<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_07_16_1721215</id>
	<title>Why Game Developers Should Shut Up About Used Games</title>
	<author>Soulskill</author>
	<datestamp>1247767320000</datestamp>
	<htmltext><a href="http://radioexile.com/" rel="nofollow">Ssquared22</a> writes <i>"It may feel like a rip-off to some, but you've got to admit that <a href="http://www.crispygamer.com/features/2009-07-15/fair-trade-the-simple-economics-of-why-game-developers-should-shut-up-about-used-games-part-1.aspx">paying $30 for <em>Gears of War 2</em> sure beats paying $60</a>! Game publishers and developers may not like it, but people are going to trade in used games for new games and those old games will be sold back to other people. There's nothing game developers can do to stop them, and companies like Gamestop continue to <a href="http://www.joystiq.com/2009/01/23/gamestop-used-games-revenue-estimated-to-be-2-billion/">laugh all the way to the bank</a>.  In an article at Crispy Gamer, David Thomas dissects one of the most critical issues in gaming today: used games and merchants (online and brick-and-mortar) <a href="http://www.crispygamer.com/features/2009-07-16/fair-trade-the-simple-economics-of-why-game-developers-should-shut-up-about-used-games-part-2.aspx">who specialize in this 'sleight of hand.'"</a> </i></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ssquared22 writes " It may feel like a rip-off to some , but you 've got to admit that paying $ 30 for Gears of War 2 sure beats paying $ 60 !
Game publishers and developers may not like it , but people are going to trade in used games for new games and those old games will be sold back to other people .
There 's nothing game developers can do to stop them , and companies like Gamestop continue to laugh all the way to the bank .
In an article at Crispy Gamer , David Thomas dissects one of the most critical issues in gaming today : used games and merchants ( online and brick-and-mortar ) who specialize in this 'sleight of hand .
' "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ssquared22 writes "It may feel like a rip-off to some, but you've got to admit that paying $30 for Gears of War 2 sure beats paying $60!
Game publishers and developers may not like it, but people are going to trade in used games for new games and those old games will be sold back to other people.
There's nothing game developers can do to stop them, and companies like Gamestop continue to laugh all the way to the bank.
In an article at Crispy Gamer, David Thomas dissects one of the most critical issues in gaming today: used games and merchants (online and brick-and-mortar) who specialize in this 'sleight of hand.
'" </sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28720947</id>
	<title>My buying habits</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247774640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>          I used to have all the systems and buy everything new when I was younger and had the 'rents to buy me stuff.  I soon came to my senses however and I currently only play new games on my PC and a Wii.  I only buy AAA Nintendo titles (Mario, Link, and Metroid type games) for the Wii, and I pirate everything on the PC except the occasional game that you would want to play multiplayer on.  (I have just been burned WAY too many times by companies doing shitty port jobs, and just mangaling what should be great games when they release them on PC.<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; I also sell my old games that I don't want anymore, but I sure as hell don't take them to a gamestop or any similar store.  That shit is stupid, its a total rip off.  What I do and I don't know why more people dont is when I am done with a game I simply sell it on Amazon.  You can get more for your money, help out fellow cheap-ass gamers, and cut out the middleman and annoying trip to the mall.  It was my understanding that this is the behavior the game companies wanted to stop.  The selling from one consumer to another of second hand titles.  There is no profit for anyone in that scenario except for Amazon and eBay type sites.  If they don't want consumers selling their old games to help pay for new ones, they sure as hell better lower the prices of those games and stop with the whole anti-piracy treat everyone like crooks bs they have been doing.<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; So far Steam is the best example I can point to as a model for the rest of the gaming industry.  Affordable prices and convenience make up for the fact that you cannot resell the titles for some people anyway.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I used to have all the systems and buy everything new when I was younger and had the 'rents to buy me stuff .
I soon came to my senses however and I currently only play new games on my PC and a Wii .
I only buy AAA Nintendo titles ( Mario , Link , and Metroid type games ) for the Wii , and I pirate everything on the PC except the occasional game that you would want to play multiplayer on .
( I have just been burned WAY too many times by companies doing shitty port jobs , and just mangaling what should be great games when they release them on PC .
                    I also sell my old games that I do n't want anymore , but I sure as hell do n't take them to a gamestop or any similar store .
That shit is stupid , its a total rip off .
What I do and I do n't know why more people dont is when I am done with a game I simply sell it on Amazon .
You can get more for your money , help out fellow cheap-ass gamers , and cut out the middleman and annoying trip to the mall .
It was my understanding that this is the behavior the game companies wanted to stop .
The selling from one consumer to another of second hand titles .
There is no profit for anyone in that scenario except for Amazon and eBay type sites .
If they do n't want consumers selling their old games to help pay for new ones , they sure as hell better lower the prices of those games and stop with the whole anti-piracy treat everyone like crooks bs they have been doing .
                    So far Steam is the best example I can point to as a model for the rest of the gaming industry .
Affordable prices and convenience make up for the fact that you can not resell the titles for some people anyway .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>          I used to have all the systems and buy everything new when I was younger and had the 'rents to buy me stuff.
I soon came to my senses however and I currently only play new games on my PC and a Wii.
I only buy AAA Nintendo titles (Mario, Link, and Metroid type games) for the Wii, and I pirate everything on the PC except the occasional game that you would want to play multiplayer on.
(I have just been burned WAY too many times by companies doing shitty port jobs, and just mangaling what should be great games when they release them on PC.
                    I also sell my old games that I don't want anymore, but I sure as hell don't take them to a gamestop or any similar store.
That shit is stupid, its a total rip off.
What I do and I don't know why more people dont is when I am done with a game I simply sell it on Amazon.
You can get more for your money, help out fellow cheap-ass gamers, and cut out the middleman and annoying trip to the mall.
It was my understanding that this is the behavior the game companies wanted to stop.
The selling from one consumer to another of second hand titles.
There is no profit for anyone in that scenario except for Amazon and eBay type sites.
If they don't want consumers selling their old games to help pay for new ones, they sure as hell better lower the prices of those games and stop with the whole anti-piracy treat everyone like crooks bs they have been doing.
                    So far Steam is the best example I can point to as a model for the rest of the gaming industry.
Affordable prices and convenience make up for the fact that you cannot resell the titles for some people anyway.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28727521</id>
	<title>Re:Used games put more money in the studios hands.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247830140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Nice trick. Now try this one.</p><p>Alice has $60.<br>Bob has $60.</p><p>No used:<br>Alice buys Gears of War.<br>Bob buys Gears of War.<br>Money given to studios - $120</p><p>With used:<br>Alice buys Gears of War.<br>Alice sells GoW to Bob.<br>Money given to studios - $60</p><p>I don't think it is as clear cut as you make it out to be.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Nice trick .
Now try this one.Alice has $ 60.Bob has $ 60.No used : Alice buys Gears of War.Bob buys Gears of War.Money given to studios - $ 120With used : Alice buys Gears of War.Alice sells GoW to Bob.Money given to studios - $ 60I do n't think it is as clear cut as you make it out to be .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nice trick.
Now try this one.Alice has $60.Bob has $60.No used:Alice buys Gears of War.Bob buys Gears of War.Money given to studios - $120With used:Alice buys Gears of War.Alice sells GoW to Bob.Money given to studios - $60I don't think it is as clear cut as you make it out to be.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28721249</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28720301</id>
	<title>Developers need to do the math</title>
	<author>Itchyeyes</author>
	<datestamp>1247772060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Developers and publishers are under the, mistaken, impression that they're missing out on huge revenue stream through used games.  Let's assume that I buy a game for $60.  Once I'm done with it, I sell it, either through Gamestop or Amazon for about $20 net.  They take a $10 commission and sell it to someone else for $30.  In this scenario developers seem to think that they've missed out on a single $60 from the person who bought it at $30 used, but that just isn't the case.</p><p>First of all, the person who waited for a used copy at $30 isn't going to spend $60 in the absence of a used copy.  They're going to wait until the new copies are about $30 and buy it then.  Giving them fewer choices of how to spend their money does not magically give them more money to spend.  Also, the person who bought the game at $60, didn't just buy a game.  They bought a game that they knew they could sell for ~$20.  By stripping out the ability to resell the game you lower the value of the game to the initial buyer as well.  So without the used option, the developer doesn't get two $60 sales, they get one $40 sale and one $30 sale.  But they have to pay for all the production, shipping, packing, etc... costs for a second copy of the game as well.  So at the end of the day the net gain is more or less zero.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Developers and publishers are under the , mistaken , impression that they 're missing out on huge revenue stream through used games .
Let 's assume that I buy a game for $ 60 .
Once I 'm done with it , I sell it , either through Gamestop or Amazon for about $ 20 net .
They take a $ 10 commission and sell it to someone else for $ 30 .
In this scenario developers seem to think that they 've missed out on a single $ 60 from the person who bought it at $ 30 used , but that just is n't the case.First of all , the person who waited for a used copy at $ 30 is n't going to spend $ 60 in the absence of a used copy .
They 're going to wait until the new copies are about $ 30 and buy it then .
Giving them fewer choices of how to spend their money does not magically give them more money to spend .
Also , the person who bought the game at $ 60 , did n't just buy a game .
They bought a game that they knew they could sell for ~ $ 20 .
By stripping out the ability to resell the game you lower the value of the game to the initial buyer as well .
So without the used option , the developer does n't get two $ 60 sales , they get one $ 40 sale and one $ 30 sale .
But they have to pay for all the production , shipping , packing , etc... costs for a second copy of the game as well .
So at the end of the day the net gain is more or less zero .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Developers and publishers are under the, mistaken, impression that they're missing out on huge revenue stream through used games.
Let's assume that I buy a game for $60.
Once I'm done with it, I sell it, either through Gamestop or Amazon for about $20 net.
They take a $10 commission and sell it to someone else for $30.
In this scenario developers seem to think that they've missed out on a single $60 from the person who bought it at $30 used, but that just isn't the case.First of all, the person who waited for a used copy at $30 isn't going to spend $60 in the absence of a used copy.
They're going to wait until the new copies are about $30 and buy it then.
Giving them fewer choices of how to spend their money does not magically give them more money to spend.
Also, the person who bought the game at $60, didn't just buy a game.
They bought a game that they knew they could sell for ~$20.
By stripping out the ability to resell the game you lower the value of the game to the initial buyer as well.
So without the used option, the developer doesn't get two $60 sales, they get one $40 sale and one $30 sale.
But they have to pay for all the production, shipping, packing, etc... costs for a second copy of the game as well.
So at the end of the day the net gain is more or less zero.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28724711</id>
	<title>Obligatory XKCD</title>
	<author>w0mprat</author>
	<datestamp>1247749140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Reasons for buying used games is the lesser need for high-end hardware.
<a href="http://www.xkcd.com/606/" title="xkcd.com">http://www.xkcd.com/606/</a> [xkcd.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>Reasons for buying used games is the lesser need for high-end hardware .
http : //www.xkcd.com/606/ [ xkcd.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Reasons for buying used games is the lesser need for high-end hardware.
http://www.xkcd.com/606/ [xkcd.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28729297</id>
	<title>Re:Great advertising for new versions!</title>
	<author>sharperguy</author>
	<datestamp>1247843220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Sometimes, paying off legislators to write laws saying it's illegal for anyone to compete with you is more profitable. "<br>"All that is why we need partial capitalism with strictly enforced government oversight and regulation."</p><p>-<br>"paying off legislators to write laws saying it's illegal"<br>"partial capitalism with strictly enforced government oversight and regulation."</p><p>-<br>"paying off legislators"<br>"government oversight and regulation"<br>
&nbsp;</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Sometimes , paying off legislators to write laws saying it 's illegal for anyone to compete with you is more profitable .
" " All that is why we need partial capitalism with strictly enforced government oversight and regulation .
" - " paying off legislators to write laws saying it 's illegal " " partial capitalism with strictly enforced government oversight and regulation .
" - " paying off legislators " " government oversight and regulation "  </tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Sometimes, paying off legislators to write laws saying it's illegal for anyone to compete with you is more profitable.
""All that is why we need partial capitalism with strictly enforced government oversight and regulation.
"-"paying off legislators to write laws saying it's illegal""partial capitalism with strictly enforced government oversight and regulation.
"-"paying off legislators""government oversight and regulation"
 </sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28723017</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28723769</id>
	<title>Re:Used games put more money in the studios hands.</title>
	<author>brkello</author>
	<datestamp>1247743380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Your example is stupid.</p><p>Alice has a $90k a year job.<br>Bob is unemployed.</p><p>No used:<br>Alice buys GoW + GoW2.<br>Bob steals money from his mom and buys GoW and GoW2.<br>Money to studios: $240</p><p>Used:<br>Alice Buys GoW + GoW2.<br>Bon steals money from his mom and buys them used.<br>Money to studio: $120</p><p>Making up BS scenarios doesn't make you right.  Particularly when you make up stupid constraints that don't exist in real life.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Your example is stupid.Alice has a $ 90k a year job.Bob is unemployed.No used : Alice buys GoW + GoW2.Bob steals money from his mom and buys GoW and GoW2.Money to studios : $ 240Used : Alice Buys GoW + GoW2.Bon steals money from his mom and buys them used.Money to studio : $ 120Making up BS scenarios does n't make you right .
Particularly when you make up stupid constraints that do n't exist in real life .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Your example is stupid.Alice has a $90k a year job.Bob is unemployed.No used:Alice buys GoW + GoW2.Bob steals money from his mom and buys GoW and GoW2.Money to studios: $240Used:Alice Buys GoW + GoW2.Bon steals money from his mom and buys them used.Money to studio: $120Making up BS scenarios doesn't make you right.
Particularly when you make up stupid constraints that don't exist in real life.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28721249</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28723677</id>
	<title>Re:Great advertising for new versions!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247742960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> The four of us saved over $100 off the 0-day price, which'll pay for a nice bag of weed and some beer for the Left4Dead party we will surely have.</p></div><p>Duuuuude yer payin waaay too much for your weed and beer.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The four of us saved over $ 100 off the 0-day price , which 'll pay for a nice bag of weed and some beer for the Left4Dead party we will surely have.Duuuuude yer payin waaay too much for your weed and beer .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> The four of us saved over $100 off the 0-day price, which'll pay for a nice bag of weed and some beer for the Left4Dead party we will surely have.Duuuuude yer payin waaay too much for your weed and beer.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28721363</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28720957</id>
	<title>They do</title>
	<author>mrwolf007</author>
	<datestamp>1247774640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I got Quake4 at Amazon for 20 euros a couple of years ago.<br>
Actually after playing the torrented version to the end. Decided i liked it and so i bought it.<br>
Well, very much the same thing i already did with Doom1 (except there werent any torrents back then).</htmltext>
<tokenext>I got Quake4 at Amazon for 20 euros a couple of years ago .
Actually after playing the torrented version to the end .
Decided i liked it and so i bought it .
Well , very much the same thing i already did with Doom1 ( except there werent any torrents back then ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I got Quake4 at Amazon for 20 euros a couple of years ago.
Actually after playing the torrented version to the end.
Decided i liked it and so i bought it.
Well, very much the same thing i already did with Doom1 (except there werent any torrents back then).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28720075</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28720109</id>
	<title>Re:They can stop it: Installs locked to hardware.</title>
	<author>Mortiss</author>
	<datestamp>1247771400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yeah,<br>Thus ensuring that many people simply will not buy it because they not only cannot trade it but also cannot even take it to their friends places to play.</p><p>That would be a very stupid move indeed.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah,Thus ensuring that many people simply will not buy it because they not only can not trade it but also can not even take it to their friends places to play.That would be a very stupid move indeed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah,Thus ensuring that many people simply will not buy it because they not only cannot trade it but also cannot even take it to their friends places to play.That would be a very stupid move indeed.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28720025</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28724127</id>
	<title>I'm a Game Developer...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247745180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...and while it may be true that not all big-budget games result in good entertainment experiences, it is certainly true that on the average, over time, the more money available for development the better the game.  This is simply incontrovertible.</p><p>To the degree that used game sales diminish the revenue of game developers (and they do, despite some of the juvenile attempts business modeling here), overall game quality and variety ultimately suffer.  We plow nearly all our profits back into new game development; if the money's not there, we can't spend it on making better games.  It's pretty simple, really.</p><p>So, if you're the type of gamer that likes top quality entertainment, then you should probably be in favor of limiting or eliminating resales -- let the people pay the developer/publisher for the entertainment rather than the intermediary, whose profit in no way benefits the creative development process of future games.</p><p>I hope someday everyone who thinks entertainment should be virtually free gets what they're asking for -- the quality of entertainment that people are willing to make for free.  It's time to be honest with yourselves about video game value and stop bitching about it -- a movie costs $5-10 per hour of entertainment (more if you consider the inflated costs of concessions).  If you play a video game for 20 hours, your cost is $2-3 per hour, much less if you play for longer.  At full price, when compared with nearly every other paid entertainment form (movies, amusement parks, plays, concerts, bowling, go cart racing, paintball, etc.), video games tend to offer one of the best values per hour.</p><p>GameStop sucks -- I'm surprised game publishers put up with their behavior at all.  Barnes and Noble doesn't rebuy books at a low price and then attempt to sell you a used book when you come in looking for a new one.  This monopolistic behavior will eventually result in a well-funded competitor or a complete switch to digital distribution (most likely with the next gen of console hardware).  And then, once and for all, this argument will be laid to rest.</p><p>If you don't think there's good value in video games, don't buy them; if you can't afford full price, wait until the price drops -- it always does.  And just know that whenever you buy used, you're only benefiting GameStop shareholders, not the creative team that built that game or (more importantly) your next game.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...and while it may be true that not all big-budget games result in good entertainment experiences , it is certainly true that on the average , over time , the more money available for development the better the game .
This is simply incontrovertible.To the degree that used game sales diminish the revenue of game developers ( and they do , despite some of the juvenile attempts business modeling here ) , overall game quality and variety ultimately suffer .
We plow nearly all our profits back into new game development ; if the money 's not there , we ca n't spend it on making better games .
It 's pretty simple , really.So , if you 're the type of gamer that likes top quality entertainment , then you should probably be in favor of limiting or eliminating resales -- let the people pay the developer/publisher for the entertainment rather than the intermediary , whose profit in no way benefits the creative development process of future games.I hope someday everyone who thinks entertainment should be virtually free gets what they 're asking for -- the quality of entertainment that people are willing to make for free .
It 's time to be honest with yourselves about video game value and stop bitching about it -- a movie costs $ 5-10 per hour of entertainment ( more if you consider the inflated costs of concessions ) .
If you play a video game for 20 hours , your cost is $ 2-3 per hour , much less if you play for longer .
At full price , when compared with nearly every other paid entertainment form ( movies , amusement parks , plays , concerts , bowling , go cart racing , paintball , etc .
) , video games tend to offer one of the best values per hour.GameStop sucks -- I 'm surprised game publishers put up with their behavior at all .
Barnes and Noble does n't rebuy books at a low price and then attempt to sell you a used book when you come in looking for a new one .
This monopolistic behavior will eventually result in a well-funded competitor or a complete switch to digital distribution ( most likely with the next gen of console hardware ) .
And then , once and for all , this argument will be laid to rest.If you do n't think there 's good value in video games , do n't buy them ; if you ca n't afford full price , wait until the price drops -- it always does .
And just know that whenever you buy used , you 're only benefiting GameStop shareholders , not the creative team that built that game or ( more importantly ) your next game .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...and while it may be true that not all big-budget games result in good entertainment experiences, it is certainly true that on the average, over time, the more money available for development the better the game.
This is simply incontrovertible.To the degree that used game sales diminish the revenue of game developers (and they do, despite some of the juvenile attempts business modeling here), overall game quality and variety ultimately suffer.
We plow nearly all our profits back into new game development; if the money's not there, we can't spend it on making better games.
It's pretty simple, really.So, if you're the type of gamer that likes top quality entertainment, then you should probably be in favor of limiting or eliminating resales -- let the people pay the developer/publisher for the entertainment rather than the intermediary, whose profit in no way benefits the creative development process of future games.I hope someday everyone who thinks entertainment should be virtually free gets what they're asking for -- the quality of entertainment that people are willing to make for free.
It's time to be honest with yourselves about video game value and stop bitching about it -- a movie costs $5-10 per hour of entertainment (more if you consider the inflated costs of concessions).
If you play a video game for 20 hours, your cost is $2-3 per hour, much less if you play for longer.
At full price, when compared with nearly every other paid entertainment form (movies, amusement parks, plays, concerts, bowling, go cart racing, paintball, etc.
), video games tend to offer one of the best values per hour.GameStop sucks -- I'm surprised game publishers put up with their behavior at all.
Barnes and Noble doesn't rebuy books at a low price and then attempt to sell you a used book when you come in looking for a new one.
This monopolistic behavior will eventually result in a well-funded competitor or a complete switch to digital distribution (most likely with the next gen of console hardware).
And then, once and for all, this argument will be laid to rest.If you don't think there's good value in video games, don't buy them; if you can't afford full price, wait until the price drops -- it always does.
And just know that whenever you buy used, you're only benefiting GameStop shareholders, not the creative team that built that game or (more importantly) your next game.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28728257</id>
	<title>Re:Great advertising for new versions!</title>
	<author>MogNuts</author>
	<datestamp>1247838360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I got a kick out of your post. However, he scary thing is that it's actually true. Having played video games for a verrrry long time, I think we have to shift our views on things.</p><p>View all video games as rentals--and treat them as such, so we're no longer ripped off. Never pay full price.  Only pay what a rental price would be. I always wait until the price drops significantly and/or  buy used.  For example, Saints Row 2 on Amazon is already only $5.  Another example: pick up cheap deals on Steam--like when Bioshock was $5. This way if DRM/online play is screwed, you are only out $5-10.</p><p>And a side rant: reviews are all bought. We can't trust them. Forget them.  And don't buy games based on them anymore. Either rent the game (console) to see if you like them first or play a demo (PC). Yes, demos are not the greatest indicator, but if you play video games long enough you know what to look for in a demo that pretty much will tell you if the game is worth buying.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I got a kick out of your post .
However , he scary thing is that it 's actually true .
Having played video games for a verrrry long time , I think we have to shift our views on things.View all video games as rentals--and treat them as such , so we 're no longer ripped off .
Never pay full price .
Only pay what a rental price would be .
I always wait until the price drops significantly and/or buy used .
For example , Saints Row 2 on Amazon is already only $ 5 .
Another example : pick up cheap deals on Steam--like when Bioshock was $ 5 .
This way if DRM/online play is screwed , you are only out $ 5-10.And a side rant : reviews are all bought .
We ca n't trust them .
Forget them .
And do n't buy games based on them anymore .
Either rent the game ( console ) to see if you like them first or play a demo ( PC ) .
Yes , demos are not the greatest indicator , but if you play video games long enough you know what to look for in a demo that pretty much will tell you if the game is worth buying .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I got a kick out of your post.
However, he scary thing is that it's actually true.
Having played video games for a verrrry long time, I think we have to shift our views on things.View all video games as rentals--and treat them as such, so we're no longer ripped off.
Never pay full price.
Only pay what a rental price would be.
I always wait until the price drops significantly and/or  buy used.
For example, Saints Row 2 on Amazon is already only $5.
Another example: pick up cheap deals on Steam--like when Bioshock was $5.
This way if DRM/online play is screwed, you are only out $5-10.And a side rant: reviews are all bought.
We can't trust them.
Forget them.
And don't buy games based on them anymore.
Either rent the game (console) to see if you like them first or play a demo (PC).
Yes, demos are not the greatest indicator, but if you play video games long enough you know what to look for in a demo that pretty much will tell you if the game is worth buying.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28721333</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28721883</id>
	<title>Re:Lower your price!</title>
	<author>moderatorrater</author>
	<datestamp>1247735160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The key ingredient that I think game companies are missing is that they can be active participants in this process and that the used game market's performance is coupled to the new game market's performance. <br> <br>

For instance, EA could open their own stores and use the used games as loss-leaders: sure we have madden '07 for $5, but why not get '08 with the updated roster? When someone trades in the game, they could sell them a new game immediately. They'd build brand loyalty, get some positive PR, and get customers into the stores where they make the most profit. They could then run sales at specific stores to see how price points changed the number of sales. If every game shop in LA lowers the price of Madden from $60 to $40, do sales go up 300\%? They could even offer incentive programs, where gamer dads could pay $50/yr for the ability to turn in damaged game discs for new ones. <br> <br>

Even without being active participants, though, everyone knows those guys who buy a game the day it comes out, plays it over the weekend and then trades it in so they can get the next great game. In my case, I use it as a safety net if I end up hating the game. I love the original Resistance, but Resistance 2 was painful because it removed literally everything I loved about the original. I only trade in games I hate, but it effectively means there's only $15 on the line instead of $60 when I get a new game. Without that safety net I'm not even sure I'd own a console.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The key ingredient that I think game companies are missing is that they can be active participants in this process and that the used game market 's performance is coupled to the new game market 's performance .
For instance , EA could open their own stores and use the used games as loss-leaders : sure we have madden '07 for $ 5 , but why not get '08 with the updated roster ?
When someone trades in the game , they could sell them a new game immediately .
They 'd build brand loyalty , get some positive PR , and get customers into the stores where they make the most profit .
They could then run sales at specific stores to see how price points changed the number of sales .
If every game shop in LA lowers the price of Madden from $ 60 to $ 40 , do sales go up 300 \ % ?
They could even offer incentive programs , where gamer dads could pay $ 50/yr for the ability to turn in damaged game discs for new ones .
Even without being active participants , though , everyone knows those guys who buy a game the day it comes out , plays it over the weekend and then trades it in so they can get the next great game .
In my case , I use it as a safety net if I end up hating the game .
I love the original Resistance , but Resistance 2 was painful because it removed literally everything I loved about the original .
I only trade in games I hate , but it effectively means there 's only $ 15 on the line instead of $ 60 when I get a new game .
Without that safety net I 'm not even sure I 'd own a console .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The key ingredient that I think game companies are missing is that they can be active participants in this process and that the used game market's performance is coupled to the new game market's performance.
For instance, EA could open their own stores and use the used games as loss-leaders: sure we have madden '07 for $5, but why not get '08 with the updated roster?
When someone trades in the game, they could sell them a new game immediately.
They'd build brand loyalty, get some positive PR, and get customers into the stores where they make the most profit.
They could then run sales at specific stores to see how price points changed the number of sales.
If every game shop in LA lowers the price of Madden from $60 to $40, do sales go up 300\%?
They could even offer incentive programs, where gamer dads could pay $50/yr for the ability to turn in damaged game discs for new ones.
Even without being active participants, though, everyone knows those guys who buy a game the day it comes out, plays it over the weekend and then trades it in so they can get the next great game.
In my case, I use it as a safety net if I end up hating the game.
I love the original Resistance, but Resistance 2 was painful because it removed literally everything I loved about the original.
I only trade in games I hate, but it effectively means there's only $15 on the line instead of $60 when I get a new game.
Without that safety net I'm not even sure I'd own a console.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28720075</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28720505</id>
	<title>Same solution to whining as always</title>
	<author>DarksideDaveOR</author>
	<datestamp>1247772840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The entities complaining that used game sales are costing them money need to do the same thing as all whiners - face the reality, and do something that actually has a shot of working.</p><p>Enough with this trying to cherry-pick the characteristics of physical and non-physical products that suit your current business model the best.</p><p>In the case of used game sales, they simply need to get in on the action.  Forget resale of discs; that's a lost cause.  In the near future, even where those items still exist, they'll be linked to an account anyway.</p><p>They need to get in on resale of digital purchases.  Say I'm done with a game I bought on Steam.  I put my "copy" of the game up for sale, for some percentage of the current "new" price.  Some other user decides to buy it, and pays that price.  I get a substantial chunk of it in credit - at least half.  The rest gets split between the publisher and Steam.  The publisher and the developer can then work out what they do with that bit.</p><p>Mind you, eventually I'd like to see an end to paying for individual games at all.  Instead, I pay a monthly subscription, and play whatever games I want.  In turn, the developers for those games get a percentage of my subscription fee, based on how much I (and other subscribers) play their game.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The entities complaining that used game sales are costing them money need to do the same thing as all whiners - face the reality , and do something that actually has a shot of working.Enough with this trying to cherry-pick the characteristics of physical and non-physical products that suit your current business model the best.In the case of used game sales , they simply need to get in on the action .
Forget resale of discs ; that 's a lost cause .
In the near future , even where those items still exist , they 'll be linked to an account anyway.They need to get in on resale of digital purchases .
Say I 'm done with a game I bought on Steam .
I put my " copy " of the game up for sale , for some percentage of the current " new " price .
Some other user decides to buy it , and pays that price .
I get a substantial chunk of it in credit - at least half .
The rest gets split between the publisher and Steam .
The publisher and the developer can then work out what they do with that bit.Mind you , eventually I 'd like to see an end to paying for individual games at all .
Instead , I pay a monthly subscription , and play whatever games I want .
In turn , the developers for those games get a percentage of my subscription fee , based on how much I ( and other subscribers ) play their game .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The entities complaining that used game sales are costing them money need to do the same thing as all whiners - face the reality, and do something that actually has a shot of working.Enough with this trying to cherry-pick the characteristics of physical and non-physical products that suit your current business model the best.In the case of used game sales, they simply need to get in on the action.
Forget resale of discs; that's a lost cause.
In the near future, even where those items still exist, they'll be linked to an account anyway.They need to get in on resale of digital purchases.
Say I'm done with a game I bought on Steam.
I put my "copy" of the game up for sale, for some percentage of the current "new" price.
Some other user decides to buy it, and pays that price.
I get a substantial chunk of it in credit - at least half.
The rest gets split between the publisher and Steam.
The publisher and the developer can then work out what they do with that bit.Mind you, eventually I'd like to see an end to paying for individual games at all.
Instead, I pay a monthly subscription, and play whatever games I want.
In turn, the developers for those games get a percentage of my subscription fee, based on how much I (and other subscribers) play their game.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28720153</id>
	<title>"sleight of hand"</title>
	<author>Daniel Dvorkin</author>
	<datestamp>1247771580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Anyone who describes selling used <b>anything</b> this way is clearly so out of touch with reality that their opinion on the subject isn't worth listening to.</p><p>The primary reason that game developers (and marketers) should shut up about used games?  It's not because it may act as advertising for their future games, although that's a valid economic argument.  It's because <b>if you buy something, you own it, and it is yours to do with as you wish.</b>  Don't talk about "selling" people games if you're not willing to, you know, sell them.  Rent them out, whatever.  But when you agree to have your products on store shelves (store, not rental facility) or listed as "for sale" in online catalogs, you are giving up the right to control what people do with the physical media after they buy them.  Period.  End of story.  Game over, man, game over.</p><p>Movie studios, music labels, book publishers:  you too.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Anyone who describes selling used anything this way is clearly so out of touch with reality that their opinion on the subject is n't worth listening to.The primary reason that game developers ( and marketers ) should shut up about used games ?
It 's not because it may act as advertising for their future games , although that 's a valid economic argument .
It 's because if you buy something , you own it , and it is yours to do with as you wish .
Do n't talk about " selling " people games if you 're not willing to , you know , sell them .
Rent them out , whatever .
But when you agree to have your products on store shelves ( store , not rental facility ) or listed as " for sale " in online catalogs , you are giving up the right to control what people do with the physical media after they buy them .
Period. End of story .
Game over , man , game over.Movie studios , music labels , book publishers : you too .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Anyone who describes selling used anything this way is clearly so out of touch with reality that their opinion on the subject isn't worth listening to.The primary reason that game developers (and marketers) should shut up about used games?
It's not because it may act as advertising for their future games, although that's a valid economic argument.
It's because if you buy something, you own it, and it is yours to do with as you wish.
Don't talk about "selling" people games if you're not willing to, you know, sell them.
Rent them out, whatever.
But when you agree to have your products on store shelves (store, not rental facility) or listed as "for sale" in online catalogs, you are giving up the right to control what people do with the physical media after they buy them.
Period.  End of story.
Game over, man, game over.Movie studios, music labels, book publishers:  you too.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28722975</id>
	<title>What is this "sleight of hand"  crap?</title>
	<author>voss</author>
	<datestamp>1247739900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There is NO comparison between a pirated game and a used game.</p><p>A used game was bought as a new game legally, and sold to a new owner legally. Its called the doctrine of first sale. It works the same way for games or dvds</p><p>If the game company wants to make their $60 xbox 360 games not re-sellable I just wont buy their games.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There is NO comparison between a pirated game and a used game.A used game was bought as a new game legally , and sold to a new owner legally .
Its called the doctrine of first sale .
It works the same way for games or dvdsIf the game company wants to make their $ 60 xbox 360 games not re-sellable I just wont buy their games .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is NO comparison between a pirated game and a used game.A used game was bought as a new game legally, and sold to a new owner legally.
Its called the doctrine of first sale.
It works the same way for games or dvdsIf the game company wants to make their $60 xbox 360 games not re-sellable I just wont buy their games.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28729131</id>
	<title>Re:The Law</title>
	<author>Absolut187</author>
	<datestamp>1247842560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes, you're right.</p><p>Can't win.<br>Don't try.</p><p>You will achieve much.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , you 're right.Ca n't win.Do n't try.You will achieve much .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, you're right.Can't win.Don't try.You will achieve much.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28722009</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28720965</id>
	<title>Such crap!</title>
	<author>teamsleep</author>
	<datestamp>1247774700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Game Developers expected all kinds of royalties to be paid. Do they expect Used Games to be sold as new? Doesn't make sense.
<br> <br>
What also doesn't make sense is; a car and a game are nothing a like. Sure you can buy a brand new car/game but you can't wait and buy a degraded version of a game(only a car.)
<br> <br>
A Video Game doesn't degrade, I mean sure it can if the disc is left outside for 3 weeks. But really, if you buy a game, used or new. They're pretty identical. Minus maybe a manual and original box/case. But who cares?
<br> <br>
Point being, Game Developers need to kiss ass and be glad people still buy their 3-4 year old game. In some cases more than 5.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Game Developers expected all kinds of royalties to be paid .
Do they expect Used Games to be sold as new ?
Does n't make sense .
What also does n't make sense is ; a car and a game are nothing a like .
Sure you can buy a brand new car/game but you ca n't wait and buy a degraded version of a game ( only a car .
) A Video Game does n't degrade , I mean sure it can if the disc is left outside for 3 weeks .
But really , if you buy a game , used or new .
They 're pretty identical .
Minus maybe a manual and original box/case .
But who cares ?
Point being , Game Developers need to kiss ass and be glad people still buy their 3-4 year old game .
In some cases more than 5 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Game Developers expected all kinds of royalties to be paid.
Do they expect Used Games to be sold as new?
Doesn't make sense.
What also doesn't make sense is; a car and a game are nothing a like.
Sure you can buy a brand new car/game but you can't wait and buy a degraded version of a game(only a car.
)
 
A Video Game doesn't degrade, I mean sure it can if the disc is left outside for 3 weeks.
But really, if you buy a game, used or new.
They're pretty identical.
Minus maybe a manual and original box/case.
But who cares?
Point being, Game Developers need to kiss ass and be glad people still buy their 3-4 year old game.
In some cases more than 5.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28722009</id>
	<title>Re:The Law</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247735700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Like there are any.</p><p>The Demopublican Party in the US is owned by its largest contributors, not the voters.  Both wings of the party are, therefore, fully invested in "preserving intellectual property rights".</p><p>Since, unlike places where your vote might count (Germany, for instance, with proportional representation in the Bundestag), the Demopublican Party has managed to set up gerrymandered districts across the US to be sure that no new party can obtain a significant presence in any legislature, nor can enough independent legislators be elected to have significant input to the process.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Like there are any.The Demopublican Party in the US is owned by its largest contributors , not the voters .
Both wings of the party are , therefore , fully invested in " preserving intellectual property rights " .Since , unlike places where your vote might count ( Germany , for instance , with proportional representation in the Bundestag ) , the Demopublican Party has managed to set up gerrymandered districts across the US to be sure that no new party can obtain a significant presence in any legislature , nor can enough independent legislators be elected to have significant input to the process .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Like there are any.The Demopublican Party in the US is owned by its largest contributors, not the voters.
Both wings of the party are, therefore, fully invested in "preserving intellectual property rights".Since, unlike places where your vote might count (Germany, for instance, with proportional representation in the Bundestag), the Demopublican Party has managed to set up gerrymandered districts across the US to be sure that no new party can obtain a significant presence in any legislature, nor can enough independent legislators be elected to have significant input to the process.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28720163</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28721449</id>
	<title>Why isn't anyone asking the REAL question?</title>
	<author>v(*\_*)vvvv</author>
	<datestamp>1247776800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Game companies should progressively lower prices</p></div><p>They actually do, with their re-releasing of hit titles for about half price. This actually started partly to curb the used game market.</p><p>But why isn't anyone asking why games are so expensive in the first place? If supply and demand are suppose to govern the market price, then where there is unlimited supply, there should be aggressive price competition to lure in business. Yet, with games (and music), you find indifference.</p><p><b>I thought this was called price fixing and was illegal.</b></p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Game companies should progressively lower pricesThey actually do , with their re-releasing of hit titles for about half price .
This actually started partly to curb the used game market.But why is n't anyone asking why games are so expensive in the first place ?
If supply and demand are suppose to govern the market price , then where there is unlimited supply , there should be aggressive price competition to lure in business .
Yet , with games ( and music ) , you find indifference.I thought this was called price fixing and was illegal .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Game companies should progressively lower pricesThey actually do, with their re-releasing of hit titles for about half price.
This actually started partly to curb the used game market.But why isn't anyone asking why games are so expensive in the first place?
If supply and demand are suppose to govern the market price, then where there is unlimited supply, there should be aggressive price competition to lure in business.
Yet, with games (and music), you find indifference.I thought this was called price fixing and was illegal.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28720075</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28725973</id>
	<title>Re:Why isn't anyone asking the REAL question?</title>
	<author>jgostling</author>
	<datestamp>1247763300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Any given game is supplied by a single publisher. That means the publisher has a monopoly on said game. Supply and demand has no bearing on monopoly prices. Economics 101.<br>
<br>
Price fixing happens when multiple suppliers agree on a price level instead of competing between themselves.  The publisher has no other supplier of the game with whom to agree a price, thus no proce fixing.<br>
<br>
Cheers!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Any given game is supplied by a single publisher .
That means the publisher has a monopoly on said game .
Supply and demand has no bearing on monopoly prices .
Economics 101 .
Price fixing happens when multiple suppliers agree on a price level instead of competing between themselves .
The publisher has no other supplier of the game with whom to agree a price , thus no proce fixing .
Cheers !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Any given game is supplied by a single publisher.
That means the publisher has a monopoly on said game.
Supply and demand has no bearing on monopoly prices.
Economics 101.
Price fixing happens when multiple suppliers agree on a price level instead of competing between themselves.
The publisher has no other supplier of the game with whom to agree a price, thus no proce fixing.
Cheers!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28721449</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28720905</id>
	<title>Re:Developers need to do the math</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247774460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>By stripping out the ability to resell the game you lower the value of the game to the initial buyer as well.</p></div><p>Mod parent up. I was hoping someone would mention this. The ability to buy used games creates a market--<i>for sellers</i>. That market in turn enables game addicts to buy games new, play them, and be confident they can resell them to further fuel their addiction. I knew a few people like this. I'm not sure if it has changed significantly since the rental companies started doing monthly options, but I imagine there are still a lot of folks who follow the aforementioned trend.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>By stripping out the ability to resell the game you lower the value of the game to the initial buyer as well.Mod parent up .
I was hoping someone would mention this .
The ability to buy used games creates a market--for sellers .
That market in turn enables game addicts to buy games new , play them , and be confident they can resell them to further fuel their addiction .
I knew a few people like this .
I 'm not sure if it has changed significantly since the rental companies started doing monthly options , but I imagine there are still a lot of folks who follow the aforementioned trend .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>By stripping out the ability to resell the game you lower the value of the game to the initial buyer as well.Mod parent up.
I was hoping someone would mention this.
The ability to buy used games creates a market--for sellers.
That market in turn enables game addicts to buy games new, play them, and be confident they can resell them to further fuel their addiction.
I knew a few people like this.
I'm not sure if it has changed significantly since the rental companies started doing monthly options, but I imagine there are still a lot of folks who follow the aforementioned trend.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28720301</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28723319</id>
	<title>Re:Great advertising for new versions!</title>
	<author>Darinbob</author>
	<datestamp>1247741400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I typically wait until the price drops too.  The full price is essentially the "early adopter" price, intended for those who want the bragging rights or who don't have the patience.  If you wait the retail price will drop, there will be more patches available, more user mods, you may have a newer computer, etc.<br><br>However I've seen the prices drop much less often and much slower than they used to.  Not sure why this is.  Game distributors putting the clamp down on resellers?  It seems like $19.95 is the new rock bottom price too, few games seem to drop even further to $9.95 like they used to.<br><br>I have definitely noticed that the online prices for digital download of games rarely go down significantly.  I've seen $60 prices on one and two year old games.  The game developer/distributor doesn't seem to have caught on that there are cheaper places for game or that the demand and value of the game has diminished.  They have no "shelf space" taking up room which may reduce the need to drop prices, but at the same they could push more product by bringing down the price to encourage more buyers.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I typically wait until the price drops too .
The full price is essentially the " early adopter " price , intended for those who want the bragging rights or who do n't have the patience .
If you wait the retail price will drop , there will be more patches available , more user mods , you may have a newer computer , etc.However I 've seen the prices drop much less often and much slower than they used to .
Not sure why this is .
Game distributors putting the clamp down on resellers ?
It seems like $ 19.95 is the new rock bottom price too , few games seem to drop even further to $ 9.95 like they used to.I have definitely noticed that the online prices for digital download of games rarely go down significantly .
I 've seen $ 60 prices on one and two year old games .
The game developer/distributor does n't seem to have caught on that there are cheaper places for game or that the demand and value of the game has diminished .
They have no " shelf space " taking up room which may reduce the need to drop prices , but at the same they could push more product by bringing down the price to encourage more buyers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I typically wait until the price drops too.
The full price is essentially the "early adopter" price, intended for those who want the bragging rights or who don't have the patience.
If you wait the retail price will drop, there will be more patches available, more user mods, you may have a newer computer, etc.However I've seen the prices drop much less often and much slower than they used to.
Not sure why this is.
Game distributors putting the clamp down on resellers?
It seems like $19.95 is the new rock bottom price too, few games seem to drop even further to $9.95 like they used to.I have definitely noticed that the online prices for digital download of games rarely go down significantly.
I've seen $60 prices on one and two year old games.
The game developer/distributor doesn't seem to have caught on that there are cheaper places for game or that the demand and value of the game has diminished.
They have no "shelf space" taking up room which may reduce the need to drop prices, but at the same they could push more product by bringing down the price to encourage more buyers.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28721363</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28720737</id>
	<title>A healthy used market makes for a healthy new one!</title>
	<author>Me! Me! 42</author>
	<datestamp>1247773740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Its silly for the game companies to concern themselves with this. Buyers at all points in the market are more likely to buy/pay a higher price since they can have confidence that their investment will retain value due to a healthy secondary market. GM discovered this more than half a century ago when Harley Earl et. al. invented the annual model change.<br>
If anything, they should, as some suggest above, get into the used game market themselves.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Its silly for the game companies to concern themselves with this .
Buyers at all points in the market are more likely to buy/pay a higher price since they can have confidence that their investment will retain value due to a healthy secondary market .
GM discovered this more than half a century ago when Harley Earl et .
al. invented the annual model change .
If anything , they should , as some suggest above , get into the used game market themselves .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Its silly for the game companies to concern themselves with this.
Buyers at all points in the market are more likely to buy/pay a higher price since they can have confidence that their investment will retain value due to a healthy secondary market.
GM discovered this more than half a century ago when Harley Earl et.
al. invented the annual model change.
If anything, they should, as some suggest above, get into the used game market themselves.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28724315</id>
	<title>Re:Great advertising for new versions!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247746320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Or the Game Publishers (the ones who actually sell the games) would wise up and start offering to buy-back games with store credit. This would cut into the supply of used games and while the loss in profit would be offset by the increase in sales of new games.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Or the Game Publishers ( the ones who actually sell the games ) would wise up and start offering to buy-back games with store credit .
This would cut into the supply of used games and while the loss in profit would be offset by the increase in sales of new games .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Or the Game Publishers (the ones who actually sell the games) would wise up and start offering to buy-back games with store credit.
This would cut into the supply of used games and while the loss in profit would be offset by the increase in sales of new games.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28720133</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28730079</id>
	<title>Re:Lower your price!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247846640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Step 1:  Game companies should form a collaboration with a central Online store and/or digital delivery service.  Rally around Stardock, or Steam, or make something new.</p><p>Step 2:  With an alternate content delivery pipeline in place, this gaming consortium can then use it's position to strong arm the Brick and Mortar stores: One at a time, start with EB.  The deal? If you want to continue to make money selling our games, we get a piece of the used sales.  If you don't: Go fuck yourself.  Best Buy and Walmart don't do the used game thing; if EB refuses to play ball: Cut them off.  They will wither and die while without you and they know it.</p><p>Step 3:  Profit.</p><p>Alternate Step 3:  EB refuses and becomes a pure Second hand store.  Which would be kind of weird.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Step 1 : Game companies should form a collaboration with a central Online store and/or digital delivery service .
Rally around Stardock , or Steam , or make something new.Step 2 : With an alternate content delivery pipeline in place , this gaming consortium can then use it 's position to strong arm the Brick and Mortar stores : One at a time , start with EB .
The deal ?
If you want to continue to make money selling our games , we get a piece of the used sales .
If you do n't : Go fuck yourself .
Best Buy and Walmart do n't do the used game thing ; if EB refuses to play ball : Cut them off .
They will wither and die while without you and they know it.Step 3 : Profit.Alternate Step 3 : EB refuses and becomes a pure Second hand store .
Which would be kind of weird .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Step 1:  Game companies should form a collaboration with a central Online store and/or digital delivery service.
Rally around Stardock, or Steam, or make something new.Step 2:  With an alternate content delivery pipeline in place, this gaming consortium can then use it's position to strong arm the Brick and Mortar stores: One at a time, start with EB.
The deal?
If you want to continue to make money selling our games, we get a piece of the used sales.
If you don't: Go fuck yourself.
Best Buy and Walmart don't do the used game thing; if EB refuses to play ball: Cut them off.
They will wither and die while without you and they know it.Step 3:  Profit.Alternate Step 3:  EB refuses and becomes a pure Second hand store.
Which would be kind of weird.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28720075</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28723861</id>
	<title>Re:"sleight of hand"</title>
	<author>hebcb</author>
	<datestamp>1247743920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Their claim is they are selling a *license* to use the thing, not the thing itself. The price is what you pay to experience the product. It's the same argument as other media (ripping music, taking your camcorder into a theater). I think it a perfectly reasonable argument.

