<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_07_01_1628259</id>
	<title>Blizzard Confirms No LAN Support For <em>Starcraft 2</em></title>
	<author>Soulskill</author>
	<datestamp>1246467900000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>Kemeno writes <i>"Blizzard has announced that they will be <a href="http://www.gamespot.com/news/6212765.html">dropping LAN support for <em>Starcraft II</em></a>, citing piracy and quality concerns. Instead, all multiplayer games will be hosted through their new Battle.net service. I suppose I shouldn't be surprised by this move, but wasn't LAN play how the original <em>Starcraft</em> became popular? Blizzard said, 'More people on Battle.net means ... even more resources devoted to evolving this online platform to <a href="http://www.gossipgamers.com/blizzards-response-to-no-lan-support-for-starcraft-2/">cater to further community building</a> and new ways to enjoy the game online. <em>World of Warcraft</em> is a great example of a game that has evolved beyond anyone's imagination since their Day 1 and will continue to do so to better the player experience for as long as players support the title. ... We would not take out LAN if we did not feel we could offer players something better.'"</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>Kemeno writes " Blizzard has announced that they will be dropping LAN support for Starcraft II , citing piracy and quality concerns .
Instead , all multiplayer games will be hosted through their new Battle.net service .
I suppose I should n't be surprised by this move , but was n't LAN play how the original Starcraft became popular ?
Blizzard said , 'More people on Battle.net means ... even more resources devoted to evolving this online platform to cater to further community building and new ways to enjoy the game online .
World of Warcraft is a great example of a game that has evolved beyond anyone 's imagination since their Day 1 and will continue to do so to better the player experience for as long as players support the title .
... We would not take out LAN if we did not feel we could offer players something better .
' "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Kemeno writes "Blizzard has announced that they will be dropping LAN support for Starcraft II, citing piracy and quality concerns.
Instead, all multiplayer games will be hosted through their new Battle.net service.
I suppose I shouldn't be surprised by this move, but wasn't LAN play how the original Starcraft became popular?
Blizzard said, 'More people on Battle.net means ... even more resources devoted to evolving this online platform to cater to further community building and new ways to enjoy the game online.
World of Warcraft is a great example of a game that has evolved beyond anyone's imagination since their Day 1 and will continue to do so to better the player experience for as long as players support the title.
... We would not take out LAN if we did not feel we could offer players something better.
'"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28552387</id>
	<title>Blizzard is getting way to controlling.</title>
	<author>dasherjan</author>
	<datestamp>1246455600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Quote
"While this was a difficult decision for us, we felt that moving away from LAN play and directing players to our upgraded Battle.net service was the best option to ensure a quality multiplayer experience with Starcraft II..."
Quote


   This is just a load of BS. I find it really hard to believe that my friends and I will be better served connecting to a service (most likely in another state) and wait for the lag to get through the time of setting up a &#226;oegame room&#226; that we have to password protect to keep the random Bnet kiddy from popping in and spamming &#226;oego go go&#226;.


  They are looking for a new way to pump advertising to people plain and simple and to suggest otherwise is just downright insulting. I had played WoW (and most every other Blizz game) since before the release and finally gave up because of their attitude: we are going to control every aspect of how people play our games and funnel them into having the fun we want them to have. They will probably pull the crap that the people that made Dawn of War 2 did. Where you have to have an internet connection just successfully install and activate the single player. On the bright side with the gaming companies starting this crap I will have more time to spend outside.</div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Quote " While this was a difficult decision for us , we felt that moving away from LAN play and directing players to our upgraded Battle.net service was the best option to ensure a quality multiplayer experience with Starcraft II... " Quote This is just a load of BS .
I find it really hard to believe that my friends and I will be better served connecting to a service ( most likely in another state ) and wait for the lag to get through the time of setting up a   oegame room   that we have to password protect to keep the random Bnet kiddy from popping in and spamming   oego go go   .
They are looking for a new way to pump advertising to people plain and simple and to suggest otherwise is just downright insulting .
I had played WoW ( and most every other Blizz game ) since before the release and finally gave up because of their attitude : we are going to control every aspect of how people play our games and funnel them into having the fun we want them to have .
They will probably pull the crap that the people that made Dawn of War 2 did .
Where you have to have an internet connection just successfully install and activate the single player .
On the bright side with the gaming companies starting this crap I will have more time to spend outside .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Quote
"While this was a difficult decision for us, we felt that moving away from LAN play and directing players to our upgraded Battle.net service was the best option to ensure a quality multiplayer experience with Starcraft II..."
Quote


   This is just a load of BS.
I find it really hard to believe that my friends and I will be better served connecting to a service (most likely in another state) and wait for the lag to get through the time of setting up a âoegame roomâ that we have to password protect to keep the random Bnet kiddy from popping in and spamming âoego go goâ.
They are looking for a new way to pump advertising to people plain and simple and to suggest otherwise is just downright insulting.
I had played WoW (and most every other Blizz game) since before the release and finally gave up because of their attitude: we are going to control every aspect of how people play our games and funnel them into having the fun we want them to have.
They will probably pull the crap that the people that made Dawn of War 2 did.
Where you have to have an internet connection just successfully install and activate the single player.
On the bright side with the gaming companies starting this crap I will have more time to spend outside.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28545653</id>
	<title>I don't think piracy is their main concern here</title>
	<author>joaobranco</author>
	<datestamp>1246473720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I don't think piracy is their main concern here. I believe this may be a (somewhat misguided) idea to get a subscription of SCII players, like they got used with WoW. Sure, they said they would allow all bought copies to play on bnet, but they haven't precluded some options (like e.g. a subscription allows you to have pre-made groups, or bigger battles, or something like that). If people buy the game and don't log on bnet, some carrots and sticks will be missing on their options.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't think piracy is their main concern here .
I believe this may be a ( somewhat misguided ) idea to get a subscription of SCII players , like they got used with WoW .
Sure , they said they would allow all bought copies to play on bnet , but they have n't precluded some options ( like e.g .
a subscription allows you to have pre-made groups , or bigger battles , or something like that ) .
If people buy the game and do n't log on bnet , some carrots and sticks will be missing on their options .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't think piracy is their main concern here.
I believe this may be a (somewhat misguided) idea to get a subscription of SCII players, like they got used with WoW.
Sure, they said they would allow all bought copies to play on bnet, but they haven't precluded some options (like e.g.
a subscription allows you to have pre-made groups, or bigger battles, or something like that).
If people buy the game and don't log on bnet, some carrots and sticks will be missing on their options.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28550989</id>
	<title>Alternately...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246447860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes, the DRM was probably a big part in this decision.  They even admit that.</p><p>But I rather suspect that they are also happy to save on development time.  LAN support requires its own UI, at least a port of some crusty old network code (if not a reimplementation), and a heaping pile of QA.</p><p>Sure, that's a small effort compared to the rest of the game.  But I've seen much smaller features get the axe when it becomes time to Ship The Game.</p><p>And that analysis assumes that the server application already runs locally.  If they are running server instances through Battle.net, then adding LAN play could be a huge task.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , the DRM was probably a big part in this decision .
They even admit that.But I rather suspect that they are also happy to save on development time .
LAN support requires its own UI , at least a port of some crusty old network code ( if not a reimplementation ) , and a heaping pile of QA.Sure , that 's a small effort compared to the rest of the game .
But I 've seen much smaller features get the axe when it becomes time to Ship The Game.And that analysis assumes that the server application already runs locally .
If they are running server instances through Battle.net , then adding LAN play could be a huge task .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, the DRM was probably a big part in this decision.
They even admit that.But I rather suspect that they are also happy to save on development time.
LAN support requires its own UI, at least a port of some crusty old network code (if not a reimplementation), and a heaping pile of QA.Sure, that's a small effort compared to the rest of the game.
But I've seen much smaller features get the axe when it becomes time to Ship The Game.And that analysis assumes that the server application already runs locally.
If they are running server instances through Battle.net, then adding LAN play could be a huge task.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28551433</id>
	<title>Please Contact Blizzard about this</title>
	<author>dieth</author>
	<datestamp>1246450020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The support contact is here: <a href="http://us.blizzard.com/support/webform.xml?locale=en\_US" title="blizzard.com" rel="nofollow">http://us.blizzard.com/support/webform.xml?locale=en\_US</a> [blizzard.com]
<br>
Let them know the disabling LAN support will only INCREASE the number of pirates of their game who will then turn to the "other" battle.nets.
<br>
I will be setting up an Auto Dial to spam (800) 953-SNOW with a pre-recorded message aswell, the more of you who can do this the better!</htmltext>
<tokenext>The support contact is here : http : //us.blizzard.com/support/webform.xml ? locale = en \ _US [ blizzard.com ] Let them know the disabling LAN support will only INCREASE the number of pirates of their game who will then turn to the " other " battle.nets .
I will be setting up an Auto Dial to spam ( 800 ) 953-SNOW with a pre-recorded message aswell , the more of you who can do this the better !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The support contact is here: http://us.blizzard.com/support/webform.xml?locale=en\_US [blizzard.com]

Let them know the disabling LAN support will only INCREASE the number of pirates of their game who will then turn to the "other" battle.nets.
I will be setting up an Auto Dial to spam (800) 953-SNOW with a pre-recorded message aswell, the more of you who can do this the better!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28630779</id>
	<title>Re:Bonus!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247061240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Heh, more like it will make sure everyone at the lan will have a cracked copy as that will be the only way to play. oops.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Heh , more like it will make sure everyone at the lan will have a cracked copy as that will be the only way to play .
oops .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Heh, more like it will make sure everyone at the lan will have a cracked copy as that will be the only way to play.
oops.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28545013</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28546733</id>
	<title>Re:The only form of DRM that works</title>
	<author>barzok</author>
	<datestamp>1246476960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In 11 years (present age of SC), will Blizzard still be running SC2 servers so you can play against your friend next door? I can do that with SC today - pop in the disc &amp; play a few rounds head to head, no trouble.</p><p>Look at what happened to people who'd bought music from MS or Yahoo when they shut down the DRM servers. This sort of DRM only harms the customer - if the server goes away, the software you've purchased (yeah, I know it's only a license, blah blah) becomes crippled or completely non-functional.</p><p>It's about a guaranteed income stream for as long as Blizzard feels like keeping it around, just like WoW. It's not to stop piracy, it's to force people to pay them to use their servers. If anything, you'd expect Blizzard to <b>want</b> people copying the game itself, because they'll subsequently sign up for online play.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In 11 years ( present age of SC ) , will Blizzard still be running SC2 servers so you can play against your friend next door ?
I can do that with SC today - pop in the disc &amp; play a few rounds head to head , no trouble.Look at what happened to people who 'd bought music from MS or Yahoo when they shut down the DRM servers .
This sort of DRM only harms the customer - if the server goes away , the software you 've purchased ( yeah , I know it 's only a license , blah blah ) becomes crippled or completely non-functional.It 's about a guaranteed income stream for as long as Blizzard feels like keeping it around , just like WoW .
It 's not to stop piracy , it 's to force people to pay them to use their servers .
If anything , you 'd expect Blizzard to want people copying the game itself , because they 'll subsequently sign up for online play .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In 11 years (present age of SC), will Blizzard still be running SC2 servers so you can play against your friend next door?
I can do that with SC today - pop in the disc &amp; play a few rounds head to head, no trouble.Look at what happened to people who'd bought music from MS or Yahoo when they shut down the DRM servers.
This sort of DRM only harms the customer - if the server goes away, the software you've purchased (yeah, I know it's only a license, blah blah) becomes crippled or completely non-functional.It's about a guaranteed income stream for as long as Blizzard feels like keeping it around, just like WoW.
It's not to stop piracy, it's to force people to pay them to use their servers.
If anything, you'd expect Blizzard to want people copying the game itself, because they'll subsequently sign up for online play.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28545103</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28549703</id>
	<title>Blizzard?</title>
	<author>igloonaut</author>
	<datestamp>1246442820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Associate the Warcraft, Diablo, and Starcraft franchises with Activision, and this will start making sense. Maybe the Taco Bell and AT&amp;T billboards in Ironforge aren't too far off either.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Associate the Warcraft , Diablo , and Starcraft franchises with Activision , and this will start making sense .
Maybe the Taco Bell and AT&amp;T billboards in Ironforge are n't too far off either .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Associate the Warcraft, Diablo, and Starcraft franchises with Activision, and this will start making sense.
Maybe the Taco Bell and AT&amp;T billboards in Ironforge aren't too far off either.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28547489</id>
	<title>Message from the Colonial Magistrate</title>
	<author>kaoshin</author>
	<datestamp>1246479540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I got your message Blizzard, and frankly I don't care what you have to say about digital rights management.  You damn fringe world software companies are all alike, don't know where your loyalties lie.  Y'all have a real good day now, y'hear?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I got your message Blizzard , and frankly I do n't care what you have to say about digital rights management .
You damn fringe world software companies are all alike , do n't know where your loyalties lie .
Y'all have a real good day now , y'hear ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I got your message Blizzard, and frankly I don't care what you have to say about digital rights management.
You damn fringe world software companies are all alike, don't know where your loyalties lie.
Y'all have a real good day now, y'hear?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28556543</id>
	<title>better like in ...</title>
	<author>po134</author>
	<datestamp>1246543620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>better like in<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.. make all your friends pay for the game even if they never played it before just so they can play with you on LAN/schools and other social events? Wow that's one hell of a company evolving in the wrong direction, even wtih EA's DRM t hey managed to let us install our game on 4 machines and play with it in LAN but who am I to judge, I only played SC  @ LAN during all my years of high-school during dinner and afterclass at the computers room...</htmltext>
<tokenext>better like in .. make all your friends pay for the game even if they never played it before just so they can play with you on LAN/schools and other social events ?
Wow that 's one hell of a company evolving in the wrong direction , even wtih EA 's DRM t hey managed to let us install our game on 4 machines and play with it in LAN but who am I to judge , I only played SC @ LAN during all my years of high-school during dinner and afterclass at the computers room.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>better like in .. make all your friends pay for the game even if they never played it before just so they can play with you on LAN/schools and other social events?
Wow that's one hell of a company evolving in the wrong direction, even wtih EA's DRM t hey managed to let us install our game on 4 machines and play with it in LAN but who am I to judge, I only played SC  @ LAN during all my years of high-school during dinner and afterclass at the computers room...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28545003</id>
	<title>I may sound cynical but...</title>
	<author>DRBivens</author>
	<datestamp>1246471860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No, Blizzard, you wouldn't take out LAN support (which is obviously popular) unless you thought you could make money by forcing everyone to use battle.net.</p><p>Or maybe requiring battle.net allows you to check everyone's serial number without generating a bunch of bad publicity by using SecuROM.</p><p>Now I'm gonna have to let all the LAN-party machines access the public Internet. Oh, goody!</p><p>Sheesh...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No , Blizzard , you would n't take out LAN support ( which is obviously popular ) unless you thought you could make money by forcing everyone to use battle.net.Or maybe requiring battle.net allows you to check everyone 's serial number without generating a bunch of bad publicity by using SecuROM.Now I 'm gon na have to let all the LAN-party machines access the public Internet .
Oh , goody ! Sheesh.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No, Blizzard, you wouldn't take out LAN support (which is obviously popular) unless you thought you could make money by forcing everyone to use battle.net.Or maybe requiring battle.net allows you to check everyone's serial number without generating a bunch of bad publicity by using SecuROM.Now I'm gonna have to let all the LAN-party machines access the public Internet.
Oh, goody!Sheesh...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28544983</id>
	<title>Sad..</title>
	<author>spire3661</author>
	<datestamp>1246471800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There was some thought that Blizz isnt completely stupid and will have client to server authentication over the net, and then P2P the clients on the LAN. At least with this method you could have as many LAN stations as your power will permit.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There was some thought that Blizz isnt completely stupid and will have client to server authentication over the net , and then P2P the clients on the LAN .
At least with this method you could have as many LAN stations as your power will permit .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There was some thought that Blizz isnt completely stupid and will have client to server authentication over the net, and then P2P the clients on the LAN.
At least with this method you could have as many LAN stations as your power will permit.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28547463</id>
	<title>Re:Stationed in Iraq</title>
	<author>Ihmhi</author>
	<datestamp>1246479420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you can get enough military guys together, I think "Support the Troops" will trump their [quote fingers]"anti-piracy"[/quote fingers].</p><p>I was thinking of the exact same thing.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If you can get enough military guys together , I think " Support the Troops " will trump their [ quote fingers ] " anti-piracy " [ /quote fingers ] .I was thinking of the exact same thing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you can get enough military guys together, I think "Support the Troops" will trump their [quote fingers]"anti-piracy"[/quote fingers].I was thinking of the exact same thing.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28545871</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28545103</id>
	<title>The only form of DRM that works</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246472100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>This is all about the only form of DRM that works: centrally controlled and account based.  Regardless of how many reasons that Blizzard gives, this is all about controlling the product.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is all about the only form of DRM that works : centrally controlled and account based .
Regardless of how many reasons that Blizzard gives , this is all about controlling the product .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is all about the only form of DRM that works: centrally controlled and account based.
Regardless of how many reasons that Blizzard gives, this is all about controlling the product.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28545263</id>
	<title>Not exactly the best decision ever...</title>
	<author>inject\_hotmail.com</author>
	<datestamp>1246472580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yeah, it's too bad they decided to do this.  If they wanted to reduce piracy they could put code in the game that checks other LAN client's CD key...I think this is more about forcing people to buy a subscription AND controlling the lifespan of the game.  We all know what happens when activation and proprietary hosting servers go dark...<p>
At least it'll have local campaign play, right?  You can still play that forever and ever.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , it 's too bad they decided to do this .
If they wanted to reduce piracy they could put code in the game that checks other LAN client 's CD key...I think this is more about forcing people to buy a subscription AND controlling the lifespan of the game .
We all know what happens when activation and proprietary hosting servers go dark.. . At least it 'll have local campaign play , right ?
You can still play that forever and ever .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, it's too bad they decided to do this.
If they wanted to reduce piracy they could put code in the game that checks other LAN client's CD key...I think this is more about forcing people to buy a subscription AND controlling the lifespan of the game.
We all know what happens when activation and proprietary hosting servers go dark...
At least it'll have local campaign play, right?
You can still play that forever and ever.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28567703</id>
	<title>Just another form of DRM</title>
	<author>admiral201</author>
	<datestamp>1246549860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is another form of DRM. Another game I now won't buy that I otherwise would have. I never play multiplayer games (of this genre) except on the LAN. I don't want or need Big Brother watching me.</p><p>Aside from that, it also breaks first-sale; you don't own the game because you can't (in a practical manner) sell it to someone else who will be able to use it in full.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is another form of DRM .
Another game I now wo n't buy that I otherwise would have .
I never play multiplayer games ( of this genre ) except on the LAN .
I do n't want or need Big Brother watching me.Aside from that , it also breaks first-sale ; you do n't own the game because you ca n't ( in a practical manner ) sell it to someone else who will be able to use it in full .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is another form of DRM.
Another game I now won't buy that I otherwise would have.
I never play multiplayer games (of this genre) except on the LAN.
I don't want or need Big Brother watching me.Aside from that, it also breaks first-sale; you don't own the game because you can't (in a practical manner) sell it to someone else who will be able to use it in full.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28553143</id>
	<title>Re:Disappointing</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246461420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><b>Why is Haofang able to sneak pass Blizzard:</b> Haofang is a Chinese company enabling IP theft of an American company, somehow the Chinese government does not care.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why is Haofang able to sneak pass Blizzard : Haofang is a Chinese company enabling IP theft of an American company , somehow the Chinese government does not care .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why is Haofang able to sneak pass Blizzard: Haofang is a Chinese company enabling IP theft of an American company, somehow the Chinese government does not care.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28545673</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28546337</id>
	<title>Piracy my ass</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246475700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yeah, because Blizzard barely recovered their investment on the original game... right? Give me a break. Starcraft is a poster child for how insanely profitable a game can be even when it has no real copy protection. The original game has a simple cd-check that can be passed with any 1:1 copy method.</p><p>I think Blizzard knows that this move will actually increase piracy rates as people like myself would refuse to pay good money for a handicapped product. But at the same time they think the monetization of bnet will offset that, and they may well be right. Still, the principle remains that they lied about piracy being the reason when the actual reason is milking their customers. You shouldn't do business with people who are willing to print lies.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , because Blizzard barely recovered their investment on the original game... right ? Give me a break .
Starcraft is a poster child for how insanely profitable a game can be even when it has no real copy protection .
The original game has a simple cd-check that can be passed with any 1 : 1 copy method.I think Blizzard knows that this move will actually increase piracy rates as people like myself would refuse to pay good money for a handicapped product .
But at the same time they think the monetization of bnet will offset that , and they may well be right .
Still , the principle remains that they lied about piracy being the reason when the actual reason is milking their customers .
You should n't do business with people who are willing to print lies .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, because Blizzard barely recovered their investment on the original game... right? Give me a break.
Starcraft is a poster child for how insanely profitable a game can be even when it has no real copy protection.
The original game has a simple cd-check that can be passed with any 1:1 copy method.I think Blizzard knows that this move will actually increase piracy rates as people like myself would refuse to pay good money for a handicapped product.
But at the same time they think the monetization of bnet will offset that, and they may well be right.
Still, the principle remains that they lied about piracy being the reason when the actual reason is milking their customers.
You shouldn't do business with people who are willing to print lies.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28545113</id>
	<title>spawn mode</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246472100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Interesting because the original Starcraft had the spawn mode where you could play a LAN game using only a single CD/CD key...Now they turn that around to make claims of piracy when it was something that they allowed you to do with the original?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Interesting because the original Starcraft had the spawn mode where you could play a LAN game using only a single CD/CD key...Now they turn that around to make claims of piracy when it was something that they allowed you to do with the original ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Interesting because the original Starcraft had the spawn mode where you could play a LAN game using only a single CD/CD key...Now they turn that around to make claims of piracy when it was something that they allowed you to do with the original?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28547749</id>
	<title>Re:The only form of DRM that works</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246480380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What use is controlling a product if no one wants to play it because of draconian restrictions.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What use is controlling a product if no one wants to play it because of draconian restrictions .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What use is controlling a product if no one wants to play it because of draconian restrictions.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28545103</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28552325</id>
	<title>Piracy concerns</title>
	<author>bug1</author>
	<datestamp>1246455240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Citing <i>piracy concerns</i> is just corporate spin mumbojumbo.</p><p>Its only ever <i>profit expectations</i> that concern a corporation.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Citing piracy concerns is just corporate spin mumbojumbo.Its only ever profit expectations that concern a corporation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Citing piracy concerns is just corporate spin mumbojumbo.Its only ever profit expectations that concern a corporation.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28546141</id>
	<title>I'm about to drop the hammer...</title>
	<author>chord.wav</author>
	<datestamp>1246475160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...and dispense some indiscriminate DRM!!!</p><p>This is insanely stupid AND evil. I'm a big fan of StarCraft. I still do LAN parties with my friends from time to time, except we are now over 30, we use laptops instead of desktops and I have to run it inside of Parallels to play it (runs awesomely well and that's the main reason I have Parallels)</p><p>I'm so disappointed by this move. The best part of the game is viewing your enemies multitasking desperately trying to keep their bases in one piece or trying to find a ghost when the "Nuclear launch detected" echoes in every computer in the room. You get to actually SEE their faces, hear their frenetic clicks and screams for mercy mixed with insults.</p><p>How exactly are you going to make that experience better Blizzard? Don't bullsh1t me, you can't.</p><p>I'm keeping my cash with me until they decide to support LAN play and I call to boycott Blizzard until the genius in charge of this decision steps back and, preferably, dies from severe full-body itching after a very long and bloody agony.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...and dispense some indiscriminate DRM ! !
! This is insanely stupid AND evil .
I 'm a big fan of StarCraft .
I still do LAN parties with my friends from time to time , except we are now over 30 , we use laptops instead of desktops and I have to run it inside of Parallels to play it ( runs awesomely well and that 's the main reason I have Parallels ) I 'm so disappointed by this move .
The best part of the game is viewing your enemies multitasking desperately trying to keep their bases in one piece or trying to find a ghost when the " Nuclear launch detected " echoes in every computer in the room .
You get to actually SEE their faces , hear their frenetic clicks and screams for mercy mixed with insults.How exactly are you going to make that experience better Blizzard ?
Do n't bullsh1t me , you ca n't.I 'm keeping my cash with me until they decide to support LAN play and I call to boycott Blizzard until the genius in charge of this decision steps back and , preferably , dies from severe full-body itching after a very long and bloody agony .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...and dispense some indiscriminate DRM!!
!This is insanely stupid AND evil.
I'm a big fan of StarCraft.
I still do LAN parties with my friends from time to time, except we are now over 30, we use laptops instead of desktops and I have to run it inside of Parallels to play it (runs awesomely well and that's the main reason I have Parallels)I'm so disappointed by this move.
The best part of the game is viewing your enemies multitasking desperately trying to keep their bases in one piece or trying to find a ghost when the "Nuclear launch detected" echoes in every computer in the room.
You get to actually SEE their faces, hear their frenetic clicks and screams for mercy mixed with insults.How exactly are you going to make that experience better Blizzard?
Don't bullsh1t me, you can't.I'm keeping my cash with me until they decide to support LAN play and I call to boycott Blizzard until the genius in charge of this decision steps back and, preferably, dies from severe full-body itching after a very long and bloody agony.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28553829</id>
	<title>Very bad move...</title>
	<author>druidimmolation</author>
	<datestamp>1246468380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'd have to agree. Very bad move on Blizzard's part.<br> <br>
Look at the recent problems with World of Warcraft and their PvP zone "Lake Wintergrasp". They promised epic battles with hundreds of players on each side fighting against each other. It was so popular that their servers couldn't handle the load, and the players experienced lag. To "fix" this, they took steps to make it less popular.<br> <br>
And now, what are they doing with SCII? They are forcing traffic towards the battle.net servers. Granted, the logistics are probably different (fewer players, many more battle instances, and I am not sure how much traffic is being sent so there is the possibility it will work ok) but why eliminate the option players previously had to use their own networks?<br> <br>
Why force traffic to a centralised server when you don't have to? Why not let the players decide themselves? And why are they ignoring the recent lessons they have learnt about placing too much load on a centralised server? This may be a case of the left hand not knowing what the right hand is doing.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'd have to agree .
Very bad move on Blizzard 's part .
Look at the recent problems with World of Warcraft and their PvP zone " Lake Wintergrasp " .
They promised epic battles with hundreds of players on each side fighting against each other .
It was so popular that their servers could n't handle the load , and the players experienced lag .
To " fix " this , they took steps to make it less popular .
And now , what are they doing with SCII ?
They are forcing traffic towards the battle.net servers .
Granted , the logistics are probably different ( fewer players , many more battle instances , and I am not sure how much traffic is being sent so there is the possibility it will work ok ) but why eliminate the option players previously had to use their own networks ?
Why force traffic to a centralised server when you do n't have to ?
Why not let the players decide themselves ?
And why are they ignoring the recent lessons they have learnt about placing too much load on a centralised server ?
This may be a case of the left hand not knowing what the right hand is doing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'd have to agree.
Very bad move on Blizzard's part.
Look at the recent problems with World of Warcraft and their PvP zone "Lake Wintergrasp".
They promised epic battles with hundreds of players on each side fighting against each other.
It was so popular that their servers couldn't handle the load, and the players experienced lag.
To "fix" this, they took steps to make it less popular.
And now, what are they doing with SCII?
They are forcing traffic towards the battle.net servers.
Granted, the logistics are probably different (fewer players, many more battle instances, and I am not sure how much traffic is being sent so there is the possibility it will work ok) but why eliminate the option players previously had to use their own networks?
Why force traffic to a centralised server when you don't have to?
Why not let the players decide themselves?
And why are they ignoring the recent lessons they have learnt about placing too much load on a centralised server?
This may be a case of the left hand not knowing what the right hand is doing.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28545173</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28546935</id>
	<title>Not saying this is a good thing, but</title>
	<author>caywen</author>
	<datestamp>1246477680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This does give your company's IT the ability to monitor and crack down on unauthorized play. If SC2 becomes as popular as SC1, I could kind of understand if a company wants to block SC2 traffic during work hours.</p><p>That said, I agree with the points on avoiding lag. But I think we shouldn't fault Blizzard for wanting to cut down on dev costs by keeping their servers in-house. I'd imagine that their in-house servers, which are designed to scale to many thousands of players, would have an almost completely different code base than the server they'd ship with the product. I'm also sure that they weighed this dev cost against statistics of their existing products and players.</p><p>In other words, stop bitching. You know you're gonna play it no matter what.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This does give your company 's IT the ability to monitor and crack down on unauthorized play .
If SC2 becomes as popular as SC1 , I could kind of understand if a company wants to block SC2 traffic during work hours.That said , I agree with the points on avoiding lag .
But I think we should n't fault Blizzard for wanting to cut down on dev costs by keeping their servers in-house .
I 'd imagine that their in-house servers , which are designed to scale to many thousands of players , would have an almost completely different code base than the server they 'd ship with the product .
I 'm also sure that they weighed this dev cost against statistics of their existing products and players.In other words , stop bitching .
You know you 're gon na play it no matter what .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This does give your company's IT the ability to monitor and crack down on unauthorized play.
If SC2 becomes as popular as SC1, I could kind of understand if a company wants to block SC2 traffic during work hours.That said, I agree with the points on avoiding lag.
But I think we shouldn't fault Blizzard for wanting to cut down on dev costs by keeping their servers in-house.
I'd imagine that their in-house servers, which are designed to scale to many thousands of players, would have an almost completely different code base than the server they'd ship with the product.
I'm also sure that they weighed this dev cost against statistics of their existing products and players.In other words, stop bitching.
You know you're gonna play it no matter what.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28552615</id>
	<title>Wow, just how they got so popular at first.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246457700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
&nbsp; Lets be honest, if it was not for Koreans, this game, which is 10 year old, would still not have as huge following as it does now. Name me another game that after 10 years still played (video game) on professional level? CS! That is right folks! The reasons both those games did so well was because<br>1: They were fun<br>2: you can play pick up game on LAN! Where most games were played.</p><p>
&nbsp; S.Korea PC bang rooms (pc rooms) bring us the best and the brightest for SC, and what now? The success from LAN, and "piracy" that brough StarCraft to such great international acknowledgment and follow were in FACT BECAUSE OF PIRACY AND LAN!</p><p>
&nbsp; So how is that now, people who not gave life year after year to this old game, and this marketing that Blizzard could never dream in getting with all the billions theey have now, and all the viral/asstrotufing shit, is not their enemy?</p><p>
&nbsp; Wow! GOOD JOB BLIZZARD! Because in 3 years max, no one will remember SCII, and cycle for the game will get smaller and smaller, and the game will get shittier and shittier. EA is looking at you, and smiling, as you are taking your star and a cash cow into the shitters..</p><p>
&nbsp; Oh and the 3 CD trilogy bullshit, where you have to buy each races campaign-- fuck you, I hope this game tanks you greedy pieces of shit.</p><p>
&nbsp; Oh one more thing, you think people do not know about your viral/asstrotufing bullshit on youtube? It is so fucking transparent, you should be embarrassed for paying those people money.</p><p>
&nbsp; P.s. We will hack it, and we will make it LAN-- like it or not -- and we are not pirates, but people who are tired on how we are told we should be playing your games. I bought it, IT IS MINE, crippling it because you want to make more money&gt; FUCK YOU.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>  Lets be honest , if it was not for Koreans , this game , which is 10 year old , would still not have as huge following as it does now .
Name me another game that after 10 years still played ( video game ) on professional level ?
CS ! That is right folks !
The reasons both those games did so well was because1 : They were fun2 : you can play pick up game on LAN !
Where most games were played .
  S.Korea PC bang rooms ( pc rooms ) bring us the best and the brightest for SC , and what now ?
The success from LAN , and " piracy " that brough StarCraft to such great international acknowledgment and follow were in FACT BECAUSE OF PIRACY AND LAN !
  So how is that now , people who not gave life year after year to this old game , and this marketing that Blizzard could never dream in getting with all the billions theey have now , and all the viral/asstrotufing shit , is not their enemy ?
  Wow !
GOOD JOB BLIZZARD !
Because in 3 years max , no one will remember SCII , and cycle for the game will get smaller and smaller , and the game will get shittier and shittier .
EA is looking at you , and smiling , as you are taking your star and a cash cow into the shitters. .   Oh and the 3 CD trilogy bullshit , where you have to buy each races campaign-- fuck you , I hope this game tanks you greedy pieces of shit .
  Oh one more thing , you think people do not know about your viral/asstrotufing bullshit on youtube ?
It is so fucking transparent , you should be embarrassed for paying those people money .
  P.s .
We will hack it , and we will make it LAN-- like it or not -- and we are not pirates , but people who are tired on how we are told we should be playing your games .
I bought it , IT IS MINE , crippling it because you want to make more money &gt; FUCK YOU .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
  Lets be honest, if it was not for Koreans, this game, which is 10 year old, would still not have as huge following as it does now.
Name me another game that after 10 years still played (video game) on professional level?
CS! That is right folks!
The reasons both those games did so well was because1: They were fun2: you can play pick up game on LAN!
Where most games were played.
  S.Korea PC bang rooms (pc rooms) bring us the best and the brightest for SC, and what now?
The success from LAN, and "piracy" that brough StarCraft to such great international acknowledgment and follow were in FACT BECAUSE OF PIRACY AND LAN!
  So how is that now, people who not gave life year after year to this old game, and this marketing that Blizzard could never dream in getting with all the billions theey have now, and all the viral/asstrotufing shit, is not their enemy?
  Wow!
GOOD JOB BLIZZARD!
Because in 3 years max, no one will remember SCII, and cycle for the game will get smaller and smaller, and the game will get shittier and shittier.
EA is looking at you, and smiling, as you are taking your star and a cash cow into the shitters..
  Oh and the 3 CD trilogy bullshit, where you have to buy each races campaign-- fuck you, I hope this game tanks you greedy pieces of shit.
  Oh one more thing, you think people do not know about your viral/asstrotufing bullshit on youtube?
It is so fucking transparent, you should be embarrassed for paying those people money.
  P.s.
We will hack it, and we will make it LAN-- like it or not -- and we are not pirates, but people who are tired on how we are told we should be playing your games.
I bought it, IT IS MINE, crippling it because you want to make more money&gt; FUCK YOU.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28553259</id>
	<title>Port Forwarding and Router Configs</title>
	<author>DavidD\_CA</author>
	<datestamp>1246462440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Maybe I just have things configured wrong, but right now I can't get two PCs to play StarCraft on Battle.Net at the same time from in the same room.  It's because I have to use Port Forwarding.  The LAN solution works great, as long as we don't want anyone from outside to join us.</p><p>Without LAN, how will this work in SC2?</p><p>Maybe Battle.Net will only be used for auth, and then allow for local games?  That would eliminate any lag issues, too.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe I just have things configured wrong , but right now I ca n't get two PCs to play StarCraft on Battle.Net at the same time from in the same room .
It 's because I have to use Port Forwarding .
The LAN solution works great , as long as we do n't want anyone from outside to join us.Without LAN , how will this work in SC2 ? Maybe Battle.Net will only be used for auth , and then allow for local games ?
That would eliminate any lag issues , too .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe I just have things configured wrong, but right now I can't get two PCs to play StarCraft on Battle.Net at the same time from in the same room.
It's because I have to use Port Forwarding.
The LAN solution works great, as long as we don't want anyone from outside to join us.Without LAN, how will this work in SC2?Maybe Battle.Net will only be used for auth, and then allow for local games?
That would eliminate any lag issues, too.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28550247</id>
	<title>TCP/IP</title>
	<author>gd2shoe</author>
	<datestamp>1246444800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Your summary here needs help.  I don't know anything about Haofang, but I know that your post is riddled with holes.</p><p>You seem to lack an understanding of TCP/IP.  "Transmission Control Protocol" over "Internet Protocol" is used by, well, they whole Internet.  How do you think you access Slashdot?  You're not on the same LAN they are! (hint: HTTP travels across TCP/IP)</p><p>A limit of 255 would not be a TCP limit.  254 might be, but only if a VPN and a<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/24 subnet were involved.  Of course, that too would be a silly, arbitrary limitation.  You can have thousands of connections using the ubiquitous 192.16/16 subnet.  You can have private networks with millions of machines using the 10/8 subnet.  No, 255 isn't a TCP/IP limit.  It is probably some other type of technical limit in their setup.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Your summary here needs help .
I do n't know anything about Haofang , but I know that your post is riddled with holes.You seem to lack an understanding of TCP/IP .
" Transmission Control Protocol " over " Internet Protocol " is used by , well , they whole Internet .
How do you think you access Slashdot ?
You 're not on the same LAN they are !
( hint : HTTP travels across TCP/IP ) A limit of 255 would not be a TCP limit .
254 might be , but only if a VPN and a /24 subnet were involved .
Of course , that too would be a silly , arbitrary limitation .
You can have thousands of connections using the ubiquitous 192.16/16 subnet .
You can have private networks with millions of machines using the 10/8 subnet .
No , 255 is n't a TCP/IP limit .
It is probably some other type of technical limit in their setup .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Your summary here needs help.
I don't know anything about Haofang, but I know that your post is riddled with holes.You seem to lack an understanding of TCP/IP.
"Transmission Control Protocol" over "Internet Protocol" is used by, well, they whole Internet.
How do you think you access Slashdot?
You're not on the same LAN they are!
(hint: HTTP travels across TCP/IP)A limit of 255 would not be a TCP limit.
254 might be, but only if a VPN and a /24 subnet were involved.
Of course, that too would be a silly, arbitrary limitation.
You can have thousands of connections using the ubiquitous 192.16/16 subnet.
You can have private networks with millions of machines using the 10/8 subnet.
No, 255 isn't a TCP/IP limit.
It is probably some other type of technical limit in their setup.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28545673</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28546853</id>
	<title>Re:Broadband killed LAN parties</title>
	<author>Xaoswolf</author>
	<datestamp>1246477320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The LAN party isn't just about playing the game, it's also about getting together with friends and having fun.  Thus, the party aspect to the gaming.  It's about being able to see your friends reaction when you frag them, or when they realize that you changed their desktop to goatse.<p>Hell, I met my last girlfriend at a LAN party, we just about made out on my friends couch.  Speaking of which, it's also about telling your friend how hot his sister is every time she walks by.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The LAN party is n't just about playing the game , it 's also about getting together with friends and having fun .
Thus , the party aspect to the gaming .
It 's about being able to see your friends reaction when you frag them , or when they realize that you changed their desktop to goatse.Hell , I met my last girlfriend at a LAN party , we just about made out on my friends couch .
Speaking of which , it 's also about telling your friend how hot his sister is every time she walks by .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The LAN party isn't just about playing the game, it's also about getting together with friends and having fun.
Thus, the party aspect to the gaming.
It's about being able to see your friends reaction when you frag them, or when they realize that you changed their desktop to goatse.Hell, I met my last girlfriend at a LAN party, we just about made out on my friends couch.
Speaking of which, it's also about telling your friend how hot his sister is every time she walks by.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28545131</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28547269</id>
	<title>Don't forget how bnet hosts games</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246478760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Which is to say it doesn't. Bnet has always worked simply as a matchmaking service. It hosts the chat features in the lobby, and handles connecting the various users together. Once the game is started, its hosted on 1 persons machine, and all the others connect p2p with them.</p><p>Therefore, although it may be a slight inconvenience to connect a whole bunch of computers at a LAN party to the internet, latency and bandwidth concerns should be mostly non existent.</p><p>Everything will be fine, nothing to see here.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Which is to say it does n't .
Bnet has always worked simply as a matchmaking service .
It hosts the chat features in the lobby , and handles connecting the various users together .
Once the game is started , its hosted on 1 persons machine , and all the others connect p2p with them.Therefore , although it may be a slight inconvenience to connect a whole bunch of computers at a LAN party to the internet , latency and bandwidth concerns should be mostly non existent.Everything will be fine , nothing to see here .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Which is to say it doesn't.
Bnet has always worked simply as a matchmaking service.
It hosts the chat features in the lobby, and handles connecting the various users together.
Once the game is started, its hosted on 1 persons machine, and all the others connect p2p with them.Therefore, although it may be a slight inconvenience to connect a whole bunch of computers at a LAN party to the internet, latency and bandwidth concerns should be mostly non existent.Everything will be fine, nothing to see here.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28546243</id>
	<title>Feeling a huge sense of meh towards starcraft 2</title>
	<author>jollyreaper</author>
	<datestamp>1246475400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I was a big fan of RTS from the early days with Dune 2 up to Total Annihilation. But Starcraft was where I finally started to ask "Is there nothing else?" Sure, it was an incredibly polished game and I would have been astounded by it five years before. But the thing is, it really was little more than Orcs in Space. Snazzy voice acting, high production values, but the gameplay was little more advanced. Now I'm sure that there are a million South Koreans who are ready to flame me on this so fine, let's say it's the pinnacle of RTS gaming, we'll run with that for a second. Has anyone done better since then? No.</p><p>No matter how advanced the graphics have become, no matter how much more bling has been shoved onto the disc, at the end of the day the AI's still suck and the controls are maddeningly primitive. Here, five units I want to move! Select, click move, watch them run into each other and eventually form a ragged column and then approach a target one at a time, allowing themselves to be crushed in detail.</p><p>I've been away from PC gaming for a few years and am catching up on demos of games that have come out in the meantime. So far there's little evidence of any advancement in all these years. The videos for Starcraft 2 look like 3D representations of exactly what went on in Starcraft 1. I suppose if Starcraft was the pinnacle of RTS design for you then a graphics buff is all you need.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I was a big fan of RTS from the early days with Dune 2 up to Total Annihilation .
But Starcraft was where I finally started to ask " Is there nothing else ?
" Sure , it was an incredibly polished game and I would have been astounded by it five years before .
But the thing is , it really was little more than Orcs in Space .
Snazzy voice acting , high production values , but the gameplay was little more advanced .
Now I 'm sure that there are a million South Koreans who are ready to flame me on this so fine , let 's say it 's the pinnacle of RTS gaming , we 'll run with that for a second .
Has anyone done better since then ?
No.No matter how advanced the graphics have become , no matter how much more bling has been shoved onto the disc , at the end of the day the AI 's still suck and the controls are maddeningly primitive .
Here , five units I want to move !
Select , click move , watch them run into each other and eventually form a ragged column and then approach a target one at a time , allowing themselves to be crushed in detail.I 've been away from PC gaming for a few years and am catching up on demos of games that have come out in the meantime .
So far there 's little evidence of any advancement in all these years .
The videos for Starcraft 2 look like 3D representations of exactly what went on in Starcraft 1 .
I suppose if Starcraft was the pinnacle of RTS design for you then a graphics buff is all you need .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I was a big fan of RTS from the early days with Dune 2 up to Total Annihilation.
But Starcraft was where I finally started to ask "Is there nothing else?
" Sure, it was an incredibly polished game and I would have been astounded by it five years before.
But the thing is, it really was little more than Orcs in Space.
Snazzy voice acting, high production values, but the gameplay was little more advanced.
Now I'm sure that there are a million South Koreans who are ready to flame me on this so fine, let's say it's the pinnacle of RTS gaming, we'll run with that for a second.
Has anyone done better since then?
No.No matter how advanced the graphics have become, no matter how much more bling has been shoved onto the disc, at the end of the day the AI's still suck and the controls are maddeningly primitive.
Here, five units I want to move!
Select, click move, watch them run into each other and eventually form a ragged column and then approach a target one at a time, allowing themselves to be crushed in detail.I've been away from PC gaming for a few years and am catching up on demos of games that have come out in the meantime.
So far there's little evidence of any advancement in all these years.
The videos for Starcraft 2 look like 3D representations of exactly what went on in Starcraft 1.
I suppose if Starcraft was the pinnacle of RTS design for you then a graphics buff is all you need.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28548219</id>
	<title>Thanks Blizzard</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246481700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Way to screw over:</p><p>1.People who LAN from public places such as college dorms where often online gaming doesn&#226;(TM)t work.</p><p>2.People who like to LAN with friends but have crappy speeds (hint: 8 players playing online adds up to about 100 kb/s download and 50 kb/s upload.</p><p>3.People with small monthly bandwidth caps. I don&#226;(TM)t like the prospect of using 500Mb/hour to LAN with my friends when I have a 10GB cap per month.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Way to screw over : 1.People who LAN from public places such as college dorms where often online gaming doesn   ( TM ) t work.2.People who like to LAN with friends but have crappy speeds ( hint : 8 players playing online adds up to about 100 kb/s download and 50 kb/s upload.3.People with small monthly bandwidth caps .
I don   ( TM ) t like the prospect of using 500Mb/hour to LAN with my friends when I have a 10GB cap per month .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Way to screw over:1.People who LAN from public places such as college dorms where often online gaming doesnâ(TM)t work.2.People who like to LAN with friends but have crappy speeds (hint: 8 players playing online adds up to about 100 kb/s download and 50 kb/s upload.3.People with small monthly bandwidth caps.
I donâ(TM)t like the prospect of using 500Mb/hour to LAN with my friends when I have a 10GB cap per month.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28545635</id>
	<title>Re:It will still communicate over Lan</title>
	<author>CastrTroy</author>
	<datestamp>1246473660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I highly doubt it.  How would the battle net servers know your internal LAN IP? Unless they developed some specific code to do specifically this, then I doubt that it would work.  In most cases, they would probably want to send all data directly through their own servers, so that you don't get to figure out the IP address of those you are playing against.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I highly doubt it .
How would the battle net servers know your internal LAN IP ?
Unless they developed some specific code to do specifically this , then I doubt that it would work .
In most cases , they would probably want to send all data directly through their own servers , so that you do n't get to figure out the IP address of those you are playing against .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I highly doubt it.
How would the battle net servers know your internal LAN IP?
Unless they developed some specific code to do specifically this, then I doubt that it would work.
In most cases, they would probably want to send all data directly through their own servers, so that you don't get to figure out the IP address of those you are playing against.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28545297</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28546447</id>
	<title>Re:No LAN support? Time to smack someone in the he</title>
	<author>Spatial</author>
	<datestamp>1246476000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Everyone on planet earth is going to buy the game the day it hits the shelf.</p></div><p>Therefore they don't give a shit.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Everyone on planet earth is going to buy the game the day it hits the shelf.Therefore they do n't give a shit .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Everyone on planet earth is going to buy the game the day it hits the shelf.Therefore they don't give a shit.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28545173</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28546421</id>
	<title>have their cake and eat it too.</title>
	<author>alta</author>
	<datestamp>1246475940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why couldn't they STILL make people connect to bnet to start up a game, but once the game is started it uses the local network only.  This way all they get the control they want, and the players get the LAN performance they want.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why could n't they STILL make people connect to bnet to start up a game , but once the game is started it uses the local network only .
This way all they get the control they want , and the players get the LAN performance they want .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why couldn't they STILL make people connect to bnet to start up a game, but once the game is started it uses the local network only.
This way all they get the control they want, and the players get the LAN performance they want.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28545405</id>
	<title>Re:Disappointing</title>
	<author>khellendros1984</author>
	<datestamp>1246472940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I think that Bnet's protocol works almost like that....the actual communication between clients doesn't really pass through their central server. It's built more on a peer to peer data model. That just makes it more annoying, since it means you've already got most of the networking code in the client anyhow.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think that Bnet 's protocol works almost like that....the actual communication between clients does n't really pass through their central server .
It 's built more on a peer to peer data model .
That just makes it more annoying , since it means you 've already got most of the networking code in the client anyhow .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think that Bnet's protocol works almost like that....the actual communication between clients doesn't really pass through their central server.
It's built more on a peer to peer data model.
That just makes it more annoying, since it means you've already got most of the networking code in the client anyhow.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28544977</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28550357</id>
	<title>Re:Sad..</title>
	<author>sabernet</author>
	<datestamp>1246445220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>But they're gonna have to deal with NAT issues as well.  Who gets what auth packet from bnet if all connections are from 1 IP?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>But they 're gon na have to deal with NAT issues as well .
Who gets what auth packet from bnet if all connections are from 1 IP ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But they're gonna have to deal with NAT issues as well.
Who gets what auth packet from bnet if all connections are from 1 IP?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28544983</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28546513</id>
	<title>GTA2 FTW</title>
	<author>copponex</author>
	<datestamp>1246476180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Best times of my teenage LAN life. Mine bus. Tank. Rocket launcher. It was like that old Micro Machines game with guns.</p><p>A little Starcraft. Command and Conquer. Subspace. And Ultima Online... that was like introducing heroin to a bunch of guys drinking chocolate milk. Cruising IRC bots for warez and mp3s.</p><p>Man. Anyone remember the sheer joy you felt when you connected with something more than dialup for the first time? It was like a geek frontier back in those days. Cue the guys who were phreaking long distance to get into BBSs with acoustic couplers to tell me that I missed the real frontier...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Best times of my teenage LAN life .
Mine bus .
Tank. Rocket launcher .
It was like that old Micro Machines game with guns.A little Starcraft .
Command and Conquer .
Subspace. And Ultima Online... that was like introducing heroin to a bunch of guys drinking chocolate milk .
Cruising IRC bots for warez and mp3s.Man .
Anyone remember the sheer joy you felt when you connected with something more than dialup for the first time ?
It was like a geek frontier back in those days .
Cue the guys who were phreaking long distance to get into BBSs with acoustic couplers to tell me that I missed the real frontier.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Best times of my teenage LAN life.
Mine bus.
Tank. Rocket launcher.
It was like that old Micro Machines game with guns.A little Starcraft.
Command and Conquer.
Subspace. And Ultima Online... that was like introducing heroin to a bunch of guys drinking chocolate milk.
Cruising IRC bots for warez and mp3s.Man.
Anyone remember the sheer joy you felt when you connected with something more than dialup for the first time?
It was like a geek frontier back in those days.
Cue the guys who were phreaking long distance to get into BBSs with acoustic couplers to tell me that I missed the real frontier...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28545217</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28548431</id>
	<title>lol</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246439160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>and it will take what? 2 days for the cracked version to hit the piratebay? When are they going to learn that inconveniencing your customers to stop piracy doesn't do anything other than inconvenience your customers. If you want to waste money trying to stop pirates, fine... but don't make your game less fun because of it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>and it will take what ?
2 days for the cracked version to hit the piratebay ?
When are they going to learn that inconveniencing your customers to stop piracy does n't do anything other than inconvenience your customers .
If you want to waste money trying to stop pirates , fine... but do n't make your game less fun because of it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>and it will take what?
2 days for the cracked version to hit the piratebay?
When are they going to learn that inconveniencing your customers to stop piracy doesn't do anything other than inconvenience your customers.
If you want to waste money trying to stop pirates, fine... but don't make your game less fun because of it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28547845</id>
	<title>just wait...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246480560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm going to laugh when a hacked pirated copy comes along with a lan feature.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm going to laugh when a hacked pirated copy comes along with a lan feature .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm going to laugh when a hacked pirated copy comes along with a lan feature.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28546799</id>
	<title>In other news....</title>
	<author>Endo13</author>
	<datestamp>1246477140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Company Blizzard(TM) is looking to hire top prosthesis designer to replace left foot.</p><p>News at 10.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Company Blizzard ( TM ) is looking to hire top prosthesis designer to replace left foot.News at 10 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Company Blizzard(TM) is looking to hire top prosthesis designer to replace left foot.News at 10.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28563433</id>
	<title>Idiotic</title>
	<author>justinlee37</author>
	<datestamp>1246525680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>What happens when the internet goes down and I want to play with my roommate? Go eat a dick, Blizz.</htmltext>
<tokenext>What happens when the internet goes down and I want to play with my roommate ?
Go eat a dick , Blizz .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What happens when the internet goes down and I want to play with my roommate?
Go eat a dick, Blizz.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28546715</id>
	<title>I doubt it's about piracy</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246476840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What about Blizzard trying to to establish bnet against Steam?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What about Blizzard trying to to establish bnet against Steam ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What about Blizzard trying to to establish bnet against Steam?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28548203</id>
	<title>I dont have a consistent solid internet connection</title>
	<author>howe.chris</author>
	<datestamp>1246481640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I don't have a consistently solid internet connection.  My ISP stinks.  Even today I get lagged off a SC game if it is longer than 30 minutes.  Guess I am screwed.

