a scam is all I can think. And also why their developers can survive bad games compared to authors who...basically die off if their books don't sell.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It cost 100 million to produce GTA because the designers/modelers/writers/producers etc milked it for all it was worth rather than because the game itself required a lot to create.If you 're the best in the business , or anywhere near the top , you can set your own rates meaning that you 'll make a shitton of money as long as you can convince your bosses that they 'll be shooting themselves in the foot by hiring anyone else.Also , look at this.http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Video \ _game \ _publisher " When publishing for game consoles , game publishers take on the burden of a great deal of inventory risk .
All significant console manufacturers since Nintendo with its NES ( 1985 ) have monopolized the manufacture of every game made for their console , and have required all publishers to pay a royalty for every game so manufactured .
This royalty must be paid at the time of manufacturing , as opposed to royalty payments in almost all other industries , where royalties are paid upon actual sales of the product   " and , importantly , are payable for games that did not sell to a consumer .
So , if a game publisher orders one million copies of its game , but half of them do not sell , the publisher has already paid the full console manufacturer royalty on one million copies of the game , and has to absorb that cost .
" That is one hell of a scam is all I can think .
And also why their developers can survive bad games compared to authors who...basically die off if their books do n't sell .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It cost 100 million to produce GTA because the designers/modelers/writers/producers etc milked it for all it was worth rather than because the game itself required a lot to create.If you're the best in the business, or anywhere near the top, you can set your own rates meaning that you'll make a shitton of money as long as you can convince your bosses that they'll be shooting themselves in the foot by hiring anyone else.Also, look at this.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Video\_game\_publisher"When publishing for game consoles, game publishers take on the burden of a great deal of inventory risk.
All significant console manufacturers since Nintendo with its NES (1985) have monopolized the manufacture of every game made for their console, and have required all publishers to pay a royalty for every game so manufactured.
This royalty must be paid at the time of manufacturing, as opposed to royalty payments in almost all other industries, where royalties are paid upon actual sales of the productâ"and, importantly, are payable for games that did not sell to a consumer.
So, if a game publisher orders one million copies of its game, but half of them do not sell, the publisher has already paid the full console manufacturer royalty on one million copies of the game, and has to absorb that cost.
"That is one hell of a scam is all I can think.
And also why their developers can survive bad games compared to authors who...basically die off if their books don't sell.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28340439</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28338837</id>
	<title>Title's spelt wrong</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245096600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It should say "Ubisoft"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It should say " Ubisoft "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It should say "Ubisoft"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28338823</id>
	<title>You BET</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245096540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It would be terrible if a la carte cable TV meant that networks like BET would go away due to lack of funding.
<br> <br>
Do you remember when, overnight, every black person in the USA started saying "are-uh" instead of the correct, monosyllabic pronounciation of the
letter "r"?  How about when that silly "raise the roof" gesture became trendy?  What about yellow t-shirts?  Speaking of who is or isn't in "the
house" in a loud annoying voice?  Who could forget shizzle and nizzle and other black contributions to our culture?  I used to wonder how they
managed to coordinate these trends because one day none of them would exhibit such behaviors and then the next day all of them do it as though they
had been doing so all of their lives like some kind of long-established tradition.  I mean, that sounds like it would be quite the logistics problem
and would take a lot of work.  Then it dawned on me!  BET is how they do it.  Ah well, as they say - monkey see, monkey do!
<br> <br>
I wonder if any of the group-identity type of blacks would be surprised or shocked to learn that most of the commercial trends belonging to "their
people", especially music but also designer clothes and the like, were actually the products of market research performed by some very white people
wearing business suits and doing other things that are quite non-thuggish.  Amazing how they hate "acting white" when it comes to getting an
education and bettering yourself but they love following whitey when it comes to market trends.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It would be terrible if a la carte cable TV meant that networks like BET would go away due to lack of funding .
Do you remember when , overnight , every black person in the USA started saying " are-uh " instead of the correct , monosyllabic pronounciation of the letter " r " ?
How about when that silly " raise the roof " gesture became trendy ?
What about yellow t-shirts ?
Speaking of who is or is n't in " the house " in a loud annoying voice ?
Who could forget shizzle and nizzle and other black contributions to our culture ?
I used to wonder how they managed to coordinate these trends because one day none of them would exhibit such behaviors and then the next day all of them do it as though they had been doing so all of their lives like some kind of long-established tradition .
I mean , that sounds like it would be quite the logistics problem and would take a lot of work .
Then it dawned on me !
BET is how they do it .
Ah well , as they say - monkey see , monkey do !
I wonder if any of the group-identity type of blacks would be surprised or shocked to learn that most of the commercial trends belonging to " their people " , especially music but also designer clothes and the like , were actually the products of market research performed by some very white people wearing business suits and doing other things that are quite non-thuggish .
Amazing how they hate " acting white " when it comes to getting an education and bettering yourself but they love following whitey when it comes to market trends .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It would be terrible if a la carte cable TV meant that networks like BET would go away due to lack of funding.
Do you remember when, overnight, every black person in the USA started saying "are-uh" instead of the correct, monosyllabic pronounciation of the
letter "r"?
How about when that silly "raise the roof" gesture became trendy?
What about yellow t-shirts?
Speaking of who is or isn't in "the
house" in a loud annoying voice?
Who could forget shizzle and nizzle and other black contributions to our culture?
I used to wonder how they
managed to coordinate these trends because one day none of them would exhibit such behaviors and then the next day all of them do it as though they
had been doing so all of their lives like some kind of long-established tradition.
I mean, that sounds like it would be quite the logistics problem
and would take a lot of work.
Then it dawned on me!
BET is how they do it.
Ah well, as they say - monkey see, monkey do!
I wonder if any of the group-identity type of blacks would be surprised or shocked to learn that most of the commercial trends belonging to "their
people", especially music but also designer clothes and the like, were actually the products of market research performed by some very white people
wearing business suits and doing other things that are quite non-thuggish.
Amazing how they hate "acting white" when it comes to getting an
education and bettering yourself but they love following whitey when it comes to market trends.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28340993</id>
	<title>It's about the games</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245061680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I bought more PS2 games in the past two years than Wii, PS3 and XBox 360 combined.</p><p>I'm not into console FPSs, sports games, or generic action/adventure games. I'm not excited for the next gen because I have no reason to buy the vast majority of games on the current gen. I have not enjoyed the "bigname" games from this generation and niche games seem harder and harder to come by.<br>If games are going to be even more expensive to make next generation, then games I enjoy are going to be even harder to come by.</p><p>I know I'm not the most mainstream gamer, but in previous generations I had dozens of games to play... now I feel pushed to obscure PC games.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I bought more PS2 games in the past two years than Wii , PS3 and XBox 360 combined.I 'm not into console FPSs , sports games , or generic action/adventure games .
I 'm not excited for the next gen because I have no reason to buy the vast majority of games on the current gen. I have not enjoyed the " bigname " games from this generation and niche games seem harder and harder to come by.If games are going to be even more expensive to make next generation , then games I enjoy are going to be even harder to come by.I know I 'm not the most mainstream gamer , but in previous generations I had dozens of games to play... now I feel pushed to obscure PC games .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I bought more PS2 games in the past two years than Wii, PS3 and XBox 360 combined.I'm not into console FPSs, sports games, or generic action/adventure games.
I'm not excited for the next gen because I have no reason to buy the vast majority of games on the current gen. I have not enjoyed the "bigname" games from this generation and niche games seem harder and harder to come by.If games are going to be even more expensive to make next generation, then games I enjoy are going to be even harder to come by.I know I'm not the most mainstream gamer, but in previous generations I had dozens of games to play... now I feel pushed to obscure PC games.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28339549</id>
	<title>How about an open source game console standard?</title>
	<author>Orion Blastar</author>
	<datestamp>1245099060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>One that can take advantage of newer technology to deliver a better gaming experience?</p><p>Yeah I know the Indrema failed, but if the people making Linux distros for mobile devices and smart phones decided to port their code to the newer game console technology to creating a game console distro it would be a good idea if many gaming companies joined in and started to work out a standard for game consoles that will help reduce the cost of developing new game consoles for everyone. Not only that but if it is a Linux distro games can be put on LiveCDs that boot and then run the game on PCs and Macs.</p><p>I suppose one can just develop video games in Java or Python to be used across any computer platform and port Java and Python for various game consoles to run such games as well.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>One that can take advantage of newer technology to deliver a better gaming experience ? Yeah I know the Indrema failed , but if the people making Linux distros for mobile devices and smart phones decided to port their code to the newer game console technology to creating a game console distro it would be a good idea if many gaming companies joined in and started to work out a standard for game consoles that will help reduce the cost of developing new game consoles for everyone .
Not only that but if it is a Linux distro games can be put on LiveCDs that boot and then run the game on PCs and Macs.I suppose one can just develop video games in Java or Python to be used across any computer platform and port Java and Python for various game consoles to run such games as well .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One that can take advantage of newer technology to deliver a better gaming experience?Yeah I know the Indrema failed, but if the people making Linux distros for mobile devices and smart phones decided to port their code to the newer game console technology to creating a game console distro it would be a good idea if many gaming companies joined in and started to work out a standard for game consoles that will help reduce the cost of developing new game consoles for everyone.
Not only that but if it is a Linux distro games can be put on LiveCDs that boot and then run the game on PCs and Macs.I suppose one can just develop video games in Java or Python to be used across any computer platform and port Java and Python for various game consoles to run such games as well.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28342403</id>
	<title>Re:Where are the games I want?</title>
	<author>Chris Burke</author>
	<datestamp>1245070200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Viewtiful Joe and Alien Hominid are last generation, but that's still well after the decline of 2D platform gaming and you can still play em on your wii.  Okay, Hominid was originally a Flash game, but hey like another poster said that's where the 2D action is these days.  It also uses a pretty simple style that probably could have been done on an old console.  But it's really good anyway.  Especially if you are sick of easy mario games and want something brutal.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p><p>Viewtiful is also quite good, though it's about 50+\% beat-em-up.  On the plus side a lot of the platforming bits are really good (the level where you run down a giant submarine torpedo tube stands out).  Also has great art and animation.</p><p>Now that I'm thinking about cool last-gen 2d games, if you're into 2D shoot-em-ups, Ikaruga was beautiful and brilliant and sure as hell would have caused slowdown on a SNES (since Gradius III did).  Also, extremely hard.  Fortunately the early levels have good replay value since you can always try to go for more points and kill the boss quicker using more dangerous techniques.  The concept of two colors you could switch between to choose whether to absorb enemy shots of the same color or do more damage against enemies of the opposite color was so simple and powerful I wonder why I hadn't seen it before.   Geeze, I wish that asshole hadn't stolen my copy.  Mental note:  Need to buy that game again online.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Viewtiful Joe and Alien Hominid are last generation , but that 's still well after the decline of 2D platform gaming and you can still play em on your wii .
Okay , Hominid was originally a Flash game , but hey like another poster said that 's where the 2D action is these days .
It also uses a pretty simple style that probably could have been done on an old console .
But it 's really good anyway .
Especially if you are sick of easy mario games and want something brutal .
: ) Viewtiful is also quite good , though it 's about 50 + \ % beat-em-up .
On the plus side a lot of the platforming bits are really good ( the level where you run down a giant submarine torpedo tube stands out ) .
Also has great art and animation.Now that I 'm thinking about cool last-gen 2d games , if you 're into 2D shoot-em-ups , Ikaruga was beautiful and brilliant and sure as hell would have caused slowdown on a SNES ( since Gradius III did ) .
Also , extremely hard .
Fortunately the early levels have good replay value since you can always try to go for more points and kill the boss quicker using more dangerous techniques .
The concept of two colors you could switch between to choose whether to absorb enemy shots of the same color or do more damage against enemies of the opposite color was so simple and powerful I wonder why I had n't seen it before .
Geeze , I wish that asshole had n't stolen my copy .
Mental note : Need to buy that game again online .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Viewtiful Joe and Alien Hominid are last generation, but that's still well after the decline of 2D platform gaming and you can still play em on your wii.
Okay, Hominid was originally a Flash game, but hey like another poster said that's where the 2D action is these days.
It also uses a pretty simple style that probably could have been done on an old console.
But it's really good anyway.
Especially if you are sick of easy mario games and want something brutal.
:)Viewtiful is also quite good, though it's about 50+\% beat-em-up.
On the plus side a lot of the platforming bits are really good (the level where you run down a giant submarine torpedo tube stands out).
Also has great art and animation.Now that I'm thinking about cool last-gen 2d games, if you're into 2D shoot-em-ups, Ikaruga was beautiful and brilliant and sure as hell would have caused slowdown on a SNES (since Gradius III did).
Also, extremely hard.
Fortunately the early levels have good replay value since you can always try to go for more points and kill the boss quicker using more dangerous techniques.
The concept of two colors you could switch between to choose whether to absorb enemy shots of the same color or do more damage against enemies of the opposite color was so simple and powerful I wonder why I hadn't seen it before.
Geeze, I wish that asshole hadn't stolen my copy.
Mental note:  Need to buy that game again online.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28339817</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28339765</id>
	<title>Xbox 360 is fine for now</title>
	<author>Is0m0rph</author>
	<datestamp>1245056700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The hardware issues seem to be worked out now with the latest motherboards.  Xbox Live is really maturing and branching out into family fun kind of games like 1 vs. 100.  Participating in a live game show is more fun then I thought it would be. I couldn't be happier with it right now and it just keeps getting better.  Natal, looks gimicky too me will be good for casual gamers like the Wii is and probably attract a good following that way if it's not too expensive.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The hardware issues seem to be worked out now with the latest motherboards .
Xbox Live is really maturing and branching out into family fun kind of games like 1 vs. 100. Participating in a live game show is more fun then I thought it would be .
I could n't be happier with it right now and it just keeps getting better .
Natal , looks gimicky too me will be good for casual gamers like the Wii is and probably attract a good following that way if it 's not too expensive .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The hardware issues seem to be worked out now with the latest motherboards.
Xbox Live is really maturing and branching out into family fun kind of games like 1 vs. 100.  Participating in a live game show is more fun then I thought it would be.
I couldn't be happier with it right now and it just keeps getting better.
Natal, looks gimicky too me will be good for casual gamers like the Wii is and probably attract a good following that way if it's not too expensive.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28344171</id>
	<title>Re:Does he know what the Wii is?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245085440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The last two generations winners weren't "weakest" when they came out, though.</p><p>The PSX had ten times the data capacity of the N64 - more, if you switched discs - and cheaper media, which meant cheaper games. As well as a less encumbered development process. It also played audio CDs at a time when CD players weren't cheap yet. (They weren't super expensive anymore either, but they were a lot more than the $20 portables you can get today).</p><p>The PS2 was a triple-threat. It came out before the Xbox and Gamecube; it could still play the previous generation winner's games; it could play DVD movies at a time when standalone DVD players were still expensive. The Cube couldn't play CDs or DVDs or its previous generation games. Xbox didn't even HAVE a previous generation, and you had to pay for an addon to play DVDs - and by then DVD players were starting to get cheaper anyway.</p><p>The last two generation winners actually were the better buy at the time.</p><p>This generation, the Wii is an aberration - it's winning by not even bothering to directly compete against the other systems' strengths. The Wii went with doing a bunch of game styles that don't even work on anything else, making "stronger" and "weaker" a meaningless basis for comparison.</p><p>What does this mean about the next generation? I don't know. It looks like Sony and Microsoft are going to try to slip in a hardware refresh to grab some Wii functionality. I would guess the Wii will get a refresh that boosts its graphics - now that doing so is not expensive or risky anymore - while retaining backwards compatibility. Wii games will play on the Wii.5, and likely hybrid games will play on both (but with extra goodies on the Wii.5).</p><p>IMO, it's a little too soon for the really huge games to depend on broadband, due to both weak broadband penetration/capacity in the US and relatively limited game console hard drive capacity. 200 MB games and 200 MB patches are manageable, but 20 GB downloadable games aren't really feasible yet for the kind of sales numbers that console makers are aiming for. Maybe in the 2015 hardware generation.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The last two generations winners were n't " weakest " when they came out , though.The PSX had ten times the data capacity of the N64 - more , if you switched discs - and cheaper media , which meant cheaper games .
As well as a less encumbered development process .
It also played audio CDs at a time when CD players were n't cheap yet .
( They were n't super expensive anymore either , but they were a lot more than the $ 20 portables you can get today ) .The PS2 was a triple-threat .
It came out before the Xbox and Gamecube ; it could still play the previous generation winner 's games ; it could play DVD movies at a time when standalone DVD players were still expensive .
The Cube could n't play CDs or DVDs or its previous generation games .
Xbox did n't even HAVE a previous generation , and you had to pay for an addon to play DVDs - and by then DVD players were starting to get cheaper anyway.The last two generation winners actually were the better buy at the time.This generation , the Wii is an aberration - it 's winning by not even bothering to directly compete against the other systems ' strengths .
The Wii went with doing a bunch of game styles that do n't even work on anything else , making " stronger " and " weaker " a meaningless basis for comparison.What does this mean about the next generation ?
I do n't know .
It looks like Sony and Microsoft are going to try to slip in a hardware refresh to grab some Wii functionality .
I would guess the Wii will get a refresh that boosts its graphics - now that doing so is not expensive or risky anymore - while retaining backwards compatibility .
Wii games will play on the Wii.5 , and likely hybrid games will play on both ( but with extra goodies on the Wii.5 ) .IMO , it 's a little too soon for the really huge games to depend on broadband , due to both weak broadband penetration/capacity in the US and relatively limited game console hard drive capacity .
200 MB games and 200 MB patches are manageable , but 20 GB downloadable games are n't really feasible yet for the kind of sales numbers that console makers are aiming for .
Maybe in the 2015 hardware generation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The last two generations winners weren't "weakest" when they came out, though.The PSX had ten times the data capacity of the N64 - more, if you switched discs - and cheaper media, which meant cheaper games.
As well as a less encumbered development process.
It also played audio CDs at a time when CD players weren't cheap yet.
(They weren't super expensive anymore either, but they were a lot more than the $20 portables you can get today).The PS2 was a triple-threat.
It came out before the Xbox and Gamecube; it could still play the previous generation winner's games; it could play DVD movies at a time when standalone DVD players were still expensive.
The Cube couldn't play CDs or DVDs or its previous generation games.
Xbox didn't even HAVE a previous generation, and you had to pay for an addon to play DVDs - and by then DVD players were starting to get cheaper anyway.The last two generation winners actually were the better buy at the time.This generation, the Wii is an aberration - it's winning by not even bothering to directly compete against the other systems' strengths.
The Wii went with doing a bunch of game styles that don't even work on anything else, making "stronger" and "weaker" a meaningless basis for comparison.What does this mean about the next generation?
I don't know.
It looks like Sony and Microsoft are going to try to slip in a hardware refresh to grab some Wii functionality.
I would guess the Wii will get a refresh that boosts its graphics - now that doing so is not expensive or risky anymore - while retaining backwards compatibility.
Wii games will play on the Wii.5, and likely hybrid games will play on both (but with extra goodies on the Wii.5).IMO, it's a little too soon for the really huge games to depend on broadband, due to both weak broadband penetration/capacity in the US and relatively limited game console hard drive capacity.
200 MB games and 200 MB patches are manageable, but 20 GB downloadable games aren't really feasible yet for the kind of sales numbers that console makers are aiming for.
Maybe in the 2015 hardware generation.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28340099</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28340141</id>
	<title>Re:Does he know what the Wii is?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245058080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No one buys third party games on the Wii</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No one buys third party games on the Wii</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No one buys third party games on the Wii</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28339317</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28345197</id>
	<title>Belgi&#195;</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245184680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Why should I pick heaven?</p></div><p>Let me help:</p><p><div class="quote"><p>heaven : harps, clouds, christians[^w <b>people who, rather than paying lip service as christians, actually live by the higher morals and ethics which entry to heaven would demand</b>]</p></div><p>I would assume that would lead to more intellectuals, but I know that many Nobel Prize recipients, scientists, and charitable philanthropists can be just as human as the guy at the bar, the stereotypical redneck, and for good measure [<i>removed for invoking Godwin's law</i>].</p><p><div class="quote"><p>hell: strippers, hookers, playboy models, alcohol, year long campfire[, <b>Belgians</b>]</p></div><p>Now do you see why? If not, I fear it may be too late for you.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:/</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why should I pick heaven ? Let me help : heaven : harps , clouds , christians [ ^ w people who , rather than paying lip service as christians , actually live by the higher morals and ethics which entry to heaven would demand ] I would assume that would lead to more intellectuals , but I know that many Nobel Prize recipients , scientists , and charitable philanthropists can be just as human as the guy at the bar , the stereotypical redneck , and for good measure [ removed for invoking Godwin 's law ] .hell : strippers , hookers , playboy models , alcohol , year long campfire [ , Belgians ] Now do you see why ?
If not , I fear it may be too late for you .
: /</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why should I pick heaven?Let me help:heaven : harps, clouds, christians[^w people who, rather than paying lip service as christians, actually live by the higher morals and ethics which entry to heaven would demand]I would assume that would lead to more intellectuals, but I know that many Nobel Prize recipients, scientists, and charitable philanthropists can be just as human as the guy at the bar, the stereotypical redneck, and for good measure [removed for invoking Godwin's law].hell: strippers, hookers, playboy models, alcohol, year long campfire[, Belgians]Now do you see why?
If not, I fear it may be too late for you.
:/
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28339439</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28340695</id>
	<title>Re:Wha about diminishing returns</title>
	<author>kramerd</author>
	<datestamp>1245060120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Doubling the number of polygons doesn't improve the graphics on today's games either.</p><p>Double the work isnt necessarily double the value.</p><p>The issue is value, and if you double the value, you can probably up the price by 5 or 10x.</p><p>If you make a new version of tic tac toe that people like, they will pay for it.</p><p>The reason that you pay more for diminishing returns is that people will pay more for that extra step. Why do people pay twice as much for a decent steak as a decent hamburger? It doesn't cost twice as much to prepare.</p><p>I know, this<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/., so here is a car analogy:</p><p>Take a look at the 2009 Acura and two versions of it:</p><p>The 2009 Tech package Sedan</p><p>&amp;</p><p>The 2009 TSX tech package Sedan</p><p>One of these retails for 50k, one for 32k.</p><p>The safety features difference: The 50k car has perimiter/approach lights while the the 32k car does not.</p><p>There is also a HP difference of 201 vs 300 HP, but you aren't getting a difference if you drive in traffic.</p><p>If HP matters to you, the Honda Accord with a V6 beats both of these on mileage, costs 25k, and has 271 HP.</p><p>This beats out last years Honda Accord by a significant margin (for HP, not mileage, price, or handling, haven driven both).</p><p>Did Honda need to improve on its previous years vehicle? Not really, the 2008 Accord still wins the safety and reliability market, and quite frankly, the extra 6k it costs for the 2009 version wouldnt have been worth the money in 2008. But if you can afford either one, which do you think the average consumer is going to buy?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Doubling the number of polygons does n't improve the graphics on today 's games either.Double the work isnt necessarily double the value.The issue is value , and if you double the value , you can probably up the price by 5 or 10x.If you make a new version of tic tac toe that people like , they will pay for it.The reason that you pay more for diminishing returns is that people will pay more for that extra step .
Why do people pay twice as much for a decent steak as a decent hamburger ?
It does n't cost twice as much to prepare.I know , this /. , so here is a car analogy : Take a look at the 2009 Acura and two versions of it : The 2009 Tech package Sedan&amp;The 2009 TSX tech package SedanOne of these retails for 50k , one for 32k.The safety features difference : The 50k car has perimiter/approach lights while the the 32k car does not.There is also a HP difference of 201 vs 300 HP , but you are n't getting a difference if you drive in traffic.If HP matters to you , the Honda Accord with a V6 beats both of these on mileage , costs 25k , and has 271 HP.This beats out last years Honda Accord by a significant margin ( for HP , not mileage , price , or handling , haven driven both ) .Did Honda need to improve on its previous years vehicle ?
Not really , the 2008 Accord still wins the safety and reliability market , and quite frankly , the extra 6k it costs for the 2009 version wouldnt have been worth the money in 2008 .
But if you can afford either one , which do you think the average consumer is going to buy ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Doubling the number of polygons doesn't improve the graphics on today's games either.Double the work isnt necessarily double the value.The issue is value, and if you double the value, you can probably up the price by 5 or 10x.If you make a new version of tic tac toe that people like, they will pay for it.The reason that you pay more for diminishing returns is that people will pay more for that extra step.
Why do people pay twice as much for a decent steak as a decent hamburger?
It doesn't cost twice as much to prepare.I know, this /., so here is a car analogy:Take a look at the 2009 Acura and two versions of it:The 2009 Tech package Sedan&amp;The 2009 TSX tech package SedanOne of these retails for 50k, one for 32k.The safety features difference: The 50k car has perimiter/approach lights while the the 32k car does not.There is also a HP difference of 201 vs 300 HP, but you aren't getting a difference if you drive in traffic.If HP matters to you, the Honda Accord with a V6 beats both of these on mileage, costs 25k, and has 271 HP.This beats out last years Honda Accord by a significant margin (for HP, not mileage, price, or handling, haven driven both).Did Honda need to improve on its previous years vehicle?
Not really, the 2008 Accord still wins the safety and reliability market, and quite frankly, the extra 6k it costs for the 2009 version wouldnt have been worth the money in 2008.
But if you can afford either one, which do you think the average consumer is going to buy?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28339433</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28339479</id>
	<title>Role Out</title>
	<author>amoeba1911</author>
	<datestamp>1245098760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>7th grade spelling FAIL<br>
<br>
role != roll</htmltext>
<tokenext>7th grade spelling FAIL role ! = roll</tokentext>
<sentencetext>7th grade spelling FAIL

role != roll</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28353783</id>
	<title>Re:Does he know what the Wii is?</title>
	<author>Yeef</author>
	<datestamp>1245147360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p><div class="quote"><p>the most popular console is the weakest machine</p></div><p>Which has, historically, almost always been the case. In reverse chronological order: PS2 over stronger Xbox and GC, PSX over stonger N64</p></div><p>I'm pretty sure the Dreamcast and Saturn were weaker than the PS2 and PS1 respectively.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>the most popular console is the weakest machineWhich has , historically , almost always been the case .
In reverse chronological order : PS2 over stronger Xbox and GC , PSX over stonger N64I 'm pretty sure the Dreamcast and Saturn were weaker than the PS2 and PS1 respectively .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>the most popular console is the weakest machineWhich has, historically, almost always been the case.
In reverse chronological order: PS2 over stronger Xbox and GC, PSX over stonger N64I'm pretty sure the Dreamcast and Saturn were weaker than the PS2 and PS1 respectively.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28340099</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28341413</id>
	<title>Re:I'm not surprised</title>
	<author>Blakey Rat</author>
	<datestamp>1245064200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>One thing I'd love to see is for a console to open up their development process and create an App Store similar to the iPhone. There would be an explosion of freeware, indie games, and assorted applications.</i></p><p>Microsoft's getting real, real close to that with XNA: <a href="http://creators.xna.com/en-US/" title="xna.com">http://creators.xna.com/en-US/</a> [xna.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>One thing I 'd love to see is for a console to open up their development process and create an App Store similar to the iPhone .
There would be an explosion of freeware , indie games , and assorted applications.Microsoft 's getting real , real close to that with XNA : http : //creators.xna.com/en-US/ [ xna.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One thing I'd love to see is for a console to open up their development process and create an App Store similar to the iPhone.
There would be an explosion of freeware, indie games, and assorted applications.Microsoft's getting real, real close to that with XNA: http://creators.xna.com/en-US/ [xna.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28339623</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28343891</id>
	<title>New console cycle</title>
	<author>cbarcus</author>
	<datestamp>1245082680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Re: Microsoft
<br> <br>
As has been mentioned elsewhere, the dominant console cycle for the past few decades has been about 5 years. Microsoft released the 360 four years after the original Xbox probably for two primary reasons: 1) losses associated with the manufacture of the Xbox, and 2) to get the jump on Sony. The cost of that strategy has been record-setting poor quality, and they have had to compensate with a $1 billion 3-year limited warranty replacement/refurbishment system to stay in the game. So far from their current market share of about 30\% (if one includes the Wii) or 60\% (if one only includes the PS3), they are still very much in the game, but I wonder about the long-term effect on customer loyalty. Maybe I am completely wrong here in questioning this aspect of their business, and we should look as this whole RRoD (and E74) experience with reverence?
<br> <br> <br>