The car example that another poster offered is not valid since the business model the car company put together bakes in the used car market.... a car has a much longer shelf life than an "experience". Another poster made the point that game makers should create a game that has a longer shelf life... sure that would be great but it's much harder and not worth the price we would have to pay for it. If you don't want to pay full-price for a game, wait until it's no longer "hot" then by it once the company drops it's prices (which is what the game companies *should* be focused on to protect themselves from reselling)</htmltext>
<tokenext>Their claim is they are selling a * license * to use the thing , not the thing itself .
The price is what you pay to experience the product .
It 's the same argument as other media ( ripping music , taking your camcorder into a theater ) .
I think it a perfectly reasonable argument .
The car example that another poster offered is not valid since the business model the car company put together bakes in the used car market.... a car has a much longer shelf life than an " experience " .
Another poster made the point that game makers should create a game that has a longer shelf life... sure that would be great but it 's much harder and not worth the price we would have to pay for it .
If you do n't want to pay full-price for a game , wait until it 's no longer " hot " then by it once the company drops it 's prices ( which is what the game companies * should * be focused on to protect themselves from reselling )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Their claim is they are selling a *license* to use the thing, not the thing itself.
The price is what you pay to experience the product.
It's the same argument as other media (ripping music, taking your camcorder into a theater).
I think it a perfectly reasonable argument.
The car example that another poster offered is not valid since the business model the car company put together bakes in the used car market.... a car has a much longer shelf life than an "experience".
Another poster made the point that game makers should create a game that has a longer shelf life... sure that would be great but it's much harder and not worth the price we would have to pay for it.
If you don't want to pay full-price for a game, wait until it's no longer "hot" then by it once the company drops it's prices (which is what the game companies *should* be focused on to protect themselves from reselling)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28720153</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28720653</id>
	<title>Fictitious Opportunity Cost</title>
	<author>javacowboy</author>
	<datestamp>1247773440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There's something that game developers don't seem to understand:</p><p>Let's say for the sake of argument that there are 100 copies of said game sold for $60/copy.   Those 100 copies get sold for $6,000 total.  Of those 100 copies, 50 get sold in the used games market for $30.  Let's suppose further that there's no Gamespot and buy and sell price is the same.   Thus, $1,500 was made in the used games market.</p><p>Now, let's suppose that the game developers suddenly come up with some foolproof DRM to tie the game to the specific console it's played on, but still sell the game for $60 a pop.   What do you think will happen?</p><p>Well, it's fair to say that anywhere between 40 to 50 of those initial 100 copies don't get sold.  In fact, I'd say it's closer to 50, since I'm sure that those buyers would refuse to pay $60 for the game knowing that they won't be able to recoup $30 of it.   Given the realities of free market economics, this will drive down the price of the games to, say, $45.   This would bring in 25 buyers who would otherwise buy used games.</p><p>I know I'm making up the numbers from the top of my head, but the idea is to illustrate a point:   There's no way they can force used game buyers to pay the existing full price for a new game unless it's one of the best games of all time, and even then it probably won't work.</p><p>The game developers' notions of opportunity cost are fictitious.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There 's something that game developers do n't seem to understand : Let 's say for the sake of argument that there are 100 copies of said game sold for $ 60/copy .
Those 100 copies get sold for $ 6,000 total .
Of those 100 copies , 50 get sold in the used games market for $ 30 .
Let 's suppose further that there 's no Gamespot and buy and sell price is the same .
Thus , $ 1,500 was made in the used games market.Now , let 's suppose that the game developers suddenly come up with some foolproof DRM to tie the game to the specific console it 's played on , but still sell the game for $ 60 a pop .
What do you think will happen ? Well , it 's fair to say that anywhere between 40 to 50 of those initial 100 copies do n't get sold .
In fact , I 'd say it 's closer to 50 , since I 'm sure that those buyers would refuse to pay $ 60 for the game knowing that they wo n't be able to recoup $ 30 of it .
Given the realities of free market economics , this will drive down the price of the games to , say , $ 45 .
This would bring in 25 buyers who would otherwise buy used games.I know I 'm making up the numbers from the top of my head , but the idea is to illustrate a point : There 's no way they can force used game buyers to pay the existing full price for a new game unless it 's one of the best games of all time , and even then it probably wo n't work.The game developers ' notions of opportunity cost are fictitious .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There's something that game developers don't seem to understand:Let's say for the sake of argument that there are 100 copies of said game sold for $60/copy.
Those 100 copies get sold for $6,000 total.
Of those 100 copies, 50 get sold in the used games market for $30.
Let's suppose further that there's no Gamespot and buy and sell price is the same.
Thus, $1,500 was made in the used games market.Now, let's suppose that the game developers suddenly come up with some foolproof DRM to tie the game to the specific console it's played on, but still sell the game for $60 a pop.
What do you think will happen?Well, it's fair to say that anywhere between 40 to 50 of those initial 100 copies don't get sold.
In fact, I'd say it's closer to 50, since I'm sure that those buyers would refuse to pay $60 for the game knowing that they won't be able to recoup $30 of it.
Given the realities of free market economics, this will drive down the price of the games to, say, $45.
This would bring in 25 buyers who would otherwise buy used games.I know I'm making up the numbers from the top of my head, but the idea is to illustrate a point:   There's no way they can force used game buyers to pay the existing full price for a new game unless it's one of the best games of all time, and even then it probably won't work.The game developers' notions of opportunity cost are fictitious.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28720273</id>
	<title>Steam</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247772000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Personally I think there needs to be a better distribution network for games.
Steam for example is great at what it does on the PC side.
I can grab a game when it comes out right away, but odds are if I wait 2 weekends it'll be on sale.
Or I can wait 6 months and it's lumped together with a few other games in a bundle pack.

90\% of what I've bought on steam has come in a bundle pack that averaged out to less then $10 a game.

If they had a system this slick for the console market I wouldn't need to buy used games.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Personally I think there needs to be a better distribution network for games .
Steam for example is great at what it does on the PC side .
I can grab a game when it comes out right away , but odds are if I wait 2 weekends it 'll be on sale .
Or I can wait 6 months and it 's lumped together with a few other games in a bundle pack .
90 \ % of what I 've bought on steam has come in a bundle pack that averaged out to less then $ 10 a game .
If they had a system this slick for the console market I would n't need to buy used games .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Personally I think there needs to be a better distribution network for games.
Steam for example is great at what it does on the PC side.
I can grab a game when it comes out right away, but odds are if I wait 2 weekends it'll be on sale.
Or I can wait 6 months and it's lumped together with a few other games in a bundle pack.
90\% of what I've bought on steam has come in a bundle pack that averaged out to less then $10 a game.
If they had a system this slick for the console market I wouldn't need to buy used games.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28723691</id>
	<title>Re:Developers need to do the math</title>
	<author>brkello</author>
	<datestamp>1247743080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Uh, no.  No doubt a scenario like that may exist, but that is just one tiny possible scenario.  So 1 million by the game new, then a half million buy it used.  If the used market wasn't there, then maybe 900k would by the game new of the initial million since they can't afford it since they won't be able to resell it.  And of the 500k who bought it used, 200k buy it new...thus increasing sales by 100k.<br> <br>But what I am really trying to say is making up bull shit math isn't going to prove your point (my example doesn't prove anything either).  You will just be modded up by mods who lack critical thinking skills and mod based on what they agree with.<br> <br>Ultimately, we don't really know.  But probably more people would buy the game from the developer if they could cut out the used market.  Your assumption that they think every used sale is a sale lost for them is probably not true as well.  But I think it is reasonable to believe they are losing some money due to used sales.  And they are losing more than they would gain from used sales existing.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Uh , no .
No doubt a scenario like that may exist , but that is just one tiny possible scenario .
So 1 million by the game new , then a half million buy it used .
If the used market was n't there , then maybe 900k would by the game new of the initial million since they ca n't afford it since they wo n't be able to resell it .
And of the 500k who bought it used , 200k buy it new...thus increasing sales by 100k .
But what I am really trying to say is making up bull shit math is n't going to prove your point ( my example does n't prove anything either ) .
You will just be modded up by mods who lack critical thinking skills and mod based on what they agree with .
Ultimately , we do n't really know .
But probably more people would buy the game from the developer if they could cut out the used market .
Your assumption that they think every used sale is a sale lost for them is probably not true as well .
But I think it is reasonable to believe they are losing some money due to used sales .
And they are losing more than they would gain from used sales existing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Uh, no.
No doubt a scenario like that may exist, but that is just one tiny possible scenario.
So 1 million by the game new, then a half million buy it used.
If the used market wasn't there, then maybe 900k would by the game new of the initial million since they can't afford it since they won't be able to resell it.
And of the 500k who bought it used, 200k buy it new...thus increasing sales by 100k.
But what I am really trying to say is making up bull shit math isn't going to prove your point (my example doesn't prove anything either).
You will just be modded up by mods who lack critical thinking skills and mod based on what they agree with.
Ultimately, we don't really know.
But probably more people would buy the game from the developer if they could cut out the used market.
Your assumption that they think every used sale is a sale lost for them is probably not true as well.
But I think it is reasonable to believe they are losing some money due to used sales.
And they are losing more than they would gain from used sales existing.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28720301</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28727517</id>
	<title>Re:Great advertising for new versions!</title>
	<author>Pravetz-82</author>
	<datestamp>1247830080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I've found a great money-saving approach to buying games that doesn't involve "used" games.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</p><p>I no longer jump on a brand new game, and instead wait until the price comes down...</p></div><p> <a href="http://xkcd.com/606/" title="xkcd.com" rel="nofollow">http://xkcd.com/606/</a> [xkcd.com]</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've found a great money-saving approach to buying games that does n't involve " used " games .
...I no longer jump on a brand new game , and instead wait until the price comes down... http : //xkcd.com/606/ [ xkcd.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've found a great money-saving approach to buying games that doesn't involve "used" games.
...I no longer jump on a brand new game, and instead wait until the price comes down... http://xkcd.com/606/ [xkcd.com]
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28721363</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28722311</id>
	<title>Re:I hate the used games.</title>
	<author>jenn\_13</author>
	<datestamp>1247736840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I can see your point for sure in the case where someone buys it used when the game is still fairly new. It's obviously silly to spend 55$ on a used game that you could get new for 60$. On the other hand, I tend to wait until a game has been out for quite a while before I get it, because I just can't afford to spend that kind of money on a game. So I pay a lot less than the new price for the games I buy, usually less than 20$, and my trade-off is that I don't get to play the game as soon as it comes out.  But, I have a busy life, and don't suffer for waiting for a game to get cheaper. I'm certainly not having any desire to "stick it to the developer", and I would really love it if I could buy it new after that long wait and have the money go to the developer.  The problem with this is, after waiting that long, the game isn't available new anymore.<br>
Maybe if they do switch to digital distribution for console games, the developer or publisher could sell it directly to me at that much cheaper price after the game is older and less in demand, and get my money. That would be great as far as I'm concerned, although then the consoles would have to be able to play the digitally distributed game, which would make piracy easier. I would love for someone to come up with a model that allows us to pay less for the game when it's older and in less demand, and still support the developer.<br>
In any case, I still think it's perfectly ethical to buy and sell used copies. As long as the physical media is needed to put in the console to play (and unless you mod the console, you can't do it with a copy AFAIK), the situation is still much closer to buying and selling used cars than it is to sharing mp3s.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I can see your point for sure in the case where someone buys it used when the game is still fairly new .
It 's obviously silly to spend 55 $ on a used game that you could get new for 60 $ .
On the other hand , I tend to wait until a game has been out for quite a while before I get it , because I just ca n't afford to spend that kind of money on a game .
So I pay a lot less than the new price for the games I buy , usually less than 20 $ , and my trade-off is that I do n't get to play the game as soon as it comes out .
But , I have a busy life , and do n't suffer for waiting for a game to get cheaper .
I 'm certainly not having any desire to " stick it to the developer " , and I would really love it if I could buy it new after that long wait and have the money go to the developer .
The problem with this is , after waiting that long , the game is n't available new anymore .
Maybe if they do switch to digital distribution for console games , the developer or publisher could sell it directly to me at that much cheaper price after the game is older and less in demand , and get my money .
That would be great as far as I 'm concerned , although then the consoles would have to be able to play the digitally distributed game , which would make piracy easier .
I would love for someone to come up with a model that allows us to pay less for the game when it 's older and in less demand , and still support the developer .
In any case , I still think it 's perfectly ethical to buy and sell used copies .
As long as the physical media is needed to put in the console to play ( and unless you mod the console , you ca n't do it with a copy AFAIK ) , the situation is still much closer to buying and selling used cars than it is to sharing mp3s .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I can see your point for sure in the case where someone buys it used when the game is still fairly new.
It's obviously silly to spend 55$ on a used game that you could get new for 60$.
On the other hand, I tend to wait until a game has been out for quite a while before I get it, because I just can't afford to spend that kind of money on a game.
So I pay a lot less than the new price for the games I buy, usually less than 20$, and my trade-off is that I don't get to play the game as soon as it comes out.
But, I have a busy life, and don't suffer for waiting for a game to get cheaper.
I'm certainly not having any desire to "stick it to the developer", and I would really love it if I could buy it new after that long wait and have the money go to the developer.
The problem with this is, after waiting that long, the game isn't available new anymore.
Maybe if they do switch to digital distribution for console games, the developer or publisher could sell it directly to me at that much cheaper price after the game is older and less in demand, and get my money.
That would be great as far as I'm concerned, although then the consoles would have to be able to play the digitally distributed game, which would make piracy easier.
I would love for someone to come up with a model that allows us to pay less for the game when it's older and in less demand, and still support the developer.
In any case, I still think it's perfectly ethical to buy and sell used copies.
As long as the physical media is needed to put in the console to play (and unless you mod the console, you can't do it with a copy AFAIK), the situation is still much closer to buying and selling used cars than it is to sharing mp3s.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28720569</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28724085</id>
	<title>But if they don't</title>
	<author>SupremoMan</author>
	<datestamp>1247745000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>But if they don't blame the Used game market, they will revert to blaming "piracy."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>But if they do n't blame the Used game market , they will revert to blaming " piracy .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But if they don't blame the Used game market, they will revert to blaming "piracy.
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28723145</id>
	<title>Re:Great advertising for new versions!</title>
	<author>geekoid</author>
	<datestamp>1247740560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Then people paying 60 would pay 30, and the people currently paying 30 will wait until they can get it for 15.</p><p>There are people that must ahve right away, and there are people that can wait.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Then people paying 60 would pay 30 , and the people currently paying 30 will wait until they can get it for 15.There are people that must ahve right away , and there are people that can wait .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Then people paying 60 would pay 30, and the people currently paying 30 will wait until they can get it for 15.There are people that must ahve right away, and there are people that can wait.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28720133</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28721229</id>
	<title>Re:I think game developers have somewhat of a poin</title>
	<author>nolife</author>
	<datestamp>1247775900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>is instead using your product as a draw for customers so that they can sell them older, battered, dirty and maybe malfunctioning versions of your product that you make no money out of.</i></p><p>That is FUD.  They offer a 100\% replacement warranty if a used game does not work and some places will give 100\% credit for a few days on a different used game.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>is instead using your product as a draw for customers so that they can sell them older , battered , dirty and maybe malfunctioning versions of your product that you make no money out of.That is FUD .
They offer a 100 \ % replacement warranty if a used game does not work and some places will give 100 \ % credit for a few days on a different used game .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>is instead using your product as a draw for customers so that they can sell them older, battered, dirty and maybe malfunctioning versions of your product that you make no money out of.That is FUD.
They offer a 100\% replacement warranty if a used game does not work and some places will give 100\% credit for a few days on a different used game.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28720815</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28720609</id>
	<title>Re:Crybabies</title>
	<author>vux984</author>
	<datestamp>1247773260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No. Fuck that. Steam is not a decent solution. Steam sells you a 'subscription' to a game. Worse, they put it in a box, on store shelves alongside the other games that are actually for sale. And they frame everything in terms of 'buying the game', until you read the fine print, and then you find out you didn't buy anything... you've got a subscription.</p><p>Oh, and its non-transferable, so you can't resell it or even give it away. And if Steam ever shuts down, your subscription ends, and you have nothing at all once it comes time to 'validate' your 'purchase' again.</p><p>I have 2 steam games. One I bought on purpose. One I bought by accident, not knowing it was a steam game. Both of them I bought at EB off the shelf in a box.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No .
Fuck that .
Steam is not a decent solution .
Steam sells you a 'subscription ' to a game .
Worse , they put it in a box , on store shelves alongside the other games that are actually for sale .
And they frame everything in terms of 'buying the game ' , until you read the fine print , and then you find out you did n't buy anything... you 've got a subscription.Oh , and its non-transferable , so you ca n't resell it or even give it away .
And if Steam ever shuts down , your subscription ends , and you have nothing at all once it comes time to 'validate ' your 'purchase ' again.I have 2 steam games .
One I bought on purpose .
One I bought by accident , not knowing it was a steam game .
Both of them I bought at EB off the shelf in a box .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No.
Fuck that.
Steam is not a decent solution.
Steam sells you a 'subscription' to a game.
Worse, they put it in a box, on store shelves alongside the other games that are actually for sale.
And they frame everything in terms of 'buying the game', until you read the fine print, and then you find out you didn't buy anything... you've got a subscription.Oh, and its non-transferable, so you can't resell it or even give it away.
And if Steam ever shuts down, your subscription ends, and you have nothing at all once it comes time to 'validate' your 'purchase' again.I have 2 steam games.
One I bought on purpose.
One I bought by accident, not knowing it was a steam game.
Both of them I bought at EB off the shelf in a box.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28720165</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28725921</id>
	<title>Re:Why isn't anyone asking the REAL question?</title>
	<author>anethema</author>
	<datestamp>1247762640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Price fixing is when several competitors agree to keep a certain product at the same price. That is not what is happening here.<br><br>Here the manufacturer is setting the MSRP of a certain game, and many resellers follow this. They don't have to, they aren't being forced to. They are just getting the game at a certain price and selling it at the MSRP for maximum profit.<br><br>Also, to think supply and demand is the only thing that governs prices on really anything but commodities (and even then other things interfere) is to not look very deeply into why things are priced the way they are.<br><br>Essentially..digital distribution, in theory the 'supply' is infinite. But the reality is, an average number of people will buy this game depending on price. At 60$ this might be x, at 30 this might be 1.5x. So they are making less profits selling the game at $30 than $60.<br><br>Sometimes the opposite is true though and they do mess up. People selling on steam have found that when selling for $60 they got x, and selling for $30 they got 8x or better. They realized that for some titles or in some circumstance, cheaper is the better way to go.<br><br>A ton factors into this. For some products, very little will be sold if the price is too LOW due to the fact that the perceived value will be low. The same product at a higher price will sell more AND make more profit. This may or may not happen with software titles, but its just something to make you think that supply and demand are no where near the only thing determining pricing.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Price fixing is when several competitors agree to keep a certain product at the same price .
That is not what is happening here.Here the manufacturer is setting the MSRP of a certain game , and many resellers follow this .
They do n't have to , they are n't being forced to .
They are just getting the game at a certain price and selling it at the MSRP for maximum profit.Also , to think supply and demand is the only thing that governs prices on really anything but commodities ( and even then other things interfere ) is to not look very deeply into why things are priced the way they are.Essentially..digital distribution , in theory the 'supply ' is infinite .
But the reality is , an average number of people will buy this game depending on price .
At 60 $ this might be x , at 30 this might be 1.5x .
So they are making less profits selling the game at $ 30 than $ 60.Sometimes the opposite is true though and they do mess up .
People selling on steam have found that when selling for $ 60 they got x , and selling for $ 30 they got 8x or better .
They realized that for some titles or in some circumstance , cheaper is the better way to go.A ton factors into this .
For some products , very little will be sold if the price is too LOW due to the fact that the perceived value will be low .
The same product at a higher price will sell more AND make more profit .
This may or may not happen with software titles , but its just something to make you think that supply and demand are no where near the only thing determining pricing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Price fixing is when several competitors agree to keep a certain product at the same price.
That is not what is happening here.Here the manufacturer is setting the MSRP of a certain game, and many resellers follow this.
They don't have to, they aren't being forced to.
They are just getting the game at a certain price and selling it at the MSRP for maximum profit.Also, to think supply and demand is the only thing that governs prices on really anything but commodities (and even then other things interfere) is to not look very deeply into why things are priced the way they are.Essentially..digital distribution, in theory the 'supply' is infinite.
But the reality is, an average number of people will buy this game depending on price.
At 60$ this might be x, at 30 this might be 1.5x.
So they are making less profits selling the game at $30 than $60.Sometimes the opposite is true though and they do mess up.
People selling on steam have found that when selling for $60 they got x, and selling for $30 they got 8x or better.
They realized that for some titles or in some circumstance, cheaper is the better way to go.A ton factors into this.
For some products, very little will be sold if the price is too LOW due to the fact that the perceived value will be low.
The same product at a higher price will sell more AND make more profit.
This may or may not happen with software titles, but its just something to make you think that supply and demand are no where near the only thing determining pricing.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28721449</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28720065</id>
	<title>Just don't pull the same shit you did with PoP</title>
	<author>DonniKatz</author>
	<datestamp>1247771280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You had to buy the ending to Prince of Persia. I can't even begin to articulate how unacceptable a move that was.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You had to buy the ending to Prince of Persia .
I ca n't even begin to articulate how unacceptable a move that was .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You had to buy the ending to Prince of Persia.
I can't even begin to articulate how unacceptable a move that was.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28721615</id>
	<title>Buy games on eBay</title>
	<author>v(*\_*)vvvv</author>
	<datestamp>1247777460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Retail game prices are fixed, and so are used game prices at most retail stores. If you are looking for new titles, always buy from eBay.</p><p><b>eBay is the only place where real economics is at work, when it comes to the game market.</b></p><p>Anywhere else, you are dealing with dark forces influencing the prices.</p><p>Just make sure you buy from someone with 100+ feedback, and always pay by credit card.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Retail game prices are fixed , and so are used game prices at most retail stores .
If you are looking for new titles , always buy from eBay.eBay is the only place where real economics is at work , when it comes to the game market.Anywhere else , you are dealing with dark forces influencing the prices.Just make sure you buy from someone with 100 + feedback , and always pay by credit card .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Retail game prices are fixed, and so are used game prices at most retail stores.
If you are looking for new titles, always buy from eBay.eBay is the only place where real economics is at work, when it comes to the game market.Anywhere else, you are dealing with dark forces influencing the prices.Just make sure you buy from someone with 100+ feedback, and always pay by credit card.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28722957</id>
	<title>Re:Great advertising for new versions!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247739840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Where are you getting your weed and beer?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Where are you getting your weed and beer ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Where are you getting your weed and beer?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28721363</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28721705</id>
	<title>The problem isn't the reselling, it's the pricing</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247777760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The root of the problem with reselling has never been the company doing the reselling - it's the pricing of the product that allows, and even encourages the purchase and sale of used products.</p><p>A new game will set the consumer back on average $60-$70, regardless of whether it is single player, multiplayer, or moddable and any combination of these two. Why do we pay the same price for a single player game as we do for one with technically unlimited gameplay? Or for one with multiplayer that allows potentially unlimited permutations of unlimited gameplay?</p><p>Feature-based pricing with a far lower base rate would benefit everyone. Even just lowering the standard price on games to around $40 flat would allow them to -almost- be impulse buys, would easily cover packaging and shipping, and still allow a healthy profit margin that would encourage greater sales. If packaging is really that huge a concern, why not take efforts to reduce cost of packaging, like the smaller format boxes we saw appear recently, reduction of included inserts in favor of digital documentation (I read the manual, but how many of you do? I'd give it up gladly for a drop in price), or maybe even (yes, go ahead and groan) included advertising inserts to generate revenue to counter it?</p><p>$40 also gives a whole lot less "wiggle room" to the used game market, and resellers would be making $10-$30 less profit per title at the new release stage. The temptation to wait for a title to drop in price or hit the used game store's shelves at a lower price would likewise lessen greatly at a more accessible price point. Length of time before a significant price drop would, likewise, increase which would encourage further sales at the initial release price. Even so - only twice the cost of a movie for interactive entertainment? Sign me up.</p><p>It would, however, be -more- intelligent to set a standard price at something like $30 and then do feature-based pricing. Cars do it - more seats? Costs more. Convertible? Ditto. More powerful or newer engine? Same deal.</p><p>Apply to games: Multiplayer? Costs $10 more. Built-in mod support? Costs $5-10 more. Brand new game engine? Costs a little more.</p><p>You'd get a market with varying prices and incentive to make games last longer and be more interesting. It would probably even encourage innovation.</p><p>Don't get me wrong - I actually want the developers to get -more- money to better support the industry. I just think that charging more and netting less first-purchase sales is the wrong approach, and restrictive DRM is a draconian approach that avoids addressing the real problem.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The root of the problem with reselling has never been the company doing the reselling - it 's the pricing of the product that allows , and even encourages the purchase and sale of used products.A new game will set the consumer back on average $ 60- $ 70 , regardless of whether it is single player , multiplayer , or moddable and any combination of these two .
Why do we pay the same price for a single player game as we do for one with technically unlimited gameplay ?
Or for one with multiplayer that allows potentially unlimited permutations of unlimited gameplay ? Feature-based pricing with a far lower base rate would benefit everyone .
Even just lowering the standard price on games to around $ 40 flat would allow them to -almost- be impulse buys , would easily cover packaging and shipping , and still allow a healthy profit margin that would encourage greater sales .
If packaging is really that huge a concern , why not take efforts to reduce cost of packaging , like the smaller format boxes we saw appear recently , reduction of included inserts in favor of digital documentation ( I read the manual , but how many of you do ?
I 'd give it up gladly for a drop in price ) , or maybe even ( yes , go ahead and groan ) included advertising inserts to generate revenue to counter it ? $ 40 also gives a whole lot less " wiggle room " to the used game market , and resellers would be making $ 10- $ 30 less profit per title at the new release stage .
The temptation to wait for a title to drop in price or hit the used game store 's shelves at a lower price would likewise lessen greatly at a more accessible price point .
Length of time before a significant price drop would , likewise , increase which would encourage further sales at the initial release price .
Even so - only twice the cost of a movie for interactive entertainment ?
Sign me up.It would , however , be -more- intelligent to set a standard price at something like $ 30 and then do feature-based pricing .
Cars do it - more seats ?
Costs more .
Convertible ? Ditto .
More powerful or newer engine ?
Same deal.Apply to games : Multiplayer ?
Costs $ 10 more .
Built-in mod support ?
Costs $ 5-10 more .
Brand new game engine ?
Costs a little more.You 'd get a market with varying prices and incentive to make games last longer and be more interesting .
It would probably even encourage innovation.Do n't get me wrong - I actually want the developers to get -more- money to better support the industry .
I just think that charging more and netting less first-purchase sales is the wrong approach , and restrictive DRM is a draconian approach that avoids addressing the real problem .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The root of the problem with reselling has never been the company doing the reselling - it's the pricing of the product that allows, and even encourages the purchase and sale of used products.A new game will set the consumer back on average $60-$70, regardless of whether it is single player, multiplayer, or moddable and any combination of these two.
Why do we pay the same price for a single player game as we do for one with technically unlimited gameplay?
Or for one with multiplayer that allows potentially unlimited permutations of unlimited gameplay?Feature-based pricing with a far lower base rate would benefit everyone.
Even just lowering the standard price on games to around $40 flat would allow them to -almost- be impulse buys, would easily cover packaging and shipping, and still allow a healthy profit margin that would encourage greater sales.
If packaging is really that huge a concern, why not take efforts to reduce cost of packaging, like the smaller format boxes we saw appear recently, reduction of included inserts in favor of digital documentation (I read the manual, but how many of you do?
I'd give it up gladly for a drop in price), or maybe even (yes, go ahead and groan) included advertising inserts to generate revenue to counter it?$40 also gives a whole lot less "wiggle room" to the used game market, and resellers would be making $10-$30 less profit per title at the new release stage.
The temptation to wait for a title to drop in price or hit the used game store's shelves at a lower price would likewise lessen greatly at a more accessible price point.
Length of time before a significant price drop would, likewise, increase which would encourage further sales at the initial release price.
Even so - only twice the cost of a movie for interactive entertainment?
Sign me up.It would, however, be -more- intelligent to set a standard price at something like $30 and then do feature-based pricing.
Cars do it - more seats?
Costs more.
Convertible? Ditto.
More powerful or newer engine?
Same deal.Apply to games: Multiplayer?
Costs $10 more.
Built-in mod support?
Costs $5-10 more.
Brand new game engine?
Costs a little more.You'd get a market with varying prices and incentive to make games last longer and be more interesting.
It would probably even encourage innovation.Don't get me wrong - I actually want the developers to get -more- money to better support the industry.
I just think that charging more and netting less first-purchase sales is the wrong approach, and restrictive DRM is a draconian approach that avoids addressing the real problem.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28722719</id>
	<title>Re:Great advertising for new versions!</title>
	<author>aschran</author>
	<datestamp>1247738700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><a href="http://xkcd.com/606/" title="xkcd.com" rel="nofollow">Oblig.</a> [xkcd.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>Oblig .
[ xkcd.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oblig.
[xkcd.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28721363</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28730547</id>
	<title>Re:time out</title>
	<author>Samah</author>
	<datestamp>1247848500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Developers aren't the problem. People keep saying 'developers' in this thread when they mean 'publishers'. Developers write code and debug physics engines, they don't set prices or worry about second tier markets.</p></div><p>FINALLY someone gets it.  I'm a "developer" because I design, code, and debug software.  I have absolutely no say when it comes to pricing and all that rubbish.<br>
Everyone please mod this story "publishers" and "!developers".</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Developers are n't the problem .
People keep saying 'developers ' in this thread when they mean 'publishers' .
Developers write code and debug physics engines , they do n't set prices or worry about second tier markets.FINALLY someone gets it .
I 'm a " developer " because I design , code , and debug software .
I have absolutely no say when it comes to pricing and all that rubbish .
Everyone please mod this story " publishers " and " ! developers " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Developers aren't the problem.
People keep saying 'developers' in this thread when they mean 'publishers'.
Developers write code and debug physics engines, they don't set prices or worry about second tier markets.FINALLY someone gets it.
I'm a "developer" because I design, code, and debug software.
I have absolutely no say when it comes to pricing and all that rubbish.
Everyone please mod this story "publishers" and "!developers".
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28724053</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28723179</id>
	<title>Re:Gamestop blows</title>
	<author>bnenning</author>
	<datestamp>1247740740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>I can't stand places like gamestop. $60 game (brand new). They buy it back for $10 to $15. They resell it at $55. No wonder they are laughing all the way to the bank - they are ripping off their consumers.</i></p><p>Unless they're misrepresenting used games as new, I don't see how it's a ripoff. The seller has decided that getting a lower price is worth avoiding the hassle of finding a buyer himself, and the buyer has decided that the small discount is worth getting a used vs new game.</p><p><i>Craigslist/Ebay and other similar sites is the way to buy used games.</i></p><p>I agree, but if others are willing to trade money for convenience, there's no reason to vilify Gamestop for allowing them to do that.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I ca n't stand places like gamestop .
$ 60 game ( brand new ) .
They buy it back for $ 10 to $ 15 .
They resell it at $ 55 .
No wonder they are laughing all the way to the bank - they are ripping off their consumers.Unless they 're misrepresenting used games as new , I do n't see how it 's a ripoff .
The seller has decided that getting a lower price is worth avoiding the hassle of finding a buyer himself , and the buyer has decided that the small discount is worth getting a used vs new game.Craigslist/Ebay and other similar sites is the way to buy used games.I agree , but if others are willing to trade money for convenience , there 's no reason to vilify Gamestop for allowing them to do that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I can't stand places like gamestop.
$60 game (brand new).
They buy it back for $10 to $15.
They resell it at $55.
No wonder they are laughing all the way to the bank - they are ripping off their consumers.Unless they're misrepresenting used games as new, I don't see how it's a ripoff.
The seller has decided that getting a lower price is worth avoiding the hassle of finding a buyer himself, and the buyer has decided that the small discount is worth getting a used vs new game.Craigslist/Ebay and other similar sites is the way to buy used games.I agree, but if others are willing to trade money for convenience, there's no reason to vilify Gamestop for allowing them to do that.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28720477</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28720075</id>
	<title>Lower your price!</title>
	<author>darkmeridian</author>
	<datestamp>1247771280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Game companies should progressively lower prices of their games as time passes. This would eat up the used game market.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Game companies should progressively lower prices of their games as time passes .
This would eat up the used game market .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Game companies should progressively lower prices of their games as time passes.
This would eat up the used game market.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28720291</id>
	<title>Steam...</title>
	<author>kevinNCSU</author>
	<datestamp>1247772000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I bought Total War: Empires a while ago which uses Steam for it's registration and updates.  <p>I'm pretty sure that locks the game down to my steam account so there's no way I could trade it in or sell it.</p><p>I'm on the fence about it really.  On one hand I'm not sure I like not being able to resell the game like I would <i>[Insert Car Analogy]</i> but on the other hand there are benefits as far as ease of updating or installing on other machines.  Certainly better than locking down to the hardware.  While I don't fault the companies for trying to find a way to force consumers to buy new products straight from them (every company would love to do this) I don't think they have any right to complain about people reselling property they legally own.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I bought Total War : Empires a while ago which uses Steam for it 's registration and updates .
I 'm pretty sure that locks the game down to my steam account so there 's no way I could trade it in or sell it.I 'm on the fence about it really .
On one hand I 'm not sure I like not being able to resell the game like I would [ Insert Car Analogy ] but on the other hand there are benefits as far as ease of updating or installing on other machines .
Certainly better than locking down to the hardware .
While I do n't fault the companies for trying to find a way to force consumers to buy new products straight from them ( every company would love to do this ) I do n't think they have any right to complain about people reselling property they legally own .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I bought Total War: Empires a while ago which uses Steam for it's registration and updates.
I'm pretty sure that locks the game down to my steam account so there's no way I could trade it in or sell it.I'm on the fence about it really.
On one hand I'm not sure I like not being able to resell the game like I would [Insert Car Analogy] but on the other hand there are benefits as far as ease of updating or installing on other machines.
Certainly better than locking down to the hardware.
While I don't fault the companies for trying to find a way to force consumers to buy new products straight from them (every company would love to do this) I don't think they have any right to complain about people reselling property they legally own.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28726409</id>
	<title>Obligatory XKCD Link</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247769240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>http://xkcd.com/606/ - the downside to this attitude.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //xkcd.com/606/ - the downside to this attitude .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://xkcd.com/606/ - the downside to this attitude.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28721363</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28720429</id>
	<title>Re:They can stop it: Installs locked to hardware.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247772540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Sony was going to have each game be locked to a single PS3 thus preventing the resale of the game.</p><p>Sony decided against it when the fans made a stink.</p></div><p>Bull.  Shit.  What you're saying is that Sony actually listened to their fans.  I demand citations.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Sony was going to have each game be locked to a single PS3 thus preventing the resale of the game.Sony decided against it when the fans made a stink.Bull .
Shit. What you 're saying is that Sony actually listened to their fans .
I demand citations .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sony was going to have each game be locked to a single PS3 thus preventing the resale of the game.Sony decided against it when the fans made a stink.Bull.
Shit.  What you're saying is that Sony actually listened to their fans.
I demand citations.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28720025</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28723517</id>
	<title>Re:Used games put more money in the studios hands.</title>
	<author>harl</author>
	<datestamp>1247742360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's what I like to call the stupid way.  Don't use EB.  Seriously.  There's never a reason to use EB/Gamestop.  Ever.  If you want something on release day go to the big-box.  They have hundreds of copies.  Hell via bestbuy.com can order it for in store pickup before the store opens thus guaranteeing you a copy.  There are local stores in my town that pay more than EB and sell the games for less than EB.</p><p>What about ebay?</p><p>What about craigslist?</p><p>There are plenty of ways to get more money than EB/Gamestop will give you.  EB/GS is literally the worst possible choice for a gamer.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's what I like to call the stupid way .
Do n't use EB .
Seriously. There 's never a reason to use EB/Gamestop .
Ever. If you want something on release day go to the big-box .
They have hundreds of copies .
Hell via bestbuy.com can order it for in store pickup before the store opens thus guaranteeing you a copy .
There are local stores in my town that pay more than EB and sell the games for less than EB.What about ebay ? What about craigslist ? There are plenty of ways to get more money than EB/Gamestop will give you .
EB/GS is literally the worst possible choice for a gamer .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's what I like to call the stupid way.
Don't use EB.
Seriously.  There's never a reason to use EB/Gamestop.
Ever.  If you want something on release day go to the big-box.
They have hundreds of copies.
Hell via bestbuy.com can order it for in store pickup before the store opens thus guaranteeing you a copy.
There are local stores in my town that pay more than EB and sell the games for less than EB.What about ebay?What about craigslist?There are plenty of ways to get more money than EB/Gamestop will give you.
EB/GS is literally the worst possible choice for a gamer.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28722411</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28720029</id>
	<title>Why would game publishers care?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247771160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Unless I'm missing something, it seems the OP is missing something... game publishers don't care if a certain new game is paid for with a certain old game.  They still get paid full price for the new game.  <br> <br>
Sure, the publishers theoretically miss out on selling these old games to new people (b/c of the trade in), but it's been like that for some time - I would hope they'd be over it by now.  This quick aging of titles is what contributes to such a fast development cycle on games, and is what pushes progress forward.  Yeah, it's hard work for the publishers, but it doesn't push down their sales, or profit, on the new titles they create.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Unless I 'm missing something , it seems the OP is missing something... game publishers do n't care if a certain new game is paid for with a certain old game .
They still get paid full price for the new game .
Sure , the publishers theoretically miss out on selling these old games to new people ( b/c of the trade in ) , but it 's been like that for some time - I would hope they 'd be over it by now .
This quick aging of titles is what contributes to such a fast development cycle on games , and is what pushes progress forward .
Yeah , it 's hard work for the publishers , but it does n't push down their sales , or profit , on the new titles they create .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Unless I'm missing something, it seems the OP is missing something... game publishers don't care if a certain new game is paid for with a certain old game.
They still get paid full price for the new game.
Sure, the publishers theoretically miss out on selling these old games to new people (b/c of the trade in), but it's been like that for some time - I would hope they'd be over it by now.
This quick aging of titles is what contributes to such a fast development cycle on games, and is what pushes progress forward.
Yeah, it's hard work for the publishers, but it doesn't push down their sales, or profit, on the new titles they create.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28723119</id>
	<title>this crud just makes me angry</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247740440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is rediculous.  If any other product said that you can't resell an item they would be laughed at.  You know that Lazy-Z boy recliner you bought 8 years ago?  No, you can't sell it to anyone.  I don't care if they make up a bunch of crud that you don't really own the software - that's just dumb.  If they are going to somehow *own* the software after I spend my money on it then they better send me updates and upgrades when my hardware upgrades.  As soon as they start fixing all the software I 'leased' in the 80's and 90's then I might think about not reselling it.</p><p>Greed is greed - no matter how you label it.<br>BTW - I write software for a living.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is rediculous .
If any other product said that you ca n't resell an item they would be laughed at .
You know that Lazy-Z boy recliner you bought 8 years ago ?
No , you ca n't sell it to anyone .
I do n't care if they make up a bunch of crud that you do n't really own the software - that 's just dumb .
If they are going to somehow * own * the software after I spend my money on it then they better send me updates and upgrades when my hardware upgrades .
As soon as they start fixing all the software I 'leased ' in the 80 's and 90 's then I might think about not reselling it.Greed is greed - no matter how you label it.BTW - I write software for a living .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is rediculous.
If any other product said that you can't resell an item they would be laughed at.
You know that Lazy-Z boy recliner you bought 8 years ago?
No, you can't sell it to anyone.
I don't care if they make up a bunch of crud that you don't really own the software - that's just dumb.
If they are going to somehow *own* the software after I spend my money on it then they better send me updates and upgrades when my hardware upgrades.
As soon as they start fixing all the software I 'leased' in the 80's and 90's then I might think about not reselling it.Greed is greed - no matter how you label it.BTW - I write software for a living.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28721907</id>
	<title>Early online play is key</title>
	<author>Langfat</author>
	<datestamp>1247735280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>The only problem I see here is that me and my friends will whoop your ass at L4D because you don't know the maps the way we do since we've been playing from November.  Sure you'll be fine against a group of no-mics, but me and my 3 friends will beat you and your 3 friends, hands down, every time, for the next few months...