I actually connected with my wife's stepfather playing SC on his LAN when we would stay the night.  I think not supporting LAN play is a big mistake.

It is bad enough that the entire game will end up costing people close to $180.  They are going to have 3 sets up single player missions (each with new units) in a staggering release.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't have a consistently solid internet connection .
My ISP stinks .
Even today I get lagged off a SC game if it is longer than 30 minutes .
Guess I am screwed .
I actually connected with my wife 's stepfather playing SC on his LAN when we would stay the night .
I think not supporting LAN play is a big mistake .
It is bad enough that the entire game will end up costing people close to $ 180 .
They are going to have 3 sets up single player missions ( each with new units ) in a staggering release .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't have a consistently solid internet connection.
My ISP stinks.
Even today I get lagged off a SC game if it is longer than 30 minutes.
Guess I am screwed.
I actually connected with my wife's stepfather playing SC on his LAN when we would stay the night.
I think not supporting LAN play is a big mistake.
It is bad enough that the entire game will end up costing people close to $180.
They are going to have 3 sets up single player missions (each with new units) in a staggering release.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28545069</id>
	<title>I'll buy it...but...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246471980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>but it definitely won't keep it's longevity without LAN support, I mean the best thing about games like Starcraft or even FPS like BF1942 was the LAN aspect of getting your friends together ordering a pizza, talking shit and zerging each other. Sure, I can throw on a headset and play with friends, but what if battle.net is down? What if I'm getting a lot of lag...fast paced game players don't have the tolerance of players who are into mmo's exclusively. I think Blizz is making a poor decision.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>but it definitely wo n't keep it 's longevity without LAN support , I mean the best thing about games like Starcraft or even FPS like BF1942 was the LAN aspect of getting your friends together ordering a pizza , talking shit and zerging each other .
Sure , I can throw on a headset and play with friends , but what if battle.net is down ?
What if I 'm getting a lot of lag...fast paced game players do n't have the tolerance of players who are into mmo 's exclusively .
I think Blizz is making a poor decision .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>but it definitely won't keep it's longevity without LAN support, I mean the best thing about games like Starcraft or even FPS like BF1942 was the LAN aspect of getting your friends together ordering a pizza, talking shit and zerging each other.
Sure, I can throw on a headset and play with friends, but what if battle.net is down?
What if I'm getting a lot of lag...fast paced game players don't have the tolerance of players who are into mmo's exclusively.
I think Blizz is making a poor decision.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28549651</id>
	<title>An announcement today</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246442640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>is just an announcement. Do not doubt that Star Pro League, OnGameNet, and the rest of Korean pro gaming will have a BIG say in this.</p><p>Expect a reversal before launch.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>is just an announcement .
Do not doubt that Star Pro League , OnGameNet , and the rest of Korean pro gaming will have a BIG say in this.Expect a reversal before launch .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>is just an announcement.
Do not doubt that Star Pro League, OnGameNet, and the rest of Korean pro gaming will have a BIG say in this.Expect a reversal before launch.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28546701</id>
	<title>Re:NO LAN support is not a big deal</title>
	<author>woopate</author>
	<datestamp>1246476780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No LAN functionality means that yes, massive tournaments will have to log into bnet.</p><p>And I don't know about you, but I still have LAN parties bimonthly, and often, we don't hook up the internet because some idiot will try to download some porn, and spread a virus to every single machine.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No LAN functionality means that yes , massive tournaments will have to log into bnet.And I do n't know about you , but I still have LAN parties bimonthly , and often , we do n't hook up the internet because some idiot will try to download some porn , and spread a virus to every single machine .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No LAN functionality means that yes, massive tournaments will have to log into bnet.And I don't know about you, but I still have LAN parties bimonthly, and often, we don't hook up the internet because some idiot will try to download some porn, and spread a virus to every single machine.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28545665</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28546021</id>
	<title>Re:Confusing Comparison: RTS vs RPG</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246474800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Ar you also going to have a circle jerk and fuck-n-suck, just like back in high school?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Ar you also going to have a circle jerk and fuck-n-suck , just like back in high school ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ar you also going to have a circle jerk and fuck-n-suck, just like back in high school?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28545217</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28547765</id>
	<title>Simply Stated - Vote with your wallets!</title>
	<author>G00F</author>
	<datestamp>1246480380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No Lan support for Stacraft 2 (or Diablo 3) then I wont be buying it.</p><p>I advise you all to do the same, and I don't even have to tell my friends not to as we all only play LAN.</p><p>Blizzard games I own.<br>1 Warcraft 1<br>1 Warcraft 2<br>1 Diablo 1<br>1 Warcraft 2 Bnet<br>2 Starcraft<br>2 Broodwar<br>2 Diablo 2<br>2 Diablo 2 LoD<br>2 Warcraft 3<br>2 Warcraft 3 frozen thrones.</p><p>Oh, and try playing with a few people behind 1 router/firewall.  It doesn't work so well on most game patch levels and on most routers/firewalls.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No Lan support for Stacraft 2 ( or Diablo 3 ) then I wont be buying it.I advise you all to do the same , and I do n't even have to tell my friends not to as we all only play LAN.Blizzard games I own.1 Warcraft 11 Warcraft 21 Diablo 11 Warcraft 2 Bnet2 Starcraft2 Broodwar2 Diablo 22 Diablo 2 LoD2 Warcraft 32 Warcraft 3 frozen thrones.Oh , and try playing with a few people behind 1 router/firewall .
It does n't work so well on most game patch levels and on most routers/firewalls .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No Lan support for Stacraft 2 (or Diablo 3) then I wont be buying it.I advise you all to do the same, and I don't even have to tell my friends not to as we all only play LAN.Blizzard games I own.1 Warcraft 11 Warcraft 21 Diablo 11 Warcraft 2 Bnet2 Starcraft2 Broodwar2 Diablo 22 Diablo 2 LoD2 Warcraft 32 Warcraft 3 frozen thrones.Oh, and try playing with a few people behind 1 router/firewall.
It doesn't work so well on most game patch levels and on most routers/firewalls.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28550967</id>
	<title>Sign the petition for LAN in SC2</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246447800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sign the petition for LAN in SC2</p><p>http://www.petitiononline.com/mod\_perl/signed.cgi?LANSC2&amp;1</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sign the petition for LAN in SC2http : //www.petitiononline.com/mod \ _perl/signed.cgi ? LANSC2&amp;1</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sign the petition for LAN in SC2http://www.petitiononline.com/mod\_perl/signed.cgi?LANSC2&amp;1</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28550829</id>
	<title>I don't know about you...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246447140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>but I certainly just lost the last bit of incentive I had to buy this game. The Bnet system is terrible, and always will be compared to LAN. I was already having second thoughts once they alluded to episodic releases and needing to pay for each campaign seperately as if it was the full game, though I had been waiting for this game long enough I figured I would at least buy the first one before deciding if the rest were worth paying for... Now I'm certain the game won't even remotely be worth my time and hard-earned money if I can't play the full campaign, AND I can't play LAN games with my friends. Even if Bnet allowed free multiplayer outside of their matchmaking service (which if their track record is anything to go by, they won't), it would simply be too much trouble, and too much latency to make it worthwhile.

At this rate, it will be the seventh game in the last 2 years, that I have pirated, for no other reason than because the game was crippled in the name of "anti-piracy" and DRM.</htmltext>
<tokenext>but I certainly just lost the last bit of incentive I had to buy this game .
The Bnet system is terrible , and always will be compared to LAN .
I was already having second thoughts once they alluded to episodic releases and needing to pay for each campaign seperately as if it was the full game , though I had been waiting for this game long enough I figured I would at least buy the first one before deciding if the rest were worth paying for... Now I 'm certain the game wo n't even remotely be worth my time and hard-earned money if I ca n't play the full campaign , AND I ca n't play LAN games with my friends .
Even if Bnet allowed free multiplayer outside of their matchmaking service ( which if their track record is anything to go by , they wo n't ) , it would simply be too much trouble , and too much latency to make it worthwhile .
At this rate , it will be the seventh game in the last 2 years , that I have pirated , for no other reason than because the game was crippled in the name of " anti-piracy " and DRM .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>but I certainly just lost the last bit of incentive I had to buy this game.
The Bnet system is terrible, and always will be compared to LAN.
I was already having second thoughts once they alluded to episodic releases and needing to pay for each campaign seperately as if it was the full game, though I had been waiting for this game long enough I figured I would at least buy the first one before deciding if the rest were worth paying for... Now I'm certain the game won't even remotely be worth my time and hard-earned money if I can't play the full campaign, AND I can't play LAN games with my friends.
Even if Bnet allowed free multiplayer outside of their matchmaking service (which if their track record is anything to go by, they won't), it would simply be too much trouble, and too much latency to make it worthwhile.
At this rate, it will be the seventh game in the last 2 years, that I have pirated, for no other reason than because the game was crippled in the name of "anti-piracy" and DRM.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28553777</id>
	<title>The stupid thing is...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246467660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>while it is true that people used to cheat the system and LAN with less than 8 copies of Starcraft (I know I am guilty), has blizzard considered the case of people (like myself) who know nothing of the game, go to a LAN party with friends, play a few rounds, and go THIS IS AWESOME!!! and buy the game?  (like myself).  Most people will not shell out $50 to try a game with their friends they have heard nothing about.  It's a good way of spreading your name and your game</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>while it is true that people used to cheat the system and LAN with less than 8 copies of Starcraft ( I know I am guilty ) , has blizzard considered the case of people ( like myself ) who know nothing of the game , go to a LAN party with friends , play a few rounds , and go THIS IS AWESOME ! ! !
and buy the game ?
( like myself ) .
Most people will not shell out $ 50 to try a game with their friends they have heard nothing about .
It 's a good way of spreading your name and your game</tokentext>
<sentencetext>while it is true that people used to cheat the system and LAN with less than 8 copies of Starcraft (I know I am guilty), has blizzard considered the case of people (like myself) who know nothing of the game, go to a LAN party with friends, play a few rounds, and go THIS IS AWESOME!!!
and buy the game?
(like myself).
Most people will not shell out $50 to try a game with their friends they have heard nothing about.
It's a good way of spreading your name and your game</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28546829</id>
	<title>Re:Guess I just won't buy it then</title>
	<author>Phroggy</author>
	<datestamp>1246477260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I, too, was planning to buy this.  Now, I'm going to wait until someone comes up with a hacked pirated version that works on a LAN somehow, and just copy that.  Not because I'm angry with them or anything, but because it sounds like that will be the easiest way to get the game to work the way I want (easier to copy the hacked version from somebody else, than to patch my own legal copy).  If they won't sell me what I want, I won't buy what they won't sell me.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I , too , was planning to buy this .
Now , I 'm going to wait until someone comes up with a hacked pirated version that works on a LAN somehow , and just copy that .
Not because I 'm angry with them or anything , but because it sounds like that will be the easiest way to get the game to work the way I want ( easier to copy the hacked version from somebody else , than to patch my own legal copy ) .
If they wo n't sell me what I want , I wo n't buy what they wo n't sell me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I, too, was planning to buy this.
Now, I'm going to wait until someone comes up with a hacked pirated version that works on a LAN somehow, and just copy that.
Not because I'm angry with them or anything, but because it sounds like that will be the easiest way to get the game to work the way I want (easier to copy the hacked version from somebody else, than to patch my own legal copy).
If they won't sell me what I want, I won't buy what they won't sell me.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28545667</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28547601</id>
	<title>Play solo</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246479960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Playing Starcraft without LAN is like buying a CD and not been able to play it i a party, just over your headphones.<br>The first time I played Starcraft 1, i played at a friend's Lan Party. I bought the game the next day.<br>Here at home, I have a shared broadband connection. My brother is constantly downloading stuff so, everytime I want to play an online game I have to tell him to cap his donwloads.  So thank you Blizzard... all this years of designing SC2 and you've condemn the game with just one decision.<br>Thank god I just bought an XBOX...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Playing Starcraft without LAN is like buying a CD and not been able to play it i a party , just over your headphones.The first time I played Starcraft 1 , i played at a friend 's Lan Party .
I bought the game the next day.Here at home , I have a shared broadband connection .
My brother is constantly downloading stuff so , everytime I want to play an online game I have to tell him to cap his donwloads .
So thank you Blizzard... all this years of designing SC2 and you 've condemn the game with just one decision.Thank god I just bought an XBOX.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Playing Starcraft without LAN is like buying a CD and not been able to play it i a party, just over your headphones.The first time I played Starcraft 1, i played at a friend's Lan Party.
I bought the game the next day.Here at home, I have a shared broadband connection.
My brother is constantly downloading stuff so, everytime I want to play an online game I have to tell him to cap his donwloads.
So thank you Blizzard... all this years of designing SC2 and you've condemn the game with just one decision.Thank god I just bought an XBOX...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28550469</id>
	<title>so...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246445640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Are you saying that if blizzard or some anti-piracy group or law enforcement organization were to subpoena your ISP records based on the IP address you used to post your comment, they would not find some starcraft 2 torrent downloaded from a pirate-bay-type site?</p><p>Suuuuuure<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Are you saying that if blizzard or some anti-piracy group or law enforcement organization were to subpoena your ISP records based on the IP address you used to post your comment , they would not find some starcraft 2 torrent downloaded from a pirate-bay-type site ? Suuuuuure ; )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Are you saying that if blizzard or some anti-piracy group or law enforcement organization were to subpoena your ISP records based on the IP address you used to post your comment, they would not find some starcraft 2 torrent downloaded from a pirate-bay-type site?Suuuuuure ;)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28545429</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28546567</id>
	<title>Re:I'll buy it...but...</title>
	<author>Phroggy</author>
	<datestamp>1246476360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I was planning to buy it (like I bought Warcraft II and Starcraft and Warcraft III), but now I'll just wait until there's a cracked pirated version that can play on a LAN somehow, and just copy that from somebody.  I have no interest in playing on BattleNet.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I was planning to buy it ( like I bought Warcraft II and Starcraft and Warcraft III ) , but now I 'll just wait until there 's a cracked pirated version that can play on a LAN somehow , and just copy that from somebody .
I have no interest in playing on BattleNet .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I was planning to buy it (like I bought Warcraft II and Starcraft and Warcraft III), but now I'll just wait until there's a cracked pirated version that can play on a LAN somehow, and just copy that from somebody.
I have no interest in playing on BattleNet.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28545069</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28553719</id>
	<title>Here's a better solution</title>
	<author>Tokerat</author>
	<datestamp>1246467060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You want to combat piracy? Make the game phone home to Battle.net before the LAN game, check the SN, and then let people connect locally. No net connection? 5 LAN games and then you have to check in. Hell, set up a phone line users can type a number into and get a response code to authorize more games with a legit SN, if you've got computers capable of playing Starcraft II, you can at least usually make a phone call.</p><p>It's still a slap in the face but at least it's not removing one the major features that draw people to your game COMPLETELY. You're going to learn a swift lesson from this, Blizzard. Mark our words.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You want to combat piracy ?
Make the game phone home to Battle.net before the LAN game , check the SN , and then let people connect locally .
No net connection ?
5 LAN games and then you have to check in .
Hell , set up a phone line users can type a number into and get a response code to authorize more games with a legit SN , if you 've got computers capable of playing Starcraft II , you can at least usually make a phone call.It 's still a slap in the face but at least it 's not removing one the major features that draw people to your game COMPLETELY .
You 're going to learn a swift lesson from this , Blizzard .
Mark our words .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You want to combat piracy?
Make the game phone home to Battle.net before the LAN game, check the SN, and then let people connect locally.
No net connection?
5 LAN games and then you have to check in.
Hell, set up a phone line users can type a number into and get a response code to authorize more games with a legit SN, if you've got computers capable of playing Starcraft II, you can at least usually make a phone call.It's still a slap in the face but at least it's not removing one the major features that draw people to your game COMPLETELY.
You're going to learn a swift lesson from this, Blizzard.
Mark our words.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28559689</id>
	<title>my thoughts on all this</title>
	<author>autoevolution</author>
	<datestamp>1246557420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I wonder how blizzard feels about a certain semi-pro ladder server which allows anyone ( even without a cd key ) to play starcraft online, they have a link where you can download a 100 mb install of starcraft in a zip file so that all you have to do is unzip, run and play online within minutes.  Of course no one doesn't already own multiple starcraft copies and are only downloading the zip file for convenience of being able to play on any computer will actually enjoy playing the game since if they aren't a hardcore starcraft player they will lose 99.99\% of the time since this is after all a ladder server.  I think that if blizzard does make starcraft 2 bnet only, it would be totally unsuitable for korean pro-gaming, unless the korean's hack a lan into the game, which is pretty likely given that there have been lots of features which were added by third parties for starcraft which are now used widely in bnet and the mentioned ladder server, including a feature which allowed for much better latency ( delay between player and server ).  Today's online starcraft community is mostly dominated by people who are familiar with korean pro gaming and I think if starcraft 2 does not cater to korean pro-gaming, they will be losing a lot of potential buyers from that audience.  Also, the only people who play starcraft on bnet and bnet like servers now are mostly between the age of 20 to 30, and IMO vastly different than the audience of WOW or warcraft 3, although there are younger people who play from korea since it is a game embedded into the korean gaming culture, north american teen gamers are not likely to play or even know about starcraft nowadays.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I wonder how blizzard feels about a certain semi-pro ladder server which allows anyone ( even without a cd key ) to play starcraft online , they have a link where you can download a 100 mb install of starcraft in a zip file so that all you have to do is unzip , run and play online within minutes .
Of course no one does n't already own multiple starcraft copies and are only downloading the zip file for convenience of being able to play on any computer will actually enjoy playing the game since if they are n't a hardcore starcraft player they will lose 99.99 \ % of the time since this is after all a ladder server .
I think that if blizzard does make starcraft 2 bnet only , it would be totally unsuitable for korean pro-gaming , unless the korean 's hack a lan into the game , which is pretty likely given that there have been lots of features which were added by third parties for starcraft which are now used widely in bnet and the mentioned ladder server , including a feature which allowed for much better latency ( delay between player and server ) .
Today 's online starcraft community is mostly dominated by people who are familiar with korean pro gaming and I think if starcraft 2 does not cater to korean pro-gaming , they will be losing a lot of potential buyers from that audience .
Also , the only people who play starcraft on bnet and bnet like servers now are mostly between the age of 20 to 30 , and IMO vastly different than the audience of WOW or warcraft 3 , although there are younger people who play from korea since it is a game embedded into the korean gaming culture , north american teen gamers are not likely to play or even know about starcraft nowadays .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I wonder how blizzard feels about a certain semi-pro ladder server which allows anyone ( even without a cd key ) to play starcraft online, they have a link where you can download a 100 mb install of starcraft in a zip file so that all you have to do is unzip, run and play online within minutes.
Of course no one doesn't already own multiple starcraft copies and are only downloading the zip file for convenience of being able to play on any computer will actually enjoy playing the game since if they aren't a hardcore starcraft player they will lose 99.99\% of the time since this is after all a ladder server.
I think that if blizzard does make starcraft 2 bnet only, it would be totally unsuitable for korean pro-gaming, unless the korean's hack a lan into the game, which is pretty likely given that there have been lots of features which were added by third parties for starcraft which are now used widely in bnet and the mentioned ladder server, including a feature which allowed for much better latency ( delay between player and server ).
Today's online starcraft community is mostly dominated by people who are familiar with korean pro gaming and I think if starcraft 2 does not cater to korean pro-gaming, they will be losing a lot of potential buyers from that audience.
Also, the only people who play starcraft on bnet and bnet like servers now are mostly between the age of 20 to 30, and IMO vastly different than the audience of WOW or warcraft 3, although there are younger people who play from korea since it is a game embedded into the korean gaming culture, north american teen gamers are not likely to play or even know about starcraft nowadays.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28559357</id>
	<title>Re:Does anyone remember when...</title>
	<author>illumin8</author>
	<datestamp>1246556460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Given that Blizzard has basically dominated the market why do they continue to stray from their roots...</p></div></blockquote><p>Remember when they were acquired by Vivendi, then Activision acquired Vivendi after that?  They are now bought and owned by corporate overlords.  Their CEO has blatantly stated that he only wants to publish titles like Guitar Hero and Warcraft that can be endlessly exploited on many platforms with many sequels for maximum profit.<br>Hell, check out <a href="http://biz.yahoo.com/e/090227/atvi10-k.html" title="yahoo.com">their SEC filing</a> [yahoo.com], they say it right there:</p><blockquote><div><p>Activision plans to continue to <b>exploit</b> other revenue sources, including downloadable content and in-game advertising for its console games.</p></div></blockquote><p>(emphasis mine)</p><p>Blizzard once was a really cool, creative company.  Now they've become another cash cow with exploitable franchises:</p><blockquote><div><p>Further, as many of our intellectual property licenses extend for <b>multiple products over multiple years</b>, we also assess the recoverability of capitalized intellectual property license costs based on certain qualitative factors, such as the success of other products and/or entertainment vehicles utilizing the intellectual property, whether there are any future planned theatrical releases or television series based on the intellectual property, and the rights holder's continued promotion and <b>exploitation of the intellectual property.</b></p></div> </blockquote><p>Kinda makes you sick to your stomach doesn't it?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Given that Blizzard has basically dominated the market why do they continue to stray from their roots...Remember when they were acquired by Vivendi , then Activision acquired Vivendi after that ?
They are now bought and owned by corporate overlords .
Their CEO has blatantly stated that he only wants to publish titles like Guitar Hero and Warcraft that can be endlessly exploited on many platforms with many sequels for maximum profit.Hell , check out their SEC filing [ yahoo.com ] , they say it right there : Activision plans to continue to exploit other revenue sources , including downloadable content and in-game advertising for its console games .
( emphasis mine ) Blizzard once was a really cool , creative company .
Now they 've become another cash cow with exploitable franchises : Further , as many of our intellectual property licenses extend for multiple products over multiple years , we also assess the recoverability of capitalized intellectual property license costs based on certain qualitative factors , such as the success of other products and/or entertainment vehicles utilizing the intellectual property , whether there are any future planned theatrical releases or television series based on the intellectual property , and the rights holder 's continued promotion and exploitation of the intellectual property .
Kinda makes you sick to your stomach does n't it ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Given that Blizzard has basically dominated the market why do they continue to stray from their roots...Remember when they were acquired by Vivendi, then Activision acquired Vivendi after that?
They are now bought and owned by corporate overlords.
Their CEO has blatantly stated that he only wants to publish titles like Guitar Hero and Warcraft that can be endlessly exploited on many platforms with many sequels for maximum profit.Hell, check out their SEC filing [yahoo.com], they say it right there:Activision plans to continue to exploit other revenue sources, including downloadable content and in-game advertising for its console games.
(emphasis mine)Blizzard once was a really cool, creative company.
Now they've become another cash cow with exploitable franchises:Further, as many of our intellectual property licenses extend for multiple products over multiple years, we also assess the recoverability of capitalized intellectual property license costs based on certain qualitative factors, such as the success of other products and/or entertainment vehicles utilizing the intellectual property, whether there are any future planned theatrical releases or television series based on the intellectual property, and the rights holder's continued promotion and exploitation of the intellectual property.
Kinda makes you sick to your stomach doesn't it?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28545105</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28546835</id>
	<title>Petition</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246477320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I dunno if anyone posted this yet or not (I read through and tried to check) but there is a petition to include LAN going on. Already has 22k+ sigs on it. Dunno if it will help, but it's worth a shot!</p><p>http://www.petitiononline.com/LANSC2/petition.html</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I dunno if anyone posted this yet or not ( I read through and tried to check ) but there is a petition to include LAN going on .
Already has 22k + sigs on it .
Dunno if it will help , but it 's worth a shot ! http : //www.petitiononline.com/LANSC2/petition.html</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I dunno if anyone posted this yet or not (I read through and tried to check) but there is a petition to include LAN going on.
Already has 22k+ sigs on it.
Dunno if it will help, but it's worth a shot!http://www.petitiononline.com/LANSC2/petition.html</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28555737</id>
	<title>Re:Hmmmm</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246536420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Or I just wanna play against a friend on an ad-hoc connection without bothering with connecting to the internet(Didn't have a net connection back in college, many of the kids who are in college today still don't)</p><p>Seriously, the first installable battlenet server that pops up will be so popular nobody can shut it down.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Or I just wan na play against a friend on an ad-hoc connection without bothering with connecting to the internet ( Did n't have a net connection back in college , many of the kids who are in college today still do n't ) Seriously , the first installable battlenet server that pops up will be so popular nobody can shut it down .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Or I just wanna play against a friend on an ad-hoc connection without bothering with connecting to the internet(Didn't have a net connection back in college, many of the kids who are in college today still don't)Seriously, the first installable battlenet server that pops up will be so popular nobody can shut it down.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28545091</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28547521</id>
	<title>that makes a freak of nature</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246479720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>starcraft without lan support is something like a bird without wings.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>starcraft without lan support is something like a bird without wings .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>starcraft without lan support is something like a bird without wings.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28549611</id>
	<title>Hahaha, Oh Wow</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246442520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Vivendi Blactivision, you've done it again!</p><p>First, paying for the same <b>Warcraft 3 mod</b> three times, and now, no LAN support? You guys must really be banking on Korean sales, because it sounds like you're about to fall into the same pit Sony did with the Playstation 3. Momentum can only carry you dimwits so far, and you've already spent most of yours on not one but two crappy World of Warcraft expansions.</p><p>You know what this sounds like to me? A way to pin people into paying subscriptions for Battle.net 2.0! I wouldn't be surprised. The first hit is always free, and now that they're hooked on the smell of money, you can expect to have Korean style item malls and 'premium' services (like allowing more than two people to play in a single multiplayer game, being able to play custom maps and mods, and generally not having your online experience crippled by the publisher) taking precedence over the actual game experience. I'm especially disappointed that they'd have the balls to call this one on pirates and punish their fans for it when one, everyone knows that whole argument is bull, two, they're still almost guaranteed a hefty profit at launch, and three - <b>the giant BlizCon LAN parties!</b> What the fuck, man?</p><p>I don't know what Blizzard became after 2004, but if this is any indication, they must think themselves invincible. The best part is that you know there's going to be a LAN hack within a week or two of launch, just like after Steam first came out. They're wasting a lot of their popular capital on moves like this, and I hope it bites them in the ass.</p><p>By the way, my CAPTCHA was 'repaid'. Pretty fitting.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Vivendi Blactivision , you 've done it again ! First , paying for the same Warcraft 3 mod three times , and now , no LAN support ?
You guys must really be banking on Korean sales , because it sounds like you 're about to fall into the same pit Sony did with the Playstation 3 .
Momentum can only carry you dimwits so far , and you 've already spent most of yours on not one but two crappy World of Warcraft expansions.You know what this sounds like to me ?
A way to pin people into paying subscriptions for Battle.net 2.0 !
I would n't be surprised .
The first hit is always free , and now that they 're hooked on the smell of money , you can expect to have Korean style item malls and 'premium ' services ( like allowing more than two people to play in a single multiplayer game , being able to play custom maps and mods , and generally not having your online experience crippled by the publisher ) taking precedence over the actual game experience .
I 'm especially disappointed that they 'd have the balls to call this one on pirates and punish their fans for it when one , everyone knows that whole argument is bull , two , they 're still almost guaranteed a hefty profit at launch , and three - the giant BlizCon LAN parties !
What the fuck , man ? I do n't know what Blizzard became after 2004 , but if this is any indication , they must think themselves invincible .
The best part is that you know there 's going to be a LAN hack within a week or two of launch , just like after Steam first came out .
They 're wasting a lot of their popular capital on moves like this , and I hope it bites them in the ass.By the way , my CAPTCHA was 'repaid' .
Pretty fitting .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Vivendi Blactivision, you've done it again!First, paying for the same Warcraft 3 mod three times, and now, no LAN support?
You guys must really be banking on Korean sales, because it sounds like you're about to fall into the same pit Sony did with the Playstation 3.
Momentum can only carry you dimwits so far, and you've already spent most of yours on not one but two crappy World of Warcraft expansions.You know what this sounds like to me?
A way to pin people into paying subscriptions for Battle.net 2.0!
I wouldn't be surprised.
The first hit is always free, and now that they're hooked on the smell of money, you can expect to have Korean style item malls and 'premium' services (like allowing more than two people to play in a single multiplayer game, being able to play custom maps and mods, and generally not having your online experience crippled by the publisher) taking precedence over the actual game experience.
I'm especially disappointed that they'd have the balls to call this one on pirates and punish their fans for it when one, everyone knows that whole argument is bull, two, they're still almost guaranteed a hefty profit at launch, and three - the giant BlizCon LAN parties!
What the fuck, man?I don't know what Blizzard became after 2004, but if this is any indication, they must think themselves invincible.
The best part is that you know there's going to be a LAN hack within a week or two of launch, just like after Steam first came out.
They're wasting a lot of their popular capital on moves like this, and I hope it bites them in the ass.By the way, my CAPTCHA was 'repaid'.
Pretty fitting.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28596289</id>
	<title>Re:Feeling a huge sense of meh towards starcraft 2</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246903500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Nothing better than StarCraft?  Perhaps not overall, but other RTS games have solved some of those issues you speak of regarding large groups of moving units and AI effectiveness.  Try playing Homeworld 2 by Sierra.  It's pretty slick, and it was released in 2002.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Nothing better than StarCraft ?
Perhaps not overall , but other RTS games have solved some of those issues you speak of regarding large groups of moving units and AI effectiveness .
Try playing Homeworld 2 by Sierra .
It 's pretty slick , and it was released in 2002 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nothing better than StarCraft?
Perhaps not overall, but other RTS games have solved some of those issues you speak of regarding large groups of moving units and AI effectiveness.
Try playing Homeworld 2 by Sierra.
It's pretty slick, and it was released in 2002.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28546243</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28549771</id>
	<title>Re:Confusing Comparison: RTS vs RPG</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246443060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I just came across Guild Wars last week. For a total of $20 (From Gamestop) I bought the CD and was up and running within minutes. The game is fantastic! And as stated, no monthly fee. I understand that millions play WOW. But somehow I find it a bit nicer to play a very similar game and pay no monthly fee.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I just came across Guild Wars last week .
For a total of $ 20 ( From Gamestop ) I bought the CD and was up and running within minutes .
The game is fantastic !
And as stated , no monthly fee .
I understand that millions play WOW .
But somehow I find it a bit nicer to play a very similar game and pay no monthly fee .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I just came across Guild Wars last week.
For a total of $20 (From Gamestop) I bought the CD and was up and running within minutes.
The game is fantastic!
And as stated, no monthly fee.
I understand that millions play WOW.
But somehow I find it a bit nicer to play a very similar game and pay no monthly fee.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28545099</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28555657</id>
	<title>Fail</title>
	<author>Jaysyn</author>
	<datestamp>1246535160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If I feel like playing multiplayer Starcraft, it's not because I want to play online with a bunch of teenage trolls.  Looks like I'll be skipping this game.  Ah well, more money for publishers who don't punish their players.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If I feel like playing multiplayer Starcraft , it 's not because I want to play online with a bunch of teenage trolls .
Looks like I 'll be skipping this game .
Ah well , more money for publishers who do n't punish their players .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If I feel like playing multiplayer Starcraft, it's not because I want to play online with a bunch of teenage trolls.
Looks like I'll be skipping this game.
Ah well, more money for publishers who don't punish their players.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28548085</id>
	<title>Re:Lies can justify anti-piracy inconvenience effo</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246481220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The only thing that goes across state is the match making. The actual game is run on a local computer. So if everyone is on a LAN, everyone is on a LAN. But you'll still have to perform matchmaking through battlenet.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The only thing that goes across state is the match making .
The actual game is run on a local computer .
So if everyone is on a LAN , everyone is on a LAN .
But you 'll still have to perform matchmaking through battlenet .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The only thing that goes across state is the match making.
The actual game is run on a local computer.
So if everyone is on a LAN, everyone is on a LAN.
But you'll still have to perform matchmaking through battlenet.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28545077</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28545687</id>
	<title>Re:Bonus!</title>
	<author>Kemeno</author>
	<datestamp>1246473840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yes, and I think this is strange, because this exact feature is how I introduced my friends to the original Starcraft. More than half the fun of an RTS for me is playing it on a LAN with a few of my friends. Some of them even went out and bought the game afterward. If an RTS doesn't let me have a lag-free LAN experience, why should I buy it? How should I convince others to buy it? <p>

Forcing everyone to have a unique key for Starcraft seems like a good idea for Blizzard on the surface, but I think that, in the end, it will hurt them more than it will help them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , and I think this is strange , because this exact feature is how I introduced my friends to the original Starcraft .
More than half the fun of an RTS for me is playing it on a LAN with a few of my friends .
Some of them even went out and bought the game afterward .
If an RTS does n't let me have a lag-free LAN experience , why should I buy it ?
How should I convince others to buy it ?
Forcing everyone to have a unique key for Starcraft seems like a good idea for Blizzard on the surface , but I think that , in the end , it will hurt them more than it will help them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, and I think this is strange, because this exact feature is how I introduced my friends to the original Starcraft.
More than half the fun of an RTS for me is playing it on a LAN with a few of my friends.
Some of them even went out and bought the game afterward.
If an RTS doesn't let me have a lag-free LAN experience, why should I buy it?
How should I convince others to buy it?
Forcing everyone to have a unique key for Starcraft seems like a good idea for Blizzard on the surface, but I think that, in the end, it will hurt them more than it will help them.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28545013</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28546757</id>
	<title>Re:Trends</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246477020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Have you gotten the latest patches for UT3? They added a ton more settings and fixed a lot of bugs. It makes the game a lot better.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Have you gotten the latest patches for UT3 ?
They added a ton more settings and fixed a lot of bugs .
It makes the game a lot better .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Have you gotten the latest patches for UT3?
They added a ton more settings and fixed a lot of bugs.
It makes the game a lot better.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28545427</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28546859</id>
	<title>Sounds dumb..</title>
	<author>Seth Kriticos</author>
	<datestamp>1246477380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>As far as I know, Starcraft was always about click counts and fast action. It's a real time strategy game after all, where every moment counts.