Re: technology and costs<br> <br>

As the videogame medium contains a very significant technical element, it is probably prudent to consider where performance is heading for the next generation. Realism as style in this medium has been very influential affecting everything from real-time ambient lighting, physics-based animation, precise collision detection, industrial design in modelling, and detailed, organic entity design. All of this detail can make for a more involving experience, and I believe it is essential for maturing the medium. The market for games has grown significantly, and so it makes a lot of sense that the industrial systems that produce films (with all those producers, directors, writers, actors, designers, and expert consultants) will also move into the creation of videogames, which of course carries with it significantly increased costs. The console as a device for creating these virtual experiences should provide as much capability as possible, as efficiently as possible. Currently the hardware designs most suited to processing the vast amounts of data required for constructing these virtual worlds involve many cores coordinating access to a very fat bus. Sony has overwhelmingly demonstrated that they understand these relationships, and appear to be set to launch a low-cost version of the PS3 sometime this year that will probably give them parity in the marketplace with their competitors.
<br> <br>
I expect backwards compatibility to be more important for the next generation, especially considering the increased investment in software and services. I'd be surprised if any current player can again afford to start from scratch. As others have mentioned, Microsoft is likely to launch first probably in 2011, with Sony not too far behind. I believe Nintendo sees themselves as more of a toy company, and so occupy a different part of the market, but will still probably follow the 5-year-cycle.
<br> <br> <br>
Re: Motion control
<br> <br>
Sony is obviously positioning themselves to both relate to the market that Nintendo created, and to offer a new experience to their customer base. Microsoft is attempting to break new ground by creating something entirely different, but I am not so sure that their technology gives them an advantage that Sony cannot largely replicate with some clever software, their motion and PSEye peripherals.
<br> <br> <br>
Re: OnLine
<br> <br>
OnLive is interesting as the Cloud Computing/Timeshare model for gaming, but of course it depends on some pretty wide, low-latency pipes (which most of us can expect at some point in the future). It could offer a unique MMO experience where thousands of users could be in one shared virtual environment, but it is unclear whether this will be a compelling experience any time in the near future. OnLive's suitability for any serious gaming of course comes down to the latency and image quality issues, and I question whether this is a viable business in the near-term. But of course, I have not seen the demos, and I am not an investor, but I doubt any of the other console players are seriously concerned as of yet. When this model becomes viable, what prevents the other players from doing the same? Or will they have some arrangement with OnLive's service?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Re : Microsoft As has been mentioned elsewhere , the dominant console cycle for the past few decades has been about 5 years .
Microsoft released the 360 four years after the original Xbox probably for two primary reasons : 1 ) losses associated with the manufacture of the Xbox , and 2 ) to get the jump on Sony .
The cost of that strategy has been record-setting poor quality , and they have had to compensate with a $ 1 billion 3-year limited warranty replacement/refurbishment system to stay in the game .
So far from their current market share of about 30 \ % ( if one includes the Wii ) or 60 \ % ( if one only includes the PS3 ) , they are still very much in the game , but I wonder about the long-term effect on customer loyalty .
Maybe I am completely wrong here in questioning this aspect of their business , and we should look as this whole RRoD ( and E74 ) experience with reverence ?
Re : technology and costs As the videogame medium contains a very significant technical element , it is probably prudent to consider where performance is heading for the next generation .
Realism as style in this medium has been very influential affecting everything from real-time ambient lighting , physics-based animation , precise collision detection , industrial design in modelling , and detailed , organic entity design .
All of this detail can make for a more involving experience , and I believe it is essential for maturing the medium .
The market for games has grown significantly , and so it makes a lot of sense that the industrial systems that produce films ( with all those producers , directors , writers , actors , designers , and expert consultants ) will also move into the creation of videogames , which of course carries with it significantly increased costs .
The console as a device for creating these virtual experiences should provide as much capability as possible , as efficiently as possible .
Currently the hardware designs most suited to processing the vast amounts of data required for constructing these virtual worlds involve many cores coordinating access to a very fat bus .
Sony has overwhelmingly demonstrated that they understand these relationships , and appear to be set to launch a low-cost version of the PS3 sometime this year that will probably give them parity in the marketplace with their competitors .
I expect backwards compatibility to be more important for the next generation , especially considering the increased investment in software and services .
I 'd be surprised if any current player can again afford to start from scratch .
As others have mentioned , Microsoft is likely to launch first probably in 2011 , with Sony not too far behind .
I believe Nintendo sees themselves as more of a toy company , and so occupy a different part of the market , but will still probably follow the 5-year-cycle .
Re : Motion control Sony is obviously positioning themselves to both relate to the market that Nintendo created , and to offer a new experience to their customer base .
Microsoft is attempting to break new ground by creating something entirely different , but I am not so sure that their technology gives them an advantage that Sony can not largely replicate with some clever software , their motion and PSEye peripherals .
Re : OnLine OnLive is interesting as the Cloud Computing/Timeshare model for gaming , but of course it depends on some pretty wide , low-latency pipes ( which most of us can expect at some point in the future ) .
It could offer a unique MMO experience where thousands of users could be in one shared virtual environment , but it is unclear whether this will be a compelling experience any time in the near future .
OnLive 's suitability for any serious gaming of course comes down to the latency and image quality issues , and I question whether this is a viable business in the near-term .
But of course , I have not seen the demos , and I am not an investor , but I doubt any of the other console players are seriously concerned as of yet .
When this model becomes viable , what prevents the other players from doing the same ?
Or will they have some arrangement with OnLive 's service ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Re: Microsoft
 
As has been mentioned elsewhere, the dominant console cycle for the past few decades has been about 5 years.
Microsoft released the 360 four years after the original Xbox probably for two primary reasons: 1) losses associated with the manufacture of the Xbox, and 2) to get the jump on Sony.
The cost of that strategy has been record-setting poor quality, and they have had to compensate with a $1 billion 3-year limited warranty replacement/refurbishment system to stay in the game.
So far from their current market share of about 30\% (if one includes the Wii) or 60\% (if one only includes the PS3), they are still very much in the game, but I wonder about the long-term effect on customer loyalty.
Maybe I am completely wrong here in questioning this aspect of their business, and we should look as this whole RRoD (and E74) experience with reverence?
Re: technology and costs 

As the videogame medium contains a very significant technical element, it is probably prudent to consider where performance is heading for the next generation.
Realism as style in this medium has been very influential affecting everything from real-time ambient lighting, physics-based animation, precise collision detection, industrial design in modelling, and detailed, organic entity design.
All of this detail can make for a more involving experience, and I believe it is essential for maturing the medium.
The market for games has grown significantly, and so it makes a lot of sense that the industrial systems that produce films (with all those producers, directors, writers, actors, designers, and expert consultants) will also move into the creation of videogames, which of course carries with it significantly increased costs.
The console as a device for creating these virtual experiences should provide as much capability as possible, as efficiently as possible.
Currently the hardware designs most suited to processing the vast amounts of data required for constructing these virtual worlds involve many cores coordinating access to a very fat bus.
Sony has overwhelmingly demonstrated that they understand these relationships, and appear to be set to launch a low-cost version of the PS3 sometime this year that will probably give them parity in the marketplace with their competitors.
I expect backwards compatibility to be more important for the next generation, especially considering the increased investment in software and services.
I'd be surprised if any current player can again afford to start from scratch.
As others have mentioned, Microsoft is likely to launch first probably in 2011, with Sony not too far behind.
I believe Nintendo sees themselves as more of a toy company, and so occupy a different part of the market, but will still probably follow the 5-year-cycle.
Re: Motion control
 
Sony is obviously positioning themselves to both relate to the market that Nintendo created, and to offer a new experience to their customer base.
Microsoft is attempting to break new ground by creating something entirely different, but I am not so sure that their technology gives them an advantage that Sony cannot largely replicate with some clever software, their motion and PSEye peripherals.
Re: OnLine
 
OnLive is interesting as the Cloud Computing/Timeshare model for gaming, but of course it depends on some pretty wide, low-latency pipes (which most of us can expect at some point in the future).
It could offer a unique MMO experience where thousands of users could be in one shared virtual environment, but it is unclear whether this will be a compelling experience any time in the near future.
OnLive's suitability for any serious gaming of course comes down to the latency and image quality issues, and I question whether this is a viable business in the near-term.
But of course, I have not seen the demos, and I am not an investor, but I doubt any of the other console players are seriously concerned as of yet.
When this model becomes viable, what prevents the other players from doing the same?
Or will they have some arrangement with OnLive's service?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28341757</id>
	<title>Re:games vs spectacles</title>
	<author>Locke2005</author>
	<datestamp>1245066120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>The cat will enjoy a ball of tinfoil more than the eighty dollar robo-mouse.</i> <br> <br>Ever have those times when the kid enjoys playing with the box the expensive toy came in more than playing with the expensive toy itself?</htmltext>
<tokenext>The cat will enjoy a ball of tinfoil more than the eighty dollar robo-mouse .
Ever have those times when the kid enjoys playing with the box the expensive toy came in more than playing with the expensive toy itself ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The cat will enjoy a ball of tinfoil more than the eighty dollar robo-mouse.
Ever have those times when the kid enjoys playing with the box the expensive toy came in more than playing with the expensive toy itself?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28339255</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28345237</id>
	<title>Re:I doubt it</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245185160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Microsoft usually gets things right by the third version (Windows, Excel, IE, etc.)</p></div><p>Yeah, that IE3 was a killer.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Microsoft usually gets things right by the third version ( Windows , Excel , IE , etc .
) Yeah , that IE3 was a killer .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Microsoft usually gets things right by the third version (Windows, Excel, IE, etc.
)Yeah, that IE3 was a killer.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28339535</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28362075</id>
	<title>Re:Where are the games I want?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245256440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Go take a look at Muramasa: the Demon Blade, due out for the Wii this September.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Go take a look at Muramasa : the Demon Blade , due out for the Wii this September .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Go take a look at Muramasa: the Demon Blade, due out for the Wii this September.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28339817</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28339623</id>
	<title>Re:I'm not surprised</title>
	<author>CopaceticOpus</author>
	<datestamp>1245099360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's not much of a criticism of the PS3. Are you upset that it plays BD discs? Do you think it can't do that and also have good games? It has been a little slow in getting a broad range of top-notch games, but it's getting there quickly.</p><p>One thing I'd love to see is for a console to open up their development process and create an App Store similar to the iPhone. There would be an explosion of freeware, indie games, and assorted applications.</p><p>For example, imagine a Slashdot viewer optimized for TV usage. I can currently read<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. on the PS3's web browser, but trying to navigate through it is a pain. If someone made a nice viewer with big text, easy navigation, ability to mark stories as read, etc., I'd pay $2.99 for that.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's not much of a criticism of the PS3 .
Are you upset that it plays BD discs ?
Do you think it ca n't do that and also have good games ?
It has been a little slow in getting a broad range of top-notch games , but it 's getting there quickly.One thing I 'd love to see is for a console to open up their development process and create an App Store similar to the iPhone .
There would be an explosion of freeware , indie games , and assorted applications.For example , imagine a Slashdot viewer optimized for TV usage .
I can currently read / .
on the PS3 's web browser , but trying to navigate through it is a pain .
If someone made a nice viewer with big text , easy navigation , ability to mark stories as read , etc. , I 'd pay $ 2.99 for that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's not much of a criticism of the PS3.
Are you upset that it plays BD discs?
Do you think it can't do that and also have good games?
It has been a little slow in getting a broad range of top-notch games, but it's getting there quickly.One thing I'd love to see is for a console to open up their development process and create an App Store similar to the iPhone.
There would be an explosion of freeware, indie games, and assorted applications.For example, imagine a Slashdot viewer optimized for TV usage.
I can currently read /.
on the PS3's web browser, but trying to navigate through it is a pain.
If someone made a nice viewer with big text, easy navigation, ability to mark stories as read, etc., I'd pay $2.99 for that.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28338825</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28339963</id>
	<title>Re:I'm not surprised</title>
	<author>wgoodman</author>
	<datestamp>1245057420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Component (Red/Green/Blue/Red/White) cables will do HD just fine (although very few sets will support 1080p via component)  I think you were looking for composite as the crummy SD cable type. (yellow/red/white)<br> <br>I still like coax as a cable far more than HDMI/DVI.  Before you say it doesn't have the bandwidth to send full digital HD signals, how do you think you get all those HD channels into your DVR?  RG6 has plenty of bandwidth, and is far more durable.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Component ( Red/Green/Blue/Red/White ) cables will do HD just fine ( although very few sets will support 1080p via component ) I think you were looking for composite as the crummy SD cable type .
( yellow/red/white ) I still like coax as a cable far more than HDMI/DVI .
Before you say it does n't have the bandwidth to send full digital HD signals , how do you think you get all those HD channels into your DVR ?
RG6 has plenty of bandwidth , and is far more durable .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Component (Red/Green/Blue/Red/White) cables will do HD just fine (although very few sets will support 1080p via component)  I think you were looking for composite as the crummy SD cable type.
(yellow/red/white) I still like coax as a cable far more than HDMI/DVI.
Before you say it doesn't have the bandwidth to send full digital HD signals, how do you think you get all those HD channels into your DVR?
RG6 has plenty of bandwidth, and is far more durable.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28339431</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28341051</id>
	<title>Re:I'm not surprised</title>
	<author>tepples</author>
	<datestamp>1245061980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>[Microsoft's nickel-and-diming tactics] have pretty much guaranteed my return to PC gaming once they release their next system and stop supporting the 360.</p></div><p>
So what will you play when you have friends over? Because most PCs are connected to a monitor far smaller than a living-room TV, PC games are far less likely to be in a shared-view genre (e.g. Bomberman or Super Smash Bros.) or to support split-screen play than console games. So apart from Serious Sam, Lego $MOVIE, and EA Sports, you usually need a separate PC and a separate copy of the game for each player. That can get more expensive than Wii60 real quick.
</p><p>
Besides, aren't most PC games designed for a Microsoft operating system anyway?
</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>[ Microsoft 's nickel-and-diming tactics ] have pretty much guaranteed my return to PC gaming once they release their next system and stop supporting the 360 .
So what will you play when you have friends over ?
Because most PCs are connected to a monitor far smaller than a living-room TV , PC games are far less likely to be in a shared-view genre ( e.g .
Bomberman or Super Smash Bros. ) or to support split-screen play than console games .
So apart from Serious Sam , Lego $ MOVIE , and EA Sports , you usually need a separate PC and a separate copy of the game for each player .
That can get more expensive than Wii60 real quick .
Besides , are n't most PC games designed for a Microsoft operating system anyway ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>[Microsoft's nickel-and-diming tactics] have pretty much guaranteed my return to PC gaming once they release their next system and stop supporting the 360.
So what will you play when you have friends over?
Because most PCs are connected to a monitor far smaller than a living-room TV, PC games are far less likely to be in a shared-view genre (e.g.
Bomberman or Super Smash Bros.) or to support split-screen play than console games.
So apart from Serious Sam, Lego $MOVIE, and EA Sports, you usually need a separate PC and a separate copy of the game for each player.
That can get more expensive than Wii60 real quick.
Besides, aren't most PC games designed for a Microsoft operating system anyway?