It's the same reason I wouldn't get into WoW now...I don't know what any of the shit does or how to effectively use it...</htmltext>
<tokenext>The only problem I see here is that me and my friends will whoop your ass at L4D because you do n't know the maps the way we do since we 've been playing from November .
Sure you 'll be fine against a group of no-mics , but me and my 3 friends will beat you and your 3 friends , hands down , every time , for the next few months.. . It 's the same reason I would n't get into WoW now...I do n't know what any of the shit does or how to effectively use it.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The only problem I see here is that me and my friends will whoop your ass at L4D because you don't know the maps the way we do since we've been playing from November.
Sure you'll be fine against a group of no-mics, but me and my 3 friends will beat you and your 3 friends, hands down, every time, for the next few months...

It's the same reason I wouldn't get into WoW now...I don't know what any of the shit does or how to effectively use it...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28721363</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28727301</id>
	<title>Playstation Network / XBOX Live</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247827500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So I buy a game from one one these online services, I have no tangible product. I have no means to transfer ownership.</p><p>Surely I should have the right to transfer ownership of my license to use this game, for a fee.</p><p>Sounds to me like Sony / MS might be exploiting the laws surrounding this, bu *NOT* providing me a mechanism to do this.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So I buy a game from one one these online services , I have no tangible product .
I have no means to transfer ownership.Surely I should have the right to transfer ownership of my license to use this game , for a fee.Sounds to me like Sony / MS might be exploiting the laws surrounding this , bu * NOT * providing me a mechanism to do this .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So I buy a game from one one these online services, I have no tangible product.
I have no means to transfer ownership.Surely I should have the right to transfer ownership of my license to use this game, for a fee.Sounds to me like Sony / MS might be exploiting the laws surrounding this, bu *NOT* providing me a mechanism to do this.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28726505</id>
	<title>Re:Great advertising for new versions!</title>
	<author>zippthorne</author>
	<datestamp>1247770980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Because at $30, people might just keep the games, rather than get rid of them.  Then the available used units is lower, driving the used price up.</p><p>Or more people will buy at launch, killing the used games demand, driving the price down, but discouraging reselling because of the low price.</p><p>There is a sweet spot price where noticeable economic activity occurs in the used market.  You can destroy this by properly pricing your product (or not worrying about the used market, as it props up your initial pricing.  Auto manufacturers, for instance, take advantage of this.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Because at $ 30 , people might just keep the games , rather than get rid of them .
Then the available used units is lower , driving the used price up.Or more people will buy at launch , killing the used games demand , driving the price down , but discouraging reselling because of the low price.There is a sweet spot price where noticeable economic activity occurs in the used market .
You can destroy this by properly pricing your product ( or not worrying about the used market , as it props up your initial pricing .
Auto manufacturers , for instance , take advantage of this .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because at $30, people might just keep the games, rather than get rid of them.
Then the available used units is lower, driving the used price up.Or more people will buy at launch, killing the used games demand, driving the price down, but discouraging reselling because of the low price.There is a sweet spot price where noticeable economic activity occurs in the used market.
You can destroy this by properly pricing your product (or not worrying about the used market, as it props up your initial pricing.
Auto manufacturers, for instance, take advantage of this.
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28721059</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28725583</id>
	<title>New Games Are Too Expensive Is A False Argument</title>
	<author>nick\_davison</author>
	<datestamp>1247757360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Who knows, developers could learn from this and say "hmm, maybe the average gamer can't afford $60 for our generic crap-of-the-month we're churning out, maybe if it was $30 in the first place, there wouldn't be a need for a Used market"</p> </div><p>You've not been to a Gamestop recently, have you...</p><p>New game: $60.<br>2nd hand: $55.</p><p>Platinum game new: $20<br>Platinum 2nd hand: $18</p><p>You're lucky if you get anything more than a 10\% savings. They just know people would still rather have $5 in their pocket than $0. Many people, myself included, still pay the $5 to know they're getting an unscratched disc (warranties are useless when the pain in the ass of going back in to claim is worth more than the $5 I saved) but more than enough are happy with any perceived saving.</p><p>Whilst we can argue about whether $60 is too much... The simple reality that customers still pay over the last generation's $50, even for second hand, implies this particular situation has nothing whatsoever to do with games being overpriced. If you sold them for $1 and people had an option to get them for $0.90, most kids would still choose to keep that dime and the second hand market still wouldn't disappear.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Who knows , developers could learn from this and say " hmm , maybe the average gamer ca n't afford $ 60 for our generic crap-of-the-month we 're churning out , maybe if it was $ 30 in the first place , there would n't be a need for a Used market " You 've not been to a Gamestop recently , have you...New game : $ 60.2nd hand : $ 55.Platinum game new : $ 20Platinum 2nd hand : $ 18You 're lucky if you get anything more than a 10 \ % savings .
They just know people would still rather have $ 5 in their pocket than $ 0 .
Many people , myself included , still pay the $ 5 to know they 're getting an unscratched disc ( warranties are useless when the pain in the ass of going back in to claim is worth more than the $ 5 I saved ) but more than enough are happy with any perceived saving.Whilst we can argue about whether $ 60 is too much... The simple reality that customers still pay over the last generation 's $ 50 , even for second hand , implies this particular situation has nothing whatsoever to do with games being overpriced .
If you sold them for $ 1 and people had an option to get them for $ 0.90 , most kids would still choose to keep that dime and the second hand market still would n't disappear .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Who knows, developers could learn from this and say "hmm, maybe the average gamer can't afford $60 for our generic crap-of-the-month we're churning out, maybe if it was $30 in the first place, there wouldn't be a need for a Used market" You've not been to a Gamestop recently, have you...New game: $60.2nd hand: $55.Platinum game new: $20Platinum 2nd hand: $18You're lucky if you get anything more than a 10\% savings.
They just know people would still rather have $5 in their pocket than $0.
Many people, myself included, still pay the $5 to know they're getting an unscratched disc (warranties are useless when the pain in the ass of going back in to claim is worth more than the $5 I saved) but more than enough are happy with any perceived saving.Whilst we can argue about whether $60 is too much... The simple reality that customers still pay over the last generation's $50, even for second hand, implies this particular situation has nothing whatsoever to do with games being overpriced.
If you sold them for $1 and people had an option to get them for $0.90, most kids would still choose to keep that dime and the second hand market still wouldn't disappear.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28720133</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28720625</id>
	<title>Re:They can stop it: Installs locked to hardware.</title>
	<author>sheepofblue</author>
	<datestamp>1247773320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>All true but like most DRM I have seen the implementation craps on your PAYING customers harder than those you are trying to stop.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>All true but like most DRM I have seen the implementation craps on your PAYING customers harder than those you are trying to stop .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>All true but like most DRM I have seen the implementation craps on your PAYING customers harder than those you are trying to stop.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28720025</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28728959</id>
	<title>Re:Used games put more money in the studios hands.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247841900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Straw man.</p><p>As you said making up BS scenarios doesn't make you right.  Your example has orders of magnitude more BS than the GP.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Straw man.As you said making up BS scenarios does n't make you right .
Your example has orders of magnitude more BS than the GP .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Straw man.As you said making up BS scenarios doesn't make you right.
Your example has orders of magnitude more BS than the GP.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28723769</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28722737</id>
	<title>Its not used sales that bother us; just GameStop</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247738820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yeah... Full disclosure, I work for one of those big developer/publishers you all like to rag on.</p><p>Think of it this way.  We spend twenty to fifty million dollars making a game.  We have hundreds of people working on it, for two or three years.  They work hard, sometimes ridiculous long hours in order to try and make the game as good as possible.  Then a large chunk of the sticker price goes to the retail outlets, and we have to sell literally million of copies of the game (new, at retail, for that $60-70 that you all are too cheap to pay) to even make money on it.</p><p>So then players turn around and sell it to GameStop for $15, and GameStop fobs it off on another guy for 5 or 10 dollars cheaper than our price, and GameStop keeps all of that money.  The people who worked so hard on it, get nothing.</p><p>THAT'S why we complain about used games.  It has nothing to do with gamers, or first-sale doctrine, or any of that.  It pisses us off that GAMESTOP makes more money for a used sale, than we make off a NEW sale, and only because the paying customers are cheap bastards who would rather reward GAMESTOP for making it $10 cheaper for them, than reward US for all the blood and sweat and effort to make the damn thing in the first place.</p><p>This is my personal opinion and not that of my employer, thanks for listening, hope I don't offend anybody too much!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah... Full disclosure , I work for one of those big developer/publishers you all like to rag on.Think of it this way .
We spend twenty to fifty million dollars making a game .
We have hundreds of people working on it , for two or three years .
They work hard , sometimes ridiculous long hours in order to try and make the game as good as possible .
Then a large chunk of the sticker price goes to the retail outlets , and we have to sell literally million of copies of the game ( new , at retail , for that $ 60-70 that you all are too cheap to pay ) to even make money on it.So then players turn around and sell it to GameStop for $ 15 , and GameStop fobs it off on another guy for 5 or 10 dollars cheaper than our price , and GameStop keeps all of that money .
The people who worked so hard on it , get nothing.THAT 'S why we complain about used games .
It has nothing to do with gamers , or first-sale doctrine , or any of that .
It pisses us off that GAMESTOP makes more money for a used sale , than we make off a NEW sale , and only because the paying customers are cheap bastards who would rather reward GAMESTOP for making it $ 10 cheaper for them , than reward US for all the blood and sweat and effort to make the damn thing in the first place.This is my personal opinion and not that of my employer , thanks for listening , hope I do n't offend anybody too much !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah... Full disclosure, I work for one of those big developer/publishers you all like to rag on.Think of it this way.
We spend twenty to fifty million dollars making a game.
We have hundreds of people working on it, for two or three years.
They work hard, sometimes ridiculous long hours in order to try and make the game as good as possible.
Then a large chunk of the sticker price goes to the retail outlets, and we have to sell literally million of copies of the game (new, at retail, for that $60-70 that you all are too cheap to pay) to even make money on it.So then players turn around and sell it to GameStop for $15, and GameStop fobs it off on another guy for 5 or 10 dollars cheaper than our price, and GameStop keeps all of that money.
The people who worked so hard on it, get nothing.THAT'S why we complain about used games.
It has nothing to do with gamers, or first-sale doctrine, or any of that.
It pisses us off that GAMESTOP makes more money for a used sale, than we make off a NEW sale, and only because the paying customers are cheap bastards who would rather reward GAMESTOP for making it $10 cheaper for them, than reward US for all the blood and sweat and effort to make the damn thing in the first place.This is my personal opinion and not that of my employer, thanks for listening, hope I don't offend anybody too much!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28720529</id>
	<title>Used car market</title>
	<author>rrz103</author>
	<datestamp>1247772900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I hear GM, Chrysler and Ford are making the same complaint -- that the used car market is eating up their profits.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I hear GM , Chrysler and Ford are making the same complaint -- that the used car market is eating up their profits .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I hear GM, Chrysler and Ford are making the same complaint -- that the used car market is eating up their profits.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28720621</id>
	<title>Re:Lower your price!</title>
	<author>MBGMorden</author>
	<datestamp>1247773320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This age old argument applied to music doesn't generally apply to games.  Take any blockbuster title that was $59.95 a year ago and it's almost certainly going to be $39.95 today.  Give it another year and it'll probably be down to $19.95.  Most quality games will stay at at least $19.95 for the duration of it's host system's mainstream life cycle, but the unpopular games will go even lower - $10 or less isn't uncommon.</p><p>Not saying I agree with the publishers whining - IMHO they should just suck it up and accept reality (if auto makers whined about people buying used cars because they make no money on them then the public would tell them to fuck off - the game publishers need to accept that same situation).  I'm just saying that they ARE reducing price as time goes on.  Particularly for sports games.  Ever priced a copy of Madden that's a year or two out of date?  They'll almost pay you to haul the things away for them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This age old argument applied to music does n't generally apply to games .
Take any blockbuster title that was $ 59.95 a year ago and it 's almost certainly going to be $ 39.95 today .
Give it another year and it 'll probably be down to $ 19.95 .
Most quality games will stay at at least $ 19.95 for the duration of it 's host system 's mainstream life cycle , but the unpopular games will go even lower - $ 10 or less is n't uncommon.Not saying I agree with the publishers whining - IMHO they should just suck it up and accept reality ( if auto makers whined about people buying used cars because they make no money on them then the public would tell them to fuck off - the game publishers need to accept that same situation ) .
I 'm just saying that they ARE reducing price as time goes on .
Particularly for sports games .
Ever priced a copy of Madden that 's a year or two out of date ?
They 'll almost pay you to haul the things away for them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This age old argument applied to music doesn't generally apply to games.
Take any blockbuster title that was $59.95 a year ago and it's almost certainly going to be $39.95 today.
Give it another year and it'll probably be down to $19.95.
Most quality games will stay at at least $19.95 for the duration of it's host system's mainstream life cycle, but the unpopular games will go even lower - $10 or less isn't uncommon.Not saying I agree with the publishers whining - IMHO they should just suck it up and accept reality (if auto makers whined about people buying used cars because they make no money on them then the public would tell them to fuck off - the game publishers need to accept that same situation).
I'm just saying that they ARE reducing price as time goes on.
Particularly for sports games.
Ever priced a copy of Madden that's a year or two out of date?
They'll almost pay you to haul the things away for them.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28720075</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28721917</id>
	<title>Games you want to keep won't be resold.</title>
	<author>andyn</author>
	<datestamp>1247735340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I guess I'm repeating the same mantra over and over again when saying that a game worth playing and keeping won't make its way to Gamestop's shelves. However, I have two concrete examples: Operation Flashpoint and its successor Armed Assault.</p><p>OFP with its expansions had a total of three campaigns. Towards the end I found the missions repetitive. Luckily Bohemia had one ace up their sleeve: their creation was almost endlessly moddable despite some shortcomings. Nobody in the community would have sold his disks because skilled modders had created thousands of single addons and dozens of total conversions and were pushing out new stuff years after the initial release.</p><p>ArmA was basically an updated version of OFP with a poor campaign. Still people didn't sell their disks because they already knew the possibilities the game would offer.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I guess I 'm repeating the same mantra over and over again when saying that a game worth playing and keeping wo n't make its way to Gamestop 's shelves .
However , I have two concrete examples : Operation Flashpoint and its successor Armed Assault.OFP with its expansions had a total of three campaigns .
Towards the end I found the missions repetitive .
Luckily Bohemia had one ace up their sleeve : their creation was almost endlessly moddable despite some shortcomings .
Nobody in the community would have sold his disks because skilled modders had created thousands of single addons and dozens of total conversions and were pushing out new stuff years after the initial release.ArmA was basically an updated version of OFP with a poor campaign .
Still people did n't sell their disks because they already knew the possibilities the game would offer .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I guess I'm repeating the same mantra over and over again when saying that a game worth playing and keeping won't make its way to Gamestop's shelves.
However, I have two concrete examples: Operation Flashpoint and its successor Armed Assault.OFP with its expansions had a total of three campaigns.
Towards the end I found the missions repetitive.
Luckily Bohemia had one ace up their sleeve: their creation was almost endlessly moddable despite some shortcomings.
Nobody in the community would have sold his disks because skilled modders had created thousands of single addons and dozens of total conversions and were pushing out new stuff years after the initial release.ArmA was basically an updated version of OFP with a poor campaign.
Still people didn't sell their disks because they already knew the possibilities the game would offer.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28721009</id>
	<title>Re:Gamestop blows</title>
	<author>Lemming42</author>
	<datestamp>1247774940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><b>The main focus of the argument is not that "people shouldn't be able to resell their new purchases"</b>.  The focus is on some of the tactics that our retail channels engage in to convert new sales into higher-margin used sales.  Since the margin on a used game sale is huge compared to a new sale, retailers like Gamestop will actively encourage people who bring New copies of a game to the register to purchase the used one instead.

The secondary issue is that a person who purchases a new game for $60 is then willing to turn around and sell it a week or two later for $25 to an entity which clearly values the used title at $55, since that's what they resell it for.  I agree that games should cost less money, but as long as a consumer will choose to purchase the "5 dollars cheaper" version and then resell it for 30\% of that price a few weeks later it's a strange economic uphill battle.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The main focus of the argument is not that " people should n't be able to resell their new purchases " .
The focus is on some of the tactics that our retail channels engage in to convert new sales into higher-margin used sales .
Since the margin on a used game sale is huge compared to a new sale , retailers like Gamestop will actively encourage people who bring New copies of a game to the register to purchase the used one instead .
The secondary issue is that a person who purchases a new game for $ 60 is then willing to turn around and sell it a week or two later for $ 25 to an entity which clearly values the used title at $ 55 , since that 's what they resell it for .
I agree that games should cost less money , but as long as a consumer will choose to purchase the " 5 dollars cheaper " version and then resell it for 30 \ % of that price a few weeks later it 's a strange economic uphill battle .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The main focus of the argument is not that "people shouldn't be able to resell their new purchases".
The focus is on some of the tactics that our retail channels engage in to convert new sales into higher-margin used sales.
Since the margin on a used game sale is huge compared to a new sale, retailers like Gamestop will actively encourage people who bring New copies of a game to the register to purchase the used one instead.
The secondary issue is that a person who purchases a new game for $60 is then willing to turn around and sell it a week or two later for $25 to an entity which clearly values the used title at $55, since that's what they resell it for.
I agree that games should cost less money, but as long as a consumer will choose to purchase the "5 dollars cheaper" version and then resell it for 30\% of that price a few weeks later it's a strange economic uphill battle.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28720477</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28724067</id>
	<title>Re:"sleight of hand"</title>
	<author>Alphasite</author>
	<datestamp>1247744940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Wrong, not everything can be reselled or rented and I belive it to be a good thing. You CAN'T resell medicines, you can't project a dvd movie, you can't resell weapons, even if you legally own one and there's a long list like that.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Wrong , not everything can be reselled or rented and I belive it to be a good thing .
You CA N'T resell medicines , you ca n't project a dvd movie , you ca n't resell weapons , even if you legally own one and there 's a long list like that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wrong, not everything can be reselled or rented and I belive it to be a good thing.
You CAN'T resell medicines, you can't project a dvd movie, you can't resell weapons, even if you legally own one and there's a long list like that.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28720153</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28720163</id>
	<title>The Law</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247771580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-sale\_doctrine" title="wikipedia.org">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-sale\_doctrine</a> [wikipedia.org]</p><p>Any studios arguing that copyright rights prevent sale of a used game are just plain WRONG.</p><p>But we need to be vigilant and make sure we get out and ACTUALLY VOTE for politicians who will keep it that way!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-sale \ _doctrine [ wikipedia.org ] Any studios arguing that copyright rights prevent sale of a used game are just plain WRONG.But we need to be vigilant and make sure we get out and ACTUALLY VOTE for politicians who will keep it that way !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-sale\_doctrine [wikipedia.org]Any studios arguing that copyright rights prevent sale of a used game are just plain WRONG.But we need to be vigilant and make sure we get out and ACTUALLY VOTE for politicians who will keep it that way!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28724053</id>
	<title>time out</title>
	<author>TiggertheMad</author>
	<datestamp>1247744820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Developers aren't the problem. People keep saying 'developers' in this thread when they mean 'publishers'. Developers write code and debug physics engines, they don't set prices or worry about second tier markets.
<br> <br>
You are thinking of CEOs, who are whiny bitches regardless of the industry they are in...</htmltext>
<tokenext>Developers are n't the problem .
People keep saying 'developers ' in this thread when they mean 'publishers' .
Developers write code and debug physics engines , they do n't set prices or worry about second tier markets .
You are thinking of CEOs , who are whiny bitches regardless of the industry they are in.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Developers aren't the problem.
People keep saying 'developers' in this thread when they mean 'publishers'.
Developers write code and debug physics engines, they don't set prices or worry about second tier markets.
You are thinking of CEOs, who are whiny bitches regardless of the industry they are in...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28720133</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28727017</id>
	<title>Musicians should stop suing music users</title>
	<author>ET3D</author>
	<datestamp>1247823000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I've seen people using "game developers" a couple of times when they mean publishers. Would these same posters replace RIAA with "musicians" as easily? It's insulting to game developers.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've seen people using " game developers " a couple of times when they mean publishers .
Would these same posters replace RIAA with " musicians " as easily ?
It 's insulting to game developers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've seen people using "game developers" a couple of times when they mean publishers.
Would these same posters replace RIAA with "musicians" as easily?
It's insulting to game developers.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28724157</id>
	<title>Already out of date.</title>
	<author>startled</author>
	<datestamp>1247745240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"There's nothing game developers can do to stop them."</p><p>Really?  How much are you selling your used copy of Battlefield 1943 for?  About the same amount you sold your used copy of Castle Crashers for, right?</p><p>This rant is years out of date.  Game publishers are already figuring out all sorts of ways around the used games "problem".  Rather than pursue the legislation red herring, they're trying market-driven approaches: lower prices; downloadable games; free content for registering; purchaseable downloadable content; long-lived multiplayer modes; "freemium".</p><p>Strangely, by pursuing market-driven solutions instead of lobbyist-driven solutions, it looks like both the publishers and the gamers will benefit.  Weird.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" There 's nothing game developers can do to stop them. " Really ?
How much are you selling your used copy of Battlefield 1943 for ?
About the same amount you sold your used copy of Castle Crashers for , right ? This rant is years out of date .
Game publishers are already figuring out all sorts of ways around the used games " problem " .
Rather than pursue the legislation red herring , they 're trying market-driven approaches : lower prices ; downloadable games ; free content for registering ; purchaseable downloadable content ; long-lived multiplayer modes ; " freemium " .Strangely , by pursuing market-driven solutions instead of lobbyist-driven solutions , it looks like both the publishers and the gamers will benefit .
Weird .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"There's nothing game developers can do to stop them."Really?
How much are you selling your used copy of Battlefield 1943 for?
About the same amount you sold your used copy of Castle Crashers for, right?This rant is years out of date.
Game publishers are already figuring out all sorts of ways around the used games "problem".
Rather than pursue the legislation red herring, they're trying market-driven approaches: lower prices; downloadable games; free content for registering; purchaseable downloadable content; long-lived multiplayer modes; "freemium".Strangely, by pursuing market-driven solutions instead of lobbyist-driven solutions, it looks like both the publishers and the gamers will benefit.
Weird.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28720815</id>
	<title>I think game developers have somewhat of a point</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247774100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Only somewhat of a point though. I agree with pretty much everyone here that people should have the right to sell their sued games (as long as they do not try to play the game after selling it). And naturally other people should have a right to buy them.</p><p>But I agree that Gamestop is going over the line here. They do not merely sell used games they freaking push used games to the exclusion of anything else. So imagine you are game developer -- your main retail outlet is not even trying to sell your product (new games) but is instead using your product as a draw for customers so that they can sell them older, battered, dirty and maybe malfunctioning versions of your product that you make no money out of.</p><p>This of course results in two things (i) developers make less money and (ii) customers get pissed off at developers as they curse at the missing manuals, scratched CDs etc. of the used game they bought.</p><p>So here gamestop is acting like the classic monopolist. After becoming more or less the only specialty game seller and thus capturing the market they are trying hard to fuck over both their suppliers (the developers) and their customers. And believe me, their customers are getting screwed too considering the price the used games are sold for in game stop (especially compared to the price game stop buys these games for).</p><p>But this is ultimately the developers' fault. They should have never let game stop become the only chain. They should have made it clear to them that if they get too large, their wholesale prices will rise in comparison with independent shops and smaller chains. This is the same idiocy that resulted in other giants, such as walmart, etc. A smart producer knows that they have to keep their supply chain healthy and diverse, otherwise their suppliers will strangle them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Only somewhat of a point though .
I agree with pretty much everyone here that people should have the right to sell their sued games ( as long as they do not try to play the game after selling it ) .
And naturally other people should have a right to buy them.But I agree that Gamestop is going over the line here .
They do not merely sell used games they freaking push used games to the exclusion of anything else .
So imagine you are game developer -- your main retail outlet is not even trying to sell your product ( new games ) but is instead using your product as a draw for customers so that they can sell them older , battered , dirty and maybe malfunctioning versions of your product that you make no money out of.This of course results in two things ( i ) developers make less money and ( ii ) customers get pissed off at developers as they curse at the missing manuals , scratched CDs etc .
of the used game they bought.So here gamestop is acting like the classic monopolist .
After becoming more or less the only specialty game seller and thus capturing the market they are trying hard to fuck over both their suppliers ( the developers ) and their customers .
And believe me , their customers are getting screwed too considering the price the used games are sold for in game stop ( especially compared to the price game stop buys these games for ) .But this is ultimately the developers ' fault .
They should have never let game stop become the only chain .
They should have made it clear to them that if they get too large , their wholesale prices will rise in comparison with independent shops and smaller chains .
This is the same idiocy that resulted in other giants , such as walmart , etc .
A smart producer knows that they have to keep their supply chain healthy and diverse , otherwise their suppliers will strangle them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Only somewhat of a point though.
I agree with pretty much everyone here that people should have the right to sell their sued games (as long as they do not try to play the game after selling it).
And naturally other people should have a right to buy them.But I agree that Gamestop is going over the line here.
They do not merely sell used games they freaking push used games to the exclusion of anything else.
So imagine you are game developer -- your main retail outlet is not even trying to sell your product (new games) but is instead using your product as a draw for customers so that they can sell them older, battered, dirty and maybe malfunctioning versions of your product that you make no money out of.This of course results in two things (i) developers make less money and (ii) customers get pissed off at developers as they curse at the missing manuals, scratched CDs etc.
of the used game they bought.So here gamestop is acting like the classic monopolist.
After becoming more or less the only specialty game seller and thus capturing the market they are trying hard to fuck over both their suppliers (the developers) and their customers.
And believe me, their customers are getting screwed too considering the price the used games are sold for in game stop (especially compared to the price game stop buys these games for).But this is ultimately the developers' fault.
They should have never let game stop become the only chain.
They should have made it clear to them that if they get too large, their wholesale prices will rise in comparison with independent shops and smaller chains.
This is the same idiocy that resulted in other giants, such as walmart, etc.
A smart producer knows that they have to keep their supply chain healthy and diverse, otherwise their suppliers will strangle them.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28722235</id>
	<title>Re:Lower your price!</title>
	<author>Talderas</author>
	<datestamp>1247736600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Any of the best SNES RPGs will cost you at LEAST $40 right now, if not $50.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Any of the best SNES RPGs will cost you at LEAST $ 40 right now , if not $ 50 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Any of the best SNES RPGs will cost you at LEAST $40 right now, if not $50.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28721459</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28721459</id>
	<title>Re:Lower your price!</title>
	<author>steelcaress</author>
	<datestamp>1247776860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Actually, in my experience prices don't lower, they raise if you wait too many years.  I had my eye on Wizardry 8, and when it finally dropped to $20 USD I thought seriously of purchasing it.  Imagine my surprise when I finally went to buy it (not too long after I saw the price drop), and people were selling it for $100!

The PC game Arcanum went the same way, and all of a sudden the asking price was around $80 USD and the demos available for download were all corrupt -- and they were asking a grip of money for a game sight unseen.

I'm sure Baldur's Gate II and Morrowind will head the same way.

Maybe it's different for EA games that need a server in order to activate the game.  In the case of the games I've mentioned, these are games you can sit down and play on your computer long after their publishers are dust -- as long as your rig supports the technology.

That being said, I got a crop of more modern games for $20 or less each.  Some of them I would have been happy to pay full price for.  Others, well, let's just say that the dust has a new place to settle.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually , in my experience prices do n't lower , they raise if you wait too many years .
I had my eye on Wizardry 8 , and when it finally dropped to $ 20 USD I thought seriously of purchasing it .
Imagine my surprise when I finally went to buy it ( not too long after I saw the price drop ) , and people were selling it for $ 100 !
The PC game Arcanum went the same way , and all of a sudden the asking price was around $ 80 USD and the demos available for download were all corrupt -- and they were asking a grip of money for a game sight unseen .
I 'm sure Baldur 's Gate II and Morrowind will head the same way .
Maybe it 's different for EA games that need a server in order to activate the game .
In the case of the games I 've mentioned , these are games you can sit down and play on your computer long after their publishers are dust -- as long as your rig supports the technology .
That being said , I got a crop of more modern games for $ 20 or less each .
Some of them I would have been happy to pay full price for .
Others , well , let 's just say that the dust has a new place to settle .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually, in my experience prices don't lower, they raise if you wait too many years.
I had my eye on Wizardry 8, and when it finally dropped to $20 USD I thought seriously of purchasing it.
Imagine my surprise when I finally went to buy it (not too long after I saw the price drop), and people were selling it for $100!
The PC game Arcanum went the same way, and all of a sudden the asking price was around $80 USD and the demos available for download were all corrupt -- and they were asking a grip of money for a game sight unseen.
I'm sure Baldur's Gate II and Morrowind will head the same way.
Maybe it's different for EA games that need a server in order to activate the game.
In the case of the games I've mentioned, these are games you can sit down and play on your computer long after their publishers are dust -- as long as your rig supports the technology.
That being said, I got a crop of more modern games for $20 or less each.
Some of them I would have been happy to pay full price for.
Others, well, let's just say that the dust has a new place to settle.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28720621</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28721071</id>
	<title>Re:I think game developers have somewhat of a poin</title>
	<author>pandrijeczko</author>
	<datestamp>1247775180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I can't speak personally about Gamestop because I'm not in the US, but over here in the UK, the main games store is "Game" with a few other smaller chains of CD/game/DVD exchange stores.</p><p>I only really buy PC Games (we have a Wii also but the missus just uses it for Wii fit and we drag it for the occasional party game with friends) which are different to console games in that they tend to come down in price a lot quicker and "last longer" due to the fact that for most of them you can download mods and other community-created stuff that extend their playing lives anyway.</p><p>But it does amaze me that, in general for console games, the difference between the new and used prices never seems to be very much, and I would be interested how much these exchange shops pay for used games compared to what they sell them for - I guess the margin is at least 100\%.</p><p>However, I think the reason the used game stores can capitalise on this is because the majority of console gamers are youngsters in the "must have it now" generation; otherwise, they'd take the time to go buy their games invariably a lot cheaper online, or just wait a few months until the actual retail price drops.</p><p>These stores are just taking advantage of an opportunity - if (like me most of the time) you don't like their prices then don't pay them; on the other hand, a kid who has to pay for his games out his pocket money probably welcomes the opportunity to sell a game he's finished so as to put some money towards his next purchase.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I ca n't speak personally about Gamestop because I 'm not in the US , but over here in the UK , the main games store is " Game " with a few other smaller chains of CD/game/DVD exchange stores.I only really buy PC Games ( we have a Wii also but the missus just uses it for Wii fit and we drag it for the occasional party game with friends ) which are different to console games in that they tend to come down in price a lot quicker and " last longer " due to the fact that for most of them you can download mods and other community-created stuff that extend their playing lives anyway.But it does amaze me that , in general for console games , the difference between the new and used prices never seems to be very much , and I would be interested how much these exchange shops pay for used games compared to what they sell them for - I guess the margin is at least 100 \ % .However , I think the reason the used game stores can capitalise on this is because the majority of console gamers are youngsters in the " must have it now " generation ; otherwise , they 'd take the time to go buy their games invariably a lot cheaper online , or just wait a few months until the actual retail price drops.These stores are just taking advantage of an opportunity - if ( like me most of the time ) you do n't like their prices then do n't pay them ; on the other hand , a kid who has to pay for his games out his pocket money probably welcomes the opportunity to sell a game he 's finished so as to put some money towards his next purchase .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I can't speak personally about Gamestop because I'm not in the US, but over here in the UK, the main games store is "Game" with a few other smaller chains of CD/game/DVD exchange stores.I only really buy PC Games (we have a Wii also but the missus just uses it for Wii fit and we drag it for the occasional party game with friends) which are different to console games in that they tend to come down in price a lot quicker and "last longer" due to the fact that for most of them you can download mods and other community-created stuff that extend their playing lives anyway.But it does amaze me that, in general for console games, the difference between the new and used prices never seems to be very much, and I would be interested how much these exchange shops pay for used games compared to what they sell them for - I guess the margin is at least 100\%.However, I think the reason the used game stores can capitalise on this is because the majority of console gamers are youngsters in the "must have it now" generation; otherwise, they'd take the time to go buy their games invariably a lot cheaper online, or just wait a few months until the actual retail price drops.These stores are just taking advantage of an opportunity - if (like me most of the time) you don't like their prices then don't pay them; on the other hand, a kid who has to pay for his games out his pocket money probably welcomes the opportunity to sell a game he's finished so as to put some money towards his next purchase.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28720815</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28720455</id>
	<title>Gears Of War 2</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247772660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>In what world is Gears of War 2 sixty dollars?  IT IS NOT $60 NEW.

Also, at least where I live, GameStop prices their $60 games at about $55 if they're used.