Now even with a very good connection (and that already poses problems) the latency with b.net servers will be at 50+ ms (more like 200+ ms in most cases, remember, data has to go out and come in on the other side + processing overhead).

This will basically make the game unplayable for the more experienced gamers (the fans and core target audience).

To me this simply looks like a marketing suicide, but maybe I'm missing something here.</htmltext>
<tokenext>As far as I know , Starcraft was always about click counts and fast action .
It 's a real time strategy game after all , where every moment counts .
Now even with a very good connection ( and that already poses problems ) the latency with b.net servers will be at 50 + ms ( more like 200 + ms in most cases , remember , data has to go out and come in on the other side + processing overhead ) .
This will basically make the game unplayable for the more experienced gamers ( the fans and core target audience ) .
To me this simply looks like a marketing suicide , but maybe I 'm missing something here .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As far as I know, Starcraft was always about click counts and fast action.
It's a real time strategy game after all, where every moment counts.
Now even with a very good connection (and that already poses problems) the latency with b.net servers will be at 50+ ms (more like 200+ ms in most cases, remember, data has to go out and come in on the other side + processing overhead).
This will basically make the game unplayable for the more experienced gamers (the fans and core target audience).
To me this simply looks like a marketing suicide, but maybe I'm missing something here.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28545511</id>
	<title>bnetd pvpgn</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246473300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>well, I guess someone will just have to revive BNETD or PVPGN...   they think they can fight piracy by removing lan, oh so naive</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>well , I guess someone will just have to revive BNETD or PVPGN... they think they can fight piracy by removing lan , oh so naive</tokentext>
<sentencetext>well, I guess someone will just have to revive BNETD or PVPGN...   they think they can fight piracy by removing lan, oh so naive</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28545617</id>
	<title>Re:Bonus!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246473600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I used to play HALO: Combat Edition on a LAN Party, it too, required a unique CD Key from everybody who joined the game.

<p>I think the bottom line here is the revenue stream that they are hoping to generate.  I absolutely detest the Pay-to-Play model.  They will charge through the nose for the game, and then charge to play it as a group.

</p><p>This is not about the Gamer's experience, rather their bottom line.

</p><p>I can only hope that their gamble fails.

</p><p>---

</p><p>I really need a cool signature</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I used to play HALO : Combat Edition on a LAN Party , it too , required a unique CD Key from everybody who joined the game .
I think the bottom line here is the revenue stream that they are hoping to generate .
I absolutely detest the Pay-to-Play model .
They will charge through the nose for the game , and then charge to play it as a group .
This is not about the Gamer 's experience , rather their bottom line .
I can only hope that their gamble fails .
--- I really need a cool signature</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I used to play HALO: Combat Edition on a LAN Party, it too, required a unique CD Key from everybody who joined the game.
I think the bottom line here is the revenue stream that they are hoping to generate.
I absolutely detest the Pay-to-Play model.
They will charge through the nose for the game, and then charge to play it as a group.
This is not about the Gamer's experience, rather their bottom line.
I can only hope that their gamble fails.
---

I really need a cool signature</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28545013</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28550053</id>
	<title>Re:Does anyone remember when...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246444080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You're arguing that Blizzard is straying from its LAN roots because a program <i>designed to allow people to play over the internet</i> is responsible for "ALL" of Warcraft II's success.</p><p>You don't have to be Phoenix Wright to see the contradiction.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You 're arguing that Blizzard is straying from its LAN roots because a program designed to allow people to play over the internet is responsible for " ALL " of Warcraft II 's success.You do n't have to be Phoenix Wright to see the contradiction .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You're arguing that Blizzard is straying from its LAN roots because a program designed to allow people to play over the internet is responsible for "ALL" of Warcraft II's success.You don't have to be Phoenix Wright to see the contradiction.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28545105</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28553557</id>
	<title>Re:The human factor</title>
	<author>nausea\_malvarma</author>
	<datestamp>1246465260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>How the hell are 8 people going to connect to battle net at the same time when I only got one lousy dsl connection! The latency would be unacceptable.</htmltext>
<tokenext>How the hell are 8 people going to connect to battle net at the same time when I only got one lousy dsl connection !
The latency would be unacceptable .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How the hell are 8 people going to connect to battle net at the same time when I only got one lousy dsl connection!
The latency would be unacceptable.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28547497</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28545603</id>
	<title>I think they just increased piracy.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246473600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Whenever a company does something that hurts the consumer in the name of "fighting piracy", it seems to me to be taken by the community as an open invitation to pirate their game.  Given the choice between pirating and buying the game, frequently the reason the individual consumer chooses to pay money for the game is the impression one has of the company.  Sure, no one is going to pay for a crappy game, but look at the difference between Spore and Starcraft.  Spore was seen as a slap in the face of the consumer and consequently was one of the most pirated games in history.  The original Starcraft, despite the fact it is easily pirated, is still profitable enough to be sold for $20 in stores.</p><p>You want to insure piracy?  Piss off your users.  Removing LAN and telling LAN users they're nothing but pirates seems to be going down that road pretty nicely.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Whenever a company does something that hurts the consumer in the name of " fighting piracy " , it seems to me to be taken by the community as an open invitation to pirate their game .
Given the choice between pirating and buying the game , frequently the reason the individual consumer chooses to pay money for the game is the impression one has of the company .
Sure , no one is going to pay for a crappy game , but look at the difference between Spore and Starcraft .
Spore was seen as a slap in the face of the consumer and consequently was one of the most pirated games in history .
The original Starcraft , despite the fact it is easily pirated , is still profitable enough to be sold for $ 20 in stores.You want to insure piracy ?
Piss off your users .
Removing LAN and telling LAN users they 're nothing but pirates seems to be going down that road pretty nicely .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Whenever a company does something that hurts the consumer in the name of "fighting piracy", it seems to me to be taken by the community as an open invitation to pirate their game.
Given the choice between pirating and buying the game, frequently the reason the individual consumer chooses to pay money for the game is the impression one has of the company.
Sure, no one is going to pay for a crappy game, but look at the difference between Spore and Starcraft.
Spore was seen as a slap in the face of the consumer and consequently was one of the most pirated games in history.
The original Starcraft, despite the fact it is easily pirated, is still profitable enough to be sold for $20 in stores.You want to insure piracy?
Piss off your users.
Removing LAN and telling LAN users they're nothing but pirates seems to be going down that road pretty nicely.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28545841</id>
	<title>Blizzard's irrelevancy</title>
	<author>Sheafification</author>
	<datestamp>1246474320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm a big fan of Blizzard titles (but then, who isn't?). My friends and I still get together on at least a monthly basis to play Starcraft or War3 on a LAN. Given that, it should be no surprise that I think this is a very bad move by Blizzard. There's no way my friend's place is going to get an internet connection that is capable of handling all of us simultaneously, with latency comparable to a LAN.</p><p>If they keep on this path, Starcraft2 will be largely irrelevant as far as I'm concerned. I doubt it will have the staying power of Starcraft 1 simply because you can't play a pick-up game with friends. Yes, I'll probably still get it eventually for the single-player and occasion B.net game, but you can bet that the pirated version cracked to include a B.net clone for LAN is looking mighty good in comparison.</p><p>While we don't yet know what "super" features B.net 2.0 is going to have that are supposed to make up for LAN play, it has been confirmed that B.net play will be free for Starcraft 2 purchasers. <b>However</b>, rumors are starting to fly that B.net will <b>not</b> be free for Diablo3. The statement that SC2 play will be free was carefully worded, and Blizzard responses on D3 have evasive, but with not re-assuring implications.</p><p>Given that Diablo3 also has been confirmed to lack LAN play, the only way to play multiplayer is via B.net. If the rumors are true, then the only way to get D3 multiplayer is to pay for it. This is a total reverse from the old days of "spawned" copies of Blizzard games where you could have several players all using the same copy of the game.</p><p>I think the removal of LAN play signals the decline of Blizzard as a long-term game maker. Which is too bad as they have wonderful legacy support. SC2 and D3 will still sell like crazy I'm sure, but 10 years from now we'll probably still be playing Starcraft 1 at LAN parties. That or some enterprising pirate will save the day.</p><p>Anyway, there's a <a href="http://www.petitiononline.com/LANSC2/" title="petitiononline.com">petition</a> [petitiononline.com] to include LAN play, not that it will do much good. Doesn't hurt to try.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm a big fan of Blizzard titles ( but then , who is n't ? ) .
My friends and I still get together on at least a monthly basis to play Starcraft or War3 on a LAN .
Given that , it should be no surprise that I think this is a very bad move by Blizzard .
There 's no way my friend 's place is going to get an internet connection that is capable of handling all of us simultaneously , with latency comparable to a LAN.If they keep on this path , Starcraft2 will be largely irrelevant as far as I 'm concerned .
I doubt it will have the staying power of Starcraft 1 simply because you ca n't play a pick-up game with friends .
Yes , I 'll probably still get it eventually for the single-player and occasion B.net game , but you can bet that the pirated version cracked to include a B.net clone for LAN is looking mighty good in comparison.While we do n't yet know what " super " features B.net 2.0 is going to have that are supposed to make up for LAN play , it has been confirmed that B.net play will be free for Starcraft 2 purchasers .
However , rumors are starting to fly that B.net will not be free for Diablo3 .
The statement that SC2 play will be free was carefully worded , and Blizzard responses on D3 have evasive , but with not re-assuring implications.Given that Diablo3 also has been confirmed to lack LAN play , the only way to play multiplayer is via B.net .
If the rumors are true , then the only way to get D3 multiplayer is to pay for it .
This is a total reverse from the old days of " spawned " copies of Blizzard games where you could have several players all using the same copy of the game.I think the removal of LAN play signals the decline of Blizzard as a long-term game maker .
Which is too bad as they have wonderful legacy support .
SC2 and D3 will still sell like crazy I 'm sure , but 10 years from now we 'll probably still be playing Starcraft 1 at LAN parties .
That or some enterprising pirate will save the day.Anyway , there 's a petition [ petitiononline.com ] to include LAN play , not that it will do much good .
Does n't hurt to try .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm a big fan of Blizzard titles (but then, who isn't?).
My friends and I still get together on at least a monthly basis to play Starcraft or War3 on a LAN.
Given that, it should be no surprise that I think this is a very bad move by Blizzard.
There's no way my friend's place is going to get an internet connection that is capable of handling all of us simultaneously, with latency comparable to a LAN.If they keep on this path, Starcraft2 will be largely irrelevant as far as I'm concerned.
I doubt it will have the staying power of Starcraft 1 simply because you can't play a pick-up game with friends.
Yes, I'll probably still get it eventually for the single-player and occasion B.net game, but you can bet that the pirated version cracked to include a B.net clone for LAN is looking mighty good in comparison.While we don't yet know what "super" features B.net 2.0 is going to have that are supposed to make up for LAN play, it has been confirmed that B.net play will be free for Starcraft 2 purchasers.
However, rumors are starting to fly that B.net will not be free for Diablo3.
The statement that SC2 play will be free was carefully worded, and Blizzard responses on D3 have evasive, but with not re-assuring implications.Given that Diablo3 also has been confirmed to lack LAN play, the only way to play multiplayer is via B.net.
If the rumors are true, then the only way to get D3 multiplayer is to pay for it.
This is a total reverse from the old days of "spawned" copies of Blizzard games where you could have several players all using the same copy of the game.I think the removal of LAN play signals the decline of Blizzard as a long-term game maker.
Which is too bad as they have wonderful legacy support.
SC2 and D3 will still sell like crazy I'm sure, but 10 years from now we'll probably still be playing Starcraft 1 at LAN parties.
That or some enterprising pirate will save the day.Anyway, there's a petition [petitiononline.com] to include LAN play, not that it will do much good.
Doesn't hurt to try.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28545013</id>
	<title>Bonus!</title>
	<author>kevmatic</author>
	<datestamp>1246471860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As a purely coincidental side effect, I'm sure, this will make sure that everyone on the LAN has their own copy, as battle.net will only allow one CD key on at a time.</p><p>Quite a reversal of the "Ghost Copy" feature or whatever of StarCraft 1 that allows many people to use one copy over the LAN.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As a purely coincidental side effect , I 'm sure , this will make sure that everyone on the LAN has their own copy , as battle.net will only allow one CD key on at a time.Quite a reversal of the " Ghost Copy " feature or whatever of StarCraft 1 that allows many people to use one copy over the LAN .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As a purely coincidental side effect, I'm sure, this will make sure that everyone on the LAN has their own copy, as battle.net will only allow one CD key on at a time.Quite a reversal of the "Ghost Copy" feature or whatever of StarCraft 1 that allows many people to use one copy over the LAN.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28545217</id>
	<title>Re:Confusing Comparison: RTS vs RPG</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246472460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>I can honestly say that this is a huge disappointment to me. I was really looking forward to having an old school LAN party with my friends like we used to back in Junior High and high school. Somehow, having 4 friends in the same house/room connect to battlenet just to play with each other is a tad disappointing.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I can honestly say that this is a huge disappointment to me .
I was really looking forward to having an old school LAN party with my friends like we used to back in Junior High and high school .
Somehow , having 4 friends in the same house/room connect to battlenet just to play with each other is a tad disappointing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I can honestly say that this is a huge disappointment to me.
I was really looking forward to having an old school LAN party with my friends like we used to back in Junior High and high school.
Somehow, having 4 friends in the same house/room connect to battlenet just to play with each other is a tad disappointing.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28544905</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28549555</id>
	<title>Fuck off you greedy SOBs</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246442400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I will not buy or play this game. Fuck you Blizzard.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I will not buy or play this game .
Fuck you Blizzard .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I will not buy or play this game.
Fuck you Blizzard.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28550087</id>
	<title>Do not want...</title>
	<author>darthdavid</author>
	<datestamp>1246444140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I was probably going to buy SC2 before this news. Now, at best, I might pirate it. Without LAN it might not even be worth doing that...
Fuck you Blizzard!</htmltext>
<tokenext>I was probably going to buy SC2 before this news .
Now , at best , I might pirate it .
Without LAN it might not even be worth doing that.. . Fuck you Blizzard !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I was probably going to buy SC2 before this news.
Now, at best, I might pirate it.
Without LAN it might not even be worth doing that...
Fuck you Blizzard!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28547497</id>
	<title>Re:The human factor</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246479540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Lan parties are different than online play, because everyone is in the same room. You know everyone who's there, and you can see them from across the room. Nothing is a substitute for human contact, and playing on battle.net won't be the same.</p></div><p>So, explain to me how having eight people in the same room playing against each other is negatively impacted by having the interface for connecting to the game run through your Battle.net login?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Lan parties are different than online play , because everyone is in the same room .
You know everyone who 's there , and you can see them from across the room .
Nothing is a substitute for human contact , and playing on battle.net wo n't be the same.So , explain to me how having eight people in the same room playing against each other is negatively impacted by having the interface for connecting to the game run through your Battle.net login ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Lan parties are different than online play, because everyone is in the same room.
You know everyone who's there, and you can see them from across the room.
Nothing is a substitute for human contact, and playing on battle.net won't be the same.So, explain to me how having eight people in the same room playing against each other is negatively impacted by having the interface for connecting to the game run through your Battle.net login?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28545223</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28550003</id>
	<title>Won't stop me</title>
	<author>sircastor</author>
	<datestamp>1246443780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm not a big gamer, in fact so much so, that StarCraft remains the only game that I've continued to play many many years after it came out. I hope that Starcraft 2 is as good of a game. I've been to a few LAN parties, and they're kind of fun. However, the people I did that with have moved on with their lives. We live in distant places, and LAN parties aren't practical. We do still play Starcraft occasionally.

I'm a little disappointed, but this certainly won't stop me from buying the game.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm not a big gamer , in fact so much so , that StarCraft remains the only game that I 've continued to play many many years after it came out .
I hope that Starcraft 2 is as good of a game .
I 've been to a few LAN parties , and they 're kind of fun .
However , the people I did that with have moved on with their lives .
We live in distant places , and LAN parties are n't practical .
We do still play Starcraft occasionally .
I 'm a little disappointed , but this certainly wo n't stop me from buying the game .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm not a big gamer, in fact so much so, that StarCraft remains the only game that I've continued to play many many years after it came out.
I hope that Starcraft 2 is as good of a game.
I've been to a few LAN parties, and they're kind of fun.
However, the people I did that with have moved on with their lives.
We live in distant places, and LAN parties aren't practical.
We do still play Starcraft occasionally.
I'm a little disappointed, but this certainly won't stop me from buying the game.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28547641</id>
	<title>Resale</title>
	<author>imunfair</author>
	<datestamp>1246480140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>When they say they found a way to "curb piracy" they really mean they found a way to stop people from reselling non-subscription games.  If you can't get a subscription out of people you can at least force everyone to buy a new copy of their very own.  Battlenet accounts contain all your games similar to steam, so the only way to sell one would be to only have one game on it.  Aside from that, trying to sell something that requires more than just the physical media is enough to stop most of the casual sales - there might be some but it would be rare. (not sure if gamestop type stores would even try to deal with that kind of hurdle)</p><p>You know the "pirates" will be the ones who actually supply people with a patch that allows LAN play.  Not necessarily for people who want to steal the game, just for people who don't want to be gimped/monitored.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>When they say they found a way to " curb piracy " they really mean they found a way to stop people from reselling non-subscription games .
If you ca n't get a subscription out of people you can at least force everyone to buy a new copy of their very own .
Battlenet accounts contain all your games similar to steam , so the only way to sell one would be to only have one game on it .
Aside from that , trying to sell something that requires more than just the physical media is enough to stop most of the casual sales - there might be some but it would be rare .
( not sure if gamestop type stores would even try to deal with that kind of hurdle ) You know the " pirates " will be the ones who actually supply people with a patch that allows LAN play .
Not necessarily for people who want to steal the game , just for people who do n't want to be gimped/monitored .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When they say they found a way to "curb piracy" they really mean they found a way to stop people from reselling non-subscription games.
If you can't get a subscription out of people you can at least force everyone to buy a new copy of their very own.
Battlenet accounts contain all your games similar to steam, so the only way to sell one would be to only have one game on it.
Aside from that, trying to sell something that requires more than just the physical media is enough to stop most of the casual sales - there might be some but it would be rare.
(not sure if gamestop type stores would even try to deal with that kind of hurdle)You know the "pirates" will be the ones who actually supply people with a patch that allows LAN play.
Not necessarily for people who want to steal the game, just for people who don't want to be gimped/monitored.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28546189</id>
	<title>Re:Broadband killed LAN parties</title>
	<author>Mashiki</author>
	<datestamp>1246475280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I feel bad for you.  I've been to 3 in the last two years here in Ontario, they're still a blast.  Is it a hassle to haul my PC around?  Yep, is it more fun getting out and hanging with a bunch of people who share similar interests and building a network of connections?  You bet.  Personally I feel most think that this is just for gaming.  I've always felt it was a great way to build up my number of connections to groups of people who have similar interests or can help me, or themselves down the road.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I feel bad for you .
I 've been to 3 in the last two years here in Ontario , they 're still a blast .
Is it a hassle to haul my PC around ?
Yep , is it more fun getting out and hanging with a bunch of people who share similar interests and building a network of connections ?
You bet .
Personally I feel most think that this is just for gaming .
I 've always felt it was a great way to build up my number of connections to groups of people who have similar interests or can help me , or themselves down the road .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I feel bad for you.
I've been to 3 in the last two years here in Ontario, they're still a blast.
Is it a hassle to haul my PC around?
Yep, is it more fun getting out and hanging with a bunch of people who share similar interests and building a network of connections?
You bet.
Personally I feel most think that this is just for gaming.
I've always felt it was a great way to build up my number of connections to groups of people who have similar interests or can help me, or themselves down the road.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28545131</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28545091</id>
	<title>Hmmmm</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246472040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>I dunno about this. What if my ISP is acting up, and I need to get in a bit of Starcrafty goodness with a couple friends I have over or something? No matter what Blizzard does, there's going to be piracy of their game; it's inescapable, no matter what they do. I'm sure bnetd (or at least something similar) is going to pop up.<br> <br>The most jarring thing to me is the worry that they won't at least let you meet up with specific people on bnet and form a closed game to at least simulate a LAN game (fat chance, with the lag back to Blizzard's servers =/ )</htmltext>
<tokenext>I dunno about this .
What if my ISP is acting up , and I need to get in a bit of Starcrafty goodness with a couple friends I have over or something ?
No matter what Blizzard does , there 's going to be piracy of their game ; it 's inescapable , no matter what they do .
I 'm sure bnetd ( or at least something similar ) is going to pop up .
The most jarring thing to me is the worry that they wo n't at least let you meet up with specific people on bnet and form a closed game to at least simulate a LAN game ( fat chance , with the lag back to Blizzard 's servers = / )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I dunno about this.
What if my ISP is acting up, and I need to get in a bit of Starcrafty goodness with a couple friends I have over or something?
No matter what Blizzard does, there's going to be piracy of their game; it's inescapable, no matter what they do.
I'm sure bnetd (or at least something similar) is going to pop up.
The most jarring thing to me is the worry that they won't at least let you meet up with specific people on bnet and form a closed game to at least simulate a LAN game (fat chance, with the lag back to Blizzard's servers =/ )</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28545297</id>
	<title>It will still communicate over Lan</title>
	<author>SOOPRcow</author>
	<datestamp>1246472700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It is my understanding that people who are on the same LAN and are playing with each other will still be sending the actual gameplay packets to each others LAN ip address without having to first pass through Battle.Net.

All Battle.Net will be doing is authenticating the game and setting up matches and keeping various stats. That said we won't know for sure till the beta is released or Blizzard confirms or denies it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It is my understanding that people who are on the same LAN and are playing with each other will still be sending the actual gameplay packets to each others LAN ip address without having to first pass through Battle.Net .
All Battle.Net will be doing is authenticating the game and setting up matches and keeping various stats .
That said we wo n't know for sure till the beta is released or Blizzard confirms or denies it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It is my understanding that people who are on the same LAN and are playing with each other will still be sending the actual gameplay packets to each others LAN ip address without having to first pass through Battle.Net.
All Battle.Net will be doing is authenticating the game and setting up matches and keeping various stats.
That said we won't know for sure till the beta is released or Blizzard confirms or denies it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28545123</id>
	<title>Won't buy it.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246472160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If there is no possibility to play the game in a LAN without Internet access I won't buy it. Period.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If there is no possibility to play the game in a LAN without Internet access I wo n't buy it .
Period .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If there is no possibility to play the game in a LAN without Internet access I won't buy it.
Period.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28546333</id>
	<title>Didn't the movie industry try something like this?</title>
	<author>Gldm</author>
	<datestamp>1246475700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You know, the whole phone-home every time you want to use the product model? Claiming it would be awesome for consumers. What was it called again?
<br> <br>
Oh yeah, Divx.
<br> <br>
Whatever happened to that?</htmltext>
<tokenext>You know , the whole phone-home every time you want to use the product model ?
Claiming it would be awesome for consumers .
What was it called again ?
Oh yeah , Divx .
Whatever happened to that ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You know, the whole phone-home every time you want to use the product model?
Claiming it would be awesome for consumers.
What was it called again?
Oh yeah, Divx.
Whatever happened to that?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28545283</id>
	<title>Re:I'll buy it...but...</title>
	<author>TitusC3v5</author>
	<datestamp>1246472640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>...fast paced game players don't have the tolerance of players who are into mmo's exclusively.</i> <br> <br>

This. You can't know where you're going if you don't know where you've been, and I think Blizzard has forgotten that. I don't think they realize they're not making an infinitely upgradable game for people with no lives. They're making a RTS that will have a few patches and maps added for people who just want to pick up and play the game without wading through bullshit.<br> <br>

GG, Blizz.</htmltext>
<tokenext>...fast paced game players do n't have the tolerance of players who are into mmo 's exclusively .
This. You ca n't know where you 're going if you do n't know where you 've been , and I think Blizzard has forgotten that .
I do n't think they realize they 're not making an infinitely upgradable game for people with no lives .
They 're making a RTS that will have a few patches and maps added for people who just want to pick up and play the game without wading through bullshit .
GG , Blizz .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...fast paced game players don't have the tolerance of players who are into mmo's exclusively.
This. You can't know where you're going if you don't know where you've been, and I think Blizzard has forgotten that.
I don't think they realize they're not making an infinitely upgradable game for people with no lives.
They're making a RTS that will have a few patches and maps added for people who just want to pick up and play the game without wading through bullshit.
GG, Blizz.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28545069</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28546493</id>
	<title>Re:Hmmmm</title>
	<author>PuercoPop</author>
	<datestamp>1246476120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>One can find problems without having to resort to temportal issues with the ISP. Battlenet has issues working properly with NAT, which is 99\% of the users of internet of peru (non-bussiness at least). If you have a single PC behind a NAT playing there is not much problem, you can play no problem but to host you have to open one port. But For example two brothers want to play and one of them host, no can do, at least not without 3rd party Software (can't recall the name battlelan or something like that). So that would be an issue for instance @ Lan Cafes at least here in Peru.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>One can find problems without having to resort to temportal issues with the ISP .
Battlenet has issues working properly with NAT , which is 99 \ % of the users of internet of peru ( non-bussiness at least ) .
If you have a single PC behind a NAT playing there is not much problem , you can play no problem but to host you have to open one port .
But For example two brothers want to play and one of them host , no can do , at least not without 3rd party Software ( ca n't recall the name battlelan or something like that ) .
So that would be an issue for instance @ Lan Cafes at least here in Peru .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One can find problems without having to resort to temportal issues with the ISP.
Battlenet has issues working properly with NAT, which is 99\% of the users of internet of peru (non-bussiness at least).
If you have a single PC behind a NAT playing there is not much problem, you can play no problem but to host you have to open one port.
But For example two brothers want to play and one of them host, no can do, at least not without 3rd party Software (can't recall the name battlelan or something like that).
So that would be an issue for instance @ Lan Cafes at least here in Peru.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28545091</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28548275</id>
	<title>I'm a pirate, but I would still have bought this.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246481820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I guess you could call me a pirate. Me and my girlfriend like to play network games from time to time. Mostly Civilization 4, but a few others such as for example Starcraft. However, we only buy one copy of the game, but I don't feel that this is very immoral.</p><p>We were really looking forward to SC2, but if we will not be able to play it without buying two copies of it, I don't think we'll buy any copy at all actually. Way to go Blizzard, you just converted a content customer into a discontent customer!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I guess you could call me a pirate .
Me and my girlfriend like to play network games from time to time .
Mostly Civilization 4 , but a few others such as for example Starcraft .
However , we only buy one copy of the game , but I do n't feel that this is very immoral.We were really looking forward to SC2 , but if we will not be able to play it without buying two copies of it , I do n't think we 'll buy any copy at all actually .
Way to go Blizzard , you just converted a content customer into a discontent customer !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I guess you could call me a pirate.
Me and my girlfriend like to play network games from time to time.
Mostly Civilization 4, but a few others such as for example Starcraft.
However, we only buy one copy of the game, but I don't feel that this is very immoral.We were really looking forward to SC2, but if we will not be able to play it without buying two copies of it, I don't think we'll buy any copy at all actually.
Way to go Blizzard, you just converted a content customer into a discontent customer!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28545909</id>
	<title>New Battle.net service?</title>
	<author>wbren</author>
	<datestamp>1246474500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Then what was I playing Diablo on in 1998?</p><p>I realize the service has surely been overhauled several times since then, but it's hardly a new service. Battle.net has been around for ages.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Then what was I playing Diablo on in 1998 ? I realize the service has surely been overhauled several times since then , but it 's hardly a new service .
Battle.net has been around for ages .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Then what was I playing Diablo on in 1998?I realize the service has surely been overhauled several times since then, but it's hardly a new service.
Battle.net has been around for ages.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28557835</id>
	<title>Re:The only form of DRM that works</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246549980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Except it doesn't work. You can still emulate it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Except it does n't work .
You can still emulate it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Except it doesn't work.
You can still emulate it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28545103</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28545429</id>
	<title>These Developers are out of touch with reality.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246473000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"We would not take out LAN if we did not feel we could offer players something better."</p><p>You fucking can't. I haven't used Battle.net in well over a decade because it BLEW CHUNKS.  The only way I could ever get a decent game of SC going was to call my friends up and have a LAN party.</p><p>You just ripped the HEART out of your game. Fuck you, Blizzard. You just guaranteed I'll NEVER touch another thing from your company ever again.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" We would not take out LAN if we did not feel we could offer players something better .
" You fucking ca n't .
I have n't used Battle.net in well over a decade because it BLEW CHUNKS .
The only way I could ever get a decent game of SC going was to call my friends up and have a LAN party.You just ripped the HEART out of your game .
Fuck you , Blizzard .
You just guaranteed I 'll NEVER touch another thing from your company ever again .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"We would not take out LAN if we did not feel we could offer players something better.
"You fucking can't.
I haven't used Battle.net in well over a decade because it BLEW CHUNKS.
The only way I could ever get a decent game of SC going was to call my friends up and have a LAN party.You just ripped the HEART out of your game.
Fuck you, Blizzard.
You just guaranteed I'll NEVER touch another thing from your company ever again.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28570793</id>
	<title>Bnet will not be free</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246630440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't know why everyone is focused on the LAN aspect of the matter... Battle.net is NOT going to be free as stated by Blizzard themselves. This move ENSURES that you will have to pay a monthly fee to Blizzard for playing their game.</p><p>With World of Warcraft users being encouraged to "upgrade" their accounts to Battle.net accounts, it seems they will pull off a "Pay for one account each month, and you will be able to play all of our games online".</p><p>Yes, that means that if I pay for WoW now and decide to pick Starcraft too, it will basically be free, but it also means that Blizzard plans on milking me for the rest of my sane life. I for one welcome our new Blizzard Overlords...?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't know why everyone is focused on the LAN aspect of the matter... Battle.net is NOT going to be free as stated by Blizzard themselves .
This move ENSURES that you will have to pay a monthly fee to Blizzard for playing their game.With World of Warcraft users being encouraged to " upgrade " their accounts to Battle.net accounts , it seems they will pull off a " Pay for one account each month , and you will be able to play all of our games online " .Yes , that means that if I pay for WoW now and decide to pick Starcraft too , it will basically be free , but it also means that Blizzard plans on milking me for the rest of my sane life .
I for one welcome our new Blizzard Overlords... ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't know why everyone is focused on the LAN aspect of the matter... Battle.net is NOT going to be free as stated by Blizzard themselves.
This move ENSURES that you will have to pay a monthly fee to Blizzard for playing their game.With World of Warcraft users being encouraged to "upgrade" their accounts to Battle.net accounts, it seems they will pull off a "Pay for one account each month, and you will be able to play all of our games online".Yes, that means that if I pay for WoW now and decide to pick Starcraft too, it will basically be free, but it also means that Blizzard plans on milking me for the rest of my sane life.
I for one welcome our new Blizzard Overlords...?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28545631</id>
	<title>Come on, guys. Lighten up.</title>
	<author>PHPNerd</author>
	<datestamp>1246473660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>This is Blizzard we're talking about here. The legendary maker of Starcraft and Diablo II. Everything they do is done incredibly well...to perfection. Don't be so quick to blow this off. I'm guessing that BNet 2.0 will have LAN functionality wrapped inside of it. So it appears like all you have to do to play LAN is connect to BNet first and then after that it's mostly local traffic with the occasional query back to BNet. BNet 2.0 will offer all kinds of new community features like achievements and being able to watch your friends play. Having LAN hooked into BNet 2.0 seems like the best of both worlds for the player while also protecting their software from pirates. If SC2 is anywhere near as good as SC1, I'm definitely willing to take a hit on where I can play multilayer for the sake of throwing Blizzard a bone to help protect their IP.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is Blizzard we 're talking about here .
The legendary maker of Starcraft and Diablo II .
Everything they do is done incredibly well...to perfection .
Do n't be so quick to blow this off .
I 'm guessing that BNet 2.0 will have LAN functionality wrapped inside of it .
So it appears like all you have to do to play LAN is connect to BNet first and then after that it 's mostly local traffic with the occasional query back to BNet .
BNet 2.0 will offer all kinds of new community features like achievements and being able to watch your friends play .
Having LAN hooked into BNet 2.0 seems like the best of both worlds for the player while also protecting their software from pirates .
If SC2 is anywhere near as good as SC1 , I 'm definitely willing to take a hit on where I can play multilayer for the sake of throwing Blizzard a bone to help protect their IP .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is Blizzard we're talking about here.
The legendary maker of Starcraft and Diablo II.
Everything they do is done incredibly well...to perfection.
Don't be so quick to blow this off.
I'm guessing that BNet 2.0 will have LAN functionality wrapped inside of it.
So it appears like all you have to do to play LAN is connect to BNet first and then after that it's mostly local traffic with the occasional query back to BNet.
BNet 2.0 will offer all kinds of new community features like achievements and being able to watch your friends play.
Having LAN hooked into BNet 2.0 seems like the best of both worlds for the player while also protecting their software from pirates.
If SC2 is anywhere near as good as SC1, I'm definitely willing to take a hit on where I can play multilayer for the sake of throwing Blizzard a bone to help protect their IP.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28544979</id>
	<title>Not suprising: Piracy and cheating</title>
	<author>nweaver</author>
	<datestamp>1246471800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Not suprising, and it comes down to two factors:  Piracy, and cheating.</p><p>For piracy, by only supporting multiplayer through BattleNet, it is BattleNet, not the software itself, that validates the CD keys/antipiracy measures.  So no more LAN-arcades composed of a single cracked copy.</p><p>As important, without a client-server game model, cheating would be a huge problem.  BattleNet forces the user to play in a client-server mode.  If they wanted to support LAN only play, they'd either need to include the server as well or have a separate network architecture for peer-to-peer play.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not suprising , and it comes down to two factors : Piracy , and cheating.For piracy , by only supporting multiplayer through BattleNet , it is BattleNet , not the software itself , that validates the CD keys/antipiracy measures .
So no more LAN-arcades composed of a single cracked copy.As important , without a client-server game model , cheating would be a huge problem .
BattleNet forces the user to play in a client-server mode .
If they wanted to support LAN only play , they 'd either need to include the server as well or have a separate network architecture for peer-to-peer play .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not suprising, and it comes down to two factors:  Piracy, and cheating.For piracy, by only supporting multiplayer through BattleNet, it is BattleNet, not the software itself, that validates the CD keys/antipiracy measures.
So no more LAN-arcades composed of a single cracked copy.As important, without a client-server game model, cheating would be a huge problem.
BattleNet forces the user to play in a client-server mode.
If they wanted to support LAN only play, they'd either need to include the server as well or have a separate network architecture for peer-to-peer play.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28546297</id>
	<title>Re:NO LAN support is not a big deal</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246475580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"The only issue I can see is how will they host those Starcraft tournament in Korea, will they have to login to bnet also?"</p><p>God the people posting in every single article on this are poor at understanding. YES, everyone will log into Bnet for authentication, then play their game as if it was a LAN party. If everyone is in the same room, it will be a LAN party. If Koreans play Starcraft II, they will log into the Korean Bnet servers, then be P2P connected, just like Starcraft.</p><p>This line of argument is so incredibly dumb, I have no idea why people are creating petitions about any of it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" The only issue I can see is how will they host those Starcraft tournament in Korea , will they have to login to bnet also ?
" God the people posting in every single article on this are poor at understanding .
YES , everyone will log into Bnet for authentication , then play their game as if it was a LAN party .
If everyone is in the same room , it will be a LAN party .
If Koreans play Starcraft II , they will log into the Korean Bnet servers , then be P2P connected , just like Starcraft.This line of argument is so incredibly dumb , I have no idea why people are creating petitions about any of it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"The only issue I can see is how will they host those Starcraft tournament in Korea, will they have to login to bnet also?
"God the people posting in every single article on this are poor at understanding.
YES, everyone will log into Bnet for authentication, then play their game as if it was a LAN party.
If everyone is in the same room, it will be a LAN party.
If Koreans play Starcraft II, they will log into the Korean Bnet servers, then be P2P connected, just like Starcraft.This line of argument is so incredibly dumb, I have no idea why people are creating petitions about any of it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28545665</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28545971</id>
	<title>Re:Maps</title>
	<author>Mongoose Disciple</author>
	<datestamp>1246474680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Probably, they'll do it the same way they can with Starcraft 1.</p><p>You can play a map you created on Battle.net without having to do some kind of mass release of it.  The other people in the game download it automatically from the game creator.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Probably , they 'll do it the same way they can with Starcraft 1.You can play a map you created on Battle.net without having to do some kind of mass release of it .
The other people in the game download it automatically from the game creator .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Probably, they'll do it the same way they can with Starcraft 1.You can play a map you created on Battle.net without having to do some kind of mass release of it.
The other people in the game download it automatically from the game creator.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28545117</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28550815</id>
	<title>There is a petition</title>
	<author>G00F</author>
	<datestamp>1246447080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Now just in case Blizzard actually listens to it's customers, there is a petition started yesterday.</p><p><a href="http://www.petitiononline.com/LANSC2/petition.html" title="petitiononline.com">http://www.petitiononline.com/LANSC2/petition.html</a> [petitiononline.com]</p><p>But only 25k people have signed so far.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Now just in case Blizzard actually listens to it 's customers , there is a petition started yesterday.http : //www.petitiononline.com/LANSC2/petition.html [ petitiononline.com ] But only 25k people have signed so far .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Now just in case Blizzard actually listens to it's customers, there is a petition started yesterday.http://www.petitiononline.com/LANSC2/petition.html [petitiononline.com]But only 25k people have signed so far.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28545733</id>
	<title>Retarded...</title>
	<author>atramentum</author>
	<datestamp>1246474020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Its when companies become powerful enough to force these retarded decisions on their user base - that's when they are just about to crumble.  This is bad news.