	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28339121</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28340299</id>
	<title>Re:I'm not surprised</title>
	<author>Chris Burke</author>
	<datestamp>1245058500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Very good post.</p><p><i>The Wii is probably somewhat more powerful than the original Xbox.</i></p><p>I'd say it's indisputably more powerful than the Xbox at roughly 2x a GC, but not nearly the leap in performance we're used to which combined with time means it "seems" to be barely more powerful than last gen.</p><p><i>And yes, I do think SNES graphics were better than PS1 graphics. Good 2D &gt; primitive 3D.</i></p><p>The PSX was basically the pinnacle of 2D game consoles.  Sure it was highly underutilized for that, but when called to the task it performed extremely well and was what the SNES had always wished to be.  See Castlevania:SotN for a shining example.</p><p><i>But the Wii's graphics are still more than capable, and the PS3/360 are, if anything, excessive.</i></p><p>The only thing excessive about the graphics on those consoles is the price attached.  Both of the system (and no crippled "base" 360 systems don't count) and more importantly the costs of the developers.  As long as they don't try to push the envelope of console graphics as much as they did this generation, the system price should be manageable.  On the development side, that'll either require better tools/methodologies to lower cost (easy for me to say) or simply not utilizing the full capabilities.  Which of course would kinda defeat the purpose of having them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Very good post.The Wii is probably somewhat more powerful than the original Xbox.I 'd say it 's indisputably more powerful than the Xbox at roughly 2x a GC , but not nearly the leap in performance we 're used to which combined with time means it " seems " to be barely more powerful than last gen.And yes , I do think SNES graphics were better than PS1 graphics .
Good 2D &gt; primitive 3D.The PSX was basically the pinnacle of 2D game consoles .
Sure it was highly underutilized for that , but when called to the task it performed extremely well and was what the SNES had always wished to be .
See Castlevania : SotN for a shining example.But the Wii 's graphics are still more than capable , and the PS3/360 are , if anything , excessive.The only thing excessive about the graphics on those consoles is the price attached .
Both of the system ( and no crippled " base " 360 systems do n't count ) and more importantly the costs of the developers .
As long as they do n't try to push the envelope of console graphics as much as they did this generation , the system price should be manageable .
On the development side , that 'll either require better tools/methodologies to lower cost ( easy for me to say ) or simply not utilizing the full capabilities .
Which of course would kinda defeat the purpose of having them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Very good post.The Wii is probably somewhat more powerful than the original Xbox.I'd say it's indisputably more powerful than the Xbox at roughly 2x a GC, but not nearly the leap in performance we're used to which combined with time means it "seems" to be barely more powerful than last gen.And yes, I do think SNES graphics were better than PS1 graphics.
Good 2D &gt; primitive 3D.The PSX was basically the pinnacle of 2D game consoles.
Sure it was highly underutilized for that, but when called to the task it performed extremely well and was what the SNES had always wished to be.
See Castlevania:SotN for a shining example.But the Wii's graphics are still more than capable, and the PS3/360 are, if anything, excessive.The only thing excessive about the graphics on those consoles is the price attached.
Both of the system (and no crippled "base" 360 systems don't count) and more importantly the costs of the developers.
As long as they don't try to push the envelope of console graphics as much as they did this generation, the system price should be manageable.
On the development side, that'll either require better tools/methodologies to lower cost (easy for me to say) or simply not utilizing the full capabilities.
Which of course would kinda defeat the purpose of having them.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28339431</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28347385</id>
	<title>Re:Nonsense</title>
	<author>uiuyhn8i8</author>
	<datestamp>1245166260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt;Why do entertainment providers think that huge budgets are going to impress us? Or is it, as I suppose, a matter of them looking to excuse their having to keep raising prices and using draconian copyright protection measures?</p><p>Sitting on your throne of 'good taste' most be lonely when the rest of the world is busy going to the huge budget films you don't seem to like.</p><p>US all time box office hits:</p><p>1.    Titanic (1997)    $600,779,824<br>2.    The Dark Knight (2008)    $533,316,061<br>3.    Star Wars (1977)    $460,935,665<br>4.    Shrek 2 (2004)    $436,471,036<br>5.    E.T.: The Extra-Terrestrial (1982)    $434,949,459<br>6.    Star Wars: Episode I - The Phantom Menace (1999)    $431,065,444<br>7.    Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest (2006)    $423,032,628<br>8.    Spider-Man (2002)    $403,706,375<br>9.    Star Wars: Episode III - Revenge of the Sith (2005)    $380,262,555<br>10.    The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King (2003)</p><p>Only big budget movies in the top 100 and absolutely no 'indie' films. You were saying?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; Why do entertainment providers think that huge budgets are going to impress us ?
Or is it , as I suppose , a matter of them looking to excuse their having to keep raising prices and using draconian copyright protection measures ? Sitting on your throne of 'good taste ' most be lonely when the rest of the world is busy going to the huge budget films you do n't seem to like.US all time box office hits : 1 .
Titanic ( 1997 ) $ 600,779,8242 .
The Dark Knight ( 2008 ) $ 533,316,0613 .
Star Wars ( 1977 ) $ 460,935,6654 .
Shrek 2 ( 2004 ) $ 436,471,0365 .
E.T. : The Extra-Terrestrial ( 1982 ) $ 434,949,4596 .
Star Wars : Episode I - The Phantom Menace ( 1999 ) $ 431,065,4447 .
Pirates of the Caribbean : Dead Man 's Chest ( 2006 ) $ 423,032,6288 .
Spider-Man ( 2002 ) $ 403,706,3759 .
Star Wars : Episode III - Revenge of the Sith ( 2005 ) $ 380,262,55510 .
The Lord of the Rings : The Return of the King ( 2003 ) Only big budget movies in the top 100 and absolutely no 'indie ' films .
You were saying ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt;Why do entertainment providers think that huge budgets are going to impress us?
Or is it, as I suppose, a matter of them looking to excuse their having to keep raising prices and using draconian copyright protection measures?Sitting on your throne of 'good taste' most be lonely when the rest of the world is busy going to the huge budget films you don't seem to like.US all time box office hits:1.
Titanic (1997)    $600,779,8242.
The Dark Knight (2008)    $533,316,0613.
Star Wars (1977)    $460,935,6654.
Shrek 2 (2004)    $436,471,0365.
E.T.: The Extra-Terrestrial (1982)    $434,949,4596.
Star Wars: Episode I - The Phantom Menace (1999)    $431,065,4447.
Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest (2006)    $423,032,6288.
Spider-Man (2002)    $403,706,3759.
Star Wars: Episode III - Revenge of the Sith (2005)    $380,262,55510.
The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King (2003)Only big budget movies in the top 100 and absolutely no 'indie' films.
You were saying?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28340439</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28339577</id>
	<title>Re:Public demand for the best machine possible?</title>
	<author>eulernet</author>
	<datestamp>1245099120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In fact, games are expensive when they are licensed, probably 95\% of the cost of a game comes from the license.</p><p>I have been a game developer for a long time, and it was known that 50\% of the budget of a game was used for marketing.</p><p>Ubisoft is also well known for messing games, because they want to build the cheapest possible games (see the pitiful experience of Splinter Cell with the Shangai team <a href="http://www.gamasutra.com/view/feature/2830/postmortem\_tom\_clancys\_splinter\_.php" title="gamasutra.com">http://www.gamasutra.com/view/feature/2830/postmortem\_tom\_clancys\_splinter\_.php</a> [gamasutra.com] ).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In fact , games are expensive when they are licensed , probably 95 \ % of the cost of a game comes from the license.I have been a game developer for a long time , and it was known that 50 \ % of the budget of a game was used for marketing.Ubisoft is also well known for messing games , because they want to build the cheapest possible games ( see the pitiful experience of Splinter Cell with the Shangai team http : //www.gamasutra.com/view/feature/2830/postmortem \ _tom \ _clancys \ _splinter \ _.php [ gamasutra.com ] ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In fact, games are expensive when they are licensed, probably 95\% of the cost of a game comes from the license.I have been a game developer for a long time, and it was known that 50\% of the budget of a game was used for marketing.Ubisoft is also well known for messing games, because they want to build the cheapest possible games (see the pitiful experience of Splinter Cell with the Shangai team http://www.gamasutra.com/view/feature/2830/postmortem\_tom\_clancys\_splinter\_.php [gamasutra.com] ).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28339015</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28345313</id>
	<title>Who would buy Wii2?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245142980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The Wii is exciting because of the controller mechanic<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.. graphics are not a priority as has been debated and agreed.</p><p>If Nintendo released a Wii2, how many casual gamers who have a Wii would buy one? Not many I'd assume. Unless the controller mechanic radically changed again, most of these casual gamers would simply say that their Wii is good enough (remember, graphics are not a priority).....</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The Wii is exciting because of the controller mechanic .. graphics are not a priority as has been debated and agreed.If Nintendo released a Wii2 , how many casual gamers who have a Wii would buy one ?
Not many I 'd assume .
Unless the controller mechanic radically changed again , most of these casual gamers would simply say that their Wii is good enough ( remember , graphics are not a priority ) .... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Wii is exciting because of the controller mechanic .. graphics are not a priority as has been debated and agreed.If Nintendo released a Wii2, how many casual gamers who have a Wii would buy one?
Not many I'd assume.
Unless the controller mechanic radically changed again, most of these casual gamers would simply say that their Wii is good enough (remember, graphics are not a priority).....</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28339895</id>
	<title>Re:Well, 5 years has always been the standard</title>
	<author>Patch86</author>
	<datestamp>1245057180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I've never understood why console manufacturers don't try to make their consoles last longer. They're hugely expensive to make, hugely expensive for the consumer to buy, and have frequently made the manufacturer a net loss on sales.</p><p>Where the big money for the manufacturers has always been is game licensing, game retail, peripherals, upgrades and associated services. The making and selling of a new console generally seems to take a big chunk out of this core business model.</p><p>If a manufacturer would make a console that would last longer than the usual 5 year cycle, the manufacturer would probably benefit. And the consumer would be happy too, since no-one likes to pay GBP200-GBP500 for a new toy, if the old one would still work. The closest we've had to that in a long time, the PS2 (still seeing new releases nearly a decade after launch), has proved hugely popular (it's the best selling console of all time), so why not try to replicate it?</p><p>The Wii has proved good money can be made out of low-spec hardware, and the PS2 has proved an appetite for longevity. So why do the manufacturers keep torturing themselves?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've never understood why console manufacturers do n't try to make their consoles last longer .
They 're hugely expensive to make , hugely expensive for the consumer to buy , and have frequently made the manufacturer a net loss on sales.Where the big money for the manufacturers has always been is game licensing , game retail , peripherals , upgrades and associated services .
The making and selling of a new console generally seems to take a big chunk out of this core business model.If a manufacturer would make a console that would last longer than the usual 5 year cycle , the manufacturer would probably benefit .
And the consumer would be happy too , since no-one likes to pay GBP200-GBP500 for a new toy , if the old one would still work .
The closest we 've had to that in a long time , the PS2 ( still seeing new releases nearly a decade after launch ) , has proved hugely popular ( it 's the best selling console of all time ) , so why not try to replicate it ? The Wii has proved good money can be made out of low-spec hardware , and the PS2 has proved an appetite for longevity .
So why do the manufacturers keep torturing themselves ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've never understood why console manufacturers don't try to make their consoles last longer.
They're hugely expensive to make, hugely expensive for the consumer to buy, and have frequently made the manufacturer a net loss on sales.Where the big money for the manufacturers has always been is game licensing, game retail, peripherals, upgrades and associated services.
The making and selling of a new console generally seems to take a big chunk out of this core business model.If a manufacturer would make a console that would last longer than the usual 5 year cycle, the manufacturer would probably benefit.
And the consumer would be happy too, since no-one likes to pay GBP200-GBP500 for a new toy, if the old one would still work.
The closest we've had to that in a long time, the PS2 (still seeing new releases nearly a decade after launch), has proved hugely popular (it's the best selling console of all time), so why not try to replicate it?The Wii has proved good money can be made out of low-spec hardware, and the PS2 has proved an appetite for longevity.
So why do the manufacturers keep torturing themselves?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28338857</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28346391</id>
	<title>Re:games vs spectacles</title>
	<author>Clovis42</author>
	<datestamp>1245159480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Games don't take $60 Million to make. Spectacular extravaganzas with high-detail hero models, high-detail set designs, high-detail world designs, full-orchestral scores, full-cinematic cuts, companion toy merchandising, and highly-predictable-never-escapes-the-rails storylines. That's what takes $60 Million to make.</p></div></blockquote><p>
Errr... that all sounds like great stuff, except for the toys and predictable parts. I don't get the "Great graphics and productions = no gameplay" mantra. Sure, some games are all flash, but that isn't always true. Any game mechanic that works with simple graphics can be incorporated into something with good graphics. And a few shallow people like me actually enjoy seeing things go boom sometimes.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Games do n't take $ 60 Million to make .
Spectacular extravaganzas with high-detail hero models , high-detail set designs , high-detail world designs , full-orchestral scores , full-cinematic cuts , companion toy merchandising , and highly-predictable-never-escapes-the-rails storylines .
That 's what takes $ 60 Million to make .
Errr... that all sounds like great stuff , except for the toys and predictable parts .
I do n't get the " Great graphics and productions = no gameplay " mantra .
Sure , some games are all flash , but that is n't always true .
Any game mechanic that works with simple graphics can be incorporated into something with good graphics .
And a few shallow people like me actually enjoy seeing things go boom sometimes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Games don't take $60 Million to make.
Spectacular extravaganzas with high-detail hero models, high-detail set designs, high-detail world designs, full-orchestral scores, full-cinematic cuts, companion toy merchandising, and highly-predictable-never-escapes-the-rails storylines.
That's what takes $60 Million to make.
Errr... that all sounds like great stuff, except for the toys and predictable parts.
I don't get the "Great graphics and productions = no gameplay" mantra.
Sure, some games are all flash, but that isn't always true.
Any game mechanic that works with simple graphics can be incorporated into something with good graphics.
And a few shallow people like me actually enjoy seeing things go boom sometimes.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28339255</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28339255</id>
	<title>games vs spectacles</title>
	<author>Speare</author>
	<datestamp>1245097860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>
<p>Games don't take $60 Million to make.  Spectacular extravaganzas with high-detail hero models, high-detail set designs, high-detail world designs, full-orchestral scores, full-cinematic cuts, companion toy merchandising, and highly-predictable-never-escapes-the-rails storylines.  That's what takes $60 Million to make.</p><p>The cat will enjoy a ball of tinfoil more than the eighty dollar robo-mouse.  Give the player an enjoyable challenge, something they'll understand on the first play but want to play again and again.  Don't try to reinvent the concept of gameplay.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Games do n't take $ 60 Million to make .
Spectacular extravaganzas with high-detail hero models , high-detail set designs , high-detail world designs , full-orchestral scores , full-cinematic cuts , companion toy merchandising , and highly-predictable-never-escapes-the-rails storylines .
That 's what takes $ 60 Million to make.The cat will enjoy a ball of tinfoil more than the eighty dollar robo-mouse .
Give the player an enjoyable challenge , something they 'll understand on the first play but want to play again and again .
Do n't try to reinvent the concept of gameplay .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
Games don't take $60 Million to make.
Spectacular extravaganzas with high-detail hero models, high-detail set designs, high-detail world designs, full-orchestral scores, full-cinematic cuts, companion toy merchandising, and highly-predictable-never-escapes-the-rails storylines.
That's what takes $60 Million to make.The cat will enjoy a ball of tinfoil more than the eighty dollar robo-mouse.
Give the player an enjoyable challenge, something they'll understand on the first play but want to play again and again.
Don't try to reinvent the concept of gameplay.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28339077</id>
	<title>Re:I'm not surprised</title>
	<author>Ethanol-fueled</author>
	<datestamp>1245097320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>TFS:<p><nobr> <wbr></nobr></p><div class="quote"><p>...could spur Microsoft, Sony and Nintendo to <b>role</b> out new systems sooner than they want.</p></div><p>Blatant misspell aside, what that will mean for us is more red rings of death(and the Sony and Nintendo equivalents) from rushed design and testing as well as games which are basically glorified tech demos with no real plots or stories.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>TFS : ...could spur Microsoft , Sony and Nintendo to role out new systems sooner than they want.Blatant misspell aside , what that will mean for us is more red rings of death ( and the Sony and Nintendo equivalents ) from rushed design and testing as well as games which are basically glorified tech demos with no real plots or stories .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>TFS: ...could spur Microsoft, Sony and Nintendo to role out new systems sooner than they want.Blatant misspell aside, what that will mean for us is more red rings of death(and the Sony and Nintendo equivalents) from rushed design and testing as well as games which are basically glorified tech demos with no real plots or stories.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28338825</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28339345</id>
	<title>Re:You BET</title>
	<author>Ethanol-fueled</author>
	<datestamp>1245098160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>"I wonder if any of the group-identity type of blacks would be surprised or shocked to learn that most of the commercial trends belonging to "their people"...were actually the products of...white people..."</p></div><p>Yes, but it backfired on the white men: now white women are jumping on the "black is hip" bandwagon. Increasing numbers of white men are being cuckolded by 7-foot Mandingos. That'll teach whitey to play god with black culture.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>" I wonder if any of the group-identity type of blacks would be surprised or shocked to learn that most of the commercial trends belonging to " their people " ...were actually the products of...white people... " Yes , but it backfired on the white men : now white women are jumping on the " black is hip " bandwagon .
Increasing numbers of white men are being cuckolded by 7-foot Mandingos .
That 'll teach whitey to play god with black culture .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"I wonder if any of the group-identity type of blacks would be surprised or shocked to learn that most of the commercial trends belonging to "their people"...were actually the products of...white people..."Yes, but it backfired on the white men: now white women are jumping on the "black is hip" bandwagon.
Increasing numbers of white men are being cuckolded by 7-foot Mandingos.
That'll teach whitey to play god with black culture.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28338823</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28340099</id>
	<title>Re:Does he know what the Wii is?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245057960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>the most popular console is the weakest machine</i></p><p>Which has, historically, almost always been the case.  In reverse chronological order: PS2 over stronger Xbox and GC, PSX over stonger N64, SNES over weaker Genesis as a notable exception though it was actually pretty close instead of the usual landslide, NES over Master System, and finally the Atari 2600 vs everything else.  In the mobile dept:  DS over PSP, GBA over um whoever tried to compete with it, and the Gameboy over the GameGear and anyone else who tried to make a portable over the course of a decade.</p><p>Now you can argue that optical disks were an obvious advantage for the PSX (or more accurately cartridges were a weakness of the N64), but in terms of the processing horsepower and "zomg pretty pictures" that most people refer to when talking about 'strength', no contest.  In a way, though this is part of my point -- the winner isn't decided by who has the most FLOPS to throw up the most awesome pictures.  It's decided by other factors.  I don't even think cartridges were the primary reason N64 lost, there's also how Nintendo alienated (read: shit upon) 3rd party developers, and oh yeah the PSX having a year and a half head start to build up a library of games and gain name recognition and expand the market.  In a way, the PSX was the original "casual gamer" machine in the sense that it reached out to millions of people who hadn't been gamers before.  Today's complaints about how "mom &amp; pop" with their Wii are polluting the market mirror 1995's complaints that frat boys playing sports games on the PSX were polluting the market for us "hard-core" gamers.</p><p>So anyway, yeah.  In a generation where, as usual, the consoles' success is ranked in reverse order of shininess, saying "teh market demands teh shinies!" seems quite misguided.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>the most popular console is the weakest machineWhich has , historically , almost always been the case .
In reverse chronological order : PS2 over stronger Xbox and GC , PSX over stonger N64 , SNES over weaker Genesis as a notable exception though it was actually pretty close instead of the usual landslide , NES over Master System , and finally the Atari 2600 vs everything else .
In the mobile dept : DS over PSP , GBA over um whoever tried to compete with it , and the Gameboy over the GameGear and anyone else who tried to make a portable over the course of a decade.Now you can argue that optical disks were an obvious advantage for the PSX ( or more accurately cartridges were a weakness of the N64 ) , but in terms of the processing horsepower and " zomg pretty pictures " that most people refer to when talking about 'strength ' , no contest .
In a way , though this is part of my point -- the winner is n't decided by who has the most FLOPS to throw up the most awesome pictures .
It 's decided by other factors .
I do n't even think cartridges were the primary reason N64 lost , there 's also how Nintendo alienated ( read : shit upon ) 3rd party developers , and oh yeah the PSX having a year and a half head start to build up a library of games and gain name recognition and expand the market .
In a way , the PSX was the original " casual gamer " machine in the sense that it reached out to millions of people who had n't been gamers before .
Today 's complaints about how " mom &amp; pop " with their Wii are polluting the market mirror 1995 's complaints that frat boys playing sports games on the PSX were polluting the market for us " hard-core " gamers.So anyway , yeah .
In a generation where , as usual , the consoles ' success is ranked in reverse order of shininess , saying " teh market demands teh shinies !
" seems quite misguided .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>the most popular console is the weakest machineWhich has, historically, almost always been the case.
In reverse chronological order: PS2 over stronger Xbox and GC, PSX over stonger N64, SNES over weaker Genesis as a notable exception though it was actually pretty close instead of the usual landslide, NES over Master System, and finally the Atari 2600 vs everything else.
In the mobile dept:  DS over PSP, GBA over um whoever tried to compete with it, and the Gameboy over the GameGear and anyone else who tried to make a portable over the course of a decade.Now you can argue that optical disks were an obvious advantage for the PSX (or more accurately cartridges were a weakness of the N64), but in terms of the processing horsepower and "zomg pretty pictures" that most people refer to when talking about 'strength', no contest.
In a way, though this is part of my point -- the winner isn't decided by who has the most FLOPS to throw up the most awesome pictures.
It's decided by other factors.
I don't even think cartridges were the primary reason N64 lost, there's also how Nintendo alienated (read: shit upon) 3rd party developers, and oh yeah the PSX having a year and a half head start to build up a library of games and gain name recognition and expand the market.
In a way, the PSX was the original "casual gamer" machine in the sense that it reached out to millions of people who hadn't been gamers before.
Today's complaints about how "mom &amp; pop" with their Wii are polluting the market mirror 1995's complaints that frat boys playing sports games on the PSX were polluting the market for us "hard-core" gamers.So anyway, yeah.
In a generation where, as usual, the consoles' success is ranked in reverse order of shininess, saying "teh market demands teh shinies!
" seems quite misguided.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28339317</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28340859</id>
	<title>Re:I'm not surprised</title>
	<author>liquidsin</author>
	<datestamp>1245061020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Next time I see a 4:3 screen stretched to 16:9, or a store's BD-Player hooked up to an HDTV by SD component cables, I think I will cry.</p></div></blockquote><p>my roommate has his 32" letterbox lcd setup to stretch 4:3 stuff to the full screen. after about twelve seconds watching it, i pointed out to him that his screen was distorted and that it was easy to fix.  his response?  "i like it that way, it fills the screen".  i no longer watch tv with my roommate.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Next time I see a 4 : 3 screen stretched to 16 : 9 , or a store 's BD-Player hooked up to an HDTV by SD component cables , I think I will cry.my roommate has his 32 " letterbox lcd setup to stretch 4 : 3 stuff to the full screen .
after about twelve seconds watching it , i pointed out to him that his screen was distorted and that it was easy to fix .
his response ?
" i like it that way , it fills the screen " .
i no longer watch tv with my roommate .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Next time I see a 4:3 screen stretched to 16:9, or a store's BD-Player hooked up to an HDTV by SD component cables, I think I will cry.my roommate has his 32" letterbox lcd setup to stretch 4:3 stuff to the full screen.
after about twelve seconds watching it, i pointed out to him that his screen was distorted and that it was easy to fix.
his response?
"i like it that way, it fills the screen".
i no longer watch tv with my roommate.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28339431</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28339585</id>
	<title>Re:Well, 5 years has always been the standard</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245099180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You are a moron. Everyone who thinks Prince of Persia started in 2003 is.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You are a moron .
Everyone who thinks Prince of Persia started in 2003 is .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You are a moron.
Everyone who thinks Prince of Persia started in 2003 is.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28339097</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28339859</id>
	<title>Re:I'm not surprised</title>
	<author>RendonWI</author>
	<datestamp>1245057060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I personally am planning to get a PS2 in 2010 or so.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I personally am planning to get a PS2 in 2010 or so .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I personally am planning to get a PS2 in 2010 or so.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28338825</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28344273</id>
	<title>Re:Where are the games I want?</title>
	<author>mgblst</author>
	<datestamp>1245086580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Seriously, what could they do? Put more sprites on the screen?? Pretty sure there has been no limit on that for a long time. Huge sprites, once again, no problem?</p><p>So what could they really do?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Seriously , what could they do ?
Put more sprites on the screen ? ?
Pretty sure there has been no limit on that for a long time .
Huge sprites , once again , no problem ? So what could they really do ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Seriously, what could they do?
Put more sprites on the screen??
Pretty sure there has been no limit on that for a long time.
Huge sprites, once again, no problem?So what could they really do?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28339817</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28339991</id>
	<title>PS/2 Lifespan</title>
	<author>Burning1</author>
	<datestamp>1245057600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As someone who just recently purchased a PS/2, I'd go so far as to say that it has yet to give up the ghost. While a lot of development effort is being put into the PS/3, it's hard to call the PS2 dead when new games are still being released.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As someone who just recently purchased a PS/2 , I 'd go so far as to say that it has yet to give up the ghost .
While a lot of development effort is being put into the PS/3 , it 's hard to call the PS2 dead when new games are still being released .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As someone who just recently purchased a PS/2, I'd go so far as to say that it has yet to give up the ghost.
While a lot of development effort is being put into the PS/3, it's hard to call the PS2 dead when new games are still being released.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28338857</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28341037</id>
	<title>Re:I'm not surprised</title>
	<author>V50</author>
	<datestamp>1245061920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The PSX was basically the pinnacle of 2D game consoles.  Sure it was highly underutilized for that, but when called to the task it performed extremely well and was what the SNES had always wished to be.  See Castlevania:SotN for a shining example.</p></div><p>For some reason, I've always been under the belief that the PS1's 2D performance sucked, horribly, possibly worse than the SNES. I don't know where I got that idea from though, and the only 2D PS1 game I played was Toomba. Been meaning to try SotN for a while though. Downloaded it through PSN on my PS3, but haven't touched it yet.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:(</p><p>Either way, in retrospect, I wish the PS1/N64 generation had focused more on 2D, but I very much remember everyone going gaga over anything with the 3D! moniker attatched to it, even if it wasn't really 3D (Sonic 3D Blast).</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The PSX was basically the pinnacle of 2D game consoles .
Sure it was highly underutilized for that , but when called to the task it performed extremely well and was what the SNES had always wished to be .
See Castlevania : SotN for a shining example.For some reason , I 've always been under the belief that the PS1 's 2D performance sucked , horribly , possibly worse than the SNES .
I do n't know where I got that idea from though , and the only 2D PS1 game I played was Toomba .
Been meaning to try SotN for a while though .
Downloaded it through PSN on my PS3 , but have n't touched it yet .
: ( Either way , in retrospect , I wish the PS1/N64 generation had focused more on 2D , but I very much remember everyone going gaga over anything with the 3D !
moniker attatched to it , even if it was n't really 3D ( Sonic 3D Blast ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The PSX was basically the pinnacle of 2D game consoles.
Sure it was highly underutilized for that, but when called to the task it performed extremely well and was what the SNES had always wished to be.
See Castlevania:SotN for a shining example.For some reason, I've always been under the belief that the PS1's 2D performance sucked, horribly, possibly worse than the SNES.
I don't know where I got that idea from though, and the only 2D PS1 game I played was Toomba.
Been meaning to try SotN for a while though.
Downloaded it through PSN on my PS3, but haven't touched it yet.
:(Either way, in retrospect, I wish the PS1/N64 generation had focused more on 2D, but I very much remember everyone going gaga over anything with the 3D!
moniker attatched to it, even if it wasn't really 3D (Sonic 3D Blast).
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28340299</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28339535</id>
	<title>Re:I doubt it</title>
	<author>MikeBabcock</author>
	<datestamp>1245099000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sony committed to 10 years on the PS2 just like they did for the PS1 in terms of continuing support.  The PS2 is still a viable gaming platform at only $100 and during E3 they suggested they'd continue support past the 10 year mark if publishers were still wanting to use it as a platform.  They'll most likely continue support for the PS3 long after the PS4 comes out as well.</p><p>Microsoft's inability to make their hardware cheaper and long-lasting meant they had to blow away the xbox when the 360 was ready as they lost money on every unit sold right to the end.  I'm not convinced they won't do something similar with the third version.  If there's any hope, its that Microsoft usually gets things right by the third version (Windows, Excel, IE, etc.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sony committed to 10 years on the PS2 just like they did for the PS1 in terms of continuing support .
The PS2 is still a viable gaming platform at only $ 100 and during E3 they suggested they 'd continue support past the 10 year mark if publishers were still wanting to use it as a platform .
They 'll most likely continue support for the PS3 long after the PS4 comes out as well.Microsoft 's inability to make their hardware cheaper and long-lasting meant they had to blow away the xbox when the 360 was ready as they lost money on every unit sold right to the end .
I 'm not convinced they wo n't do something similar with the third version .
If there 's any hope , its that Microsoft usually gets things right by the third version ( Windows , Excel , IE , etc .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sony committed to 10 years on the PS2 just like they did for the PS1 in terms of continuing support.
The PS2 is still a viable gaming platform at only $100 and during E3 they suggested they'd continue support past the 10 year mark if publishers were still wanting to use it as a platform.
They'll most likely continue support for the PS3 long after the PS4 comes out as well.Microsoft's inability to make their hardware cheaper and long-lasting meant they had to blow away the xbox when the 360 was ready as they lost money on every unit sold right to the end.
I'm not convinced they won't do something similar with the third version.
If there's any hope, its that Microsoft usually gets things right by the third version (Windows, Excel, IE, etc.
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28339089</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28339945</id>
	<title>Re:I'm not surprised</title>
	<author>interkin3tic</author>
	<datestamp>1245057360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Wii: Poor graphics, and lots of shovel ware -- this is the best console of this generation.</p></div><p>Poor graphics is relative, especially when you take price into account.  What I don't understand though is how "lots of shovelware" is anything but neutral.  There's too much shovelware on ALL the consoles (and equivalents for TV, movies, music...), and it shouldn't get in the way of buying the good stuff.</p><p>The 360 is reliable: you can rely on it breaking down.</p><p>I kid, I kid.  I'm only on my third.</p><p>What though gives you any indication that next gen is going to be any better?  For me it's all about a balance of price vs performance.  If next gen has incrementally better graphics, and slightly better stability, but is 100-200 dollars -more- than the current generation, then delay it forever.  The devil I know and have already paid for is better than the devil I don't know that is more expensive.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Wii : Poor graphics , and lots of shovel ware -- this is the best console of this generation.Poor graphics is relative , especially when you take price into account .
What I do n't understand though is how " lots of shovelware " is anything but neutral .
There 's too much shovelware on ALL the consoles ( and equivalents for TV , movies , music... ) , and it should n't get in the way of buying the good stuff.The 360 is reliable : you can rely on it breaking down.I kid , I kid .
I 'm only on my third.What though gives you any indication that next gen is going to be any better ?
For me it 's all about a balance of price vs performance .
If next gen has incrementally better graphics , and slightly better stability , but is 100-200 dollars -more- than the current generation , then delay it forever .
The devil I know and have already paid for is better than the devil I do n't know that is more expensive .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wii: Poor graphics, and lots of shovel ware -- this is the best console of this generation.Poor graphics is relative, especially when you take price into account.
What I don't understand though is how "lots of shovelware" is anything but neutral.
There's too much shovelware on ALL the consoles (and equivalents for TV, movies, music...), and it shouldn't get in the way of buying the good stuff.The 360 is reliable: you can rely on it breaking down.I kid, I kid.
I'm only on my third.What though gives you any indication that next gen is going to be any better?
For me it's all about a balance of price vs performance.
If next gen has incrementally better graphics, and slightly better stability, but is 100-200 dollars -more- than the current generation, then delay it forever.
The devil I know and have already paid for is better than the devil I don't know that is more expensive.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28338825</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28339015</id>
	<title>Public demand for the best machine possible?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245097080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yeah, right. More like "Ubisoft wants more easy graphics-are-everything cash-ins and the current crop of consoles is losing its marketing effectiveness."</p><p>Some 50\% of the marketplace currently indicates that public demand is not, in fact, for "the best machine possible": people just want better games, and they don't care very much about the technology used to deliver them. The only ones demanding "the best machine possible" are technophiles more interested in the hardware than they are in the games, and Ubisoft is looking to throw them a couple of buzzwords as an easy way to spur sales.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , right .
More like " Ubisoft wants more easy graphics-are-everything cash-ins and the current crop of consoles is losing its marketing effectiveness .
" Some 50 \ % of the marketplace currently indicates that public demand is not , in fact , for " the best machine possible " : people just want better games , and they do n't care very much about the technology used to deliver them .
The only ones demanding " the best machine possible " are technophiles more interested in the hardware than they are in the games , and Ubisoft is looking to throw them a couple of buzzwords as an easy way to spur sales .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, right.
More like "Ubisoft wants more easy graphics-are-everything cash-ins and the current crop of consoles is losing its marketing effectiveness.
"Some 50\% of the marketplace currently indicates that public demand is not, in fact, for "the best machine possible": people just want better games, and they don't care very much about the technology used to deliver them.
The only ones demanding "the best machine possible" are technophiles more interested in the hardware than they are in the games, and Ubisoft is looking to throw them a couple of buzzwords as an easy way to spur sales.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28338937</id>
	<title>No excuses &amp; start coding</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245096840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Are they really trying to shorten the console generation cycle down from what Playstation 1 had?</p><p>Are they still clueless about what is a good game and what is pointless graphics/realism crap?</p><p>New generations don't make games better.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Are they really trying to shorten the console generation cycle down from what Playstation 1 had ? Are they still clueless about what is a good game and what is pointless graphics/realism crap ? New generations do n't make games better .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Are they really trying to shorten the console generation cycle down from what Playstation 1 had?Are they still clueless about what is a good game and what is pointless graphics/realism crap?New generations don't make games better.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28338857</id>
	<title>Well, 5 years has always been the standard</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245096660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you go back all the way to the Atari 2600, you'll notice a consistent pattern of 5 year console "lifespans" (most recently, the Xbox and PS2 broke the pattern a little at 4 and 6 years respectively, but not by much).
</p><p>
Atari 2600 -1977<br>
Atari 5200 - 1982<br>
NES - 1986<br>
SNES - 1991<br>
N64 - 1996<br>
PS1 - 1995<br>
PS2 - 2000<br>
PS3 - 2006<br>
Xbox - 2001<br>
Xbox360 - 2005</p><p>Of course, no one wants to admit that they have a new console just around the corner until they're pretty damn close to having it ready (within a year or so), lest it kill current-gen sales. But there is NO WAY it's going to be 2015 before we see a new Xbox 720 or PS4 (as some are trying to claim). Even with the economic downturn, there is no way we're no going to start seeing see ten year gaps between generations, when it's been 5 year gaps for the last three decades.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you go back all the way to the Atari 2600 , you 'll notice a consistent pattern of 5 year console " lifespans " ( most recently , the Xbox and PS2 broke the pattern a little at 4 and 6 years respectively , but not by much ) .
Atari 2600 -1977 Atari 5200 - 1982 NES - 1986 SNES - 1991 N64 - 1996 PS1 - 1995 PS2 - 2000 PS3 - 2006 Xbox - 2001 Xbox360 - 2005Of course , no one wants to admit that they have a new console just around the corner until they 're pretty damn close to having it ready ( within a year or so ) , lest it kill current-gen sales .
But there is NO WAY it 's going to be 2015 before we see a new Xbox 720 or PS4 ( as some are trying to claim ) .
Even with the economic downturn , there is no way we 're no going to start seeing see ten year gaps between generations , when it 's been 5 year gaps for the last three decades .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you go back all the way to the Atari 2600, you'll notice a consistent pattern of 5 year console "lifespans" (most recently, the Xbox and PS2 broke the pattern a little at 4 and 6 years respectively, but not by much).
Atari 2600 -1977
Atari 5200 - 1982
NES - 1986
SNES - 1991
N64 - 1996
PS1 - 1995
PS2 - 2000
PS3 - 2006
Xbox - 2001
Xbox360 - 2005Of course, no one wants to admit that they have a new console just around the corner until they're pretty damn close to having it ready (within a year or so), lest it kill current-gen sales.
But there is NO WAY it's going to be 2015 before we see a new Xbox 720 or PS4 (as some are trying to claim).
Even with the economic downturn, there is no way we're no going to start seeing see ten year gaps between generations, when it's been 5 year gaps for the last three decades.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28339049</id>
	<title>Re:Well, 5 years has always been the standard</title>
	<author>csartanis</author>
	<datestamp>1245097200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Gamecube - 2001</p><p>Or were you leaving it out on purpose?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Gamecube - 2001Or were you leaving it out on purpose ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Gamecube - 2001Or were you leaving it out on purpose?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28338857</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28340253</id>
	<title>Re:Well, 5 years has always been the standard</title>
	<author>denton420</author>
	<datestamp>1245058380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I agree with most everything you are saying.</p><p>To add on to what you have said, lets not forget that timing is of critical importance in terms of early adoption and getting the brand recognition constructed for your system. If anyone of the big three gave a solid date on when their console was going to be released you can be damn sure that the other two are going to be talking to their people seeing if they can beat them out the door with their next gen system. They are probably having these discussions already with multiple estimated release dates.</p><p>Looking at the development cycle of popular franchises (GT, FF, MGS) it seems to me like the cycles become longer with rising complexity in the games. I think the same will hold true for console cycles. 5 years is the norm, but it would not surprise me to see 6 years this time around. No longer than six though. Part of the charm of the gaming industry is all the buzz about the next big console. Without that things start to get stale.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I agree with most everything you are saying.To add on to what you have said , lets not forget that timing is of critical importance in terms of early adoption and getting the brand recognition constructed for your system .
If anyone of the big three gave a solid date on when their console was going to be released you can be damn sure that the other two are going to be talking to their people seeing if they can beat them out the door with their next gen system .
They are probably having these discussions already with multiple estimated release dates.Looking at the development cycle of popular franchises ( GT , FF , MGS ) it seems to me like the cycles become longer with rising complexity in the games .
I think the same will hold true for console cycles .
5 years is the norm , but it would not surprise me to see 6 years this time around .
No longer than six though .
Part of the charm of the gaming industry is all the buzz about the next big console .
Without that things start to get stale .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I agree with most everything you are saying.To add on to what you have said, lets not forget that timing is of critical importance in terms of early adoption and getting the brand recognition constructed for your system.
If anyone of the big three gave a solid date on when their console was going to be released you can be damn sure that the other two are going to be talking to their people seeing if they can beat them out the door with their next gen system.
They are probably having these discussions already with multiple estimated release dates.Looking at the development cycle of popular franchises (GT, FF, MGS) it seems to me like the cycles become longer with rising complexity in the games.
I think the same will hold true for console cycles.
5 years is the norm, but it would not surprise me to see 6 years this time around.
No longer than six though.
Part of the charm of the gaming industry is all the buzz about the next big console.
Without that things start to get stale.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28338857</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28339121</id>
	<title>Re:I'm not surprised</title>
	<author>Killer Orca</author>
	<datestamp>1245097440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yeah they all have their flaws, honestly I got sick of how Microsoft has nickel and dimed me this generation: pay to play online, $60 wireless headsets, 20 GB HDDs for $100!, full game downloads with no discount, a disc check on games that you install every time, I would be happier if it was random, etc. They have pretty much guaranteed my return to PC gaming once they release their next system and stop supporting the 360.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah they all have their flaws , honestly I got sick of how Microsoft has nickel and dimed me this generation : pay to play online , $ 60 wireless headsets , 20 GB HDDs for $ 100 ! , full game downloads with no discount , a disc check on games that you install every time , I would be happier if it was random , etc .
They have pretty much guaranteed my return to PC gaming once they release their next system and stop supporting the 360 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah they all have their flaws, honestly I got sick of how Microsoft has nickel and dimed me this generation: pay to play online, $60 wireless headsets, 20 GB HDDs for $100!, full game downloads with no discount, a disc check on games that you install every time, I would be happier if it was random, etc.
They have pretty much guaranteed my return to PC gaming once they release their next system and stop supporting the 360.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28338825</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28338843</id>
	<title>Typo in headline</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245096660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Would not be the first such thing on Slashdot.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Would not be the first such thing on Slashdot .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Would not be the first such thing on Slashdot.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28340705</id>
	<title>Re:I'm not surprised</title>
	<author>BikeHelmet</author>
	<datestamp>1245060180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Who cares when the new consoles come.</p><p>Best selling non-handheld console of 2005/2006? PS2.</p><p>I predict the PS3 will be a great selling console until at least 2010, even if they could push something better out the door today.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Who cares when the new consoles come.Best selling non-handheld console of 2005/2006 ?
PS2.I predict the PS3 will be a great selling console until at least 2010 , even if they could push something better out the door today .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Who cares when the new consoles come.Best selling non-handheld console of 2005/2006?
PS2.I predict the PS3 will be a great selling console until at least 2010, even if they could push something better out the door today.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28339431</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28339465</id>
	<title>Re:Incremental "New" Machines</title>
	<author>The Moof</author>
	<datestamp>1245098700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Sony needs to fix/standardize their online gaming network in a bad way.  I shouldn't have to poke holes through the firewall on a per-game basis to play online with my PS3 if the standard PSN ports are already open.  Plus, I had to create a full Konami account on top of my PSN account to play MGS Online, which seemed redundant to me.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Sony needs to fix/standardize their online gaming network in a bad way .
I should n't have to poke holes through the firewall on a per-game basis to play online with my PS3 if the standard PSN ports are already open .
Plus , I had to create a full Konami account on top of my PSN account to play MGS Online , which seemed redundant to me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sony needs to fix/standardize their online gaming network in a bad way.
I shouldn't have to poke holes through the firewall on a per-game basis to play online with my PS3 if the standard PSN ports are already open.
Plus, I had to create a full Konami account on top of my PSN account to play MGS Online, which seemed redundant to me.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28339163</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28340021</id>
	<title>Re:I'm not surprised</title>
	<author>Fozzyuw</author>
	<datestamp>1245057660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I agree with much you said.  However, I would like to inject my opinion that graphics, while very capable on the Wii or PS2 (God of War was awesome) do have a big role play in some games.  Take Dead Rising for example.  The Wii version was just god awful terrible and I attribute most of it to graphics.  The biggest reason... immersion.  The mall I ran around in on my buddies 360 did not feel as real as the one I ran around in on my Wii.  I couldn't see the covers of books and magazines in the shops and I just felt like the whole thing was flat.</p><p>With that said, I do think the Wii has plenty of graphical power to make good games, but I find too many devs. jumping on the "motion sensing" band wagon and making motion sensing controls when none are needed.  Don't make me 'waggle' the controller to attack.  Just let me smash a button.</p><p>Though, the 360/PS3 are far more than just "graphical machines".  Their ability to do impressive FPS while having far far more enemies on screen at the same time is a big boost to the potential games one can make.  Again, Dead Rising is an example of this.  That's the other side of just making things look photo-realistic.  Cramming a lot of things on the screen at once and animating them. =)</p><p>\_</p><p>And why is the HTML formatting all messed up?  There's no magin's between paragraph elements anymore.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I agree with much you said .
However , I would like to inject my opinion that graphics , while very capable on the Wii or PS2 ( God of War was awesome ) do have a big role play in some games .
Take Dead Rising for example .
The Wii version was just god awful terrible and I attribute most of it to graphics .
The biggest reason... immersion. The mall I ran around in on my buddies 360 did not feel as real as the one I ran around in on my Wii .
I could n't see the covers of books and magazines in the shops and I just felt like the whole thing was flat.With that said , I do think the Wii has plenty of graphical power to make good games , but I find too many devs .
jumping on the " motion sensing " band wagon and making motion sensing controls when none are needed .
Do n't make me 'waggle ' the controller to attack .
Just let me smash a button.Though , the 360/PS3 are far more than just " graphical machines " .
Their ability to do impressive FPS while having far far more enemies on screen at the same time is a big boost to the potential games one can make .
Again , Dead Rising is an example of this .
That 's the other side of just making things look photo-realistic .
Cramming a lot of things on the screen at once and animating them .
= ) \ _And why is the HTML formatting all messed up ?
There 's no magin 's between paragraph elements anymore .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I agree with much you said.
However, I would like to inject my opinion that graphics, while very capable on the Wii or PS2 (God of War was awesome) do have a big role play in some games.
Take Dead Rising for example.
The Wii version was just god awful terrible and I attribute most of it to graphics.
The biggest reason... immersion.  The mall I ran around in on my buddies 360 did not feel as real as the one I ran around in on my Wii.
I couldn't see the covers of books and magazines in the shops and I just felt like the whole thing was flat.With that said, I do think the Wii has plenty of graphical power to make good games, but I find too many devs.
jumping on the "motion sensing" band wagon and making motion sensing controls when none are needed.
Don't make me 'waggle' the controller to attack.
Just let me smash a button.Though, the 360/PS3 are far more than just "graphical machines".
Their ability to do impressive FPS while having far far more enemies on screen at the same time is a big boost to the potential games one can make.
Again, Dead Rising is an example of this.
That's the other side of just making things look photo-realistic.
Cramming a lot of things on the screen at once and animating them.
=)\_And why is the HTML formatting all messed up?
There's no magin's between paragraph elements anymore.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28339431</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28341971</id>
	<title>Next gen control systems</title>
	<author>gilesjuk</author>
	<datestamp>1245067380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The Wii was the only true next gen system due to its control system. All that Sony and Microsoft are interested in right now is playing catch up.</p><p>It was pretty obvious that for realism you can't drive a car with buttons and analog sticks. It's amazing how much emphasis is put on graphics and so little has been put on the human interaction aspect of gaming.</p><p>The controllers in use on the XBox 360 and PS3 are barely more sophisticated than those on first generation games consoles.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The Wii was the only true next gen system due to its control system .
All that Sony and Microsoft are interested in right now is playing catch up.It was pretty obvious that for realism you ca n't drive a car with buttons and analog sticks .
It 's amazing how much emphasis is put on graphics and so little has been put on the human interaction aspect of gaming.The controllers in use on the XBox 360 and PS3 are barely more sophisticated than those on first generation games consoles .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Wii was the only true next gen system due to its control system.
All that Sony and Microsoft are interested in right now is playing catch up.It was pretty obvious that for realism you can't drive a car with buttons and analog sticks.
It's amazing how much emphasis is put on graphics and so little has been put on the human interaction aspect of gaming.The controllers in use on the XBox 360 and PS3 are barely more sophisticated than those on first generation games consoles.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28339451</id>
	<title>Better to spec-bump the next generation</title>
	<author>hattig</author>
	<datestamp>1245098640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think that both Sony and Microsoft would be insane not to build upon their current platforms with their next generations. Skipping to a new architecture (x86 + Larrabee has been suggested for Sony) would likely cost a lot to implement, and I think that both companies want to break even fairly close to launch this time.</p><p>Sony's best path, in 2011, is to launch a PowerXCell32 based PS4. This is basically a Cell with 2 PPUs and 32 enhanced SPUs (although I think they could do a 4 PPU version). Couple that to a GT300 series GPU and you've got a 1080p monster.</p><p>I also don't think that Sony can single-chip the PS3 unlike the PS2, because of the NVIDIA GPU. This might make it less economical to cost-reduce like the PS2 later in life.</p><p>Microsoft can just have an octo-core CPU running at higher clocks and whatever ATI can come up with in 2011 - R900 at 3TFLOPS?</p><p>Regardless, we'll only start hearing about the next generation when the current generation has had another price drop so people don't put off their purchase. I expect to start hearing concrete details in early 2010.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think that both Sony and Microsoft would be insane not to build upon their current platforms with their next generations .
Skipping to a new architecture ( x86 + Larrabee has been suggested for Sony ) would likely cost a lot to implement , and I think that both companies want to break even fairly close to launch this time.Sony 's best path , in 2011 , is to launch a PowerXCell32 based PS4 .
This is basically a Cell with 2 PPUs and 32 enhanced SPUs ( although I think they could do a 4 PPU version ) .
Couple that to a GT300 series GPU and you 've got a 1080p monster.I also do n't think that Sony can single-chip the PS3 unlike the PS2 , because of the NVIDIA GPU .
This might make it less economical to cost-reduce like the PS2 later in life.Microsoft can just have an octo-core CPU running at higher clocks and whatever ATI can come up with in 2011 - R900 at 3TFLOPS ? Regardless , we 'll only start hearing about the next generation when the current generation has had another price drop so people do n't put off their purchase .
I expect to start hearing concrete details in early 2010 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think that both Sony and Microsoft would be insane not to build upon their current platforms with their next generations.
Skipping to a new architecture (x86 + Larrabee has been suggested for Sony) would likely cost a lot to implement, and I think that both companies want to break even fairly close to launch this time.Sony's best path, in 2011, is to launch a PowerXCell32 based PS4.
This is basically a Cell with 2 PPUs and 32 enhanced SPUs (although I think they could do a 4 PPU version).
Couple that to a GT300 series GPU and you've got a 1080p monster.I also don't think that Sony can single-chip the PS3 unlike the PS2, because of the NVIDIA GPU.
This might make it less economical to cost-reduce like the PS2 later in life.Microsoft can just have an octo-core CPU running at higher clocks and whatever ATI can come up with in 2011 - R900 at 3TFLOPS?Regardless, we'll only start hearing about the next generation when the current generation has had another price drop so people don't put off their purchase.
I expect to start hearing concrete details in early 2010.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28342309</id>
	<title>Re:Well, 5 years has always been the standard</title>
	<author>Samah</author>
	<datestamp>1245069600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><nobr> <wbr></nobr></p><div class="quote"><p>...while gaming has gone more mainstream it isn't like the movies, <b>developers</b> still complain about piracy on the PC when their games sell into the millions on console and PC (Call of Duty 4 dev's, I'm looking at you). Many games are totally viable if game <b>developers</b> would stop trying to be the movie industry, somewhere along the line companies started seeing themselves as movie-esque.</p></div><p>Please don't confuse "developer" with "publisher".  Although I'm sure the developers (designers/programmers/artists/etc.) don't want their work to be ripped off, I'm pretty sure that none of them (apart from money-hungry CEOs who think they can code) like the principle of DRM and other forms of anti-piracy methods, which only harm the customer.</p><p>Publishers such as Ubisoft and EA (who can both die in a fire kthx) are only interested in sales and don't care about the inconvenience to consumers.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>I think Prince of persia is one of the only games that doesn't try to take the whole movie thing to far and be a game first. The original Prince of persia: Sands of time was one of my favorite games, I thought Warrior within was ok but I didn't overall like the second and third games as much as the first.</p></div><p>I agree.  Although, I must say that I actually enjoyed Assassin's Creed and the new Prince of Persia.  I played them both on PC with a 360 controller, and I gotta say, they're two of the best ports I've seen in a long time.</p><p>Regarding my hatred for Ubisoft/EA:  Ubisoft/Kuju discontinued all support for Dark Messiah multiplayer and never released the SDK like they said they would.  The only real "patch" they had was to add some CTF maps.  They left in all the bugs and exploits and class imbalances.  EA made Origin rush Ultima 9 out the door early, which meant it was riddled with bugs (some of them plot-stopping).  They released a few patches that made things worse, then discontinued support.  The last patch that came out was a "rogue" patch from one of the developers.  EA promptly disbanded Origin.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>I mean think of mario the game as a concept, imagine you tried to sell it today: It's a game about a plumber that runs around stomping on turtle-beings called koopa's and these things called goomba's, and there's this dragon-turtle esque thing we call koopa who's invades the mushroom kingdom.</p></div><p>Throw in some tentacles and you could pass that off as Japanese porn.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>...while gaming has gone more mainstream it is n't like the movies , developers still complain about piracy on the PC when their games sell into the millions on console and PC ( Call of Duty 4 dev 's , I 'm looking at you ) .
Many games are totally viable if game developers would stop trying to be the movie industry , somewhere along the line companies started seeing themselves as movie-esque.Please do n't confuse " developer " with " publisher " .
Although I 'm sure the developers ( designers/programmers/artists/etc .
) do n't want their work to be ripped off , I 'm pretty sure that none of them ( apart from money-hungry CEOs who think they can code ) like the principle of DRM and other forms of anti-piracy methods , which only harm the customer.Publishers such as Ubisoft and EA ( who can both die in a fire kthx ) are only interested in sales and do n't care about the inconvenience to consumers.I think Prince of persia is one of the only games that does n't try to take the whole movie thing to far and be a game first .
The original Prince of persia : Sands of time was one of my favorite games , I thought Warrior within was ok but I did n't overall like the second and third games as much as the first.I agree .
Although , I must say that I actually enjoyed Assassin 's Creed and the new Prince of Persia .
I played them both on PC with a 360 controller , and I got ta say , they 're two of the best ports I 've seen in a long time.Regarding my hatred for Ubisoft/EA : Ubisoft/Kuju discontinued all support for Dark Messiah multiplayer and never released the SDK like they said they would .
The only real " patch " they had was to add some CTF maps .
They left in all the bugs and exploits and class imbalances .
EA made Origin rush Ultima 9 out the door early , which meant it was riddled with bugs ( some of them plot-stopping ) .
They released a few patches that made things worse , then discontinued support .
The last patch that came out was a " rogue " patch from one of the developers .
EA promptly disbanded Origin.I mean think of mario the game as a concept , imagine you tried to sell it today : It 's a game about a plumber that runs around stomping on turtle-beings called koopa 's and these things called goomba 's , and there 's this dragon-turtle esque thing we call koopa who 's invades the mushroom kingdom.Throw in some tentacles and you could pass that off as Japanese porn .
: )</tokentext>
<sentencetext> ...while gaming has gone more mainstream it isn't like the movies, developers still complain about piracy on the PC when their games sell into the millions on console and PC (Call of Duty 4 dev's, I'm looking at you).
Many games are totally viable if game developers would stop trying to be the movie industry, somewhere along the line companies started seeing themselves as movie-esque.Please don't confuse "developer" with "publisher".
Although I'm sure the developers (designers/programmers/artists/etc.
) don't want their work to be ripped off, I'm pretty sure that none of them (apart from money-hungry CEOs who think they can code) like the principle of DRM and other forms of anti-piracy methods, which only harm the customer.Publishers such as Ubisoft and EA (who can both die in a fire kthx) are only interested in sales and don't care about the inconvenience to consumers.I think Prince of persia is one of the only games that doesn't try to take the whole movie thing to far and be a game first.
The original Prince of persia: Sands of time was one of my favorite games, I thought Warrior within was ok but I didn't overall like the second and third games as much as the first.I agree.
Although, I must say that I actually enjoyed Assassin's Creed and the new Prince of Persia.
I played them both on PC with a 360 controller, and I gotta say, they're two of the best ports I've seen in a long time.Regarding my hatred for Ubisoft/EA:  Ubisoft/Kuju discontinued all support for Dark Messiah multiplayer and never released the SDK like they said they would.
The only real "patch" they had was to add some CTF maps.
They left in all the bugs and exploits and class imbalances.
EA made Origin rush Ultima 9 out the door early, which meant it was riddled with bugs (some of them plot-stopping).
They released a few patches that made things worse, then discontinued support.
The last patch that came out was a "rogue" patch from one of the developers.
EA promptly disbanded Origin.I mean think of mario the game as a concept, imagine you tried to sell it today: It's a game about a plumber that runs around stomping on turtle-beings called koopa's and these things called goomba's, and there's this dragon-turtle esque thing we call koopa who's invades the mushroom kingdom.Throw in some tentacles and you could pass that off as Japanese porn.
:)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28339097</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28348623</id>
	<title>Doubt it will be DLC only</title>
	<author>squizzi</author>
	<datestamp>1245172020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I cant see DLC-only being limited to being your console only.  These companies know that even though there has been less emphasis on playing together with friends in the home (as opposed to over the internet) in recent years, its still a major reason to own a console and a major part of the video game experience.  So, the companies like Microsoft could easily follow the steam approach, where a user could login to there friends console through Xbox Live, download the games and DLC that they have and still enjoy the gaming experience with there friends, only to be booted off if he signed in somewhere else.