I did not RTFA so maybe I missed something?</htmltext>
<tokenext>In what world is Gears of War 2 sixty dollars ?
IT IS NOT $ 60 NEW .
Also , at least where I live , GameStop prices their $ 60 games at about $ 55 if they 're used .
I did not RTFA so maybe I missed something ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In what world is Gears of War 2 sixty dollars?
IT IS NOT $60 NEW.
Also, at least where I live, GameStop prices their $60 games at about $55 if they're used.
I did not RTFA so maybe I missed something?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28721085</id>
	<title>An alternative perspective.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247775240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>1) What would a game cost today if the cost of a game were to rise with inflation?</p><p>2) What does it cost to make a game today vs. the cost of making a game in the past?</p><p>3) What if the used market also went up with inflation?</p><p>4) For the price you actually pay today for the game and the cost of making the game the consumer is getting a great bargain.</p><p>5) What does it cost for 1 person to go to the movies a few times a month compared to a game?</p><p>6) What does it cost to fill your gas tank in your car?</p><p>It takes time, money, and labor to develop and distribute games. It takes more of this than it did in the past, yet the cost of the game has been fairly stagnant. How is the game developer supposed to make up this cost?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>1 ) What would a game cost today if the cost of a game were to rise with inflation ? 2 ) What does it cost to make a game today vs. the cost of making a game in the past ? 3 ) What if the used market also went up with inflation ? 4 ) For the price you actually pay today for the game and the cost of making the game the consumer is getting a great bargain.5 ) What does it cost for 1 person to go to the movies a few times a month compared to a game ? 6 ) What does it cost to fill your gas tank in your car ? It takes time , money , and labor to develop and distribute games .
It takes more of this than it did in the past , yet the cost of the game has been fairly stagnant .
How is the game developer supposed to make up this cost ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>1) What would a game cost today if the cost of a game were to rise with inflation?2) What does it cost to make a game today vs. the cost of making a game in the past?3) What if the used market also went up with inflation?4) For the price you actually pay today for the game and the cost of making the game the consumer is getting a great bargain.5) What does it cost for 1 person to go to the movies a few times a month compared to a game?6) What does it cost to fill your gas tank in your car?It takes time, money, and labor to develop and distribute games.
It takes more of this than it did in the past, yet the cost of the game has been fairly stagnant.
How is the game developer supposed to make up this cost?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28720925</id>
	<title>Basic economics</title>
	<author>GreatDrok</author>
	<datestamp>1247774580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There is only so much money that is available.  By allowing trade in second hand games people who can't afford to buy the full price are contributing something to the games market without devaluing the actual full price.  Allowing people to trade games in towards new ones keeps new product coming into the market just like with trading in cars for example.  Sure, a game may not degrade the way that a car does but in reality a cutting edge game when new looks a lot less good a few years on.  Take GTAIII for instance.  Massive hit but would you buy it today?</p><p>If the game companies do switch to digital distribution they will have to lower their prices or accept that there will be less money coming into their business, not more.  Imagine if people couldn't sell their old car to contribute to a new one.  Far fewer new cars would be sold.  Same goes for games and other forms of entertainment like movies, books, music and so on.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There is only so much money that is available .
By allowing trade in second hand games people who ca n't afford to buy the full price are contributing something to the games market without devaluing the actual full price .
Allowing people to trade games in towards new ones keeps new product coming into the market just like with trading in cars for example .
Sure , a game may not degrade the way that a car does but in reality a cutting edge game when new looks a lot less good a few years on .
Take GTAIII for instance .
Massive hit but would you buy it today ? If the game companies do switch to digital distribution they will have to lower their prices or accept that there will be less money coming into their business , not more .
Imagine if people could n't sell their old car to contribute to a new one .
Far fewer new cars would be sold .
Same goes for games and other forms of entertainment like movies , books , music and so on .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is only so much money that is available.
By allowing trade in second hand games people who can't afford to buy the full price are contributing something to the games market without devaluing the actual full price.
Allowing people to trade games in towards new ones keeps new product coming into the market just like with trading in cars for example.
Sure, a game may not degrade the way that a car does but in reality a cutting edge game when new looks a lot less good a few years on.
Take GTAIII for instance.
Massive hit but would you buy it today?If the game companies do switch to digital distribution they will have to lower their prices or accept that there will be less money coming into their business, not more.
Imagine if people couldn't sell their old car to contribute to a new one.
Far fewer new cars would be sold.
Same goes for games and other forms of entertainment like movies, books, music and so on.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28724335</id>
	<title>Re:Used games put more money in the studios hands.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247746440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Alice has $90.<br>Bob has $30.</p><p>Alice is a prostitute on the side (not a very good one)<br>Bob is unemployed and can't afford video games, but he can afford Alice!</p><p>No used:<br>Alice buys Gears of War for $30 because its been out for 5 years and for some reason this is the new copy price.<br>Alice gives Bob a blowjob because she lives in one of those Nevada counties where its legal and regulated, but she isnt at one the high end places so she doesnt get paid much.<br>Alice buys gears of war 2.<br>Money given to studios - $90</p><p>With used:<br>Alice buys Gears of War and GoW2 used.<br>Alice quits being a prostitute because she found a way to afford all her games, stops playing games because they all suck, and gets a job as a receptionist (what, you think an ex-prostitute who cant budget for games is gonna be a doctor?)<br>Money given to studios - $120, just not by Alice</p><p>Used stores allow a secondary market for a product that doesn't actually degrade in value through use, provided the manufacturer stands behind their products.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Alice has $ 90.Bob has $ 30.Alice is a prostitute on the side ( not a very good one ) Bob is unemployed and ca n't afford video games , but he can afford Alice ! No used : Alice buys Gears of War for $ 30 because its been out for 5 years and for some reason this is the new copy price.Alice gives Bob a blowjob because she lives in one of those Nevada counties where its legal and regulated , but she isnt at one the high end places so she doesnt get paid much.Alice buys gears of war 2.Money given to studios - $ 90With used : Alice buys Gears of War and GoW2 used.Alice quits being a prostitute because she found a way to afford all her games , stops playing games because they all suck , and gets a job as a receptionist ( what , you think an ex-prostitute who cant budget for games is gon na be a doctor ?
) Money given to studios - $ 120 , just not by AliceUsed stores allow a secondary market for a product that does n't actually degrade in value through use , provided the manufacturer stands behind their products .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Alice has $90.Bob has $30.Alice is a prostitute on the side (not a very good one)Bob is unemployed and can't afford video games, but he can afford Alice!No used:Alice buys Gears of War for $30 because its been out for 5 years and for some reason this is the new copy price.Alice gives Bob a blowjob because she lives in one of those Nevada counties where its legal and regulated, but she isnt at one the high end places so she doesnt get paid much.Alice buys gears of war 2.Money given to studios - $90With used:Alice buys Gears of War and GoW2 used.Alice quits being a prostitute because she found a way to afford all her games, stops playing games because they all suck, and gets a job as a receptionist (what, you think an ex-prostitute who cant budget for games is gonna be a doctor?
)Money given to studios - $120, just not by AliceUsed stores allow a secondary market for a product that doesn't actually degrade in value through use, provided the manufacturer stands behind their products.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28721249</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28720835</id>
	<title>Giving out free ideas here</title>
	<author>tyrantking31</author>
	<datestamp>1247774160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Maybe the game publishers should start including a netflix style envelope with their games. When you're done with the game, send the disc back for a $15-20 discount on a new title. The discount would need to be more than the gamestops are willing to pay to compensate for the lack of instant gratification you get from trading games in at gamestop and for the fact that you'd be limited to selecting a game from the publisher's catalog. However, I do think that the company would win in the long run by getting used copies of their games off the shelves.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe the game publishers should start including a netflix style envelope with their games .
When you 're done with the game , send the disc back for a $ 15-20 discount on a new title .
The discount would need to be more than the gamestops are willing to pay to compensate for the lack of instant gratification you get from trading games in at gamestop and for the fact that you 'd be limited to selecting a game from the publisher 's catalog .
However , I do think that the company would win in the long run by getting used copies of their games off the shelves .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe the game publishers should start including a netflix style envelope with their games.
When you're done with the game, send the disc back for a $15-20 discount on a new title.
The discount would need to be more than the gamestops are willing to pay to compensate for the lack of instant gratification you get from trading games in at gamestop and for the fact that you'd be limited to selecting a game from the publisher's catalog.
However, I do think that the company would win in the long run by getting used copies of their games off the shelves.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28720361</id>
	<title>Already have it for music</title>
	<author>basementman</author>
	<datestamp>1247772300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>As we move towards digital, and not physical methods of owning our content this is only natural. Take music, in the past I could sell a CD when I got bored of it. Now that's impossible, I either buy it from iTunes and am unable to sell it in the future, or I just pirate it for free. The second one is much more popular. Game companies trying to alienate people that actually buy their product are just setting themselves up for future piracy.</htmltext>
<tokenext>As we move towards digital , and not physical methods of owning our content this is only natural .
Take music , in the past I could sell a CD when I got bored of it .
Now that 's impossible , I either buy it from iTunes and am unable to sell it in the future , or I just pirate it for free .
The second one is much more popular .
Game companies trying to alienate people that actually buy their product are just setting themselves up for future piracy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As we move towards digital, and not physical methods of owning our content this is only natural.
Take music, in the past I could sell a CD when I got bored of it.
Now that's impossible, I either buy it from iTunes and am unable to sell it in the future, or I just pirate it for free.
The second one is much more popular.
Game companies trying to alienate people that actually buy their product are just setting themselves up for future piracy.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28721285</id>
	<title>Some Game Companies Do</title>
	<author>CrashNBrn</author>
	<datestamp>1247776020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Civ IV Complete is $40 and Includes CIV4 + Warlords + BTS + Civ4:Colonization</htmltext>
<tokenext>Civ IV Complete is $ 40 and Includes CIV4 + Warlords + BTS + Civ4 : Colonization</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Civ IV Complete is $40 and Includes CIV4 + Warlords + BTS + Civ4:Colonization</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28720075</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28721037</id>
	<title>Game publishers, not developers</title>
	<author>MobyDisk</author>
	<datestamp>1247775000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Game developers don't complain about used games.  Game publishers do.  That's like confusing a musician, with an RIAA lawyer.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Game developers do n't complain about used games .
Game publishers do .
That 's like confusing a musician , with an RIAA lawyer .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Game developers don't complain about used games.
Game publishers do.
That's like confusing a musician, with an RIAA lawyer.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28726285</id>
	<title>Re:Great advertising for new versions!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247767560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>No, no wait. Digitally distributed games cost <em>the exact same fucking amount</em>.</p></div><p>In Australia the cost of games are much higher than in America, even including the exchange rate in that comparison. Digitally distributed games cost so much less in Australia because we get American retail price.</p><p>Count yourself lucky.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>No , no wait .
Digitally distributed games cost the exact same fucking amount.In Australia the cost of games are much higher than in America , even including the exchange rate in that comparison .
Digitally distributed games cost so much less in Australia because we get American retail price.Count yourself lucky .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No, no wait.
Digitally distributed games cost the exact same fucking amount.In Australia the cost of games are much higher than in America, even including the exchange rate in that comparison.
Digitally distributed games cost so much less in Australia because we get American retail price.Count yourself lucky.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28721973</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28720237</id>
	<title>You're doing it wrong.</title>
	<author>girlintraining</author>
	<datestamp>1247771820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So let me get this straight -- you're trying to tell game developers they don't deserve the money they're lawfully entitled to? And your compelling argument is that you don't think it's worth that much? Never mind the topic, which tells them to "shut up", which is never a good way to start a debate. Here's a couple facts, my adorable little black hole of Clue: First, federal law says they can charge whatever they want, and they've got the rights to the work for the life of the developer plus a couple hundred years after that. Second, if they charged less, the games would suck badly enough that they'd no longer be worth even a slashdot post lamenting the lack of availability.</p><p>If you want to make a change here, fix the copyright laws, but don't tell game developers to "shut up", because they're the ones pulling doubles every day for months at a go, foregoing the comforts of a significant other, basic hygiene, and possibly their sanity--simply because that's what they love doing and don't mind being underpaid for it. Because it would be just your luck that they'd do exactly that, and then you'd be forced to do something other than masturbating to your level 80 elf huntress.<br>
&nbsp;</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So let me get this straight -- you 're trying to tell game developers they do n't deserve the money they 're lawfully entitled to ?
And your compelling argument is that you do n't think it 's worth that much ?
Never mind the topic , which tells them to " shut up " , which is never a good way to start a debate .
Here 's a couple facts , my adorable little black hole of Clue : First , federal law says they can charge whatever they want , and they 've got the rights to the work for the life of the developer plus a couple hundred years after that .
Second , if they charged less , the games would suck badly enough that they 'd no longer be worth even a slashdot post lamenting the lack of availability.If you want to make a change here , fix the copyright laws , but do n't tell game developers to " shut up " , because they 're the ones pulling doubles every day for months at a go , foregoing the comforts of a significant other , basic hygiene , and possibly their sanity--simply because that 's what they love doing and do n't mind being underpaid for it .
Because it would be just your luck that they 'd do exactly that , and then you 'd be forced to do something other than masturbating to your level 80 elf huntress .
 </tokentext>
<sentencetext>So let me get this straight -- you're trying to tell game developers they don't deserve the money they're lawfully entitled to?
And your compelling argument is that you don't think it's worth that much?
Never mind the topic, which tells them to "shut up", which is never a good way to start a debate.
Here's a couple facts, my adorable little black hole of Clue: First, federal law says they can charge whatever they want, and they've got the rights to the work for the life of the developer plus a couple hundred years after that.
Second, if they charged less, the games would suck badly enough that they'd no longer be worth even a slashdot post lamenting the lack of availability.If you want to make a change here, fix the copyright laws, but don't tell game developers to "shut up", because they're the ones pulling doubles every day for months at a go, foregoing the comforts of a significant other, basic hygiene, and possibly their sanity--simply because that's what they love doing and don't mind being underpaid for it.
Because it would be just your luck that they'd do exactly that, and then you'd be forced to do something other than masturbating to your level 80 elf huntress.
 </sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28728927</id>
	<title>You forgot about...</title>
	<author>DarthVain</author>
	<datestamp>1247841780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>the children....sheesh what kind of monster are you? Probably some kind of member of organized crime that downloads kiddie porn, while sailing the 7 seas, looking for people who have decent rights and freedoms to terrorize...while on drugs.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>the children....sheesh what kind of monster are you ?
Probably some kind of member of organized crime that downloads kiddie porn , while sailing the 7 seas , looking for people who have decent rights and freedoms to terrorize...while on drugs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>the children....sheesh what kind of monster are you?
Probably some kind of member of organized crime that downloads kiddie porn, while sailing the 7 seas, looking for people who have decent rights and freedoms to terrorize...while on drugs.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28721333</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28723425</id>
	<title>Used games.. no problem as long as.</title>
	<author>houbou</author>
	<datestamp>1247741940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The only time one can complain about used games, especially PC based ones, is when they sell a game which offers no DRM.  The ethic is that with a DRM based game, you don't have the original, you can't play your game.  So, truly, for those games that are heavily DRMed.. well, it shouldn't be a problem for one to sell his game used.  He can't play it.. So, what's the big deal? it's like selling music CDs, etc..  Like anything else, in these days where all is cash strapped, everyone tries to milk as much from the system as they can.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The only time one can complain about used games , especially PC based ones , is when they sell a game which offers no DRM .
The ethic is that with a DRM based game , you do n't have the original , you ca n't play your game .
So , truly , for those games that are heavily DRMed.. well , it should n't be a problem for one to sell his game used .
He ca n't play it.. So , what 's the big deal ?
it 's like selling music CDs , etc.. Like anything else , in these days where all is cash strapped , everyone tries to milk as much from the system as they can .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The only time one can complain about used games, especially PC based ones, is when they sell a game which offers no DRM.
The ethic is that with a DRM based game, you don't have the original, you can't play your game.
So, truly, for those games that are heavily DRMed.. well, it shouldn't be a problem for one to sell his game used.
He can't play it.. So, what's the big deal?
it's like selling music CDs, etc..  Like anything else, in these days where all is cash strapped, everyone tries to milk as much from the system as they can.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28723641</id>
	<title>Re:The Law</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247742840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-sale\_doctrine" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-sale\_doctrine</a> [wikipedia.org] </p><p>Any studios arguing that copyright rights prevent sale of a used game are just plain WRONG.</p></div><p>Uh, not quite right homey....from your own link, computer games (also known as COMPUTER SOFTWARE) are a fuzzy legal area:</p><p>Computer software</p><p>The first-sale doctrine as it relates to computer software is an area of legal confusion. Software publishers claim in their End User License Agreements (EULA) that their software is licensed, not sold, thus the first-sale doctrine does not apply to their works. Courts have contradicted. Bauer &amp; Cie. v. O'Donnell and Bobbs-Merrill Co. v. Straus are two related U.S. Supreme Court cases.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-sale \ _doctrine [ wikipedia.org ] Any studios arguing that copyright rights prevent sale of a used game are just plain WRONG.Uh , not quite right homey....from your own link , computer games ( also known as COMPUTER SOFTWARE ) are a fuzzy legal area : Computer softwareThe first-sale doctrine as it relates to computer software is an area of legal confusion .
Software publishers claim in their End User License Agreements ( EULA ) that their software is licensed , not sold , thus the first-sale doctrine does not apply to their works .
Courts have contradicted .
Bauer &amp; Cie. v. O'Donnell and Bobbs-Merrill Co. v. Straus are two related U.S. Supreme Court cases .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-sale\_doctrine [wikipedia.org] Any studios arguing that copyright rights prevent sale of a used game are just plain WRONG.Uh, not quite right homey....from your own link, computer games (also known as COMPUTER SOFTWARE) are a fuzzy legal area:Computer softwareThe first-sale doctrine as it relates to computer software is an area of legal confusion.
Software publishers claim in their End User License Agreements (EULA) that their software is licensed, not sold, thus the first-sale doctrine does not apply to their works.
Courts have contradicted.
Bauer &amp; Cie. v. O'Donnell and Bobbs-Merrill Co. v. Straus are two related U.S. Supreme Court cases.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28720163</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28724421</id>
	<title>Re:Great advertising for new versions!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247747040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They know about capitalism. They've ran the numbers, and based on their guesses, more people would buy the game for $30, but not *twice* as many people (or whatever the number really is when you factor everything in), so they still stand to win (based, again, on their guesses of market response) by charging $60.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They know about capitalism .
They 've ran the numbers , and based on their guesses , more people would buy the game for $ 30 , but not * twice * as many people ( or whatever the number really is when you factor everything in ) , so they still stand to win ( based , again , on their guesses of market response ) by charging $ 60 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They know about capitalism.
They've ran the numbers, and based on their guesses, more people would buy the game for $30, but not *twice* as many people (or whatever the number really is when you factor everything in), so they still stand to win (based, again, on their guesses of market response) by charging $60.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28720133</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28721225</id>
	<title>Soluton: Make games for PC...</title>
	<author>molotovjester</author>
	<datestamp>1247775840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well, the develops could exclusively release the game for the PC where they can implement draconian DRM that pisses everyone off...that seems like a good solution...they could probably even do that on the consoles if they wanted to alienate customers the way PC customers are alienated by phone-home DRM...so I guess the problem is the same...so nevermind.</p><p>I guess PC is only better for developers because there arn't as many resources for buying/selling used games as there is for console. Its just that pirating is so much easier. So I guess that point is moot too.</p><p>I guess I would choose the console market after wall given that used games sales is the "lesser evil" compared to pirating.</p><p>Oh well...So developers I say: choose your poison! But you cannot have your cake and eat it too.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , the develops could exclusively release the game for the PC where they can implement draconian DRM that pisses everyone off...that seems like a good solution...they could probably even do that on the consoles if they wanted to alienate customers the way PC customers are alienated by phone-home DRM...so I guess the problem is the same...so nevermind.I guess PC is only better for developers because there ar n't as many resources for buying/selling used games as there is for console .
Its just that pirating is so much easier .
So I guess that point is moot too.I guess I would choose the console market after wall given that used games sales is the " lesser evil " compared to pirating.Oh well...So developers I say : choose your poison !
But you can not have your cake and eat it too .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, the develops could exclusively release the game for the PC where they can implement draconian DRM that pisses everyone off...that seems like a good solution...they could probably even do that on the consoles if they wanted to alienate customers the way PC customers are alienated by phone-home DRM...so I guess the problem is the same...so nevermind.I guess PC is only better for developers because there arn't as many resources for buying/selling used games as there is for console.
Its just that pirating is so much easier.
So I guess that point is moot too.I guess I would choose the console market after wall given that used games sales is the "lesser evil" compared to pirating.Oh well...So developers I say: choose your poison!
But you cannot have your cake and eat it too.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28721875</id>
	<title>plus ca change, etc.</title>
	<author>RomulusNR</author>
	<datestamp>1247735160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I seem to remember the music industry being not to keen on used record and tape sales a few years back.</p><p>The older I get the more I realize that the rest of you humans are just spinning in silly little circles.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I seem to remember the music industry being not to keen on used record and tape sales a few years back.The older I get the more I realize that the rest of you humans are just spinning in silly little circles .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I seem to remember the music industry being not to keen on used record and tape sales a few years back.The older I get the more I realize that the rest of you humans are just spinning in silly little circles.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28729627</id>
	<title>Re:time out</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247844780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This practice would stop if greedy publishers like steam would stop charging in-store prices for downloadable games. You can't re-sell a downloaded game (as easy anyway) and their prices are massively reduced due to the method of distribution.</p><p>Developers and publishers have no place to complain while they allow digitally purchased software to be sold at such ludicrous prices.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This practice would stop if greedy publishers like steam would stop charging in-store prices for downloadable games .
You ca n't re-sell a downloaded game ( as easy anyway ) and their prices are massively reduced due to the method of distribution.Developers and publishers have no place to complain while they allow digitally purchased software to be sold at such ludicrous prices .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This practice would stop if greedy publishers like steam would stop charging in-store prices for downloadable games.
You can't re-sell a downloaded game (as easy anyway) and their prices are massively reduced due to the method of distribution.Developers and publishers have no place to complain while they allow digitally purchased software to be sold at such ludicrous prices.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28724053</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28721047</id>
	<title>Re:I hate the used games.</title>
	<author>rgviza</author>
	<datestamp>1247775060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Gamestop isn't the only seller of used games. I get mine for $15, which is considerably less than $50. You are right tho, I'm pretty contemptuous of anyone paying $50 for a used game too, but at $15 a used game is a steal<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;-). Usually the book is even in the case, not that they are useful for anything anyway.</p><p>I'm not trying to stick it to anyone. I just don't see any game being worth $60... I play them but I get bored of them pretty fast. Maybe if they made better games I'd pay.</p><p>-Viz</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Gamestop is n't the only seller of used games .
I get mine for $ 15 , which is considerably less than $ 50 .
You are right tho , I 'm pretty contemptuous of anyone paying $ 50 for a used game too , but at $ 15 a used game is a steal ; - ) .
Usually the book is even in the case , not that they are useful for anything anyway.I 'm not trying to stick it to anyone .
I just do n't see any game being worth $ 60... I play them but I get bored of them pretty fast .
Maybe if they made better games I 'd pay.-Viz</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Gamestop isn't the only seller of used games.
I get mine for $15, which is considerably less than $50.
You are right tho, I'm pretty contemptuous of anyone paying $50 for a used game too, but at $15 a used game is a steal ;-).
Usually the book is even in the case, not that they are useful for anything anyway.I'm not trying to stick it to anyone.
I just don't see any game being worth $60... I play them but I get bored of them pretty fast.
Maybe if they made better games I'd pay.-Viz</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28720569</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28720485</id>
	<title>Yeah, we'll always be able to resell them!</title>
	<author>8tim8</author>
	<datestamp>1247772780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt;people are going to trade in used games for new games and those old games will be sold back to other people. There's nothing game developers can do to stop them...</p><p>Exactly!  Nothing they can do at all!  They should just stop complaining about it and move on.</p><p>On a completely unrelated note, can someone please post instructions on how I can resell the games I've downloaded for my Wii and Xbox 360?  Also, I've got some downloaded books for my Kindle that I'm tired of and want to sell.   I know I can do these things because, like the summary says, there's nothing the publishers can do to stop it.  Thanks in advance!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; people are going to trade in used games for new games and those old games will be sold back to other people .
There 's nothing game developers can do to stop them...Exactly !
Nothing they can do at all !
They should just stop complaining about it and move on.On a completely unrelated note , can someone please post instructions on how I can resell the games I 've downloaded for my Wii and Xbox 360 ?
Also , I 've got some downloaded books for my Kindle that I 'm tired of and want to sell .
I know I can do these things because , like the summary says , there 's nothing the publishers can do to stop it .
Thanks in advance !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt;people are going to trade in used games for new games and those old games will be sold back to other people.
There's nothing game developers can do to stop them...Exactly!
Nothing they can do at all!
They should just stop complaining about it and move on.On a completely unrelated note, can someone please post instructions on how I can resell the games I've downloaded for my Wii and Xbox 360?
Also, I've got some downloaded books for my Kindle that I'm tired of and want to sell.
I know I can do these things because, like the summary says, there's nothing the publishers can do to stop it.
Thanks in advance!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28721147</id>
	<title>Possibly Off-Topic - But I Want To Buy Used Games.</title>
	<author>RobDude</author>
	<datestamp>1247775480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I tend to try games out before I buy them.  Most of the time, I play it two or three times and decide I don't like it.  I never play it again.  So yeah, I just pirate them.</p><p>If I like the game (and it runs on my PC) and I'm going to keep playing it - I want to buy it.  So, for example, last week I decided to download GTA IV to see if it was any good.  It sucked balls.  I read about it, and it was so bad at release that they actually gave customers their money back.  It's was a giant, steaming, pile.</p><p>I'm glad I didn't buy it.</p><p>After that, I tried GTA III - San Andreas.  And I love it.  It's a good game.  I want to support the company that made it.  If I buy the game used, off e-bay or at some game-trading store; does any of that money get back to the company?  It sounds like it doesn't.  Once a game isn't on the shelf at Best Buy or Walmart - how can I buy it and support the company?</p><p>I saw a direct download website that was selling the game.  I figured that'd be the best way to go?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I tend to try games out before I buy them .
Most of the time , I play it two or three times and decide I do n't like it .
I never play it again .
So yeah , I just pirate them.If I like the game ( and it runs on my PC ) and I 'm going to keep playing it - I want to buy it .
So , for example , last week I decided to download GTA IV to see if it was any good .
It sucked balls .
I read about it , and it was so bad at release that they actually gave customers their money back .
It 's was a giant , steaming , pile.I 'm glad I did n't buy it.After that , I tried GTA III - San Andreas .
And I love it .
It 's a good game .
I want to support the company that made it .
If I buy the game used , off e-bay or at some game-trading store ; does any of that money get back to the company ?
It sounds like it does n't .
Once a game is n't on the shelf at Best Buy or Walmart - how can I buy it and support the company ? I saw a direct download website that was selling the game .
I figured that 'd be the best way to go ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I tend to try games out before I buy them.
Most of the time, I play it two or three times and decide I don't like it.
I never play it again.
So yeah, I just pirate them.If I like the game (and it runs on my PC) and I'm going to keep playing it - I want to buy it.
So, for example, last week I decided to download GTA IV to see if it was any good.
It sucked balls.
I read about it, and it was so bad at release that they actually gave customers their money back.
It's was a giant, steaming, pile.I'm glad I didn't buy it.After that, I tried GTA III - San Andreas.
And I love it.
It's a good game.
I want to support the company that made it.
If I buy the game used, off e-bay or at some game-trading store; does any of that money get back to the company?
It sounds like it doesn't.
Once a game isn't on the shelf at Best Buy or Walmart - how can I buy it and support the company?I saw a direct download website that was selling the game.
I figured that'd be the best way to go?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28721133</id>
	<title>I buy used games to intentionally hurt their sales</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247775480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>90\% of the publishers treat their customers with hostility (with CD checks, rootkits, etc). I refuse to pay people who treat me like shit.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>90 \ % of the publishers treat their customers with hostility ( with CD checks , rootkits , etc ) .
I refuse to pay people who treat me like shit .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>90\% of the publishers treat their customers with hostility (with CD checks, rootkits, etc).
I refuse to pay people who treat me like shit.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28721885</id>
	<title>The game publishers should buy back themselves</title>
	<author>Maximum Prophet</author>
	<datestamp>1247735160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>They should be able to buy the games back themselves, destroy them, and only sell used.  Since they're going to get the new cost for every game they buy back, they should be able to outbid Gamestop and others who have to sell the game used.
<br> <br>
Wait, you say, Gamestop is taking a risk that nobody will buy the game that they have bought used.  Well, that's the way of the world, rewards might go to those that take risk.</htmltext>
<tokenext>They should be able to buy the games back themselves , destroy them , and only sell used .
Since they 're going to get the new cost for every game they buy back , they should be able to outbid Gamestop and others who have to sell the game used .
Wait , you say , Gamestop is taking a risk that nobody will buy the game that they have bought used .
Well , that 's the way of the world , rewards might go to those that take risk .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They should be able to buy the games back themselves, destroy them, and only sell used.
Since they're going to get the new cost for every game they buy back, they should be able to outbid Gamestop and others who have to sell the game used.
Wait, you say, Gamestop is taking a risk that nobody will buy the game that they have bought used.
Well, that's the way of the world, rewards might go to those that take risk.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28722807</id>
	<title>O RLY?</title>
	<author>DragonWriter</author>
	<datestamp>1247739180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>It may feel like a rip-off to some, but you've got to admit that paying $30 for Gears of War 2 sure beats paying $60! Game publishers and developers may not like it, but people are going to trade in used games for new games and those old games will be sold back to other people. There's nothing game developers can do to stop them</p></div></blockquote><p>Sure, there is; they can stop distributing physical media altogether, and use download-and-activate distribution exclusively. Sure, it can be less convenient for the user (especially if the game needs to "phone home" at launch), but its quite possible for game companies to give you nothing "used" to sell.</p><p>OTOH, its not clear to me that game publishers should be worried about used sales at all, sales of used games transfer funds from the price conscious buyers that aren't as concerned with getting the latest and greatest new to the people that want the best now, and thus give more money to the people who are buying new games in the first place. Killing used game sales might just result in the price conscious people only buying the "classic" games that have had their price dropped because they are old, while the people who are willing to pay full freight for new games won't have as much cash to do it, resulting in the game companies taking longer to pay off the development costs of new titles.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It may feel like a rip-off to some , but you 've got to admit that paying $ 30 for Gears of War 2 sure beats paying $ 60 !
Game publishers and developers may not like it , but people are going to trade in used games for new games and those old games will be sold back to other people .
There 's nothing game developers can do to stop themSure , there is ; they can stop distributing physical media altogether , and use download-and-activate distribution exclusively .
Sure , it can be less convenient for the user ( especially if the game needs to " phone home " at launch ) , but its quite possible for game companies to give you nothing " used " to sell.OTOH , its not clear to me that game publishers should be worried about used sales at all , sales of used games transfer funds from the price conscious buyers that are n't as concerned with getting the latest and greatest new to the people that want the best now , and thus give more money to the people who are buying new games in the first place .
Killing used game sales might just result in the price conscious people only buying the " classic " games that have had their price dropped because they are old , while the people who are willing to pay full freight for new games wo n't have as much cash to do it , resulting in the game companies taking longer to pay off the development costs of new titles .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It may feel like a rip-off to some, but you've got to admit that paying $30 for Gears of War 2 sure beats paying $60!
Game publishers and developers may not like it, but people are going to trade in used games for new games and those old games will be sold back to other people.
There's nothing game developers can do to stop themSure, there is; they can stop distributing physical media altogether, and use download-and-activate distribution exclusively.
Sure, it can be less convenient for the user (especially if the game needs to "phone home" at launch), but its quite possible for game companies to give you nothing "used" to sell.OTOH, its not clear to me that game publishers should be worried about used sales at all, sales of used games transfer funds from the price conscious buyers that aren't as concerned with getting the latest and greatest new to the people that want the best now, and thus give more money to the people who are buying new games in the first place.
Killing used game sales might just result in the price conscious people only buying the "classic" games that have had their price dropped because they are old, while the people who are willing to pay full freight for new games won't have as much cash to do it, resulting in the game companies taking longer to pay off the development costs of new titles.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28720507</id>
	<title>We should be allowed to sell</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247772840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I like being able to sell my older games and get my money back. It could be weeks, months, or even years but it does not matter because I owned the game to begin with. The game industry continues to complain about this while I am still able to buy and sell used books, cars, dvds, and anything else that can be listed on Craigslist or eBay.</p><p>By taking that buying and selling power away, it gives much more power to the publishers and less as an actual consumer who paid their own money for something.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I like being able to sell my older games and get my money back .
It could be weeks , months , or even years but it does not matter because I owned the game to begin with .
The game industry continues to complain about this while I am still able to buy and sell used books , cars , dvds , and anything else that can be listed on Craigslist or eBay.By taking that buying and selling power away , it gives much more power to the publishers and less as an actual consumer who paid their own money for something .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I like being able to sell my older games and get my money back.
It could be weeks, months, or even years but it does not matter because I owned the game to begin with.
The game industry continues to complain about this while I am still able to buy and sell used books, cars, dvds, and anything else that can be listed on Craigslist or eBay.By taking that buying and selling power away, it gives much more power to the publishers and less as an actual consumer who paid their own money for something.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28784001</id>
	<title>Re:Great advertising for new versions!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1248286500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hopefully you're not still holding out for Diablo 2 and Warcraft 3 to come down in price</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hopefully you 're not still holding out for Diablo 2 and Warcraft 3 to come down in price</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hopefully you're not still holding out for Diablo 2 and Warcraft 3 to come down in price</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28721363</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28720413</id>
	<title>Re:The Law</title>
	<author>pilgrim23</author>
	<datestamp>1247772480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>the same has been true of used books for some 10 generations.
 But the digital world will soon make that a thing of the past. Then once only digital books are available they will be printed in ASCII, no in Rich Text, no   in PDF, no<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.docx  no Kendel reader no....in a standard that will LAST for another 10 generations!   or not...</htmltext>
<tokenext>the same has been true of used books for some 10 generations .
But the digital world will soon make that a thing of the past .
Then once only digital books are available they will be printed in ASCII , no in Rich Text , no in PDF , no .docx no Kendel reader no....in a standard that will LAST for another 10 generations !
or not.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>the same has been true of used books for some 10 generations.
But the digital world will soon make that a thing of the past.
Then once only digital books are available they will be printed in ASCII, no in Rich Text, no   in PDF, no .docx  no Kendel reader no....in a standard that will LAST for another 10 generations!
or not...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28720163</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28720155</id>
	<title>Nothing game developers can do?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247771580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I wouldn't be surprised if the next generation of game consoles are download (non-transferable) game licenses only. Sound crazy? They are already phasing this in slowly with so much pay-for DLC content.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I would n't be surprised if the next generation of game consoles are download ( non-transferable ) game licenses only .
Sound crazy ?
They are already phasing this in slowly with so much pay-for DLC content .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I wouldn't be surprised if the next generation of game consoles are download (non-transferable) game licenses only.
Sound crazy?
They are already phasing this in slowly with so much pay-for DLC content.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28725619</id>
	<title>Re:Great advertising for new versions!</title>
	<author>pfleming</author>
	<datestamp>1247759160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>"Intelligent thought" as you put it is the capitalists' best ally: he WANTS his customers to be happy at the price point that makes him the most money. If his products - in this case games - are too expensive, he will reduce his pricing to hit the most profitable point on the curve where expenses are most minimal and sales the highest. It's a self-interest game, certainly, but it's a self interest game that helps the customer.</p></div><p>
They must not be capitalists then because they don't use "intelligent thought". Instead they try to lock their product in a DRM scheme that only pisses people off and call their <i>customers</i> thieves. Optimal price point? I doubt these companies know what that means. Heck, maybe they can hire Gates to write a letter to the gaming community and see how well that works.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>" Intelligent thought " as you put it is the capitalists ' best ally : he WANTS his customers to be happy at the price point that makes him the most money .
If his products - in this case games - are too expensive , he will reduce his pricing to hit the most profitable point on the curve where expenses are most minimal and sales the highest .
It 's a self-interest game , certainly , but it 's a self interest game that helps the customer .
They must not be capitalists then because they do n't use " intelligent thought " .
Instead they try to lock their product in a DRM scheme that only pisses people off and call their customers thieves .
Optimal price point ?
I doubt these companies know what that means .
Heck , maybe they can hire Gates to write a letter to the gaming community and see how well that works .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Intelligent thought" as you put it is the capitalists' best ally: he WANTS his customers to be happy at the price point that makes him the most money.
If his products - in this case games - are too expensive, he will reduce his pricing to hit the most profitable point on the curve where expenses are most minimal and sales the highest.
It's a self-interest game, certainly, but it's a self interest game that helps the customer.
They must not be capitalists then because they don't use "intelligent thought".
Instead they try to lock their product in a DRM scheme that only pisses people off and call their customers thieves.
Optimal price point?
I doubt these companies know what that means.
Heck, maybe they can hire Gates to write a letter to the gaming community and see how well that works.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28721911</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28727647</id>
	<title>Re:Great advertising for new versions!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247832060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yeah exactly but gamespot wouldn't be profitable anymore.... hence the capitalism...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah exactly but gamespot would n't be profitable anymore.... hence the capitalism.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah exactly but gamespot wouldn't be profitable anymore.... hence the capitalism...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28721059</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28720715</id>
	<title>DRM</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247773620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>DRM and Downloadable games dance all the way back!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>DRM and Downloadable games dance all the way back !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>DRM and Downloadable games dance all the way back!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28721973</id>
	<title>Re:Great advertising for new versions!</title>
	<author>JStegmaier</author>
	<datestamp>1247735580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>In other words, they get to charge such high prices because users can sell the game later and recoup some of the loss.</p></div><p>Which completely explains why digitally distributed games are so much cheaper. You can't reseller them, and the publisher doesn't have to pay for packaging, shipping, etc.<br> <br>No, no wait. Digitally distributed games cost <em>the exact same fucking amount</em>.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>In other words , they get to charge such high prices because users can sell the game later and recoup some of the loss.Which completely explains why digitally distributed games are so much cheaper .
You ca n't reseller them , and the publisher does n't have to pay for packaging , shipping , etc .
No , no wait .
Digitally distributed games cost the exact same fucking amount .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In other words, they get to charge such high prices because users can sell the game later and recoup some of the loss.Which completely explains why digitally distributed games are so much cheaper.
You can't reseller them, and the publisher doesn't have to pay for packaging, shipping, etc.
No, no wait.
Digitally distributed games cost the exact same fucking amount.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28721043</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28778039</id>
	<title>Re:Used games put more money in the studios hands.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1248193800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Great. So our choices are:<br>Myers - Pathetic range, big-name games only<br>K-Mart/Target/Big W - Good range, big-name games only<br>EBGames/JBHiFi - Good range, spread of mid-name games to big-name games<br>Vagabond - Low range, spread of small-name games to big-name games.</p><p>And yet apparently EBGames is the worst option. You sir make the most sense of anyone I've ever read.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Great .
So our choices are : Myers - Pathetic range , big-name games onlyK-Mart/Target/Big W - Good range , big-name games onlyEBGames/JBHiFi - Good range , spread of mid-name games to big-name gamesVagabond - Low range , spread of small-name games to big-name games.And yet apparently EBGames is the worst option .
You sir make the most sense of anyone I 've ever read .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Great.
So our choices are:Myers - Pathetic range, big-name games onlyK-Mart/Target/Big W - Good range, big-name games onlyEBGames/JBHiFi - Good range, spread of mid-name games to big-name gamesVagabond - Low range, spread of small-name games to big-name games.And yet apparently EBGames is the worst option.
You sir make the most sense of anyone I've ever read.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28723517</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28720025</id>
	<title>They can stop it: Installs locked to hardware.</title>
	<author>Jackie\_Chan\_Fan</author>
	<datestamp>1247771160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sony was going to have each game be locked to a single PS3 thus preventing the resale of the game.</p><p>Sony decided against it when the fans made a stink.</p><p>Lets not say that its "impossible" to stop the selling of used games. Its quite possible and they will do it when they feel they have to.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sony was going to have each game be locked to a single PS3 thus preventing the resale of the game.Sony decided against it when the fans made a stink.Lets not say that its " impossible " to stop the selling of used games .
Its quite possible and they will do it when they feel they have to .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sony was going to have each game be locked to a single PS3 thus preventing the resale of the game.Sony decided against it when the fans made a stink.Lets not say that its "impossible" to stop the selling of used games.
Its quite possible and they will do it when they feel they have to.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28722987</id>
	<title>Easy to stop actually...</title>
	<author>Gribflex</author>
	<datestamp>1247739960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sell the games in a way that they cannot be resold.</p><p>iTunes did this, and they were good and sneaky about it too. It took me about 100$ of tv shows before it occurred to me that when I was buying the physical DVDs, I was paying 15\% more up front, but then selling them on craigslist for 50\% of face value, therefore saving money in the end.</p><p>I can't resell my iTunes purchases. Heck, I can't even lend them to a friend (without giving them my account or iPod). These both make the medium pretty restrictive -- however, it's convenient and cheap and really convenient. So, I keep buying.</p><p>If more vendors move to this model it would help them keep more of their revenue. However, I would hope that they would pass on some savings to consumers. It would only make sense to get them started. $60 in the store, or 45$ on our website.</p><p>This seems to be the way some people are moving - with the app store, or steam, as distribution channels.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sell the games in a way that they can not be resold.iTunes did this , and they were good and sneaky about it too .
It took me about 100 $ of tv shows before it occurred to me that when I was buying the physical DVDs , I was paying 15 \ % more up front , but then selling them on craigslist for 50 \ % of face value , therefore saving money in the end.I ca n't resell my iTunes purchases .
Heck , I ca n't even lend them to a friend ( without giving them my account or iPod ) .
These both make the medium pretty restrictive -- however , it 's convenient and cheap and really convenient .
So , I keep buying.If more vendors move to this model it would help them keep more of their revenue .
However , I would hope that they would pass on some savings to consumers .
It would only make sense to get them started .
$ 60 in the store , or 45 $ on our website.This seems to be the way some people are moving - with the app store , or steam , as distribution channels .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sell the games in a way that they cannot be resold.iTunes did this, and they were good and sneaky about it too.
It took me about 100$ of tv shows before it occurred to me that when I was buying the physical DVDs, I was paying 15\% more up front, but then selling them on craigslist for 50\% of face value, therefore saving money in the end.I can't resell my iTunes purchases.
Heck, I can't even lend them to a friend (without giving them my account or iPod).
These both make the medium pretty restrictive -- however, it's convenient and cheap and really convenient.
So, I keep buying.If more vendors move to this model it would help them keep more of their revenue.
However, I would hope that they would pass on some savings to consumers.
It would only make sense to get them started.
$60 in the store, or 45$ on our website.This seems to be the way some people are moving - with the app store, or steam, as distribution channels.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28725205</id>
	<title>Re:digital "property"</title>
	<author>Taikutusu</author>
	<datestamp>1247753520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I agree with this a lot. I feel like a luddite sometimes because of this, but I still exclusively buy CDs, actual paper books, DVDs etc. Games are the only area where I have gone (almost) purely digital.</p><p>Honestly, I'm not sure why this even really needs to be argued about for more than a few minutes though. Right to first sale is all that really needs to be said. Anything after that should be superfluous, and it's sad (and worrying) that it isn't.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I agree with this a lot .
I feel like a luddite sometimes because of this , but I still exclusively buy CDs , actual paper books , DVDs etc .
Games are the only area where I have gone ( almost ) purely digital.Honestly , I 'm not sure why this even really needs to be argued about for more than a few minutes though .
Right to first sale is all that really needs to be said .
Anything after that should be superfluous , and it 's sad ( and worrying ) that it is n't .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I agree with this a lot.
I feel like a luddite sometimes because of this, but I still exclusively buy CDs, actual paper books, DVDs etc.
Games are the only area where I have gone (almost) purely digital.Honestly, I'm not sure why this even really needs to be argued about for more than a few minutes though.
Right to first sale is all that really needs to be said.
Anything after that should be superfluous, and it's sad (and worrying) that it isn't.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28722219</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28721747</id>
	<title>Re:Developers need to do the math</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247777880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The thing I don't understand is that films with rival budgets often retail at $20 bucks on dvd.  What makes games so different?  Seriously, if new games hit the market at thirty dollars a pop, I believe a large portion of the second hand market would dry up.</p></div><p>Games don't come to theaters?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The thing I do n't understand is that films with rival budgets often retail at $ 20 bucks on dvd .
What makes games so different ?
Seriously , if new games hit the market at thirty dollars a pop , I believe a large portion of the second hand market would dry up.Games do n't come to theaters ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The thing I don't understand is that films with rival budgets often retail at $20 bucks on dvd.
What makes games so different?
Seriously, if new games hit the market at thirty dollars a pop, I believe a large portion of the second hand market would dry up.Games don't come to theaters?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28720913</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28727473</id>
	<title>i hate gamestop</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247829600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As someone who wishes to be a game designer in the future, I must say I don't mind the sale of used games.</p><p>However, when companies like gamestop can buy the games for a ridiculously low price and resell them for highway robbery, that's when I believe the line has been crossed.</p><p>It's ridiculous really.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As someone who wishes to be a game designer in the future , I must say I do n't mind the sale of used games.However , when companies like gamestop can buy the games for a ridiculously low price and resell them for highway robbery , that 's when I believe the line has been crossed.It 's ridiculous really .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As someone who wishes to be a game designer in the future, I must say I don't mind the sale of used games.However, when companies like gamestop can buy the games for a ridiculously low price and resell them for highway robbery, that's when I believe the line has been crossed.It's ridiculous really.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28725297</id>
	<title>Re:Great advertising for new versions!</title>
	<author>fractoid</author>
	<datestamp>1247754300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The Capitalist way would be to try to enforce harsher DRM, outsource to an anti-cheat scheme that also lets you keep banning a steady number of people who will hopefully rebuy the game, and then blame piracy when the game doesnt sell well.</p></div><p>Only if that makes more profit for the shareholders.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The Capitalist way would be to try to enforce harsher DRM , outsource to an anti-cheat scheme that also lets you keep banning a steady number of people who will hopefully rebuy the game , and then blame piracy when the game doesnt sell well.Only if that makes more profit for the shareholders .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Capitalist way would be to try to enforce harsher DRM, outsource to an anti-cheat scheme that also lets you keep banning a steady number of people who will hopefully rebuy the game, and then blame piracy when the game doesnt sell well.Only if that makes more profit for the shareholders.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28721333</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28720343</id>
	<title>Re:They can stop it: Installs locked to hardware.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247772240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's coming.  I'll bet the next consoles have 'features' that prevent game resale.  They think people will buy no matter what.  I've been gaming for 25 years and I will not buy a game that I can't bring over to a friends' house.  And no, giving your friend your PSN or Xbox Live info so they can download the game onto their console isn't the same.  Takes too much coordination, time, and it could even cost money if your friend is on metered broadband.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's coming .
I 'll bet the next consoles have 'features ' that prevent game resale .
They think people will buy no matter what .
I 've been gaming for 25 years and I will not buy a game that I ca n't bring over to a friends ' house .
And no , giving your friend your PSN or Xbox Live info so they can download the game onto their console is n't the same .
Takes too much coordination , time , and it could even cost money if your friend is on metered broadband .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's coming.
I'll bet the next consoles have 'features' that prevent game resale.
They think people will buy no matter what.
I've been gaming for 25 years and I will not buy a game that I can't bring over to a friends' house.
And no, giving your friend your PSN or Xbox Live info so they can download the game onto their console isn't the same.
Takes too much coordination, time, and it could even cost money if your friend is on metered broadband.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28720025</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28721267</id>
	<title>Related XKCD...</title>
	<author>AdamTrace</author>
	<datestamp>1247776020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://xkcd.com/606/" title="xkcd.com">http://xkcd.com/606/</a> [xkcd.com]</p><p>"The cake is a lie!"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //xkcd.com/606/ [ xkcd.com ] " The cake is a lie !
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://xkcd.com/606/ [xkcd.com]"The cake is a lie!
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28721757</id>
	<title>PC Games or Luxury cars, same ol'</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247777880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hey, why cant we buy &amp; sell games? They have always compared intelectual property with material stuff. So If I can buy a new BMW and sell it for half the price 3 or 4 year later (like US$20-30 thousand dollars less) Why cant I sell my 70 dollars game for 30, after 3 months, or maybe a week if I just dont like the game. If they dont want us to sell the game, maybe they should improve replayability.<br>Besides, Music stores used to do the same with music so, whats the difference with games?<br>I buy the game, I own the game, so I can sell it  to whoever and at the price I want.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hey , why cant we buy &amp; sell games ?
They have always compared intelectual property with material stuff .
So If I can buy a new BMW and sell it for half the price 3 or 4 year later ( like US $ 20-30 thousand dollars less ) Why cant I sell my 70 dollars game for 30 , after 3 months , or maybe a week if I just dont like the game .
If they dont want us to sell the game , maybe they should improve replayability.Besides , Music stores used to do the same with music so , whats the difference with games ? I buy the game , I own the game , so I can sell it to whoever and at the price I want .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hey, why cant we buy &amp; sell games?
They have always compared intelectual property with material stuff.
So If I can buy a new BMW and sell it for half the price 3 or 4 year later (like US$20-30 thousand dollars less) Why cant I sell my 70 dollars game for 30, after 3 months, or maybe a week if I just dont like the game.
If they dont want us to sell the game, maybe they should improve replayability.Besides, Music stores used to do the same with music so, whats the difference with games?I buy the game, I own the game, so I can sell it  to whoever and at the price I want.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28721345</id>
	<title>As a game programmer myself...</title>
	<author>Count Sessine</author>
	<datestamp>1247776380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...I'm not bothered at all by the existence of a used games market - I buy used games myself, otherwise I'll typically wait for the 'greatest hits' version to come out at $30. I'm married with kids now and I just can't afford to play the latest and the greatest games at full $60 retail.</p><p>What I DO have a problem with is that the market for used games is so grossly inefficient that the *ssholes at GameStop and EB are raking in so much money on it! Buy a used game from a kid at $5, resell it to his friend for $55 - WTF?! That's a damn good racket if you can find it. While I'm ambivalent about digital game distribution in general, thinking about putting sleazy retailers like GameStop would be nice...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...I 'm not bothered at all by the existence of a used games market - I buy used games myself , otherwise I 'll typically wait for the 'greatest hits ' version to come out at $ 30 .
I 'm married with kids now and I just ca n't afford to play the latest and the greatest games at full $ 60 retail.What I DO have a problem with is that the market for used games is so grossly inefficient that the * ssholes at GameStop and EB are raking in so much money on it !
Buy a used game from a kid at $ 5 , resell it to his friend for $ 55 - WTF ? !
That 's a damn good racket if you can find it .
While I 'm ambivalent about digital game distribution in general , thinking about putting sleazy retailers like GameStop would be nice.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...I'm not bothered at all by the existence of a used games market - I buy used games myself, otherwise I'll typically wait for the 'greatest hits' version to come out at $30.
I'm married with kids now and I just can't afford to play the latest and the greatest games at full $60 retail.What I DO have a problem with is that the market for used games is so grossly inefficient that the *ssholes at GameStop and EB are raking in so much money on it!
Buy a used game from a kid at $5, resell it to his friend for $55 - WTF?!
That's a damn good racket if you can find it.
While I'm ambivalent about digital game distribution in general, thinking about putting sleazy retailers like GameStop would be nice...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28721161</id>
	<title>What do you mean, there's nothing?</title>
	<author>Millennium</author>
	<datestamp>1247775540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Certainly there is something publishers can do to kill the used-game market: download-only consoles. Without an object to give to the store (like a cartridge or disc) you have no way to sell your old games, and if you can't sell them, other people can't buy them. That's how you kill a market.</p><p>The PSP GO is the first step. If the market tolerates it, there will be more. The answer is simple: don't tolerate it, and persuade as many other  people not to tolerate it as you can.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Certainly there is something publishers can do to kill the used-game market : download-only consoles .
Without an object to give to the store ( like a cartridge or disc ) you have no way to sell your old games , and if you ca n't sell them , other people ca n't buy them .
That 's how you kill a market.The PSP GO is the first step .
If the market tolerates it , there will be more .
The answer is simple : do n't tolerate it , and persuade as many other people not to tolerate it as you can .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Certainly there is something publishers can do to kill the used-game market: download-only consoles.
Without an object to give to the store (like a cartridge or disc) you have no way to sell your old games, and if you can't sell them, other people can't buy them.
That's how you kill a market.The PSP GO is the first step.
If the market tolerates it, there will be more.
The answer is simple: don't tolerate it, and persuade as many other  people not to tolerate it as you can.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28721911</id>
	<title>Re:Great advertising for new versions!</title>
	<author>freyyr890</author>
	<datestamp>1247735280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm not sure if this is an attempt at humor or not, but I'm tending towards "or not" because of the Insightful mod. <br>
<br>
You seem to have a very skewed definition of capitalism.  All capitalism is a market where resources (capital) are invested in a product in the hope that others will find it worthwhile enough to trade for more resources (money).  "Intelligent thought" as you put it is the capitalists' best ally: he WANTS his customers to be happy at the price point that makes him the most money.  If his products - in this case games - are too expensive, he will reduce his pricing to hit the most profitable point on the curve where expenses are most minimal and sales the highest.  It's a self-interest game, certainly, but it's a self interest game that helps the customer.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm not sure if this is an attempt at humor or not , but I 'm tending towards " or not " because of the Insightful mod .
You seem to have a very skewed definition of capitalism .
All capitalism is a market where resources ( capital ) are invested in a product in the hope that others will find it worthwhile enough to trade for more resources ( money ) .
" Intelligent thought " as you put it is the capitalists ' best ally : he WANTS his customers to be happy at the price point that makes him the most money .
If his products - in this case games - are too expensive , he will reduce his pricing to hit the most profitable point on the curve where expenses are most minimal and sales the highest .
It 's a self-interest game , certainly , but it 's a self interest game that helps the customer .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm not sure if this is an attempt at humor or not, but I'm tending towards "or not" because of the Insightful mod.
You seem to have a very skewed definition of capitalism.
All capitalism is a market where resources (capital) are invested in a product in the hope that others will find it worthwhile enough to trade for more resources (money).
"Intelligent thought" as you put it is the capitalists' best ally: he WANTS his customers to be happy at the price point that makes him the most money.
If his products - in this case games - are too expensive, he will reduce his pricing to hit the most profitable point on the curve where expenses are most minimal and sales the highest.
It's a self-interest game, certainly, but it's a self interest game that helps the customer.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28721333</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28723301</id>
	<title>Re:Developers need to do the math</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247741340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I disagree.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>First of all, the person who waited for a used copy at $30 isn't going to spend $60 in the absence of a used copy. They're going to wait until the new copies are about $30 and buy it then. Giving them fewer choices of how to spend their money does not magically give them more money to spend.</p></div><p>Actually, they do. In a month, if a guy has $30 extra to spend on something, and buys a used game for $30 he gets a game and loses $30. If that game doesn't exist he still gets to keep his $30. That $30 didn't vanish, it just didn't get spent. Next month, he now has $60, which can buy him that game new. I'm not saying this is preferred, just saying that your logic isn't correct.</p><p><div class="quote"><p> Let's assume that I buy a game for $60. Once I'm done with it, I sell it, either through Gamestop or Amazon for about $20 net.</p> </div><p>Sounds good. I'm with you here (though, I might suggest selling it <i>through</i> amazon rather than selling it too amazon)</p><p><div class="quote"><p>They take a $10 commission and sell it to someone else for $30.</p></div><p> Wrong. They make a $30 commission and sell it someone else for $50. This is part of the problem: the value of the game has not decreased tremendously, and you only netted $20 from the sale of the game, leaving you $40 short of a new title, or $10 short of a greatest hits title. In other words, you can't go out and give your money back to game developers. Conversely, if you had sold it through Amazon, you'd have netted approximately $40, which you could now spend on either a greatest hits title (new) *or* an old game from 6 months ago that has gone down in price. And! you still have the option of selling <i>that</i> game again.</p><p>This is the problem with the used game market. The distributor by virtue of owning a store gets way more money off of the sale and resale of a game than the publisher gets, yet the amount of work required by the distributor is way less. If you assume that you could sell a new game at a greater price than gamestop offers, and you could buy a used game at a better price than gamestop offers (neither of which is hard to imagine, if gamestop really does make such a large profit off of buying and reselling a game), then it becomes reasonable to imagine that you could now buy more new games if you so wanted. However, you can buy more of whatever now, including used games. The point here is that the publisher actually stands a chance at getting more money for their work, and the used market becomes more reasonable for consumers. Point to point sales aren't the problem. It's companies like gamestop that push used titles over new titles, provide just enough incentive to a player to sell the game and just enough incentive for a player to buy a used title over a new title. It's not the fact that the industry exists, it's that it's too profitable. It's hurting the larger video game industry, and hurting the consumers who participate in that industry.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I disagree.First of all , the person who waited for a used copy at $ 30 is n't going to spend $ 60 in the absence of a used copy .
They 're going to wait until the new copies are about $ 30 and buy it then .
Giving them fewer choices of how to spend their money does not magically give them more money to spend.Actually , they do .
In a month , if a guy has $ 30 extra to spend on something , and buys a used game for $ 30 he gets a game and loses $ 30 .
If that game does n't exist he still gets to keep his $ 30 .
That $ 30 did n't vanish , it just did n't get spent .
Next month , he now has $ 60 , which can buy him that game new .
I 'm not saying this is preferred , just saying that your logic is n't correct .
Let 's assume that I buy a game for $ 60 .
Once I 'm done with it , I sell it , either through Gamestop or Amazon for about $ 20 net .
Sounds good .
I 'm with you here ( though , I might suggest selling it through amazon rather than selling it too amazon ) They take a $ 10 commission and sell it to someone else for $ 30 .
Wrong. They make a $ 30 commission and sell it someone else for $ 50 .
This is part of the problem : the value of the game has not decreased tremendously , and you only netted $ 20 from the sale of the game , leaving you $ 40 short of a new title , or $ 10 short of a greatest hits title .
In other words , you ca n't go out and give your money back to game developers .
Conversely , if you had sold it through Amazon , you 'd have netted approximately $ 40 , which you could now spend on either a greatest hits title ( new ) * or * an old game from 6 months ago that has gone down in price .
And ! you still have the option of selling that game again.This is the problem with the used game market .
The distributor by virtue of owning a store gets way more money off of the sale and resale of a game than the publisher gets , yet the amount of work required by the distributor is way less .
If you assume that you could sell a new game at a greater price than gamestop offers , and you could buy a used game at a better price than gamestop offers ( neither of which is hard to imagine , if gamestop really does make such a large profit off of buying and reselling a game ) , then it becomes reasonable to imagine that you could now buy more new games if you so wanted .
However , you can buy more of whatever now , including used games .
The point here is that the publisher actually stands a chance at getting more money for their work , and the used market becomes more reasonable for consumers .
Point to point sales are n't the problem .
It 's companies like gamestop that push used titles over new titles , provide just enough incentive to a player to sell the game and just enough incentive for a player to buy a used title over a new title .
It 's not the fact that the industry exists , it 's that it 's too profitable .
It 's hurting the larger video game industry , and hurting the consumers who participate in that industry .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I disagree.First of all, the person who waited for a used copy at $30 isn't going to spend $60 in the absence of a used copy.
They're going to wait until the new copies are about $30 and buy it then.
Giving them fewer choices of how to spend their money does not magically give them more money to spend.Actually, they do.
In a month, if a guy has $30 extra to spend on something, and buys a used game for $30 he gets a game and loses $30.
If that game doesn't exist he still gets to keep his $30.
That $30 didn't vanish, it just didn't get spent.
Next month, he now has $60, which can buy him that game new.
I'm not saying this is preferred, just saying that your logic isn't correct.
Let's assume that I buy a game for $60.
Once I'm done with it, I sell it, either through Gamestop or Amazon for about $20 net.
Sounds good.
I'm with you here (though, I might suggest selling it through amazon rather than selling it too amazon)They take a $10 commission and sell it to someone else for $30.
Wrong. They make a $30 commission and sell it someone else for $50.
This is part of the problem: the value of the game has not decreased tremendously, and you only netted $20 from the sale of the game, leaving you $40 short of a new title, or $10 short of a greatest hits title.
In other words, you can't go out and give your money back to game developers.
Conversely, if you had sold it through Amazon, you'd have netted approximately $40, which you could now spend on either a greatest hits title (new) *or* an old game from 6 months ago that has gone down in price.
And! you still have the option of selling that game again.This is the problem with the used game market.
The distributor by virtue of owning a store gets way more money off of the sale and resale of a game than the publisher gets, yet the amount of work required by the distributor is way less.
If you assume that you could sell a new game at a greater price than gamestop offers, and you could buy a used game at a better price than gamestop offers (neither of which is hard to imagine, if gamestop really does make such a large profit off of buying and reselling a game), then it becomes reasonable to imagine that you could now buy more new games if you so wanted.
However, you can buy more of whatever now, including used games.
The point here is that the publisher actually stands a chance at getting more money for their work, and the used market becomes more reasonable for consumers.
Point to point sales aren't the problem.
It's companies like gamestop that push used titles over new titles, provide just enough incentive to a player to sell the game and just enough incentive for a player to buy a used title over a new title.
It's not the fact that the industry exists, it's that it's too profitable.
It's hurting the larger video game industry, and hurting the consumers who participate in that industry.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28720301</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28725725</id>
	<title>Re:Used games put more money in the studios hands.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247760600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Alice has $90.<br>Bob has $30.</i></p><p><i>No used:<br>Alice buys Gears of War.<br>Money given to studios - $60</i></p><p><i>With used:<br>Alice buys Gears of War.<br>Alice sells GoW to Bob.<br>Alice buys GoW2<br>Money given to studios - $120</i></p><p>Pure rubish. I see you learnt your accounting from RIAA.</p><p>1) Not all games come from the same studio. Each company is competing for both Bob and Alice's money. Alice may choose to buy another company's product.</p><p>2) It is possible Bob will buy something cheaper from the same company for $30 if he can't afford gears of war, and that Alice will also buy it. Alice spends $60 on Gow and $30 on the second product. Bob just buys the second product. Still $120 spent.</p><p>There are good reasons why used game sales should be permitted but your argument isn't one of them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Alice has $ 90.Bob has $ 30.No used : Alice buys Gears of War.Money given to studios - $ 60With used : Alice buys Gears of War.Alice sells GoW to Bob.Alice buys GoW2Money given to studios - $ 120Pure rubish .
I see you learnt your accounting from RIAA.1 ) Not all games come from the same studio .
Each company is competing for both Bob and Alice 's money .
Alice may choose to buy another company 's product.2 ) It is possible Bob will buy something cheaper from the same company for $ 30 if he ca n't afford gears of war , and that Alice will also buy it .
Alice spends $ 60 on Gow and $ 30 on the second product .
Bob just buys the second product .
Still $ 120 spent.There are good reasons why used game sales should be permitted but your argument is n't one of them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Alice has $90.Bob has $30.No used:Alice buys Gears of War.Money given to studios - $60With used:Alice buys Gears of War.Alice sells GoW to Bob.Alice buys GoW2Money given to studios - $120Pure rubish.
I see you learnt your accounting from RIAA.1) Not all games come from the same studio.
Each company is competing for both Bob and Alice's money.
Alice may choose to buy another company's product.2) It is possible Bob will buy something cheaper from the same company for $30 if he can't afford gears of war, and that Alice will also buy it.
Alice spends $60 on Gow and $30 on the second product.
Bob just buys the second product.
Still $120 spent.There are good reasons why used game sales should be permitted but your argument isn't one of them.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28721249</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28728111</id>
	<title>Used games do benefit publishers</title>
	<author>Drakkenmensch</author>
	<datestamp>1247837400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>When <i>Gears of War 2</i> was announced shortly after I bought my 360, I was intrigued, but not "60$ on launch day" intrigued, but I saw a used copy of the first Gears game at a fraction of the price of a brand new one, so I thought, "why not?" <p>
Well, I loved the game so much that I even shelled an extra 10$ for the Gears 2 collector's edition on launch day. I'd say that this was clear publisher benefit from the used games market!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>When Gears of War 2 was announced shortly after I bought my 360 , I was intrigued , but not " 60 $ on launch day " intrigued , but I saw a used copy of the first Gears game at a fraction of the price of a brand new one , so I thought , " why not ?
" Well , I loved the game so much that I even shelled an extra 10 $ for the Gears 2 collector 's edition on launch day .
I 'd say that this was clear publisher benefit from the used games market !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When Gears of War 2 was announced shortly after I bought my 360, I was intrigued, but not "60$ on launch day" intrigued, but I saw a used copy of the first Gears game at a fraction of the price of a brand new one, so I thought, "why not?
" 
Well, I loved the game so much that I even shelled an extra 10$ for the Gears 2 collector's edition on launch day.
I'd say that this was clear publisher benefit from the used games market!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28720477</id>
	<title>Gamestop blows</title>
	<author>furby076</author>
	<datestamp>1247772780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I can't stand places like gamestop.  $60 game (brand new).  They buy it back for $10 to $15.  They resell it at $55.  No wonder they are laughing all the way to the bank - they are ripping off their consumers.<br> <br>