I've had trouble playing Civ4 when two players are behind the same NAT firewall and the third is connected remotely.  If Starcraft 2 has similar issues, I won't play it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Its when companies become powerful enough to force these retarded decisions on their user base - that 's when they are just about to crumble .
This is bad news .
I 've had trouble playing Civ4 when two players are behind the same NAT firewall and the third is connected remotely .
If Starcraft 2 has similar issues , I wo n't play it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Its when companies become powerful enough to force these retarded decisions on their user base - that's when they are just about to crumble.
This is bad news.
I've had trouble playing Civ4 when two players are behind the same NAT firewall and the third is connected remotely.
If Starcraft 2 has similar issues, I won't play it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28548501</id>
	<title>Re:Disappointing</title>
	<author>Tetsujin</author>
	<datestamp>1246439280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>It won't saturate any reasonable broadband connection.  Ever looked at how much data WC3 transmits back and forth?  Not much at all.  a few kb/s maybe.</p></div><p>I didn't know you could play Wing Commander 3 online!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It wo n't saturate any reasonable broadband connection .
Ever looked at how much data WC3 transmits back and forth ?
Not much at all .
a few kb/s maybe.I did n't know you could play Wing Commander 3 online !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It won't saturate any reasonable broadband connection.
Ever looked at how much data WC3 transmits back and forth?
Not much at all.
a few kb/s maybe.I didn't know you could play Wing Commander 3 online!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28546083</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28548751</id>
	<title>I'm not worried</title>
	<author>Stenchwarrior</author>
	<datestamp>1246440060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You guys remember a few years ago when EA released Need for Speed: Underground and it was lacking LAN support? It wasn't long before someone made their own fix and put out a <a href="http://www.nfscars.net/file/view/underground/5186.aspx" title="nfscars.net" rel="nofollow">Lan Patch</a> [nfscars.net] that added the feature. I bet someone will do the same for Starcraft 2.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You guys remember a few years ago when EA released Need for Speed : Underground and it was lacking LAN support ?
It was n't long before someone made their own fix and put out a Lan Patch [ nfscars.net ] that added the feature .
I bet someone will do the same for Starcraft 2 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You guys remember a few years ago when EA released Need for Speed: Underground and it was lacking LAN support?
It wasn't long before someone made their own fix and put out a Lan Patch [nfscars.net] that added the feature.
I bet someone will do the same for Starcraft 2.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28560359</id>
	<title>LAN but no internet</title>
	<author>jonaskoelker</author>
	<datestamp>1246559280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Especially since the shared connection to battlenet for multiple people will never be as good as a connection on a LAN</p></div><p>Especially when I go out to a lent beach house where I can bring a router but no internet.</p><p>Or is Blizzard going to sell Hosted Battle.net?<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;-)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Especially since the shared connection to battlenet for multiple people will never be as good as a connection on a LANEspecially when I go out to a lent beach house where I can bring a router but no internet.Or is Blizzard going to sell Hosted Battle.net ?
; - )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Especially since the shared connection to battlenet for multiple people will never be as good as a connection on a LANEspecially when I go out to a lent beach house where I can bring a router but no internet.Or is Blizzard going to sell Hosted Battle.net?
;-)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28546303</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28545847</id>
	<title>Does this mean games will be hosted by Blizzard?</title>
	<author>Spykk</author>
	<datestamp>1246474320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>In the past battle.net has just done match making and left it up to one of the players to actually be the server when a game started. Hopefully this is a sign that games will be served by the battle.net servers. This would cut down on things like map hacks because no one player would need to know where all of the units are.</htmltext>
<tokenext>In the past battle.net has just done match making and left it up to one of the players to actually be the server when a game started .
Hopefully this is a sign that games will be served by the battle.net servers .
This would cut down on things like map hacks because no one player would need to know where all of the units are .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In the past battle.net has just done match making and left it up to one of the players to actually be the server when a game started.
Hopefully this is a sign that games will be served by the battle.net servers.
This would cut down on things like map hacks because no one player would need to know where all of the units are.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28545267</id>
	<title>Battle.net, I lose my faith in thee</title>
	<author>autocracy</author>
	<datestamp>1246472580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I continue to play Warcraft III fairly regularly, mostly in the form of the custom map <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defense\_of\_the\_Ancients" title="wikipedia.org">DotA</a> [wikipedia.org]. My thoughts:

</p><p>Battle.net has failed to evolve and I feel is discouraging to communities rather than promoting it. I've seen nothing really appreciable since War-III came out with the sad "clan" system. Bots are officially disallowed, but required to develop any sort of reasonable group. The new Warden service makes running a bot far more of a challenge.

</p><p>The necessity of the bots is this: you can't functionally setup an organized game any other way. There's no mechanism for taking a private game public once you get your friends in it. Game names can't be changed. Custom (non-ladder) games without an external mod have no disincentive to them to deal with the burgeoning population of juvenile tools who like to bail on their first loss in a team game, or worse find a way to actively ruin the game. Blizzards clan system itself is lacking and hasn't been improved upon at all. It's nearly useless outside of ladder games. Players end up creating new accounts with clan tags in the name to "fly their colors." Simply being more prominent in displaying the affiliated clan would have gone a long way.

</p><p>And come on... the game came out 7 years ago. Fix the damn pathing issues! Blizzard makes amazing games, but their handling of B.net lately has been horribly disappointing.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I continue to play Warcraft III fairly regularly , mostly in the form of the custom map DotA [ wikipedia.org ] .
My thoughts : Battle.net has failed to evolve and I feel is discouraging to communities rather than promoting it .
I 've seen nothing really appreciable since War-III came out with the sad " clan " system .
Bots are officially disallowed , but required to develop any sort of reasonable group .
The new Warden service makes running a bot far more of a challenge .
The necessity of the bots is this : you ca n't functionally setup an organized game any other way .
There 's no mechanism for taking a private game public once you get your friends in it .
Game names ca n't be changed .
Custom ( non-ladder ) games without an external mod have no disincentive to them to deal with the burgeoning population of juvenile tools who like to bail on their first loss in a team game , or worse find a way to actively ruin the game .
Blizzards clan system itself is lacking and has n't been improved upon at all .
It 's nearly useless outside of ladder games .
Players end up creating new accounts with clan tags in the name to " fly their colors .
" Simply being more prominent in displaying the affiliated clan would have gone a long way .
And come on... the game came out 7 years ago .
Fix the damn pathing issues !
Blizzard makes amazing games , but their handling of B.net lately has been horribly disappointing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I continue to play Warcraft III fairly regularly, mostly in the form of the custom map DotA [wikipedia.org].
My thoughts:

Battle.net has failed to evolve and I feel is discouraging to communities rather than promoting it.
I've seen nothing really appreciable since War-III came out with the sad "clan" system.
Bots are officially disallowed, but required to develop any sort of reasonable group.
The new Warden service makes running a bot far more of a challenge.
The necessity of the bots is this: you can't functionally setup an organized game any other way.
There's no mechanism for taking a private game public once you get your friends in it.
Game names can't be changed.
Custom (non-ladder) games without an external mod have no disincentive to them to deal with the burgeoning population of juvenile tools who like to bail on their first loss in a team game, or worse find a way to actively ruin the game.
Blizzards clan system itself is lacking and hasn't been improved upon at all.
It's nearly useless outside of ladder games.
Players end up creating new accounts with clan tags in the name to "fly their colors.
" Simply being more prominent in displaying the affiliated clan would have gone a long way.
And come on... the game came out 7 years ago.
Fix the damn pathing issues!
Blizzard makes amazing games, but their handling of B.net lately has been horribly disappointing.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28553683</id>
	<title>ANOTHER CUSTOMER LOST</title>
	<author>Tokerat</author>
	<datestamp>1246466580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Not only was I going to buy Starcraft II, but I was thinking about purchasing a nice laptop to run it (as my current machine is a desktop and WAY too outdated to play it) and a second "LAN license" so my roommate could play. Now, it's not worth it to me; our internet connection can't handle the traffic of two online games to Battle.net at once, and even if it could, what if we have our laptops somewhere we cannot access Battle.net? Maybe we're on a bus, or train, maybe we're in a park. Maybe we don't like latency.</p><p>Blizzard, the only thing you won't be selling out with this move is copies of Startcraft II.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not only was I going to buy Starcraft II , but I was thinking about purchasing a nice laptop to run it ( as my current machine is a desktop and WAY too outdated to play it ) and a second " LAN license " so my roommate could play .
Now , it 's not worth it to me ; our internet connection ca n't handle the traffic of two online games to Battle.net at once , and even if it could , what if we have our laptops somewhere we can not access Battle.net ?
Maybe we 're on a bus , or train , maybe we 're in a park .
Maybe we do n't like latency.Blizzard , the only thing you wo n't be selling out with this move is copies of Startcraft II .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not only was I going to buy Starcraft II, but I was thinking about purchasing a nice laptop to run it (as my current machine is a desktop and WAY too outdated to play it) and a second "LAN license" so my roommate could play.
Now, it's not worth it to me; our internet connection can't handle the traffic of two online games to Battle.net at once, and even if it could, what if we have our laptops somewhere we cannot access Battle.net?
Maybe we're on a bus, or train, maybe we're in a park.
Maybe we don't like latency.Blizzard, the only thing you won't be selling out with this move is copies of Startcraft II.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28552297</id>
	<title>Downgraded features</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246455060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Starcraft 1: LAN support + it was possible to legally install ("spawn") many copies of the multi-player client on several PCs on your network.<br>Starcraft 2: No LAN support + One install.</p><p>Starcraft 2 will surely have updated graphics and maybe (or hopefully) some improved gameplay, but it sounds like the first one was a better product.</p><p>People will probably manage to create a fake battlenet server that you can log your patched and pirated copy of starcraft 2, rendering piracy, again, as a way to experience superior products.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Starcraft 1 : LAN support + it was possible to legally install ( " spawn " ) many copies of the multi-player client on several PCs on your network.Starcraft 2 : No LAN support + One install.Starcraft 2 will surely have updated graphics and maybe ( or hopefully ) some improved gameplay , but it sounds like the first one was a better product.People will probably manage to create a fake battlenet server that you can log your patched and pirated copy of starcraft 2 , rendering piracy , again , as a way to experience superior products .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Starcraft 1: LAN support + it was possible to legally install ("spawn") many copies of the multi-player client on several PCs on your network.Starcraft 2: No LAN support + One install.Starcraft 2 will surely have updated graphics and maybe (or hopefully) some improved gameplay, but it sounds like the first one was a better product.People will probably manage to create a fake battlenet server that you can log your patched and pirated copy of starcraft 2, rendering piracy, again, as a way to experience superior products.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28560237</id>
	<title>What a terrible decision</title>
	<author>abionnnn</author>
	<datestamp>1246558860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>They're going to regret removing LAN play and turning single player into a trilogy. I was looking forward to SC2, now I can't be stuffed. No sale.

What a shame...</htmltext>
<tokenext>They 're going to regret removing LAN play and turning single player into a trilogy .
I was looking forward to SC2 , now I ca n't be stuffed .
No sale .
What a shame.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They're going to regret removing LAN play and turning single player into a trilogy.
I was looking forward to SC2, now I can't be stuffed.
No sale.
What a shame...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28546477</id>
	<title>Re:Confusing Comparison: RTS vs RPG</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246476060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Agreed! How the heck are we supposed to play this game now at our LAN parties, which tend to be in remote internet-less locations!!!!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Agreed !
How the heck are we supposed to play this game now at our LAN parties , which tend to be in remote internet-less locations ! ! !
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Agreed!
How the heck are we supposed to play this game now at our LAN parties, which tend to be in remote internet-less locations!!!
!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28545217</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28545665</id>
	<title>NO LAN support is not a big deal</title>
	<author>Sepiraph</author>
	<datestamp>1246473780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Most people play online on bnet.  The only issue I can see is how will they host those Starcraft tournament in Korea, will they have to login to bnet also?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Most people play online on bnet .
The only issue I can see is how will they host those Starcraft tournament in Korea , will they have to login to bnet also ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Most people play online on bnet.
The only issue I can see is how will they host those Starcraft tournament in Korea, will they have to login to bnet also?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28545077</id>
	<title>Lies can justify anti-piracy inconvenience efforts</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246471980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>We would not take out LAN if we did not feel we could offer players something better.</p></div><p>How is connecting all the computers in the room to a server across the state going to ever be better than connecting all the computers in the room to each other?  This man just told everyone that his bullshit is going to start tasting better than icecream.  He just needs a neon sign over his head that says "Do not trust this man or anything he says."</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>We would not take out LAN if we did not feel we could offer players something better.How is connecting all the computers in the room to a server across the state going to ever be better than connecting all the computers in the room to each other ?
This man just told everyone that his bullshit is going to start tasting better than icecream .
He just needs a neon sign over his head that says " Do not trust this man or anything he says .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We would not take out LAN if we did not feel we could offer players something better.How is connecting all the computers in the room to a server across the state going to ever be better than connecting all the computers in the room to each other?
This man just told everyone that his bullshit is going to start tasting better than icecream.
He just needs a neon sign over his head that says "Do not trust this man or anything he says.
"
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28545583</id>
	<title>so it's a internet game ...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246473480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>or if your on dial-up with latencies of 300+ms it won't be playable.<br>imagine lance armstrong having to go to france to practice<br>because the roads are clogged in his home town<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...<br>-or-<br>even if you're on a broadband connection if you play from,<br>say india, your ping times will always be higher then someone connecting<br>from the US.<br>so in a way Americans are supremacist and favor American players<br>over foreigners    &gt;: P</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>or if your on dial-up with latencies of 300 + ms it wo n't be playable.imagine lance armstrong having to go to france to practicebecause the roads are clogged in his home town ...-or-even if you 're on a broadband connection if you play from,say india , your ping times will always be higher then someone connectingfrom the US.so in a way Americans are supremacist and favor American playersover foreigners &gt; : P</tokentext>
<sentencetext>or if your on dial-up with latencies of 300+ms it won't be playable.imagine lance armstrong having to go to france to practicebecause the roads are clogged in his home town ...-or-even if you're on a broadband connection if you play from,say india, your ping times will always be higher then someone connectingfrom the US.so in a way Americans are supremacist and favor American playersover foreigners    &gt;: P</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28549283</id>
	<title>Blizzard has officially...</title>
	<author>johncandale</author>
	<datestamp>1246441620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>jumped the shark, is over the hill, run by the marketing department, etc</htmltext>
<tokenext>jumped the shark , is over the hill , run by the marketing department , etc</tokentext>
<sentencetext>jumped the shark, is over the hill, run by the marketing department, etc</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28544905</id>
	<title>Confusing Comparison: RTS vs RPG</title>
	<author>eldavojohn</author>
	<datestamp>1246471500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> <i>World of Warcraft</i> is a great example of a game that has evolved beyond anyone's imagination since their Day 1 and will continue to do so to better the player experience for as long as players support the title.</p></div><p>I find it odd that a comparison is being drawn between a stateful monthly payment role playing game and a stateless (allegedly subscription-less) real time strategy game.  I definitely see how <i>World of Warcraft</i> is enriched by the spider webbed interaction of thousands of players on a server.  However, I fail to see how <i>Starcraft II</i> would benefit from this if you've got a single digit cap on number of players in any given instance of the game.  <br> <br>

And can we give up on the piracy concerns?  It's just getting <a href="http://www.gamesites200.com/wowprivate/" title="gamesites200.com" rel="nofollow">embarrassing</a> [gamesites200.com].  <br> <br>

Also, if you're going to force everyone to use Battle.net, I hope you have improved its quality since I was last one it several years ago.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>World of Warcraft is a great example of a game that has evolved beyond anyone 's imagination since their Day 1 and will continue to do so to better the player experience for as long as players support the title.I find it odd that a comparison is being drawn between a stateful monthly payment role playing game and a stateless ( allegedly subscription-less ) real time strategy game .
I definitely see how World of Warcraft is enriched by the spider webbed interaction of thousands of players on a server .
However , I fail to see how Starcraft II would benefit from this if you 've got a single digit cap on number of players in any given instance of the game .
And can we give up on the piracy concerns ?
It 's just getting embarrassing [ gamesites200.com ] .
Also , if you 're going to force everyone to use Battle.net , I hope you have improved its quality since I was last one it several years ago .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> World of Warcraft is a great example of a game that has evolved beyond anyone's imagination since their Day 1 and will continue to do so to better the player experience for as long as players support the title.I find it odd that a comparison is being drawn between a stateful monthly payment role playing game and a stateless (allegedly subscription-less) real time strategy game.
I definitely see how World of Warcraft is enriched by the spider webbed interaction of thousands of players on a server.
However, I fail to see how Starcraft II would benefit from this if you've got a single digit cap on number of players in any given instance of the game.
And can we give up on the piracy concerns?
It's just getting embarrassing [gamesites200.com].
Also, if you're going to force everyone to use Battle.net, I hope you have improved its quality since I was last one it several years ago.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28545857</id>
	<title>Re:Broadband killed LAN parties</title>
	<author>CorporateSuit</author>
	<datestamp>1246474320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I don't see the point in hauling all my computer stuff over to a friends house when now I can just hop on Steam and round up a few people and play Left 4 Dead.</p></div><p>Try it; then attempt to make an assessment as to whether it offers the same experience or a better one.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't see the point in hauling all my computer stuff over to a friends house when now I can just hop on Steam and round up a few people and play Left 4 Dead.Try it ; then attempt to make an assessment as to whether it offers the same experience or a better one .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't see the point in hauling all my computer stuff over to a friends house when now I can just hop on Steam and round up a few people and play Left 4 Dead.Try it; then attempt to make an assessment as to whether it offers the same experience or a better one.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28545131</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28545105</id>
	<title>Does anyone remember when...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246472100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Blizzard used to make games because they were fun to play?

Given that Blizzard has basically dominated the market why do they continue to stray from their roots... Remember KALI? Warcraft 2 owed ALL of its success to KALI and that would have never existed if LAN play wasn't an option. But battle.net takes in HUGE profits all by itself so I guess its better to force players to use it then make it optional. Control is the name of the game these days. Oh yah.. I forgot, DRM and other Piracy measures work sooooo well don't they?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Blizzard used to make games because they were fun to play ?
Given that Blizzard has basically dominated the market why do they continue to stray from their roots... Remember KALI ?
Warcraft 2 owed ALL of its success to KALI and that would have never existed if LAN play was n't an option .
But battle.net takes in HUGE profits all by itself so I guess its better to force players to use it then make it optional .
Control is the name of the game these days .
Oh yah.. I forgot , DRM and other Piracy measures work sooooo well do n't they ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Blizzard used to make games because they were fun to play?
Given that Blizzard has basically dominated the market why do they continue to stray from their roots... Remember KALI?
Warcraft 2 owed ALL of its success to KALI and that would have never existed if LAN play wasn't an option.
But battle.net takes in HUGE profits all by itself so I guess its better to force players to use it then make it optional.
Control is the name of the game these days.
Oh yah.. I forgot, DRM and other Piracy measures work sooooo well don't they?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28554845</id>
	<title>So what?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246567140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Except for the fact you're not going to be having your next big LAN party.. on LAN, I don't see any other issues.</p><p>Battle.Net works fine now (just have port 6112 forward for hosting games), and still has quite an upbeat SC1 community.</p><p>On dial-up, I was still able to play in a full 8-player game with no issues.  It's not like this is resource intensive in the network department.</p><p>Also, this reminds me of the Verizon FiOS 100k$ Half-Life 2 DM tournament.  If I'm not right, they finalist played in the same building, but using their FiOS connection over the network.  Likewise, many teams (looking at Counter-Strike 1.6) use a non-LAN server to play their games even if both teams are present at the same LAN (so the server doesn't suck).</p><p>Not to mention, it won't be long until you have our own copy of bnetd out that you could install and run for your LAN parties.  It'll be like connecting to Battle.Net@YourBaseMent.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Except for the fact you 're not going to be having your next big LAN party.. on LAN , I do n't see any other issues.Battle.Net works fine now ( just have port 6112 forward for hosting games ) , and still has quite an upbeat SC1 community.On dial-up , I was still able to play in a full 8-player game with no issues .
It 's not like this is resource intensive in the network department.Also , this reminds me of the Verizon FiOS 100k $ Half-Life 2 DM tournament .
If I 'm not right , they finalist played in the same building , but using their FiOS connection over the network .
Likewise , many teams ( looking at Counter-Strike 1.6 ) use a non-LAN server to play their games even if both teams are present at the same LAN ( so the server does n't suck ) .Not to mention , it wo n't be long until you have our own copy of bnetd out that you could install and run for your LAN parties .
It 'll be like connecting to Battle.Net @ YourBaseMent .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Except for the fact you're not going to be having your next big LAN party.. on LAN, I don't see any other issues.Battle.Net works fine now (just have port 6112 forward for hosting games), and still has quite an upbeat SC1 community.On dial-up, I was still able to play in a full 8-player game with no issues.
It's not like this is resource intensive in the network department.Also, this reminds me of the Verizon FiOS 100k$ Half-Life 2 DM tournament.
If I'm not right, they finalist played in the same building, but using their FiOS connection over the network.
Likewise, many teams (looking at Counter-Strike 1.6) use a non-LAN server to play their games even if both teams are present at the same LAN (so the server doesn't suck).Not to mention, it won't be long until you have our own copy of bnetd out that you could install and run for your LAN parties.
It'll be like connecting to Battle.Net@YourBaseMent.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28558747</id>
	<title>Great way to help</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246554180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>We would not take out LAN if we did not feel we could offer players something better.</p></div><p>I wouldn't pirate the game unless I thought I could offer Blizzard something better than my money... thanks douchebags!</p><p>Wasn't there an article recently about how DRM, and other restrictive measures actually drive people to pirate software?</p><p>(FYI, I have retail copies of every version of warcraft, diablo, and starcraft, but will not pay for a crippled SC2)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>We would not take out LAN if we did not feel we could offer players something better.I would n't pirate the game unless I thought I could offer Blizzard something better than my money... thanks douchebags ! Was n't there an article recently about how DRM , and other restrictive measures actually drive people to pirate software ?
( FYI , I have retail copies of every version of warcraft , diablo , and starcraft , but will not pay for a crippled SC2 )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We would not take out LAN if we did not feel we could offer players something better.I wouldn't pirate the game unless I thought I could offer Blizzard something better than my money... thanks douchebags!Wasn't there an article recently about how DRM, and other restrictive measures actually drive people to pirate software?
(FYI, I have retail copies of every version of warcraft, diablo, and starcraft, but will not pay for a crippled SC2)
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28548325</id>
	<title>Yeah right.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246438860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm pretty sure I'll be playing lan based games with SCII.  I just won't be paying Blizzard for a copy of the game to do so though.  Their choice, I'll pay for what I want or not pay, but I'm going to get it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm pretty sure I 'll be playing lan based games with SCII .
I just wo n't be paying Blizzard for a copy of the game to do so though .
Their choice , I 'll pay for what I want or not pay , but I 'm going to get it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm pretty sure I'll be playing lan based games with SCII.
I just won't be paying Blizzard for a copy of the game to do so though.
Their choice, I'll pay for what I want or not pay, but I'm going to get it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28552663</id>
	<title>No LAN, No buy</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246458060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No LAN play? I wont be buying the game, and as a consequence I wont motivate others to do so as well. So Long, and thanks for all the games.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No LAN play ?
I wont be buying the game , and as a consequence I wont motivate others to do so as well .
So Long , and thanks for all the games .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No LAN play?
I wont be buying the game, and as a consequence I wont motivate others to do so as well.
So Long, and thanks for all the games.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28545173</id>
	<title>No LAN support?  Time to smack someone in the head</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246472280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>LAN support is what makes StarCraft (classic) the best game ever.  You can get a bunch of people together in a computer lab and play 4vs4 or in my case 7vs1.  BNET access will be blocked from most schools so the multiuser experience will be eliminated since schools and libraries are some of the only places you can find rooms full of 25 PCs.  Also, the LAN doesn't LAG like battle net.
<br> <br>
So how is this going to play out?  If SCII is any good, the community will just produce a local battle net server e.g. (bnetd) for playing games on the LAN.  Blizzard is making very a bad, short-sighted move.  As for piracy, everyone I know owns at least one copy of the Blizzard Battle Chest, which costs $20 or less for SC and BW.   It is the best entertainment one can buy for under $20.  The mega mineral maps require internet access though<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)
<br> <br>
If anyone from Blizzard reads Slashdot, please go up and smack your management in the head and tell them to make SCII LAN playable. If they don't build it, someone else will and writing a small server to emulate BNET isn't going to be that hard.  Even with encrypted session, it will be reverse engineered, just ask Sony about ShowEQ and their futile attempt the encrypt Everquest Traffic.  Everyone on planet earth is going to buy the game the day it hits the shelf.  Please go smack them in the back of the head now.</htmltext>
<tokenext>LAN support is what makes StarCraft ( classic ) the best game ever .
You can get a bunch of people together in a computer lab and play 4vs4 or in my case 7vs1 .
BNET access will be blocked from most schools so the multiuser experience will be eliminated since schools and libraries are some of the only places you can find rooms full of 25 PCs .
Also , the LAN does n't LAG like battle net .
So how is this going to play out ?
If SCII is any good , the community will just produce a local battle net server e.g .
( bnetd ) for playing games on the LAN .
Blizzard is making very a bad , short-sighted move .
As for piracy , everyone I know owns at least one copy of the Blizzard Battle Chest , which costs $ 20 or less for SC and BW .
It is the best entertainment one can buy for under $ 20 .
The mega mineral maps require internet access though : ) If anyone from Blizzard reads Slashdot , please go up and smack your management in the head and tell them to make SCII LAN playable .
If they do n't build it , someone else will and writing a small server to emulate BNET is n't going to be that hard .
Even with encrypted session , it will be reverse engineered , just ask Sony about ShowEQ and their futile attempt the encrypt Everquest Traffic .
Everyone on planet earth is going to buy the game the day it hits the shelf .
Please go smack them in the back of the head now .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>LAN support is what makes StarCraft (classic) the best game ever.
You can get a bunch of people together in a computer lab and play 4vs4 or in my case 7vs1.
BNET access will be blocked from most schools so the multiuser experience will be eliminated since schools and libraries are some of the only places you can find rooms full of 25 PCs.
Also, the LAN doesn't LAG like battle net.
So how is this going to play out?
If SCII is any good, the community will just produce a local battle net server e.g.
(bnetd) for playing games on the LAN.
Blizzard is making very a bad, short-sighted move.
As for piracy, everyone I know owns at least one copy of the Blizzard Battle Chest, which costs $20 or less for SC and BW.
It is the best entertainment one can buy for under $20.
The mega mineral maps require internet access though :)
 
If anyone from Blizzard reads Slashdot, please go up and smack your management in the head and tell them to make SCII LAN playable.
If they don't build it, someone else will and writing a small server to emulate BNET isn't going to be that hard.
Even with encrypted session, it will be reverse engineered, just ask Sony about ShowEQ and their futile attempt the encrypt Everquest Traffic.
Everyone on planet earth is going to buy the game the day it hits the shelf.
Please go smack them in the back of the head now.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28548625</id>
	<title>Re:No LAN support? Time to smack someone in the he</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246439640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Not quite...there's plenty of people who will buy a battle chest for $20 but wouldn't buy a new game for $60 based purely on the price.  That isn't really an argument you can use to make your case.  A decent number of people who got the battle chest most likely pirated it (or at least did Ghost Copies) before it was cheap as dirt, and Blizzard is toeing the ever-popular DRM line to prevent that this time.  Not exactly DRM, but annoying enough that SCII won't be the hit the first game was.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not quite...there 's plenty of people who will buy a battle chest for $ 20 but would n't buy a new game for $ 60 based purely on the price .
That is n't really an argument you can use to make your case .
A decent number of people who got the battle chest most likely pirated it ( or at least did Ghost Copies ) before it was cheap as dirt , and Blizzard is toeing the ever-popular DRM line to prevent that this time .
Not exactly DRM , but annoying enough that SCII wo n't be the hit the first game was .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not quite...there's plenty of people who will buy a battle chest for $20 but wouldn't buy a new game for $60 based purely on the price.
That isn't really an argument you can use to make your case.
A decent number of people who got the battle chest most likely pirated it (or at least did Ghost Copies) before it was cheap as dirt, and Blizzard is toeing the ever-popular DRM line to prevent that this time.
Not exactly DRM, but annoying enough that SCII won't be the hit the first game was.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28545173</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28549383</id>
	<title>Re:Feeling a huge sense of meh towards starcraft 2</title>
	<author>brkello</author>
	<datestamp>1246441860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I loved playing Starcraft.  The story was fun, the battles were fun, and it was fun playing with friends.  I don't want them to add more stuff just for the sake of "innovation".  I just want a damn fun game.  So if it is just a graphical upgrade with some new, well-balanced tweaks then bring it on.<br> <br>In the well defined genres, there is pretty much nothing new...FPS, RPG, RTS are all pretty well defined.  When these genres are new, of course things change more quickly.  As they become more refined, they evolve more slowly.  This is true in just about anything in life.  Look at the Internet, it changed so much in the beginning.  Now?  Changes are more subtle and slow.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I loved playing Starcraft .
The story was fun , the battles were fun , and it was fun playing with friends .
I do n't want them to add more stuff just for the sake of " innovation " .
I just want a damn fun game .
So if it is just a graphical upgrade with some new , well-balanced tweaks then bring it on .
In the well defined genres , there is pretty much nothing new...FPS , RPG , RTS are all pretty well defined .
When these genres are new , of course things change more quickly .
As they become more refined , they evolve more slowly .
This is true in just about anything in life .
Look at the Internet , it changed so much in the beginning .
Now ? Changes are more subtle and slow .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I loved playing Starcraft.
The story was fun, the battles were fun, and it was fun playing with friends.
I don't want them to add more stuff just for the sake of "innovation".
I just want a damn fun game.
So if it is just a graphical upgrade with some new, well-balanced tweaks then bring it on.
In the well defined genres, there is pretty much nothing new...FPS, RPG, RTS are all pretty well defined.
When these genres are new, of course things change more quickly.
As they become more refined, they evolve more slowly.
This is true in just about anything in life.
Look at the Internet, it changed so much in the beginning.
Now?  Changes are more subtle and slow.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28546243</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28545593</id>
	<title>Re:Not suprising: Piracy and cheating</title>
	<author>EvanED</author>
	<datestamp>1246473540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>...they'd either need to include the server as well or have a separate network architecture for peer-to-peer play.</i></p><p>So? Both of these have precedent. Valve releases servers, and some of Blizzard's own games (including SC1) have peer-to-peer play.</p><p>While we're at it, why is this post modded down?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...they 'd either need to include the server as well or have a separate network architecture for peer-to-peer play.So ?
Both of these have precedent .
Valve releases servers , and some of Blizzard 's own games ( including SC1 ) have peer-to-peer play.While we 're at it , why is this post modded down ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...they'd either need to include the server as well or have a separate network architecture for peer-to-peer play.So?
Both of these have precedent.
Valve releases servers, and some of Blizzard's own games (including SC1) have peer-to-peer play.While we're at it, why is this post modded down?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28544979</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28546927</id>
	<title>No LAN?  No SALE!</title>
	<author>dltaylor</author>
	<datestamp>1246477620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I have three copies of Star Craft/Brood Wars.  They're for LAN parties, and the occasional solo game.</p><p>I never have played, and never will play, the game on BattleNet.</p><p>Now, what do I do with the copy of XP that I bought to play the game, since 2K (or, maybe, WINE) is enough for Star Craft and I don't do Windows for anything but Star Craft?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have three copies of Star Craft/Brood Wars .
They 're for LAN parties , and the occasional solo game.I never have played , and never will play , the game on BattleNet.Now , what do I do with the copy of XP that I bought to play the game , since 2K ( or , maybe , WINE ) is enough for Star Craft and I do n't do Windows for anything but Star Craft ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have three copies of Star Craft/Brood Wars.
They're for LAN parties, and the occasional solo game.I never have played, and never will play, the game on BattleNet.Now, what do I do with the copy of XP that I bought to play the game, since 2K (or, maybe, WINE) is enough for Star Craft and I don't do Windows for anything but Star Craft?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28555835</id>
	<title>I was going to buy a whole new pc...</title>
	<author>emanem</author>
	<datestamp>1246537800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>...and run it on wine (on Ubuntu).<br>
But looks like I'll use my money for something else.<br>
You can't strip LAN from SC2, like removing LAN from Q3A...<br>
Shame on you Blizzard, you're just becoming worse and worse...first you ruined WoW, now you are ruining SC2...</htmltext>
<tokenext>...and run it on wine ( on Ubuntu ) .
But looks like I 'll use my money for something else .
You ca n't strip LAN from SC2 , like removing LAN from Q3A.. . Shame on you Blizzard , you 're just becoming worse and worse...first you ruined WoW , now you are ruining SC2.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...and run it on wine (on Ubuntu).
But looks like I'll use my money for something else.
You can't strip LAN from SC2, like removing LAN from Q3A...
Shame on you Blizzard, you're just becoming worse and worse...first you ruined WoW, now you are ruining SC2...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28545673</id>
	<title>Re:Disappointing</title>
	<author>NotRangerJoe</author>
	<datestamp>1246473780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Maybe if BNet is just used for a quick auth and lobby, then a LAN game is started, that might not be so bad, but it's not looking that way.</p></div><p>Blizzard will obviously be doing it this way, they're just being unnecessarily cryptic. Not doing so is a surefire way for Blizzard to piss off everyone involved in E-Sports/competitive gaming.</p><p>Also, the piracy issue isn't small scale piracy at private LANs, but large scale piracy in China:<br><a href="http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic\_id=96603" title="teamliquid.net" rel="nofollow">http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic\_id=96603</a> [teamliquid.net] </p><p><div class="quote"><p> <b>A few thing about Haofang</b>: It is biggest gaming site in China, it has millions of users for many games including SC and WC3. It is free and using LAN(TCP/IP protocol) to allow players to play.<br><b>How Haofang works</b>: You download a small program for Haofang, run it, tell it where your SC folder is. You join a room(max 255 players because TCP/IP can handle max to 255)then hit RUN, the little program will load your SC up and instead of log on to Bnet you go to LAN, and can find many games their to play since 255 players in the same room is a lot.<br><b>Why it is bad</b>: Cos millions of players in China were/are/going to using pirated SC/WC3 to play without any limitation.<br><b>Why Blizzard cares</b>: Of course they care, if even SC2 is going to last only half the life of SC the next big market is definitely China(cos Korea is given). If things going on like SC/WC3 Blizzard is going to lose tons of money.<br><b>Did Blizzard do anything about it</b>: Yes they did but failed. A few year back Blizzard sued Haofang but lost and Haofang is continue to grow and now become the most recognize site in China(among gamers of course).<br><b>Why is Haofang able to sneak pass Blizzard</b>: Haofang told that they only allow players play via LAN(TCP/IP) they do not do anything to mess with Blizzard Battle.net and thus can not be judged. I know it is bullshit since it allows players with pirated copies play multi play which is the life SC, but it holds true in the EULA and Blizzard can do nothing about it.</p></div></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe if BNet is just used for a quick auth and lobby , then a LAN game is started , that might not be so bad , but it 's not looking that way.Blizzard will obviously be doing it this way , they 're just being unnecessarily cryptic .
Not doing so is a surefire way for Blizzard to piss off everyone involved in E-Sports/competitive gaming.Also , the piracy issue is n't small scale piracy at private LANs , but large scale piracy in China : http : //www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php ? topic \ _id = 96603 [ teamliquid.net ] A few thing about Haofang : It is biggest gaming site in China , it has millions of users for many games including SC and WC3 .
It is free and using LAN ( TCP/IP protocol ) to allow players to play.How Haofang works : You download a small program for Haofang , run it , tell it where your SC folder is .
You join a room ( max 255 players because TCP/IP can handle max to 255 ) then hit RUN , the little program will load your SC up and instead of log on to Bnet you go to LAN , and can find many games their to play since 255 players in the same room is a lot.Why it is bad : Cos millions of players in China were/are/going to using pirated SC/WC3 to play without any limitation.Why Blizzard cares : Of course they care , if even SC2 is going to last only half the life of SC the next big market is definitely China ( cos Korea is given ) .
If things going on like SC/WC3 Blizzard is going to lose tons of money.Did Blizzard do anything about it : Yes they did but failed .
A few year back Blizzard sued Haofang but lost and Haofang is continue to grow and now become the most recognize site in China ( among gamers of course ) .Why is Haofang able to sneak pass Blizzard : Haofang told that they only allow players play via LAN ( TCP/IP ) they do not do anything to mess with Blizzard Battle.net and thus can not be judged .
I know it is bullshit since it allows players with pirated copies play multi play which is the life SC , but it holds true in the EULA and Blizzard can do nothing about it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe if BNet is just used for a quick auth and lobby, then a LAN game is started, that might not be so bad, but it's not looking that way.Blizzard will obviously be doing it this way, they're just being unnecessarily cryptic.
Not doing so is a surefire way for Blizzard to piss off everyone involved in E-Sports/competitive gaming.Also, the piracy issue isn't small scale piracy at private LANs, but large scale piracy in China:http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic\_id=96603 [teamliquid.net]  A few thing about Haofang: It is biggest gaming site in China, it has millions of users for many games including SC and WC3.
It is free and using LAN(TCP/IP protocol) to allow players to play.How Haofang works: You download a small program for Haofang, run it, tell it where your SC folder is.
You join a room(max 255 players because TCP/IP can handle max to 255)then hit RUN, the little program will load your SC up and instead of log on to Bnet you go to LAN, and can find many games their to play since 255 players in the same room is a lot.Why it is bad: Cos millions of players in China were/are/going to using pirated SC/WC3 to play without any limitation.Why Blizzard cares: Of course they care, if even SC2 is going to last only half the life of SC the next big market is definitely China(cos Korea is given).
If things going on like SC/WC3 Blizzard is going to lose tons of money.Did Blizzard do anything about it: Yes they did but failed.
A few year back Blizzard sued Haofang but lost and Haofang is continue to grow and now become the most recognize site in China(among gamers of course).Why is Haofang able to sneak pass Blizzard: Haofang told that they only allow players play via LAN(TCP/IP) they do not do anything to mess with Blizzard Battle.net and thus can not be judged.
I know it is bullshit since it allows players with pirated copies play multi play which is the life SC, but it holds true in the EULA and Blizzard can do nothing about it.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28544977</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28545115</id>
	<title>Monetizing Battle.net</title>
	<author>basementman</author>
	<datestamp>1246472100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This is just a blatant money grab to monetize Battle.net. They realize the first Starcraft is still being played a decade later, but they aren't making any more money. Throw some ads on Battle.net and you have a continuous revenue stream for years to come.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is just a blatant money grab to monetize Battle.net .
They realize the first Starcraft is still being played a decade later , but they are n't making any more money .
Throw some ads on Battle.net and you have a continuous revenue stream for years to come .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is just a blatant money grab to monetize Battle.net.
They realize the first Starcraft is still being played a decade later, but they aren't making any more money.
Throw some ads on Battle.net and you have a continuous revenue stream for years to come.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28550157</id>
	<title>starcraft 1.9 ftw</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246444440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I still just want starcraft 1.9.</p><p>Keep the unit balance, just update the graphics, pathing issues on the new maps, improve bnet, etc. It is a fluke blizzard balanced starcraft with only 5 patches and my guess is they won't be so lucky with SC2.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I still just want starcraft 1.9.Keep the unit balance , just update the graphics , pathing issues on the new maps , improve bnet , etc .
It is a fluke blizzard balanced starcraft with only 5 patches and my guess is they wo n't be so lucky with SC2 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I still just want starcraft 1.9.Keep the unit balance, just update the graphics, pathing issues on the new maps, improve bnet, etc.
It is a fluke blizzard balanced starcraft with only 5 patches and my guess is they won't be so lucky with SC2.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28547221</id>
	<title>Re:Disappointing</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246478580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You assume that the latency won't be affected at all. How naive.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You assume that the latency wo n't be affected at all .
How naive .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You assume that the latency won't be affected at all.
How naive.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28546083</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28548435</id>
	<title>Look before you LAN</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246439160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Let's not forget that patches can add content (or maybe even gasp... LAN support?).  UDP protocol was added to SC1 in a patch and I don't think it's far fetched that LAN could be added too.</p><p>That being said, I think we need to hold off bashing this decision until we see what b.net 2.0 has to offer.  If it fails to live up to the LAN then it's time for pitch forks and torches and lobbying for a patch.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Let 's not forget that patches can add content ( or maybe even gasp... LAN support ? ) .
UDP protocol was added to SC1 in a patch and I do n't think it 's far fetched that LAN could be added too.That being said , I think we need to hold off bashing this decision until we see what b.net 2.0 has to offer .
If it fails to live up to the LAN then it 's time for pitch forks and torches and lobbying for a patch .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Let's not forget that patches can add content (or maybe even gasp... LAN support?).
UDP protocol was added to SC1 in a patch and I don't think it's far fetched that LAN could be added too.That being said, I think we need to hold off bashing this decision until we see what b.net 2.0 has to offer.
If it fails to live up to the LAN then it's time for pitch forks and torches and lobbying for a patch.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28629271</id>
	<title>... not considering the reprocussions ...</title>
	<author>fermulator</author>
	<datestamp>1247052360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I completely disagree with this move.