Still though, its a long way away.  A majority of the market still doesn't participate in Live or even PSN, and the requirements for DLC content, bandwidth, etc, to be reliable and worth the money to push for, aren't in most homes yet, and don't meet the budgets of most console gamers.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I cant see DLC-only being limited to being your console only .
These companies know that even though there has been less emphasis on playing together with friends in the home ( as opposed to over the internet ) in recent years , its still a major reason to own a console and a major part of the video game experience .
So , the companies like Microsoft could easily follow the steam approach , where a user could login to there friends console through Xbox Live , download the games and DLC that they have and still enjoy the gaming experience with there friends , only to be booted off if he signed in somewhere else .
Still though , its a long way away .
A majority of the market still does n't participate in Live or even PSN , and the requirements for DLC content , bandwidth , etc , to be reliable and worth the money to push for , are n't in most homes yet , and do n't meet the budgets of most console gamers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I cant see DLC-only being limited to being your console only.
These companies know that even though there has been less emphasis on playing together with friends in the home (as opposed to over the internet) in recent years, its still a major reason to own a console and a major part of the video game experience.
So, the companies like Microsoft could easily follow the steam approach, where a user could login to there friends console through Xbox Live, download the games and DLC that they have and still enjoy the gaming experience with there friends, only to be booted off if he signed in somewhere else.
Still though, its a long way away.
A majority of the market still doesn't participate in Live or even PSN, and the requirements for DLC content, bandwidth, etc, to be reliable and worth the money to push for, aren't in most homes yet, and don't meet the budgets of most console gamers.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28339355</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28340195</id>
	<title>Re:I'm not surprised</title>
	<author>jollyreaper</author>
	<datestamp>1245058260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Yeah they all have their flaws, honestly I got sick of how Microsoft has nickel and dimed me this generation: pay to play online, $60 wireless headsets, 20 GB HDDs for $100!, full game downloads with no discount, a disc check on games that you install every time, I would be happier if it was random, etc. They have pretty much guaranteed my return to PC gaming once they release their next system and stop supporting the 360.</p></div><p>Agreed. Console ships without a game, one controller. So when you buy an Xbox it's:<br>$350 for the box (depending on when you bought it)<br>$75 for wireless ethernet card that wasn't built-in<br>$60 for additional controller<br>$30 for the recharager battery pack designed to work with the controllers but doesn't leaving you stuck with conventional batteries<br>$x for cabling if you need hdmi or whatever.</p><p>Wireless headphones are required in a household larger than one but I won't label that as equipment that should have come with the unit. Would be another $120 or something? Not required if you're pc-gaming at your desk but if the PC is a media center unit, you'd be spending the money anyway.</p><p>And as you mentioned, the default 20gb HD is small and you want to buy a bigger one for all the DLC and shit but wait, it has to be MS-branded, you can't save your stuff onto a conventional usb drive. And you'll have to buy a flash-based card to serve as backup to your HDD because you know the HDD could crash at any time. Don't want to lose a hundred hours worth of gaming to a dead disk.</p><p>And the worst part of all this is you know the peripherals will all change with the next system that comes out. Consoles were supposed to be for budget gaming and pc's for people with deep pockets. Console gaming remains extremely expensive.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah they all have their flaws , honestly I got sick of how Microsoft has nickel and dimed me this generation : pay to play online , $ 60 wireless headsets , 20 GB HDDs for $ 100 ! , full game downloads with no discount , a disc check on games that you install every time , I would be happier if it was random , etc .
They have pretty much guaranteed my return to PC gaming once they release their next system and stop supporting the 360.Agreed .
Console ships without a game , one controller .
So when you buy an Xbox it 's : $ 350 for the box ( depending on when you bought it ) $ 75 for wireless ethernet card that was n't built-in $ 60 for additional controller $ 30 for the recharager battery pack designed to work with the controllers but does n't leaving you stuck with conventional batteries $ x for cabling if you need hdmi or whatever.Wireless headphones are required in a household larger than one but I wo n't label that as equipment that should have come with the unit .
Would be another $ 120 or something ?
Not required if you 're pc-gaming at your desk but if the PC is a media center unit , you 'd be spending the money anyway.And as you mentioned , the default 20gb HD is small and you want to buy a bigger one for all the DLC and shit but wait , it has to be MS-branded , you ca n't save your stuff onto a conventional usb drive .
And you 'll have to buy a flash-based card to serve as backup to your HDD because you know the HDD could crash at any time .
Do n't want to lose a hundred hours worth of gaming to a dead disk.And the worst part of all this is you know the peripherals will all change with the next system that comes out .
Consoles were supposed to be for budget gaming and pc 's for people with deep pockets .
Console gaming remains extremely expensive .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah they all have their flaws, honestly I got sick of how Microsoft has nickel and dimed me this generation: pay to play online, $60 wireless headsets, 20 GB HDDs for $100!, full game downloads with no discount, a disc check on games that you install every time, I would be happier if it was random, etc.
They have pretty much guaranteed my return to PC gaming once they release their next system and stop supporting the 360.Agreed.
Console ships without a game, one controller.
So when you buy an Xbox it's:$350 for the box (depending on when you bought it)$75 for wireless ethernet card that wasn't built-in$60 for additional controller$30 for the recharager battery pack designed to work with the controllers but doesn't leaving you stuck with conventional batteries$x for cabling if you need hdmi or whatever.Wireless headphones are required in a household larger than one but I won't label that as equipment that should have come with the unit.
Would be another $120 or something?
Not required if you're pc-gaming at your desk but if the PC is a media center unit, you'd be spending the money anyway.And as you mentioned, the default 20gb HD is small and you want to buy a bigger one for all the DLC and shit but wait, it has to be MS-branded, you can't save your stuff onto a conventional usb drive.
And you'll have to buy a flash-based card to serve as backup to your HDD because you know the HDD could crash at any time.
Don't want to lose a hundred hours worth of gaming to a dead disk.And the worst part of all this is you know the peripherals will all change with the next system that comes out.
Consoles were supposed to be for budget gaming and pc's for people with deep pockets.
Console gaming remains extremely expensive.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28339121</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28338877</id>
	<title>llaagg</title>
	<author>tepples</author>
	<datestamp>1245096720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>From the article:<blockquote><div><p>The idea behind OnLive is the company's servers will run the game, and send a videostream through your home's Internet connection. Your controller and button mashes are sent via the Internet to OnLive's servers. The experience, though, is seemless -- as if you were playing a copy on a machine at home.</p></div></blockquote><p>
That might work for a slow game like an RPG, but good luck getting a twitch game like <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jwC544Z37qo#t=3m00s" title="youtube.com">Tetris</a> [youtube.com] to feel lag-free through a home Internet connection, even in urban areas of developed countries.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>From the article : The idea behind OnLive is the company 's servers will run the game , and send a videostream through your home 's Internet connection .
Your controller and button mashes are sent via the Internet to OnLive 's servers .
The experience , though , is seemless -- as if you were playing a copy on a machine at home .
That might work for a slow game like an RPG , but good luck getting a twitch game like Tetris [ youtube.com ] to feel lag-free through a home Internet connection , even in urban areas of developed countries .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From the article:The idea behind OnLive is the company's servers will run the game, and send a videostream through your home's Internet connection.
Your controller and button mashes are sent via the Internet to OnLive's servers.
The experience, though, is seemless -- as if you were playing a copy on a machine at home.
That might work for a slow game like an RPG, but good luck getting a twitch game like Tetris [youtube.com] to feel lag-free through a home Internet connection, even in urban areas of developed countries.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28352143</id>
	<title>Re:</title>
	<author>clint999</author>
	<datestamp>1245184200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><strong>Am I the only one that is completely confused?</strong></htmltext>
<tokenext>Am I the only one that is completely confused ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Am I the only one that is completely confused?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28339471</id>
	<title>Re:I'm not surprised</title>
	<author>MikeBabcock</author>
	<datestamp>1245098760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ironically your list is very accurate except for the BS about the PS3.  90+\% of the games that play on the 360 also are available on the PS3 as they're multi-platform and a <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PS3\_exclusives" title="wikipedia.org">good selection of excellent exclusives</a> [wikipedia.org] are also available only for the PS3.</p><p>The hardware is reliable, the system is quiet, the blu-ray player is very functional, the up-scaling for DVDs is very high quality and the gaming is excellent and free to play online.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ironically your list is very accurate except for the BS about the PS3 .
90 + \ % of the games that play on the 360 also are available on the PS3 as they 're multi-platform and a good selection of excellent exclusives [ wikipedia.org ] are also available only for the PS3.The hardware is reliable , the system is quiet , the blu-ray player is very functional , the up-scaling for DVDs is very high quality and the gaming is excellent and free to play online .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ironically your list is very accurate except for the BS about the PS3.
90+\% of the games that play on the 360 also are available on the PS3 as they're multi-platform and a good selection of excellent exclusives [wikipedia.org] are also available only for the PS3.The hardware is reliable, the system is quiet, the blu-ray player is very functional, the up-scaling for DVDs is very high quality and the gaming is excellent and free to play online.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28338825</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28340319</id>
	<title>Re:Where are the games I want?</title>
	<author>Gizzmonic</author>
	<datestamp>1245058560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Look out for New Super Mario Bros!  It's 4 player!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Look out for New Super Mario Bros !
It 's 4 player !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Look out for New Super Mario Bros!
It's 4 player!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28339817</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28343605</id>
	<title>Re:I'm interested in...</title>
	<author>mjwx</author>
	<datestamp>1245080100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>An updated Wii makes sense, a new PS3, no way. The PS3 has all the hardware I need -- just make some games already.</p></div></blockquote><p>