Craigslist/Ebay and other similar sites is the way to buy used games.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I ca n't stand places like gamestop .
$ 60 game ( brand new ) .
They buy it back for $ 10 to $ 15 .
They resell it at $ 55 .
No wonder they are laughing all the way to the bank - they are ripping off their consumers .
Craigslist/Ebay and other similar sites is the way to buy used games .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I can't stand places like gamestop.
$60 game (brand new).
They buy it back for $10 to $15.
They resell it at $55.
No wonder they are laughing all the way to the bank - they are ripping off their consumers.
Craigslist/Ebay and other similar sites is the way to buy used games.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28722867</id>
	<title>Re:I hate the used games.</title>
	<author>keithpreston</author>
	<datestamp>1247739360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Used games from these retailers is one of the biggest sucker deals I've seen in years, $5 to $10 off games with battered, dirty cases, missing instruction manuals and worn, scratched discs. Even more ridiculous is how little they offer customers for used games.</p></div><p> I would be that most used buyers careless about this.   They buy the game play it and the sell it back.    As long as it works (or with a shop guarantee) they could care less.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>If you're a truly discerning shopper concerned</p></div><p> This is your real problem.   You have to realize, people are stupid.   Did you graduate from college?   Great, you are now in the top 20\% of intelligence in America...   Now let's see when you went to college what was the ratio of complete druken idiots to intelligent people that you met?   Wow, you are now in the top 3\% of intelligence.   Everyone else doesn't follow real logic.   Once you understand that life is easy. </p><p>  People are dumb, when they want something they go buy it as quick as possible.   They are concerned about price, but not a lot.   How do you think I get away with selling stuff on Craiglist for more then twice what I paid for it?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Used games from these retailers is one of the biggest sucker deals I 've seen in years , $ 5 to $ 10 off games with battered , dirty cases , missing instruction manuals and worn , scratched discs .
Even more ridiculous is how little they offer customers for used games .
I would be that most used buyers careless about this .
They buy the game play it and the sell it back .
As long as it works ( or with a shop guarantee ) they could care less.If you 're a truly discerning shopper concerned This is your real problem .
You have to realize , people are stupid .
Did you graduate from college ?
Great , you are now in the top 20 \ % of intelligence in America... Now let 's see when you went to college what was the ratio of complete druken idiots to intelligent people that you met ?
Wow , you are now in the top 3 \ % of intelligence .
Everyone else does n't follow real logic .
Once you understand that life is easy .
People are dumb , when they want something they go buy it as quick as possible .
They are concerned about price , but not a lot .
How do you think I get away with selling stuff on Craiglist for more then twice what I paid for it ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Used games from these retailers is one of the biggest sucker deals I've seen in years, $5 to $10 off games with battered, dirty cases, missing instruction manuals and worn, scratched discs.
Even more ridiculous is how little they offer customers for used games.
I would be that most used buyers careless about this.
They buy the game play it and the sell it back.
As long as it works (or with a shop guarantee) they could care less.If you're a truly discerning shopper concerned This is your real problem.
You have to realize, people are stupid.
Did you graduate from college?
Great, you are now in the top 20\% of intelligence in America...   Now let's see when you went to college what was the ratio of complete druken idiots to intelligent people that you met?
Wow, you are now in the top 3\% of intelligence.
Everyone else doesn't follow real logic.
Once you understand that life is easy.
People are dumb, when they want something they go buy it as quick as possible.
They are concerned about price, but not a lot.
How do you think I get away with selling stuff on Craiglist for more then twice what I paid for it?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28720569</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28720935</id>
	<title>Re:Lower your price!</title>
	<author>Backward Z</author>
	<datestamp>1247774580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Game companies should progressively lower prices of their games as time passes. This would eat up the used game market.</p></div><p>But...  they...  do...</p><p>What do you think drives the used price?</p><p>I worked at Gamestop for a few years.  Used game prices are CONSISTENTLY $3-$5 less than the same game new.</p><p>I say $3 now because if you were to say, trade in Gears of War or GTA on the first week of release, they'd probably give you $30 and then price it $2-$3 less than the new copy.  Because they know somebody's gonna pay it.  Hell, they might be sold out of the new ones (I say might because no prices are considered on a store by store basis and a store's inventory is never taken into account when determining prices).</p><p>I don't know where the price is now, because I stopped caring, but a year and a half after Twilight Princess's release, the new price was still $49.99 and the used price was still $44.99.</p><p>New game price drops determine used game price drops.  This is how it already works.  How the parent gets +5 insightful is beyond me.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Game companies should progressively lower prices of their games as time passes .
This would eat up the used game market.But... they... do...What do you think drives the used price ? I worked at Gamestop for a few years .
Used game prices are CONSISTENTLY $ 3- $ 5 less than the same game new.I say $ 3 now because if you were to say , trade in Gears of War or GTA on the first week of release , they 'd probably give you $ 30 and then price it $ 2- $ 3 less than the new copy .
Because they know somebody 's gon na pay it .
Hell , they might be sold out of the new ones ( I say might because no prices are considered on a store by store basis and a store 's inventory is never taken into account when determining prices ) .I do n't know where the price is now , because I stopped caring , but a year and a half after Twilight Princess 's release , the new price was still $ 49.99 and the used price was still $ 44.99.New game price drops determine used game price drops .
This is how it already works .
How the parent gets + 5 insightful is beyond me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Game companies should progressively lower prices of their games as time passes.
This would eat up the used game market.But...  they...  do...What do you think drives the used price?I worked at Gamestop for a few years.
Used game prices are CONSISTENTLY $3-$5 less than the same game new.I say $3 now because if you were to say, trade in Gears of War or GTA on the first week of release, they'd probably give you $30 and then price it $2-$3 less than the new copy.
Because they know somebody's gonna pay it.
Hell, they might be sold out of the new ones (I say might because no prices are considered on a store by store basis and a store's inventory is never taken into account when determining prices).I don't know where the price is now, because I stopped caring, but a year and a half after Twilight Princess's release, the new price was still $49.99 and the used price was still $44.99.New game price drops determine used game price drops.
This is how it already works.
How the parent gets +5 insightful is beyond me.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28720075</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28721363</id>
	<title>Re:Great advertising for new versions!</title>
	<author>PopeRatzo</author>
	<datestamp>1247776440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I've found a great money-saving approach to buying games that doesn't involve "used" games.  Unfortunately, with more and more games having significant online components, it's going to be harder and harder to get full value from a used game if the company (EA for one example of a company that doesn't believe you own the thing you have purchased) doesn't want you to.</p><p>I no longer jump on a brand new game, and instead wait until the price comes down, which it eventually does, every time.  The wait can be from 2 or 3 months to as much as a year, but eventually the game will sell for about 1/4 of its original price.  You can buy Bioshock or Fallout 3 or Far Cry 2 for about $19 bucks now, brand new.  And when you get the game, you don't enjoy it any less because you didn't have it on day one.</p><p>Even if it's a matter of wanting to have the game all your friends are playing, I've found it's easy enough for a group of friends to decide to wait a while to play the new game, unless your friends are dicks who have rich parents who will buy then anything they want at any price.  I just today bought Left4Dead with three of my friends who had similarly waited.  The four of us saved over $100 off the 0-day price, which'll pay for a nice bag of weed and some beer for the Left4Dead party we will surely have.  The other benefit was we didn't have to all run out and upgrade our computers to play Left4Dead, because the normal rate of upgrading has already caught our systems up to the recommended system requirements.  The video card I would have had to buy the first day Left4Dead came out probably dropped in price by 70\% when I got around to buying it 8 months later.</p><p>Realize, you don't <i>have</i> to do what advertisers and marketers tell you to do.  It's possible to live a rich and fulfilled life without reacting to hype like a coke addicted monkey pulling a lever.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've found a great money-saving approach to buying games that does n't involve " used " games .
Unfortunately , with more and more games having significant online components , it 's going to be harder and harder to get full value from a used game if the company ( EA for one example of a company that does n't believe you own the thing you have purchased ) does n't want you to.I no longer jump on a brand new game , and instead wait until the price comes down , which it eventually does , every time .
The wait can be from 2 or 3 months to as much as a year , but eventually the game will sell for about 1/4 of its original price .
You can buy Bioshock or Fallout 3 or Far Cry 2 for about $ 19 bucks now , brand new .
And when you get the game , you do n't enjoy it any less because you did n't have it on day one.Even if it 's a matter of wanting to have the game all your friends are playing , I 've found it 's easy enough for a group of friends to decide to wait a while to play the new game , unless your friends are dicks who have rich parents who will buy then anything they want at any price .
I just today bought Left4Dead with three of my friends who had similarly waited .
The four of us saved over $ 100 off the 0-day price , which 'll pay for a nice bag of weed and some beer for the Left4Dead party we will surely have .
The other benefit was we did n't have to all run out and upgrade our computers to play Left4Dead , because the normal rate of upgrading has already caught our systems up to the recommended system requirements .
The video card I would have had to buy the first day Left4Dead came out probably dropped in price by 70 \ % when I got around to buying it 8 months later.Realize , you do n't have to do what advertisers and marketers tell you to do .
It 's possible to live a rich and fulfilled life without reacting to hype like a coke addicted monkey pulling a lever .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've found a great money-saving approach to buying games that doesn't involve "used" games.
Unfortunately, with more and more games having significant online components, it's going to be harder and harder to get full value from a used game if the company (EA for one example of a company that doesn't believe you own the thing you have purchased) doesn't want you to.I no longer jump on a brand new game, and instead wait until the price comes down, which it eventually does, every time.
The wait can be from 2 or 3 months to as much as a year, but eventually the game will sell for about 1/4 of its original price.
You can buy Bioshock or Fallout 3 or Far Cry 2 for about $19 bucks now, brand new.
And when you get the game, you don't enjoy it any less because you didn't have it on day one.Even if it's a matter of wanting to have the game all your friends are playing, I've found it's easy enough for a group of friends to decide to wait a while to play the new game, unless your friends are dicks who have rich parents who will buy then anything they want at any price.
I just today bought Left4Dead with three of my friends who had similarly waited.
The four of us saved over $100 off the 0-day price, which'll pay for a nice bag of weed and some beer for the Left4Dead party we will surely have.
The other benefit was we didn't have to all run out and upgrade our computers to play Left4Dead, because the normal rate of upgrading has already caught our systems up to the recommended system requirements.
The video card I would have had to buy the first day Left4Dead came out probably dropped in price by 70\% when I got around to buying it 8 months later.Realize, you don't have to do what advertisers and marketers tell you to do.
It's possible to live a rich and fulfilled life without reacting to hype like a coke addicted monkey pulling a lever.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28720193</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28720007</id>
	<title>Great advertising for new versions!</title>
	<author>flowsnake</author>
	<datestamp>1247771100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Let's say I buy $GAME second hand for $30. Perhaps I'll like it enough to buy the sequel $GAME\_2 new, full price, when it comes out and not wait.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Let 's say I buy $ GAME second hand for $ 30 .
Perhaps I 'll like it enough to buy the sequel $ GAME \ _2 new , full price , when it comes out and not wait .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Let's say I buy $GAME second hand for $30.
Perhaps I'll like it enough to buy the sequel $GAME\_2 new, full price, when it comes out and not wait.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28727057</id>
	<title>Re:Great advertising for new versions!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247823960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yes but no but yes anyway coroporations are bad.  Mod me up.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes but no but yes anyway coroporations are bad .
Mod me up .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes but no but yes anyway coroporations are bad.
Mod me up.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28723167</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28723859</id>
	<title>Re:"sleight of hand"</title>
	<author>shutdown -p now</author>
	<datestamp>1247743920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is spot on. I support copyright, and I see the property rights of the buyer of copyright works - including the right to resell - as the only logical extension of the basic premise of copyright. If it's treated as a property - which is what copyright does - it should be treated as property <b>all the way</b>, and not just when it's convenient for the author.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is spot on .
I support copyright , and I see the property rights of the buyer of copyright works - including the right to resell - as the only logical extension of the basic premise of copyright .
If it 's treated as a property - which is what copyright does - it should be treated as property all the way , and not just when it 's convenient for the author .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is spot on.
I support copyright, and I see the property rights of the buyer of copyright works - including the right to resell - as the only logical extension of the basic premise of copyright.
If it's treated as a property - which is what copyright does - it should be treated as property all the way, and not just when it's convenient for the author.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28720153</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28721033</id>
	<title>Re:Lower your price!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247775000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This can't work, because doing so would drive the price of used games down (because as less people buy used, the supply of used games increases)<br>As the price goes down, publishers have a  tougher time making profit with new price levels. What eventually happens is that the game is immensely devalued... and the publisher still loses money because they sold their games for $35 instead of $60 and couldn't increase their sales enough to compensate for the per-unit profit reduction.</p><p>With demand held constant, selling more new games reduces the price of used games, making it nearly impossible for publishers to keep pace.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This ca n't work , because doing so would drive the price of used games down ( because as less people buy used , the supply of used games increases ) As the price goes down , publishers have a tougher time making profit with new price levels .
What eventually happens is that the game is immensely devalued... and the publisher still loses money because they sold their games for $ 35 instead of $ 60 and could n't increase their sales enough to compensate for the per-unit profit reduction.With demand held constant , selling more new games reduces the price of used games , making it nearly impossible for publishers to keep pace .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This can't work, because doing so would drive the price of used games down (because as less people buy used, the supply of used games increases)As the price goes down, publishers have a  tougher time making profit with new price levels.
What eventually happens is that the game is immensely devalued... and the publisher still loses money because they sold their games for $35 instead of $60 and couldn't increase their sales enough to compensate for the per-unit profit reduction.With demand held constant, selling more new games reduces the price of used games, making it nearly impossible for publishers to keep pace.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28720075</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28721249</id>
	<title>Used games put more money in the studios hands.</title>
	<author>harl</author>
	<datestamp>1247775960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Alice has $90.<br>Bob has $30.</p><p>No used:<br>Alice buys Gears of War.<br>Money given to studios - $60</p><p>With used:<br>Alice buys Gears of War.<br>Alice sells GoW to Bob.<br>Alice buys GoW2<br>Money given to studios - $120</p><p>Used stores allow people who don't have enough to buy games new or don't want to buy games new to funnel their money to those who do.</p><p>Additionally it exposes more people to games sowing the seeds for future full price purchases when their spending habits and/or income changes.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Alice has $ 90.Bob has $ 30.No used : Alice buys Gears of War.Money given to studios - $ 60With used : Alice buys Gears of War.Alice sells GoW to Bob.Alice buys GoW2Money given to studios - $ 120Used stores allow people who do n't have enough to buy games new or do n't want to buy games new to funnel their money to those who do.Additionally it exposes more people to games sowing the seeds for future full price purchases when their spending habits and/or income changes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Alice has $90.Bob has $30.No used:Alice buys Gears of War.Money given to studios - $60With used:Alice buys Gears of War.Alice sells GoW to Bob.Alice buys GoW2Money given to studios - $120Used stores allow people who don't have enough to buy games new or don't want to buy games new to funnel their money to those who do.Additionally it exposes more people to games sowing the seeds for future full price purchases when their spending habits and/or income changes.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28720395</id>
	<title>Re:The Law</title>
	<author>Em Emalb</author>
	<datestamp>1247772420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The law?  I AM THE LAW!</p><p>Er...yeah.  Hey, wanna go get a burger and a pint?  No?  Ok, I'll get me coat.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The law ?
I AM THE LAW ! Er...yeah .
Hey , wan na go get a burger and a pint ?
No ? Ok , I 'll get me coat .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The law?
I AM THE LAW!Er...yeah.
Hey, wanna go get a burger and a pint?
No?  Ok, I'll get me coat.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28720163</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28722289</id>
	<title>Re:Developers need to do the math</title>
	<author>wasmoke</author>
	<datestamp>1247736780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> But they have to pay for all the production, shipping, packing, etc... costs for a second copy of the game as well.  So at the end of the day the net gain is more or less zero.</p></div><p>Unless they go through Steam or the like, in which case they just say "On sale NOW for $30!" Consumers get a massive discount, albeit with no chance of reselling their game. The developer gets their cut of the sale, and doesn't have to pay a dime for packing, shipping, etc. <br>
This is what I love about Steam- there are frequently discounts and I never have to worry about not being able to install my games (until Valve goes out of business, hopefully in a long time).</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>But they have to pay for all the production , shipping , packing , etc... costs for a second copy of the game as well .
So at the end of the day the net gain is more or less zero.Unless they go through Steam or the like , in which case they just say " On sale NOW for $ 30 !
" Consumers get a massive discount , albeit with no chance of reselling their game .
The developer gets their cut of the sale , and does n't have to pay a dime for packing , shipping , etc .
This is what I love about Steam- there are frequently discounts and I never have to worry about not being able to install my games ( until Valve goes out of business , hopefully in a long time ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> But they have to pay for all the production, shipping, packing, etc... costs for a second copy of the game as well.
So at the end of the day the net gain is more or less zero.Unless they go through Steam or the like, in which case they just say "On sale NOW for $30!
" Consumers get a massive discount, albeit with no chance of reselling their game.
The developer gets their cut of the sale, and doesn't have to pay a dime for packing, shipping, etc.
This is what I love about Steam- there are frequently discounts and I never have to worry about not being able to install my games (until Valve goes out of business, hopefully in a long time).
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28720301</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28725289</id>
	<title>Re:Great advertising for new versions!</title>
	<author>shadwstalkr</author>
	<datestamp>1247754180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You forgot about buying legislation to make your competitors' activities illegal while mandating use of your product.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You forgot about buying legislation to make your competitors ' activities illegal while mandating use of your product .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You forgot about buying legislation to make your competitors' activities illegal while mandating use of your product.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28721333</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28720257</id>
	<title>Re:Why would game publishers care?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247771940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Companies only have a single goal: to be profitable. When companies are already as profitable as they can (or think they can) be, through legitimate tactics, they will move on to more underhanded taxes. Yes, that means apple locking down its software, media companies extending copyrights, film producers ousting rights holders, and game companies making money every time the game is bought, new or old. This isn't just about the trade in deals for new games, it's also just about people buying used games at all.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Companies only have a single goal : to be profitable .
When companies are already as profitable as they can ( or think they can ) be , through legitimate tactics , they will move on to more underhanded taxes .
Yes , that means apple locking down its software , media companies extending copyrights , film producers ousting rights holders , and game companies making money every time the game is bought , new or old .
This is n't just about the trade in deals for new games , it 's also just about people buying used games at all .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Companies only have a single goal: to be profitable.
When companies are already as profitable as they can (or think they can) be, through legitimate tactics, they will move on to more underhanded taxes.
Yes, that means apple locking down its software, media companies extending copyrights, film producers ousting rights holders, and game companies making money every time the game is bought, new or old.
This isn't just about the trade in deals for new games, it's also just about people buying used games at all.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28720029</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28721043</id>
	<title>Re:Great advertising for new versions!</title>
	<author>MarkvW</author>
	<datestamp>1247775060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's not a lost sale because the purchase price of the new game includes the resale value of that same game when it becomes used.</p><p>In other words, they get to charge such high prices because users can sell the game later and recoup some of the loss.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's not a lost sale because the purchase price of the new game includes the resale value of that same game when it becomes used.In other words , they get to charge such high prices because users can sell the game later and recoup some of the loss .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's not a lost sale because the purchase price of the new game includes the resale value of that same game when it becomes used.In other words, they get to charge such high prices because users can sell the game later and recoup some of the loss.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28720193</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28720179</id>
	<title>Wrong!</title>
	<author>Sj0</author>
	<datestamp>1247771640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's idiotic to say game developers can't do anything about used games. There's plenty they can do.</p><p>Blizzard has some great strategies for making their games virtually unsellable: Make the multiplayer a central feature, then make it so the one and only key will be deactivated if multiple copies are detected, or make the whole game multiplayer.</p><p>Valve's steam, despite my love for it(There are no game stores where I live so being able to play a game without spending 16 hours driving to the city and back is very nice), completely eliminates the ability of users to sell games. The various console DLC providers, as well as windows live games do similar things.</p><p>Forget simple economics, this story has problems with simple logic and empirical data.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's idiotic to say game developers ca n't do anything about used games .
There 's plenty they can do.Blizzard has some great strategies for making their games virtually unsellable : Make the multiplayer a central feature , then make it so the one and only key will be deactivated if multiple copies are detected , or make the whole game multiplayer.Valve 's steam , despite my love for it ( There are no game stores where I live so being able to play a game without spending 16 hours driving to the city and back is very nice ) , completely eliminates the ability of users to sell games .
The various console DLC providers , as well as windows live games do similar things.Forget simple economics , this story has problems with simple logic and empirical data .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's idiotic to say game developers can't do anything about used games.
There's plenty they can do.Blizzard has some great strategies for making their games virtually unsellable: Make the multiplayer a central feature, then make it so the one and only key will be deactivated if multiple copies are detected, or make the whole game multiplayer.Valve's steam, despite my love for it(There are no game stores where I live so being able to play a game without spending 16 hours driving to the city and back is very nice), completely eliminates the ability of users to sell games.
The various console DLC providers, as well as windows live games do similar things.Forget simple economics, this story has problems with simple logic and empirical data.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28721143</id>
	<title>Re:Developers need to do the math</title>
	<author>relguj9</author>
	<datestamp>1247775480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Developers and publishers are under the, mistaken, impression that they're missing out on huge revenue stream through used games.  Let's assume that I buy a game for $60.  Once I'm done with it, I sell it, either through Gamestop or Amazon for about $20 net.  They take a $10 commission and sell it to someone else for $30.  In this scenario developers seem to think that they've missed out on a single $60 from the person who bought it at $30 used, but that just isn't the case.</p><p>First of all, the person who waited for a used copy at $30 isn't going to spend $60 in the absence of a used copy.  They're going to wait until the new copies are about $30 and buy it then.  Giving them fewer choices of how to spend their money does not magically give them more money to spend.  Also, the person who bought the game at $60, didn't just buy a game.  They bought a game that they knew they could sell for ~$20.  By stripping out the ability to resell the game you lower the value of the game to the initial buyer as well.  So without the used option, the developer doesn't get two $60 sales, they get one $40 sale and one $30 sale.  But they have to pay for all the production, shipping, packing, etc... costs for a second copy of the game as well.  So at the end of the day the net gain is more or less zero.</p></div><p>I completely disagree.  If you aren't allowed to resell games, then there's only ONE source of a game, and that's brand spankin' new directly from the developer.  They'd see about the same amount of new sales as before plus a VAST increase in profits from sales of older games at reduced prices, these are profits that the resellers are presently getting.<br> <br>

Combine that with them being able to reduce the price of older games <i>at their own pace</i>.  Basically, a good chunk of the money EB is currently getting is going to go to EA and EB is going to go out of business.<br> <br>