They're not considering that if people are actually at a LAN, there are two primary problems:
 1. No Internet access.  While unlikely, it's possible there wouldn't be Internet Access.  Not being able to play the latest game because there's no Internet sucks.
 2. Bandwidth.  Playing 8+ (?) players on BNET is only possible on the top end Internet connections<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...

Rediculous.

If Blizzard doesn't revoke this decision, I won't be purchasing the game after all<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... I ONLY play for the LAN experience.  For the most part, I could care less about online playing.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I completely disagree with this move .
They 're not considering that if people are actually at a LAN , there are two primary problems : 1 .
No Internet access .
While unlikely , it 's possible there would n't be Internet Access .
Not being able to play the latest game because there 's no Internet sucks .
2. Bandwidth .
Playing 8 + ( ?
) players on BNET is only possible on the top end Internet connections .. . Rediculous . If Blizzard does n't revoke this decision , I wo n't be purchasing the game after all ... I ONLY play for the LAN experience .
For the most part , I could care less about online playing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I completely disagree with this move.
They're not considering that if people are actually at a LAN, there are two primary problems:
 1.
No Internet access.
While unlikely, it's possible there wouldn't be Internet Access.
Not being able to play the latest game because there's no Internet sucks.
2. Bandwidth.
Playing 8+ (?
) players on BNET is only possible on the top end Internet connections ...

Rediculous.

If Blizzard doesn't revoke this decision, I won't be purchasing the game after all ... I ONLY play for the LAN experience.
For the most part, I could care less about online playing.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28557101</id>
	<title>MONEY</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246546800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Thanks Blizz, glad to see you aren't happy with your 8 quadrillion dollars you already made off the fans.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Thanks Blizz , glad to see you are n't happy with your 8 quadrillion dollars you already made off the fans .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Thanks Blizz, glad to see you aren't happy with your 8 quadrillion dollars you already made off the fans.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28548091</id>
	<title>Re:Bonus!</title>
	<author>Haxzaw</author>
	<datestamp>1246481220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It is difficult to enjoy multiplayer games when one has to buy more than one copy for the same household.  My son and I used to play a lot of RTS over the LAN because we didn't have to have but one copy of the game.  Unfortunately those days are over, so we don't play any games over the LAN now.  Fortunately there is XBox live and we can play those games with only one copy on the 360.  The downside is we can't play against each other, only cooperative play against others.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It is difficult to enjoy multiplayer games when one has to buy more than one copy for the same household .
My son and I used to play a lot of RTS over the LAN because we did n't have to have but one copy of the game .
Unfortunately those days are over , so we do n't play any games over the LAN now .
Fortunately there is XBox live and we can play those games with only one copy on the 360 .
The downside is we ca n't play against each other , only cooperative play against others .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It is difficult to enjoy multiplayer games when one has to buy more than one copy for the same household.
My son and I used to play a lot of RTS over the LAN because we didn't have to have but one copy of the game.
Unfortunately those days are over, so we don't play any games over the LAN now.
Fortunately there is XBox live and we can play those games with only one copy on the 360.
The downside is we can't play against each other, only cooperative play against others.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28545013</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28546025</id>
	<title>Thing is</title>
	<author>Mongoose Disciple</author>
	<datestamp>1246474800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>For every person who feels as you do, there are probably hundreds if not thousands of people who are going to just buy the game.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>For every person who feels as you do , there are probably hundreds if not thousands of people who are going to just buy the game .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For every person who feels as you do, there are probably hundreds if not thousands of people who are going to just buy the game.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28545429</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28546435</id>
	<title>No thanks</title>
	<author>rhadamanthus</author>
	<datestamp>1246476000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I see this being, like diablo III, just an easy way to get more people to pay monthly for bnet access.  No thanks.</p><p>I found dealing with all of the adolescent assholes on bnet bad enough with Diablo II, I'm certainly not PAYING for a laggy experience filled with bigots and idiots.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I see this being , like diablo III , just an easy way to get more people to pay monthly for bnet access .
No thanks.I found dealing with all of the adolescent assholes on bnet bad enough with Diablo II , I 'm certainly not PAYING for a laggy experience filled with bigots and idiots .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I see this being, like diablo III, just an easy way to get more people to pay monthly for bnet access.
No thanks.I found dealing with all of the adolescent assholes on bnet bad enough with Diablo II, I'm certainly not PAYING for a laggy experience filled with bigots and idiots.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28549019</id>
	<title>Re:Stationed in Iraq</title>
	<author>geekoid</author>
	<datestamp>1246440840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's very much alive all over the world.</p><p>I think Blizzard may have grown to the point where that can't see anything outside there world.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's very much alive all over the world.I think Blizzard may have grown to the point where that ca n't see anything outside there world .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's very much alive all over the world.I think Blizzard may have grown to the point where that can't see anything outside there world.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28545871</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28557271</id>
	<title>Re:Disappointing</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246547580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>max 255 players because TCP/IP can handle max to 255</i></p><p>Wow, I didn't know TCP/IP had a field for number of players... or that it even cared that you had 'players'!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>max 255 players because TCP/IP can handle max to 255Wow , I did n't know TCP/IP had a field for number of players... or that it even cared that you had 'players ' !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>max 255 players because TCP/IP can handle max to 255Wow, I didn't know TCP/IP had a field for number of players... or that it even cared that you had 'players'!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28545673</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28548811</id>
	<title>Sign the petition!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246440240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you haven't already, sign the petition, please!</p><p>http://www.petitiononline.com/LANSC2/</p><p>Blizzard assumes everyone in the world has reliable corporate Internet like it does at its headquarters.</p><p>LAN &gt; Internet play<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... always</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you have n't already , sign the petition , please ! http : //www.petitiononline.com/LANSC2/Blizzard assumes everyone in the world has reliable corporate Internet like it does at its headquarters.LAN &gt; Internet play ... always</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you haven't already, sign the petition, please!http://www.petitiononline.com/LANSC2/Blizzard assumes everyone in the world has reliable corporate Internet like it does at its headquarters.LAN &gt; Internet play ... always</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28545329</id>
	<title>Sign the petition</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246472700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>http://www.petitiononline.com/LANSC2/petition.html</p><p>Starcraft 1 is probably my favorite game of all time.  I will not even consider SC2 without LAN play.</p><p>I say that partly because draconian DRM schemes make my skin crawl, and partly because some of my favorite Starcraft matches throughout the years have been played in places where Internet connections were not available.  Blizzard hasn't really ever had to face a giant PR mess before.  They have no idea what kind of stink this is going to cause.  It will make the EA-Spore brouhaha look very small.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //www.petitiononline.com/LANSC2/petition.htmlStarcraft 1 is probably my favorite game of all time .
I will not even consider SC2 without LAN play.I say that partly because draconian DRM schemes make my skin crawl , and partly because some of my favorite Starcraft matches throughout the years have been played in places where Internet connections were not available .
Blizzard has n't really ever had to face a giant PR mess before .
They have no idea what kind of stink this is going to cause .
It will make the EA-Spore brouhaha look very small .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://www.petitiononline.com/LANSC2/petition.htmlStarcraft 1 is probably my favorite game of all time.
I will not even consider SC2 without LAN play.I say that partly because draconian DRM schemes make my skin crawl, and partly because some of my favorite Starcraft matches throughout the years have been played in places where Internet connections were not available.
Blizzard hasn't really ever had to face a giant PR mess before.
They have no idea what kind of stink this is going to cause.
It will make the EA-Spore brouhaha look very small.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28546539</id>
	<title>Starcraft 1 didn't have lan either initially</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246476300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>People are forgetting starcraft 1 didn't initially have lan support either until a few updates. There is still a possibility lan support will be added on later. This could be a method to reduce initial piracy initially where it matters the most. Hopefully, they will add lan support after while.</p><p>If that's the case, this is a acceptable decision on the part of blizzard in my view as long as they don't wait a long time. If not, then I can only say that this make starcraft 2 much less appealing to me.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>People are forgetting starcraft 1 did n't initially have lan support either until a few updates .
There is still a possibility lan support will be added on later .
This could be a method to reduce initial piracy initially where it matters the most .
Hopefully , they will add lan support after while.If that 's the case , this is a acceptable decision on the part of blizzard in my view as long as they do n't wait a long time .
If not , then I can only say that this make starcraft 2 much less appealing to me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>People are forgetting starcraft 1 didn't initially have lan support either until a few updates.
There is still a possibility lan support will be added on later.
This could be a method to reduce initial piracy initially where it matters the most.
Hopefully, they will add lan support after while.If that's the case, this is a acceptable decision on the part of blizzard in my view as long as they don't wait a long time.
If not, then I can only say that this make starcraft 2 much less appealing to me.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28552737</id>
	<title>Goodbye SC2</title>
	<author>RazorJ\_2000</author>
	<datestamp>1246458600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...and after being a fan and user of almost EVERY single Blizzard game since WarCraft I, I have now just dropped Blizzard and will not be purchasing SC2.  Some of us actually want to use what we pay for by ourselves. And fuck having to connect to the 'net to use it.</p><p>-a pissed off very long time customer who just washed his hands of you.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...and after being a fan and user of almost EVERY single Blizzard game since WarCraft I , I have now just dropped Blizzard and will not be purchasing SC2 .
Some of us actually want to use what we pay for by ourselves .
And fuck having to connect to the 'net to use it.-a pissed off very long time customer who just washed his hands of you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...and after being a fan and user of almost EVERY single Blizzard game since WarCraft I, I have now just dropped Blizzard and will not be purchasing SC2.
Some of us actually want to use what we pay for by ourselves.
And fuck having to connect to the 'net to use it.-a pissed off very long time customer who just washed his hands of you.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28545223</id>
	<title>The human factor</title>
	<author>nausea\_malvarma</author>
	<datestamp>1246472460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Lan parties are different than online play, because everyone is in the same room. You know everyone who's there, and you can see them from across the room. Nothing is a substitute for human contact, and playing on battle.net won't be the same.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Lan parties are different than online play , because everyone is in the same room .
You know everyone who 's there , and you can see them from across the room .
Nothing is a substitute for human contact , and playing on battle.net wo n't be the same .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Lan parties are different than online play, because everyone is in the same room.
You know everyone who's there, and you can see them from across the room.
Nothing is a substitute for human contact, and playing on battle.net won't be the same.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28547119</id>
	<title>Re:I'll buy it...but...</title>
	<author>non0score</author>
	<datestamp>1246478280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I feel dirty about double posting with similar responses, but I don't get why everyone is emphasizing the lag issue (I can understand the Battle.net downtime part). It's not like you're playing with/against Battle.net. You're playing with/against your friends, which means your connections are directly to them (I'm pretty confident that Blizzard is smart enough to do a "if (my\_ip.equals(connection\_1\_ip)) {...}"), and not going through Battle.net. I'm not sure how much is there to worry about for the end-game stats uploading and the intermittent ping/pongs to maintain the Battle.net connection.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I feel dirty about double posting with similar responses , but I do n't get why everyone is emphasizing the lag issue ( I can understand the Battle.net downtime part ) .
It 's not like you 're playing with/against Battle.net .
You 're playing with/against your friends , which means your connections are directly to them ( I 'm pretty confident that Blizzard is smart enough to do a " if ( my \ _ip.equals ( connection \ _1 \ _ip ) ) { ... } " ) , and not going through Battle.net .
I 'm not sure how much is there to worry about for the end-game stats uploading and the intermittent ping/pongs to maintain the Battle.net connection .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I feel dirty about double posting with similar responses, but I don't get why everyone is emphasizing the lag issue (I can understand the Battle.net downtime part).
It's not like you're playing with/against Battle.net.
You're playing with/against your friends, which means your connections are directly to them (I'm pretty confident that Blizzard is smart enough to do a "if (my\_ip.equals(connection\_1\_ip)) {...}"), and not going through Battle.net.
I'm not sure how much is there to worry about for the end-game stats uploading and the intermittent ping/pongs to maintain the Battle.net connection.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28545069</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28545131</id>
	<title>Broadband killed LAN parties</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246472160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I haven't been to a LAN party in about 10 years.  It's really easy to get the same experience nowadays with broadband and a microphone.  I don't see the point in hauling all my computer stuff over to a friends house when now I can just hop on Steam and round up a few people and play Left 4 Dead.  10 years ago when we were all playing Starcraft and Quake II, there was a definite need for LAN parties since we all had slow 33.6/56K dial-up internet which made multiplayer games extremely slow.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have n't been to a LAN party in about 10 years .
It 's really easy to get the same experience nowadays with broadband and a microphone .
I do n't see the point in hauling all my computer stuff over to a friends house when now I can just hop on Steam and round up a few people and play Left 4 Dead .
10 years ago when we were all playing Starcraft and Quake II , there was a definite need for LAN parties since we all had slow 33.6/56K dial-up internet which made multiplayer games extremely slow .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I haven't been to a LAN party in about 10 years.
It's really easy to get the same experience nowadays with broadband and a microphone.
I don't see the point in hauling all my computer stuff over to a friends house when now I can just hop on Steam and round up a few people and play Left 4 Dead.
10 years ago when we were all playing Starcraft and Quake II, there was a definite need for LAN parties since we all had slow 33.6/56K dial-up internet which made multiplayer games extremely slow.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28545871</id>
	<title>Stationed in Iraq</title>
	<author>daspring</author>
	<datestamp>1246474380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>For those of you that aren't aware, LAN gaming is very much alive with our soldiers stationed in Iraq.  Starcraft, Warcraft 3, and Dawn of War were all extremely popular for those with laptops.  Even attempting to validate a cdkey through the tiny pipe that is the on-base internet connection would prevent most people from being able to play.

This is a disgusting money grab.  Nothing more.</htmltext>
<tokenext>For those of you that are n't aware , LAN gaming is very much alive with our soldiers stationed in Iraq .
Starcraft , Warcraft 3 , and Dawn of War were all extremely popular for those with laptops .
Even attempting to validate a cdkey through the tiny pipe that is the on-base internet connection would prevent most people from being able to play .
This is a disgusting money grab .
Nothing more .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For those of you that aren't aware, LAN gaming is very much alive with our soldiers stationed in Iraq.
Starcraft, Warcraft 3, and Dawn of War were all extremely popular for those with laptops.
Even attempting to validate a cdkey through the tiny pipe that is the on-base internet connection would prevent most people from being able to play.
This is a disgusting money grab.
Nothing more.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28552579</id>
	<title>not interested if it doesnt have lan support</title>
	<author>Inconnux</author>
	<datestamp>1246457340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Like alot of people here, Starcraft was perhaps the best game to play at LAN parties.  Sure Blizzard said they are going to improve battle.net servers, but can they improve my connection?  LAN support is an absolute MUST have for games like this and removing it is a deal breaker for me.  I bought SC1 and Broodwar, but there is no way I would buy a game that takes such a key feature out.  There are alot of games out there for my limited gaming dollar... Blizzard just reduced that list by one.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Like alot of people here , Starcraft was perhaps the best game to play at LAN parties .
Sure Blizzard said they are going to improve battle.net servers , but can they improve my connection ?
LAN support is an absolute MUST have for games like this and removing it is a deal breaker for me .
I bought SC1 and Broodwar , but there is no way I would buy a game that takes such a key feature out .
There are alot of games out there for my limited gaming dollar... Blizzard just reduced that list by one .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Like alot of people here, Starcraft was perhaps the best game to play at LAN parties.
Sure Blizzard said they are going to improve battle.net servers, but can they improve my connection?
LAN support is an absolute MUST have for games like this and removing it is a deal breaker for me.
I bought SC1 and Broodwar, but there is no way I would buy a game that takes such a key feature out.
There are alot of games out there for my limited gaming dollar... Blizzard just reduced that list by one.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28549459</id>
	<title>So no starcraft II championships then?</title>
	<author>St.Creed</author>
	<datestamp>1246442100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is stupid. The onliest reason people are still into StarCraft I is because it is still the RTS of choice for gaming championships and good fun for LAN-parties. When there's no LAN-support, neither will be driving continued playability for Starcraft II - meaning Starcraft III will be a much tougher sell.</p><p>The reason is indeed twofold: piracy, and the fact you cannot monetize LAN-parties as easily as you can monetize Battlenet.</p><p>This is a kick in the balls for most users, wholly greed-based, and no good will come of it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is stupid .
The onliest reason people are still into StarCraft I is because it is still the RTS of choice for gaming championships and good fun for LAN-parties .
When there 's no LAN-support , neither will be driving continued playability for Starcraft II - meaning Starcraft III will be a much tougher sell.The reason is indeed twofold : piracy , and the fact you can not monetize LAN-parties as easily as you can monetize Battlenet.This is a kick in the balls for most users , wholly greed-based , and no good will come of it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is stupid.
The onliest reason people are still into StarCraft I is because it is still the RTS of choice for gaming championships and good fun for LAN-parties.
When there's no LAN-support, neither will be driving continued playability for Starcraft II - meaning Starcraft III will be a much tougher sell.The reason is indeed twofold: piracy, and the fact you cannot monetize LAN-parties as easily as you can monetize Battlenet.This is a kick in the balls for most users, wholly greed-based, and no good will come of it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28547205</id>
	<title>It **IS** about piracy.</title>
	<author>mumblestheclown</author>
	<datestamp>1246478520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Guys, I mean seriously.  We all know that slashdot is a place where any pro-piracy argument will be forwarded and treated seriously, no matter how speculative or unlikely.  But will you guys just for a millisecond consider this argument:</p><p>The writers of this game are in effect removing a feature that could otherwise add to the saleability of the game.   Is it REALLY that much of a stretch to think that somebody over there didn't do a bit of sober calculation and realize that, in fact, due to piracy, they can and will sell more copies if they make the multiplayer experience internet only?    Some of you guys seem to live in some alternate reality where you think that software piracy has no "chilling effects" on the software business.  it sure as hell does, and this is one of the more plausible ones.</p><p>I used to read the forums for a game that I liked - Battlestations: Midway.  The number of people who had the pirated version and then bought the full version to play multiplayer was very amazing.  Most amazing of all, it's actually getting the chronic pirates in eastern europe (ukraine, russia, etc) to actually start buying games.  Sure, they get them at MASSIVELY reduced prices (prices below equilibrium non-piracy market values, but nevertheless above the pure pirated prices), but they are starting to buy them, largely because of the draw of multi-player.</p><p>I am amazed at the absolute stupidity of some of the posts here who seem to think that a company isn't damaged by piracy if it turns a profit.  More to the point, I'm amazed at the basic disconnect between some people here and others' piracy of the games that they purchased.  Hey, dinguses!  If somebody got something for free that, were it not for the existence of piracy, they would pay for, then the game would be better (or the next game would be better) for you.  Pirates should piss YOU off.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Guys , I mean seriously .
We all know that slashdot is a place where any pro-piracy argument will be forwarded and treated seriously , no matter how speculative or unlikely .
But will you guys just for a millisecond consider this argument : The writers of this game are in effect removing a feature that could otherwise add to the saleability of the game .
Is it REALLY that much of a stretch to think that somebody over there did n't do a bit of sober calculation and realize that , in fact , due to piracy , they can and will sell more copies if they make the multiplayer experience internet only ?
Some of you guys seem to live in some alternate reality where you think that software piracy has no " chilling effects " on the software business .
it sure as hell does , and this is one of the more plausible ones.I used to read the forums for a game that I liked - Battlestations : Midway .
The number of people who had the pirated version and then bought the full version to play multiplayer was very amazing .
Most amazing of all , it 's actually getting the chronic pirates in eastern europe ( ukraine , russia , etc ) to actually start buying games .
Sure , they get them at MASSIVELY reduced prices ( prices below equilibrium non-piracy market values , but nevertheless above the pure pirated prices ) , but they are starting to buy them , largely because of the draw of multi-player.I am amazed at the absolute stupidity of some of the posts here who seem to think that a company is n't damaged by piracy if it turns a profit .
More to the point , I 'm amazed at the basic disconnect between some people here and others ' piracy of the games that they purchased .
Hey , dinguses !
If somebody got something for free that , were it not for the existence of piracy , they would pay for , then the game would be better ( or the next game would be better ) for you .
Pirates should piss YOU off .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Guys, I mean seriously.
We all know that slashdot is a place where any pro-piracy argument will be forwarded and treated seriously, no matter how speculative or unlikely.
But will you guys just for a millisecond consider this argument:The writers of this game are in effect removing a feature that could otherwise add to the saleability of the game.
Is it REALLY that much of a stretch to think that somebody over there didn't do a bit of sober calculation and realize that, in fact, due to piracy, they can and will sell more copies if they make the multiplayer experience internet only?
Some of you guys seem to live in some alternate reality where you think that software piracy has no "chilling effects" on the software business.
it sure as hell does, and this is one of the more plausible ones.I used to read the forums for a game that I liked - Battlestations: Midway.
The number of people who had the pirated version and then bought the full version to play multiplayer was very amazing.
Most amazing of all, it's actually getting the chronic pirates in eastern europe (ukraine, russia, etc) to actually start buying games.
Sure, they get them at MASSIVELY reduced prices (prices below equilibrium non-piracy market values, but nevertheless above the pure pirated prices), but they are starting to buy them, largely because of the draw of multi-player.I am amazed at the absolute stupidity of some of the posts here who seem to think that a company isn't damaged by piracy if it turns a profit.
More to the point, I'm amazed at the basic disconnect between some people here and others' piracy of the games that they purchased.
Hey, dinguses!
If somebody got something for free that, were it not for the existence of piracy, they would pay for, then the game would be better (or the next game would be better) for you.
Pirates should piss YOU off.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28547603</id>
	<title>Re:It will still communicate over Lan</title>
	<author>osu-neko</author>
	<datestamp>1246479960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><nobr> <wbr></nobr></p><div class="quote"><p>...they would probably want to send all data directly through their own servers, so that you don't get to figure out the IP address of those you are playing against.</p></div><p>Do you have any conception of how much more expensive this would be for Blizzard?  Do you understand that they want to make as large a profit as possible?  Given this, doesn't it make more sense to assume they've actually written the code you said they'd need to do to pass the packets over the LAN?</p><p>Maybe they haven't, maybe they've chosen the option that both degrades game performance and costs them more money to host.  I'm just not seeing that as likely...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>...they would probably want to send all data directly through their own servers , so that you do n't get to figure out the IP address of those you are playing against.Do you have any conception of how much more expensive this would be for Blizzard ?
Do you understand that they want to make as large a profit as possible ?
Given this , does n't it make more sense to assume they 've actually written the code you said they 'd need to do to pass the packets over the LAN ? Maybe they have n't , maybe they 've chosen the option that both degrades game performance and costs them more money to host .
I 'm just not seeing that as likely.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> ...they would probably want to send all data directly through their own servers, so that you don't get to figure out the IP address of those you are playing against.Do you have any conception of how much more expensive this would be for Blizzard?
Do you understand that they want to make as large a profit as possible?
Given this, doesn't it make more sense to assume they've actually written the code you said they'd need to do to pass the packets over the LAN?Maybe they haven't, maybe they've chosen the option that both degrades game performance and costs them more money to host.
I'm just not seeing that as likely...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28545635</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28545563</id>
	<title>Now my excitement has faded and I may not buy</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246473420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I still play SC1 almost everyday with a coworker after work LAN only. I have been waiting for that experience to be replaced by SC2. Now they are taking away LAN play, and due to our firewall rules, I doubt it will work or I am worried about it being monitored by or experiencing network "hiccups".</p><p>Now instead of buying two legitimate copies of the game, I might be waiting for a cracked pirated version that works over LAN.</p><p>Thanks Blizzard.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I still play SC1 almost everyday with a coworker after work LAN only .
I have been waiting for that experience to be replaced by SC2 .
Now they are taking away LAN play , and due to our firewall rules , I doubt it will work or I am worried about it being monitored by or experiencing network " hiccups " .Now instead of buying two legitimate copies of the game , I might be waiting for a cracked pirated version that works over LAN.Thanks Blizzard .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I still play SC1 almost everyday with a coworker after work LAN only.
I have been waiting for that experience to be replaced by SC2.
Now they are taking away LAN play, and due to our firewall rules, I doubt it will work or I am worried about it being monitored by or experiencing network "hiccups".Now instead of buying two legitimate copies of the game, I might be waiting for a cracked pirated version that works over LAN.Thanks Blizzard.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28549989</id>
	<title>Re:I think they just increased piracy.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246443780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Mod parent to 10... Blizz... you reading this?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Mod parent to 10... Blizz... you reading this ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Mod parent to 10... Blizz... you reading this?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28545603</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28549867</id>
	<title>FFUUUUU</title>
	<author>Lehk228</author>
	<datestamp>1246443300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>thanks for helping me save $60, assholes.</htmltext>
<tokenext>thanks for helping me save $ 60 , assholes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>thanks for helping me save $60, assholes.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28546307</id>
	<title>Re:No LAN support? Time to smack someone in the he</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246475640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Everyone on planet earth is going to buy the game the day it hits the shelf.</p></div><p>I own Starcraft, Warcraft1/2/3, and Diablo2, and I'm definitely looking forward to SC2 and D3; however, I'm planning to wait until you can buy all three races of SC2 in a single box for less than $50. If the reviews don't go to 11 on a scale of 1 to 10, then I'll wait until I can pick up all three in a single box for $20.</p><p>Blizzard really should have just updated the graphics and released a SC1.5 for $20. Everyone would have bought <em>that</em> the day it hit the shelf.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Everyone on planet earth is going to buy the game the day it hits the shelf.I own Starcraft , Warcraft1/2/3 , and Diablo2 , and I 'm definitely looking forward to SC2 and D3 ; however , I 'm planning to wait until you can buy all three races of SC2 in a single box for less than $ 50 .
If the reviews do n't go to 11 on a scale of 1 to 10 , then I 'll wait until I can pick up all three in a single box for $ 20.Blizzard really should have just updated the graphics and released a SC1.5 for $ 20 .
Everyone would have bought that the day it hit the shelf .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Everyone on planet earth is going to buy the game the day it hits the shelf.I own Starcraft, Warcraft1/2/3, and Diablo2, and I'm definitely looking forward to SC2 and D3; however, I'm planning to wait until you can buy all three races of SC2 in a single box for less than $50.
If the reviews don't go to 11 on a scale of 1 to 10, then I'll wait until I can pick up all three in a single box for $20.Blizzard really should have just updated the graphics and released a SC1.5 for $20.
Everyone would have bought that the day it hit the shelf.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28545173</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28547627</id>
	<title>Re:Does anyone remember when...</title>
	<author>Banquo</author>
	<datestamp>1246480080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's all about making sure they get you into the sales channel.</p><p>Sure back in the day Blizzard's main goal was to make a great game, THAT was the top priority (the thought was great game = success = more gamers = gamer loyalty = better games etc..) but when WOW hit there was no way they could maintain that.<br>There are way too many people in the mix who simply don't care about games, and the people that were there from the start are so far removed, and are too busy dealing with their wads of cash to care if this kind of thing happens.</p><p>The teams of people making the great games report up through 300 layers of bureaucracy now, they have funding cutbacks, forced "programming to the LCD", and TPS reports to worry about.</p><p>Now the goal is to make quarterly earnings go up as the first priority (and the thought is that  eyeballs + adverts + upselling = $$) I'm sure delivering a great game gets mentioned in there somewhere but for now, it's no longer essential to the mix. It's like the owner of clearchannel "I don't care what we do as long as we make money" same ungrateful "No one got us here but us!" attitude.</p><p>We all KNOW that at some point someone will either hack it, or Blizzard will be forced to make it available, Blizzard knows this too..the thing that gets me is why bother being a douche, getting customer ire and having to deal with the hassles of bnet not being able to manage the load for the first 3 months in the first place?</p><p>Is it so they can swoop in later and say "Here we give you LAN support,..SEE we listen to the people, we take what they say to heart?" or ??</p><p>Don't shit where you eat is a survival 101 tactic that even animals are born with, it doesn't matter if you're a mouse or a elephant, so when did Blizzard forget that?</p><p>I love Starcraft, I liked Warcraft, and I enjoyed WOW, but I personally hope Stardock continues with their RTS trend of providing better and better games. THAT is an organization who actually cares about their customers (and oddly enough they manage to show it despite corporate growth.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's all about making sure they get you into the sales channel.Sure back in the day Blizzard 's main goal was to make a great game , THAT was the top priority ( the thought was great game = success = more gamers = gamer loyalty = better games etc.. ) but when WOW hit there was no way they could maintain that.There are way too many people in the mix who simply do n't care about games , and the people that were there from the start are so far removed , and are too busy dealing with their wads of cash to care if this kind of thing happens.The teams of people making the great games report up through 300 layers of bureaucracy now , they have funding cutbacks , forced " programming to the LCD " , and TPS reports to worry about.Now the goal is to make quarterly earnings go up as the first priority ( and the thought is that eyeballs + adverts + upselling = $ $ ) I 'm sure delivering a great game gets mentioned in there somewhere but for now , it 's no longer essential to the mix .
It 's like the owner of clearchannel " I do n't care what we do as long as we make money " same ungrateful " No one got us here but us !
" attitude.We all KNOW that at some point someone will either hack it , or Blizzard will be forced to make it available , Blizzard knows this too..the thing that gets me is why bother being a douche , getting customer ire and having to deal with the hassles of bnet not being able to manage the load for the first 3 months in the first place ? Is it so they can swoop in later and say " Here we give you LAN support,..SEE we listen to the people , we take what they say to heart ?
" or ?
? Do n't shit where you eat is a survival 101 tactic that even animals are born with , it does n't matter if you 're a mouse or a elephant , so when did Blizzard forget that ? I love Starcraft , I liked Warcraft , and I enjoyed WOW , but I personally hope Stardock continues with their RTS trend of providing better and better games .
THAT is an organization who actually cares about their customers ( and oddly enough they manage to show it despite corporate growth .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's all about making sure they get you into the sales channel.Sure back in the day Blizzard's main goal was to make a great game, THAT was the top priority (the thought was great game = success = more gamers = gamer loyalty = better games etc..) but when WOW hit there was no way they could maintain that.There are way too many people in the mix who simply don't care about games, and the people that were there from the start are so far removed, and are too busy dealing with their wads of cash to care if this kind of thing happens.The teams of people making the great games report up through 300 layers of bureaucracy now, they have funding cutbacks, forced "programming to the LCD", and TPS reports to worry about.Now the goal is to make quarterly earnings go up as the first priority (and the thought is that  eyeballs + adverts + upselling = $$) I'm sure delivering a great game gets mentioned in there somewhere but for now, it's no longer essential to the mix.
It's like the owner of clearchannel "I don't care what we do as long as we make money" same ungrateful "No one got us here but us!
" attitude.We all KNOW that at some point someone will either hack it, or Blizzard will be forced to make it available, Blizzard knows this too..the thing that gets me is why bother being a douche, getting customer ire and having to deal with the hassles of bnet not being able to manage the load for the first 3 months in the first place?Is it so they can swoop in later and say "Here we give you LAN support,..SEE we listen to the people, we take what they say to heart?
" or ?
?Don't shit where you eat is a survival 101 tactic that even animals are born with, it doesn't matter if you're a mouse or a elephant, so when did Blizzard forget that?I love Starcraft, I liked Warcraft, and I enjoyed WOW, but I personally hope Stardock continues with their RTS trend of providing better and better games.
THAT is an organization who actually cares about their customers (and oddly enough they manage to show it despite corporate growth.
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28545105</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28545051</id>
	<title>Even more dependant on broadband...</title>
	<author>Dalzhim</author>
	<datestamp>1246471980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It seems like we are always pushed towards using broadband just as the quality of these connections is on a constant downfall.
Means there will be no multi-player StarCraft II for you when your ISP fails you with their DNS servers; even if everyone in your household owns a legitimate copy of the game.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It seems like we are always pushed towards using broadband just as the quality of these connections is on a constant downfall .
Means there will be no multi-player StarCraft II for you when your ISP fails you with their DNS servers ; even if everyone in your household owns a legitimate copy of the game .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It seems like we are always pushed towards using broadband just as the quality of these connections is on a constant downfall.
Means there will be no multi-player StarCraft II for you when your ISP fails you with their DNS servers; even if everyone in your household owns a legitimate copy of the game.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28545929</id>
	<title>Re:Bonus!</title>
	<author>Zaphod The 42nd</author>
	<datestamp>1246474560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Thats not a bonus, thats the main idea. Fighting piracy / copying. Its ridiculous and its the opposite of what will make people love the game. They need to remember why they enabled spawn copies in SC, because then more people will play and enjoy and want to buy the game.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Thats not a bonus , thats the main idea .
Fighting piracy / copying .
Its ridiculous and its the opposite of what will make people love the game .
They need to remember why they enabled spawn copies in SC , because then more people will play and enjoy and want to buy the game .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Thats not a bonus, thats the main idea.
Fighting piracy / copying.
Its ridiculous and its the opposite of what will make people love the game.
They need to remember why they enabled spawn copies in SC, because then more people will play and enjoy and want to buy the game.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28545013</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28550283</id>
	<title>Re:Stationed in Iraq</title>
	<author>the\_wesman</author>
	<datestamp>1246444920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>how is this a "money grab" if battle.net is free?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>how is this a " money grab " if battle.net is free ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>how is this a "money grab" if battle.net is free?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28545871</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28545939</id>
	<title>And this is also about used games, too...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246474560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you don't like the game after you've bought it, you can forget about reselling it.</p><p>What jerks.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you do n't like the game after you 've bought it , you can forget about reselling it.What jerks .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you don't like the game after you've bought it, you can forget about reselling it.What jerks.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28545689</id>
	<title>Re:Bonus!</title>
	<author>EvanED</author>
	<datestamp>1246473840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Quite a reversal of the "Ghost Copy" feature or whatever of StarCraft 1 that allows many people to use one copy over the LAN.</i></p><p>To be fair, this doesn't exclude this possibility. Wikipedia says that the Spawn edition of SC1 allowed Battle.Net play, so if SC2 has something similar, then the situation will be much the same.</p><p>(I'm not saying that it <i>will</i>, just that it <i>could</i> and there's precedent for it.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Quite a reversal of the " Ghost Copy " feature or whatever of StarCraft 1 that allows many people to use one copy over the LAN.To be fair , this does n't exclude this possibility .
Wikipedia says that the Spawn edition of SC1 allowed Battle.Net play , so if SC2 has something similar , then the situation will be much the same .
( I 'm not saying that it will , just that it could and there 's precedent for it .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Quite a reversal of the "Ghost Copy" feature or whatever of StarCraft 1 that allows many people to use one copy over the LAN.To be fair, this doesn't exclude this possibility.
Wikipedia says that the Spawn edition of SC1 allowed Battle.Net play, so if SC2 has something similar, then the situation will be much the same.
(I'm not saying that it will, just that it could and there's precedent for it.
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28545013</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28548015</id>
	<title>I'll but it with lan support please</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246481040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Blizzard,</p><p>I've got every game you've made tied to my new battle.net account. I've purchased them all and have valid legal cd keys. If you remove lan support which is most of the most basic fundamental pieces of functionality for any game worth playing. I will not buy this game.</p><p>I'm the person that hosts lan parties for my friends. If I'm not playing it, they aren't playing it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Blizzard,I 've got every game you 've made tied to my new battle.net account .
I 've purchased them all and have valid legal cd keys .
If you remove lan support which is most of the most basic fundamental pieces of functionality for any game worth playing .
I will not buy this game.I 'm the person that hosts lan parties for my friends .
If I 'm not playing it , they are n't playing it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Blizzard,I've got every game you've made tied to my new battle.net account.
I've purchased them all and have valid legal cd keys.
If you remove lan support which is most of the most basic fundamental pieces of functionality for any game worth playing.
I will not buy this game.I'm the person that hosts lan parties for my friends.
If I'm not playing it, they aren't playing it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28546147</id>
	<title>Re:Disappointing</title>
	<author>JorDan Clock</author>
	<datestamp>1246475160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>If you've ever seen the connections made by an online game of Starcraft, you'd quickly realize that beyond the lobby, the game itself is connected to each player. And why is everyone thinking there is somehow a ton of data to move between the players? Has anyone forgot about games like Supreme Commander with gawd-awful huge maps and thousands of units at once? It plays just fine over the internet with even the government definition of broadband. I seriously doubt that Blizzard would have trouble optimizing the data flow between players.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If you 've ever seen the connections made by an online game of Starcraft , you 'd quickly realize that beyond the lobby , the game itself is connected to each player .
And why is everyone thinking there is somehow a ton of data to move between the players ?
Has anyone forgot about games like Supreme Commander with gawd-awful huge maps and thousands of units at once ?
It plays just fine over the internet with even the government definition of broadband .
I seriously doubt that Blizzard would have trouble optimizing the data flow between players .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you've ever seen the connections made by an online game of Starcraft, you'd quickly realize that beyond the lobby, the game itself is connected to each player.
And why is everyone thinking there is somehow a ton of data to move between the players?
Has anyone forgot about games like Supreme Commander with gawd-awful huge maps and thousands of units at once?
It plays just fine over the internet with even the government definition of broadband.
I seriously doubt that Blizzard would have trouble optimizing the data flow between players.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28544977</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28554547</id>
	<title>Re:Disappointing</title>
	<author>oblivionboy</author>
	<datestamp>1246477260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well of course no one is going to even notice this post, as everyone is all crying "piracy, wtf!!", but me and my buddies often go up north to play SC sessions at this small cabin. And so it has electricity, and we bring our laptops and a wireless router and we play. But no way in hell is it going to have internet. Not now or in a few years. Now with this, its all but impossible to play.</p><p>Given that, I wonder if Blizzard isn't shooting itself in the foot. I mean how hard would it be to write a BNet Server that you could run on your machine to validate a game and then play....talk about "piracy, wtf!!!" at the next level.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well of course no one is going to even notice this post , as everyone is all crying " piracy , wtf ! !
" , but me and my buddies often go up north to play SC sessions at this small cabin .
And so it has electricity , and we bring our laptops and a wireless router and we play .
But no way in hell is it going to have internet .
Not now or in a few years .
Now with this , its all but impossible to play.Given that , I wonder if Blizzard is n't shooting itself in the foot .
I mean how hard would it be to write a BNet Server that you could run on your machine to validate a game and then play....talk about " piracy , wtf ! ! !
" at the next level .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well of course no one is going to even notice this post, as everyone is all crying "piracy, wtf!!
", but me and my buddies often go up north to play SC sessions at this small cabin.
And so it has electricity, and we bring our laptops and a wireless router and we play.
But no way in hell is it going to have internet.
Not now or in a few years.
Now with this, its all but impossible to play.Given that, I wonder if Blizzard isn't shooting itself in the foot.
I mean how hard would it be to write a BNet Server that you could run on your machine to validate a game and then play....talk about "piracy, wtf!!!
" at the next level.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28546147</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28545753</id>
	<title>Re:Broadband killed LAN parties</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246474080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>You, sir, have no soul<br>
<br>
(and like this post's brother said, <b>your friends suck</b>)</htmltext>
<tokenext>You , sir , have no soul ( and like this post 's brother said , your friends suck )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You, sir, have no soul