Actually you have that backwards.<br> <br>

Nintendo is making money hand over fist, they have no need to update the Wii as they have cornered the extremely lucrative casual market. Sony on the other hand is still yet to make a profit on the Playstation 3 and are trying to tout the Playstation 2 as its casual console by bringing out various new accessories for it. Sony and Microsoft are playing catch-up to Nintendo as the casual market is where console makers have traditionally made their money, Microsoft and Sony's recent departure from this is something of an oddity. <a href="http://nexgenwars.com/" title="nexgenwars.com">The Wii selling more then the PS3 and Xbox 360 combined</a> [nexgenwars.com] is evidence of this<br> <br>

So to recap, a hardware refresh of the Wii is unlikely due to the fact that its still selling by the truckload but Sony will be trying to replace the PS2 and PS3 with a new Playstation geared towards casual gamers. Remember as a non-casual gamer you are now the minority in the console world.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>An updated Wii makes sense , a new PS3 , no way .
The PS3 has all the hardware I need -- just make some games already .
Actually you have that backwards .
Nintendo is making money hand over fist , they have no need to update the Wii as they have cornered the extremely lucrative casual market .
Sony on the other hand is still yet to make a profit on the Playstation 3 and are trying to tout the Playstation 2 as its casual console by bringing out various new accessories for it .
Sony and Microsoft are playing catch-up to Nintendo as the casual market is where console makers have traditionally made their money , Microsoft and Sony 's recent departure from this is something of an oddity .
The Wii selling more then the PS3 and Xbox 360 combined [ nexgenwars.com ] is evidence of this So to recap , a hardware refresh of the Wii is unlikely due to the fact that its still selling by the truckload but Sony will be trying to replace the PS2 and PS3 with a new Playstation geared towards casual gamers .
Remember as a non-casual gamer you are now the minority in the console world .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>An updated Wii makes sense, a new PS3, no way.
The PS3 has all the hardware I need -- just make some games already.
Actually you have that backwards.
Nintendo is making money hand over fist, they have no need to update the Wii as they have cornered the extremely lucrative casual market.
Sony on the other hand is still yet to make a profit on the Playstation 3 and are trying to tout the Playstation 2 as its casual console by bringing out various new accessories for it.
Sony and Microsoft are playing catch-up to Nintendo as the casual market is where console makers have traditionally made their money, Microsoft and Sony's recent departure from this is something of an oddity.
The Wii selling more then the PS3 and Xbox 360 combined [nexgenwars.com] is evidence of this 

So to recap, a hardware refresh of the Wii is unlikely due to the fact that its still selling by the truckload but Sony will be trying to replace the PS2 and PS3 with a new Playstation geared towards casual gamers.
Remember as a non-casual gamer you are now the minority in the console world.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28339149</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28339499</id>
	<title>The obsession with graphics</title>
	<author>Flipao</author>
	<datestamp>1245098880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Is driven by hardware manufacturers, not consumers: The most popular game in the world today look dated on its release almost 5 years ago.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Is driven by hardware manufacturers , not consumers : The most popular game in the world today look dated on its release almost 5 years ago .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is driven by hardware manufacturers, not consumers: The most popular game in the world today look dated on its release almost 5 years ago.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28339973</id>
	<title>Re:I'm not surprised</title>
	<author>Razalhague</author>
	<datestamp>1245057480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>There's a very real reason why Wii needed to be a new console. Just look at any gimmick controller and see how well they've done. The problem is that if the controller is not included in the bare-basics version of the console, at best it will be supported as an alternative control method but most of the time it will be entirely unsupported. Very few games will be designed specifically for it. With the Wii, everyone's guaranteed to have a wiimote, and the games are designed accordingly.</htmltext>
<tokenext>There 's a very real reason why Wii needed to be a new console .
Just look at any gimmick controller and see how well they 've done .
The problem is that if the controller is not included in the bare-basics version of the console , at best it will be supported as an alternative control method but most of the time it will be entirely unsupported .
Very few games will be designed specifically for it .
With the Wii , everyone 's guaranteed to have a wiimote , and the games are designed accordingly .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There's a very real reason why Wii needed to be a new console.
Just look at any gimmick controller and see how well they've done.
The problem is that if the controller is not included in the bare-basics version of the console, at best it will be supported as an alternative control method but most of the time it will be entirely unsupported.
Very few games will be designed specifically for it.
With the Wii, everyone's guaranteed to have a wiimote, and the games are designed accordingly.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28339655</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28339495</id>
	<title>Re:Well, 5 years has always been the standard</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245098820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Don't forget the CD and the mega-drive, etc.</p><p>Major add-ons to the Sega platform hurt them as much as it helped I think.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Do n't forget the CD and the mega-drive , etc.Major add-ons to the Sega platform hurt them as much as it helped I think .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Don't forget the CD and the mega-drive, etc.Major add-ons to the Sega platform hurt them as much as it helped I think.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28339219</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28343183</id>
	<title>Re:Wha about diminishing returns</title>
	<author>bonch</author>
	<datestamp>1245076380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I agree that demand for greater hardware has plateaued, but I think you have a skewed memory if you believe the 16-bit consoles were miles ahead of the 8-bit machines.  The 16-bit games were a lot like 8-bit games but with more colors and sample-based sound.  You also completely neglect to mention the big jump to 3D that was made in the mid-90s, led by Super Mario 64, Tomb Raider, Final Fantasy VII, and so on.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I agree that demand for greater hardware has plateaued , but I think you have a skewed memory if you believe the 16-bit consoles were miles ahead of the 8-bit machines .
The 16-bit games were a lot like 8-bit games but with more colors and sample-based sound .
You also completely neglect to mention the big jump to 3D that was made in the mid-90s , led by Super Mario 64 , Tomb Raider , Final Fantasy VII , and so on .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I agree that demand for greater hardware has plateaued, but I think you have a skewed memory if you believe the 16-bit consoles were miles ahead of the 8-bit machines.
The 16-bit games were a lot like 8-bit games but with more colors and sample-based sound.
You also completely neglect to mention the big jump to 3D that was made in the mid-90s, led by Super Mario 64, Tomb Raider, Final Fantasy VII, and so on.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28339433</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28344391</id>
	<title>Re:If they released a new generation this year...</title>
	<author>MemoryDragon</author>
	<datestamp>1245088140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>PC gaming already is cheaper, you can get a totally new gaming capable rig for 500$, if you count that in most cases you just have to upgrade the graphic card for 99$, and that games are 20-30\% cheaper on average, the case for consoles is just that you can play in the living room. But this case is closing also since if you have a hdmi enabled TV you just need a dvi to hdmi connector!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>PC gaming already is cheaper , you can get a totally new gaming capable rig for 500 $ , if you count that in most cases you just have to upgrade the graphic card for 99 $ , and that games are 20-30 \ % cheaper on average , the case for consoles is just that you can play in the living room .
But this case is closing also since if you have a hdmi enabled TV you just need a dvi to hdmi connector !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>PC gaming already is cheaper, you can get a totally new gaming capable rig for 500$, if you count that in most cases you just have to upgrade the graphic card for 99$, and that games are 20-30\% cheaper on average, the case for consoles is just that you can play in the living room.
But this case is closing also since if you have a hdmi enabled TV you just need a dvi to hdmi connector!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28340419</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28339163</id>
	<title>Incremental "New" Machines</title>
	<author>smackenzie</author>
	<datestamp>1245097560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Actually, what we are most likely going to see is incremental -- but significant! -- updates to the existing consoles.  Updates that are large enough to be considered a "new release" but small enough not to be totally new architectures.  We know, for example:<br>
<br>
- Microsoft is planning an all-out marketing campaign + release schedule around Natal.  It's not quite a new console roll-out, but Microsoft is treating it as such.  Fully backwards compatible.<br>
<br>
- Nintendo needs to get on the HD bandwagon, but doesn't necessarily need to push the envelope for HD gaming.  Expect something that meets 720p criteria and is approximately [some smaller integer greater than 1 but less than 5]x as powerful as the Wii.  Fully backwards compatible.<br>
<br>
- Sony: not entirely clear.  Open to suggestions. They have a PS3 slim in the works.  No, not a new console.  They released the PSP Go, dropping UMG support.  That's interesting.  The Cell is a pain-in-the-ass to develop for, but various shops are starting to get the hang of it.  Maybe we will see a PS3, Mach II with 2 Cells, slim body and, of course, the now-mandatory motion tracking controllers.<br>
<br>
The fact that future games are going to cost somewhere in the $60M ballpark is precisely why we will NOT see brand new architectures any time soon.  No one, except maybe 1st party entities, is going to give up all of the applied dev resources to hop to an untested platform.<br>
<br>
If you want to commence an interesting dialogue, I propose something like "What, exactly, constitutes a NEW console?"</htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually , what we are most likely going to see is incremental -- but significant !
-- updates to the existing consoles .
Updates that are large enough to be considered a " new release " but small enough not to be totally new architectures .
We know , for example : - Microsoft is planning an all-out marketing campaign + release schedule around Natal .
It 's not quite a new console roll-out , but Microsoft is treating it as such .
Fully backwards compatible .
- Nintendo needs to get on the HD bandwagon , but does n't necessarily need to push the envelope for HD gaming .
Expect something that meets 720p criteria and is approximately [ some smaller integer greater than 1 but less than 5 ] x as powerful as the Wii .
Fully backwards compatible .
- Sony : not entirely clear .
Open to suggestions .
They have a PS3 slim in the works .
No , not a new console .
They released the PSP Go , dropping UMG support .
That 's interesting .
The Cell is a pain-in-the-ass to develop for , but various shops are starting to get the hang of it .
Maybe we will see a PS3 , Mach II with 2 Cells , slim body and , of course , the now-mandatory motion tracking controllers .
The fact that future games are going to cost somewhere in the $ 60M ballpark is precisely why we will NOT see brand new architectures any time soon .
No one , except maybe 1st party entities , is going to give up all of the applied dev resources to hop to an untested platform .
If you want to commence an interesting dialogue , I propose something like " What , exactly , constitutes a NEW console ?
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually, what we are most likely going to see is incremental -- but significant!
-- updates to the existing consoles.
Updates that are large enough to be considered a "new release" but small enough not to be totally new architectures.
We know, for example:

- Microsoft is planning an all-out marketing campaign + release schedule around Natal.
It's not quite a new console roll-out, but Microsoft is treating it as such.
Fully backwards compatible.
- Nintendo needs to get on the HD bandwagon, but doesn't necessarily need to push the envelope for HD gaming.
Expect something that meets 720p criteria and is approximately [some smaller integer greater than 1 but less than 5]x as powerful as the Wii.
Fully backwards compatible.
- Sony: not entirely clear.
Open to suggestions.
They have a PS3 slim in the works.
No, not a new console.
They released the PSP Go, dropping UMG support.
That's interesting.
The Cell is a pain-in-the-ass to develop for, but various shops are starting to get the hang of it.
Maybe we will see a PS3, Mach II with 2 Cells, slim body and, of course, the now-mandatory motion tracking controllers.
The fact that future games are going to cost somewhere in the $60M ballpark is precisely why we will NOT see brand new architectures any time soon.
No one, except maybe 1st party entities, is going to give up all of the applied dev resources to hop to an untested platform.
If you want to commence an interesting dialogue, I propose something like "What, exactly, constitutes a NEW console?
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28339997</id>
	<title>Re:I'm not surprised</title>
	<author>Talderas</author>
	<datestamp>1245057600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Personally, I think people are overrating the Natal. I don't think people understand the importance of tactile feedback. Right now the natal is riding the "Wow that is really cool" wave. Nothing I've read about the natal has talked about the tactile feedback issue.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Personally , I think people are overrating the Natal .
I do n't think people understand the importance of tactile feedback .
Right now the natal is riding the " Wow that is really cool " wave .
Nothing I 've read about the natal has talked about the tactile feedback issue .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Personally, I think people are overrating the Natal.
I don't think people understand the importance of tactile feedback.
Right now the natal is riding the "Wow that is really cool" wave.
Nothing I've read about the natal has talked about the tactile feedback issue.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28339431</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28348191</id>
	<title>Re:Horse Shit</title>
	<author>SoVi3t</author>
	<datestamp>1245170220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'd like to know why you think Natal or Eyetoy won't save their respective companies.  Given the fact that neither company has shown more than tech demo's, it's unfair to claim either will succeed or fail.  However, I've seen the Milo demo, and can see that being used outside of gaming.  You would walk into a walmart, and they'd have screens everywhere, with a virtual girl/boy who would see you, recognize you, comment on your clothing, and be able to point you to where you need to go in the store to find what you want, all without menus or touchscreens or anything.  Just ask Milo where the can openers are, and go where he tells you.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'd like to know why you think Natal or Eyetoy wo n't save their respective companies .
Given the fact that neither company has shown more than tech demo 's , it 's unfair to claim either will succeed or fail .
However , I 've seen the Milo demo , and can see that being used outside of gaming .
You would walk into a walmart , and they 'd have screens everywhere , with a virtual girl/boy who would see you , recognize you , comment on your clothing , and be able to point you to where you need to go in the store to find what you want , all without menus or touchscreens or anything .
Just ask Milo where the can openers are , and go where he tells you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'd like to know why you think Natal or Eyetoy won't save their respective companies.
Given the fact that neither company has shown more than tech demo's, it's unfair to claim either will succeed or fail.
However, I've seen the Milo demo, and can see that being used outside of gaming.
You would walk into a walmart, and they'd have screens everywhere, with a virtual girl/boy who would see you, recognize you, comment on your clothing, and be able to point you to where you need to go in the store to find what you want, all without menus or touchscreens or anything.
Just ask Milo where the can openers are, and go where he tells you.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28340327</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28341071</id>
	<title>Re:I'm not surprised</title>
	<author>tepples</author>
	<datestamp>1245062100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I have 3 HDTVs, so I'd sort of like an HD-capable Wii, preferably like a GBC (IE, Wii 1.5, not Wii 2).</p></div><p>Wii already is the Game Boy Color to the GameCube's Game Boy. What you want is the equivalent of a Game Boy Advance.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I have 3 HDTVs , so I 'd sort of like an HD-capable Wii , preferably like a GBC ( IE , Wii 1.5 , not Wii 2 ) .Wii already is the Game Boy Color to the GameCube 's Game Boy .
What you want is the equivalent of a Game Boy Advance .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have 3 HDTVs, so I'd sort of like an HD-capable Wii, preferably like a GBC (IE, Wii 1.5, not Wii 2).Wii already is the Game Boy Color to the GameCube's Game Boy.
What you want is the equivalent of a Game Boy Advance.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28339431</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28341535</id>
	<title>Re:I'm not surprised</title>
	<author>Toonol</author>
	<datestamp>1245064800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I just barely agree.  The shift to 3d from 2d can add to gameplay (and, can take away, as well).  If you do have a 3d world, a certain amount of processing power is really necessary to build a scene that isn't so crudely rendered that it really does subtract from the gameplay.<br> <br>

However, I think the PS2, heck, the Dreamcast, hit the threshold of 'good enough' in that regard.  I really don't believe that the additional power of the 360 and PS3 is being used to improve gameplay, to create larger worlds, to make better AI.  I think Mass Effect (which is a great game) could have easily been published on the PS2 with pretty much not a single instance of changed gameplay... just less detailed models, simpler textures, fewer animations, and so forth.  This is subjective, so tastes vary, but for me I could care less about the difference between standard and high def, or whether the control panel is a simple texture, or every button is an intricately and individually modeled.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I just barely agree .
The shift to 3d from 2d can add to gameplay ( and , can take away , as well ) .
If you do have a 3d world , a certain amount of processing power is really necessary to build a scene that is n't so crudely rendered that it really does subtract from the gameplay .
However , I think the PS2 , heck , the Dreamcast , hit the threshold of 'good enough ' in that regard .
I really do n't believe that the additional power of the 360 and PS3 is being used to improve gameplay , to create larger worlds , to make better AI .
I think Mass Effect ( which is a great game ) could have easily been published on the PS2 with pretty much not a single instance of changed gameplay... just less detailed models , simpler textures , fewer animations , and so forth .
This is subjective , so tastes vary , but for me I could care less about the difference between standard and high def , or whether the control panel is a simple texture , or every button is an intricately and individually modeled .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I just barely agree.
The shift to 3d from 2d can add to gameplay (and, can take away, as well).
If you do have a 3d world, a certain amount of processing power is really necessary to build a scene that isn't so crudely rendered that it really does subtract from the gameplay.
However, I think the PS2, heck, the Dreamcast, hit the threshold of 'good enough' in that regard.
I really don't believe that the additional power of the 360 and PS3 is being used to improve gameplay, to create larger worlds, to make better AI.
I think Mass Effect (which is a great game) could have easily been published on the PS2 with pretty much not a single instance of changed gameplay... just less detailed models, simpler textures, fewer animations, and so forth.
This is subjective, so tastes vary, but for me I could care less about the difference between standard and high def, or whether the control panel is a simple texture, or every button is an intricately and individually modeled.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28339745</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28341217</id>
	<title>Re:I'm not surprised</title>
	<author>Toonol</author>
	<datestamp>1245062940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The Wii saved this gen, in my opinion, and may save next gen.  Games for the PS3 and 360 are much like big, expensive summer blockbusters.  Huge budget, impressive, technically proficient, and with little creativity and absolutely no risk.  Games for the Wii are like direct-to-video movies.  Cheap, generally crappy, but often entertaining and innovative.<br> <br>

Developers should be HOPING that the next gen follows the Wii pattern instead of the PS3 pattern.  Except... maybe the big publishers view upping development costs as a way of eliminating their less-well-funded competition.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The Wii saved this gen , in my opinion , and may save next gen. Games for the PS3 and 360 are much like big , expensive summer blockbusters .
Huge budget , impressive , technically proficient , and with little creativity and absolutely no risk .
Games for the Wii are like direct-to-video movies .
Cheap , generally crappy , but often entertaining and innovative .
Developers should be HOPING that the next gen follows the Wii pattern instead of the PS3 pattern .
Except... maybe the big publishers view upping development costs as a way of eliminating their less-well-funded competition .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Wii saved this gen, in my opinion, and may save next gen.  Games for the PS3 and 360 are much like big, expensive summer blockbusters.
Huge budget, impressive, technically proficient, and with little creativity and absolutely no risk.
Games for the Wii are like direct-to-video movies.
Cheap, generally crappy, but often entertaining and innovative.
Developers should be HOPING that the next gen follows the Wii pattern instead of the PS3 pattern.
Except... maybe the big publishers view upping development costs as a way of eliminating their less-well-funded competition.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28338825</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28348057</id>
	<title>Re:Incremental "New" Machines</title>
	<author>SoVi3t</author>
	<datestamp>1245169620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I agree with you. At E3 this year, Sony and MS both unveiled new motion control technology (Sony with their motion controllers, and MS with Natal).  Both haven't even been released yet, and are still in development.  So it makes VERY little sense to tell me that I will buy Natal next holiday season, and then have to buy Next Box or Xbox Next or Xbox 720 or whatever a year later.

No doubt the recession made these companies realize that hardly ANYBODY could afford to go out and spend $500+ (considering what the PS3 cost at launch, even $1000 is likely for next gen consoles), plus the cost of games, for a new system, when the one they have works fine (unless you own a RROD 360).

I believe that both companies motion controllers may very likely have been for the next gen, but recession woes made them get relesed for this gen (however, I do wonder whether or not the next gen consoles will support them, so you wouldn't need to rebuy them, and thus save $$$ in the long run).

On a side note, I have been completely disappointed in this gen.  Sony hasn't released anything to warrant actually buying the system (unless you really want BluRay, and don't wanna buy just a player), Wii is following the classic Nintendo model of one or two decent software titles every couple of months (everything else is crap), and Microsoft may as well have a dude sitting on my front porch, who punches me in the junk and steals my wallet every so often, because all they do is charge stupid prices for EVERYTHING.  I bought a 360 as an MS fanboy, but got damn, have they ever pissed me off.

Pay to Play online is retarded (especially considering 90\% of the games I play involve quitting players galore), paying money for themes of games you likely own and spent $70 on is equally retarded, no internet browser (honestly, even though it sucks, how hard would it be to put IE on the 360?), Arcade titles are priced at insane prices, virtually no canadian support (at least in the US, you get Netflix...here we get like 50 movies, no tv shows, and no movie/tv related gamerpics/themes), I've had 4 360's die on me for various reasons, the list goes on and on.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I agree with you .
At E3 this year , Sony and MS both unveiled new motion control technology ( Sony with their motion controllers , and MS with Natal ) .
Both have n't even been released yet , and are still in development .
So it makes VERY little sense to tell me that I will buy Natal next holiday season , and then have to buy Next Box or Xbox Next or Xbox 720 or whatever a year later .
No doubt the recession made these companies realize that hardly ANYBODY could afford to go out and spend $ 500 + ( considering what the PS3 cost at launch , even $ 1000 is likely for next gen consoles ) , plus the cost of games , for a new system , when the one they have works fine ( unless you own a RROD 360 ) .
I believe that both companies motion controllers may very likely have been for the next gen , but recession woes made them get relesed for this gen ( however , I do wonder whether or not the next gen consoles will support them , so you would n't need to rebuy them , and thus save $ $ $ in the long run ) .
On a side note , I have been completely disappointed in this gen. Sony has n't released anything to warrant actually buying the system ( unless you really want BluRay , and do n't wan na buy just a player ) , Wii is following the classic Nintendo model of one or two decent software titles every couple of months ( everything else is crap ) , and Microsoft may as well have a dude sitting on my front porch , who punches me in the junk and steals my wallet every so often , because all they do is charge stupid prices for EVERYTHING .
I bought a 360 as an MS fanboy , but got damn , have they ever pissed me off .
Pay to Play online is retarded ( especially considering 90 \ % of the games I play involve quitting players galore ) , paying money for themes of games you likely own and spent $ 70 on is equally retarded , no internet browser ( honestly , even though it sucks , how hard would it be to put IE on the 360 ?
) , Arcade titles are priced at insane prices , virtually no canadian support ( at least in the US , you get Netflix...here we get like 50 movies , no tv shows , and no movie/tv related gamerpics/themes ) , I 've had 4 360 's die on me for various reasons , the list goes on and on .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I agree with you.
At E3 this year, Sony and MS both unveiled new motion control technology (Sony with their motion controllers, and MS with Natal).
Both haven't even been released yet, and are still in development.
So it makes VERY little sense to tell me that I will buy Natal next holiday season, and then have to buy Next Box or Xbox Next or Xbox 720 or whatever a year later.
No doubt the recession made these companies realize that hardly ANYBODY could afford to go out and spend $500+ (considering what the PS3 cost at launch, even $1000 is likely for next gen consoles), plus the cost of games, for a new system, when the one they have works fine (unless you own a RROD 360).
I believe that both companies motion controllers may very likely have been for the next gen, but recession woes made them get relesed for this gen (however, I do wonder whether or not the next gen consoles will support them, so you wouldn't need to rebuy them, and thus save $$$ in the long run).
On a side note, I have been completely disappointed in this gen.  Sony hasn't released anything to warrant actually buying the system (unless you really want BluRay, and don't wanna buy just a player), Wii is following the classic Nintendo model of one or two decent software titles every couple of months (everything else is crap), and Microsoft may as well have a dude sitting on my front porch, who punches me in the junk and steals my wallet every so often, because all they do is charge stupid prices for EVERYTHING.
I bought a 360 as an MS fanboy, but got damn, have they ever pissed me off.
Pay to Play online is retarded (especially considering 90\% of the games I play involve quitting players galore), paying money for themes of games you likely own and spent $70 on is equally retarded, no internet browser (honestly, even though it sucks, how hard would it be to put IE on the 360?
), Arcade titles are priced at insane prices, virtually no canadian support (at least in the US, you get Netflix...here we get like 50 movies, no tv shows, and no movie/tv related gamerpics/themes), I've had 4 360's die on me for various reasons, the list goes on and on.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28339163</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28339269</id>
	<title>Market not ready</title>
	<author>SuperKendall</author>
	<datestamp>1245097860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Right now would be an awful time to put forth the expense of a whole new console launch.  I think the smart players will wait for at least two more years...  even Nintendo, do they really need more power or do they just need more publishers to take full advantage of the Wii as we are just starting to see?</p><p>I think the new motion stuff announced by Sony/Microsoft is a stop-gap meant to offer something new but not have a new platform for some time.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Right now would be an awful time to put forth the expense of a whole new console launch .
I think the smart players will wait for at least two more years... even Nintendo , do they really need more power or do they just need more publishers to take full advantage of the Wii as we are just starting to see ? I think the new motion stuff announced by Sony/Microsoft is a stop-gap meant to offer something new but not have a new platform for some time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Right now would be an awful time to put forth the expense of a whole new console launch.
I think the smart players will wait for at least two more years...  even Nintendo, do they really need more power or do they just need more publishers to take full advantage of the Wii as we are just starting to see?I think the new motion stuff announced by Sony/Microsoft is a stop-gap meant to offer something new but not have a new platform for some time.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28340419</id>
	<title>If they released a new generation this year...</title>
	<author>relguj9</author>
	<datestamp>1245059160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Then it's officially cheaper to play PC games than console games.  It's almost the same price now anyways.  And considering 50\%+ of the best next gen games for 360 are just ported from PC (or ported to) that are inferior to their PC counterpart, what would be the point?<br> <br>