It <i>shouldn't</i> happen though, copyright should only extend to the first sale.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Developers and publishers are under the , mistaken , impression that they 're missing out on huge revenue stream through used games .
Let 's assume that I buy a game for $ 60 .
Once I 'm done with it , I sell it , either through Gamestop or Amazon for about $ 20 net .
They take a $ 10 commission and sell it to someone else for $ 30 .
In this scenario developers seem to think that they 've missed out on a single $ 60 from the person who bought it at $ 30 used , but that just is n't the case.First of all , the person who waited for a used copy at $ 30 is n't going to spend $ 60 in the absence of a used copy .
They 're going to wait until the new copies are about $ 30 and buy it then .
Giving them fewer choices of how to spend their money does not magically give them more money to spend .
Also , the person who bought the game at $ 60 , did n't just buy a game .
They bought a game that they knew they could sell for ~ $ 20 .
By stripping out the ability to resell the game you lower the value of the game to the initial buyer as well .
So without the used option , the developer does n't get two $ 60 sales , they get one $ 40 sale and one $ 30 sale .
But they have to pay for all the production , shipping , packing , etc... costs for a second copy of the game as well .
So at the end of the day the net gain is more or less zero.I completely disagree .
If you are n't allowed to resell games , then there 's only ONE source of a game , and that 's brand spankin ' new directly from the developer .
They 'd see about the same amount of new sales as before plus a VAST increase in profits from sales of older games at reduced prices , these are profits that the resellers are presently getting .
Combine that with them being able to reduce the price of older games at their own pace .
Basically , a good chunk of the money EB is currently getting is going to go to EA and EB is going to go out of business .
It should n't happen though , copyright should only extend to the first sale .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Developers and publishers are under the, mistaken, impression that they're missing out on huge revenue stream through used games.
Let's assume that I buy a game for $60.
Once I'm done with it, I sell it, either through Gamestop or Amazon for about $20 net.
They take a $10 commission and sell it to someone else for $30.
In this scenario developers seem to think that they've missed out on a single $60 from the person who bought it at $30 used, but that just isn't the case.First of all, the person who waited for a used copy at $30 isn't going to spend $60 in the absence of a used copy.
They're going to wait until the new copies are about $30 and buy it then.
Giving them fewer choices of how to spend their money does not magically give them more money to spend.
Also, the person who bought the game at $60, didn't just buy a game.
They bought a game that they knew they could sell for ~$20.
By stripping out the ability to resell the game you lower the value of the game to the initial buyer as well.
So without the used option, the developer doesn't get two $60 sales, they get one $40 sale and one $30 sale.
But they have to pay for all the production, shipping, packing, etc... costs for a second copy of the game as well.
So at the end of the day the net gain is more or less zero.I completely disagree.
If you aren't allowed to resell games, then there's only ONE source of a game, and that's brand spankin' new directly from the developer.
They'd see about the same amount of new sales as before plus a VAST increase in profits from sales of older games at reduced prices, these are profits that the resellers are presently getting.
Combine that with them being able to reduce the price of older games at their own pace.
Basically, a good chunk of the money EB is currently getting is going to go to EA and EB is going to go out of business.
It shouldn't happen though, copyright should only extend to the first sale.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28720301</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28720165</id>
	<title>Crybabies</title>
	<author>bigdadro</author>
	<datestamp>1247771580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Maybe they should spend less time crying and more time innovating. Nintendo with Wii-ware (sp?) and Valve with STEAM seemed to have figured out a decent solution. Physical game media is no different than CD's. Just a matter of time before they are relics of the past.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe they should spend less time crying and more time innovating .
Nintendo with Wii-ware ( sp ?
) and Valve with STEAM seemed to have figured out a decent solution .
Physical game media is no different than CD 's .
Just a matter of time before they are relics of the past .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe they should spend less time crying and more time innovating.
Nintendo with Wii-ware (sp?
) and Valve with STEAM seemed to have figured out a decent solution.
Physical game media is no different than CD's.
Just a matter of time before they are relics of the past.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28720447</id>
	<title>Re:You're doing it wrong.</title>
	<author>Aggrajag</author>
	<datestamp>1247772600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If the game does not have any replayability and can be<br>completed in 20 hours, why would I pay $60 for it<br>instead of $30? And if I pay $60 for the game what would<br>be my incentive of not selling the game to someone else<br>and get at least some of my money back?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If the game does not have any replayability and can becompleted in 20 hours , why would I pay $ 60 for itinstead of $ 30 ?
And if I pay $ 60 for the game what wouldbe my incentive of not selling the game to someone elseand get at least some of my money back ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If the game does not have any replayability and can becompleted in 20 hours, why would I pay $60 for itinstead of $30?
And if I pay $60 for the game what wouldbe my incentive of not selling the game to someone elseand get at least some of my money back?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28720237</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28722827</id>
	<title>A way to save even if you want to keep it</title>
	<author>jeffliott</author>
	<datestamp>1247739240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I buy games brand new, beat them after a week or two, then trade them in for store credit while they are still worth semi-close to new retail. Then I wait until they are released under the greatest hits type label, or when the used copies are in the 15-20 dollar range. This habit worked out really well for me. I get to play the latest games, but recoup as much as I can by trading it in promptly after release, then pick up the cheap copy a year later and it feels like a new game all over again.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I buy games brand new , beat them after a week or two , then trade them in for store credit while they are still worth semi-close to new retail .
Then I wait until they are released under the greatest hits type label , or when the used copies are in the 15-20 dollar range .
This habit worked out really well for me .
I get to play the latest games , but recoup as much as I can by trading it in promptly after release , then pick up the cheap copy a year later and it feels like a new game all over again .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I buy games brand new, beat them after a week or two, then trade them in for store credit while they are still worth semi-close to new retail.
Then I wait until they are released under the greatest hits type label, or when the used copies are in the 15-20 dollar range.
This habit worked out really well for me.
I get to play the latest games, but recoup as much as I can by trading it in promptly after release, then pick up the cheap copy a year later and it feels like a new game all over again.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28720595</id>
	<title>Re:You're doing it wrong.</title>
	<author>CorporateSuit</author>
	<datestamp>1247773200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>So let me get this straight -- you're trying to tell game developers they don't deserve the money they're lawfully entitled to?</p></div><p>They're not lawfully entitled to used-game sales.  Once they've received the check for the games they sell to retailers, their deal is done.  They got their money.  The game DVD is no longer property of $Game\_Developer.  That property was sold.  The developer still has the rights to print the game, and make more copies, but they don't have the right to harvest cash after they've already received full compensation for the property.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Second, if they charged less, the games would suck badly enough that they'd no longer be worth even a slashdot post lamenting the lack of availability.</p></div><p>How much mercury did you drink before you started believing this?  Until developers have access to time machines, retail price of a game will NOT affect the development process.  NBA Jam for the Genesis sold for $100 retail.  Shenmue had a budget of $70M and turned out mediocre.  Too Human had a budget of about $100M, and was received even worse.  You said yourself that price is not indicative of value, but it's an indication of what the game developer feels they "deserve" for their contributions to a superfluous entertainment industry.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>So let me get this straight -- you 're trying to tell game developers they do n't deserve the money they 're lawfully entitled to ? They 're not lawfully entitled to used-game sales .
Once they 've received the check for the games they sell to retailers , their deal is done .
They got their money .
The game DVD is no longer property of $ Game \ _Developer .
That property was sold .
The developer still has the rights to print the game , and make more copies , but they do n't have the right to harvest cash after they 've already received full compensation for the property.Second , if they charged less , the games would suck badly enough that they 'd no longer be worth even a slashdot post lamenting the lack of availability.How much mercury did you drink before you started believing this ?
Until developers have access to time machines , retail price of a game will NOT affect the development process .
NBA Jam for the Genesis sold for $ 100 retail .
Shenmue had a budget of $ 70M and turned out mediocre .
Too Human had a budget of about $ 100M , and was received even worse .
You said yourself that price is not indicative of value , but it 's an indication of what the game developer feels they " deserve " for their contributions to a superfluous entertainment industry .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So let me get this straight -- you're trying to tell game developers they don't deserve the money they're lawfully entitled to?They're not lawfully entitled to used-game sales.
Once they've received the check for the games they sell to retailers, their deal is done.
They got their money.
The game DVD is no longer property of $Game\_Developer.
That property was sold.
The developer still has the rights to print the game, and make more copies, but they don't have the right to harvest cash after they've already received full compensation for the property.Second, if they charged less, the games would suck badly enough that they'd no longer be worth even a slashdot post lamenting the lack of availability.How much mercury did you drink before you started believing this?
Until developers have access to time machines, retail price of a game will NOT affect the development process.
NBA Jam for the Genesis sold for $100 retail.
Shenmue had a budget of $70M and turned out mediocre.
Too Human had a budget of about $100M, and was received even worse.
You said yourself that price is not indicative of value, but it's an indication of what the game developer feels they "deserve" for their contributions to a superfluous entertainment industry.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28720237</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28725409</id>
	<title>Re:Great advertising for new versions!</title>
	<author>naoursla</author>
	<datestamp>1247755560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Where can you get Fallout 3 for $20? I've been waiting for the price to drop on that but haven't seen much of a price drop anywayre. The cheapest I've seen is $35 used at Blockbuster.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Where can you get Fallout 3 for $ 20 ?
I 've been waiting for the price to drop on that but have n't seen much of a price drop anywayre .
The cheapest I 've seen is $ 35 used at Blockbuster .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Where can you get Fallout 3 for $20?
I've been waiting for the price to drop on that but haven't seen much of a price drop anywayre.
The cheapest I've seen is $35 used at Blockbuster.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28721363</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28722147</id>
	<title>Solution?</title>
	<author>Artifex33</author>
	<datestamp>1247736300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Situation: Used games are selling like hotcakes; new games, not so much.
<br> <br>
Publishers' Problem: Publishers want people to buy expensive, new games and keep them forever to keep them off the secondary market. (*cough*DeBeers*cough*)
<br> <br>
Gamers' Problem: New games are expensive, and most AAA titles do not provide long-term interest.
<br> <br>
Solution: Eliminate Publisher from the transaction. Steam, Sony and Microsoft figured this out ages ago. As internet connections and digital distribution become more ubiquitous, the consumers will resolve this situation themselves. Prices should be much lower and will make developers and gamers much happier.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Situation : Used games are selling like hotcakes ; new games , not so much .
Publishers ' Problem : Publishers want people to buy expensive , new games and keep them forever to keep them off the secondary market .
( * cough * DeBeers * cough * ) Gamers ' Problem : New games are expensive , and most AAA titles do not provide long-term interest .
Solution : Eliminate Publisher from the transaction .
Steam , Sony and Microsoft figured this out ages ago .
As internet connections and digital distribution become more ubiquitous , the consumers will resolve this situation themselves .
Prices should be much lower and will make developers and gamers much happier .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Situation: Used games are selling like hotcakes; new games, not so much.
Publishers' Problem: Publishers want people to buy expensive, new games and keep them forever to keep them off the secondary market.
(*cough*DeBeers*cough*)
 
Gamers' Problem: New games are expensive, and most AAA titles do not provide long-term interest.
Solution: Eliminate Publisher from the transaction.
Steam, Sony and Microsoft figured this out ages ago.
As internet connections and digital distribution become more ubiquitous, the consumers will resolve this situation themselves.
Prices should be much lower and will make developers and gamers much happier.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28722007</id>
	<title>Re:Great advertising for new versions!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247735700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You're high. If somehow...used versions of a game couldn't be sold for a month or two after release, the retail sales would go up. Many people wouldn't wait for the game to come to the used market.</p><p>To make a high end game now can cost 15-20 million plus. Realize that everyone needs their cut, the publisher, the distributer and the retailer, when the remainder gets back to the developer, it's not terribly much per box. The reality is...even at $60 a game, a "mere" one million copy seller, at full retail, which is very rare these days, "might" break even. With used games, no one makes money except the retail store, and they are laughing all the way to the bank, so much so that they will push used copies on buyers even if the price is a mere $5 less between used and new.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You 're high .
If somehow...used versions of a game could n't be sold for a month or two after release , the retail sales would go up .
Many people would n't wait for the game to come to the used market.To make a high end game now can cost 15-20 million plus .
Realize that everyone needs their cut , the publisher , the distributer and the retailer , when the remainder gets back to the developer , it 's not terribly much per box .
The reality is...even at $ 60 a game , a " mere " one million copy seller , at full retail , which is very rare these days , " might " break even .
With used games , no one makes money except the retail store , and they are laughing all the way to the bank , so much so that they will push used copies on buyers even if the price is a mere $ 5 less between used and new .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You're high.
If somehow...used versions of a game couldn't be sold for a month or two after release, the retail sales would go up.
Many people wouldn't wait for the game to come to the used market.To make a high end game now can cost 15-20 million plus.
Realize that everyone needs their cut, the publisher, the distributer and the retailer, when the remainder gets back to the developer, it's not terribly much per box.
The reality is...even at $60 a game, a "mere" one million copy seller, at full retail, which is very rare these days, "might" break even.
With used games, no one makes money except the retail store, and they are laughing all the way to the bank, so much so that they will push used copies on buyers even if the price is a mere $5 less between used and new.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28721043</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28721527</id>
	<title>Re:Great advertising for new versions!</title>
	<author>bennomatic</author>
	<datestamp>1247777160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>At the very least, when we're talking about sequels, it would be great if they could bundle the prequels with the sequels, since the incremental cost of delivery is almost nil.</htmltext>
<tokenext>At the very least , when we 're talking about sequels , it would be great if they could bundle the prequels with the sequels , since the incremental cost of delivery is almost nil .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>At the very least, when we're talking about sequels, it would be great if they could bundle the prequels with the sequels, since the incremental cost of delivery is almost nil.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28720133</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28721743</id>
	<title>Re:Gamestop blows</title>
	<author>MobileTatsu-NJG</author>
	<datestamp>1247777880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I can't stand places like gamestop.  $60 game (brand new).  They buy it back for $10 to $15.  They resell it at $55.  No wonder they are laughing all the way to the bank - they are ripping off their consumers.</p></div><p>To be fair, that's supply and demand.  If the game's new, then demand for it at $60's still high.  When that dies down, they cran drop the price to ~$30 and still make a healthy profit.</p><p>To put it another way: I wouldn't blame Gamestop for that.  They could sell that used game for $40 and STILL make a bigger profit than the new copy of the game.  Not everybody's a smart shopper.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I ca n't stand places like gamestop .
$ 60 game ( brand new ) .
They buy it back for $ 10 to $ 15 .
They resell it at $ 55 .
No wonder they are laughing all the way to the bank - they are ripping off their consumers.To be fair , that 's supply and demand .
If the game 's new , then demand for it at $ 60 's still high .
When that dies down , they cran drop the price to ~ $ 30 and still make a healthy profit.To put it another way : I would n't blame Gamestop for that .
They could sell that used game for $ 40 and STILL make a bigger profit than the new copy of the game .
Not everybody 's a smart shopper .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I can't stand places like gamestop.
$60 game (brand new).
They buy it back for $10 to $15.
They resell it at $55.
No wonder they are laughing all the way to the bank - they are ripping off their consumers.To be fair, that's supply and demand.
If the game's new, then demand for it at $60's still high.
When that dies down, they cran drop the price to ~$30 and still make a healthy profit.To put it another way: I wouldn't blame Gamestop for that.
They could sell that used game for $40 and STILL make a bigger profit than the new copy of the game.
Not everybody's a smart shopper.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28720477</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28720457</id>
	<title>Digital "copies" for sale</title>
	<author>192939495969798999</author>
	<datestamp>1247772660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You can't "sell" just one digital copy of anything, since each digital copy can be reproduced AND distributed at essentially zero cost to anyone.  The concept of buying and selling goods applies only to tangible goods with a fixed lifespan.  How can you "sell" just one digital copy of something and have it retain a tangible quality?  You can't.  The idea that a used game can sell for anything says that the economy is strong.  If piracy really applied to digital media, then there would be no used market whatsoever.  Furthermore, the tangible item (a disc) is exactly why game makers shy away from digital distribution -- DD removes the only tangible good they are selling and destroys the ability to control any of the distro rights (i.e. the main income stream).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You ca n't " sell " just one digital copy of anything , since each digital copy can be reproduced AND distributed at essentially zero cost to anyone .
The concept of buying and selling goods applies only to tangible goods with a fixed lifespan .
How can you " sell " just one digital copy of something and have it retain a tangible quality ?
You ca n't .
The idea that a used game can sell for anything says that the economy is strong .
If piracy really applied to digital media , then there would be no used market whatsoever .
Furthermore , the tangible item ( a disc ) is exactly why game makers shy away from digital distribution -- DD removes the only tangible good they are selling and destroys the ability to control any of the distro rights ( i.e .
the main income stream ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You can't "sell" just one digital copy of anything, since each digital copy can be reproduced AND distributed at essentially zero cost to anyone.
The concept of buying and selling goods applies only to tangible goods with a fixed lifespan.
How can you "sell" just one digital copy of something and have it retain a tangible quality?
You can't.
The idea that a used game can sell for anything says that the economy is strong.
If piracy really applied to digital media, then there would be no used market whatsoever.
Furthermore, the tangible item (a disc) is exactly why game makers shy away from digital distribution -- DD removes the only tangible good they are selling and destroys the ability to control any of the distro rights (i.e.
the main income stream).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28720827</id>
	<title>great</title>
	<author>GarretSidzaka</author>
	<datestamp>1247774160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>as if big game corporations couldn't get their fingers in enough cash....</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>as if big game corporations could n't get their fingers in enough cash... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>as if big game corporations couldn't get their fingers in enough cash....</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28721087</id>
	<title>Re:Lower your price!</title>
	<author>mdarksbane</author>
	<datestamp>1247775240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Seriously. I would absolutely love it if I could buy every game that EA or Ubisoft or Sierra has ever published for $5-$20 over a downloadable service. Obviously there is a market for cheap used games - for anything that can be made digital (reducing your distribution costs to near zero) why not put it out there and let people buy it for cheap?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Seriously .
I would absolutely love it if I could buy every game that EA or Ubisoft or Sierra has ever published for $ 5- $ 20 over a downloadable service .
Obviously there is a market for cheap used games - for anything that can be made digital ( reducing your distribution costs to near zero ) why not put it out there and let people buy it for cheap ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Seriously.
I would absolutely love it if I could buy every game that EA or Ubisoft or Sierra has ever published for $5-$20 over a downloadable service.
Obviously there is a market for cheap used games - for anything that can be made digital (reducing your distribution costs to near zero) why not put it out there and let people buy it for cheap?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28720075</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28720353</id>
	<title>You really can't have it both ways</title>
	<author>erroneus</author>
	<datestamp>1247772240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>On one hand, they want to act like "the thing" is the media upon which the games are distributed.  This is why they don't want to replace media that has been damaged at any reasonable cost.  On the other hand, they want to act like "the thing" is also the software license and not the media itself and so they want to deny the license to resell the media by asserting that users are not allowed to transfer the license to use the software and data within.</p><p>You can't have it both ways.  If the media is the thing, then they don't need to replace my damaged disks for a reasonable fee but they can't prevent me from selling them either.  If the software/data contained is the thing, then they should offer media replacement services at a reasonable cost FOREVER or at least offer a means to back up the data and to play the backup copies.  (They should not be allowed to back out of this by saying a game is discontinued and replacement copies are no longer available... they can just print more!  And any company that buys the original company and copyrights to the software/data should ALSO be required under the same licensing agreement...) and then they can disallow the right to resell the media.</p><p>At the moment, the paradigm appears to be in favor of the media being "the thing" as the behavior of the game publishers and the console makers seem to bear this out.  (That is to say, no backup copies are playable and no replacement guarantees are available.)  And since the media is the thing, they can't restrict what I do with it and damn the DMCA as it is an unjust law and I will violate it every time it gets in the way of my fair use.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>On one hand , they want to act like " the thing " is the media upon which the games are distributed .
This is why they do n't want to replace media that has been damaged at any reasonable cost .
On the other hand , they want to act like " the thing " is also the software license and not the media itself and so they want to deny the license to resell the media by asserting that users are not allowed to transfer the license to use the software and data within.You ca n't have it both ways .
If the media is the thing , then they do n't need to replace my damaged disks for a reasonable fee but they ca n't prevent me from selling them either .
If the software/data contained is the thing , then they should offer media replacement services at a reasonable cost FOREVER or at least offer a means to back up the data and to play the backup copies .
( They should not be allowed to back out of this by saying a game is discontinued and replacement copies are no longer available... they can just print more !
And any company that buys the original company and copyrights to the software/data should ALSO be required under the same licensing agreement... ) and then they can disallow the right to resell the media.At the moment , the paradigm appears to be in favor of the media being " the thing " as the behavior of the game publishers and the console makers seem to bear this out .
( That is to say , no backup copies are playable and no replacement guarantees are available .
) And since the media is the thing , they ca n't restrict what I do with it and damn the DMCA as it is an unjust law and I will violate it every time it gets in the way of my fair use .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>On one hand, they want to act like "the thing" is the media upon which the games are distributed.
This is why they don't want to replace media that has been damaged at any reasonable cost.
On the other hand, they want to act like "the thing" is also the software license and not the media itself and so they want to deny the license to resell the media by asserting that users are not allowed to transfer the license to use the software and data within.You can't have it both ways.
If the media is the thing, then they don't need to replace my damaged disks for a reasonable fee but they can't prevent me from selling them either.
If the software/data contained is the thing, then they should offer media replacement services at a reasonable cost FOREVER or at least offer a means to back up the data and to play the backup copies.
(They should not be allowed to back out of this by saying a game is discontinued and replacement copies are no longer available... they can just print more!
And any company that buys the original company and copyrights to the software/data should ALSO be required under the same licensing agreement...) and then they can disallow the right to resell the media.At the moment, the paradigm appears to be in favor of the media being "the thing" as the behavior of the game publishers and the console makers seem to bear this out.
(That is to say, no backup copies are playable and no replacement guarantees are available.
)  And since the media is the thing, they can't restrict what I do with it and damn the DMCA as it is an unjust law and I will violate it every time it gets in the way of my fair use.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28732031</id>
	<title>Re:Great advertising for new versions!</title>
	<author>Danse</author>
	<datestamp>1247854740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p><div class="quote"><p>In other words, they get to charge such high prices because users can sell the game later and recoup some of the loss.</p></div><p>Which completely explains why digitally distributed games are so much cheaper. You can't reseller them, and the publisher doesn't have to pay for packaging, shipping, etc.

No, no wait. Digitally distributed games cost <em>the exact same fucking amount</em>.</p></div><p>Who pays full price for digitally distributed games?  Digital distribution services like Steam have sales constantly.  The only people who would pay full price are the same people that pay $60 for a game on release day.  They just don't care.  I know that I can't resell those games, so there's really no way in hell I'm going to pay full price unless I just think the game is fantastic and I want to show my appreciation for it financially.  Kind of like tipping the developers really.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>In other words , they get to charge such high prices because users can sell the game later and recoup some of the loss.Which completely explains why digitally distributed games are so much cheaper .
You ca n't reseller them , and the publisher does n't have to pay for packaging , shipping , etc .
No , no wait .
Digitally distributed games cost the exact same fucking amount.Who pays full price for digitally distributed games ?
Digital distribution services like Steam have sales constantly .
The only people who would pay full price are the same people that pay $ 60 for a game on release day .
They just do n't care .
I know that I ca n't resell those games , so there 's really no way in hell I 'm going to pay full price unless I just think the game is fantastic and I want to show my appreciation for it financially .
Kind of like tipping the developers really .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In other words, they get to charge such high prices because users can sell the game later and recoup some of the loss.Which completely explains why digitally distributed games are so much cheaper.
You can't reseller them, and the publisher doesn't have to pay for packaging, shipping, etc.
No, no wait.
Digitally distributed games cost the exact same fucking amount.Who pays full price for digitally distributed games?
Digital distribution services like Steam have sales constantly.
The only people who would pay full price are the same people that pay $60 for a game on release day.
They just don't care.
I know that I can't resell those games, so there's really no way in hell I'm going to pay full price unless I just think the game is fantastic and I want to show my appreciation for it financially.
Kind of like tipping the developers really.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28721973</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28721687</id>
	<title>Transfer of license</title>
	<author>macraig</author>
	<datestamp>1247777700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Transfer of license is neither illegal nor criminal.  What IS criminal and SHOULD be illegal is trying to make it so.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Transfer of license is neither illegal nor criminal .
What IS criminal and SHOULD be illegal is trying to make it so .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Transfer of license is neither illegal nor criminal.
What IS criminal and SHOULD be illegal is trying to make it so.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28720307</id>
	<title>Why IKEA Should Shut Up About Used Couches</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247772060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"It may feel like a rip-off to some, but you've got to admit that paying $30 for a used IKEA couch sure beats paying $60! Couch manufactures and craftsmnet may not like it, but people are going to buy new couches and those old couches will be sold back to other people. There's nothing couch manufactures can do to stop them, and people who hold garage sales or use craig's list continue to laugh all the way to the bank. In an article at Cheap Buys, Dave Thomas, eating Wendy's burgers from the grave, dissects one of the most critical issues in furniture today: used furniture merchants (online and brick-and-mortar) who specialize in this 'age old practice of selling used items.'"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" It may feel like a rip-off to some , but you 've got to admit that paying $ 30 for a used IKEA couch sure beats paying $ 60 !
Couch manufactures and craftsmnet may not like it , but people are going to buy new couches and those old couches will be sold back to other people .
There 's nothing couch manufactures can do to stop them , and people who hold garage sales or use craig 's list continue to laugh all the way to the bank .
In an article at Cheap Buys , Dave Thomas , eating Wendy 's burgers from the grave , dissects one of the most critical issues in furniture today : used furniture merchants ( online and brick-and-mortar ) who specialize in this 'age old practice of selling used items .
' "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"It may feel like a rip-off to some, but you've got to admit that paying $30 for a used IKEA couch sure beats paying $60!
Couch manufactures and craftsmnet may not like it, but people are going to buy new couches and those old couches will be sold back to other people.
There's nothing couch manufactures can do to stop them, and people who hold garage sales or use craig's list continue to laugh all the way to the bank.
In an article at Cheap Buys, Dave Thomas, eating Wendy's burgers from the grave, dissects one of the most critical issues in furniture today: used furniture merchants (online and brick-and-mortar) who specialize in this 'age old practice of selling used items.
'"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28720759</id>
	<title>Figures</title>
	<author>orsty3001</author>
	<datestamp>1247773860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'd like to see the sales figures of games that have been out for awhile vs. games that have just been released.

I could be wrong but I have a feeling on most games sales drop off fast. I wouldn't worry about used games because it keeps people busy creating new games.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'd like to see the sales figures of games that have been out for awhile vs. games that have just been released .
I could be wrong but I have a feeling on most games sales drop off fast .
I would n't worry about used games because it keeps people busy creating new games .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'd like to see the sales figures of games that have been out for awhile vs. games that have just been released.
I could be wrong but I have a feeling on most games sales drop off fast.
I wouldn't worry about used games because it keeps people busy creating new games.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28722605</id>
	<title>It's .</title>
	<author>SlashDev</author>
	<datestamp>1247738100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>. a game design issue. I wouldn't trade a game if I kept playing it. Games like World Of Warcraft will last you a lifetime.</htmltext>
<tokenext>.
a game design issue .
I would n't trade a game if I kept playing it .
Games like World Of Warcraft will last you a lifetime .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>.
a game design issue.
I wouldn't trade a game if I kept playing it.
Games like World Of Warcraft will last you a lifetime.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28720377</id>
	<title>Re:You're doing it wrong.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247772360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Game developers don't have to develop games. If they don't like the conditions they could get another job. Federal law says that game companies can demand their worker drones put up with these conditions - if you want to make a change here, fix the employment laws, but don't tell game buyers to "shut up"<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)</htmltext>
<tokenext>Game developers do n't have to develop games .
If they do n't like the conditions they could get another job .
Federal law says that game companies can demand their worker drones put up with these conditions - if you want to make a change here , fix the employment laws , but do n't tell game buyers to " shut up " ; )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Game developers don't have to develop games.
If they don't like the conditions they could get another job.
Federal law says that game companies can demand their worker drones put up with these conditions - if you want to make a change here, fix the employment laws, but don't tell game buyers to "shut up" ;)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28720237</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28723633</id>
	<title>Re:Great advertising for new versions!</title>
	<author>The Archon V2.0</author>
	<datestamp>1247742780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I'm not sure if this is an attempt at humor or not, but I'm tending towards "or not" because of the Insightful mod.</p></div><p>Wait... you're putting faith in the moderation system? You must be new here! Really, I've been a moderator fairly regularly and I'm a complete loon. Partly because once you see a post get 4 insightful/interesting mods, 3 troll/flamebaits, one each of overrated, underrated, and funny, you go nuts. It's like the Necronomicon in web format.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm not sure if this is an attempt at humor or not , but I 'm tending towards " or not " because of the Insightful mod.Wait... you 're putting faith in the moderation system ?
You must be new here !
Really , I 've been a moderator fairly regularly and I 'm a complete loon .
Partly because once you see a post get 4 insightful/interesting mods , 3 troll/flamebaits , one each of overrated , underrated , and funny , you go nuts .
It 's like the Necronomicon in web format .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm not sure if this is an attempt at humor or not, but I'm tending towards "or not" because of the Insightful mod.Wait... you're putting faith in the moderation system?
You must be new here!
Really, I've been a moderator fairly regularly and I'm a complete loon.
Partly because once you see a post get 4 insightful/interesting mods, 3 troll/flamebaits, one each of overrated, underrated, and funny, you go nuts.
It's like the Necronomicon in web format.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28721911</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28720285</id>
	<title>Re:They can stop it: Installs locked to hardware.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247772000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Anybody remember "LAN Game CD's" -- I think maybe the original age of empires and/or starcraft came with them.  YOu'd install all the CDs and that on your own machine--but they'd give you a second disk you could give to a friend that would only let you play the online version with them...</p><p>Sigh...at least that was a tolerable model.  You want to play multiplayer now, both people have to buy it...and have an account with xbox...PITA</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Anybody remember " LAN Game CD 's " -- I think maybe the original age of empires and/or starcraft came with them .
YOu 'd install all the CDs and that on your own machine--but they 'd give you a second disk you could give to a friend that would only let you play the online version with them...Sigh...at least that was a tolerable model .
You want to play multiplayer now , both people have to buy it...and have an account with xbox...PITA</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Anybody remember "LAN Game CD's" -- I think maybe the original age of empires and/or starcraft came with them.
YOu'd install all the CDs and that on your own machine--but they'd give you a second disk you could give to a friend that would only let you play the online version with them...Sigh...at least that was a tolerable model.
You want to play multiplayer now, both people have to buy it...and have an account with xbox...PITA</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28720025</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28720363</id>
	<title>if this were done earlier...</title>
	<author>unfunk</author>
	<datestamp>1247772300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>can you imagine just how much money companies like Atari, Sega and Nintendo would be if this sort of thing were getting started in video games?<br>
If the publishers (and back then, the console manufacturer was the publisher) all got a cut of the profits each time the game was resold? They'd all be swamped with the income from eBay alone!<br> <br>
Of course, we must also consider the opposite side of the scale - if by law, the publishers always had to have a cut of the money when the game was resold, then I suspect there would have been a lot less places willing to specialise in games, or at least accept used ones. It would become virtually impossible to discover games from previous generations.</htmltext>
<tokenext>can you imagine just how much money companies like Atari , Sega and Nintendo would be if this sort of thing were getting started in video games ?
If the publishers ( and back then , the console manufacturer was the publisher ) all got a cut of the profits each time the game was resold ?
They 'd all be swamped with the income from eBay alone !
Of course , we must also consider the opposite side of the scale - if by law , the publishers always had to have a cut of the money when the game was resold , then I suspect there would have been a lot less places willing to specialise in games , or at least accept used ones .
It would become virtually impossible to discover games from previous generations .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>can you imagine just how much money companies like Atari, Sega and Nintendo would be if this sort of thing were getting started in video games?
If the publishers (and back then, the console manufacturer was the publisher) all got a cut of the profits each time the game was resold?
They'd all be swamped with the income from eBay alone!
Of course, we must also consider the opposite side of the scale - if by law, the publishers always had to have a cut of the money when the game was resold, then I suspect there would have been a lot less places willing to specialise in games, or at least accept used ones.
It would become virtually impossible to discover games from previous generations.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28722765</id>
	<title>You sure about that?</title>
	<author>westlake</author>
	<datestamp>1247739000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>There's nothing game developers can do to stop them</i> </p><p>The developer can move to a much tighter integration of on-line and off-line content and services.</p><p>He can migrate to a pure subscription or rental model.</p><p>You can still sell your disk -<br>but all you really have to offer is the unregistered shareware demo that expires in three weeks.</p><p> The first three episodes of Commander Keen.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There 's nothing game developers can do to stop them The developer can move to a much tighter integration of on-line and off-line content and services.He can migrate to a pure subscription or rental model.You can still sell your disk -but all you really have to offer is the unregistered shareware demo that expires in three weeks .
The first three episodes of Commander Keen .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There's nothing game developers can do to stop them The developer can move to a much tighter integration of on-line and off-line content and services.He can migrate to a pure subscription or rental model.You can still sell your disk -but all you really have to offer is the unregistered shareware demo that expires in three weeks.
The first three episodes of Commander Keen.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28720305</id>
	<title>Re:Lower your price!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247772060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Ummm, they already do that.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Ummm , they already do that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ummm, they already do that.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28720075</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28722411</id>
	<title>Re:Used games put more money in the studios hands.</title>
	<author>relguj9</author>
	<datestamp>1247737200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>More likely scenario:<br> <br>

Alice has $90.<br>
Bob has $30.<br>
Billy-Bob has $60.<br> <br>

No used:<br>
Alice buys GoW for $60 from studio.<br>
Bob buys GoW from studio for $30 once its price drops (it currently costs 30 dollars new actually).<br>
Billy-Bob buys GoW II for $60 from studio cuz it got a good rating on Gamespot and he just bought a 360 and his buddy has it and he wants to play co-op.<br>
Alice waits for GoW II to come down in cost and buys it from $30 from studio.<br> <br>

Studio gets $180<br> <br>

Used:<br>
Alice buys GoW for $60 from studio.<br>
Alice sells GoW for $10 to EB.<br>
EB re-sells GoW to Bill for $30.<br>
Billy-Bob buys GoW II for $60 from studio.<br>
Billy-Bob sells GoW II for $10 to EB.<br>
EB re-sells GoW II to Alice for $40.<br> <br>

EB gets $50.<br>
Studio gets $120.<br> <br>

Let me clarify... I think you should be able to re-sell, cuz it benefits me and the law says you can... however I firmly believe that removing re-sale will increase the profits of the studios and that arguments against that do not hold water.</htmltext>
<tokenext>More likely scenario : Alice has $ 90 .
Bob has $ 30 .
Billy-Bob has $ 60 .
No used : Alice buys GoW for $ 60 from studio .
Bob buys GoW from studio for $ 30 once its price drops ( it currently costs 30 dollars new actually ) .
Billy-Bob buys GoW II for $ 60 from studio cuz it got a good rating on Gamespot and he just bought a 360 and his buddy has it and he wants to play co-op .
Alice waits for GoW II to come down in cost and buys it from $ 30 from studio .
Studio gets $ 180 Used : Alice buys GoW for $ 60 from studio .
Alice sells GoW for $ 10 to EB .
EB re-sells GoW to Bill for $ 30 .
Billy-Bob buys GoW II for $ 60 from studio .
Billy-Bob sells GoW II for $ 10 to EB .
EB re-sells GoW II to Alice for $ 40 .
EB gets $ 50 .
Studio gets $ 120 .
Let me clarify... I think you should be able to re-sell , cuz it benefits me and the law says you can... however I firmly believe that removing re-sale will increase the profits of the studios and that arguments against that do not hold water .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>More likely scenario: 

Alice has $90.
Bob has $30.
Billy-Bob has $60.
No used:
Alice buys GoW for $60 from studio.
Bob buys GoW from studio for $30 once its price drops (it currently costs 30 dollars new actually).
Billy-Bob buys GoW II for $60 from studio cuz it got a good rating on Gamespot and he just bought a 360 and his buddy has it and he wants to play co-op.
Alice waits for GoW II to come down in cost and buys it from $30 from studio.
Studio gets $180 