(and like this post's brother said, your friends suck)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28545131</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28545015</id>
	<title>Re:Confusing Comparison: RTS vs RPG</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246471860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>"Blizzard has announced that they will be dropping LAN support for Starcraft II, citing piracy and quality concerns. Instead, all multiplayer games will be hosted through their new Battle.net service. I suppose I shouldn't be surprised by this move, but wasn't LAN play how the original Starcraft became popular?<br></i></p><p>It's the typical "I got mine" ploy. Games, piracy, music, immigration, whatever. Immigrants should be free to come and go, unless my wage will be lowered. Foreign goods should be free to come and go, unless my goods' prices will suffer. Tariffs should be imposed on imports, but I should be allowed to employ cheap labor. Foreigners shoulds have to pay taxes, but my off shore company shouldn't be subjected to them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Blizzard has announced that they will be dropping LAN support for Starcraft II , citing piracy and quality concerns .
Instead , all multiplayer games will be hosted through their new Battle.net service .
I suppose I should n't be surprised by this move , but was n't LAN play how the original Starcraft became popular ? It 's the typical " I got mine " ploy .
Games , piracy , music , immigration , whatever .
Immigrants should be free to come and go , unless my wage will be lowered .
Foreign goods should be free to come and go , unless my goods ' prices will suffer .
Tariffs should be imposed on imports , but I should be allowed to employ cheap labor .
Foreigners shoulds have to pay taxes , but my off shore company should n't be subjected to them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Blizzard has announced that they will be dropping LAN support for Starcraft II, citing piracy and quality concerns.
Instead, all multiplayer games will be hosted through their new Battle.net service.
I suppose I shouldn't be surprised by this move, but wasn't LAN play how the original Starcraft became popular?It's the typical "I got mine" ploy.
Games, piracy, music, immigration, whatever.
Immigrants should be free to come and go, unless my wage will be lowered.
Foreign goods should be free to come and go, unless my goods' prices will suffer.
Tariffs should be imposed on imports, but I should be allowed to employ cheap labor.
Foreigners shoulds have to pay taxes, but my off shore company shouldn't be subjected to them.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28544905</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28545219</id>
	<title>Soo...</title>
	<author>Bluesman</author>
	<datestamp>1246472460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This sounds like it might make playing as a group from behind a household NAT router much more difficult, no?  There at least will be a speed penalty.</p><p>That takes a lot of the fun out of it for me.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This sounds like it might make playing as a group from behind a household NAT router much more difficult , no ?
There at least will be a speed penalty.That takes a lot of the fun out of it for me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This sounds like it might make playing as a group from behind a household NAT router much more difficult, no?
There at least will be a speed penalty.That takes a lot of the fun out of it for me.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28544995</id>
	<title>Uhuh...</title>
	<author>FinchWorld</author>
	<datestamp>1246471860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Somehow I think its more to do with stopping the pirates, no valid key, no multiplayer ever. Diablo II is fun to play on battlenet, but when theres 4+ of us all on lan, we notice the difference with Lag when we all go on battlenet (Do they even run servers in the europe for anything but WOW). Not only that, means if ever the net goes down at a LAN meetup (or is otherwise unavailable) we can't play your game at all.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Somehow I think its more to do with stopping the pirates , no valid key , no multiplayer ever .
Diablo II is fun to play on battlenet , but when theres 4 + of us all on lan , we notice the difference with Lag when we all go on battlenet ( Do they even run servers in the europe for anything but WOW ) .
Not only that , means if ever the net goes down at a LAN meetup ( or is otherwise unavailable ) we ca n't play your game at all .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Somehow I think its more to do with stopping the pirates, no valid key, no multiplayer ever.
Diablo II is fun to play on battlenet, but when theres 4+ of us all on lan, we notice the difference with Lag when we all go on battlenet (Do they even run servers in the europe for anything but WOW).
Not only that, means if ever the net goes down at a LAN meetup (or is otherwise unavailable) we can't play your game at all.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28550927</id>
	<title>Re:-1 Sycophant?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246447560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>meh for Blizzard it's all about the money. Probably be a user fee. Lamas.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>meh for Blizzard it 's all about the money .
Probably be a user fee .
Lamas .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>meh for Blizzard it's all about the money.
Probably be a user fee.
Lamas.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28547151</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28548013</id>
	<title>Re:Lies can justify anti-piracy inconvenience effo</title>
	<author>apoc.famine</author>
	<datestamp>1246481040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I bought the first starcraft (probably multiple copies, plus the expansions) because ONE friend had ONE cd, and installed it on a 4-computer LAN. <br>
&nbsp; <br>I don't care if you have all sorts of copy protection and CD keys and authenticated servers required to play over the internet. That's fine. But if four of us drag our computers together and two people have the game and want to play, you need to ENCOURAGE the other two to play. That's how you make more sales. <br>
&nbsp; <br>Your first sentence said it best.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I bought the first starcraft ( probably multiple copies , plus the expansions ) because ONE friend had ONE cd , and installed it on a 4-computer LAN .
  I do n't care if you have all sorts of copy protection and CD keys and authenticated servers required to play over the internet .
That 's fine .
But if four of us drag our computers together and two people have the game and want to play , you need to ENCOURAGE the other two to play .
That 's how you make more sales .
  Your first sentence said it best .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I bought the first starcraft (probably multiple copies, plus the expansions) because ONE friend had ONE cd, and installed it on a 4-computer LAN.
  I don't care if you have all sorts of copy protection and CD keys and authenticated servers required to play over the internet.
That's fine.
But if four of us drag our computers together and two people have the game and want to play, you need to ENCOURAGE the other two to play.
That's how you make more sales.
  Your first sentence said it best.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28545077</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28569375</id>
	<title>Re:I think they just increased piracy.</title>
	<author>Spit</author>
	<datestamp>1246613760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>From various sources I can see that Starcraft has sold 9.5 million copies, not too bad. But I find it pretty hard to believe that a game which is the benchmark for RTS, has been popular for 11 years and is the national sport in a country of 48 million, has sold less copies than Halo 3.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>From various sources I can see that Starcraft has sold 9.5 million copies , not too bad .
But I find it pretty hard to believe that a game which is the benchmark for RTS , has been popular for 11 years and is the national sport in a country of 48 million , has sold less copies than Halo 3 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From various sources I can see that Starcraft has sold 9.5 million copies, not too bad.
But I find it pretty hard to believe that a game which is the benchmark for RTS, has been popular for 11 years and is the national sport in a country of 48 million, has sold less copies than Halo 3.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28545603</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28545287</id>
	<title>not buying</title>
	<author>xycadium</author>
	<datestamp>1246472640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's ridiculously stupid moves like this that cause me not to purchase the game until, oh, ten years down the road when I can pick it up for a quarter at a yard sale. I'm serious with crap like that. I'm still boycotting Sony (and all their products, including tri-star films) for their stupidity.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's ridiculously stupid moves like this that cause me not to purchase the game until , oh , ten years down the road when I can pick it up for a quarter at a yard sale .
I 'm serious with crap like that .
I 'm still boycotting Sony ( and all their products , including tri-star films ) for their stupidity .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's ridiculously stupid moves like this that cause me not to purchase the game until, oh, ten years down the road when I can pick it up for a quarter at a yard sale.
I'm serious with crap like that.
I'm still boycotting Sony (and all their products, including tri-star films) for their stupidity.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28550019</id>
	<title>Sad day for gaming</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246443900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As we loose freedom and profit hording corporate run game companies take away choice and enforce policement. I for one won't be buying this game until some hacks the code and makes a LAN option possible.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As we loose freedom and profit hording corporate run game companies take away choice and enforce policement .
I for one wo n't be buying this game until some hacks the code and makes a LAN option possible .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As we loose freedom and profit hording corporate run game companies take away choice and enforce policement.
I for one won't be buying this game until some hacks the code and makes a LAN option possible.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28545025</id>
	<title>Question</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246471920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So, i assume battle.net cannot be accessed without an internet connection.  So effectively, this doesn't allow us to play at all offline?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So , i assume battle.net can not be accessed without an internet connection .
So effectively , this does n't allow us to play at all offline ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So, i assume battle.net cannot be accessed without an internet connection.
So effectively, this doesn't allow us to play at all offline?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28546257</id>
	<title>Someone started a petition</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246475400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There is a petition to Blizzard to try change their mind:</p><p>http://www.petitiononline.com/LANSC2/petition.html</p><p>I don't know if they will but it couldn't hurt (no registration required).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There is a petition to Blizzard to try change their mind : http : //www.petitiononline.com/LANSC2/petition.htmlI do n't know if they will but it could n't hurt ( no registration required ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is a petition to Blizzard to try change their mind:http://www.petitiononline.com/LANSC2/petition.htmlI don't know if they will but it couldn't hurt (no registration required).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28547151</id>
	<title>-1 Sycophant?</title>
	<author>Junta</author>
	<datestamp>1246478340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Seriously though, it's tiring to have companies actively inconvenience their users just in case some people might steal it.  To throw a company a bone to help protect their IP, strange how Blizzard did just fine until wild success of WoW got them gobs of cash.  Now, suddenly, with the most successful MMORPG, with the most revenue, they need to be careful about people stealing their games or else they will go poor?</p><p>I suspect that the sudden success of WoW has attracted unfortunate decision makers who tend to jump into successful companies/products and sink them.  I see it all too often, a brilliant idea brilliantly executed draws the people who don't achieve success on their own to take it over and enforce the same decisions that keep them from succeeding on their own onto the otherwise capable group.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Seriously though , it 's tiring to have companies actively inconvenience their users just in case some people might steal it .
To throw a company a bone to help protect their IP , strange how Blizzard did just fine until wild success of WoW got them gobs of cash .
Now , suddenly , with the most successful MMORPG , with the most revenue , they need to be careful about people stealing their games or else they will go poor ? I suspect that the sudden success of WoW has attracted unfortunate decision makers who tend to jump into successful companies/products and sink them .
I see it all too often , a brilliant idea brilliantly executed draws the people who do n't achieve success on their own to take it over and enforce the same decisions that keep them from succeeding on their own onto the otherwise capable group .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Seriously though, it's tiring to have companies actively inconvenience their users just in case some people might steal it.
To throw a company a bone to help protect their IP, strange how Blizzard did just fine until wild success of WoW got them gobs of cash.
Now, suddenly, with the most successful MMORPG, with the most revenue, they need to be careful about people stealing their games or else they will go poor?I suspect that the sudden success of WoW has attracted unfortunate decision makers who tend to jump into successful companies/products and sink them.
I see it all too often, a brilliant idea brilliantly executed draws the people who don't achieve success on their own to take it over and enforce the same decisions that keep them from succeeding on their own onto the otherwise capable group.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28545631</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28547747</id>
	<title>Re:No LAN support? Time to smack someone in the he</title>
	<author>VGPowerlord</author>
	<datestamp>1246480380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You know, I used to support Blizzard going after bnetd, as it's major use was to avoid Battle.Net's authentication servers.</p><p>This has changed my mind.  Eliminating LAN play, which was one of the features that made Warcraft 2 popular.  8-player LAN no less!</p><p>Fast fotward 20 years, to when high-end laptops can play modern games so that you can do LAN games without having to lug desktops around... and they cut this feature?  WTF, Blizzard?!  I used to respect you!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You know , I used to support Blizzard going after bnetd , as it 's major use was to avoid Battle.Net 's authentication servers.This has changed my mind .
Eliminating LAN play , which was one of the features that made Warcraft 2 popular .
8-player LAN no less ! Fast fotward 20 years , to when high-end laptops can play modern games so that you can do LAN games without having to lug desktops around... and they cut this feature ?
WTF , Blizzard ? !
I used to respect you !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You know, I used to support Blizzard going after bnetd, as it's major use was to avoid Battle.Net's authentication servers.This has changed my mind.
Eliminating LAN play, which was one of the features that made Warcraft 2 popular.
8-player LAN no less!Fast fotward 20 years, to when high-end laptops can play modern games so that you can do LAN games without having to lug desktops around... and they cut this feature?
WTF, Blizzard?!
I used to respect you!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28545173</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28555529</id>
	<title>Re:Bunch of BS</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246533120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Can someone at least point me to a link that explains their 'reasoning' on this?</p></div><p>I believe the argument was that each individual campaign is going to be so detailed and extensive that it would take an unreasonable amount of time to produce all 3 in the one product. And ofc, they'd then have to charge more for the game.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Can someone at least point me to a link that explains their 'reasoning ' on this ? I believe the argument was that each individual campaign is going to be so detailed and extensive that it would take an unreasonable amount of time to produce all 3 in the one product .
And ofc , they 'd then have to charge more for the game .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Can someone at least point me to a link that explains their 'reasoning' on this?I believe the argument was that each individual campaign is going to be so detailed and extensive that it would take an unreasonable amount of time to produce all 3 in the one product.
And ofc, they'd then have to charge more for the game.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28545149</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28551141</id>
	<title>Restrict my options will you?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246448640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Now I know for sure I'll find a way to pirate it.</p><p>One of the things myself and a mate do on the train is boot up our netbooks, turn on our bluetooth and play games over BTPAN with no internet - starcraft won't be on that list.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Now I know for sure I 'll find a way to pirate it.One of the things myself and a mate do on the train is boot up our netbooks , turn on our bluetooth and play games over BTPAN with no internet - starcraft wo n't be on that list .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Now I know for sure I'll find a way to pirate it.One of the things myself and a mate do on the train is boot up our netbooks, turn on our bluetooth and play games over BTPAN with no internet - starcraft won't be on that list.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28555539</id>
	<title>I for one...</title>
	<author>RichiH</author>
	<datestamp>1246533300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...say "Fuck them."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...say " Fuck them .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...say "Fuck them.
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28545149</id>
	<title>Bunch of BS</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246472220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"While this was a difficult decision for us, we felt that moving away from LAN play and directing players to our upgraded Battle.net service was the best option to ensure a quality multiplayer experience with Starcraft II and safeguard against piracy."</p><p>THis is the result of a great gaming house bought by a corporate whore. Good job Blizz, not only are you selling the integrity right out from under WoW, you are going to let them fuck up your other franchises too. I still dont understand why Starcraft II has to be 3 separate retail releases. Can someone at least point me to a link that explains their 'reasoning' on this?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" While this was a difficult decision for us , we felt that moving away from LAN play and directing players to our upgraded Battle.net service was the best option to ensure a quality multiplayer experience with Starcraft II and safeguard against piracy .
" THis is the result of a great gaming house bought by a corporate whore .
Good job Blizz , not only are you selling the integrity right out from under WoW , you are going to let them fuck up your other franchises too .
I still dont understand why Starcraft II has to be 3 separate retail releases .
Can someone at least point me to a link that explains their 'reasoning ' on this ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"While this was a difficult decision for us, we felt that moving away from LAN play and directing players to our upgraded Battle.net service was the best option to ensure a quality multiplayer experience with Starcraft II and safeguard against piracy.
"THis is the result of a great gaming house bought by a corporate whore.
Good job Blizz, not only are you selling the integrity right out from under WoW, you are going to let them fuck up your other franchises too.
I still dont understand why Starcraft II has to be 3 separate retail releases.
Can someone at least point me to a link that explains their 'reasoning' on this?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28566209</id>
	<title>Or</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246538520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The most likely scenario in my eye is this will encourage someone to hack it and distribute a purely lan only hacked copy that they make 0$ money from.</p><p>I know I'd download said freebie lan only copy =P</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The most likely scenario in my eye is this will encourage someone to hack it and distribute a purely lan only hacked copy that they make 0 $ money from.I know I 'd download said freebie lan only copy = P</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The most likely scenario in my eye is this will encourage someone to hack it and distribute a purely lan only hacked copy that they make 0$ money from.I know I'd download said freebie lan only copy =P</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28556363</id>
	<title>Shove it.</title>
	<author>unity100</author>
	<datestamp>1246542420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>as someone who played sc back when it came out in the time throuh lan and internet, and as operator of the foremost sc gaming community forum in my country, i say, shove it. if they dont offer people to hold their local tournaments through lan with minimal ping, and instead force people to &gt;100ms pings all over the world through internet, the very factor that made starcraft will go bust - competitive, easy to set up multiplayer matches.</p><p>then whichever genius that came up with that idea to remove lan support can do what it would be best used for : shove it up his/her butt.</p><p>i aint buying sc2 if it doesnt have lan support. period.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>as someone who played sc back when it came out in the time throuh lan and internet , and as operator of the foremost sc gaming community forum in my country , i say , shove it .
if they dont offer people to hold their local tournaments through lan with minimal ping , and instead force people to &gt; 100ms pings all over the world through internet , the very factor that made starcraft will go bust - competitive , easy to set up multiplayer matches.then whichever genius that came up with that idea to remove lan support can do what it would be best used for : shove it up his/her butt.i aint buying sc2 if it doesnt have lan support .
period .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>as someone who played sc back when it came out in the time throuh lan and internet, and as operator of the foremost sc gaming community forum in my country, i say, shove it.
if they dont offer people to hold their local tournaments through lan with minimal ping, and instead force people to &gt;100ms pings all over the world through internet, the very factor that made starcraft will go bust - competitive, easy to set up multiplayer matches.then whichever genius that came up with that idea to remove lan support can do what it would be best used for : shove it up his/her butt.i aint buying sc2 if it doesnt have lan support.
period.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28555219</id>
	<title>Why not go the whole hog</title>
	<author>DeeVeeAnt</author>
	<datestamp>1246528620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I have noticed that piracy is often associated with pc owners.If they make the game unusable on the pc, piracy will be stamped out for good. Win all round eh?</htmltext>
<tokenext>I have noticed that piracy is often associated with pc owners.If they make the game unusable on the pc , piracy will be stamped out for good .
Win all round eh ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have noticed that piracy is often associated with pc owners.If they make the game unusable on the pc, piracy will be stamped out for good.
Win all round eh?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28555851</id>
	<title>Probably an heretic view on /. but...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246537980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I've actually played a lot of Blizzard games. I was a huge Diablo 2 (in hardcore/permadeath mode, having level 90+ chars) fan.  I never ever played D2 on a LAN.  You were disconnected from the "real" economy and I disliked it so my experience was 100\% Battlenet.  But there are sooo many lowlifes that will do anything to ruin the game, to screw the economy, etc. that I think it makes sense to make as much as possible "server side only".</p><p>No LAN mode means much more work for these low-lifes to ruin the game.  In a correctly designed client/server SC2 maphack, for example, would be useless.  Sure, you could implement one, but it would have no use because infos about ennemy units in the "fog of war" would never  ever make it to your computer.  Such infos would stay on Battlenet's server and no matter how low-life one would get, he would be fuxxored should he implement a maphack.</p><p>Now I'm not saying that this time Blizzard got it right and there's not going to be any maphack for SC2, but simply that if a game is correctly made in a client/server way, it leaves way less opportunities for low-lifes to ruin the game.</p><p>So go ahead Blizzard if you can screw pirates and low-lifes planning to write maphack, bots, etc.</p><p>We don't want Diablo 1's low-life hacks madness anymore.  D2 was better but the rune SNAFU was really bad.  I know D3's going to be better.</p><p>I guess by the time we arrive at SC7 and D9 the games are going to be "low-lifes free".<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp;</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've actually played a lot of Blizzard games .
I was a huge Diablo 2 ( in hardcore/permadeath mode , having level 90 + chars ) fan .
I never ever played D2 on a LAN .
You were disconnected from the " real " economy and I disliked it so my experience was 100 \ % Battlenet .
But there are sooo many lowlifes that will do anything to ruin the game , to screw the economy , etc .
that I think it makes sense to make as much as possible " server side only " .No LAN mode means much more work for these low-lifes to ruin the game .
In a correctly designed client/server SC2 maphack , for example , would be useless .
Sure , you could implement one , but it would have no use because infos about ennemy units in the " fog of war " would never ever make it to your computer .
Such infos would stay on Battlenet 's server and no matter how low-life one would get , he would be fuxxored should he implement a maphack.Now I 'm not saying that this time Blizzard got it right and there 's not going to be any maphack for SC2 , but simply that if a game is correctly made in a client/server way , it leaves way less opportunities for low-lifes to ruin the game.So go ahead Blizzard if you can screw pirates and low-lifes planning to write maphack , bots , etc.We do n't want Diablo 1 's low-life hacks madness anymore .
D2 was better but the rune SNAFU was really bad .
I know D3 's going to be better.I guess by the time we arrive at SC7 and D9 the games are going to be " low-lifes free " .
: )    </tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've actually played a lot of Blizzard games.
I was a huge Diablo 2 (in hardcore/permadeath mode, having level 90+ chars) fan.
I never ever played D2 on a LAN.
You were disconnected from the "real" economy and I disliked it so my experience was 100\% Battlenet.
But there are sooo many lowlifes that will do anything to ruin the game, to screw the economy, etc.
that I think it makes sense to make as much as possible "server side only".No LAN mode means much more work for these low-lifes to ruin the game.
In a correctly designed client/server SC2 maphack, for example, would be useless.
Sure, you could implement one, but it would have no use because infos about ennemy units in the "fog of war" would never  ever make it to your computer.
Such infos would stay on Battlenet's server and no matter how low-life one would get, he would be fuxxored should he implement a maphack.Now I'm not saying that this time Blizzard got it right and there's not going to be any maphack for SC2, but simply that if a game is correctly made in a client/server way, it leaves way less opportunities for low-lifes to ruin the game.So go ahead Blizzard if you can screw pirates and low-lifes planning to write maphack, bots, etc.We don't want Diablo 1's low-life hacks madness anymore.
D2 was better but the rune SNAFU was really bad.
I know D3's going to be better.I guess by the time we arrive at SC7 and D9 the games are going to be "low-lifes free".
:)
   </sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28545805</id>
	<title>Re:Bonus!</title>
	<author>bill\_kress</author>
	<datestamp>1246474260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>RTFS... It mentioned that this was in part to combat piracy, so yeah... it will probably not allow you to share CD codes.</p><p>Pretty reasonable solution--the ability to just download all the old games (in both PC and Mac--even if you just have an old PC game key) more than makes up for it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>RTFS... It mentioned that this was in part to combat piracy , so yeah... it will probably not allow you to share CD codes.Pretty reasonable solution--the ability to just download all the old games ( in both PC and Mac--even if you just have an old PC game key ) more than makes up for it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>RTFS... It mentioned that this was in part to combat piracy, so yeah... it will probably not allow you to share CD codes.Pretty reasonable solution--the ability to just download all the old games (in both PC and Mac--even if you just have an old PC game key) more than makes up for it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28545013</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28546611</id>
	<title>from battle.net forums</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246476480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> From battle.net forums; Karune is a Blizzard Poster.</p><p><div class="quote"><p><div class="quote"><p>Q u o t e:
</p><p>    I think the reasons starcraft has lasted so long as a game and community are because:

</p><p>    1) Well designed and fun to play game.

</p><p>    2) Free battle.net - Having a place where gamers can come together and play the game 24/7 helps to foster a bolster and lively community.

</p><p>    3) Continued support for the game even after 11 years, they still patch it when it needs a patch.

</p><p>    4) Pro-Starcraft gaming. This is a big deal to serious starcraft players or to anyone that enjoys competition. These games are fun to watch and makes casual players want to play the game.

 </p><p>   5) Lan support. - Lan parties are fun.

 </p><p>   If you take away LAN support you will still have the 4 other pillars for a strong starcraft community. Plus if LAN support helps rid battle.net of hackers, cheaters and piracy because the network traffic is harder to decipher then all the better. That only strengthens the spirit of fair competition on battle.net.</p></div><p>The first 4 pillars are ALL being made better.

</p><p>1) Development time for StarCraft II have far exceeded the original StarCraft in both the standard of quality and duration, to ensure the highest in quality RTS experience we can possibly create.

</p><p>2) Not only is it free to play online for people who purchase the game, Battle.net 2.0 is designed with the new generation of online community and eSports in mind.

</p><p>3) As long as there are people playing our games, we will continue to support them, and we have continued with this tradition with our legacy titles like the original StarCraft.

</p><p>4) StarCraft II was created with eSports as a cornerstone in design philosophy. StarCraft evolved into an eSport.

Preview

Options

Submit

Continue Editing
Preview

Cancel

Get More Comments

Reply

Prefs
Search
Everything will be just tickety-boo today.


</p><p>5) Map Editor will be better than any we have ever released.

</p><p>and:

</p><p>6) ??? - will have to wait and see<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)

</p><p>For me personally- I loved LAN parties, but the direction in which
Battle.net is headed, I would always choose to play on Battle.net &gt; 99\%
of the time and even if for whatever reason I did decide to lug my computer to a friend's
house in this day of age (&lt;1\%), I would still be playing with them on
Battle.net against others at their place.

</p><p>[ Post edited by Karune ]</p></div></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>From battle.net forums ; Karune is a Blizzard Poster.Q u o t e : I think the reasons starcraft has lasted so long as a game and community are because : 1 ) Well designed and fun to play game .
2 ) Free battle.net - Having a place where gamers can come together and play the game 24/7 helps to foster a bolster and lively community .
3 ) Continued support for the game even after 11 years , they still patch it when it needs a patch .
4 ) Pro-Starcraft gaming .
This is a big deal to serious starcraft players or to anyone that enjoys competition .
These games are fun to watch and makes casual players want to play the game .
5 ) Lan support .
- Lan parties are fun .
If you take away LAN support you will still have the 4 other pillars for a strong starcraft community .
Plus if LAN support helps rid battle.net of hackers , cheaters and piracy because the network traffic is harder to decipher then all the better .
That only strengthens the spirit of fair competition on battle.net.The first 4 pillars are ALL being made better .
1 ) Development time for StarCraft II have far exceeded the original StarCraft in both the standard of quality and duration , to ensure the highest in quality RTS experience we can possibly create .
2 ) Not only is it free to play online for people who purchase the game , Battle.net 2.0 is designed with the new generation of online community and eSports in mind .
3 ) As long as there are people playing our games , we will continue to support them , and we have continued with this tradition with our legacy titles like the original StarCraft .
4 ) StarCraft II was created with eSports as a cornerstone in design philosophy .
StarCraft evolved into an eSport .
Preview Options Submit Continue Editing Preview Cancel Get More Comments Reply Prefs Search Everything will be just tickety-boo today .
5 ) Map Editor will be better than any we have ever released .
and : 6 ) ? ? ?
- will have to wait and see : ) For me personally- I loved LAN parties , but the direction in which Battle.net is headed , I would always choose to play on Battle.net &gt; 99 \ % of the time and even if for whatever reason I did decide to lug my computer to a friend 's house in this day of age ( [ Post edited by Karune ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext> From battle.net forums; Karune is a Blizzard Poster.Q u o t e:
    I think the reasons starcraft has lasted so long as a game and community are because:

    1) Well designed and fun to play game.
2) Free battle.net - Having a place where gamers can come together and play the game 24/7 helps to foster a bolster and lively community.
3) Continued support for the game even after 11 years, they still patch it when it needs a patch.
4) Pro-Starcraft gaming.
This is a big deal to serious starcraft players or to anyone that enjoys competition.
These games are fun to watch and makes casual players want to play the game.
5) Lan support.
- Lan parties are fun.
If you take away LAN support you will still have the 4 other pillars for a strong starcraft community.
Plus if LAN support helps rid battle.net of hackers, cheaters and piracy because the network traffic is harder to decipher then all the better.
That only strengthens the spirit of fair competition on battle.net.The first 4 pillars are ALL being made better.
1) Development time for StarCraft II have far exceeded the original StarCraft in both the standard of quality and duration, to ensure the highest in quality RTS experience we can possibly create.
2) Not only is it free to play online for people who purchase the game, Battle.net 2.0 is designed with the new generation of online community and eSports in mind.
3) As long as there are people playing our games, we will continue to support them, and we have continued with this tradition with our legacy titles like the original StarCraft.
4) StarCraft II was created with eSports as a cornerstone in design philosophy.
StarCraft evolved into an eSport.
Preview

Options

Submit

Continue Editing
Preview

Cancel

Get More Comments

Reply

Prefs
Search
Everything will be just tickety-boo today.
5) Map Editor will be better than any we have ever released.
and:

6) ???
- will have to wait and see :)

For me personally- I loved LAN parties, but the direction in which
Battle.net is headed, I would always choose to play on Battle.net &gt; 99\%
of the time and even if for whatever reason I did decide to lug my computer to a friend's
house in this day of age ([ Post edited by Karune ]
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28547251</id>
	<title>Re:Confusing Comparison: RTS vs RPG</title>
	<author>u-235-sentinel</author>
	<datestamp>1246478700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Same here.  I guess I'll have to look elsewhere for my gaming fix.  Even if it runs under Wine, battle.net didn't impress me when I was on it years ago with Starcraft 1.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Same here .
I guess I 'll have to look elsewhere for my gaming fix .
Even if it runs under Wine , battle.net did n't impress me when I was on it years ago with Starcraft 1 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Same here.
I guess I'll have to look elsewhere for my gaming fix.
Even if it runs under Wine, battle.net didn't impress me when I was on it years ago with Starcraft 1.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28545217</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28545963</id>
	<title>Stupid</title>
	<author>nwmcsween</author>
	<datestamp>1246474620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If it's simply using bnet to authenticate I'm fine with that but if everything is hosted online I hope blizzard is ready to have the bnet protocol for starcraft II reverse engineered, becasue thats one hell of a way to piss off your user base</htmltext>
<tokenext>If it 's simply using bnet to authenticate I 'm fine with that but if everything is hosted online I hope blizzard is ready to have the bnet protocol for starcraft II reverse engineered , becasue thats one hell of a way to piss off your user base</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If it's simply using bnet to authenticate I'm fine with that but if everything is hosted online I hope blizzard is ready to have the bnet protocol for starcraft II reverse engineered, becasue thats one hell of a way to piss off your user base</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28554223</id>
	<title>Re:Battle.net, I lose my faith in thee</title>
	<author>Lunzo</author>
	<datestamp>1246473840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I couldn't agree more with the parent. I used to play DotA on Bnet and it was terrible. Every single game was marred by at least one person leaving, either due to their connection just dropping randomly or due to them not being able to cope with their hero getting killed in the first 5 minutes.</p><p>DotA at LANs is fun. No people leaving and the trash talking across the room is great. Also team co-ordination is easier when you can just shout orders out.</p><p>I had plenty of fun with SC at LANs back in the day too. I didn't think I'd say this but I might skip buying SC2 if it doesn't support LAN play. From what little I'd seen it just looked like a graphics update to Star Craft. Forget paying for it thrice over and not being able to properly play against my friends.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I could n't agree more with the parent .
I used to play DotA on Bnet and it was terrible .
Every single game was marred by at least one person leaving , either due to their connection just dropping randomly or due to them not being able to cope with their hero getting killed in the first 5 minutes.DotA at LANs is fun .
No people leaving and the trash talking across the room is great .
Also team co-ordination is easier when you can just shout orders out.I had plenty of fun with SC at LANs back in the day too .
I did n't think I 'd say this but I might skip buying SC2 if it does n't support LAN play .
From what little I 'd seen it just looked like a graphics update to Star Craft .
Forget paying for it thrice over and not being able to properly play against my friends .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I couldn't agree more with the parent.
I used to play DotA on Bnet and it was terrible.
Every single game was marred by at least one person leaving, either due to their connection just dropping randomly or due to them not being able to cope with their hero getting killed in the first 5 minutes.DotA at LANs is fun.
No people leaving and the trash talking across the room is great.
Also team co-ordination is easier when you can just shout orders out.I had plenty of fun with SC at LANs back in the day too.
I didn't think I'd say this but I might skip buying SC2 if it doesn't support LAN play.
From what little I'd seen it just looked like a graphics update to Star Craft.
Forget paying for it thrice over and not being able to properly play against my friends.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28545267</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28547261</id>
	<title>Re:Disappointing</title>
	<author>Haffner</author>
	<datestamp>1246478700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>What you need to understand is that Blizzard doesn't care how much fun you have playing their game, they care that you buy it. Rather than make a 10 game, they make an 8 game with the -2 owing to cripplingly stupid multiplayer restrictions. But guess what? they make more money. Blizzard is now owned by a parent company who cares more about money than great games, and that is going to become more and more apparent.