The only games I play right now on 360 are Halo 3 (occasionally) and Guitar Hero, everything else I would otherwise play has a better version that I just played on PC (Fallout 3, L4D, Call of Duty).  Oh wait, I played Braid, but I could probably run that game on a PSX (and it's available on Steam, I just wanted to use a big HDTV and it felt right to play it on a console).<br> <br>

No way a new gen is released anytime soon... I mean, there hasn't even been ONE final fantasy release on the next gen consoles... PS2 had 3.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Then it 's officially cheaper to play PC games than console games .
It 's almost the same price now anyways .
And considering 50 \ % + of the best next gen games for 360 are just ported from PC ( or ported to ) that are inferior to their PC counterpart , what would be the point ?
The only games I play right now on 360 are Halo 3 ( occasionally ) and Guitar Hero , everything else I would otherwise play has a better version that I just played on PC ( Fallout 3 , L4D , Call of Duty ) .
Oh wait , I played Braid , but I could probably run that game on a PSX ( and it 's available on Steam , I just wanted to use a big HDTV and it felt right to play it on a console ) .
No way a new gen is released anytime soon... I mean , there has n't even been ONE final fantasy release on the next gen consoles... PS2 had 3 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Then it's officially cheaper to play PC games than console games.
It's almost the same price now anyways.
And considering 50\%+ of the best next gen games for 360 are just ported from PC (or ported to) that are inferior to their PC counterpart, what would be the point?
The only games I play right now on 360 are Halo 3 (occasionally) and Guitar Hero, everything else I would otherwise play has a better version that I just played on PC (Fallout 3, L4D, Call of Duty).
Oh wait, I played Braid, but I could probably run that game on a PSX (and it's available on Steam, I just wanted to use a big HDTV and it felt right to play it on a console).
No way a new gen is released anytime soon... I mean, there hasn't even been ONE final fantasy release on the next gen consoles... PS2 had 3.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28345267</id>
	<title>Re:Wha about diminishing returns</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245185520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Now, the question is, why will it cost so much more to develop for a newer generation?  Doubling the number of polygons isn't double the work.  A lot of effects have already been written so they just need to use existing libraries for them.</p> </div><p>Doubling the number of polys isn't double the work - it usually is quadruple the work. As a developer I can speak directly to the fact that a new system with lots more power frees you to use lots more polys and effects -- but that takes a lot more time to create. There are no short cuts when you are increasing detail in graphics, only when you are decreasing them.</p><p>Games these days, like it or not, require huge dev teams and lots of time to do right. And that requires lots of money.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Now , the question is , why will it cost so much more to develop for a newer generation ?
Doubling the number of polygons is n't double the work .
A lot of effects have already been written so they just need to use existing libraries for them .
Doubling the number of polys is n't double the work - it usually is quadruple the work .
As a developer I can speak directly to the fact that a new system with lots more power frees you to use lots more polys and effects -- but that takes a lot more time to create .
There are no short cuts when you are increasing detail in graphics , only when you are decreasing them.Games these days , like it or not , require huge dev teams and lots of time to do right .
And that requires lots of money .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Now, the question is, why will it cost so much more to develop for a newer generation?
Doubling the number of polygons isn't double the work.
A lot of effects have already been written so they just need to use existing libraries for them.
Doubling the number of polys isn't double the work - it usually is quadruple the work.
As a developer I can speak directly to the fact that a new system with lots more power frees you to use lots more polys and effects -- but that takes a lot more time to create.
There are no short cuts when you are increasing detail in graphics, only when you are decreasing them.Games these days, like it or not, require huge dev teams and lots of time to do right.
And that requires lots of money.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28339433</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28338825</id>
	<title>I'm not surprised</title>
	<author>Hatta</author>
	<datestamp>1245096540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Considering all of this generation of consoles suck.</p><p>Wii:  Poor graphics, and lots of shovel ware -- this is the best console of this generation.<br>Xbox 360:  Horribly unreliable hardware, even after the jasper redesign.<br>PS3: A BD player that can also play a few games.</p><p>The next generation of consoles can not come fast enough.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Considering all of this generation of consoles suck.Wii : Poor graphics , and lots of shovel ware -- this is the best console of this generation.Xbox 360 : Horribly unreliable hardware , even after the jasper redesign.PS3 : A BD player that can also play a few games.The next generation of consoles can not come fast enough .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Considering all of this generation of consoles suck.Wii:  Poor graphics, and lots of shovel ware -- this is the best console of this generation.Xbox 360:  Horribly unreliable hardware, even after the jasper redesign.PS3: A BD player that can also play a few games.The next generation of consoles can not come fast enough.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28340767</id>
	<title>Re:I'm interested in...</title>
	<author>feepness</author>
	<datestamp>1245060480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The PS3 has all the hardware I need -- just make some games already.</p></div><p>Wow! I game 4-5 nights a week and simply can't keep up since the middle of last year.  Dead Space, Call of Duty, Resistance 2, Resident Evil 5, Killzone 2, Fallout 3, MLB09, NBA 2K9, GTA IV.  I just got to Uncharted last year and am really looking forward to the sequel.
<br> <br>
Now maybe you don't like shooting or monsters or sports but there's stuff like LittleBigPlanet and flOw and all the PSN network stuff that isn't so hardcore.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The PS3 has all the hardware I need -- just make some games already.Wow !
I game 4-5 nights a week and simply ca n't keep up since the middle of last year .
Dead Space , Call of Duty , Resistance 2 , Resident Evil 5 , Killzone 2 , Fallout 3 , MLB09 , NBA 2K9 , GTA IV .
I just got to Uncharted last year and am really looking forward to the sequel .
Now maybe you do n't like shooting or monsters or sports but there 's stuff like LittleBigPlanet and flOw and all the PSN network stuff that is n't so hardcore .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The PS3 has all the hardware I need -- just make some games already.Wow!
I game 4-5 nights a week and simply can't keep up since the middle of last year.
Dead Space, Call of Duty, Resistance 2, Resident Evil 5, Killzone 2, Fallout 3, MLB09, NBA 2K9, GTA IV.
I just got to Uncharted last year and am really looking forward to the sequel.
Now maybe you don't like shooting or monsters or sports but there's stuff like LittleBigPlanet and flOw and all the PSN network stuff that isn't so hardcore.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28339149</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28339767</id>
	<title>Fallout 3...</title>
	<author>Anyd</author>
	<datestamp>1245056700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Unfortunately my favorite game last year was by far Fallout 3 on PS3.  That was a monster of a game, and it turned out incredible.  They may have set the bar very high!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Unfortunately my favorite game last year was by far Fallout 3 on PS3 .
That was a monster of a game , and it turned out incredible .
They may have set the bar very high !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Unfortunately my favorite game last year was by far Fallout 3 on PS3.
That was a monster of a game, and it turned out incredible.
They may have set the bar very high!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28339255</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28343557</id>
	<title>Re:I doubt it</title>
	<author>mjwx</author>
	<datestamp>1245079620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Sony committed to 10 years on the PS2 just like they did for the PS1 in terms of continuing support. The PS2 is still a viable gaming platform at only $100 and during E3 they suggested they'd continue support past the 10 year mark if publishers were still wanting to use it as a platform. They'll most likely continue support for the PS3 long after the PS4 comes out as well.</p></div></blockquote><p>

Sony is trying to use the PS2 as its casual console as the PS3 is far too expensive for the lucrative casual market. <br> <br>

Microsoft is using the Xbox360 as a hybrid of casual and non-casual gaming (I absolutely refuse to call it "hardcore") where as Nintendo made a casual console from the word go and it practically defecates money. We will see a new Xbox and new Playstation in short order and they will both be less powerful or at least no more powerful then the current consoles. Nintendo have proven that the console audience is interested in accessible, easy, casual games so Sony and Microsoft are rushing to catch up with Nintendo. In other words Sony and Microsoft are planning to make casual consoles in the same vein as the Wii.<br> <br>

I have said this for a while now, consoles will become dedicated to casual gaming and the more dedicated or niche games will go back to PC.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Sony committed to 10 years on the PS2 just like they did for the PS1 in terms of continuing support .
The PS2 is still a viable gaming platform at only $ 100 and during E3 they suggested they 'd continue support past the 10 year mark if publishers were still wanting to use it as a platform .
They 'll most likely continue support for the PS3 long after the PS4 comes out as well .
Sony is trying to use the PS2 as its casual console as the PS3 is far too expensive for the lucrative casual market .
Microsoft is using the Xbox360 as a hybrid of casual and non-casual gaming ( I absolutely refuse to call it " hardcore " ) where as Nintendo made a casual console from the word go and it practically defecates money .
We will see a new Xbox and new Playstation in short order and they will both be less powerful or at least no more powerful then the current consoles .
Nintendo have proven that the console audience is interested in accessible , easy , casual games so Sony and Microsoft are rushing to catch up with Nintendo .
In other words Sony and Microsoft are planning to make casual consoles in the same vein as the Wii .
I have said this for a while now , consoles will become dedicated to casual gaming and the more dedicated or niche games will go back to PC .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sony committed to 10 years on the PS2 just like they did for the PS1 in terms of continuing support.
The PS2 is still a viable gaming platform at only $100 and during E3 they suggested they'd continue support past the 10 year mark if publishers were still wanting to use it as a platform.
They'll most likely continue support for the PS3 long after the PS4 comes out as well.
Sony is trying to use the PS2 as its casual console as the PS3 is far too expensive for the lucrative casual market.
Microsoft is using the Xbox360 as a hybrid of casual and non-casual gaming (I absolutely refuse to call it "hardcore") where as Nintendo made a casual console from the word go and it practically defecates money.
We will see a new Xbox and new Playstation in short order and they will both be less powerful or at least no more powerful then the current consoles.
Nintendo have proven that the console audience is interested in accessible, easy, casual games so Sony and Microsoft are rushing to catch up with Nintendo.
In other words Sony and Microsoft are planning to make casual consoles in the same vein as the Wii.
I have said this for a while now, consoles will become dedicated to casual gaming and the more dedicated or niche games will go back to PC.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28339535</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28339355</id>
	<title>Why would they kill this generation?  No more used</title>
	<author>Gizzmonic</author>
	<datestamp>1245098160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This generation has seen console gaming taking the first painful steps into HD.  Sony and Microsoft have lost billions on this step, while the comparibly simple Wii is far more profitable.  So what are they going to do to increase profits for the next generation?</p><p>That's simple-next generation consoles will be entirely DLC-only.  Forget about exchanging games, bringing your games over to a friends' house, etc.  All games will be download-only and you'll max out your broadband cap by downloading a single game, unless you switch to a certain broadband provider that has a deal worked out with Microsoft so that M$ downloads don't count against your cap.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This generation has seen console gaming taking the first painful steps into HD .
Sony and Microsoft have lost billions on this step , while the comparibly simple Wii is far more profitable .
So what are they going to do to increase profits for the next generation ? That 's simple-next generation consoles will be entirely DLC-only .
Forget about exchanging games , bringing your games over to a friends ' house , etc .
All games will be download-only and you 'll max out your broadband cap by downloading a single game , unless you switch to a certain broadband provider that has a deal worked out with Microsoft so that M $ downloads do n't count against your cap .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This generation has seen console gaming taking the first painful steps into HD.
Sony and Microsoft have lost billions on this step, while the comparibly simple Wii is far more profitable.
So what are they going to do to increase profits for the next generation?That's simple-next generation consoles will be entirely DLC-only.
Forget about exchanging games, bringing your games over to a friends' house, etc.
All games will be download-only and you'll max out your broadband cap by downloading a single game, unless you switch to a certain broadband provider that has a deal worked out with Microsoft so that M$ downloads don't count against your cap.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28340845</id>
	<title>I call BS</title>
	<author>spir0</author>
	<datestamp>1245060960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>More appropriately, I call this BS FUD. It reminds me of the prelude to the current gen of consoles how all the publishers were whining that the games are so much more advanced and that they are spending a lot more money developing them. They tried to use that as a vehicle to bump game prices up. They succeeded to a degree, but not as much as they initially wanted. They wanted to charge (in NZ Dollars as that's what I'm familiar with) an average of $140-$150. As it is, most games are being released at $100-$120 with big releases going up to $140, where the last generation they cost $90-$100 with big releases at about $110 or $120.</p><p>So I think that this is just a way of them putting the seeds out to try and bump prices up again.</p><p>Why do I believe this is bullshit? Because these days game developers use ready-to-run engines. The amount of work they have to do is pretty minimal compared to their workload if they had to build the engines from scratch each time. It also means that using one engine, the game can be released on multiple platforms with minimal rework.</p><p>So I'm calling BS. They're able to get games into production much faster thanks to ready made engines, and they can release the games on multiple platforms to maximise their profits. They've never been able to do that as much as they have with the current gen consoles. Next gen it will be even better for them, therefore minimising their cost per platform.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>More appropriately , I call this BS FUD .
It reminds me of the prelude to the current gen of consoles how all the publishers were whining that the games are so much more advanced and that they are spending a lot more money developing them .
They tried to use that as a vehicle to bump game prices up .
They succeeded to a degree , but not as much as they initially wanted .
They wanted to charge ( in NZ Dollars as that 's what I 'm familiar with ) an average of $ 140- $ 150 .
As it is , most games are being released at $ 100- $ 120 with big releases going up to $ 140 , where the last generation they cost $ 90- $ 100 with big releases at about $ 110 or $ 120.So I think that this is just a way of them putting the seeds out to try and bump prices up again.Why do I believe this is bullshit ?
Because these days game developers use ready-to-run engines .
The amount of work they have to do is pretty minimal compared to their workload if they had to build the engines from scratch each time .
It also means that using one engine , the game can be released on multiple platforms with minimal rework.So I 'm calling BS .
They 're able to get games into production much faster thanks to ready made engines , and they can release the games on multiple platforms to maximise their profits .
They 've never been able to do that as much as they have with the current gen consoles .
Next gen it will be even better for them , therefore minimising their cost per platform .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>More appropriately, I call this BS FUD.
It reminds me of the prelude to the current gen of consoles how all the publishers were whining that the games are so much more advanced and that they are spending a lot more money developing them.
They tried to use that as a vehicle to bump game prices up.
They succeeded to a degree, but not as much as they initially wanted.
They wanted to charge (in NZ Dollars as that's what I'm familiar with) an average of $140-$150.
As it is, most games are being released at $100-$120 with big releases going up to $140, where the last generation they cost $90-$100 with big releases at about $110 or $120.So I think that this is just a way of them putting the seeds out to try and bump prices up again.Why do I believe this is bullshit?
Because these days game developers use ready-to-run engines.
The amount of work they have to do is pretty minimal compared to their workload if they had to build the engines from scratch each time.
It also means that using one engine, the game can be released on multiple platforms with minimal rework.So I'm calling BS.
They're able to get games into production much faster thanks to ready made engines, and they can release the games on multiple platforms to maximise their profits.
They've never been able to do that as much as they have with the current gen consoles.
Next gen it will be even better for them, therefore minimising their cost per platform.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28339341</id>
	<title>Re:I'm not surprised</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245098100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm sure I'll catch heat for this in the blogosphere, but I couldn't agree with you more...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm sure I 'll catch heat for this in the blogosphere , but I could n't agree with you more.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm sure I'll catch heat for this in the blogosphere, but I couldn't agree with you more...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28338825</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28340831</id>
	<title>Re:games vs spectacles</title>
	<author>feepness</author>
	<datestamp>1245060840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Spectacular extravaganzas with high-detail hero models, high-detail set designs, high-detail world designs, full-orchestral scores, full-cinematic cuts, companion toy merchandising, and highly-predictable-never-escapes-the-rails storylines.</p></div><p>And this is what I want, though the "predictable storyline" thing is of course entirely up to the designer.
<br> <br>
But tell me, how exactly did we "break out of the storyline" on Pac Man, Super Mario Brothers and Contra?
<br> <br>
No, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super\_Mario\_Bros.#The\_Minus\_World" title="wikipedia.org">glitches</a> [wikipedia.org] don't count.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Spectacular extravaganzas with high-detail hero models , high-detail set designs , high-detail world designs , full-orchestral scores , full-cinematic cuts , companion toy merchandising , and highly-predictable-never-escapes-the-rails storylines.And this is what I want , though the " predictable storyline " thing is of course entirely up to the designer .
But tell me , how exactly did we " break out of the storyline " on Pac Man , Super Mario Brothers and Contra ?
No , glitches [ wikipedia.org ] do n't count .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Spectacular extravaganzas with high-detail hero models, high-detail set designs, high-detail world designs, full-orchestral scores, full-cinematic cuts, companion toy merchandising, and highly-predictable-never-escapes-the-rails storylines.And this is what I want, though the "predictable storyline" thing is of course entirely up to the designer.
But tell me, how exactly did we "break out of the storyline" on Pac Man, Super Mario Brothers and Contra?
No, glitches [wikipedia.org] don't count.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28339255</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28339097</id>
	<title>Re:Well, 5 years has always been the standard</title>
	<author>blahplusplus</author>
	<datestamp>1245097380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"... there is no way we're no going to start seeing see ten year gaps between generations, when it's been 5 year gaps for the last three decades."</p><p>I don't agree here, graphical horsepower of the next console or two away will push the limits of cost structure to develop a game that doesn't sell into the millions, while gaming has gone more mainstream it isn't like the movies, developers still complain about piracy on the PC when their games sell into the millions on console and PC (Call of Duty 4 dev's, I'm looking at you).  Many games are totally viable if game developers would stop trying to be the movie industry, somewhere along the line companies started seeing themselves as movie-esque.  I don't need my games to be realistic or have real graphics, what I've noticed as we've increased graphics the fun factor has stayed the same or has decreased in some games.  I've passed over a lot of recent releases that I haven't even got around to playing because I simply wasn't that interested in these games.</p><p>I mean think of mario the game as a concept, imagine you tried to sell it today:  It's a game about a plumber that runs around stomping on turtle-beings called koopa's and these things called goomba's, and there's this dragon-turtle esque thing we call koopa who's invades the mushroom kingdom.</p><p>Instead we see stuff like:</p><p>Assasions creed<br>Mass effect<br>Gears of war<br>etc, etc.</p><p>All trying to be 'movie games' or 'be real'.</p><p>I think Prince of persia is one of the only games that doesn't try to take the whole movie thing to far and be a game first.  The original Prince of persia: Sands of time was one of my favorite games, I thought Warrior within was ok but I didn't overall like the second and third games as much as the first.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" ... there is no way we 're no going to start seeing see ten year gaps between generations , when it 's been 5 year gaps for the last three decades .
" I do n't agree here , graphical horsepower of the next console or two away will push the limits of cost structure to develop a game that does n't sell into the millions , while gaming has gone more mainstream it is n't like the movies , developers still complain about piracy on the PC when their games sell into the millions on console and PC ( Call of Duty 4 dev 's , I 'm looking at you ) .
Many games are totally viable if game developers would stop trying to be the movie industry , somewhere along the line companies started seeing themselves as movie-esque .
I do n't need my games to be realistic or have real graphics , what I 've noticed as we 've increased graphics the fun factor has stayed the same or has decreased in some games .
I 've passed over a lot of recent releases that I have n't even got around to playing because I simply was n't that interested in these games.I mean think of mario the game as a concept , imagine you tried to sell it today : It 's a game about a plumber that runs around stomping on turtle-beings called koopa 's and these things called goomba 's , and there 's this dragon-turtle esque thing we call koopa who 's invades the mushroom kingdom.Instead we see stuff like : Assasions creedMass effectGears of waretc , etc.All trying to be 'movie games ' or 'be real'.I think Prince of persia is one of the only games that does n't try to take the whole movie thing to far and be a game first .
The original Prince of persia : Sands of time was one of my favorite games , I thought Warrior within was ok but I did n't overall like the second and third games as much as the first .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"... there is no way we're no going to start seeing see ten year gaps between generations, when it's been 5 year gaps for the last three decades.
"I don't agree here, graphical horsepower of the next console or two away will push the limits of cost structure to develop a game that doesn't sell into the millions, while gaming has gone more mainstream it isn't like the movies, developers still complain about piracy on the PC when their games sell into the millions on console and PC (Call of Duty 4 dev's, I'm looking at you).
Many games are totally viable if game developers would stop trying to be the movie industry, somewhere along the line companies started seeing themselves as movie-esque.
I don't need my games to be realistic or have real graphics, what I've noticed as we've increased graphics the fun factor has stayed the same or has decreased in some games.
I've passed over a lot of recent releases that I haven't even got around to playing because I simply wasn't that interested in these games.I mean think of mario the game as a concept, imagine you tried to sell it today:  It's a game about a plumber that runs around stomping on turtle-beings called koopa's and these things called goomba's, and there's this dragon-turtle esque thing we call koopa who's invades the mushroom kingdom.Instead we see stuff like:Assasions creedMass effectGears of waretc, etc.All trying to be 'movie games' or 'be real'.I think Prince of persia is one of the only games that doesn't try to take the whole movie thing to far and be a game first.
The original Prince of persia: Sands of time was one of my favorite games, I thought Warrior within was ok but I didn't overall like the second and third games as much as the first.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28338857</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28340483</id>
	<title>The games aren't keeping up with the hardware</title>
	<author>PenisLands</author>
	<datestamp>1245059400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you ask me, hardware became good enough when the Sega Megadrive came out. I've had more fun with old Sega games than I've had with any PS2 game. <br>After 1996, it seems like games are getting worse with each new game system.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you ask me , hardware became good enough when the Sega Megadrive came out .
I 've had more fun with old Sega games than I 've had with any PS2 game .
After 1996 , it seems like games are getting worse with each new game system .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you ask me, hardware became good enough when the Sega Megadrive came out.
I've had more fun with old Sega games than I've had with any PS2 game.
After 1996, it seems like games are getting worse with each new game system.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28361955</id>
	<title>Re:Well, 5 years has always been the standard</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245255840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Consoles have NOT frequently been a net loss generator.  Only in the last 2 generations has this been the case.  Microsoft made an unprofitable console to gain access to a market, Sony followed suit.  Nintendo has always had profitable consoles.</p><p>The drive for more powerful consoles at the cost of profits is due to the misguided belief that you must have cutting edge graphics to sell well in the video game markets (one perpetuated by the media and so called hardcore gamers).  Personally, I think the hardcore gamer and video game media have done more to harm the industry than the console developers.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Consoles have NOT frequently been a net loss generator .
Only in the last 2 generations has this been the case .
Microsoft made an unprofitable console to gain access to a market , Sony followed suit .
Nintendo has always had profitable consoles.The drive for more powerful consoles at the cost of profits is due to the misguided belief that you must have cutting edge graphics to sell well in the video game markets ( one perpetuated by the media and so called hardcore gamers ) .
Personally , I think the hardcore gamer and video game media have done more to harm the industry than the console developers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Consoles have NOT frequently been a net loss generator.
Only in the last 2 generations has this been the case.
Microsoft made an unprofitable console to gain access to a market, Sony followed suit.
Nintendo has always had profitable consoles.The drive for more powerful consoles at the cost of profits is due to the misguided belief that you must have cutting edge graphics to sell well in the video game markets (one perpetuated by the media and so called hardcore gamers).
Personally, I think the hardcore gamer and video game media have done more to harm the industry than the console developers.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28339895</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28421019</id>
	<title>Re:I doubt it</title>
	<author>MikeBabcock</author>
	<datestamp>1245681780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I was a hard core PC gamer until I got my PS3.  Sitting on the couch is much more fun than sitting at a desk, and having a 5.1 surround system with a big screen TV is a lot more entertaining than headphones and a computer screen for a lot of games.</p><p>My PS3 cost me about the same as my next video card upgrade was going to cost.  Hard core PC gaming is a LOT more expensive than a high-end console, and making consoles for that market is a perfectly acceptable business decision.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I was a hard core PC gamer until I got my PS3 .
Sitting on the couch is much more fun than sitting at a desk , and having a 5.1 surround system with a big screen TV is a lot more entertaining than headphones and a computer screen for a lot of games.My PS3 cost me about the same as my next video card upgrade was going to cost .
Hard core PC gaming is a LOT more expensive than a high-end console , and making consoles for that market is a perfectly acceptable business decision .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I was a hard core PC gamer until I got my PS3.
Sitting on the couch is much more fun than sitting at a desk, and having a 5.1 surround system with a big screen TV is a lot more entertaining than headphones and a computer screen for a lot of games.My PS3 cost me about the same as my next video card upgrade was going to cost.
Hard core PC gaming is a LOT more expensive than a high-end console, and making consoles for that market is a perfectly acceptable business decision.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28343557</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28339855</id>
	<title>Re:games vs spectacles</title>
	<author>222</author>
	<datestamp>1245057060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>On the flip side, I recently finished playing Killzone 2, which had a budget of 30 million dollars. I can honestly say it was one of the most memorable gaming experiences I've had, and I can't believe I'm so impressed by a console shooter.</htmltext>
<tokenext>On the flip side , I recently finished playing Killzone 2 , which had a budget of 30 million dollars .
I can honestly say it was one of the most memorable gaming experiences I 've had , and I ca n't believe I 'm so impressed by a console shooter .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>On the flip side, I recently finished playing Killzone 2, which had a budget of 30 million dollars.
I can honestly say it was one of the most memorable gaming experiences I've had, and I can't believe I'm so impressed by a console shooter.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28339255</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28342109</id>
	<title>Re:If they released a new generation this year...</title>
	<author>sexconker</author>
	<datestamp>1245068220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Wii has My Life as a King and Echoes of Time.</p><p>They're not normal FF games by any means (one is a port of a DS game for shit's sake!), but that's 2 FF games.  My Life as a King was neat at least.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Wii has My Life as a King and Echoes of Time.They 're not normal FF games by any means ( one is a port of a DS game for shit 's sake !
) , but that 's 2 FF games .
My Life as a King was neat at least .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wii has My Life as a King and Echoes of Time.They're not normal FF games by any means (one is a port of a DS game for shit's sake!
), but that's 2 FF games.
My Life as a King was neat at least.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28340419</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28339431</id>
	<title>Re:I'm not surprised</title>
	<author>V50</author>
	<datestamp>1245098520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'd strongly disagree that all current consoles suck. Just for disclosure, I have all 7 Current (PC, DS, PSP, PS2 + 3 Consoles) game systems plus many games for all, but still lean toward being a Nintendo fan(boy).</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Considering all of this generation of consoles suck.</p><p>Wii:  Poor graphics, and lots of shovel ware -- this is the best console of this generation.</p></div><p>I'd strongly disagree that "graphics suck" on the Wii. The Wii is probably somewhat more powerful than the original Xbox. The original Xbox that people were gushing about its "amazing graphics" just a few years ago. If said graphics were good enough then, they are good enough now. I still play PS2/GC/XBX games around as much as their successors, and do not find the graphics limiting or sucky.</p><p>Actually the only generations that I tend to feel the graphics do suck on, are the 2600 and PS1 generations. (NES if you really are demanding). The most primitive 2D and 3D graphics. Beyond those, all systems have had graphics ranging from good (Wii, SNES, Genesis, GC, PS2) to amazing (PS3, 360). And yes, I do think SNES graphics were better than PS1 graphics. Good 2D &gt; primitive 3D. OTOH, the PS1/N64 was the source of a great deal of innovation, because of the new technology.</p><p>Shovelware comes with being the market leader. The PS2, PS1, NES and 2600 are infamous for having tons of shovelware. Just don't buy it. A new console wouldn't change the shovelware situation.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Xbox 360:  Horribly unreliable hardware, even after the jasper redesign.</p></div><p>Fair criticism, though I have heard the most recent ones are semi-reliable. However, this is justification for a new model, a Slim 360, perhaps, not an Xbox 720.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>PS3: A BD player that can also play a few games.</p></div><p>Largely accurate in 2007. Not so much in 2009. There are PLENTY of good PS3 games, many of which are exclusive (MGS4, KZ2, Valkyria Chronicles, Uncharted, etc.)</p><p><div class="quote"><p>The next generation of consoles can not come fast enough.</p></div><p>I fail to see why. Actually, I don't really see any benefit from another set of consoles, almost at all. Other than even more mind blowingly amazing (and expensive) graphics, I fail to see what would be gained. None of your problems would be addressed, except perhaps the 360 reliability. The market leader would still get shovelware, and the PS4 may or may not have the games you want. I feel, and the sales of the Wii back up, that graphics became "good enough" with the PS2 generation, and moving beyond that is rather excessive, especially when only something like 30\% of Americans have an HDTV and I'd wager most of them can't hook it up correctly. (Next time I see a 4:3 screen stretched to 16:9, or a store's BD-Player hooked up to an HDTV by SD component cables, I think I will cry.)</p><p>I have 3 HDTVs, so I'd sort of like an HD-capable Wii, preferably like a GBC (IE, Wii 1.5, not Wii 2). But the Wii's graphics are still more than capable, and the PS3/360 are, if anything, excessive.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'd strongly disagree that all current consoles suck .
Just for disclosure , I have all 7 Current ( PC , DS , PSP , PS2 + 3 Consoles ) game systems plus many games for all , but still lean toward being a Nintendo fan ( boy ) .Considering all of this generation of consoles suck.Wii : Poor graphics , and lots of shovel ware -- this is the best console of this generation.I 'd strongly disagree that " graphics suck " on the Wii .
The Wii is probably somewhat more powerful than the original Xbox .
The original Xbox that people were gushing about its " amazing graphics " just a few years ago .
If said graphics were good enough then , they are good enough now .
I still play PS2/GC/XBX games around as much as their successors , and do not find the graphics limiting or sucky.Actually the only generations that I tend to feel the graphics do suck on , are the 2600 and PS1 generations .
( NES if you really are demanding ) .
The most primitive 2D and 3D graphics .
Beyond those , all systems have had graphics ranging from good ( Wii , SNES , Genesis , GC , PS2 ) to amazing ( PS3 , 360 ) .
And yes , I do think SNES graphics were better than PS1 graphics .
Good 2D &gt; primitive 3D .
OTOH , the PS1/N64 was the source of a great deal of innovation , because of the new technology.Shovelware comes with being the market leader .
The PS2 , PS1 , NES and 2600 are infamous for having tons of shovelware .
Just do n't buy it .
A new console would n't change the shovelware situation.Xbox 360 : Horribly unreliable hardware , even after the jasper redesign.Fair criticism , though I have heard the most recent ones are semi-reliable .
However , this is justification for a new model , a Slim 360 , perhaps , not an Xbox 720.PS3 : A BD player that can also play a few games.Largely accurate in 2007 .
Not so much in 2009 .
There are PLENTY of good PS3 games , many of which are exclusive ( MGS4 , KZ2 , Valkyria Chronicles , Uncharted , etc .
) The next generation of consoles can not come fast enough.I fail to see why .
Actually , I do n't really see any benefit from another set of consoles , almost at all .
Other than even more mind blowingly amazing ( and expensive ) graphics , I fail to see what would be gained .
None of your problems would be addressed , except perhaps the 360 reliability .
The market leader would still get shovelware , and the PS4 may or may not have the games you want .
I feel , and the sales of the Wii back up , that graphics became " good enough " with the PS2 generation , and moving beyond that is rather excessive , especially when only something like 30 \ % of Americans have an HDTV and I 'd wager most of them ca n't hook it up correctly .
( Next time I see a 4 : 3 screen stretched to 16 : 9 , or a store 's BD-Player hooked up to an HDTV by SD component cables , I think I will cry .
) I have 3 HDTVs , so I 'd sort of like an HD-capable Wii , preferably like a GBC ( IE , Wii 1.5 , not Wii 2 ) .
But the Wii 's graphics are still more than capable , and the PS3/360 are , if anything , excessive .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'd strongly disagree that all current consoles suck.
Just for disclosure, I have all 7 Current (PC, DS, PSP, PS2 + 3 Consoles) game systems plus many games for all, but still lean toward being a Nintendo fan(boy).Considering all of this generation of consoles suck.Wii:  Poor graphics, and lots of shovel ware -- this is the best console of this generation.I'd strongly disagree that "graphics suck" on the Wii.
The Wii is probably somewhat more powerful than the original Xbox.
The original Xbox that people were gushing about its "amazing graphics" just a few years ago.
If said graphics were good enough then, they are good enough now.
I still play PS2/GC/XBX games around as much as their successors, and do not find the graphics limiting or sucky.Actually the only generations that I tend to feel the graphics do suck on, are the 2600 and PS1 generations.
(NES if you really are demanding).
The most primitive 2D and 3D graphics.
Beyond those, all systems have had graphics ranging from good (Wii, SNES, Genesis, GC, PS2) to amazing (PS3, 360).
And yes, I do think SNES graphics were better than PS1 graphics.
Good 2D &gt; primitive 3D.
OTOH, the PS1/N64 was the source of a great deal of innovation, because of the new technology.Shovelware comes with being the market leader.
The PS2, PS1, NES and 2600 are infamous for having tons of shovelware.
Just don't buy it.
A new console wouldn't change the shovelware situation.Xbox 360:  Horribly unreliable hardware, even after the jasper redesign.Fair criticism, though I have heard the most recent ones are semi-reliable.
However, this is justification for a new model, a Slim 360, perhaps, not an Xbox 720.PS3: A BD player that can also play a few games.Largely accurate in 2007.
Not so much in 2009.
There are PLENTY of good PS3 games, many of which are exclusive (MGS4, KZ2, Valkyria Chronicles, Uncharted, etc.
)The next generation of consoles can not come fast enough.I fail to see why.
Actually, I don't really see any benefit from another set of consoles, almost at all.
Other than even more mind blowingly amazing (and expensive) graphics, I fail to see what would be gained.
None of your problems would be addressed, except perhaps the 360 reliability.
The market leader would still get shovelware, and the PS4 may or may not have the games you want.
I feel, and the sales of the Wii back up, that graphics became "good enough" with the PS2 generation, and moving beyond that is rather excessive, especially when only something like 30\% of Americans have an HDTV and I'd wager most of them can't hook it up correctly.
(Next time I see a 4:3 screen stretched to 16:9, or a store's BD-Player hooked up to an HDTV by SD component cables, I think I will cry.
)I have 3 HDTVs, so I'd sort of like an HD-capable Wii, preferably like a GBC (IE, Wii 1.5, not Wii 2).
But the Wii's graphics are still more than capable, and the PS3/360 are, if anything, excessive.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28338825</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28341415</id>
	<title>Re:Why would they kill this generation? No more us</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245064200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Are you my stock broker?</p><p>If not, you should be!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Are you my stock broker ? If not , you should be !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Are you my stock broker?If not, you should be!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28339355</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28339149</id>
	<title>I'm interested in...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245097560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm happy with a system that can display good games in high definition and take advantage of my home theater setup.  The PS3 delivers that for me, but I'd like to see better games available.  That said, Rock Band 2 gets a lot of play, and I really appreciate that the PS3 can play just about any media you throw at it.</p><p>The Wii has some fun games, and I have one of those too, but they look like absolute crap on a hi-def TV.</p><p>An updated Wii makes sense, a new PS3, no way.  The PS3 has all the hardware I need -- just make some games already.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm happy with a system that can display good games in high definition and take advantage of my home theater setup .
The PS3 delivers that for me , but I 'd like to see better games available .
That said , Rock Band 2 gets a lot of play , and I really appreciate that the PS3 can play just about any media you throw at it.The Wii has some fun games , and I have one of those too , but they look like absolute crap on a hi-def TV.An updated Wii makes sense , a new PS3 , no way .
The PS3 has all the hardware I need -- just make some games already .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm happy with a system that can display good games in high definition and take advantage of my home theater setup.
The PS3 delivers that for me, but I'd like to see better games available.
That said, Rock Band 2 gets a lot of play, and I really appreciate that the PS3 can play just about any media you throw at it.The Wii has some fun games, and I have one of those too, but they look like absolute crap on a hi-def TV.An updated Wii makes sense, a new PS3, no way.
The PS3 has all the hardware I need -- just make some games already.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28344891</id>
	<title>Re:I'm not surprised</title>
	<author>msormune</author>
	<datestamp>1245094020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>
PC gaming has only gotten better in the last 3-4 years. You can get GREAT discounts from Steam if you don't mind downloading your games and not having physical media. I guess a lot of thanks goes out to Valve for this, and not PC per se.</htmltext>
<tokenext>PC gaming has only gotten better in the last 3-4 years .
You can get GREAT discounts from Steam if you do n't mind downloading your games and not having physical media .
I guess a lot of thanks goes out to Valve for this , and not PC per se .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
PC gaming has only gotten better in the last 3-4 years.
You can get GREAT discounts from Steam if you don't mind downloading your games and not having physical media.
I guess a lot of thanks goes out to Valve for this, and not PC per se.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28339121</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28342815</id>
	<title>Re:I'm not surprised</title>
	<author>kklein</author>
	<datestamp>1245073200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>$350 for the box (depending on when you bought it)
$75 for wireless ethernet card that wasn't built-in
$60 for additional controller
$30 for the recharager battery pack designed to work with the controllers but doesn't leaving you stuck with conventional batteries
$x for cabling if you need hdmi or whatever.</p></div><p>Where did you buy yours? Mine was $400 for the machine, a 20GB HDD, 2 wireless controllers, 1 wired headset, 1 "charge and play" kit, and two games. That was in 2007. Costco.