Used:
Alice buys GoW for $60 from studio.
Alice sells GoW for $10 to EB.
EB re-sells GoW to Bill for $30.
Billy-Bob buys GoW II for $60 from studio.
Billy-Bob sells GoW II for $10 to EB.
EB re-sells GoW II to Alice for $40.
EB gets $50.
Studio gets $120.
Let me clarify... I think you should be able to re-sell, cuz it benefits me and the law says you can... however I firmly believe that removing re-sale will increase the profits of the studios and that arguments against that do not hold water.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28721249</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28720757</id>
	<title>Re:You're doing it wrong.</title>
	<author>Hatta</author>
	<datestamp>1247773800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>So let me get this straight -- you're trying to tell game developers they don't deserve the money they're lawfully entitled to? </i></p><p>Game developers are lawfully entitled to money from second hand sales?  Which law is that?</p><p><i>First, federal law says they can charge whatever they want, and they've got the rights to the work for the life of the developer plus a couple hundred years after that.</i></p><p>You know what else Federal law says?</p><blockquote><div><p>Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106 (3), the owner of a particular copy or phonorecord lawfully made under this title, or any person authorized by such owner, is entitled, without the authority of the copyright owner, to sell or otherwise dispose of the possession of that copy or phonorecord</p></div></blockquote><p>"Copy" in this case refers to any medium that is not a phonorecord.  So this applies to computer programs.</p><p><i>If you want to make a change here, fix the copyright laws, but don't tell game developers to "shut up"</i></p><p>Are you misunderstanding something here?  At least when it comes to First Sale, copyright law is fine.  It's perfectly fair to tell game developers to shut up when they're whining about perfectly legal activity.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>So let me get this straight -- you 're trying to tell game developers they do n't deserve the money they 're lawfully entitled to ?
Game developers are lawfully entitled to money from second hand sales ?
Which law is that ? First , federal law says they can charge whatever they want , and they 've got the rights to the work for the life of the developer plus a couple hundred years after that.You know what else Federal law says ? Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106 ( 3 ) , the owner of a particular copy or phonorecord lawfully made under this title , or any person authorized by such owner , is entitled , without the authority of the copyright owner , to sell or otherwise dispose of the possession of that copy or phonorecord " Copy " in this case refers to any medium that is not a phonorecord .
So this applies to computer programs.If you want to make a change here , fix the copyright laws , but do n't tell game developers to " shut up " Are you misunderstanding something here ?
At least when it comes to First Sale , copyright law is fine .
It 's perfectly fair to tell game developers to shut up when they 're whining about perfectly legal activity .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So let me get this straight -- you're trying to tell game developers they don't deserve the money they're lawfully entitled to?
Game developers are lawfully entitled to money from second hand sales?
Which law is that?First, federal law says they can charge whatever they want, and they've got the rights to the work for the life of the developer plus a couple hundred years after that.You know what else Federal law says?Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106 (3), the owner of a particular copy or phonorecord lawfully made under this title, or any person authorized by such owner, is entitled, without the authority of the copyright owner, to sell or otherwise dispose of the possession of that copy or phonorecord"Copy" in this case refers to any medium that is not a phonorecord.
So this applies to computer programs.If you want to make a change here, fix the copyright laws, but don't tell game developers to "shut up"Are you misunderstanding something here?
At least when it comes to First Sale, copyright law is fine.
It's perfectly fair to tell game developers to shut up when they're whining about perfectly legal activity.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28720237</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28720193</id>
	<title>Re:Great advertising for new versions!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247771700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Worked for me.  I bought Halo 1 &amp; 2 second hand, bought Halo 3 new when it was old and therefore cheap anyhow.  Paid full whack for Halo Wars and probably will for OSDT and Halo: Reach, so long as the reviews indicate they're up to quality.  For franchises I'm less fond of but nevertheless enjoy (e.g. GoW, L4D) I might wait to get the game second hand.  If I had to buy *everything* new, I'd buy fewer games and wouldn't be inclined to "try out" franchises.</p><p>Another example of a slightly different nature: I bought Assassin's Creed and Crackdown even though some reviews were a bit lukewarm.  I wouldn't pay full price for a lukewarm game.  Assassin's Creed was sufficiently interesting that I'd like to know where the story goes, making me *more* inclined to buy the sequel, if the reviews are reasonable.</p><p>It's like the old argument against piracy - but even more so.  A game bought second hand is not necessarily a lost sale, since a) the game might not be *worth* full price to the purchaser b) we don't have infinite money to spend on games.  They should concentrate on ways to pull people into a franchise so that they *want* to buy new.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Worked for me .
I bought Halo 1 &amp; 2 second hand , bought Halo 3 new when it was old and therefore cheap anyhow .
Paid full whack for Halo Wars and probably will for OSDT and Halo : Reach , so long as the reviews indicate they 're up to quality .
For franchises I 'm less fond of but nevertheless enjoy ( e.g .
GoW , L4D ) I might wait to get the game second hand .
If I had to buy * everything * new , I 'd buy fewer games and would n't be inclined to " try out " franchises.Another example of a slightly different nature : I bought Assassin 's Creed and Crackdown even though some reviews were a bit lukewarm .
I would n't pay full price for a lukewarm game .
Assassin 's Creed was sufficiently interesting that I 'd like to know where the story goes , making me * more * inclined to buy the sequel , if the reviews are reasonable.It 's like the old argument against piracy - but even more so .
A game bought second hand is not necessarily a lost sale , since a ) the game might not be * worth * full price to the purchaser b ) we do n't have infinite money to spend on games .
They should concentrate on ways to pull people into a franchise so that they * want * to buy new .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Worked for me.
I bought Halo 1 &amp; 2 second hand, bought Halo 3 new when it was old and therefore cheap anyhow.
Paid full whack for Halo Wars and probably will for OSDT and Halo: Reach, so long as the reviews indicate they're up to quality.
For franchises I'm less fond of but nevertheless enjoy (e.g.
GoW, L4D) I might wait to get the game second hand.
If I had to buy *everything* new, I'd buy fewer games and wouldn't be inclined to "try out" franchises.Another example of a slightly different nature: I bought Assassin's Creed and Crackdown even though some reviews were a bit lukewarm.
I wouldn't pay full price for a lukewarm game.
Assassin's Creed was sufficiently interesting that I'd like to know where the story goes, making me *more* inclined to buy the sequel, if the reviews are reasonable.It's like the old argument against piracy - but even more so.
A game bought second hand is not necessarily a lost sale, since a) the game might not be *worth* full price to the purchaser b) we don't have infinite money to spend on games.
They should concentrate on ways to pull people into a franchise so that they *want* to buy new.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28720007</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28723849</id>
	<title>What a horrible article.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247743800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Basically, he says he likes the way the system works. Therefore, those that don't like the system are screwed. Because its the system.</p><p>I was hoping for some more insightful commentary as to why the current system might be more beneficial to those that don't like it than a system that they say they really want.</p><p>Nope. I think I can just about always count on slashdot comments to be more insightful than any story on any video game. Scary.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Basically , he says he likes the way the system works .
Therefore , those that do n't like the system are screwed .
Because its the system.I was hoping for some more insightful commentary as to why the current system might be more beneficial to those that do n't like it than a system that they say they really want.Nope .
I think I can just about always count on slashdot comments to be more insightful than any story on any video game .
Scary .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Basically, he says he likes the way the system works.
Therefore, those that don't like the system are screwed.
Because its the system.I was hoping for some more insightful commentary as to why the current system might be more beneficial to those that don't like it than a system that they say they really want.Nope.
I think I can just about always count on slashdot comments to be more insightful than any story on any video game.
Scary.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28723167</id>
	<title>Re:Great advertising for new versions!</title>
	<author>geekoid</author>
	<datestamp>1247740620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No, that is not Capitalist thinking at all.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No , that is not Capitalist thinking at all .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No, that is not Capitalist thinking at all.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28721333</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28720487</id>
	<title>Publishers also can offer cheaper</title>
	<author>Grokko</author>
	<datestamp>1247772780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>EA themselves used to release "Classic" versions of their games for around $20. What happened?</p><p>If they had any brains at all, they could cut off the used market rather quickly. Just sell the games for cheaper and cheaper amounts, online or otherwise. In other words, let the market function properly.</p><p>If their new games were priced lower than used games at GameStop, how many people would buy used?</p><p>It reminds me of the Canadian Government complaining about a black market in cigarettes forming because they jacked the taxes up. There was more incentive to buy black market cigarettes than retail, because it was just so much cheaper. They created the black market by ignoring the demand.</p><p>Publishers, stop ignoring the demands of the market, and you will make more profit. Is it that hard to understand?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>EA themselves used to release " Classic " versions of their games for around $ 20 .
What happened ? If they had any brains at all , they could cut off the used market rather quickly .
Just sell the games for cheaper and cheaper amounts , online or otherwise .
In other words , let the market function properly.If their new games were priced lower than used games at GameStop , how many people would buy used ? It reminds me of the Canadian Government complaining about a black market in cigarettes forming because they jacked the taxes up .
There was more incentive to buy black market cigarettes than retail , because it was just so much cheaper .
They created the black market by ignoring the demand.Publishers , stop ignoring the demands of the market , and you will make more profit .
Is it that hard to understand ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>EA themselves used to release "Classic" versions of their games for around $20.
What happened?If they had any brains at all, they could cut off the used market rather quickly.
Just sell the games for cheaper and cheaper amounts, online or otherwise.
In other words, let the market function properly.If their new games were priced lower than used games at GameStop, how many people would buy used?It reminds me of the Canadian Government complaining about a black market in cigarettes forming because they jacked the taxes up.
There was more incentive to buy black market cigarettes than retail, because it was just so much cheaper.
They created the black market by ignoring the demand.Publishers, stop ignoring the demands of the market, and you will make more profit.
Is it that hard to understand?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28722639</id>
	<title>Re:Lower your price!</title>
	<author>Haoie</author>
	<datestamp>1247738220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is more up to the retailer than the developers or distributers.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is more up to the retailer than the developers or distributers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is more up to the retailer than the developers or distributers.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28720075</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28721717</id>
	<title>Re:Developers need to do the math</title>
	<author>Itchyeyes</author>
	<datestamp>1247777760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>eh<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... while your analysis is reasonable, it is missing a key point. Gamestop buys a new game for $20, then resell the game for $55. I believe game developers are mad at gamestop for essentially stepping in and taking a sale. In fact, if you track Gamestop used prices, you tend to find the used copy only $5 dollars cheaper than the new version.</p></div><p>True, but Gamestop is not the only place where people buy and sell used games.  Additionally, they do not enjoy such a wide margin on games for more than perhaps a month or two after the initial release.</p><p>however, the purpose of my example was not so much about how much Gamestop takes, but about the economic logic behind used sales that I think a lot of the developers and publishers are overlooking.  There are other factors at work here as well.  For instance, when consumers sell an old game they often use the proceeds to purchase a new one.  So eliminating used sales will also have a slightly offsetting negative effect on new game sales through that avenue as well.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>eh ... while your analysis is reasonable , it is missing a key point .
Gamestop buys a new game for $ 20 , then resell the game for $ 55 .
I believe game developers are mad at gamestop for essentially stepping in and taking a sale .
In fact , if you track Gamestop used prices , you tend to find the used copy only $ 5 dollars cheaper than the new version.True , but Gamestop is not the only place where people buy and sell used games .
Additionally , they do not enjoy such a wide margin on games for more than perhaps a month or two after the initial release.however , the purpose of my example was not so much about how much Gamestop takes , but about the economic logic behind used sales that I think a lot of the developers and publishers are overlooking .
There are other factors at work here as well .
For instance , when consumers sell an old game they often use the proceeds to purchase a new one .
So eliminating used sales will also have a slightly offsetting negative effect on new game sales through that avenue as well .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>eh ... while your analysis is reasonable, it is missing a key point.
Gamestop buys a new game for $20, then resell the game for $55.
I believe game developers are mad at gamestop for essentially stepping in and taking a sale.
In fact, if you track Gamestop used prices, you tend to find the used copy only $5 dollars cheaper than the new version.True, but Gamestop is not the only place where people buy and sell used games.
Additionally, they do not enjoy such a wide margin on games for more than perhaps a month or two after the initial release.however, the purpose of my example was not so much about how much Gamestop takes, but about the economic logic behind used sales that I think a lot of the developers and publishers are overlooking.
There are other factors at work here as well.
For instance, when consumers sell an old game they often use the proceeds to purchase a new one.
So eliminating used sales will also have a slightly offsetting negative effect on new game sales through that avenue as well.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28720913</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28723993</id>
	<title>Quashing secondary markets will only backfire.</title>
	<author>Mr3vil</author>
	<datestamp>1247744640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I really think trying to quash the secondary market for games is going to end up costing them more new sales than used games ever could have.  If someone can buy a brand new AAA title and get at least a portion of that money back then they might be willing to take more of a chance on a given game and go ahead and buy it, knowing that if they end up not liking it they can recoup some of their money.  Eliminate this "insurance policy" as it were, and gamers are going to be much more fickle when it comes to how they spend their money.  It just ends up with people buying fewer and fewer new games than before.  Do you really think half the shovelware that gets released would even be bought by one person if gamers were unable to foist such garbage onto some other sucker?</htmltext>
<tokenext>I really think trying to quash the secondary market for games is going to end up costing them more new sales than used games ever could have .
If someone can buy a brand new AAA title and get at least a portion of that money back then they might be willing to take more of a chance on a given game and go ahead and buy it , knowing that if they end up not liking it they can recoup some of their money .
Eliminate this " insurance policy " as it were , and gamers are going to be much more fickle when it comes to how they spend their money .
It just ends up with people buying fewer and fewer new games than before .
Do you really think half the shovelware that gets released would even be bought by one person if gamers were unable to foist such garbage onto some other sucker ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I really think trying to quash the secondary market for games is going to end up costing them more new sales than used games ever could have.
If someone can buy a brand new AAA title and get at least a portion of that money back then they might be willing to take more of a chance on a given game and go ahead and buy it, knowing that if they end up not liking it they can recoup some of their money.
Eliminate this "insurance policy" as it were, and gamers are going to be much more fickle when it comes to how they spend their money.
It just ends up with people buying fewer and fewer new games than before.
Do you really think half the shovelware that gets released would even be bought by one person if gamers were unable to foist such garbage onto some other sucker?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28720133</id>
	<title>Re:Great advertising for new versions!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247771460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Who knows, developers could learn from this and say "hmm, maybe the average gamer can't afford $60 for our generic crap-of-the-month we're churning out, maybe if it was $30 in the first place, there wouldn't be a need for a Used market"
<br>
Capitalism at work... though... I know... unbelievably wishful thinking.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Who knows , developers could learn from this and say " hmm , maybe the average gamer ca n't afford $ 60 for our generic crap-of-the-month we 're churning out , maybe if it was $ 30 in the first place , there would n't be a need for a Used market " Capitalism at work... though... I know... unbelievably wishful thinking .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Who knows, developers could learn from this and say "hmm, maybe the average gamer can't afford $60 for our generic crap-of-the-month we're churning out, maybe if it was $30 in the first place, there wouldn't be a need for a Used market"

Capitalism at work... though... I know... unbelievably wishful thinking.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28720007</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28725653</id>
	<title>Re:Why isn't anyone asking the REAL question?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247759760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>That only works for commodity items. Games aren't commodities. Games titles are unique, creative works. Plasma screens are commodities that by and large provide the exact same function and aren't creative works. Hence you get price fixing with LG/Philips but not in the music world.
<br> <br>Supply and demand works fine in the game industry because of Willingness to Pay. at $70 people would buy 100,000 units. At $60, 500,000. At $45 600,000 units. Which one's the best for the developer/publisher? the 500,000 units at $60.
<br> <br>Another reason this doesn't apply is because price fixing requires concrete meetings to discuss pricing. There are lots of unspoken price-fixing examples in the real world. Coke/Pepsi. Colgate/Aquafresh. In those examples, the companies involved both know that getting into a price-war will just kill both companies. So they don't do it. This is where disruption comes into play with a new company and what happens regularly in the market as well. India's new $2000 brand new car from Tata - it'll likely make a killing.
<br> <br>Nothing going wrong in the gaming industry. If you want to recoup 100mil in expenses you had over 5 years to develop a game, and your hurdle rate is 13\% ROI (low, actually since its a riskier than market investment) then you need, just to break even, 184mil in sales. So at $60, that's 3million units. Second you have to make up for the games that failed in your portfolio.
<br> <br>$60 ain't that high. If you don't like it, don't play. I haven't bought/played a PC game since Diablo2. But I will buy Diablo3. Guitar Hero for the Wii was worth my money, every cent, and I'll never sell it. So no used market there from me. Make good games that people want to play, and keep, until worthless on the secondary market if they ever do sell them. Anyways, business lesson over.</htmltext>
<tokenext>That only works for commodity items .
Games are n't commodities .
Games titles are unique , creative works .
Plasma screens are commodities that by and large provide the exact same function and are n't creative works .
Hence you get price fixing with LG/Philips but not in the music world .
Supply and demand works fine in the game industry because of Willingness to Pay .
at $ 70 people would buy 100,000 units .
At $ 60 , 500,000 .
At $ 45 600,000 units .
Which one 's the best for the developer/publisher ?
the 500,000 units at $ 60 .
Another reason this does n't apply is because price fixing requires concrete meetings to discuss pricing .
There are lots of unspoken price-fixing examples in the real world .
Coke/Pepsi. Colgate/Aquafresh .
In those examples , the companies involved both know that getting into a price-war will just kill both companies .
So they do n't do it .
This is where disruption comes into play with a new company and what happens regularly in the market as well .
India 's new $ 2000 brand new car from Tata - it 'll likely make a killing .
Nothing going wrong in the gaming industry .
If you want to recoup 100mil in expenses you had over 5 years to develop a game , and your hurdle rate is 13 \ % ROI ( low , actually since its a riskier than market investment ) then you need , just to break even , 184mil in sales .
So at $ 60 , that 's 3million units .
Second you have to make up for the games that failed in your portfolio .
$ 60 ai n't that high .
If you do n't like it , do n't play .
I have n't bought/played a PC game since Diablo2 .
But I will buy Diablo3 .
Guitar Hero for the Wii was worth my money , every cent , and I 'll never sell it .
So no used market there from me .
Make good games that people want to play , and keep , until worthless on the secondary market if they ever do sell them .
Anyways , business lesson over .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That only works for commodity items.
Games aren't commodities.
Games titles are unique, creative works.
Plasma screens are commodities that by and large provide the exact same function and aren't creative works.
Hence you get price fixing with LG/Philips but not in the music world.
Supply and demand works fine in the game industry because of Willingness to Pay.
at $70 people would buy 100,000 units.
At $60, 500,000.
At $45 600,000 units.
Which one's the best for the developer/publisher?
the 500,000 units at $60.
Another reason this doesn't apply is because price fixing requires concrete meetings to discuss pricing.
There are lots of unspoken price-fixing examples in the real world.
Coke/Pepsi. Colgate/Aquafresh.
In those examples, the companies involved both know that getting into a price-war will just kill both companies.
So they don't do it.
This is where disruption comes into play with a new company and what happens regularly in the market as well.
India's new $2000 brand new car from Tata - it'll likely make a killing.
Nothing going wrong in the gaming industry.
If you want to recoup 100mil in expenses you had over 5 years to develop a game, and your hurdle rate is 13\% ROI (low, actually since its a riskier than market investment) then you need, just to break even, 184mil in sales.
So at $60, that's 3million units.
Second you have to make up for the games that failed in your portfolio.
$60 ain't that high.
If you don't like it, don't play.
I haven't bought/played a PC game since Diablo2.
But I will buy Diablo3.
Guitar Hero for the Wii was worth my money, every cent, and I'll never sell it.
So no used market there from me.
Make good games that people want to play, and keep, until worthless on the secondary market if they ever do sell them.
Anyways, business lesson over.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28721449</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28720867</id>
	<title>Re:Lower your price!</title>
	<author>Draek</author>
	<datestamp>1247774340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They do. On PCs, which is one of the reasons there's no market for used PC games.</p><p>I can get a bundle with both Rainbow Six: Vegas 1 and 2 for the PC for $18, while an used copy of the Xbox360 version of Vegas 2 alone would set me back $48. No wonder console owners need an used game market.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They do .
On PCs , which is one of the reasons there 's no market for used PC games.I can get a bundle with both Rainbow Six : Vegas 1 and 2 for the PC for $ 18 , while an used copy of the Xbox360 version of Vegas 2 alone would set me back $ 48 .
No wonder console owners need an used game market .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They do.
On PCs, which is one of the reasons there's no market for used PC games.I can get a bundle with both Rainbow Six: Vegas 1 and 2 for the PC for $18, while an used copy of the Xbox360 version of Vegas 2 alone would set me back $48.
No wonder console owners need an used game market.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28720075</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28722219</id>
	<title>digital "property"</title>
	<author>Ephemeriis</author>
	<datestamp>1247736540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I like computers...  I make my living fixing them...  I thoroughly enjoy video games...  But I really hate what digital media has done to the concepts of property and ownership.</p><p>Used to be that I'd buy a book, or a record, or a board game, or a deck of cards - and nobody would question for a moment that I owned those things.  They were my property.  I could do with them whatever I wanted.  After I finished reading the book I could donate it to the local library, or hand it off to a friend, or sell it to a used bookstore.  If the original author of that book showed up at my garage sale and complained that I was selling his book he would have been laughed at.</p><p>These days, however, we don't actually own anything.  We've just been given a temporary license to use the thing.  And when I'm done playing my video game, or done reading my ebook, or done listening to my MP3, I'm not really able to do much with it.  Sure, I can sell a video game to someone else...  But the DRM involved is making it hard just to re-install the game on your own computer, much less transfer ownership to someone else.</p><p>The worst part isn't that this is happening...  Of course a company is going to do everything they can to make money - that's what businesses do.  So I don't blame EA or Microsoft or whoever for trying to prevent the selling of used video games.  The worst part is that it is being <b>allowed</b> to happen.  Nobody is laughing at these guys.  Their arguments aren't being rebuffed.  They aren't being thrown out of court.  These folks are claiming that the $60 I paid for a video game didn't actually buy me a video game, and everyone just kind of shrugs and nods and goes along with it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I like computers... I make my living fixing them... I thoroughly enjoy video games... But I really hate what digital media has done to the concepts of property and ownership.Used to be that I 'd buy a book , or a record , or a board game , or a deck of cards - and nobody would question for a moment that I owned those things .
They were my property .
I could do with them whatever I wanted .
After I finished reading the book I could donate it to the local library , or hand it off to a friend , or sell it to a used bookstore .
If the original author of that book showed up at my garage sale and complained that I was selling his book he would have been laughed at.These days , however , we do n't actually own anything .
We 've just been given a temporary license to use the thing .
And when I 'm done playing my video game , or done reading my ebook , or done listening to my MP3 , I 'm not really able to do much with it .
Sure , I can sell a video game to someone else... But the DRM involved is making it hard just to re-install the game on your own computer , much less transfer ownership to someone else.The worst part is n't that this is happening... Of course a company is going to do everything they can to make money - that 's what businesses do .
So I do n't blame EA or Microsoft or whoever for trying to prevent the selling of used video games .
The worst part is that it is being allowed to happen .
Nobody is laughing at these guys .
Their arguments are n't being rebuffed .
They are n't being thrown out of court .
These folks are claiming that the $ 60 I paid for a video game did n't actually buy me a video game , and everyone just kind of shrugs and nods and goes along with it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I like computers...  I make my living fixing them...  I thoroughly enjoy video games...  But I really hate what digital media has done to the concepts of property and ownership.Used to be that I'd buy a book, or a record, or a board game, or a deck of cards - and nobody would question for a moment that I owned those things.
They were my property.
I could do with them whatever I wanted.
After I finished reading the book I could donate it to the local library, or hand it off to a friend, or sell it to a used bookstore.
If the original author of that book showed up at my garage sale and complained that I was selling his book he would have been laughed at.These days, however, we don't actually own anything.
We've just been given a temporary license to use the thing.
And when I'm done playing my video game, or done reading my ebook, or done listening to my MP3, I'm not really able to do much with it.
Sure, I can sell a video game to someone else...  But the DRM involved is making it hard just to re-install the game on your own computer, much less transfer ownership to someone else.The worst part isn't that this is happening...  Of course a company is going to do everything they can to make money - that's what businesses do.
So I don't blame EA or Microsoft or whoever for trying to prevent the selling of used video games.
The worst part is that it is being allowed to happen.
Nobody is laughing at these guys.
Their arguments aren't being rebuffed.
They aren't being thrown out of court.
These folks are claiming that the $60 I paid for a video game didn't actually buy me a video game, and everyone just kind of shrugs and nods and goes along with it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28721059</id>
	<title>Re:Great advertising for new versions!</title>
	<author>MrMarket</author>
	<datestamp>1247775120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Not sure how that would change the used market. You'll just have $30 new games selling for $15 used.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Not sure how that would change the used market .
You 'll just have $ 30 new games selling for $ 15 used .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not sure how that would change the used market.
You'll just have $30 new games selling for $15 used.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28720133</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28723079</id>
	<title>Re:Great advertising for new versions!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247740320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>If you buy PC gaming hardware 6-12 months behind the bleeding edge you save an enormous amount of money too. If your doing the same buying games at the same level, you will likely be paying about half also. New games are almost never discounted within 6 months of release. Many stores start trying to move inevitable surplus stock after this.
<br> <br>
In one of those strange capitalist paradoxes, in terms of frames-per-second for your dollar you get massively more if you buy cheaper mid range hardware that has been on the market 6-12 months. For example, a Radeon 4870 was alot of money when it came out, following the 4850 was the 4830 which gets get you 90\% of the same performance for alot cheaper.
<br> <br>
If you waited a little longer now there is the 4770 which is slightly slower but a bigger step cheaper again, and naturally a more improved model also.
<br> <br>
Incredibly if you wait a while the drivers mature, which is a free speed boost in some cases, and Crossfire/SLI support and scaling in games improves. I resisted my fanboy urges and I now have two Radeon 4770s for less than the price of a single 4870 on 0-day.
<br> <br>
The other area is CPUs, not so crucial to gaming performance, but you don't want to be held back: Overclocking a sub $100 processor to the performance level of a $400 is now is so easy, reliable and cheap to do. You don't even need all those spiffy led-illuminated uber cooler parts either.
<br> <br>
Frankly I don't buy any argument that PC gaming is much too expensive to be a part of, because it is possible to do so, for half the money and still have 90\% of the ultra high-end experience. You'll retain bragging rights and have some points to stamp on your geek card from your overclocking skills.
Wait... perhaps it is if you are a fan-boy early adopter because you will be fleeced.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If you buy PC gaming hardware 6-12 months behind the bleeding edge you save an enormous amount of money too .
If your doing the same buying games at the same level , you will likely be paying about half also .
New games are almost never discounted within 6 months of release .
Many stores start trying to move inevitable surplus stock after this .
In one of those strange capitalist paradoxes , in terms of frames-per-second for your dollar you get massively more if you buy cheaper mid range hardware that has been on the market 6-12 months .
For example , a Radeon 4870 was alot of money when it came out , following the 4850 was the 4830 which gets get you 90 \ % of the same performance for alot cheaper .
If you waited a little longer now there is the 4770 which is slightly slower but a bigger step cheaper again , and naturally a more improved model also .
Incredibly if you wait a while the drivers mature , which is a free speed boost in some cases , and Crossfire/SLI support and scaling in games improves .
I resisted my fanboy urges and I now have two Radeon 4770s for less than the price of a single 4870 on 0-day .
The other area is CPUs , not so crucial to gaming performance , but you do n't want to be held back : Overclocking a sub $ 100 processor to the performance level of a $ 400 is now is so easy , reliable and cheap to do .
You do n't even need all those spiffy led-illuminated uber cooler parts either .
Frankly I do n't buy any argument that PC gaming is much too expensive to be a part of , because it is possible to do so , for half the money and still have 90 \ % of the ultra high-end experience .
You 'll retain bragging rights and have some points to stamp on your geek card from your overclocking skills .
Wait... perhaps it is if you are a fan-boy early adopter because you will be fleeced .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you buy PC gaming hardware 6-12 months behind the bleeding edge you save an enormous amount of money too.
If your doing the same buying games at the same level, you will likely be paying about half also.
New games are almost never discounted within 6 months of release.
Many stores start trying to move inevitable surplus stock after this.
In one of those strange capitalist paradoxes, in terms of frames-per-second for your dollar you get massively more if you buy cheaper mid range hardware that has been on the market 6-12 months.
For example, a Radeon 4870 was alot of money when it came out, following the 4850 was the 4830 which gets get you 90\% of the same performance for alot cheaper.
If you waited a little longer now there is the 4770 which is slightly slower but a bigger step cheaper again, and naturally a more improved model also.
Incredibly if you wait a while the drivers mature, which is a free speed boost in some cases, and Crossfire/SLI support and scaling in games improves.
I resisted my fanboy urges and I now have two Radeon 4770s for less than the price of a single 4870 on 0-day.
The other area is CPUs, not so crucial to gaming performance, but you don't want to be held back: Overclocking a sub $100 processor to the performance level of a $400 is now is so easy, reliable and cheap to do.
You don't even need all those spiffy led-illuminated uber cooler parts either.
Frankly I don't buy any argument that PC gaming is much too expensive to be a part of, because it is possible to do so, for half the money and still have 90\% of the ultra high-end experience.
You'll retain bragging rights and have some points to stamp on your geek card from your overclocking skills.
Wait... perhaps it is if you are a fan-boy early adopter because you will be fleeced.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28721363</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28722199</id>
	<title>Re:They can stop it: Installs locked to hardware.</title>
	<author>AndersOSU</author>
	<datestamp>1247736480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Here's why console games won't be locked in the near future.  If one system manufacturer decides to do it, they'll destroy their market share.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Here 's why console games wo n't be locked in the near future .
If one system manufacturer decides to do it , they 'll destroy their market share .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Here's why console games won't be locked in the near future.
If one system manufacturer decides to do it, they'll destroy their market share.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28720025</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28720863</id>
	<title>Re:Already have it for music</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247774280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm not sure I have seen anyone mention it before, but your post makes me think of an idea Apple could possibly capitalize on and crush even more competition.</p><p>Let's called it the "used" section of the iTunes store. Let's say you bought some tunes and some of them you felt were just horrible. Tough luck, you're stuck with them. However, what if you could log into iTunes and mark those tracks as "for sale". Apple could probably either get away with fixing a resale value or letting you determine your own. They then could take a small percentage of the resale (the claim being for storage and bandwidth) when someone buys it. Once the purchase happens, your copy is wiped/deactivated as a playable tune.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm not sure I have seen anyone mention it before , but your post makes me think of an idea Apple could possibly capitalize on and crush even more competition.Let 's called it the " used " section of the iTunes store .
Let 's say you bought some tunes and some of them you felt were just horrible .
Tough luck , you 're stuck with them .
However , what if you could log into iTunes and mark those tracks as " for sale " .
Apple could probably either get away with fixing a resale value or letting you determine your own .
They then could take a small percentage of the resale ( the claim being for storage and bandwidth ) when someone buys it .
Once the purchase happens , your copy is wiped/deactivated as a playable tune .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm not sure I have seen anyone mention it before, but your post makes me think of an idea Apple could possibly capitalize on and crush even more competition.Let's called it the "used" section of the iTunes store.
Let's say you bought some tunes and some of them you felt were just horrible.
Tough luck, you're stuck with them.
However, what if you could log into iTunes and mark those tracks as "for sale".
Apple could probably either get away with fixing a resale value or letting you determine your own.
They then could take a small percentage of the resale (the claim being for storage and bandwidth) when someone buys it.
Once the purchase happens, your copy is wiped/deactivated as a playable tune.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28720361</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28720717</id>
	<title>Re:Lower your price!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247773620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Don't they already? Maybe not so gradually, but they do fall pretty sharply after a few months.</p><p>It's one of those perks of upgrading your system only rarely and not to the bleeding edge. You save a ton of cash, and those fancy-pants games from a year or two ago run wonderfully on your new mid-range system. And they're probably patched too. Is there really more than one game every couple years that you absolutely must play at the moment of release?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Do n't they already ?
Maybe not so gradually , but they do fall pretty sharply after a few months.It 's one of those perks of upgrading your system only rarely and not to the bleeding edge .
You save a ton of cash , and those fancy-pants games from a year or two ago run wonderfully on your new mid-range system .
And they 're probably patched too .
Is there really more than one game every couple years that you absolutely must play at the moment of release ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Don't they already?
Maybe not so gradually, but they do fall pretty sharply after a few months.It's one of those perks of upgrading your system only rarely and not to the bleeding edge.
You save a ton of cash, and those fancy-pants games from a year or two ago run wonderfully on your new mid-range system.
And they're probably patched too.
Is there really more than one game every couple years that you absolutely must play at the moment of release?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28720075</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28721383</id>
	<title>Re:I hate the used games.</title>
	<author>WankersRevenge</author>
	<datestamp>1247776500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Before I start my rant, I should let you know that I can't stand Gamestop.  I refuse to shop there.  That being said<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... I have no problems buying used games from a brick and motor store.  Granted, I might be paying more than I would from an ebay seller, but I consider the mark up to be of value since I have better consumer protection and even better options.  For example, say you a buy a game for Joe Blow off ebay and you receive a disc scratched to hell.  Have fun getting a refund.  With brick and motor stores, I can get a replacement disc usually without any hassle.  Want a better case or instruction manual<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... easy<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... ask for one.  In a brick and motor, I can actually inspect the disc before I buy it.  With mail order, you are using trust.</p><p>That being said<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... if the price difference between new and used is five bucks, then I'll opt for the new game.  I usually do a preliminary search for prices, but a low price doesn't guarantee a sale.  I can't tell you how many times I've spent MORE money for buying low.  And yes<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... sometimes convenience is a huge factor.  If a new copy is cheaper at target, but target is a thirty minute car ride away, then the price isn't so sexy because I'm putting wear and tear on my car plus the cost of gas to me there.</p><p>My point<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... as a consumer, you should weigh the value of the entirety of a transaction as opposed to the money figure on the box.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Before I start my rant , I should let you know that I ca n't stand Gamestop .
I refuse to shop there .
That being said ... I have no problems buying used games from a brick and motor store .
Granted , I might be paying more than I would from an ebay seller , but I consider the mark up to be of value since I have better consumer protection and even better options .
For example , say you a buy a game for Joe Blow off ebay and you receive a disc scratched to hell .
Have fun getting a refund .
With brick and motor stores , I can get a replacement disc usually without any hassle .
Want a better case or instruction manual ... easy ... ask for one .
In a brick and motor , I can actually inspect the disc before I buy it .
With mail order , you are using trust.That being said ... if the price difference between new and used is five bucks , then I 'll opt for the new game .
I usually do a preliminary search for prices , but a low price does n't guarantee a sale .
I ca n't tell you how many times I 've spent MORE money for buying low .
And yes ... sometimes convenience is a huge factor .
If a new copy is cheaper at target , but target is a thirty minute car ride away , then the price is n't so sexy because I 'm putting wear and tear on my car plus the cost of gas to me there.My point ... as a consumer , you should weigh the value of the entirety of a transaction as opposed to the money figure on the box .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Before I start my rant, I should let you know that I can't stand Gamestop.
I refuse to shop there.
That being said ... I have no problems buying used games from a brick and motor store.
Granted, I might be paying more than I would from an ebay seller, but I consider the mark up to be of value since I have better consumer protection and even better options.
For example, say you a buy a game for Joe Blow off ebay and you receive a disc scratched to hell.
Have fun getting a refund.
With brick and motor stores, I can get a replacement disc usually without any hassle.
Want a better case or instruction manual ... easy ... ask for one.
In a brick and motor, I can actually inspect the disc before I buy it.
With mail order, you are using trust.That being said ... if the price difference between new and used is five bucks, then I'll opt for the new game.
I usually do a preliminary search for prices, but a low price doesn't guarantee a sale.
I can't tell you how many times I've spent MORE money for buying low.
And yes ... sometimes convenience is a huge factor.
If a new copy is cheaper at target, but target is a thirty minute car ride away, then the price isn't so sexy because I'm putting wear and tear on my car plus the cost of gas to me there.My point ... as a consumer, you should weigh the value of the entirety of a transaction as opposed to the money figure on the box.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28720569</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28725709</id>
	<title>Re:Why isn't anyone asking the REAL question?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247760360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The whole point of copyright is that the owner of the copyright is given a monopoly over distribution of that work. So there is no competition for any certain game. There is competition between games - if you try sell yours for $100 when the others are $50 you might not sell too many. But this is determined by supply and demand so the release price of games is in fact the market price. People really are prepared (and happy...ish) spend that much...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The whole point of copyright is that the owner of the copyright is given a monopoly over distribution of that work .
So there is no competition for any certain game .
There is competition between games - if you try sell yours for $ 100 when the others are $ 50 you might not sell too many .
But this is determined by supply and demand so the release price of games is in fact the market price .
People really are prepared ( and happy...ish ) spend that much.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The whole point of copyright is that the owner of the copyright is given a monopoly over distribution of that work.
So there is no competition for any certain game.
There is competition between games - if you try sell yours for $100 when the others are $50 you might not sell too many.
But this is determined by supply and demand so the release price of games is in fact the market price.
People really are prepared (and happy...ish) spend that much...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28721449</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28722989</id>
	<title>Re:Great advertising for new versions!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247739960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Who knows, maybe some people are just cheap and wouldn't get a NEW game even if it was cheaper, as long as they can get it for less (or free) and so it doesn't matter how expensive you sell your games?</p><p>I'm writing games which admittedly can not be sold used (for ANDROID), but from my experience, some people just don't see the point in paying for games and either pirate the game ( 3 minutes top from install to refund) or play the game for the 24 hours they have and THEN ask for refunds. We're talking games selling between 0.99c and $2.99 here, so please don't tell me it's because they needed the money (after buying a $400 phone!?).<br>Unrelated but noteworthy, on the other side of the spectrum, there seem to be people who will buy anything if it's *expensive* (cause we all know that free or cheap stuff can not be good). This showed when I raised the price for one of my games from 0.99c to $1.99 and I suddenly had 5 times as many sales.</p><p>so<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... selling normal games at $30 instead of $60 won't make any difference for people used to buy used games. They'll just keep on waiting for a ~used~ offer and buy that. It does, of course, increase the probability that the game will sell more earlier, as people who buy new games when they are discounted will hit earlier too. In the end though, you'll lose some benefit from the people who would have actually bought the game for the $60 pricetag.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Who knows , maybe some people are just cheap and would n't get a NEW game even if it was cheaper , as long as they can get it for less ( or free ) and so it does n't matter how expensive you sell your games ? I 'm writing games which admittedly can not be sold used ( for ANDROID ) , but from my experience , some people just do n't see the point in paying for games and either pirate the game ( 3 minutes top from install to refund ) or play the game for the 24 hours they have and THEN ask for refunds .
We 're talking games selling between 0.99c and $ 2.99 here , so please do n't tell me it 's because they needed the money ( after buying a $ 400 phone ! ?
) .Unrelated but noteworthy , on the other side of the spectrum , there seem to be people who will buy anything if it 's * expensive * ( cause we all know that free or cheap stuff can not be good ) .
This showed when I raised the price for one of my games from 0.99c to $ 1.99 and I suddenly had 5 times as many sales.so ... selling normal games at $ 30 instead of $ 60 wo n't make any difference for people used to buy used games .
They 'll just keep on waiting for a ~ used ~ offer and buy that .
It does , of course , increase the probability that the game will sell more earlier , as people who buy new games when they are discounted will hit earlier too .
In the end though , you 'll lose some benefit from the people who would have actually bought the game for the $ 60 pricetag .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Who knows, maybe some people are just cheap and wouldn't get a NEW game even if it was cheaper, as long as they can get it for less (or free) and so it doesn't matter how expensive you sell your games?I'm writing games which admittedly can not be sold used (for ANDROID), but from my experience, some people just don't see the point in paying for games and either pirate the game ( 3 minutes top from install to refund) or play the game for the 24 hours they have and THEN ask for refunds.
We're talking games selling between 0.99c and $2.99 here, so please don't tell me it's because they needed the money (after buying a $400 phone!?
).Unrelated but noteworthy, on the other side of the spectrum, there seem to be people who will buy anything if it's *expensive* (cause we all know that free or cheap stuff can not be good).
This showed when I raised the price for one of my games from 0.99c to $1.99 and I suddenly had 5 times as many sales.so ... selling normal games at $30 instead of $60 won't make any difference for people used to buy used games.
They'll just keep on waiting for a ~used~ offer and buy that.
It does, of course, increase the probability that the game will sell more earlier, as people who buy new games when they are discounted will hit earlier too.
In the end though, you'll lose some benefit from the people who would have actually bought the game for the $60 pricetag.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28720133</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28754687</id>
	<title>Re:Why isn't anyone asking the REAL question?</title>
	<author>Lord Artemis</author>
	<datestamp>1248093780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>There isn't unlimited supply, though, due to a fairly high barrier for entry.

Your average indie game developer doesn't <i>have</i> the several million dollars it takes to make the next CoD4, nor does the indie record company have the multi-million-dollar recording studio, hundreds over and highly-paid audio engineers that help crank out the next big musical hit.   And neither of them can afford a multi-million-dollar ad campaign to make it popular.  It's all economies of scale&mdash;not everyone can just go out and make something that will sell millions of copies.</htmltext>
<tokenext>There is n't unlimited supply , though , due to a fairly high barrier for entry .
Your average indie game developer does n't have the several million dollars it takes to make the next CoD4 , nor does the indie record company have the multi-million-dollar recording studio , hundreds over and highly-paid audio engineers that help crank out the next big musical hit .
And neither of them can afford a multi-million-dollar ad campaign to make it popular .
It 's all economies of scale    not everyone can just go out and make something that will sell millions of copies .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There isn't unlimited supply, though, due to a fairly high barrier for entry.
Your average indie game developer doesn't have the several million dollars it takes to make the next CoD4, nor does the indie record company have the multi-million-dollar recording studio, hundreds over and highly-paid audio engineers that help crank out the next big musical hit.
And neither of them can afford a multi-million-dollar ad campaign to make it popular.
It's all economies of scale—not everyone can just go out and make something that will sell millions of copies.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28721449</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28720517</id>
	<title>Add replay value</title>
	<author>BagOBones</author>
	<datestamp>1247772900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As a gamer who almost never plays single player story games more than once trading in is a HUGH savings to me since I will only play the title once it just gathers dust otherwise.</p><p>Purchase new title at full price $60<br>Finish the title in two weeks - one month<br>Trade it in at high value (still new and popular) get $40<br>Purchase another title that was used for $50<br>Total cost for two single player experiences $70</p><p>If game developers had their way it would cost me $120 for the same single play through experiences.</p><p>For REALLY short single player games renting is even better.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As a gamer who almost never plays single player story games more than once trading in is a HUGH savings to me since I will only play the title once it just gathers dust otherwise.Purchase new title at full price $ 60Finish the title in two weeks - one monthTrade it in at high value ( still new and popular ) get $ 40Purchase another title that was used for $ 50Total cost for two single player experiences $ 70If game developers had their way it would cost me $ 120 for the same single play through experiences.For REALLY short single player games renting is even better .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As a gamer who almost never plays single player story games more than once trading in is a HUGH savings to me since I will only play the title once it just gathers dust otherwise.Purchase new title at full price $60Finish the title in two weeks - one monthTrade it in at high value (still new and popular) get $40Purchase another title that was used for $50Total cost for two single player experiences $70If game developers had their way it would cost me $120 for the same single play through experiences.For REALLY short single player games renting is even better.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28722919</id>
	<title>Re:Why would game publishers care?</title>
	<author>DRACO-</author>
	<datestamp>1247739660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Publishers also miss out on the old game sales as retail outlets are unwilling to give space to a slow selling item.  Every square inch of shelving and flooring in a retail outlet has to roll dollars to be of value to the retailer.  The game trading stores have managed to do this by being set up specifically to handle this and the buyers of used games know they have a chance of finding an older game in one of these stores.  Buyers of old games know they wont find 2 year old games at Walmart regularly.</p><p>I worked at a walmart once, and the only time you could find an old game was if it got lost in the security room for a year and got dragged out during inventory.  Sadly if it fell off the inventory system and re-added, it would drag back the original price it was selling at nationally instead of the discounted price the store marked it down to locally, then it would never sell.  I dont know how LP looked at it but that lost old game that was found probably would be better sent back to the vendor or just destroyed rather than placed on the shelf to take up display space.  Most likely the former.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Publishers also miss out on the old game sales as retail outlets are unwilling to give space to a slow selling item .
Every square inch of shelving and flooring in a retail outlet has to roll dollars to be of value to the retailer .
The game trading stores have managed to do this by being set up specifically to handle this and the buyers of used games know they have a chance of finding an older game in one of these stores .
Buyers of old games know they wont find 2 year old games at Walmart regularly.I worked at a walmart once , and the only time you could find an old game was if it got lost in the security room for a year and got dragged out during inventory .
Sadly if it fell off the inventory system and re-added , it would drag back the original price it was selling at nationally instead of the discounted price the store marked it down to locally , then it would never sell .
I dont know how LP looked at it but that lost old game that was found probably would be better sent back to the vendor or just destroyed rather than placed on the shelf to take up display space .
Most likely the former .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Publishers also miss out on the old game sales as retail outlets are unwilling to give space to a slow selling item.
Every square inch of shelving and flooring in a retail outlet has to roll dollars to be of value to the retailer.
The game trading stores have managed to do this by being set up specifically to handle this and the buyers of used games know they have a chance of finding an older game in one of these stores.
Buyers of old games know they wont find 2 year old games at Walmart regularly.I worked at a walmart once, and the only time you could find an old game was if it got lost in the security room for a year and got dragged out during inventory.
Sadly if it fell off the inventory system and re-added, it would drag back the original price it was selling at nationally instead of the discounted price the store marked it down to locally, then it would never sell.
I dont know how LP looked at it but that lost old game that was found probably would be better sent back to the vendor or just destroyed rather than placed on the shelf to take up display space.
Most likely the former.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28720029</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28743975</id>
	<title>Re:Why isn't anyone asking the REAL question?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247916720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>not if there is a law that personally allow your organsation to do so....</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>not if there is a law that personally allow your organsation to do so... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>not if there is a law that personally allow your organsation to do so....</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28721449</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28720727</id>
	<title>Re:Lower your price!</title>
	<author>ArundelCastle</author>
	<datestamp>1247773680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Game companies should progressively lower prices of their games as time passes. This would eat up the used game market.</p></div><p>This typically does happen, but only after sales slow to a certain threshhold.  This takes forever with Grand Theft Autos and Call of Dutys.<br>It works well for PC games; a month after release they often drop $5-10.  Not to mention starting $10 cheaper than consoles on average.<br>And yes, there is a used PC game market at retail.  Hell, back in my day, I remember renting 'em.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Game companies should progressively lower prices of their games as time passes .
This would eat up the used game market.This typically does happen , but only after sales slow to a certain threshhold .
This takes forever with Grand Theft Autos and Call of Dutys.It works well for PC games ; a month after release they often drop $ 5-10 .
Not to mention starting $ 10 cheaper than consoles on average.And yes , there is a used PC game market at retail .
Hell , back in my day , I remember renting 'em .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Game companies should progressively lower prices of their games as time passes.
This would eat up the used game market.This typically does happen, but only after sales slow to a certain threshhold.
This takes forever with Grand Theft Autos and Call of Dutys.It works well for PC games; a month after release they often drop $5-10.
Not to mention starting $10 cheaper than consoles on average.And yes, there is a used PC game market at retail.
Hell, back in my day, I remember renting 'em.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28720075</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28720359</id>
	<title>Digital distribution</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247772300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Digital distinution, like Steam makes it already impossible to resell your used games. I guess you could sell your whole account, but no one that I know of is doing that. Steam has shown that this can be wildly successful, and the myriad of competitors (Direct2Drive, etc.) that have sprung up indicate huge momentum in this direction.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Digital distinution , like Steam makes it already impossible to resell your used games .
I guess you could sell your whole account , but no one that I know of is doing that .
Steam has shown that this can be wildly successful , and the myriad of competitors ( Direct2Drive , etc .
) that have sprung up indicate huge momentum in this direction .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Digital distinution, like Steam makes it already impossible to resell your used games.
I guess you could sell your whole account, but no one that I know of is doing that.
Steam has shown that this can be wildly successful, and the myriad of competitors (Direct2Drive, etc.
) that have sprung up indicate huge momentum in this direction.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28725377</id>
	<title>Re:Great advertising for new versions!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247755080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p><div class="quote"><p>In other words, they get to charge such high prices because users can sell the game later and recoup some of the loss.</p></div><p>Which completely explains why digitally distributed games are so much cheaper. You can't reseller them, and the publisher doesn't have to pay for packaging, shipping, etc.</p><p>No, no wait. Digitally distributed games cost <em>the exact same fucking amount</em>.</p></div><p>But that's mainly due to the dominance of the brick and mortars, mainly Walmart. If Walmart decides to not sell your game, because your are selling the digital version at 50\% less, thats a huge loss on a portion of your sales. Digital distributions isn't quite there yet. Brick and mortars are still the main source of revenue. If Walmart says jump, publishers basically have to say how high.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>In other words , they get to charge such high prices because users can sell the game later and recoup some of the loss.Which completely explains why digitally distributed games are so much cheaper .
You ca n't reseller them , and the publisher does n't have to pay for packaging , shipping , etc.No , no wait .
Digitally distributed games cost the exact same fucking amount.But that 's mainly due to the dominance of the brick and mortars , mainly Walmart .
If Walmart decides to not sell your game , because your are selling the digital version at 50 \ % less , thats a huge loss on a portion of your sales .
Digital distributions is n't quite there yet .
Brick and mortars are still the main source of revenue .
If Walmart says jump , publishers basically have to say how high .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In other words, they get to charge such high prices because users can sell the game later and recoup some of the loss.Which completely explains why digitally distributed games are so much cheaper.
You can't reseller them, and the publisher doesn't have to pay for packaging, shipping, etc.No, no wait.
Digitally distributed games cost the exact same fucking amount.But that's mainly due to the dominance of the brick and mortars, mainly Walmart.
If Walmart decides to not sell your game, because your are selling the digital version at 50\% less, thats a huge loss on a portion of your sales.
Digital distributions isn't quite there yet.
Brick and mortars are still the main source of revenue.
If Walmart says jump, publishers basically have to say how high.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28721973</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28720623</id>
	<title>Re:You're doing it wrong.</title>
	<author>Gizzmonic</author>
	<datestamp>1247773320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>If you want to make a change here, fix the copyright laws, but don't tell game developers to "shut up", because they're the ones pulling doubles every day for months at a go, foregoing the comforts of a significant other, basic hygiene, and possibly their sanity--simply because that's what they love doing and don't mind being underpaid for it.</i></p><p>All I can say is...suckers!</p><p><i> Because it would be just your luck that they'd do exactly that, and then you'd be forced to do something other than masturbating to your level 80 elf huntress.<br>
&nbsp; </i></p><p>Fine with me.  There are enough good games out there already that I could probably play for the next 25 years or more and not get bored.  I also have other hobbies.  If developers want to alienate people like me (late 20's/early 30's, married, good income) by taking away our ability to resell or take a game over to a friend's house, they can go ahead.  I promise it will hurt them a lot worse than it hurts us.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you want to make a change here , fix the copyright laws , but do n't tell game developers to " shut up " , because they 're the ones pulling doubles every day for months at a go , foregoing the comforts of a significant other , basic hygiene , and possibly their sanity--simply because that 's what they love doing and do n't mind being underpaid for it.All I can say is...suckers !
Because it would be just your luck that they 'd do exactly that , and then you 'd be forced to do something other than masturbating to your level 80 elf huntress .
  Fine with me .
There are enough good games out there already that I could probably play for the next 25 years or more and not get bored .
I also have other hobbies .
If developers want to alienate people like me ( late 20 's/early 30 's , married , good income ) by taking away our ability to resell or take a game over to a friend 's house , they can go ahead .
I promise it will hurt them a lot worse than it hurts us .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you want to make a change here, fix the copyright laws, but don't tell game developers to "shut up", because they're the ones pulling doubles every day for months at a go, foregoing the comforts of a significant other, basic hygiene, and possibly their sanity--simply because that's what they love doing and don't mind being underpaid for it.All I can say is...suckers!
Because it would be just your luck that they'd do exactly that, and then you'd be forced to do something other than masturbating to your level 80 elf huntress.
  Fine with me.
There are enough good games out there already that I could probably play for the next 25 years or more and not get bored.
I also have other hobbies.
If developers want to alienate people like me (late 20's/early 30's, married, good income) by taking away our ability to resell or take a game over to a friend's house, they can go ahead.
I promise it will hurt them a lot worse than it hurts us.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28720237</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28746297</id>
	<title>Re:Great advertising for new versions!</title>
	<author>hyk</author>
	<datestamp>1247994240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>This showed when I raised the price for one of my games from 0.99c to $1.99 and I suddenly had 5 times as many sales.</p></div><p>Up from point ninty nine cents!?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>This showed when I raised the price for one of my games from 0.99c to $ 1.99 and I suddenly had 5 times as many sales.Up from point ninty nine cents !
?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This showed when I raised the price for one of my games from 0.99c to $1.99 and I suddenly had 5 times as many sales.Up from point ninty nine cents!
?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28722989</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28722407</id>
	<title>Re:Used games put more money in the studios hands.</title>
	<author>Quiet\_Desperation</author>
	<datestamp>1247737200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Bob and Alice? Wait... shouldn't there be some encryption going on in there?<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;-)</htmltext>
<tokenext>Bob and Alice ?
Wait... should n't there be some encryption going on in there ?
; - )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Bob and Alice?
Wait... shouldn't there be some encryption going on in there?
;-)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28721249</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28723017</id>
	<title>Re:Great advertising for new versions!</title>
	<author>Mister\_Stoopid</author>
	<datestamp>1247740080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm not sure if <i>you're</i> trying to be funny or if you're just naive, but in real life capitalism doesn't work like Economics 101.  In real life, making your customers happy is not always the most cost effective way of doing business.  <br> <br>Sometimes, destroying the competition and ensuring that your customers have nowhere else to go is more profitable.  Sometimes, paying off legislators to write laws saying it's illegal for anyone to compete with you is more profitable.  Sometimes setting up complex ponzi schemes that make you super-rich and send everyone else in the country back to the economic stone age is more profitable. (not only talking about Bernie Madoff here)
<br> <br>
All that is why we need partial capitalism with strictly enforced government oversight and regulation.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm not sure if you 're trying to be funny or if you 're just naive , but in real life capitalism does n't work like Economics 101 .
In real life , making your customers happy is not always the most cost effective way of doing business .
Sometimes , destroying the competition and ensuring that your customers have nowhere else to go is more profitable .
Sometimes , paying off legislators to write laws saying it 's illegal for anyone to compete with you is more profitable .
Sometimes setting up complex ponzi schemes that make you super-rich and send everyone else in the country back to the economic stone age is more profitable .
( not only talking about Bernie Madoff here ) All that is why we need partial capitalism with strictly enforced government oversight and regulation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm not sure if you're trying to be funny or if you're just naive, but in real life capitalism doesn't work like Economics 101.
In real life, making your customers happy is not always the most cost effective way of doing business.
Sometimes, destroying the competition and ensuring that your customers have nowhere else to go is more profitable.
Sometimes, paying off legislators to write laws saying it's illegal for anyone to compete with you is more profitable.
Sometimes setting up complex ponzi schemes that make you super-rich and send everyone else in the country back to the economic stone age is more profitable.
(not only talking about Bernie Madoff here)
 