Bottom line: Blizzard weighed the options of forcing more people to a. buy the game and b. see bnet ads versus people who will not buy the game without lan, and Blizzard decided it was in their best interest to pick the former.</htmltext>
<tokenext>What you need to understand is that Blizzard does n't care how much fun you have playing their game , they care that you buy it .
Rather than make a 10 game , they make an 8 game with the -2 owing to cripplingly stupid multiplayer restrictions .
But guess what ?
they make more money .
Blizzard is now owned by a parent company who cares more about money than great games , and that is going to become more and more apparent .
Bottom line : Blizzard weighed the options of forcing more people to a. buy the game and b. see bnet ads versus people who will not buy the game without lan , and Blizzard decided it was in their best interest to pick the former .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What you need to understand is that Blizzard doesn't care how much fun you have playing their game, they care that you buy it.
Rather than make a 10 game, they make an 8 game with the -2 owing to cripplingly stupid multiplayer restrictions.
But guess what?
they make more money.
Blizzard is now owned by a parent company who cares more about money than great games, and that is going to become more and more apparent.
Bottom line: Blizzard weighed the options of forcing more people to a. buy the game and b. see bnet ads versus people who will not buy the game without lan, and Blizzard decided it was in their best interest to pick the former.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28544977</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28549113</id>
	<title>Re:Does anyone remember when...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246441080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>You are a moron if you believed that.  Blizzard is a company.  Its goal is to make money.  Was true then, is true now.  Given as much time and work that they put in to their games, I have no doubt this game will be great as well.  All the modded up comments are just people over-reacting (as usual).  If Blizzard can run servers that can keep WoW up and running, I have no doubt that they can do a good job managing the SC2 servers as well.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You are a moron if you believed that .
Blizzard is a company .
Its goal is to make money .
Was true then , is true now .
Given as much time and work that they put in to their games , I have no doubt this game will be great as well .
All the modded up comments are just people over-reacting ( as usual ) .
If Blizzard can run servers that can keep WoW up and running , I have no doubt that they can do a good job managing the SC2 servers as well .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You are a moron if you believed that.
Blizzard is a company.
Its goal is to make money.
Was true then, is true now.
Given as much time and work that they put in to their games, I have no doubt this game will be great as well.
All the modded up comments are just people over-reacting (as usual).
If Blizzard can run servers that can keep WoW up and running, I have no doubt that they can do a good job managing the SC2 servers as well.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28545105</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28546101</id>
	<title>Well...</title>
	<author>yoshi\_mon</author>
	<datestamp>1246475040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><nobr> <wbr></nobr></p><div class="quote"><p>...citing piracy and quality concerns...</p></div><p>I just had lunch so I am going to use the summery here instead of wading though any marketspeak.  At first I was upset that they are trying to coat an obvious desire to have the best DRM option over with 'quality'.  But then I thought, hell, at least they cited piracy.  That's a hell of a lot more than most do these days.</p><p>I've grown so used to seeing everything spun without even a nod to the actual issue that it took a few before it sunk in that Blizz at least gave us that nod.  Not that at the end of the day it makes a damn bit of difference.  Their reasoning behind it is still weak at best and I'm sure they know it.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>...citing piracy and quality concerns...I just had lunch so I am going to use the summery here instead of wading though any marketspeak .
At first I was upset that they are trying to coat an obvious desire to have the best DRM option over with 'quality' .
But then I thought , hell , at least they cited piracy .
That 's a hell of a lot more than most do these days.I 've grown so used to seeing everything spun without even a nod to the actual issue that it took a few before it sunk in that Blizz at least gave us that nod .
Not that at the end of the day it makes a damn bit of difference .
Their reasoning behind it is still weak at best and I 'm sure they know it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> ...citing piracy and quality concerns...I just had lunch so I am going to use the summery here instead of wading though any marketspeak.
At first I was upset that they are trying to coat an obvious desire to have the best DRM option over with 'quality'.
But then I thought, hell, at least they cited piracy.
That's a hell of a lot more than most do these days.I've grown so used to seeing everything spun without even a nod to the actual issue that it took a few before it sunk in that Blizz at least gave us that nod.
Not that at the end of the day it makes a damn bit of difference.
Their reasoning behind it is still weak at best and I'm sure they know it.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28547867</id>
	<title>Compromise?</title>
	<author>sanosuke001</author>
	<datestamp>1246480620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I understand their piracy stance. However, all they would have to do to make me happy would be to require bnet authentication when starting a game and then letting the game itself run over the lan without the need of an external connection. Hell, have it authenticate every minute or two. A shared pipe could easily accommodate that. But my measly 40k up speed probably can't handle an 8-man lan...</htmltext>
<tokenext>I understand their piracy stance .
However , all they would have to do to make me happy would be to require bnet authentication when starting a game and then letting the game itself run over the lan without the need of an external connection .
Hell , have it authenticate every minute or two .
A shared pipe could easily accommodate that .
But my measly 40k up speed probably ca n't handle an 8-man lan.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I understand their piracy stance.
However, all they would have to do to make me happy would be to require bnet authentication when starting a game and then letting the game itself run over the lan without the need of an external connection.
Hell, have it authenticate every minute or two.
A shared pipe could easily accommodate that.
But my measly 40k up speed probably can't handle an 8-man lan...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28544977</id>
	<title>Disappointing</title>
	<author>ZinnHelden</author>
	<datestamp>1246471800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Quite disappointing, considering some friends and I still get together and play an 8 man LAN every month or so of Starcraft 1.  Feels like an internet connection would be saturated if we were all trying to send data back and forth to BNet, especially the uplink.  Maybe if BNet is just used for a quick auth and lobby, then a LAN game is started, that might not be so bad, but it's not looking that way.  <br> <br>Shame the official reason is to combat piracy as well, since it seems this will cause more players to find BNet emulators and won't solve the piracy problem.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Quite disappointing , considering some friends and I still get together and play an 8 man LAN every month or so of Starcraft 1 .
Feels like an internet connection would be saturated if we were all trying to send data back and forth to BNet , especially the uplink .
Maybe if BNet is just used for a quick auth and lobby , then a LAN game is started , that might not be so bad , but it 's not looking that way .
Shame the official reason is to combat piracy as well , since it seems this will cause more players to find BNet emulators and wo n't solve the piracy problem .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Quite disappointing, considering some friends and I still get together and play an 8 man LAN every month or so of Starcraft 1.
Feels like an internet connection would be saturated if we were all trying to send data back and forth to BNet, especially the uplink.
Maybe if BNet is just used for a quick auth and lobby, then a LAN game is started, that might not be so bad, but it's not looking that way.
Shame the official reason is to combat piracy as well, since it seems this will cause more players to find BNet emulators and won't solve the piracy problem.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28548133</id>
	<title>Re:Confusing Comparison: RTS vs RPG</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246481340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>As for batttle.net, if it is like the diablo II days, they are in trouble. It sucked back then.</p></div><p>Speaking of the devil, it makes me really worried they'll do the same for Diablo 3.  I wanted to play with my distant relatives, but battle.net was always our most heinous enemy.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>As for batttle.net , if it is like the diablo II days , they are in trouble .
It sucked back then.Speaking of the devil , it makes me really worried they 'll do the same for Diablo 3 .
I wanted to play with my distant relatives , but battle.net was always our most heinous enemy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As for batttle.net, if it is like the diablo II days, they are in trouble.
It sucked back then.Speaking of the devil, it makes me really worried they'll do the same for Diablo 3.
I wanted to play with my distant relatives, but battle.net was always our most heinous enemy.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28545099</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28547351</id>
	<title>Re:Bunch of BS</title>
	<author>osu-neko</author>
	<datestamp>1246479000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>THis is the result of a great gaming house bought by a corporate whore. [...]  Can someone at least point me to a link that explains their 'reasoning' on this?</p></div><p>What would be the point?  Your mind is already made up.  Or do you really think when you've reached the point of calling someone a "corporate whore", that when you read what they say on a subject, you aren't going to simply consider it propaganda?</p><p>They explained it in their press releases.  You didn't buy the explanation.  No point rereading it...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>THis is the result of a great gaming house bought by a corporate whore .
[ ... ] Can someone at least point me to a link that explains their 'reasoning ' on this ? What would be the point ?
Your mind is already made up .
Or do you really think when you 've reached the point of calling someone a " corporate whore " , that when you read what they say on a subject , you are n't going to simply consider it propaganda ? They explained it in their press releases .
You did n't buy the explanation .
No point rereading it.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>THis is the result of a great gaming house bought by a corporate whore.
[...]  Can someone at least point me to a link that explains their 'reasoning' on this?What would be the point?
Your mind is already made up.
Or do you really think when you've reached the point of calling someone a "corporate whore", that when you read what they say on a subject, you aren't going to simply consider it propaganda?They explained it in their press releases.
You didn't buy the explanation.
No point rereading it...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28545149</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28546737</id>
	<title>Re:The only form of DRM that works</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246476960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>But it won't work. At all. This is an epic backfire waiting to happen.</p><p>Unlike WoW, where you really need an official account to play on official servers because that's where all the people are, at a LAN, you know where all the people are. You can throw things at them. You don't need a central server to tell you that!</p><p>This is, therefore, not an inseparable system, it's a break-once-break-anywhere system in basic design, and it will be 100\% cracked very quickly because this is something that could stop people from playing StarCraft, which is one hell of a motivator for some very talented people. Seriously, this protection will be facerolled, and will serve only to inconvenience people who don't have the crack.</p><p>And the crack will be widely used and handed out at said LAN parties via sneakernet, much as the "steam-free" versions of Counter-Strike have become dominant at many LAN parties, and for the exact same reason. It only worked for them eventually because Steam developed an offline mode - which allows for the exact thing that you confirm that you will <b>not</b> allow, LAN play! - and because, in time, Steam grew to become a very big major online game service. But Steamfree still exists, because the problem was created to solve in the first place, and the crackers happily filled that need.</p><p>This is not a good response to piracy. It won't fix the problem, it'll make it one hell of a lot worse by forcing a lot of players into pirating (or at least cracking) the game to be able to play it in one of its most used arenas.</p><p>It's a shit idea, Blizzard. Reconsider.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>But it wo n't work .
At all .
This is an epic backfire waiting to happen.Unlike WoW , where you really need an official account to play on official servers because that 's where all the people are , at a LAN , you know where all the people are .
You can throw things at them .
You do n't need a central server to tell you that ! This is , therefore , not an inseparable system , it 's a break-once-break-anywhere system in basic design , and it will be 100 \ % cracked very quickly because this is something that could stop people from playing StarCraft , which is one hell of a motivator for some very talented people .
Seriously , this protection will be facerolled , and will serve only to inconvenience people who do n't have the crack.And the crack will be widely used and handed out at said LAN parties via sneakernet , much as the " steam-free " versions of Counter-Strike have become dominant at many LAN parties , and for the exact same reason .
It only worked for them eventually because Steam developed an offline mode - which allows for the exact thing that you confirm that you will not allow , LAN play !
- and because , in time , Steam grew to become a very big major online game service .
But Steamfree still exists , because the problem was created to solve in the first place , and the crackers happily filled that need.This is not a good response to piracy .
It wo n't fix the problem , it 'll make it one hell of a lot worse by forcing a lot of players into pirating ( or at least cracking ) the game to be able to play it in one of its most used arenas.It 's a shit idea , Blizzard .
Reconsider .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But it won't work.
At all.
This is an epic backfire waiting to happen.Unlike WoW, where you really need an official account to play on official servers because that's where all the people are, at a LAN, you know where all the people are.
You can throw things at them.
You don't need a central server to tell you that!This is, therefore, not an inseparable system, it's a break-once-break-anywhere system in basic design, and it will be 100\% cracked very quickly because this is something that could stop people from playing StarCraft, which is one hell of a motivator for some very talented people.
Seriously, this protection will be facerolled, and will serve only to inconvenience people who don't have the crack.And the crack will be widely used and handed out at said LAN parties via sneakernet, much as the "steam-free" versions of Counter-Strike have become dominant at many LAN parties, and for the exact same reason.
It only worked for them eventually because Steam developed an offline mode - which allows for the exact thing that you confirm that you will not allow, LAN play!
- and because, in time, Steam grew to become a very big major online game service.
But Steamfree still exists, because the problem was created to solve in the first place, and the crackers happily filled that need.This is not a good response to piracy.
It won't fix the problem, it'll make it one hell of a lot worse by forcing a lot of players into pirating (or at least cracking) the game to be able to play it in one of its most used arenas.It's a shit idea, Blizzard.
Reconsider.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28545103</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28558865</id>
	<title>LOL</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246554600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I was actually GOING to buy this game (first game I bought since Starcraft I) but now that they have insulted us by taking out LAN I will definitely NOT buy this game!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I was actually GOING to buy this game ( first game I bought since Starcraft I ) but now that they have insulted us by taking out LAN I will definitely NOT buy this game !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I was actually GOING to buy this game (first game I bought since Starcraft I) but now that they have insulted us by taking out LAN I will definitely NOT buy this game!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28545667</id>
	<title>Guess I just won't buy it then</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246473780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I have been waiting for this release for quite some time now. I have faithfully worshiped the screen shots, the anticipation was just killing me. Fond memories of Starcraft 1 LAN games still fresh in my mind. With this new twist, well it is like a virtual kick in the balls. Blizzard has pissed on these fond memories without a care in the world. The massive success of WoW has blinded them to what the game players really desire. The justifications are a thinly veiled attempt at retaining control over the user experience. I, like many others will probably never purchase this game unless they reverse the decision. It has now become something I have no reason to spend $59.99 of my money on. Thanks but no thanks gentlemen...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have been waiting for this release for quite some time now .
I have faithfully worshiped the screen shots , the anticipation was just killing me .
Fond memories of Starcraft 1 LAN games still fresh in my mind .
With this new twist , well it is like a virtual kick in the balls .
Blizzard has pissed on these fond memories without a care in the world .
The massive success of WoW has blinded them to what the game players really desire .
The justifications are a thinly veiled attempt at retaining control over the user experience .
I , like many others will probably never purchase this game unless they reverse the decision .
It has now become something I have no reason to spend $ 59.99 of my money on .
Thanks but no thanks gentlemen.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have been waiting for this release for quite some time now.
I have faithfully worshiped the screen shots, the anticipation was just killing me.
Fond memories of Starcraft 1 LAN games still fresh in my mind.
With this new twist, well it is like a virtual kick in the balls.
Blizzard has pissed on these fond memories without a care in the world.
The massive success of WoW has blinded them to what the game players really desire.
The justifications are a thinly veiled attempt at retaining control over the user experience.
I, like many others will probably never purchase this game unless they reverse the decision.
It has now become something I have no reason to spend $59.99 of my money on.
Thanks but no thanks gentlemen...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28547139</id>
	<title>Re:Does anyone remember when...</title>
	<author>osu-neko</author>
	<datestamp>1246478280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Remember KALI?</p></div><p>I'm sure they do.  LAN play was perfectly possible without it, but Kali enabled it over TCP/IP, allowing it to be done over the internet.  So if Kali is what make WC2 a success, then building that ability into the game (via Battle.net) is a good idea.  Is there some reason you're thinking this was an argument in your favor rather than theirs?</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Oh yah.. I forgot, DRM and other Piracy measures work sooooo well don't they?</p></div><p>They don't, and they know it, that's why they're doing it this way instead.  DRM doesn't work, but they don't have a problem with piracy with their online-only games (or at least a smaller problem by several orders of magnitude).</p><p>So... you've pointed out several good points why Blizzard would want to do this.  Did you have any points against, or was your point to argue that this is, indeed, a good idea for Blizzard?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Remember KALI ? I 'm sure they do .
LAN play was perfectly possible without it , but Kali enabled it over TCP/IP , allowing it to be done over the internet .
So if Kali is what make WC2 a success , then building that ability into the game ( via Battle.net ) is a good idea .
Is there some reason you 're thinking this was an argument in your favor rather than theirs ? Oh yah.. I forgot , DRM and other Piracy measures work sooooo well do n't they ? They do n't , and they know it , that 's why they 're doing it this way instead .
DRM does n't work , but they do n't have a problem with piracy with their online-only games ( or at least a smaller problem by several orders of magnitude ) .So... you 've pointed out several good points why Blizzard would want to do this .
Did you have any points against , or was your point to argue that this is , indeed , a good idea for Blizzard ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Remember KALI?I'm sure they do.
LAN play was perfectly possible without it, but Kali enabled it over TCP/IP, allowing it to be done over the internet.
So if Kali is what make WC2 a success, then building that ability into the game (via Battle.net) is a good idea.
Is there some reason you're thinking this was an argument in your favor rather than theirs?Oh yah.. I forgot, DRM and other Piracy measures work sooooo well don't they?They don't, and they know it, that's why they're doing it this way instead.
DRM doesn't work, but they don't have a problem with piracy with their online-only games (or at least a smaller problem by several orders of magnitude).So... you've pointed out several good points why Blizzard would want to do this.
Did you have any points against, or was your point to argue that this is, indeed, a good idea for Blizzard?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28545105</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28561193</id>
	<title>*Sigh*</title>
	<author>StrikerZeroX</author>
	<datestamp>1246561740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I was so looking forward to this game. I doubt I am even going to buy it now...</htmltext>
<tokenext>I was so looking forward to this game .
I doubt I am even going to buy it now.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I was so looking forward to this game.
I doubt I am even going to buy it now...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28549201</id>
	<title>Re:I think they just increased piracy.</title>
	<author>brkello</author>
	<datestamp>1246441380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Not really.  Whenever a company does almost anything, people will jump on it and use it as a justification to pirate.  They were going to pirate it anyways, but they now have moral outrage to justify their pathetic actions.<br> <br>And I don't think many companies will want to sell insurance to pirates.  Though the Somali pirates are doing quite well, so it might pay off.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Not really .
Whenever a company does almost anything , people will jump on it and use it as a justification to pirate .
They were going to pirate it anyways , but they now have moral outrage to justify their pathetic actions .
And I do n't think many companies will want to sell insurance to pirates .
Though the Somali pirates are doing quite well , so it might pay off .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not really.
Whenever a company does almost anything, people will jump on it and use it as a justification to pirate.
They were going to pirate it anyways, but they now have moral outrage to justify their pathetic actions.
And I don't think many companies will want to sell insurance to pirates.
Though the Somali pirates are doing quite well, so it might pay off.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28545603</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28549851</id>
	<title>Re:The only form of DRM that works</title>
	<author>MeanderingMind</author>
	<datestamp>1246443300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>In 11 years (present age of SC), will Blizzard still be running SC2 servers so you can play against your friend next door? I can do that with SC today - pop in the disc &amp; play a few rounds head to head, no trouble.</p></div><p>You're talking about a company that recently patched an 11 year old game to be playable without the CD.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>It's about a guaranteed income stream for as long as Blizzard feels like keeping it around, just like WoW. It's not to stop piracy, it's to force people to pay them to use their servers. If anything, you'd expect Blizzard to <b>want</b> people copying the game itself, because they'll subsequently sign up for online play.</p></div><p>Because Battle.net costs money.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>In 11 years ( present age of SC ) , will Blizzard still be running SC2 servers so you can play against your friend next door ?
I can do that with SC today - pop in the disc &amp; play a few rounds head to head , no trouble.You 're talking about a company that recently patched an 11 year old game to be playable without the CD.It 's about a guaranteed income stream for as long as Blizzard feels like keeping it around , just like WoW .
It 's not to stop piracy , it 's to force people to pay them to use their servers .
If anything , you 'd expect Blizzard to want people copying the game itself , because they 'll subsequently sign up for online play.Because Battle.net costs money .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In 11 years (present age of SC), will Blizzard still be running SC2 servers so you can play against your friend next door?
I can do that with SC today - pop in the disc &amp; play a few rounds head to head, no trouble.You're talking about a company that recently patched an 11 year old game to be playable without the CD.It's about a guaranteed income stream for as long as Blizzard feels like keeping it around, just like WoW.
It's not to stop piracy, it's to force people to pay them to use their servers.
If anything, you'd expect Blizzard to want people copying the game itself, because they'll subsequently sign up for online play.Because Battle.net costs money.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28546733</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28547371</id>
	<title>Re:Disappointing</title>
	<author>Scared Rabbit</author>
	<datestamp>1246479060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Amen.  I enjoyed the original, but I won't be picking this up.  While blizzard may be bigger than flagship and less likely to just go away all of a sudden than flagship was, I won't take the risk of being burned again.  Buying hellgate and not being able to play online in ways other than through their servers pretty much ended how much I enjoyed hellgate.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Amen .
I enjoyed the original , but I wo n't be picking this up .
While blizzard may be bigger than flagship and less likely to just go away all of a sudden than flagship was , I wo n't take the risk of being burned again .
Buying hellgate and not being able to play online in ways other than through their servers pretty much ended how much I enjoyed hellgate .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Amen.
I enjoyed the original, but I won't be picking this up.
While blizzard may be bigger than flagship and less likely to just go away all of a sudden than flagship was, I won't take the risk of being burned again.
Buying hellgate and not being able to play online in ways other than through their servers pretty much ended how much I enjoyed hellgate.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28545389</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28545435</id>
	<title>Re:Broadband killed LAN parties</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246473060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I've been hosting LAN parties since the days of Starcraft and Quake, and I can't imagine stopping any time soon.  A microphone and a set of speakers is not a replacement for a friend.  I find it pretty sad that you, and apparently Blizzard, think that the internet is a replacement for genuine human interaction.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've been hosting LAN parties since the days of Starcraft and Quake , and I ca n't imagine stopping any time soon .
A microphone and a set of speakers is not a replacement for a friend .
I find it pretty sad that you , and apparently Blizzard , think that the internet is a replacement for genuine human interaction .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've been hosting LAN parties since the days of Starcraft and Quake, and I can't imagine stopping any time soon.
A microphone and a set of speakers is not a replacement for a friend.
I find it pretty sad that you, and apparently Blizzard, think that the internet is a replacement for genuine human interaction.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28545131</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28552225</id>
	<title>Re:It will still communicate over Lan</title>
	<author>Vegeta99</author>
	<datestamp>1246454520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The battle.net servers might not know your internal LAN IP, but your machine (and thus the starcraft client) do. Easy 'nuf.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The battle.net servers might not know your internal LAN IP , but your machine ( and thus the starcraft client ) do .
Easy 'nuf .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The battle.net servers might not know your internal LAN IP, but your machine (and thus the starcraft client) do.
Easy 'nuf.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28545635</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28549385</id>
	<title>Re:Disappointing</title>
	<author>MLS100</author>
	<datestamp>1246441860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Thank you. About time someone with sense spoke up.</p><p>Create a private bnet channel/game with all your LAN buddies and it'll run just as well as LAN once you get in the game provided they use the same game hosting model they used for SC, WC2 Bnet Ed and WC3.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Thank you .
About time someone with sense spoke up.Create a private bnet channel/game with all your LAN buddies and it 'll run just as well as LAN once you get in the game provided they use the same game hosting model they used for SC , WC2 Bnet Ed and WC3 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Thank you.
About time someone with sense spoke up.Create a private bnet channel/game with all your LAN buddies and it'll run just as well as LAN once you get in the game provided they use the same game hosting model they used for SC, WC2 Bnet Ed and WC3.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28546147</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28546303</id>
	<title>Re:Confusing Comparison: RTS vs RPG</title>
	<author>Xaoswolf</author>
	<datestamp>1246475580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Especially since the shared connection to battlenet for multiple people will never be as good as a connection on a LAN</htmltext>
<tokenext>Especially since the shared connection to battlenet for multiple people will never be as good as a connection on a LAN</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Especially since the shared connection to battlenet for multiple people will never be as good as a connection on a LAN</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28545217</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28545099</id>
	<title>Re:Confusing Comparison: RTS vs RPG</title>
	<author>BlackSnake112</author>
	<datestamp>1246472040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There are other MMOs that are like that. For example, guild wars has many people in towns, but where you do most things the number is 8 (or 16 for certain missions). It is not as big as WOW but it has a good number of people. Guild wars has no monthly fee and totally online. No LAN based play.</p><p>As for batttle.net, if it is like the diablo II days, they are in trouble. It sucked back then.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There are other MMOs that are like that .
For example , guild wars has many people in towns , but where you do most things the number is 8 ( or 16 for certain missions ) .
It is not as big as WOW but it has a good number of people .
Guild wars has no monthly fee and totally online .
No LAN based play.As for batttle.net , if it is like the diablo II days , they are in trouble .
It sucked back then .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There are other MMOs that are like that.
For example, guild wars has many people in towns, but where you do most things the number is 8 (or 16 for certain missions).
It is not as big as WOW but it has a good number of people.
Guild wars has no monthly fee and totally online.
No LAN based play.As for batttle.net, if it is like the diablo II days, they are in trouble.
It sucked back then.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28544905</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28546381</id>
	<title>better have NAT then</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246475820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>it better have NAT so I can play with people on a LAN behind the same IP. SC1 wouldn't let 2 people on the same IP play on the bnet in the same game without crippling lag.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>it better have NAT so I can play with people on a LAN behind the same IP .
SC1 would n't let 2 people on the same IP play on the bnet in the same game without crippling lag .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>it better have NAT so I can play with people on a LAN behind the same IP.
SC1 wouldn't let 2 people on the same IP play on the bnet in the same game without crippling lag.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28549995</id>
	<title>The big irony - BlizzCon</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246443780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The thing I notice is - if you have played any of the pre-releases at BlizzCon, you played it in LAN mode.  I wonder if this year's BlizzCon will be using Battle.net for the demo stations.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The thing I notice is - if you have played any of the pre-releases at BlizzCon , you played it in LAN mode .
I wonder if this year 's BlizzCon will be using Battle.net for the demo stations .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The thing I notice is - if you have played any of the pre-releases at BlizzCon, you played it in LAN mode.
I wonder if this year's BlizzCon will be using Battle.net for the demo stations.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28552249</id>
	<title>Spawn</title>
	<author>Bensam123</author>
	<datestamp>1246454700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm sure everyone remembers spawn copies so only one person needed a disk to play on a LAN? Whatever happened to that line of thought?</p><p>Blizzard is no longer the company I once knew them to be and worshiped, they got sunk by the fat WoW cow.</p><p>Now I look to companies like Stardock/Ironclad who seem to have gotten the right idea about how to treat it's users. IE giving people what they pay for.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm sure everyone remembers spawn copies so only one person needed a disk to play on a LAN ?
Whatever happened to that line of thought ? Blizzard is no longer the company I once knew them to be and worshiped , they got sunk by the fat WoW cow.Now I look to companies like Stardock/Ironclad who seem to have gotten the right idea about how to treat it 's users .
IE giving people what they pay for .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm sure everyone remembers spawn copies so only one person needed a disk to play on a LAN?
Whatever happened to that line of thought?Blizzard is no longer the company I once knew them to be and worshiped, they got sunk by the fat WoW cow.Now I look to companies like Stardock/Ironclad who seem to have gotten the right idea about how to treat it's users.
IE giving people what they pay for.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28545117</id>
	<title>Maps</title>
	<author>StickansT</author>
	<datestamp>1246472100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>So how will people edit maps and then test them? I mean i know there will be 3rd party ways to lan this but is Blizzard trying to prevent me from taking a map, editing it, then having a few friends over to test it out before putting it online? or will all this be done through bnet?</htmltext>
<tokenext>So how will people edit maps and then test them ?
I mean i know there will be 3rd party ways to lan this but is Blizzard trying to prevent me from taking a map , editing it , then having a few friends over to test it out before putting it online ?
or will all this be done through bnet ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So how will people edit maps and then test them?
I mean i know there will be 3rd party ways to lan this but is Blizzard trying to prevent me from taking a map, editing it, then having a few friends over to test it out before putting it online?
or will all this be done through bnet?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28545911</id>
	<title>Doesn't matter if it doesn't get released</title>
	<author>sportster</author>
	<datestamp>1246474500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>How long have they been talking about Starcraft II?

I'm beginning to believe it will have the same release date as Duke Nukem Forever......</htmltext>
<tokenext>How long have they been talking about Starcraft II ?
I 'm beginning to believe it will have the same release date as Duke Nukem Forever..... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How long have they been talking about Starcraft II?
I'm beginning to believe it will have the same release date as Duke Nukem Forever......</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28549067</id>
	<title>Up yours Blizzard!</title>
	<author>KeithHansen</author>
	<datestamp>1246440960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>That really sucks for families, and or people rooming together that wish to play. I have two kids and 3 PCs.  I guess we will have to create a private game on battle.net then all play via one modem connection.  Up yours Blizzard! I may skip this game. I given enough money to you guys over the years(D2,wartcraff3, and monthly WOW).</htmltext>
<tokenext>That really sucks for families , and or people rooming together that wish to play .
I have two kids and 3 PCs .
I guess we will have to create a private game on battle.net then all play via one modem connection .
Up yours Blizzard !
I may skip this game .
I given enough money to you guys over the years ( D2,wartcraff3 , and monthly WOW ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That really sucks for families, and or people rooming together that wish to play.
I have two kids and 3 PCs.
I guess we will have to create a private game on battle.net then all play via one modem connection.
Up yours Blizzard!
I may skip this game.
I given enough money to you guys over the years(D2,wartcraff3, and monthly WOW).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28548695</id>
	<title>Re:Disappointing</title>
	<author>mr\_mischief</author>
	<datestamp>1246439880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Please explain to me how TCP/IP only handles 255 computers. You know the Internet is TCP/IP, right, with over 4 billion addresses? If you understand CIDR, you can easily have a broadcast to more than 255 addresses, too. Isn't it more likely that the game lobby software is what limits the size of the players in each lobby?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Please explain to me how TCP/IP only handles 255 computers .
You know the Internet is TCP/IP , right , with over 4 billion addresses ?
If you understand CIDR , you can easily have a broadcast to more than 255 addresses , too .
Is n't it more likely that the game lobby software is what limits the size of the players in each lobby ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Please explain to me how TCP/IP only handles 255 computers.
You know the Internet is TCP/IP, right, with over 4 billion addresses?
If you understand CIDR, you can easily have a broadcast to more than 255 addresses, too.
Isn't it more likely that the game lobby software is what limits the size of the players in each lobby?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28545673</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28547815</id>
	<title>Re:Confusing Comparison: RTS vs RPG</title>
	<author>countvlad</author>
	<datestamp>1246480560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Just wait until b.net starts adding xbox/wii/ps3 "features" such as avatars, achievements, etc, etc.  You know, the bullshit that contributes nothing to gameplay but allows the marketing department to include "social networking" on the product description.  Yup, I can definitely see how lag, random disconnects, and chat rooms full of prepubescent retards will improve the "quality" of my experience.<br> <br>
I had immense fun playing Blizzard's classics on LAN (and to a lesser degree on b.net), ranging from WC2 to Diablo 2.  Saying I'm disappointed is an understatement; I'm fucking outraged.<br> <br>I don't understand why Blizzard has arrived at the illogical conclusion that this is an anti piracy/quality measure, as loyal customers like me aren't going to shell out $60 for a crippled game and are all too familiar with b.net's "quality".  If you want to stop piracy, lower prices and cease punishing your returning customer base.<br> <br>
Shit like b.net is just built in DRM, so that when Blizzard inevitably closes their doors all their games cease functioning as well.  So much for posterity.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Just wait until b.net starts adding xbox/wii/ps3 " features " such as avatars , achievements , etc , etc .
You know , the bullshit that contributes nothing to gameplay but allows the marketing department to include " social networking " on the product description .
Yup , I can definitely see how lag , random disconnects , and chat rooms full of prepubescent retards will improve the " quality " of my experience .
I had immense fun playing Blizzard 's classics on LAN ( and to a lesser degree on b.net ) , ranging from WC2 to Diablo 2 .
Saying I 'm disappointed is an understatement ; I 'm fucking outraged .
I do n't understand why Blizzard has arrived at the illogical conclusion that this is an anti piracy/quality measure , as loyal customers like me are n't going to shell out $ 60 for a crippled game and are all too familiar with b.net 's " quality " .
If you want to stop piracy , lower prices and cease punishing your returning customer base .
Shit like b.net is just built in DRM , so that when Blizzard inevitably closes their doors all their games cease functioning as well .
So much for posterity .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just wait until b.net starts adding xbox/wii/ps3 "features" such as avatars, achievements, etc, etc.
You know, the bullshit that contributes nothing to gameplay but allows the marketing department to include "social networking" on the product description.
Yup, I can definitely see how lag, random disconnects, and chat rooms full of prepubescent retards will improve the "quality" of my experience.
I had immense fun playing Blizzard's classics on LAN (and to a lesser degree on b.net), ranging from WC2 to Diablo 2.
Saying I'm disappointed is an understatement; I'm fucking outraged.
I don't understand why Blizzard has arrived at the illogical conclusion that this is an anti piracy/quality measure, as loyal customers like me aren't going to shell out $60 for a crippled game and are all too familiar with b.net's "quality".
If you want to stop piracy, lower prices and cease punishing your returning customer base.
Shit like b.net is just built in DRM, so that when Blizzard inevitably closes their doors all their games cease functioning as well.
So much for posterity.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28545217</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28546551</id>
	<title>Re:Come on, guys. Lighten up.</title>
	<author>Nemyst</author>
	<datestamp>1246476300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Sorry if I don't feed on "legends", but I'll pass on this one.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Sorry if I do n't feed on " legends " , but I 'll pass on this one .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sorry if I don't feed on "legends", but I'll pass on this one.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28545631</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28545949</id>
	<title>Re:Bonus!</title>
	<author>hedwards</author>
	<datestamp>1246474620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It was spawning, and it was a huge part of why Diablo, Starcraft and Warcraft were so popular. You had to have a copy for every, two I think, players, and when the copy wasn't there it reverted to a shareware experience, IIRC.<br> <br>

I can accept and understand if they're not wanting to allow spawning any longer, but banning local net play is just wrong. There's just something about playing multiplayer and hearing somebody cursing in the other room because they've just noticed that you've been slaughtering their doods.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It was spawning , and it was a huge part of why Diablo , Starcraft and Warcraft were so popular .
You had to have a copy for every , two I think , players , and when the copy was n't there it reverted to a shareware experience , IIRC .
I can accept and understand if they 're not wanting to allow spawning any longer , but banning local net play is just wrong .
There 's just something about playing multiplayer and hearing somebody cursing in the other room because they 've just noticed that you 've been slaughtering their doods .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It was spawning, and it was a huge part of why Diablo, Starcraft and Warcraft were so popular.
You had to have a copy for every, two I think, players, and when the copy wasn't there it reverted to a shareware experience, IIRC.
I can accept and understand if they're not wanting to allow spawning any longer, but banning local net play is just wrong.
There's just something about playing multiplayer and hearing somebody cursing in the other room because they've just noticed that you've been slaughtering their doods.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28545013</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28546073</id>
	<title>Less reliable</title>
	<author>gubers33</author>
	<datestamp>1246474920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Battle.net is far less reliable than LAN play. Internet connections are far more likely to drop than LAN play which really never drops unless you have a hardware issue. As well, Bnet frequently has delays and drops players in Warcraft III so I don't foresee Starcraft II being any different. As well with Bnet, some players have delays due to slower internet connection.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Battle.net is far less reliable than LAN play .
Internet connections are far more likely to drop than LAN play which really never drops unless you have a hardware issue .
As well , Bnet frequently has delays and drops players in Warcraft III so I do n't foresee Starcraft II being any different .
As well with Bnet , some players have delays due to slower internet connection .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Battle.net is far less reliable than LAN play.
Internet connections are far more likely to drop than LAN play which really never drops unless you have a hardware issue.
As well, Bnet frequently has delays and drops players in Warcraft III so I don't foresee Starcraft II being any different.
As well with Bnet, some players have delays due to slower internet connection.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28545469</id>
	<title>Do not buy</title>
	<author>emkyooess</author>
	<datestamp>1246473180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It was easy to see this coming.  They already said that LAN play was axed from Diablo 3, and we saw direct TCP/IP axed even as far back as Warcraft 3 (requiring tunnels like Hamachi to play across the 'net but not battle.net).  Blizzard fans/apologists will lap it up, nonetheless.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It was easy to see this coming .
They already said that LAN play was axed from Diablo 3 , and we saw direct TCP/IP axed even as far back as Warcraft 3 ( requiring tunnels like Hamachi to play across the 'net but not battle.net ) .
Blizzard fans/apologists will lap it up , nonetheless .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It was easy to see this coming.
They already said that LAN play was axed from Diablo 3, and we saw direct TCP/IP axed even as far back as Warcraft 3 (requiring tunnels like Hamachi to play across the 'net but not battle.net).
Blizzard fans/apologists will lap it up, nonetheless.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28550753</id>
	<title>Time for BNet emulator to come out.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246446780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>All I can say is, this game will, one way or another be played on a LAN.  This is just alienating your customers.  Don't you know that the consumer always wins?  The only way you will prevent this from happening is to never release this game.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>All I can say is , this game will , one way or another be played on a LAN .
This is just alienating your customers .
Do n't you know that the consumer always wins ?
The only way you will prevent this from happening is to never release this game .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>All I can say is, this game will, one way or another be played on a LAN.
This is just alienating your customers.
Don't you know that the consumer always wins?
The only way you will prevent this from happening is to never release this game.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28548795</id>
	<title>What?</title>
	<author>geekoid</author>
	<datestamp>1246440240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This isn't a piracy issue, it's a control issue. A stupid one at that.<br>I am a huge SC fan, and still play to this day.<br>I seriously don't know if I will buy SCII now.<br>I have many computers, and they all have legit version of SC on them. So not only do I need to pay for 4 new copies* I also have to really on have a fast WAN connect? and on Battle.nets servers having the same ping and latency as my internal net work? Somehow I doubt that will happen.</p><p>Lag is bed enough on Battle.net games now, and this won't improve things.<br>Of course, if Blizzard decided to turn off battle.net, or has some issues, or goes out of business** we are screwed.</p><p>Also, I know people who played in environments where there isn't a WAN, just a LAN.</p><p>*That's a different topic, and really games should only need 1 license per household. Just like every other type of game medium in the world needs. The fact that I generally need to by 2 or more copies of a game is why I am really picky about which games I buy. I wont buy any game I haven't played elsewhere, and it has to ahve excellent reviews from people I know and trust. This meams I probably only buy 10 percent of games I would normally buy.</p><p>** Anyone who has been at a company going through bankruptcy or a merger know the "we will release a key if that happens' line is utter crap and a bold face lie.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is n't a piracy issue , it 's a control issue .
A stupid one at that.I am a huge SC fan , and still play to this day.I seriously do n't know if I will buy SCII now.I have many computers , and they all have legit version of SC on them .
So not only do I need to pay for 4 new copies * I also have to really on have a fast WAN connect ?
and on Battle.nets servers having the same ping and latency as my internal net work ?
Somehow I doubt that will happen.Lag is bed enough on Battle.net games now , and this wo n't improve things.Of course , if Blizzard decided to turn off battle.net , or has some issues , or goes out of business * * we are screwed.Also , I know people who played in environments where there is n't a WAN , just a LAN .
* That 's a different topic , and really games should only need 1 license per household .
Just like every other type of game medium in the world needs .
The fact that I generally need to by 2 or more copies of a game is why I am really picky about which games I buy .
I wont buy any game I have n't played elsewhere , and it has to ahve excellent reviews from people I know and trust .
This meams I probably only buy 10 percent of games I would normally buy .
* * Anyone who has been at a company going through bankruptcy or a merger know the " we will release a key if that happens ' line is utter crap and a bold face lie .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This isn't a piracy issue, it's a control issue.
A stupid one at that.I am a huge SC fan, and still play to this day.I seriously don't know if I will buy SCII now.I have many computers, and they all have legit version of SC on them.
So not only do I need to pay for 4 new copies* I also have to really on have a fast WAN connect?
and on Battle.nets servers having the same ping and latency as my internal net work?
Somehow I doubt that will happen.Lag is bed enough on Battle.net games now, and this won't improve things.Of course, if Blizzard decided to turn off battle.net, or has some issues, or goes out of business** we are screwed.Also, I know people who played in environments where there isn't a WAN, just a LAN.
*That's a different topic, and really games should only need 1 license per household.
Just like every other type of game medium in the world needs.
The fact that I generally need to by 2 or more copies of a game is why I am really picky about which games I buy.
I wont buy any game I haven't played elsewhere, and it has to ahve excellent reviews from people I know and trust.
This meams I probably only buy 10 percent of games I would normally buy.
** Anyone who has been at a company going through bankruptcy or a merger know the "we will release a key if that happens' line is utter crap and a bold face lie.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28548803</id>
	<title>Darn, no more campsite Starcraft lan parties</title>
	<author>joggle</author>
	<datestamp>1246440240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And yes I did once participate in such a thing.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And yes I did once participate in such a thing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And yes I did once participate in such a thing.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28547021</id>
	<title>The first</title>
	<author>JAlexoi</author>
	<datestamp>1246477860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Witness the first MAJOR flop for Blizzard in 11 years.<br>
I mean, comparing SC2 to WoW? WTF? SC2 is a RTS, WoW is MMORPG. Sure WoW basically forces you to be legitimate, but not at a very high price. SC2 is not that interactive and you cannot be "drawn" into it as with WoW.<br>
Sorry people, I give SC2 no thumbs up out of 2.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Witness the first MAJOR flop for Blizzard in 11 years .
I mean , comparing SC2 to WoW ?
WTF ? SC2 is a RTS , WoW is MMORPG .
Sure WoW basically forces you to be legitimate , but not at a very high price .
SC2 is not that interactive and you can not be " drawn " into it as with WoW .
Sorry people , I give SC2 no thumbs up out of 2 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Witness the first MAJOR flop for Blizzard in 11 years.
I mean, comparing SC2 to WoW?
WTF? SC2 is a RTS, WoW is MMORPG.
Sure WoW basically forces you to be legitimate, but not at a very high price.
SC2 is not that interactive and you cannot be "drawn" into it as with WoW.
Sorry people, I give SC2 no thumbs up out of 2.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28545959</id>
	<title>Maybe we can find a compromise</title>
	<author>monkeySauce</author>
	<datestamp>1246474620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Blizzard just wants to ensure that people aren't running a 16-player LAN game using &lt;16 legitimate copies of the game.
Instead of requiring everyone to use battle net, how about some alternatives? Maybe like a Blizzard-licensed USB anal probe that activates SC2 LAN mode... <a href="http://usb.brando.com.hk/" title="brando.com.hk">Brando</a> [brando.com.hk] would probably sell it.
<br> <br>
Seriously though, why are game companies so quick to fuck their paying customers up the ass these days in the name of fighting piracy? They may well reduce piracy but they also lose sales from people who don't want to be jerked around. I'm a long-time PC gamer but I don't buy any game that requires an Internet connection to "activate" or to play multiplayer. I shouldn't need to "ask for permission" to play locally.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Blizzard just wants to ensure that people are n't running a 16-player LAN game using Brando [ brando.com.hk ] would probably sell it .
Seriously though , why are game companies so quick to fuck their paying customers up the ass these days in the name of fighting piracy ?
They may well reduce piracy but they also lose sales from people who do n't want to be jerked around .
I 'm a long-time PC gamer but I do n't buy any game that requires an Internet connection to " activate " or to play multiplayer .
I should n't need to " ask for permission " to play locally .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Blizzard just wants to ensure that people aren't running a 16-player LAN game using Brando [brando.com.hk] would probably sell it.
Seriously though, why are game companies so quick to fuck their paying customers up the ass these days in the name of fighting piracy?
They may well reduce piracy but they also lose sales from people who don't want to be jerked around.
I'm a long-time PC gamer but I don't buy any game that requires an Internet connection to "activate" or to play multiplayer.
I shouldn't need to "ask for permission" to play locally.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28546083</id>
	<title>Re:Disappointing</title>
	<author>BigPeen</author>
	<datestamp>1246474980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>It won't saturate any reasonable broadband connection.  Ever looked at how much data WC3 transmits back and forth?  Not much at all.  a few kb/s maybe.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It wo n't saturate any reasonable broadband connection .
Ever looked at how much data WC3 transmits back and forth ?
Not much at all .
a few kb/s maybe .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It won't saturate any reasonable broadband connection.
Ever looked at how much data WC3 transmits back and forth?
Not much at all.
a few kb/s maybe.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28544977</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28557501</id>
	<title>Don't worry; pirates got your back</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246548420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The great irony of this is that someone will inevitably crack/mod the game to add LAN support on some level, and that they'll probably do it before the game even officially launches.</p><p>Starcraft is just too high profile not to attract loads of talented people determined to hack the game in all kinds of ways. So everyone needs to just take a chill pill and remember that pirates got your back.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The great irony of this is that someone will inevitably crack/mod the game to add LAN support on some level , and that they 'll probably do it before the game even officially launches.Starcraft is just too high profile not to attract loads of talented people determined to hack the game in all kinds of ways .
So everyone needs to just take a chill pill and remember that pirates got your back .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The great irony of this is that someone will inevitably crack/mod the game to add LAN support on some level, and that they'll probably do it before the game even officially launches.Starcraft is just too high profile not to attract loads of talented people determined to hack the game in all kinds of ways.
So everyone needs to just take a chill pill and remember that pirates got your back.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28552945</id>
	<title>Korean LAN -PC BANG.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246460040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
&nbsp; I am not sure if anyone mentioned it, but all the greatest players from Korea played in PC BANG, computer LAN rooms, from mostly pirated copies. Now Blizzard has the audacity to tell people that LAN, the one and only reason why StarCraft is still popular, is a scourge now?</p><p>
&nbsp; Do you know that we, Koreans, are the reasons it is still so popular? We made it into national sport BECAUSE OF LAN.</p><p>
&nbsp; I am very sad to hear that no more LAN will be available. It will be the death of StarCraft.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>  I am not sure if anyone mentioned it , but all the greatest players from Korea played in PC BANG , computer LAN rooms , from mostly pirated copies .
Now Blizzard has the audacity to tell people that LAN , the one and only reason why StarCraft is still popular , is a scourge now ?
  Do you know that we , Koreans , are the reasons it is still so popular ?
We made it into national sport BECAUSE OF LAN .
  I am very sad to hear that no more LAN will be available .
It will be the death of StarCraft .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
  I am not sure if anyone mentioned it, but all the greatest players from Korea played in PC BANG, computer LAN rooms, from mostly pirated copies.
Now Blizzard has the audacity to tell people that LAN, the one and only reason why StarCraft is still popular, is a scourge now?
  Do you know that we, Koreans, are the reasons it is still so popular?
We made it into national sport BECAUSE OF LAN.
  I am very sad to hear that no more LAN will be available.
It will be the death of StarCraft.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28545409</id>
	<title>Online Petition</title>
	<author>stilz2</author>
	<datestamp>1246472940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Though generally regarded as ineffective, but if enough people join the effort...
<a href="http://www.petitiononline.com/LANSC2/petition.html" title="petitiononline.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.petitiononline.com/LANSC2/petition.html</a> [petitiononline.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>Though generally regarded as ineffective , but if enough people join the effort.. . http : //www.petitiononline.com/LANSC2/petition.html [ petitiononline.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Though generally regarded as ineffective, but if enough people join the effort...
http://www.petitiononline.com/LANSC2/petition.html [petitiononline.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28546437</id>
	<title>Re:NO LAN support is not a big deal</title>
	<author>KarlIsNotMyName</author>
	<datestamp>1246476000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I get a bit annoyed with people saying that something "is not a big deal", as if it is the case for everyone, when clearly it's not. Even just reading the comments to this article. Then check out the official forums. Then consider that the people participating on forums are only a minority of people actually interested in the topic.
<br> <br>
Personally I've played only 2 games online, and one of them is an MMO. The other an FPS game. RTS I've always played with or against people in a local network. Even the MMO was most fun when I was in the same room as someone else playing it with me.
<br> <br>
Scrapping LAN is taking away an option from paying customers. Not a way to combat piracy. It's a way to encourage piracy, for people to hack their way around the dumb restrictions, or to get people to lose interest in the game all together, because the one big joy they had with the former game, was the exact option that they're now taking away.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I get a bit annoyed with people saying that something " is not a big deal " , as if it is the case for everyone , when clearly it 's not .
Even just reading the comments to this article .
Then check out the official forums .
Then consider that the people participating on forums are only a minority of people actually interested in the topic .
Personally I 've played only 2 games online , and one of them is an MMO .
The other an FPS game .
RTS I 've always played with or against people in a local network .
Even the MMO was most fun when I was in the same room as someone else playing it with me .
Scrapping LAN is taking away an option from paying customers .
Not a way to combat piracy .
It 's a way to encourage piracy , for people to hack their way around the dumb restrictions , or to get people to lose interest in the game all together , because the one big joy they had with the former game , was the exact option that they 're now taking away .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I get a bit annoyed with people saying that something "is not a big deal", as if it is the case for everyone, when clearly it's not.
Even just reading the comments to this article.
Then check out the official forums.
Then consider that the people participating on forums are only a minority of people actually interested in the topic.
Personally I've played only 2 games online, and one of them is an MMO.
The other an FPS game.
RTS I've always played with or against people in a local network.
Even the MMO was most fun when I was in the same room as someone else playing it with me.
Scrapping LAN is taking away an option from paying customers.
Not a way to combat piracy.
It's a way to encourage piracy, for people to hack their way around the dumb restrictions, or to get people to lose interest in the game all together, because the one big joy they had with the former game, was the exact option that they're now taking away.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28545665</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28545389</id>
	<title>Re:Disappointing</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246472880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>I was all about the Starcraft 2 until hearing this.  I wish them all the success that Hellgate: London had.<br> <br>Blizzard stopped needing to care about gamers after they got popular with WoW.  Fuck 'em.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I was all about the Starcraft 2 until hearing this .
I wish them all the success that Hellgate : London had .
Blizzard stopped needing to care about gamers after they got popular with WoW .
Fuck 'em .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I was all about the Starcraft 2 until hearing this.
I wish them all the success that Hellgate: London had.
Blizzard stopped needing to care about gamers after they got popular with WoW.
Fuck 'em.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28544977</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28549151</id>
	<title>Blizzard fail.</title>
	<author>Crimson Wing</author>
	<datestamp>1246441200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And Blizzard just lost a sale with this announcement (probably MANY sales, but I can only speak for myself).</p><p>I've only played about 10 minutes of StarCraft 1, but I *was* still planning on buying StarCraft 2.  But if they're going to make stupid, disrespectful decisions like this, I certainly shall not be giving them any of my money.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And Blizzard just lost a sale with this announcement ( probably MANY sales , but I can only speak for myself ) .I 've only played about 10 minutes of StarCraft 1 , but I * was * still planning on buying StarCraft 2 .
But if they 're going to make stupid , disrespectful decisions like this , I certainly shall not be giving them any of my money .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And Blizzard just lost a sale with this announcement (probably MANY sales, but I can only speak for myself).I've only played about 10 minutes of StarCraft 1, but I *was* still planning on buying StarCraft 2.
But if they're going to make stupid, disrespectful decisions like this, I certainly shall not be giving them any of my money.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28551927</id>
	<title>what about me!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246452780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I host lan games weekly. Can be anywhere from 2-12 players. Most players i invite dont play games at their home, or dont own a gaming pc. I have 4 setup ready to go myself. All gigabit with gigabit switch for perfect lag free gaming. This is my hobby and i am far from rare. I helped introduce many games to others are i would be rich if i had commission from the games i helped sell. Startcraft was awesome, even recent valve games allow lan and not everyone own the game. Demigod is excellent and 3 invitees bought it due to playing it at my party. Starcraft 2 it appears will not be gracing my household, or my friends. There is no way i can afford the downloads of multiple computers playing via a foreign server every week. Or adjust to going from a gigabit setup to all sharing my much slower broadband connection.</p><p>This is not a feature to make the customer happy. This is a feature to piss off the customer. This is a feature to lose customers. With all too much attention paid to non-paying people who will likely never be paying customers no matter what you do!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I host lan games weekly .
Can be anywhere from 2-12 players .
Most players i invite dont play games at their home , or dont own a gaming pc .
I have 4 setup ready to go myself .
All gigabit with gigabit switch for perfect lag free gaming .
This is my hobby and i am far from rare .
I helped introduce many games to others are i would be rich if i had commission from the games i helped sell .
Startcraft was awesome , even recent valve games allow lan and not everyone own the game .
Demigod is excellent and 3 invitees bought it due to playing it at my party .
Starcraft 2 it appears will not be gracing my household , or my friends .
There is no way i can afford the downloads of multiple computers playing via a foreign server every week .
Or adjust to going from a gigabit setup to all sharing my much slower broadband connection.This is not a feature to make the customer happy .
This is a feature to piss off the customer .
This is a feature to lose customers .
With all too much attention paid to non-paying people who will likely never be paying customers no matter what you do !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I host lan games weekly.
Can be anywhere from 2-12 players.
Most players i invite dont play games at their home, or dont own a gaming pc.
I have 4 setup ready to go myself.
All gigabit with gigabit switch for perfect lag free gaming.
This is my hobby and i am far from rare.
I helped introduce many games to others are i would be rich if i had commission from the games i helped sell.
Startcraft was awesome, even recent valve games allow lan and not everyone own the game.
Demigod is excellent and 3 invitees bought it due to playing it at my party.
Starcraft 2 it appears will not be gracing my household, or my friends.
There is no way i can afford the downloads of multiple computers playing via a foreign server every week.
Or adjust to going from a gigabit setup to all sharing my much slower broadband connection.This is not a feature to make the customer happy.
This is a feature to piss off the customer.
This is a feature to lose customers.
With all too much attention paid to non-paying people who will likely never be paying customers no matter what you do!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28545035</id>
	<title>Fine, then auto-detect hosts on the same subnet.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246471920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Whatever. If they want to make you sign into Battle.net for piracy concerns (remember folks, you need a valid CD key for Battle.net)- the least they could do is autodetect hosts that are on the same subnet and any traffic destined to any of these systems is kept local and<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/not/ bounced off the Battle.net servers.</p><p>There's no @#$@ing way people can or will host LAN parties of any reasonable size if they need a 100mbit/up 25mbit/down (more?) pipe to the internet. Now, if the only thing Starcraft wants you to do is *log into* Battle.net, use Battle.net for the "room hosting", but all the game clients autodetect who's local and who's not and route traffic accordingly, then there should be no problem.</p><p>The problem is if Blizzard is insisting that any and all MP traffic is bounced off their servers first. I really hope they're not that stupid.</p><p>-AC</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Whatever .
If they want to make you sign into Battle.net for piracy concerns ( remember folks , you need a valid CD key for Battle.net ) - the least they could do is autodetect hosts that are on the same subnet and any traffic destined to any of these systems is kept local and /not/ bounced off the Battle.net servers.There 's no @ # $ @ ing way people can or will host LAN parties of any reasonable size if they need a 100mbit/up 25mbit/down ( more ?
) pipe to the internet .
Now , if the only thing Starcraft wants you to do is * log into * Battle.net , use Battle.net for the " room hosting " , but all the game clients autodetect who 's local and who 's not and route traffic accordingly , then there should be no problem.The problem is if Blizzard is insisting that any and all MP traffic is bounced off their servers first .
I really hope they 're not that stupid.-AC</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Whatever.
If they want to make you sign into Battle.net for piracy concerns (remember folks, you need a valid CD key for Battle.net)- the least they could do is autodetect hosts that are on the same subnet and any traffic destined to any of these systems is kept local and /not/ bounced off the Battle.net servers.There's no @#$@ing way people can or will host LAN parties of any reasonable size if they need a 100mbit/up 25mbit/down (more?
) pipe to the internet.
Now, if the only thing Starcraft wants you to do is *log into* Battle.net, use Battle.net for the "room hosting", but all the game clients autodetect who's local and who's not and route traffic accordingly, then there should be no problem.The problem is if Blizzard is insisting that any and all MP traffic is bounced off their servers first.
I really hope they're not that stupid.-AC</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28547997</id>
	<title>Re:Battle.net, I lose my faith in thee</title>
	<author>Static-MT</author>
	<datestamp>1246480980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>VCK is a common program that has been banned by Battle.net.  Furthermore, Blizzard has stated that it will be watching the use of programs that allow multiple logins (listchecker comes instantly to mind).  There are some sophisticated tools out there to allow LAN games to be listed on B.net servers to allow for better gameplay and additional features like changing the game name, auto refreshing slots, tracking leavers and jerks, and allow for the formation of a private game (so that your buddies can join) and then turn it into a public game for others to join in.