</p><p>I then bought the wireless dongle, which was overpriced; and the wireless headset, which was overpriced; and a different AV cable, which, like all cables for anything, was overpriced. However, the only thing that was really necessary was the AV cable, and that was just because my TV is goofy. The other 2 are totally optional, and I don't actually use the wireless anymore (I've given up on wireless for any high-bandwidth activities--I've sunk way too much time and money into trying to get it to play nice in my apartment and just ran concealed LAN cable to switches everywhere I need proper net connectivity--works right every time and is cheaper to boot).

</p><p>Personally speaking, switching to the 360 from Windows for gaming has been way cheaper than what I was spending to keep my gaming machine up. I haven't bought any gaming hardware for 2 years. None. I haven't upgraded my gaming rig at all. I've saved a lot of money.

</p><p>Okay, that's a blatant lie. I did spend quite a bit of money on a computer upgrade. I switched to a Mac Pro. The Xbox team screwed the Windows team out of at least one customer (I'm sure it's many more than one).</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>$ 350 for the box ( depending on when you bought it ) $ 75 for wireless ethernet card that was n't built-in $ 60 for additional controller $ 30 for the recharager battery pack designed to work with the controllers but does n't leaving you stuck with conventional batteries $ x for cabling if you need hdmi or whatever.Where did you buy yours ?
Mine was $ 400 for the machine , a 20GB HDD , 2 wireless controllers , 1 wired headset , 1 " charge and play " kit , and two games .
That was in 2007 .
Costco . I then bought the wireless dongle , which was overpriced ; and the wireless headset , which was overpriced ; and a different AV cable , which , like all cables for anything , was overpriced .
However , the only thing that was really necessary was the AV cable , and that was just because my TV is goofy .
The other 2 are totally optional , and I do n't actually use the wireless anymore ( I 've given up on wireless for any high-bandwidth activities--I 've sunk way too much time and money into trying to get it to play nice in my apartment and just ran concealed LAN cable to switches everywhere I need proper net connectivity--works right every time and is cheaper to boot ) .
Personally speaking , switching to the 360 from Windows for gaming has been way cheaper than what I was spending to keep my gaming machine up .
I have n't bought any gaming hardware for 2 years .
None. I have n't upgraded my gaming rig at all .
I 've saved a lot of money .
Okay , that 's a blatant lie .
I did spend quite a bit of money on a computer upgrade .
I switched to a Mac Pro .
The Xbox team screwed the Windows team out of at least one customer ( I 'm sure it 's many more than one ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>$350 for the box (depending on when you bought it)
$75 for wireless ethernet card that wasn't built-in
$60 for additional controller
$30 for the recharager battery pack designed to work with the controllers but doesn't leaving you stuck with conventional batteries
$x for cabling if you need hdmi or whatever.Where did you buy yours?
Mine was $400 for the machine, a 20GB HDD, 2 wireless controllers, 1 wired headset, 1 "charge and play" kit, and two games.
That was in 2007.
Costco.

I then bought the wireless dongle, which was overpriced; and the wireless headset, which was overpriced; and a different AV cable, which, like all cables for anything, was overpriced.
However, the only thing that was really necessary was the AV cable, and that was just because my TV is goofy.
The other 2 are totally optional, and I don't actually use the wireless anymore (I've given up on wireless for any high-bandwidth activities--I've sunk way too much time and money into trying to get it to play nice in my apartment and just ran concealed LAN cable to switches everywhere I need proper net connectivity--works right every time and is cheaper to boot).
Personally speaking, switching to the 360 from Windows for gaming has been way cheaper than what I was spending to keep my gaming machine up.
I haven't bought any gaming hardware for 2 years.
None. I haven't upgraded my gaming rig at all.
I've saved a lot of money.
Okay, that's a blatant lie.
I did spend quite a bit of money on a computer upgrade.
I switched to a Mac Pro.
The Xbox team screwed the Windows team out of at least one customer (I'm sure it's many more than one).
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28340195</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28339227</id>
	<title>Suprised?</title>
	<author>Xistenz99</author>
	<datestamp>1245097800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>As many missteps as each of the Big 3 Video game makers have had, I think knowing and developing new systems is something they are on top of.  They are all real secretive on their R &amp; D, so I am sure they are further enough along then the CEO Ubisoft knows.  I think he overestimates OnLive role in video games, which will be minimal at best.</htmltext>
<tokenext>As many missteps as each of the Big 3 Video game makers have had , I think knowing and developing new systems is something they are on top of .
They are all real secretive on their R &amp; D , so I am sure they are further enough along then the CEO Ubisoft knows .
I think he overestimates OnLive role in video games , which will be minimal at best .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As many missteps as each of the Big 3 Video game makers have had, I think knowing and developing new systems is something they are on top of.
They are all real secretive on their R &amp; D, so I am sure they are further enough along then the CEO Ubisoft knows.
I think he overestimates OnLive role in video games, which will be minimal at best.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28343667</id>
	<title>Graphix Potential not reached yet...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245080520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Just wondering... I heard that the PS3's graphix potential hasnt even been fully exploited. Drakes Fortune, though not the newest title, was a masterpiece, imo, graphically. Yet, I heard that that particular title was barely using 33\% of the PS3's capabilities. If this is the case, why would Sony even consider putting out a new console, when game developers still have so much room for improvement? Besides, another console race will inevitably produce systems that are rushed and not up to par. Ring of Death ring any bells? (Xbox 360).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Just wondering... I heard that the PS3 's graphix potential hasnt even been fully exploited .
Drakes Fortune , though not the newest title , was a masterpiece , imo , graphically .
Yet , I heard that that particular title was barely using 33 \ % of the PS3 's capabilities .
If this is the case , why would Sony even consider putting out a new console , when game developers still have so much room for improvement ?
Besides , another console race will inevitably produce systems that are rushed and not up to par .
Ring of Death ring any bells ?
( Xbox 360 ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just wondering... I heard that the PS3's graphix potential hasnt even been fully exploited.
Drakes Fortune, though not the newest title, was a masterpiece, imo, graphically.
Yet, I heard that that particular title was barely using 33\% of the PS3's capabilities.
If this is the case, why would Sony even consider putting out a new console, when game developers still have so much room for improvement?
Besides, another console race will inevitably produce systems that are rushed and not up to par.
Ring of Death ring any bells?
(Xbox 360).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28340965</id>
	<title>Re:Well, 5 years has always been the standard</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245061560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>I mean think of mario the game as a concept, imagine you tried to sell it today: It's a game about a plumber that runs around stomping on turtle-beings called koopa's and these things called goomba's, and there's this dragon-turtle esque thing we call koopa who's invades the mushroom kingdom.</i></p><p>No weirder than Katamari Damacy, which was a big hit recently.</p><p><i>I think Prince of persia is one of the only games that doesn't try to take the whole movie thing to far and be a game first. The original Prince of persia: Sands of time was one of my favorite games,</i></p><p>Ok, wait a minute.</p><p>First of all, Sands of Time wasn't the first Prince of Persia game. It's the third, by my reckoning. (Prince of Persia, Prince of Persia: Shadow and the Flame, Prince of Persia 3D).</p><p>Secondly, are you seriously trying to tell us that Sands of Time was good because it "wasn't trying to be a movie?" You're in opposite-land. Sands of Time is one of the most cinematic games ever made, in fact. I agree that it's a masterpiece, but your argument makes little sense here.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I mean think of mario the game as a concept , imagine you tried to sell it today : It 's a game about a plumber that runs around stomping on turtle-beings called koopa 's and these things called goomba 's , and there 's this dragon-turtle esque thing we call koopa who 's invades the mushroom kingdom.No weirder than Katamari Damacy , which was a big hit recently.I think Prince of persia is one of the only games that does n't try to take the whole movie thing to far and be a game first .
The original Prince of persia : Sands of time was one of my favorite games,Ok , wait a minute.First of all , Sands of Time was n't the first Prince of Persia game .
It 's the third , by my reckoning .
( Prince of Persia , Prince of Persia : Shadow and the Flame , Prince of Persia 3D ) .Secondly , are you seriously trying to tell us that Sands of Time was good because it " was n't trying to be a movie ?
" You 're in opposite-land .
Sands of Time is one of the most cinematic games ever made , in fact .
I agree that it 's a masterpiece , but your argument makes little sense here .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I mean think of mario the game as a concept, imagine you tried to sell it today: It's a game about a plumber that runs around stomping on turtle-beings called koopa's and these things called goomba's, and there's this dragon-turtle esque thing we call koopa who's invades the mushroom kingdom.No weirder than Katamari Damacy, which was a big hit recently.I think Prince of persia is one of the only games that doesn't try to take the whole movie thing to far and be a game first.
The original Prince of persia: Sands of time was one of my favorite games,Ok, wait a minute.First of all, Sands of Time wasn't the first Prince of Persia game.
It's the third, by my reckoning.
(Prince of Persia, Prince of Persia: Shadow and the Flame, Prince of Persia 3D).Secondly, are you seriously trying to tell us that Sands of Time was good because it "wasn't trying to be a movie?
" You're in opposite-land.
Sands of Time is one of the most cinematic games ever made, in fact.
I agree that it's a masterpiece, but your argument makes little sense here.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28339097</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28346789</id>
	<title>Odin Sphere is beautiful</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245162480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's not a platformer, really, but Odin Sphere is full 2D, side scrolling, unique and has incredible art.  Might be a little hard to get now - it was a niche title for the PS2 - but it's worth it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's not a platformer , really , but Odin Sphere is full 2D , side scrolling , unique and has incredible art .
Might be a little hard to get now - it was a niche title for the PS2 - but it 's worth it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's not a platformer, really, but Odin Sphere is full 2D, side scrolling, unique and has incredible art.
Might be a little hard to get now - it was a niche title for the PS2 - but it's worth it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28339817</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28340341</id>
	<title>Re:I'm interested in...</title>
	<author>plague3106</author>
	<datestamp>1245058680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>The Wii has some fun games, and I have one of those too, but they look like absolute crap on a hi-def TV.</i></p><p>Well, they even just look ok on my SDTV 480i from 2002.  Even the PS3 puts out better graphics on my set..</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The Wii has some fun games , and I have one of those too , but they look like absolute crap on a hi-def TV.Well , they even just look ok on my SDTV 480i from 2002 .
Even the PS3 puts out better graphics on my set. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Wii has some fun games, and I have one of those too, but they look like absolute crap on a hi-def TV.Well, they even just look ok on my SDTV 480i from 2002.
Even the PS3 puts out better graphics on my set..</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28339149</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28345055</id>
	<title>Re:Where are the games I want?</title>
	<author>IamTheRealMike</author>
	<datestamp>1245182880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Huh? There are quite a few platformers on Xbox Live.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Huh ?
There are quite a few platformers on Xbox Live .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Huh?
There are quite a few platformers on Xbox Live.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28339817</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28339565</id>
	<title>Re:I'm not surprised</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245099120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I have 3 HDTVs</p></div><p>But the real question is: do you have 3 PS3's?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I have 3 HDTVsBut the real question is : do you have 3 PS3 's ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have 3 HDTVsBut the real question is: do you have 3 PS3's?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28339431</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28341449</id>
	<title>Re:Public demand for the best machine possible?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245064380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Ubisoft is the company behind all the Raving Rabbids games for the Wii, which are some of the more enjoyable and popular 3rd party Wii games... I don't think they're completely on the "OMGMOARGRAFIX!!@" boat.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Ubisoft is the company behind all the Raving Rabbids games for the Wii , which are some of the more enjoyable and popular 3rd party Wii games... I do n't think they 're completely on the " OMGMOARGRAFIX ! !
@ " boat .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ubisoft is the company behind all the Raving Rabbids games for the Wii, which are some of the more enjoyable and popular 3rd party Wii games... I don't think they're completely on the "OMGMOARGRAFIX!!
@" boat.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28339015</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28341561</id>
	<title>Re:Where are the games I want?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245064920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They did. It is called Braid. The best platformer game that I have ever played. And that includes Donkey Kong Country, Commander Keen, Mario, Sonic, and Earthworm Jim. Braid is simply unmatched in my opinion.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They did .
It is called Braid .
The best platformer game that I have ever played .
And that includes Donkey Kong Country , Commander Keen , Mario , Sonic , and Earthworm Jim .
Braid is simply unmatched in my opinion .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They did.
It is called Braid.
The best platformer game that I have ever played.
And that includes Donkey Kong Country, Commander Keen, Mario, Sonic, and Earthworm Jim.
Braid is simply unmatched in my opinion.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28339817</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28339827</id>
	<title>Re:I'm not surprised</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245056880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I love how the default user action to to mod up trolls like this.</p><p>The current generation of gaming is more or less the same as the last generation, which is more or less the same as the generation before that. I really don't understand how people can say that games are so much worse now than before when they're basically the same game as before, but with an increment, or better graphics, or better controls.</p><p>As to the specific consoles, yes, we are all quite aware that each console has a downside, just as each console before had a downside. Yes, the wii has bad graphics. Yes, some 360s break (not all!), and yes, the PS3 library leaves something to be desired, but each console is pretty good.</p><p>Wii: Innovative motion control/point-and-shoot style gaming. Granted, it doesn't work as well as it should, and the graphics are terrible. Honestly, my least favorite system.</p><p>Xbox 360: Great catalog of games, solid online support. Everyone that's had their console break has also had a replacement, plus usually a free game or free month of live.</p><p>PS3: Has a decently sized game library, plus several online titles. Online support is good (but not as good as the 360) and there are some interesting single platform titles out there. Truth be told, if you're looking for a bluray player, it's also pretty much the best one you can get (and for awhile was the cheapest one you could get). All in all, by no means a bad console.</p><p>This generation has been far from a let down for any gamer willing to accept that trends change. Anyone that longs for the time of the playstation 1 or later needs a reality check. (problems with PS1: initial controller replaced with dual shock, which was necessary for some games. Each console more or less required a $20 memory card. the card held so little that everyone really needed 2 or 3 cards. The games had poor graphics even then, long load times, wired controllers, etc.)</p><p>More to the topic: I seriously doubt that any new console will appear in the next few years. Here's my reasoning:<br>1. People don't want to spend money right now. A new console has a sharp price increase for both the consumer and the producer of the goods.<br>2. There's nothing really wrong with this generation. The graphics still look fine, the consoles still cost too much and the sale of consoles is still quite strong (or was last winter)<br>3. The current generation is only about 4 years old. The last generation was an abnormality, but most generations last about 6 years or longer.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I love how the default user action to to mod up trolls like this.The current generation of gaming is more or less the same as the last generation , which is more or less the same as the generation before that .
I really do n't understand how people can say that games are so much worse now than before when they 're basically the same game as before , but with an increment , or better graphics , or better controls.As to the specific consoles , yes , we are all quite aware that each console has a downside , just as each console before had a downside .
Yes , the wii has bad graphics .
Yes , some 360s break ( not all !
) , and yes , the PS3 library leaves something to be desired , but each console is pretty good.Wii : Innovative motion control/point-and-shoot style gaming .
Granted , it does n't work as well as it should , and the graphics are terrible .
Honestly , my least favorite system.Xbox 360 : Great catalog of games , solid online support .
Everyone that 's had their console break has also had a replacement , plus usually a free game or free month of live.PS3 : Has a decently sized game library , plus several online titles .
Online support is good ( but not as good as the 360 ) and there are some interesting single platform titles out there .
Truth be told , if you 're looking for a bluray player , it 's also pretty much the best one you can get ( and for awhile was the cheapest one you could get ) .
All in all , by no means a bad console.This generation has been far from a let down for any gamer willing to accept that trends change .
Anyone that longs for the time of the playstation 1 or later needs a reality check .
( problems with PS1 : initial controller replaced with dual shock , which was necessary for some games .
Each console more or less required a $ 20 memory card .
the card held so little that everyone really needed 2 or 3 cards .
The games had poor graphics even then , long load times , wired controllers , etc .
) More to the topic : I seriously doubt that any new console will appear in the next few years .
Here 's my reasoning : 1 .
People do n't want to spend money right now .
A new console has a sharp price increase for both the consumer and the producer of the goods.2 .
There 's nothing really wrong with this generation .
The graphics still look fine , the consoles still cost too much and the sale of consoles is still quite strong ( or was last winter ) 3 .
The current generation is only about 4 years old .
The last generation was an abnormality , but most generations last about 6 years or longer .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I love how the default user action to to mod up trolls like this.The current generation of gaming is more or less the same as the last generation, which is more or less the same as the generation before that.
I really don't understand how people can say that games are so much worse now than before when they're basically the same game as before, but with an increment, or better graphics, or better controls.As to the specific consoles, yes, we are all quite aware that each console has a downside, just as each console before had a downside.
Yes, the wii has bad graphics.
Yes, some 360s break (not all!
), and yes, the PS3 library leaves something to be desired, but each console is pretty good.Wii: Innovative motion control/point-and-shoot style gaming.
Granted, it doesn't work as well as it should, and the graphics are terrible.
Honestly, my least favorite system.Xbox 360: Great catalog of games, solid online support.
Everyone that's had their console break has also had a replacement, plus usually a free game or free month of live.PS3: Has a decently sized game library, plus several online titles.
Online support is good (but not as good as the 360) and there are some interesting single platform titles out there.
Truth be told, if you're looking for a bluray player, it's also pretty much the best one you can get (and for awhile was the cheapest one you could get).
All in all, by no means a bad console.This generation has been far from a let down for any gamer willing to accept that trends change.
Anyone that longs for the time of the playstation 1 or later needs a reality check.
(problems with PS1: initial controller replaced with dual shock, which was necessary for some games.
Each console more or less required a $20 memory card.
the card held so little that everyone really needed 2 or 3 cards.
The games had poor graphics even then, long load times, wired controllers, etc.
)More to the topic: I seriously doubt that any new console will appear in the next few years.
Here's my reasoning:1.
People don't want to spend money right now.
A new console has a sharp price increase for both the consumer and the producer of the goods.2.
There's nothing really wrong with this generation.
The graphics still look fine, the consoles still cost too much and the sale of consoles is still quite strong (or was last winter)3.
The current generation is only about 4 years old.
The last generation was an abnormality, but most generations last about 6 years or longer.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28338825</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28340543</id>
	<title>Braid</title>
	<author>relguj9</author>
	<datestamp>1245059640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Short game, but it's really good.<br> <br>