In other words, third party programs have fixed most of your issues and you know what the interesting part of it really is?  They often use the LAN feature of Warcraft III.  No LAN feature, no control.  I have a feeling that there are more reasons beyond piracy issues that are causing Blizzard to take its position on this.

Anyone else have ideas?</htmltext>
<tokenext>VCK is a common program that has been banned by Battle.net .
Furthermore , Blizzard has stated that it will be watching the use of programs that allow multiple logins ( listchecker comes instantly to mind ) .
There are some sophisticated tools out there to allow LAN games to be listed on B.net servers to allow for better gameplay and additional features like changing the game name , auto refreshing slots , tracking leavers and jerks , and allow for the formation of a private game ( so that your buddies can join ) and then turn it into a public game for others to join in .
In other words , third party programs have fixed most of your issues and you know what the interesting part of it really is ?
They often use the LAN feature of Warcraft III .
No LAN feature , no control .
I have a feeling that there are more reasons beyond piracy issues that are causing Blizzard to take its position on this .
Anyone else have ideas ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>VCK is a common program that has been banned by Battle.net.
Furthermore, Blizzard has stated that it will be watching the use of programs that allow multiple logins (listchecker comes instantly to mind).
There are some sophisticated tools out there to allow LAN games to be listed on B.net servers to allow for better gameplay and additional features like changing the game name, auto refreshing slots, tracking leavers and jerks, and allow for the formation of a private game (so that your buddies can join) and then turn it into a public game for others to join in.
In other words, third party programs have fixed most of your issues and you know what the interesting part of it really is?
They often use the LAN feature of Warcraft III.
No LAN feature, no control.
I have a feeling that there are more reasons beyond piracy issues that are causing Blizzard to take its position on this.
Anyone else have ideas?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28545267</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28546481</id>
	<title>Re:It will still communicate over Lan</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246476060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"How would the battle net servers know your internal LAN IP?"</p><p>How would the internet know your internal LAN IP?!</p><p>It's the magic of NAT. Read a book, for heaven's sake.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" How would the battle net servers know your internal LAN IP ?
" How would the internet know your internal LAN IP ?
! It 's the magic of NAT .
Read a book , for heaven 's sake .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"How would the battle net servers know your internal LAN IP?
"How would the internet know your internal LAN IP?
!It's the magic of NAT.
Read a book, for heaven's sake.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28545635</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28549437</id>
	<title>root attack</title>
	<author>WalesAlex</author>
	<datestamp>1246442040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>id buy their arguments if people across the world had unlimited acess to the internet, but since this sadly isnt the case, theyll be cutting out a major part of their playerbase whose only chance to get in touch with blizzards games is trough LAN parties (found out about diablo1 trough a LAN party myself which got me to look into blizz games alot since then)</htmltext>
<tokenext>id buy their arguments if people across the world had unlimited acess to the internet , but since this sadly isnt the case , theyll be cutting out a major part of their playerbase whose only chance to get in touch with blizzards games is trough LAN parties ( found out about diablo1 trough a LAN party myself which got me to look into blizz games alot since then )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>id buy their arguments if people across the world had unlimited acess to the internet, but since this sadly isnt the case, theyll be cutting out a major part of their playerbase whose only chance to get in touch with blizzards games is trough LAN parties (found out about diablo1 trough a LAN party myself which got me to look into blizz games alot since then)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28548929</id>
	<title>B.net eh?</title>
	<author>John Pfeiffer</author>
	<datestamp>1246440600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Funny, Battle.net was the reason I never played the Warcraft 3 collector's edition I bought.  I installed it, tried to get into a multiplayer game, got 'placed' in a game full of Koreans, was wiped out before I even started collecting resources.  Tried to join another game, something similar happened.  LOVE your no-choice unavoidable automatic game matching system, assholes!  I still want my $80 back.</p><p>Fuck it, I don't even like (traditional) RTS games anymore for about the same reason.  (World in Conflict is awesome though)  If they screw up Diablo III, I'll be REALLY pissed.  I love Diable.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Funny , Battle.net was the reason I never played the Warcraft 3 collector 's edition I bought .
I installed it , tried to get into a multiplayer game , got 'placed ' in a game full of Koreans , was wiped out before I even started collecting resources .
Tried to join another game , something similar happened .
LOVE your no-choice unavoidable automatic game matching system , assholes !
I still want my $ 80 back.Fuck it , I do n't even like ( traditional ) RTS games anymore for about the same reason .
( World in Conflict is awesome though ) If they screw up Diablo III , I 'll be REALLY pissed .
I love Diable .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Funny, Battle.net was the reason I never played the Warcraft 3 collector's edition I bought.
I installed it, tried to get into a multiplayer game, got 'placed' in a game full of Koreans, was wiped out before I even started collecting resources.
Tried to join another game, something similar happened.
LOVE your no-choice unavoidable automatic game matching system, assholes!
I still want my $80 back.Fuck it, I don't even like (traditional) RTS games anymore for about the same reason.
(World in Conflict is awesome though)  If they screw up Diablo III, I'll be REALLY pissed.
I love Diable.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28546011</id>
	<title>Re:Disappointing</title>
	<author>coolsnowmen</author>
	<datestamp>1246474740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Blizzard made boatloads of money and notoriety with Startcraft + Broodwars.  If they are bitching about-</p><p><div class="quote"><p> Cos millions of players in China were/are/going to using pirated SC/WC3 to play without any limitation.</p></div><p>then they can just go home and make a new game as opposed to sitting on their asses and collecting licensing revenue.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Blizzard made boatloads of money and notoriety with Startcraft + Broodwars .
If they are bitching about- Cos millions of players in China were/are/going to using pirated SC/WC3 to play without any limitation.then they can just go home and make a new game as opposed to sitting on their asses and collecting licensing revenue .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Blizzard made boatloads of money and notoriety with Startcraft + Broodwars.
If they are bitching about- Cos millions of players in China were/are/going to using pirated SC/WC3 to play without any limitation.then they can just go home and make a new game as opposed to sitting on their asses and collecting licensing revenue.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28545673</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28546889</id>
	<title>I don't know anyone...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246477440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That ever thought it was cool to pirate a Blizzard game.  Because if you didn't buy it, you couldn't play on battle.net.</p><p>It's a shame almost everyone I know plays Warcraft III over LAN's because battle.net is so laggy.  I won't be buying SC2 if I can't play LAN games, mainly because my gaming consists of playing with my friends in the computer labs.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That ever thought it was cool to pirate a Blizzard game .
Because if you did n't buy it , you could n't play on battle.net.It 's a shame almost everyone I know plays Warcraft III over LAN 's because battle.net is so laggy .
I wo n't be buying SC2 if I ca n't play LAN games , mainly because my gaming consists of playing with my friends in the computer labs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That ever thought it was cool to pirate a Blizzard game.
Because if you didn't buy it, you couldn't play on battle.net.It's a shame almost everyone I know plays Warcraft III over LAN's because battle.net is so laggy.
I won't be buying SC2 if I can't play LAN games, mainly because my gaming consists of playing with my friends in the computer labs.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28549859</id>
	<title>Re:Confusing Comparison: RTS vs RPG</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246443300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Cannot agree more. LAN parties are where my love of gaming originates from. "Way back" playing Starcraft or Counterstrike until the wee hours of the morning with a room full of friends, those experiences are soley responsible for my continued interest (AND PURCHASE) of games today.</p><p>Ok Blizzard. Take away LAN, I counter with my own three letters, WTF.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Can not agree more .
LAN parties are where my love of gaming originates from .
" Way back " playing Starcraft or Counterstrike until the wee hours of the morning with a room full of friends , those experiences are soley responsible for my continued interest ( AND PURCHASE ) of games today.Ok Blizzard .
Take away LAN , I counter with my own three letters , WTF .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Cannot agree more.
LAN parties are where my love of gaming originates from.
"Way back" playing Starcraft or Counterstrike until the wee hours of the morning with a room full of friends, those experiences are soley responsible for my continued interest (AND PURCHASE) of games today.Ok Blizzard.
Take away LAN, I counter with my own three letters, WTF.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28545217</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28547345</id>
	<title>Clear as day</title>
	<author>SupremoMan</author>
	<datestamp>1246479000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is to block stuff like Hamachi and GameRanger.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is to block stuff like Hamachi and GameRanger .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is to block stuff like Hamachi and GameRanger.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28555171</id>
	<title>LAN crack</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246527900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Over are the days where NoCD cracks are not necessary anymore, seeing as more games don't require CDs. But now come the days of LAN cracks.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Over are the days where NoCD cracks are not necessary anymore , seeing as more games do n't require CDs .
But now come the days of LAN cracks .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Over are the days where NoCD cracks are not necessary anymore, seeing as more games don't require CDs.
But now come the days of LAN cracks.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28546207</id>
	<title>No lan !?!</title>
	<author>guliverk</author>
	<datestamp>1246475280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>No lan = No StarCraft</htmltext>
<tokenext>No lan = No StarCraft</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No lan = No StarCraft</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28546355</id>
	<title>Lack of Lan support</title>
	<author>fanhack</author>
	<datestamp>1246475760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Some of my friends and I regularly lan Starcraft.

On a large kitchen table. 8 of us. Just using my macbook to create a wireless network. No router. No battlenet. Not Third party. It always works. It's never down. We can play whenever, and really where ever we want.

I'm really disappointed that blizzard is trying to compare the social aspect of gaming over battlenet to sitting across from your friends and screaming uncontrollably when you get lurked really really badly.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Some of my friends and I regularly lan Starcraft .
On a large kitchen table .
8 of us .
Just using my macbook to create a wireless network .
No router .
No battlenet .
Not Third party .
It always works .
It 's never down .
We can play whenever , and really where ever we want .
I 'm really disappointed that blizzard is trying to compare the social aspect of gaming over battlenet to sitting across from your friends and screaming uncontrollably when you get lurked really really badly .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Some of my friends and I regularly lan Starcraft.
On a large kitchen table.
8 of us.
Just using my macbook to create a wireless network.
No router.
No battlenet.
Not Third party.
It always works.
It's never down.
We can play whenever, and really where ever we want.
I'm really disappointed that blizzard is trying to compare the social aspect of gaming over battlenet to sitting across from your friends and screaming uncontrollably when you get lurked really really badly.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28557457</id>
	<title>Re:Disappointing</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246548300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I agree that if this is the deal in China, that's a problem.</p><p>- I DON'T AGREE that you solve it by taking the LAN option out of the game.  They're screwing everyone to stop a few sites in china.  Sorry, that's not reason enough to DEVALUE SC2 so much that I don't want to even think about buying it.</p><p>Attack the chinese problem as it is, REAL pirates sharing the game illegally for profit.  Normal people who want to play on LAN are going to get screwed otherwise.</p><p>Or you can accept that pirates are and always will be out there, and there's nothing you can do to stop them and the governments that protect them.  What you can do is tell people to support you if you like/love a game.  It's a shame that Blizzard doesn't realize that it's designing a product which is so low in value just based on how you play the game, that even less people will buy it.</p><p>If they go through with this, they'll end up like spore.. great game, alot of attention from people, but in the end, got completely screwed by itself because of DRM and bad design.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I agree that if this is the deal in China , that 's a problem.- I DO N'T AGREE that you solve it by taking the LAN option out of the game .
They 're screwing everyone to stop a few sites in china .
Sorry , that 's not reason enough to DEVALUE SC2 so much that I do n't want to even think about buying it.Attack the chinese problem as it is , REAL pirates sharing the game illegally for profit .
Normal people who want to play on LAN are going to get screwed otherwise.Or you can accept that pirates are and always will be out there , and there 's nothing you can do to stop them and the governments that protect them .
What you can do is tell people to support you if you like/love a game .
It 's a shame that Blizzard does n't realize that it 's designing a product which is so low in value just based on how you play the game , that even less people will buy it.If they go through with this , they 'll end up like spore.. great game , alot of attention from people , but in the end , got completely screwed by itself because of DRM and bad design .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I agree that if this is the deal in China, that's a problem.- I DON'T AGREE that you solve it by taking the LAN option out of the game.
They're screwing everyone to stop a few sites in china.
Sorry, that's not reason enough to DEVALUE SC2 so much that I don't want to even think about buying it.Attack the chinese problem as it is, REAL pirates sharing the game illegally for profit.
Normal people who want to play on LAN are going to get screwed otherwise.Or you can accept that pirates are and always will be out there, and there's nothing you can do to stop them and the governments that protect them.
What you can do is tell people to support you if you like/love a game.
It's a shame that Blizzard doesn't realize that it's designing a product which is so low in value just based on how you play the game, that even less people will buy it.If they go through with this, they'll end up like spore.. great game, alot of attention from people, but in the end, got completely screwed by itself because of DRM and bad design.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28545673</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28545427</id>
	<title>Trends</title>
	<author>Merovign</author>
	<datestamp>1246473000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>More and more companies are dropping co-op games (except for strategy games), pushing off PC onto consoles (or at least developing on consoles so the control schema sucks), and now droping LAN games?</p><p>It seems like the industry is trying desperately to get me to stop playing games.</p><p>Oh, and it won't really do much to damp piracy, just shift it from stolen images to stolen keys, thus increasing the harm to legit gamers. Not having a whole "way to go" moment here.</p><p>Recently got UT3, BTW, which is so buggy as to be more frustrating than fun. Thank goodness it was only $10. Does play LAN games, but the settings are arbitrarily restricted (and seemingly somewhat random re: options and difficulty).</p><p>Is it just me, or is gaming in general going downhill?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>More and more companies are dropping co-op games ( except for strategy games ) , pushing off PC onto consoles ( or at least developing on consoles so the control schema sucks ) , and now droping LAN games ? It seems like the industry is trying desperately to get me to stop playing games.Oh , and it wo n't really do much to damp piracy , just shift it from stolen images to stolen keys , thus increasing the harm to legit gamers .
Not having a whole " way to go " moment here.Recently got UT3 , BTW , which is so buggy as to be more frustrating than fun .
Thank goodness it was only $ 10 .
Does play LAN games , but the settings are arbitrarily restricted ( and seemingly somewhat random re : options and difficulty ) .Is it just me , or is gaming in general going downhill ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>More and more companies are dropping co-op games (except for strategy games), pushing off PC onto consoles (or at least developing on consoles so the control schema sucks), and now droping LAN games?It seems like the industry is trying desperately to get me to stop playing games.Oh, and it won't really do much to damp piracy, just shift it from stolen images to stolen keys, thus increasing the harm to legit gamers.
Not having a whole "way to go" moment here.Recently got UT3, BTW, which is so buggy as to be more frustrating than fun.
Thank goodness it was only $10.
Does play LAN games, but the settings are arbitrarily restricted (and seemingly somewhat random re: options and difficulty).Is it just me, or is gaming in general going downhill?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28545043</id>
	<title>On the bright side...</title>
	<author>greatica</author>
	<datestamp>1246471920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>That idiot who is always sucking up bandwidth torrenting at LAN parties is about to get beat down.</htmltext>
<tokenext>That idiot who is always sucking up bandwidth torrenting at LAN parties is about to get beat down .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That idiot who is always sucking up bandwidth torrenting at LAN parties is about to get beat down.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28550781</id>
	<title>Email them</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246446900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>pr@blizzard.com<br>billing@blizzard.com</p><p>Dear Blizzard,</p><p>You are dropping support for LAN play with Starcraft 2 and Diablo 3, so high speed internet is required for multiplayer, and if your Battle.Net servers are down for any reason then I can't play multiplayer.</p><p>I have been waiting breathlessly for these games, so that I can have LAN parties again, now all that was for nothing.  You have destroyed my hopes.</p><p>Because of your decision, I am canceling my World of Warcraft, and my wife's.  And I will never purchase another Blizzard game as long as I live.</p><p>Sincerely,</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>pr @ blizzard.combilling @ blizzard.comDear Blizzard,You are dropping support for LAN play with Starcraft 2 and Diablo 3 , so high speed internet is required for multiplayer , and if your Battle.Net servers are down for any reason then I ca n't play multiplayer.I have been waiting breathlessly for these games , so that I can have LAN parties again , now all that was for nothing .
You have destroyed my hopes.Because of your decision , I am canceling my World of Warcraft , and my wife 's .
And I will never purchase another Blizzard game as long as I live.Sincerely,</tokentext>
<sentencetext>pr@blizzard.combilling@blizzard.comDear Blizzard,You are dropping support for LAN play with Starcraft 2 and Diablo 3, so high speed internet is required for multiplayer, and if your Battle.Net servers are down for any reason then I can't play multiplayer.I have been waiting breathlessly for these games, so that I can have LAN parties again, now all that was for nothing.
You have destroyed my hopes.Because of your decision, I am canceling my World of Warcraft, and my wife's.
And I will never purchase another Blizzard game as long as I live.Sincerely,</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28545917</id>
	<title>What about Diablo III?</title>
	<author>Twillerror</author>
	<datestamp>1246474500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Does this mean we won't have it for Diablo III as well? Plz noooooooo.</p><p>Does bnet\sc use UDP? Are they going to fix all the issue with two machines being on the same nated subnet? Will they auto pick a random UDP port so NATing worked</p><p>If the server and clients are on a LAN the packets will go to the person's box who started the game(the server). They will likely be desitened for the external(internet) IP...so even though you are just sending a packet to the machine on same switch you are plugged into you are going to route thru your cable/modem. It will have to go thru NATing...what a waste and a potential for LAG if you have a crappier router. Add 8 machines being NATTed and I don't know what will happen. Not to mention if you Dad is watching Hulu in the other room your local gaming should not be affected.</p><p>Hopefully they add an option where you can tell the game you are on the same subnet as the server so it will use the local IP. For security the server should have to say it is okay so you don't give out your internal IP scheme.</p><p>I still think it is a bunch of stupid nonsense for selfish reasons(how much money did they make reselling SC1 for years) and not good consumer reasons like they are pitching it. Leave it in Aholes.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Does this mean we wo n't have it for Diablo III as well ?
Plz noooooooo.Does bnet \ sc use UDP ?
Are they going to fix all the issue with two machines being on the same nated subnet ?
Will they auto pick a random UDP port so NATing workedIf the server and clients are on a LAN the packets will go to the person 's box who started the game ( the server ) .
They will likely be desitened for the external ( internet ) IP...so even though you are just sending a packet to the machine on same switch you are plugged into you are going to route thru your cable/modem .
It will have to go thru NATing...what a waste and a potential for LAG if you have a crappier router .
Add 8 machines being NATTed and I do n't know what will happen .
Not to mention if you Dad is watching Hulu in the other room your local gaming should not be affected.Hopefully they add an option where you can tell the game you are on the same subnet as the server so it will use the local IP .
For security the server should have to say it is okay so you do n't give out your internal IP scheme.I still think it is a bunch of stupid nonsense for selfish reasons ( how much money did they make reselling SC1 for years ) and not good consumer reasons like they are pitching it .
Leave it in Aholes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Does this mean we won't have it for Diablo III as well?
Plz noooooooo.Does bnet\sc use UDP?
Are they going to fix all the issue with two machines being on the same nated subnet?
Will they auto pick a random UDP port so NATing workedIf the server and clients are on a LAN the packets will go to the person's box who started the game(the server).
They will likely be desitened for the external(internet) IP...so even though you are just sending a packet to the machine on same switch you are plugged into you are going to route thru your cable/modem.
It will have to go thru NATing...what a waste and a potential for LAG if you have a crappier router.
Add 8 machines being NATTed and I don't know what will happen.
Not to mention if you Dad is watching Hulu in the other room your local gaming should not be affected.Hopefully they add an option where you can tell the game you are on the same subnet as the server so it will use the local IP.
For security the server should have to say it is okay so you don't give out your internal IP scheme.I still think it is a bunch of stupid nonsense for selfish reasons(how much money did they make reselling SC1 for years) and not good consumer reasons like they are pitching it.
Leave it in Aholes.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28545721</id>
	<title>Re:I'll buy it...but...</title>
	<author>XnavxeMiyyep</author>
	<datestamp>1246473960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Don't buy it if LAN isn't supported. Starcraft is the only PC game I've ever bought and I was planning on buying SC2, but I won't purchase it without LAN support. Hopefully other potential players will do the same.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Do n't buy it if LAN is n't supported .
Starcraft is the only PC game I 've ever bought and I was planning on buying SC2 , but I wo n't purchase it without LAN support .
Hopefully other potential players will do the same .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Don't buy it if LAN isn't supported.
Starcraft is the only PC game I've ever bought and I was planning on buying SC2, but I won't purchase it without LAN support.
Hopefully other potential players will do the same.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28545069</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28545391</id>
	<title>Not buying</title>
	<author>diego.viola</author>
	<datestamp>1246472880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm not buying also, first: no Linux version and now this.<br><br>Blizzard: if you want your products to sell start listening to your possibles customers.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm not buying also , first : no Linux version and now this.Blizzard : if you want your products to sell start listening to your possibles customers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm not buying also, first: no Linux version and now this.Blizzard: if you want your products to sell start listening to your possibles customers.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28549615</id>
	<title>Re:I'll buy it...but...</title>
	<author>vertinox</author>
	<datestamp>1246442580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Sure, I can throw on a headset and play with friends, but what if battle.net is down? What if I'm getting a lot of lag...fast paced game players don't have the tolerance of players who are into mmo's exclusively.</i></p><p>Why don't you pull out the 20 side dice and talk smack like we did before the internet?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sure , I can throw on a headset and play with friends , but what if battle.net is down ?
What if I 'm getting a lot of lag...fast paced game players do n't have the tolerance of players who are into mmo 's exclusively.Why do n't you pull out the 20 side dice and talk smack like we did before the internet ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sure, I can throw on a headset and play with friends, but what if battle.net is down?
What if I'm getting a lot of lag...fast paced game players don't have the tolerance of players who are into mmo's exclusively.Why don't you pull out the 20 side dice and talk smack like we did before the internet?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28545069</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28547761</id>
	<title>Re:These Developers are out of touch with reality.</title>
	<author>osu-neko</author>
	<datestamp>1246480380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>"We would not take out LAN if we did not feel we could offer players something better."</p><p>You fucking can't.</p></div><p>You know this <i>a priori</i> how?  Personally, I have no religious beliefs about network performance.  I like to actually see it in action before claiming I know how well it performs.  Silly me, preferring evidence to religious fervor...</p><p><div class="quote"><p>I haven't used Battle.net in well over a decade because it BLEW CHUNKS.  The only way I could ever get a decent game of SC going was to call my friends up and have a LAN party.</p></div><p>So you not only haven't seen how well the new game works, you haven't seen how well Battle.net works in over a decade, but you know how well it will work next year based on a completely different game you saw over a decade ago.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>You just ripped the HEART out of your game. Fuck you, Blizzard. You just guaranteed I'll NEVER touch another thing from your company ever again.</p></div><p>I doubt it...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>" We would not take out LAN if we did not feel we could offer players something better .
" You fucking ca n't.You know this a priori how ?
Personally , I have no religious beliefs about network performance .
I like to actually see it in action before claiming I know how well it performs .
Silly me , preferring evidence to religious fervor...I have n't used Battle.net in well over a decade because it BLEW CHUNKS .
The only way I could ever get a decent game of SC going was to call my friends up and have a LAN party.So you not only have n't seen how well the new game works , you have n't seen how well Battle.net works in over a decade , but you know how well it will work next year based on a completely different game you saw over a decade ago.You just ripped the HEART out of your game .
Fuck you , Blizzard .
You just guaranteed I 'll NEVER touch another thing from your company ever again.I doubt it.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"We would not take out LAN if we did not feel we could offer players something better.
"You fucking can't.You know this a priori how?
Personally, I have no religious beliefs about network performance.
I like to actually see it in action before claiming I know how well it performs.
Silly me, preferring evidence to religious fervor...I haven't used Battle.net in well over a decade because it BLEW CHUNKS.
The only way I could ever get a decent game of SC going was to call my friends up and have a LAN party.So you not only haven't seen how well the new game works, you haven't seen how well Battle.net works in over a decade, but you know how well it will work next year based on a completely different game you saw over a decade ago.You just ripped the HEART out of your game.
Fuck you, Blizzard.
You just guaranteed I'll NEVER touch another thing from your company ever again.I doubt it...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28545429</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_01_1628259_84</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28545173
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28547747
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_01_1628259_67</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28545173
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28546307
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_01_1628259_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28545105
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28550053
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_01_1628259_60</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28545013
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28630779
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_01_1628259_83</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28545297
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28545635
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28552225
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_01_1628259_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28544977
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28546083
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28547221
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_01_1628259_74</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28545105
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28547139
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_01_1628259_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28545069
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28547119
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_01_1628259_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28544905
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28545015
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_01_1628259_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28545103
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28547749
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_01_1628259_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28545131
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28545753
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_01_1628259_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28545131
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28545857
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_01_1628259_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28545267
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28547997
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_01_1628259_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28545603
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28549989
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_01_1628259_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28545871
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28550283
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_01_1628259_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28545427
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28546757
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_01_1628259_75</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28545013
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28545805
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_01_1628259_66</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28545429
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28546025
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_01_1628259_82</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28544977
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28545673
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28550247
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_01_1628259_65</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28545149
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28555529
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_01_1628259_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28545667
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28546829
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_01_1628259_56</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28545871
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28547463
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_01_1628259_72</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28545069
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28546567
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_01_1628259_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28545117
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28545971
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_01_1628259_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28544977
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28545673
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28557457
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_01_1628259_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28545173
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28546447
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_01_1628259_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28544905
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28545217
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28546303
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28560359
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_01_1628259_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28544905
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28545217
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28546477
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_01_1628259_57</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28545631
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28547151
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28550927
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_01_1628259_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28544977
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28545405
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_01_1628259_59</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28544979
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28545593
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_01_1628259_64</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28545429
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28547761
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_01_1628259_87</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28544905
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28545099
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28548133
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_01_1628259_78</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28545013
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28545949
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_01_1628259_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28545077
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28548085
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_01_1628259_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28544977
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28546083
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28548501
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_01_1628259_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28545603
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28549201
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_01_1628259_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28544977
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28545389
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28547371
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_01_1628259_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28545297
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28545635
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28546481
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_01_1628259_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28545013
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28545617
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_01_1628259_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28545105
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28549113
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_01_1628259_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28545105
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28547627
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_01_1628259_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28545103
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28546733
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28549851
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_01_1628259_79</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28546243
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28596289
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_01_1628259_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28544905
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28545217
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28546513
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_01_1628259_86</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28544905
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28545217
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28547251
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_01_1628259_69</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28545429
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28550469
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_01_1628259_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28544977
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28545673
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28557271
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_01_1628259_76</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28545091
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28555737
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_01_1628259_81</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28545665
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28546437
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_01_1628259_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28545069
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28549615
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_01_1628259_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28545603
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28569375
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_01_1628259_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28545091
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28546493
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_01_1628259_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28545149
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28547351
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_01_1628259_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28544983
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28550357
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_01_1628259_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28546243
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28549383
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_01_1628259_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28545077
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28548013
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_01_1628259_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28545103
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28546737
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_01_1628259_68</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28544905
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28545099
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28549771
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_01_1628259_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28544905
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28545217
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28546021
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_01_1628259_73</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28545013
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28545687
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_01_1628259_58</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28545665
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28546701
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_01_1628259_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28545871
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28549019
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_01_1628259_80</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28544977
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28547261
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_01_1628259_63</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28545105
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28559357
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_01_1628259_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28544905
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28545217
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28547815
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_01_1628259_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28544905
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28545217
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28549859
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_01_1628259_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28545631
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28546551
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_01_1628259_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28545223
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28547497
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28553557
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_01_1628259_70</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28544977
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28545673
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28546011
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_01_1628259_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28544977
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28546147
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28554547
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_01_1628259_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28544977
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28546147
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28549385
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_01_1628259_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28545131
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28546853
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_01_1628259_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28545013
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28548091
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_01_1628259_55</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28545013
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28545929
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_01_1628259_71</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28545131
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28545435
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_01_1628259_62</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28544977
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28545673
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28553143
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_01_1628259_85</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28545665
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28546297
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_01_1628259_61</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28545013
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28545689
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_01_1628259_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28545267
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28554223
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_01_1628259_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28545173
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28548625
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_01_1628259_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28545173
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28553829
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_01_1628259_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28545069
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28545283
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_01_1628259_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28545131
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28546189
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_01_1628259_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28545103
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28557835
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_01_1628259_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28545069
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28545721
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_01_1628259_77</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28545297
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28545635
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28547603
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_01_1628259_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28544977
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28545673
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28548695
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_01_1628259.31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28546243
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28596289
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28549383
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_01_1628259.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28545117
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28545971
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_01_1628259.22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28545963
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_01_1628259.28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28545131
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28545753
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28545435
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28546853
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28546189
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28545857
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_01_1628259.40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28544905
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28545015
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28545099
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28548133
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28549771
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28545217
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28547815
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28546477
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28547251
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28546513
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28549859
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28546303
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28560359
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28546021
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_01_1628259.25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28545115
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_01_1628259.43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28545013
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28545929
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28545689
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28630779
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28545687
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28545949
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28545617
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28545805
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28548091
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_01_1628259.34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28545603
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28549201
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28549989
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28569375
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_01_1628259.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28545391
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_01_1628259.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28545427
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28546757
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_01_1628259.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28545173
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28547747
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28553829
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28548625
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28546307
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28546447
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_01_1628259.35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28545003
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_01_1628259.32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28545223
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28547497
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28553557
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_01_1628259.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28545077
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28548085
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28548013
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_01_1628259.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28547641
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_01_1628259.29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28544983
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28550357
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_01_1628259.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28546611
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_01_1628259.45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28545149
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28547351
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28555529
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_01_1628259.42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28544979
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28545593
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_01_1628259.39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28544995
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_01_1628259.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28545631
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28547151
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28550927
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28546551
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_01_1628259.24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28546927
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_01_1628259.21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28545329
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_01_1628259.36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28545409
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_01_1628259.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28545841
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_01_1628259.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28545667
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28546829
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_01_1628259.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28545469
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_01_1628259.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28545263
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_01_1628259.37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28545103
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28557835
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28546737
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28546733
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28549851
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28547749
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_01_1628259.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28545123
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_01_1628259.47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28545267
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28547997
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28554223
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_01_1628259.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28545665
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28546437
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28546701
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28546297
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_01_1628259.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28545297
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28545635
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28546481
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28547603
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28552225
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_01_1628259.26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28545091
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28555737
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28546493
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_01_1628259.44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28545429
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28550469
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28546025
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28547761
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_01_1628259.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28548929
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_01_1628259.41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28545917
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_01_1628259.38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28545871
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28549019
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28550283
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28547463
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_01_1628259.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28550781
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_01_1628259.23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28547765
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_01_1628259.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28546539
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_01_1628259.20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28545219
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_01_1628259.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28544977
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28545405
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28545673
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28548695
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28557457
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28546011
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28557271
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28553143
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28550247
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28546147
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28554547
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28549385
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28546083
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28547221
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28548501
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28547261
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28545389
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28547371
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_01_1628259.33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28546935
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_01_1628259.30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28545025
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_01_1628259.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28545911
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_01_1628259.46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28545069
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28546567
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28545721
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28549615
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28547119
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28545283
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_01_1628259.27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28545105
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28547627
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28559357
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28547139
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28549113
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_1628259.28550053
</commentlist>
</conversation>