<a href="http://www.gamespot.com/search.html?qs=braid&amp;om\_act=convert&amp;om\_clk=search" title="gamespot.com">http://www.gamespot.com/search.html?qs=braid&amp;om\_act=convert&amp;om\_clk=search</a> [gamespot.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>Short game , but it 's really good .
http : //www.gamespot.com/search.html ? qs = braid&amp;om \ _act = convert&amp;om \ _clk = search [ gamespot.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Short game, but it's really good.
http://www.gamespot.com/search.html?qs=braid&amp;om\_act=convert&amp;om\_clk=search [gamespot.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28339817</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28368435</id>
	<title>Re:I'm not surprised</title>
	<author>LordVader717</author>
	<datestamp>1245247800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The PSX was basically the pinnacle of 2D game consoles.</p></div><p>Actually, no, the PSX sucked at 2D. The NEOGEO hardware was much better for 2D graphics (It had a lot to do with the games coming on a truckload of ROM chips). Compare the PS1 and the NEGEO versions of metal slug for example.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The PSX was basically the pinnacle of 2D game consoles.Actually , no , the PSX sucked at 2D .
The NEOGEO hardware was much better for 2D graphics ( It had a lot to do with the games coming on a truckload of ROM chips ) .
Compare the PS1 and the NEGEO versions of metal slug for example .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The PSX was basically the pinnacle of 2D game consoles.Actually, no, the PSX sucked at 2D.
The NEOGEO hardware was much better for 2D graphics (It had a lot to do with the games coming on a truckload of ROM chips).
Compare the PS1 and the NEGEO versions of metal slug for example.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28340299</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28340465</id>
	<title>Re:I'm not surprised</title>
	<author>UnknownSoldier</author>
	<datestamp>1245059280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt; The Wii is probably somewhat more powerful than the original Xbox.</p><p>Uhm, no. Having worked on the Wii, The GX (GPU) is \_not\_ as powerful as a GeForce 3.5.  (The XBox's GPU was about half way between a GeForce 3 and GeForce 4.)  The is more like a GeForce 2.5. It has half a pixel shader. Translation: Very limited, and takes specific planning to work around it.</p><p>&gt; And yes, I do think SNES graphics were better than PS1 graphics. Good 2D &gt; primitive 3D.</p><p>Agreed. Most people don't seem to understand that is a hell of a lot easier to make art look good from only 1 angle, then from 360 directions. (Due to \_baked\_ in lighting / shadows.)</p><p>&gt; that I tend to feel the graphics do suck on, are the 2600 and PS1 generations.</p><p>Agreed. Not having a Z-buffer and having to manually sort polys is total suckage on the PSX aka PS1 for the public.</p><p>Personally, I don't even see why there is even talk about new "next-gen" --  the US economy is still in the toilet, and I don't see too many people rushing out to buy the current "next-gen" consoles.  The only thing I \_do\_ see, is that now is probably the time to start developing next gen consoles, given a 2 - 3 year lead time.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; The Wii is probably somewhat more powerful than the original Xbox.Uhm , no .
Having worked on the Wii , The GX ( GPU ) is \ _not \ _ as powerful as a GeForce 3.5 .
( The XBox 's GPU was about half way between a GeForce 3 and GeForce 4 .
) The is more like a GeForce 2.5 .
It has half a pixel shader .
Translation : Very limited , and takes specific planning to work around it. &gt; And yes , I do think SNES graphics were better than PS1 graphics .
Good 2D &gt; primitive 3D.Agreed .
Most people do n't seem to understand that is a hell of a lot easier to make art look good from only 1 angle , then from 360 directions .
( Due to \ _baked \ _ in lighting / shadows .
) &gt; that I tend to feel the graphics do suck on , are the 2600 and PS1 generations.Agreed .
Not having a Z-buffer and having to manually sort polys is total suckage on the PSX aka PS1 for the public.Personally , I do n't even see why there is even talk about new " next-gen " -- the US economy is still in the toilet , and I do n't see too many people rushing out to buy the current " next-gen " consoles .
The only thing I \ _do \ _ see , is that now is probably the time to start developing next gen consoles , given a 2 - 3 year lead time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; The Wii is probably somewhat more powerful than the original Xbox.Uhm, no.
Having worked on the Wii, The GX (GPU) is \_not\_ as powerful as a GeForce 3.5.
(The XBox's GPU was about half way between a GeForce 3 and GeForce 4.
)  The is more like a GeForce 2.5.
It has half a pixel shader.
Translation: Very limited, and takes specific planning to work around it.&gt; And yes, I do think SNES graphics were better than PS1 graphics.
Good 2D &gt; primitive 3D.Agreed.
Most people don't seem to understand that is a hell of a lot easier to make art look good from only 1 angle, then from 360 directions.
(Due to \_baked\_ in lighting / shadows.
)&gt; that I tend to feel the graphics do suck on, are the 2600 and PS1 generations.Agreed.
Not having a Z-buffer and having to manually sort polys is total suckage on the PSX aka PS1 for the public.Personally, I don't even see why there is even talk about new "next-gen" --  the US economy is still in the toilet, and I don't see too many people rushing out to buy the current "next-gen" consoles.
The only thing I \_do\_ see, is that now is probably the time to start developing next gen consoles, given a 2 - 3 year lead time.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28339431</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28346255</id>
	<title>Re:Well, 5 years has always been the standard</title>
	<author>Clovis42</author>
	<datestamp>1245158160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I really enjoyed Mass Effect, although it got repetitive in some parts. I don't see how a game in (essentially) the CRPG genre gets faulted for trying to be like a movie. Isn't that what RPGs have always been trying to do?? Even the early Final Fantasy games had cutscenes that tried to be movie-like. Is the problem here that you just don't like RPGs? I know ME isn't a great RPG, but they all really want to be interactive movies.
</p><p>I found some of the movie influence in Mass Effect to be a huge postive. Just compare the dialogue sequences to Oblivion. In Oblivion you had a camera fixed on a weird looking person with terrible voice acting and a bland script. In Mass Effect you had a movie style camera switching positions with a cool looking alien, good voice acting, and a sometimes interesting script. Mass Effect was the first game I actually turned subtitles off so that I could watch and listen to everything.
</p><p>ME definitely had some flaws, but it should be stuck in a category with Gears of War or even Assassin's Creed (although that was definitely fun for the first few hours).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I really enjoyed Mass Effect , although it got repetitive in some parts .
I do n't see how a game in ( essentially ) the CRPG genre gets faulted for trying to be like a movie .
Is n't that what RPGs have always been trying to do ? ?
Even the early Final Fantasy games had cutscenes that tried to be movie-like .
Is the problem here that you just do n't like RPGs ?
I know ME is n't a great RPG , but they all really want to be interactive movies .
I found some of the movie influence in Mass Effect to be a huge postive .
Just compare the dialogue sequences to Oblivion .
In Oblivion you had a camera fixed on a weird looking person with terrible voice acting and a bland script .
In Mass Effect you had a movie style camera switching positions with a cool looking alien , good voice acting , and a sometimes interesting script .
Mass Effect was the first game I actually turned subtitles off so that I could watch and listen to everything .
ME definitely had some flaws , but it should be stuck in a category with Gears of War or even Assassin 's Creed ( although that was definitely fun for the first few hours ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I really enjoyed Mass Effect, although it got repetitive in some parts.
I don't see how a game in (essentially) the CRPG genre gets faulted for trying to be like a movie.
Isn't that what RPGs have always been trying to do??
Even the early Final Fantasy games had cutscenes that tried to be movie-like.
Is the problem here that you just don't like RPGs?
I know ME isn't a great RPG, but they all really want to be interactive movies.
I found some of the movie influence in Mass Effect to be a huge postive.
Just compare the dialogue sequences to Oblivion.
In Oblivion you had a camera fixed on a weird looking person with terrible voice acting and a bland script.
In Mass Effect you had a movie style camera switching positions with a cool looking alien, good voice acting, and a sometimes interesting script.
Mass Effect was the first game I actually turned subtitles off so that I could watch and listen to everything.
ME definitely had some flaws, but it should be stuck in a category with Gears of War or even Assassin's Creed (although that was definitely fun for the first few hours).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28339097</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28340577</id>
	<title>Re:I'm not surprised</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245059760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Xbox 360: Horribly unreliable hardware, even after the jasper redesign."</p><p>Are people still spewing this rubbish? 2007 called, they want their anti-Xbox whine back.</p><p>"PS3: A BD player that can also play a few games."</p><p>It's 2007 again for you, they want their anti-Playstation whine back.</p><p>The 360 is as rock solid as the other two consoles and has been since the Falcon release. This is why no one has any RROD problems now apart from on the odd remaining old system, which are also the ones effected by the E-74 error. Similarly the PS3 has had tons of games for ages now.</p><p>Presumably you heard all these bad things about these consoles back before 2007, so never got one, and hence don't actually know what you're on about.</p><p>FWIW I suffered 4 RROD'd Xbox's and my brother in law suffered 3 also because we were both early adopters so I of all people know how crap the original hardware was. There is no issue with the new ones though suggesting there is just means you're just plain trolling just as suggesting the PS3 only has a few games is trolling.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Xbox 360 : Horribly unreliable hardware , even after the jasper redesign .
" Are people still spewing this rubbish ?
2007 called , they want their anti-Xbox whine back .
" PS3 : A BD player that can also play a few games .
" It 's 2007 again for you , they want their anti-Playstation whine back.The 360 is as rock solid as the other two consoles and has been since the Falcon release .
This is why no one has any RROD problems now apart from on the odd remaining old system , which are also the ones effected by the E-74 error .
Similarly the PS3 has had tons of games for ages now.Presumably you heard all these bad things about these consoles back before 2007 , so never got one , and hence do n't actually know what you 're on about.FWIW I suffered 4 RROD 'd Xbox 's and my brother in law suffered 3 also because we were both early adopters so I of all people know how crap the original hardware was .
There is no issue with the new ones though suggesting there is just means you 're just plain trolling just as suggesting the PS3 only has a few games is trolling .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Xbox 360: Horribly unreliable hardware, even after the jasper redesign.
"Are people still spewing this rubbish?
2007 called, they want their anti-Xbox whine back.
"PS3: A BD player that can also play a few games.
"It's 2007 again for you, they want their anti-Playstation whine back.The 360 is as rock solid as the other two consoles and has been since the Falcon release.
This is why no one has any RROD problems now apart from on the odd remaining old system, which are also the ones effected by the E-74 error.
Similarly the PS3 has had tons of games for ages now.Presumably you heard all these bad things about these consoles back before 2007, so never got one, and hence don't actually know what you're on about.FWIW I suffered 4 RROD'd Xbox's and my brother in law suffered 3 also because we were both early adopters so I of all people know how crap the original hardware was.
There is no issue with the new ones though suggesting there is just means you're just plain trolling just as suggesting the PS3 only has a few games is trolling.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28338825</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28339745</id>
	<title>Re:I'm not surprised</title>
	<author>gbarules2999</author>
	<datestamp>1245056580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>the Wii's graphics are still more than capable, and the PS3/360 are, if anything, excessive.</p></div><p>Graphics are not just there for "looks." Oftentimes they can add to gameplay, and change it, make it move in ways we haven't considered before.<br> <br>Just because you like the SNES graphics more doesn't mean the PlayStation wouldn't be valid. The added power brings more to the table for 3D than the SNES could ever do. I'd like to see you try to do Resident Evil, Gran Turismo, or Tomb Raider on the SNES, for example. Look at a game like Mass Effect, which use the increasing technology to make more believable characters and interesting worlds.<br> <br>This smacks of "Nobody's going to need any more than 647KB of RAM" to me.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>the Wii 's graphics are still more than capable , and the PS3/360 are , if anything , excessive.Graphics are not just there for " looks .
" Oftentimes they can add to gameplay , and change it , make it move in ways we have n't considered before .
Just because you like the SNES graphics more does n't mean the PlayStation would n't be valid .
The added power brings more to the table for 3D than the SNES could ever do .
I 'd like to see you try to do Resident Evil , Gran Turismo , or Tomb Raider on the SNES , for example .
Look at a game like Mass Effect , which use the increasing technology to make more believable characters and interesting worlds .
This smacks of " Nobody 's going to need any more than 647KB of RAM " to me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>the Wii's graphics are still more than capable, and the PS3/360 are, if anything, excessive.Graphics are not just there for "looks.
" Oftentimes they can add to gameplay, and change it, make it move in ways we haven't considered before.
Just because you like the SNES graphics more doesn't mean the PlayStation wouldn't be valid.
The added power brings more to the table for 3D than the SNES could ever do.
I'd like to see you try to do Resident Evil, Gran Turismo, or Tomb Raider on the SNES, for example.
Look at a game like Mass Effect, which use the increasing technology to make more believable characters and interesting worlds.
This smacks of "Nobody's going to need any more than 647KB of RAM" to me.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28339431</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28343363</id>
	<title>Re:Well, 5 years has always been the standard</title>
	<author>Lockblade</author>
	<datestamp>1245077880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Personally, I thought Assassin's Creed was pretty good. The game wasn't perfect by any means, but definitely worth a second play through. I will concede that reviewers didn't like it that much, though.

<p>
However, it's just a coincidence that the other two games were released to critical acclaim and are both regarded as some of the best of the 360. Just coincidence, I'm sure.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Personally , I thought Assassin 's Creed was pretty good .
The game was n't perfect by any means , but definitely worth a second play through .
I will concede that reviewers did n't like it that much , though .
However , it 's just a coincidence that the other two games were released to critical acclaim and are both regarded as some of the best of the 360 .
Just coincidence , I 'm sure .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Personally, I thought Assassin's Creed was pretty good.
The game wasn't perfect by any means, but definitely worth a second play through.
I will concede that reviewers didn't like it that much, though.
However, it's just a coincidence that the other two games were released to critical acclaim and are both regarded as some of the best of the 360.
Just coincidence, I'm sure.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28339097</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28339413</id>
	<title>Re:Well, 5 years has always been the standard</title>
	<author>sopssa</author>
	<datestamp>1245098520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Its bad to compare games from 80's and 90's, because it was all new then so everything felt exciting, besides theres some nostalgia towards those early years that probably happened to be lots of peoples teenage years aswell.</p><p>Besides, theres still Mario games released for Wii. Actually, Mario Galaxy was damn fun and it had working, not photorealistic graphics.</p><p>Now I do <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5zhS4DuML5Q&amp;fmt=22" title="youtube.com">enjoy</a> [youtube.com] the <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=khG8pVEmzO4&amp;fmt=22" title="youtube.com">great</a> [youtube.com] graphics aswell. It makes you feel more in the game, in good and bad. It gives impressions and woah moments. But its not required to make a fun game.</p><p>Btw, I enjoyed Assassins Creed even tho it got a bit boring quickly.</p><p>Immersing graphics or movielike (where you feel like you're in a movie) doesn't equal to bad games, if done correctly. Great games are always great games, and good graphics make it nicer to play it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Its bad to compare games from 80 's and 90 's , because it was all new then so everything felt exciting , besides theres some nostalgia towards those early years that probably happened to be lots of peoples teenage years aswell.Besides , theres still Mario games released for Wii .
Actually , Mario Galaxy was damn fun and it had working , not photorealistic graphics.Now I do enjoy [ youtube.com ] the great [ youtube.com ] graphics aswell .
It makes you feel more in the game , in good and bad .
It gives impressions and woah moments .
But its not required to make a fun game.Btw , I enjoyed Assassins Creed even tho it got a bit boring quickly.Immersing graphics or movielike ( where you feel like you 're in a movie ) does n't equal to bad games , if done correctly .
Great games are always great games , and good graphics make it nicer to play it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Its bad to compare games from 80's and 90's, because it was all new then so everything felt exciting, besides theres some nostalgia towards those early years that probably happened to be lots of peoples teenage years aswell.Besides, theres still Mario games released for Wii.
Actually, Mario Galaxy was damn fun and it had working, not photorealistic graphics.Now I do enjoy [youtube.com] the great [youtube.com] graphics aswell.
It makes you feel more in the game, in good and bad.
It gives impressions and woah moments.
But its not required to make a fun game.Btw, I enjoyed Assassins Creed even tho it got a bit boring quickly.Immersing graphics or movielike (where you feel like you're in a movie) doesn't equal to bad games, if done correctly.
Great games are always great games, and good graphics make it nicer to play it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28339097</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_15_1654225_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28338857
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28339097
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28342309
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_15_1654225_100</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28338825
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28339431
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28340465
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_15_1654225_95</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28338825
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28339431
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28340859
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_15_1654225_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28338825
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28339945
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_15_1654225_102</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28338825
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28339431
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28339997
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_15_1654225_97</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28339089
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28339535
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28345237
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_15_1654225_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28338857
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28339453
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_15_1654225_73</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28339317
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28340099
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28353783
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_15_1654225_96</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28339817
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28341561
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_15_1654225_59</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28339255
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28339731
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_15_1654225_87</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28338825
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28339431
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28340299
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28341037
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_15_1654225_90</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28339817
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28340319
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_15_1654225_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28338825
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28339431
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28340705
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_15_1654225_64</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28338825
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28339121
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28340333
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_15_1654225_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28338857
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28339097
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28339413
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_15_1654225_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28339817
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28344273
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_15_1654225_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28338837
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28339627
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_15_1654225_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28338825
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28339431
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28341071
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_15_1654225_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28339817
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28345055
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_15_1654225_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28339433
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28340695
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_15_1654225_88</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28339317
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28341595
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_15_1654225_79</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28338837
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28338885
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28338959
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_15_1654225_61</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28339255
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28340123
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_15_1654225_82</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28338825
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28339623
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28341413
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_15_1654225_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28338825
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28340325
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_15_1654225_78</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28338857
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28339097
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28343363
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_15_1654225_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28338857
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28340253
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_15_1654225_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28338857
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28339097
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28345633
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_15_1654225_85</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28339817
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28340543
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_15_1654225_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28338825
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28339431
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28341323
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_15_1654225_62</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28339355
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28348623
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_15_1654225_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28339255
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28339587
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_15_1654225_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28339149
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28341553
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_15_1654225_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28339317
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28340141
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_15_1654225_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28339163
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28339465
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_15_1654225_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28339433
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28345267
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_15_1654225_106</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28340419
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28344391
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_15_1654225_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28340327
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28348191
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_15_1654225_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28338857
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28339049
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_15_1654225_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28339817
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28362075
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_15_1654225_77</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28339817
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28346789
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_15_1654225_80</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28338825
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28339341
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_15_1654225_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28338857
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28339097
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28340965
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_15_1654225_94</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28339149
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28343605
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_15_1654225_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28340439
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28347385
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_15_1654225_68</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28339255
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28339767
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_15_1654225_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28339817
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28342403
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_15_1654225_72</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28338857
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28339097
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28339585
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_15_1654225_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28339149
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28340767
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_15_1654225_58</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28338825
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28339121
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28344891
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_15_1654225_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28338837
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28338885
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28339581
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_15_1654225_103</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28339255
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28340831
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_15_1654225_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28340419
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28342109
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_15_1654225_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28339255
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28343649
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_15_1654225_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28339015
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28339577
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_15_1654225_65</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28339817
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28341205
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_15_1654225_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28338823
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28339345
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_15_1654225_99</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28339149
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28339617
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_15_1654225_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28338837
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28338885
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28339419
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_15_1654225_93</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28338825
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28339077
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_15_1654225_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28338837
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28339271
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_15_1654225_89</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28338825
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28339431
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28339565
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_15_1654225_92</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28338857
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28339097
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28342515
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_15_1654225_83</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28338825
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28341217
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_15_1654225_66</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28338857
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28339219
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28339495
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_15_1654225_57</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28339015
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28341449
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_15_1654225_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28339433
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28343183
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_15_1654225_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28340439
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28344997
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_15_1654225_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28339163
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28340515
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_15_1654225_56</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28339255
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28339737
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_15_1654225_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28340845
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28347111
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_15_1654225_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28339255
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28340851
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_15_1654225_101</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28338825
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28339827
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_15_1654225_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28338857
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28339097
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28346255
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_15_1654225_63</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28339255
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28346391
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_15_1654225_86</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28338825
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28339431
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28339963
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_15_1654225_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28339015
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28339913
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_15_1654225_91</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28339817
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28347507
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_15_1654225_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28339255
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28341757
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_15_1654225_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28339089
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28339535
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28343557
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28421019
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_15_1654225_76</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28338859
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28339513
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_15_1654225_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28338825
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28340577
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_15_1654225_81</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28338857
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28341005
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_15_1654225_55</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28339317
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28340099
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28344171
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_15_1654225_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28338825
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28339121
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28340195
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28342815
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_15_1654225_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28339355
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28345375
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_15_1654225_69</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28338857
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28339895
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28361955
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_15_1654225_60</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28338825
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28339431
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28340299
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28368435
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_15_1654225_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28339355
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28344005
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_15_1654225_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28339163
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28348057
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_15_1654225_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28338857
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28339991
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28341273
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_15_1654225_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28338825
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28339121
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28341051
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_15_1654225_104</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28338857
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28338975
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_15_1654225_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28339255
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28340397
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_15_1654225_84</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28339355
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28341415
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_15_1654225_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28339015
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28350973
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_15_1654225_75</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28339149
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28340341
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_15_1654225_98</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28338857
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28339991
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28341017
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_15_1654225_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28338859
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28339439
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28345197
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_15_1654225_74</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28339015
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28339363
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_15_1654225_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28338825
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28339859
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_15_1654225_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28338825
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28339431
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28340021
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_15_1654225_105</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28338825
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28339431
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28339745
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28341535
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_15_1654225_71</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28338825
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28339431
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28339655
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28339973
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_15_1654225_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28339255
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28339855
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_15_1654225_67</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28338825
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28339471
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_15_1654225_70</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28340439
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28345347
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_15_1654225.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28339255
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28343649
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28340831
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28346391
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28340851
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28339767
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28339731
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28340123
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28339737
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28339587
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28340397
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28339855
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28341757
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_15_1654225.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28338857
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28339219
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28339495
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28339991
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28341017
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28341273
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28339097
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28346255
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28342309
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28343363
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28342515
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28339413
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28340965
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28345633
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28339585
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28338975
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28339895
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28361955
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28339049
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28340253
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28341005
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28339453
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_15_1654225.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28338937
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_15_1654225.20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28339355
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28341415
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28344005
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28345375
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28348623
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_15_1654225.21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28340439
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28347385
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28344997
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28345347
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_15_1654225.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28340419
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28344391
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28342109
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_15_1654225.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28339149
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28343605
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28341553
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28340341
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28339617
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28340767
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_15_1654225.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28338837
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28338885
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28339581
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28339419
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28338959
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28339627
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28339271
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_15_1654225.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28339499
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_15_1654225.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28339015
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28350973
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28341449
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28339363
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28339913
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28339577
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_15_1654225.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28339549
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_15_1654225.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28339163
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28348057
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28340515
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28339465
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_15_1654225.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28340845
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28347111
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_15_1654225.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28338877
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_15_1654225.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28339817
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28346789
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28340319
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28362075
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28342403
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28347507
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28345055
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28341205
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28344273
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28340543
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28341561
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_15_1654225.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28343891
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_15_1654225.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28338825
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28339623
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28341413
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28339341
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28339121
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28340333
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28340195
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28342815
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28344891
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28341051
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28339077
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28341217
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28339431
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28339565
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28339963
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28340859
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28339655
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28339973
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28339997
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28340705
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28340299
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28368435
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28341037
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28339745
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28341535
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28341323
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28340465
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28340021
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28341071
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28340577
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28339945
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28340325
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28339471
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28339859
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28339827
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_15_1654225.22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28338859
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28339513
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28339439
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28345197
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_15_1654225.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28339269
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_15_1654225.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28338823
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28339345
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_15_1654225.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28339317
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28341595
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28340099
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28353783
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28344171
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28340141
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_15_1654225.23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28339433
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28343183
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28345267
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28340695
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_15_1654225.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28339089
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28339535
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28343557
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28421019
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28345237
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_15_1654225.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28340327
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1654225.28348191
</commentlist>
</conversation>