All that is why we need partial capitalism with strictly enforced government oversight and regulation.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28721911</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28721333</id>
	<title>Re:Great advertising for new versions!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247776320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No no no, you've got it all wrong. That's not capitalism, that's intelligent thought. The Capitalist way would be to try to enforce harsher DRM, outsource to an anti-cheat scheme that also lets you keep banning a steady number of people who will hopefully rebuy the game, and then blame piracy when the game doesnt sell well.</p><p>After all those damn pirates are funding drugs AND terrorism AND undermining our rights and freedoms by helping terrorists who sell drugs and commit acts of terrorism. While on drugs.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No no no , you 've got it all wrong .
That 's not capitalism , that 's intelligent thought .
The Capitalist way would be to try to enforce harsher DRM , outsource to an anti-cheat scheme that also lets you keep banning a steady number of people who will hopefully rebuy the game , and then blame piracy when the game doesnt sell well.After all those damn pirates are funding drugs AND terrorism AND undermining our rights and freedoms by helping terrorists who sell drugs and commit acts of terrorism .
While on drugs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No no no, you've got it all wrong.
That's not capitalism, that's intelligent thought.
The Capitalist way would be to try to enforce harsher DRM, outsource to an anti-cheat scheme that also lets you keep banning a steady number of people who will hopefully rebuy the game, and then blame piracy when the game doesnt sell well.After all those damn pirates are funding drugs AND terrorism AND undermining our rights and freedoms by helping terrorists who sell drugs and commit acts of terrorism.
While on drugs.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28720133</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28725717</id>
	<title>Re:Why isn't anyone asking the REAL question?</title>
	<author>burris</author>
	<datestamp>1247760480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Games, movies, and songs aren't fungible.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Games , movies , and songs are n't fungible .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Games, movies, and songs aren't fungible.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28721449</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28722291</id>
	<title>Re:They can stop it: Installs locked to hardware.</title>
	<author>McKeegan</author>
	<datestamp>1247736780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm sure Blockbuster, GameFly, and other game-rental companies would do everything in their power to prevent a company from doing this.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm sure Blockbuster , GameFly , and other game-rental companies would do everything in their power to prevent a company from doing this .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm sure Blockbuster, GameFly, and other game-rental companies would do everything in their power to prevent a company from doing this.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28720025</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28735767</id>
	<title>Re:You're doing it wrong.</title>
	<author>hanako</author>
	<datestamp>1247829960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>Until developers have access to time machines, retail price of a game will NOT affect the development process. </i>
<p>
I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. The intended retail price DOES affect the development process. Video games are generally NOT built from scratch, completed, and handed to a marketing department which then says "Gee, what should we sell this for?" Publishers can have profit projections of what they intend to sell the game for and how many sales they think they can get before production even STARTS.
</p><p>
Those projections affect how much budget the publisher is willing to put up for the game.
</p><p>
Can you make games an awful lot cheaper? Of course you can, I'm an indie, shoestring budgets are my living. And shoestring budget doesn't always mean the game's no fun. But it does mean you're not going to get fancy physics engines and photorealistic 3d. A big budget doesn't guarantee that a game's any good, but it means that the company had the opportunity to put more Kewl Stuff into it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Until developers have access to time machines , retail price of a game will NOT affect the development process .
I 'm not sure what you 're trying to say here .
The intended retail price DOES affect the development process .
Video games are generally NOT built from scratch , completed , and handed to a marketing department which then says " Gee , what should we sell this for ?
" Publishers can have profit projections of what they intend to sell the game for and how many sales they think they can get before production even STARTS .
Those projections affect how much budget the publisher is willing to put up for the game .
Can you make games an awful lot cheaper ?
Of course you can , I 'm an indie , shoestring budgets are my living .
And shoestring budget does n't always mean the game 's no fun .
But it does mean you 're not going to get fancy physics engines and photorealistic 3d .
A big budget does n't guarantee that a game 's any good , but it means that the company had the opportunity to put more Kewl Stuff into it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Until developers have access to time machines, retail price of a game will NOT affect the development process.
I'm not sure what you're trying to say here.
The intended retail price DOES affect the development process.
Video games are generally NOT built from scratch, completed, and handed to a marketing department which then says "Gee, what should we sell this for?
" Publishers can have profit projections of what they intend to sell the game for and how many sales they think they can get before production even STARTS.
Those projections affect how much budget the publisher is willing to put up for the game.
Can you make games an awful lot cheaper?
Of course you can, I'm an indie, shoestring budgets are my living.
And shoestring budget doesn't always mean the game's no fun.
But it does mean you're not going to get fancy physics engines and photorealistic 3d.
A big budget doesn't guarantee that a game's any good, but it means that the company had the opportunity to put more Kewl Stuff into it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28720595</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28725695</id>
	<title>I, as a game developer, feel insulted.</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1247760240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Developers do not equal distributors. And it's always the distributors who rant about such things.<br>Because they are doing it mainly for the money. While we do it mainly for the fame. (Or why do you think we endure the crappy situation in those companies?) And even a copied game from BitTorrent adds to your fame.</p><p>Ok, I'm the exception, because I see making games as a service. If you have done your service, and got what you deserved for it, the game is essentially free for all, and payment is optional. (You can't stop file sharing anyway, just as you can't stop ideas and rumors from spreading.)<br>Also, the games that will survive and end up in the history databases of tomorrow, will be those that you can actually save, because they weren't under such a tight grip that they got lost.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Developers do not equal distributors .
And it 's always the distributors who rant about such things.Because they are doing it mainly for the money .
While we do it mainly for the fame .
( Or why do you think we endure the crappy situation in those companies ?
) And even a copied game from BitTorrent adds to your fame.Ok , I 'm the exception , because I see making games as a service .
If you have done your service , and got what you deserved for it , the game is essentially free for all , and payment is optional .
( You ca n't stop file sharing anyway , just as you ca n't stop ideas and rumors from spreading .
) Also , the games that will survive and end up in the history databases of tomorrow , will be those that you can actually save , because they were n't under such a tight grip that they got lost .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Developers do not equal distributors.
And it's always the distributors who rant about such things.Because they are doing it mainly for the money.
While we do it mainly for the fame.
(Or why do you think we endure the crappy situation in those companies?
) And even a copied game from BitTorrent adds to your fame.Ok, I'm the exception, because I see making games as a service.
If you have done your service, and got what you deserved for it, the game is essentially free for all, and payment is optional.
(You can't stop file sharing anyway, just as you can't stop ideas and rumors from spreading.
)Also, the games that will survive and end up in the history databases of tomorrow, will be those that you can actually save, because they weren't under such a tight grip that they got lost.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28747697</id>
	<title>Predatory gamestop practices are the problem</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1248018600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>People that are trying to white knight used games sales seem to be under the impression that developers are attacking them.  The problem is not used game sales, but the practices of Gamestop.  Developers have no problems with Jim selling Bob her old game.  Instead they have a problem with their primary retail buyer discouraging the purchase of new games in exchange for resold games that make Gamestop more money.  If Gamestop had the same markup for used games as they did for new games they would not be so aggressive in trying to push the used games.  Gamestop is ripping off people that sell them used games.  If Gamestop pays someone $20 for a used game then turns around and sells it for $40, the person that sold them the used game could have sold it themselves for $40 via craigslist, etc.</p><p>People that sell to Gamestop have no ability to negotiate a fair price and are taken advantage of because of this.  They are no better than a pawn shop that has an air of legitimacy because of the small volume of new merchandise they sell.  Anyone that sells a used game to Gamestop is an idiot, and they are preying on this.</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp;</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>People that are trying to white knight used games sales seem to be under the impression that developers are attacking them .
The problem is not used game sales , but the practices of Gamestop .
Developers have no problems with Jim selling Bob her old game .
Instead they have a problem with their primary retail buyer discouraging the purchase of new games in exchange for resold games that make Gamestop more money .
If Gamestop had the same markup for used games as they did for new games they would not be so aggressive in trying to push the used games .
Gamestop is ripping off people that sell them used games .
If Gamestop pays someone $ 20 for a used game then turns around and sells it for $ 40 , the person that sold them the used game could have sold it themselves for $ 40 via craigslist , etc.People that sell to Gamestop have no ability to negotiate a fair price and are taken advantage of because of this .
They are no better than a pawn shop that has an air of legitimacy because of the small volume of new merchandise they sell .
Anyone that sells a used game to Gamestop is an idiot , and they are preying on this .
   </tokentext>
<sentencetext>People that are trying to white knight used games sales seem to be under the impression that developers are attacking them.
The problem is not used game sales, but the practices of Gamestop.
Developers have no problems with Jim selling Bob her old game.
Instead they have a problem with their primary retail buyer discouraging the purchase of new games in exchange for resold games that make Gamestop more money.
If Gamestop had the same markup for used games as they did for new games they would not be so aggressive in trying to push the used games.
Gamestop is ripping off people that sell them used games.
If Gamestop pays someone $20 for a used game then turns around and sells it for $40, the person that sold them the used game could have sold it themselves for $40 via craigslist, etc.People that sell to Gamestop have no ability to negotiate a fair price and are taken advantage of because of this.
They are no better than a pawn shop that has an air of legitimacy because of the small volume of new merchandise they sell.
Anyone that sells a used game to Gamestop is an idiot, and they are preying on this.
   </sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28723451</id>
	<title>Steam</title>
	<author>danieltdp</author>
	<datestamp>1247742060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>That's why I hate steam. Try yourself to sell a used game that is curently registered in your steam account (like Half Life 2)....</htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's why I hate steam .
Try yourself to sell a used game that is curently registered in your steam account ( like Half Life 2 ) ... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's why I hate steam.
Try yourself to sell a used game that is curently registered in your steam account (like Half Life 2)....</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28722517</id>
	<title>Re:Gamestop blows</title>
	<author>Quiet\_Desperation</author>
	<datestamp>1247737620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's still not bad, especially for new games. I commonly get a game two days after release for only $50 because someone bought it and returned it. It's in perfect condition and I save $10. The local store thrives, salaries are paid, sales taxes are collected. What's the downside again? And then I sell it back for $20 if I finish the game fast enough.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;-) Total cost $30 and no waiting for it to hit the bargain bin.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's still not bad , especially for new games .
I commonly get a game two days after release for only $ 50 because someone bought it and returned it .
It 's in perfect condition and I save $ 10 .
The local store thrives , salaries are paid , sales taxes are collected .
What 's the downside again ?
And then I sell it back for $ 20 if I finish the game fast enough .
; - ) Total cost $ 30 and no waiting for it to hit the bargain bin .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's still not bad, especially for new games.
I commonly get a game two days after release for only $50 because someone bought it and returned it.
It's in perfect condition and I save $10.
The local store thrives, salaries are paid, sales taxes are collected.
What's the downside again?
And then I sell it back for $20 if I finish the game fast enough.
;-) Total cost $30 and no waiting for it to hit the bargain bin.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28720477</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28723727</id>
	<title>Re:They can stop it: Installs locked to hardware.</title>
	<author>bami</author>
	<datestamp>1247743200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>That was the case with all the westwood games up till Command and Conquer Generals.<br>
The game was devided between two sides, each disc had one sides campaign on it (with all the movies and whatnot) and if you wanted a two player lan game, each person just used one of the discs.<br> <br>Great memories of endless nights of red alert skirmishes.</htmltext>
<tokenext>That was the case with all the westwood games up till Command and Conquer Generals .
The game was devided between two sides , each disc had one sides campaign on it ( with all the movies and whatnot ) and if you wanted a two player lan game , each person just used one of the discs .
Great memories of endless nights of red alert skirmishes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That was the case with all the westwood games up till Command and Conquer Generals.
The game was devided between two sides, each disc had one sides campaign on it (with all the movies and whatnot) and if you wanted a two player lan game, each person just used one of the discs.
Great memories of endless nights of red alert skirmishes.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28720285</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28729163</id>
	<title>Re:Great advertising for new versions!</title>
	<author>mcgrew</author>
	<datestamp>1247842740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Like most people, I have limited funds. On a given payday I may not have $60 to blow on a game, but I might have $30 (this would especially be true if I were a teenager with a part time job at McDonald's).</p><p>The right to resale is an old established one. People complain about the government wantint to take away our rights, but it seems to me that government is taking our rights away under their corporate overlords' orders.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Like most people , I have limited funds .
On a given payday I may not have $ 60 to blow on a game , but I might have $ 30 ( this would especially be true if I were a teenager with a part time job at McDonald 's ) .The right to resale is an old established one .
People complain about the government wantint to take away our rights , but it seems to me that government is taking our rights away under their corporate overlords ' orders .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Like most people, I have limited funds.
On a given payday I may not have $60 to blow on a game, but I might have $30 (this would especially be true if I were a teenager with a part time job at McDonald's).The right to resale is an old established one.
People complain about the government wantint to take away our rights, but it seems to me that government is taking our rights away under their corporate overlords' orders.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28721059</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28723121</id>
	<title>New games, new consoles = waste of money</title>
	<author>norite</author>
	<datestamp>1247740500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The last PC game I bought was Half Life 2. Unfortunately in order to play it, i needed to have a 'steam' account and an active internet connection. Worse, this game was locked to the account and I couldn't sell it or or even give it away. So I never bought another PC game...game over as far as I was concerned<p>
I bought a broken xbox360 (RROD) console off fleabay really cheaply, fixed it up using a heatgun and the Team HYBRID x-clamp fix. I've got about half a dozen games for it now, (e.g. Bioshock, GoW, GoW 2, Assasin, Lego Indiana Jones) ALL of them are pre-owned. I have absolutely no intention of ever buying a new game. Why? They are too expensive, and frankly *not* worth the money new. They need to halve the price of new games before I'll consider buying a new game. Same with the xbox 360. Why waste money a new xbox360 for &pound;170 when it will break after a year, when you can get a broken one off eBay for &pound;35 including postage, fix it in a couple of hours and for minimal cost? I do not have a live gold account, as I have no intention of playing online - why should I pay? To play online with the wii costs nothing. </p><p> Best thing about this, Microsoft haven't received a penny off me. So what are they gonna do, try and stop people reselling their poorly designed crappy little consoles? Haha I'd like to see them try...<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)

</p><p> To game developers out there who may be reading this: LOWER YOUR PRICES. You charge too much. The fact that pre-owned games are selling so well is symptomatic of this, so wise up, what you are seeing is a market correction<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The last PC game I bought was Half Life 2 .
Unfortunately in order to play it , i needed to have a 'steam ' account and an active internet connection .
Worse , this game was locked to the account and I could n't sell it or or even give it away .
So I never bought another PC game...game over as far as I was concerned I bought a broken xbox360 ( RROD ) console off fleabay really cheaply , fixed it up using a heatgun and the Team HYBRID x-clamp fix .
I 've got about half a dozen games for it now , ( e.g .
Bioshock , GoW , GoW 2 , Assasin , Lego Indiana Jones ) ALL of them are pre-owned .
I have absolutely no intention of ever buying a new game .
Why ? They are too expensive , and frankly * not * worth the money new .
They need to halve the price of new games before I 'll consider buying a new game .
Same with the xbox 360 .
Why waste money a new xbox360 for   170 when it will break after a year , when you can get a broken one off eBay for   35 including postage , fix it in a couple of hours and for minimal cost ?
I do not have a live gold account , as I have no intention of playing online - why should I pay ?
To play online with the wii costs nothing .
Best thing about this , Microsoft have n't received a penny off me .
So what are they gon na do , try and stop people reselling their poorly designed crappy little consoles ?
Haha I 'd like to see them try... ; ) To game developers out there who may be reading this : LOWER YOUR PRICES .
You charge too much .
The fact that pre-owned games are selling so well is symptomatic of this , so wise up , what you are seeing is a market correction ; )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The last PC game I bought was Half Life 2.
Unfortunately in order to play it, i needed to have a 'steam' account and an active internet connection.
Worse, this game was locked to the account and I couldn't sell it or or even give it away.
So I never bought another PC game...game over as far as I was concerned
I bought a broken xbox360 (RROD) console off fleabay really cheaply, fixed it up using a heatgun and the Team HYBRID x-clamp fix.
I've got about half a dozen games for it now, (e.g.
Bioshock, GoW, GoW 2, Assasin, Lego Indiana Jones) ALL of them are pre-owned.
I have absolutely no intention of ever buying a new game.
Why? They are too expensive, and frankly *not* worth the money new.
They need to halve the price of new games before I'll consider buying a new game.
Same with the xbox 360.
Why waste money a new xbox360 for £170 when it will break after a year, when you can get a broken one off eBay for £35 including postage, fix it in a couple of hours and for minimal cost?
I do not have a live gold account, as I have no intention of playing online - why should I pay?
To play online with the wii costs nothing.
Best thing about this, Microsoft haven't received a penny off me.
So what are they gonna do, try and stop people reselling their poorly designed crappy little consoles?
Haha I'd like to see them try... ;)

 To game developers out there who may be reading this: LOWER YOUR PRICES.
You charge too much.
The fact that pre-owned games are selling so well is symptomatic of this, so wise up, what you are seeing is a market correction ;)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28725911</id>
	<title>hmm</title>
	<author>smash</author>
	<datestamp>1247762580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If they made games with a half-decent amount of gameplay time and replay value, people might be more inclined to hang onto them.
<p>
This is *no different* to people selling used CDs or DVDs... or books...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If they made games with a half-decent amount of gameplay time and replay value , people might be more inclined to hang onto them .
This is * no different * to people selling used CDs or DVDs... or books.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If they made games with a half-decent amount of gameplay time and replay value, people might be more inclined to hang onto them.
This is *no different* to people selling used CDs or DVDs... or books...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28723461</id>
	<title>Re:Great advertising for new versions!</title>
	<author>lennier</author>
	<datestamp>1247742120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is your act of terrorism. (Boom!)<br>This is your act of terrorism on drugs. (Wheee! Sploink. Moo?! )</p><p>Any questions?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is your act of terrorism .
( Boom ! ) This is your act of terrorism on drugs .
( Wheee ! Sploink .
Moo ? ! ) Any questions ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is your act of terrorism.
(Boom!)This is your act of terrorism on drugs.
(Wheee! Sploink.
Moo?! )Any questions?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28721333</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28720913</id>
	<title>Re:Developers need to do the math</title>
	<author>WankersRevenge</author>
	<datestamp>1247774520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>eh<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... while your analysis is reasonable, it is missing a key point.  Gamestop buys a new game for $20, then resell the game for $55.  I believe game developers are mad at gamestop for essentially stepping in and taking a sale.  In fact, if you track Gamestop used prices, you tend to find the used copy only $5 dollars cheaper than the new version.</p><p>Personally, I think games are way to expensive.  I just can't justify spending $60 for a game unless I'm absolutely sure about it.  I used to buy at least six games a year new, but at the sixty dollar price point, I average about two a year. Now I wait for games to sink like a rock.  Usually when the price point is less that thirty bucks, the game becomes more of an impulse purchase and then I like to buy them new.</p><p>The thing I don't understand is that films with rival budgets often retail at $20 bucks on dvd.  What makes games so different?  Seriously, if new games hit the market at thirty dollars a pop, I believe a large portion of the second hand market would dry up.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>eh ... while your analysis is reasonable , it is missing a key point .
Gamestop buys a new game for $ 20 , then resell the game for $ 55 .
I believe game developers are mad at gamestop for essentially stepping in and taking a sale .
In fact , if you track Gamestop used prices , you tend to find the used copy only $ 5 dollars cheaper than the new version.Personally , I think games are way to expensive .
I just ca n't justify spending $ 60 for a game unless I 'm absolutely sure about it .
I used to buy at least six games a year new , but at the sixty dollar price point , I average about two a year .
Now I wait for games to sink like a rock .
Usually when the price point is less that thirty bucks , the game becomes more of an impulse purchase and then I like to buy them new.The thing I do n't understand is that films with rival budgets often retail at $ 20 bucks on dvd .
What makes games so different ?
Seriously , if new games hit the market at thirty dollars a pop , I believe a large portion of the second hand market would dry up .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>eh ... while your analysis is reasonable, it is missing a key point.
Gamestop buys a new game for $20, then resell the game for $55.
I believe game developers are mad at gamestop for essentially stepping in and taking a sale.
In fact, if you track Gamestop used prices, you tend to find the used copy only $5 dollars cheaper than the new version.Personally, I think games are way to expensive.
I just can't justify spending $60 for a game unless I'm absolutely sure about it.
I used to buy at least six games a year new, but at the sixty dollar price point, I average about two a year.
Now I wait for games to sink like a rock.
Usually when the price point is less that thirty bucks, the game becomes more of an impulse purchase and then I like to buy them new.The thing I don't understand is that films with rival budgets often retail at $20 bucks on dvd.
What makes games so different?
Seriously, if new games hit the market at thirty dollars a pop, I believe a large portion of the second hand market would dry up.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28720301</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28722349</id>
	<title>Re:Gamestop blows</title>
	<author>BJ\_Covert\_Action</author>
	<datestamp>1247736960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's funny, I say the exact same thing about textbook stores for college text books but have to add a 0 to the end of the first and last prices mentioned.
<br> <br>
Offtopic I know, but video games aren't the only form of 'intellectual property' that is being used to certifiably rape the consumer base.
<br> <br>
Craigslist, I swear my loyalty to you.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's funny , I say the exact same thing about textbook stores for college text books but have to add a 0 to the end of the first and last prices mentioned .
Offtopic I know , but video games are n't the only form of 'intellectual property ' that is being used to certifiably rape the consumer base .
Craigslist , I swear my loyalty to you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's funny, I say the exact same thing about textbook stores for college text books but have to add a 0 to the end of the first and last prices mentioned.
Offtopic I know, but video games aren't the only form of 'intellectual property' that is being used to certifiably rape the consumer base.
Craigslist, I swear my loyalty to you.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28720477</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28743687</id>
	<title>Re:Early online play is key</title>
	<author>PopeRatzo</author>
	<datestamp>1247913780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>The only problem I see here is that me and my friends will whoop your ass at L4D</p></div></blockquote><p>Look, if that's what it takes for you to feel like somebody, <i>god bless you</i>, you're welcome to whoop my ass at L4D.</p><p>Seriously, I don't play many online games because most people can whoop my ass.  If I'm going to play online, I'll do it with friends, or at servers where there's a broad spectrum of player levels.</p><p>It's the main weakness of online games:  there's always going to be some loser who's got nothing else to do but become the greatest Unreal player in the world and he's going to make it unpleasant for those of us who aren't so good.  I love to play good video games, but I just don't have the time to spend becoming great.  And, I'd be concerned if I <i>did</i> have the time.  After all, I've got to have some time to play ukulele, too.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The only problem I see here is that me and my friends will whoop your ass at L4DLook , if that 's what it takes for you to feel like somebody , god bless you , you 're welcome to whoop my ass at L4D.Seriously , I do n't play many online games because most people can whoop my ass .
If I 'm going to play online , I 'll do it with friends , or at servers where there 's a broad spectrum of player levels.It 's the main weakness of online games : there 's always going to be some loser who 's got nothing else to do but become the greatest Unreal player in the world and he 's going to make it unpleasant for those of us who are n't so good .
I love to play good video games , but I just do n't have the time to spend becoming great .
And , I 'd be concerned if I did have the time .
After all , I 've got to have some time to play ukulele , too .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The only problem I see here is that me and my friends will whoop your ass at L4DLook, if that's what it takes for you to feel like somebody, god bless you, you're welcome to whoop my ass at L4D.Seriously, I don't play many online games because most people can whoop my ass.
If I'm going to play online, I'll do it with friends, or at servers where there's a broad spectrum of player levels.It's the main weakness of online games:  there's always going to be some loser who's got nothing else to do but become the greatest Unreal player in the world and he's going to make it unpleasant for those of us who aren't so good.
I love to play good video games, but I just don't have the time to spend becoming great.
And, I'd be concerned if I did have the time.
After all, I've got to have some time to play ukulele, too.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28721907</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28720569</id>
	<title>I hate the used games.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247773080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I've said it before and I'll say it again. Anyone who buys used games from Gamestop and their ilk is a sap. Anyone who believes they're sticking it to developers and publishers by doing so is an even bigger sap. Used games from these retailers is one of the biggest sucker deals I've seen in years, $5 to $10 off games with battered, dirty cases, missing instruction manuals and worn, scratched discs. Even more ridiculous is how little they offer customers for used games.</p><p>I can't count the times I've seen used games at Gamestop going for more than a new copy at Target. If you're a truly discerning shopper concerned with saving money you'd go online where the best deals, by far, can be had. I don't think waiting a couple of days for delivery is going to kill anyone.</p><p>This is not to say I have some kind of problem with used games. Not at all. But if you're buying used games for a deal, which I presume most people are, then you should be shopping on eBay because that's one of the few days to find a good deal. And even better option is to just the game.</p><p>But the fact is that there are such good deals to be had online that there's virtually no good reason to buy a used game. Even new games can be had for about $5 off, at least, which is how much Gamestop is charging for the same game used. The way I see it, if a person is so impatient that they have to have a game immediately then they really aren't all that serious about saving money. If I don't think a new game is worth $60 then I don't buy it. I wait until prices have dropped.</p><p>The only people being screwed by used game sales are the consumers themselves but only because they allow themselves to be screwed. I remember as a kid collecting a bunch of old Atari 2600 games we had laying around and taking them to various pawn shops to make a few bucks to that in turn I could buy some Sega Master System games. I went from shop to shop trying to find a good deal, but in the end I gave up a decent number of good Atari games to end up with a single, average SMS game. Live and learn.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've said it before and I 'll say it again .
Anyone who buys used games from Gamestop and their ilk is a sap .
Anyone who believes they 're sticking it to developers and publishers by doing so is an even bigger sap .
Used games from these retailers is one of the biggest sucker deals I 've seen in years , $ 5 to $ 10 off games with battered , dirty cases , missing instruction manuals and worn , scratched discs .
Even more ridiculous is how little they offer customers for used games.I ca n't count the times I 've seen used games at Gamestop going for more than a new copy at Target .
If you 're a truly discerning shopper concerned with saving money you 'd go online where the best deals , by far , can be had .
I do n't think waiting a couple of days for delivery is going to kill anyone.This is not to say I have some kind of problem with used games .
Not at all .
But if you 're buying used games for a deal , which I presume most people are , then you should be shopping on eBay because that 's one of the few days to find a good deal .
And even better option is to just the game.But the fact is that there are such good deals to be had online that there 's virtually no good reason to buy a used game .
Even new games can be had for about $ 5 off , at least , which is how much Gamestop is charging for the same game used .
The way I see it , if a person is so impatient that they have to have a game immediately then they really are n't all that serious about saving money .
If I do n't think a new game is worth $ 60 then I do n't buy it .
I wait until prices have dropped.The only people being screwed by used game sales are the consumers themselves but only because they allow themselves to be screwed .
I remember as a kid collecting a bunch of old Atari 2600 games we had laying around and taking them to various pawn shops to make a few bucks to that in turn I could buy some Sega Master System games .
I went from shop to shop trying to find a good deal , but in the end I gave up a decent number of good Atari games to end up with a single , average SMS game .
Live and learn .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've said it before and I'll say it again.
Anyone who buys used games from Gamestop and their ilk is a sap.
Anyone who believes they're sticking it to developers and publishers by doing so is an even bigger sap.
Used games from these retailers is one of the biggest sucker deals I've seen in years, $5 to $10 off games with battered, dirty cases, missing instruction manuals and worn, scratched discs.
Even more ridiculous is how little they offer customers for used games.I can't count the times I've seen used games at Gamestop going for more than a new copy at Target.
If you're a truly discerning shopper concerned with saving money you'd go online where the best deals, by far, can be had.
I don't think waiting a couple of days for delivery is going to kill anyone.This is not to say I have some kind of problem with used games.
Not at all.
But if you're buying used games for a deal, which I presume most people are, then you should be shopping on eBay because that's one of the few days to find a good deal.
And even better option is to just the game.But the fact is that there are such good deals to be had online that there's virtually no good reason to buy a used game.
Even new games can be had for about $5 off, at least, which is how much Gamestop is charging for the same game used.
The way I see it, if a person is so impatient that they have to have a game immediately then they really aren't all that serious about saving money.
If I don't think a new game is worth $60 then I don't buy it.
I wait until prices have dropped.The only people being screwed by used game sales are the consumers themselves but only because they allow themselves to be screwed.
I remember as a kid collecting a bunch of old Atari 2600 games we had laying around and taking them to various pawn shops to make a few bucks to that in turn I could buy some Sega Master System games.
I went from shop to shop trying to find a good deal, but in the end I gave up a decent number of good Atari games to end up with a single, average SMS game.
Live and learn.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28730015</id>
	<title>Re:Great advertising for new versions!</title>
	<author>mcgrew</author>
	<datestamp>1247846340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>in real life capitalism doesn't work like Economics 101</i></p><p>It doesn't even work like economics 404, or even graduate level. Economics isn't science. If it were, there would be no poverty. For instance, there is plenty of food on this planet, enough to feed everyone. Only greed and politics and economics keep people hungry.</p><p>In corporate business, there is no enlightened self interest. There is only self interest. Corporations have no morals nor conscience.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>in real life capitalism does n't work like Economics 101It does n't even work like economics 404 , or even graduate level .
Economics is n't science .
If it were , there would be no poverty .
For instance , there is plenty of food on this planet , enough to feed everyone .
Only greed and politics and economics keep people hungry.In corporate business , there is no enlightened self interest .
There is only self interest .
Corporations have no morals nor conscience .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>in real life capitalism doesn't work like Economics 101It doesn't even work like economics 404, or even graduate level.
Economics isn't science.
If it were, there would be no poverty.
For instance, there is plenty of food on this planet, enough to feed everyone.
Only greed and politics and economics keep people hungry.In corporate business, there is no enlightened self interest.
There is only self interest.
Corporations have no morals nor conscience.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28723017</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28722775</id>
	<title>Re:Gamestop blows</title>
	<author>ummcdou4</author>
	<datestamp>1247739000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As long as both people are getting what they want, with full information, no one is getting 'ripped off'.</p><p>Consenting adults and all that.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As long as both people are getting what they want , with full information , no one is getting 'ripped off'.Consenting adults and all that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As long as both people are getting what they want, with full information, no one is getting 'ripped off'.Consenting adults and all that.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28720477</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1721215_78</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28720075
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28721449
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28725653
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1721215_69</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28720007
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28720193
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28721363
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28722957
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1721215_72</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28720163
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28723641
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1721215_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28720025
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28720343
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1721215_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28720007
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28720133
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28721333
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28721911
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28723633
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1721215_97</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28720237
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28720447
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1721215_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28720007
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28720193
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28721363
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28723677
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1721215_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28720075
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28720305
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1721215_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28720007
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28720193
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28721363
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28722719
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1721215_103</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28720007
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28720193
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28721363
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28784001
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1721215_96</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28720075
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28721285
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1721215_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28720237
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28720757
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1721215_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28720477
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28721009
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1721215_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28720075
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28721449
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28725709
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1721215_64</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28720237
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28720595
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28735767
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1721215_89</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28720237
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28720377
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1721215_80</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28721249
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28723769
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28728959
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1721215_71</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28720025
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28722199
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1721215_67</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28720075
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28720717
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1721215_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28720569
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28722867
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1721215_70</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28720237
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28720623
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1721215_61</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28720025
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28720109
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1721215_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28720075
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28721449
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28743975
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1721215_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28720007
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28720133
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28721333
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28721911
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28725619
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1721215_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28720007
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28720193
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28721363
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28723319
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1721215_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28720007
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28720133
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28721527
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1721215_95</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28720075
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28721033
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1721215_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28720301
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28720913
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28721747
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1721215_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28720075
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28730079
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1721215_101</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28720007
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28720133
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28725583
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1721215_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28720007
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28720133
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28723145
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1721215_86</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28720007
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28720133
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28721059
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28726505
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1721215_59</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28720301
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28722289
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1721215_62</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28720007
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28720133
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28724053
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28729627
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1721215_90</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28720007
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28720133
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28721059
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28727647
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1721215_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28720301
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28720913
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28721717
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1721215_76</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28720075
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28721449
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28754687
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1721215_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28720007
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28720133
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28721333
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28725289
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1721215_83</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28720007
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28720133
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28721333
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28723167
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28727057
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1721215_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28720007
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28720133
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28721333
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28728927
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1721215_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28720163
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28720413
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1721215_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28720007
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28720193
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28721043
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28721973
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28732031
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1721215_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28720007
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28720133
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28721333
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28728257
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1721215_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28720075
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28721087
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1721215_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28720007
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28720193
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28721043
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28721973
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28726285
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1721215_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28720007
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28720133
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28722989
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28746297
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1721215_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28720007
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28720193
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28721363
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28721907
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28743687
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1721215_84</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28720477
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28722349
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1721215_75</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28720569
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28722311
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1721215_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28721249
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28724335
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1721215_74</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28720075
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28722639
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1721215_65</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28720075
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28720727
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1721215_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28720153
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28723859
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1721215_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28720007
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28720133
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28721333
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28725297
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1721215_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28720007
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28720133
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28721333
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28721911
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28723017
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28730015
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1721215_81</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28720361
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28720863
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1721215_99</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28720075
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28720957
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1721215_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28720007
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28720193
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28721043
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28722007
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1721215_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28720025
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28720285
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28723727
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1721215_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28720025
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28722291
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1721215_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28720075
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28721449
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28725973
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1721215_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28721249
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28725725
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1721215_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28720477
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28721743
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1721215_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28720477
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28722775
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1721215_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28720815
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28721229
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1721215_94</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28720569
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28721383
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1721215_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28720007
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28720193
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28721043
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28721973
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28725377
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1721215_68</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28721249
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28727521
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1721215_100</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28720029
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28722919
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1721215_102</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28720075
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28721883
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1721215_73</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28720029
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28720257
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1721215_87</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28720163
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28720395
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1721215_58</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28720301
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28721143
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1721215_63</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28720075
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28721449
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28725717
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1721215_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28720075
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28721449
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28725921
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1721215_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28720007
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28720133
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28721333
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28723461
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1721215_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28720007
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28720193
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28721363
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28723079
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1721215_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28720007
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28720193
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28721363
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28725409
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1721215_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28720477
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28722517
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1721215_93</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28720153
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28723861
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1721215_88</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28720815
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28721071
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1721215_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28720007
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28720133
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28721333
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28721911
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28723017
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28729297
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1721215_92</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28721249
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28722411
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28723517
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28778039
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1721215_66</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28720075
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28720867
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1721215_57</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28722219
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28725205
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1721215_60</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28720163
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28722009
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28729131
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1721215_85</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28720075
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28720935
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1721215_56</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28721249
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28722407
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1721215_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28720007
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28720133
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28724053
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28730547
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1721215_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28720007
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28720133
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28724315
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1721215_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28720075
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28720621
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28721459
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28722235
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1721215_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28720025
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28720625
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1721215_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28720007
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28720133
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28721059
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28729163
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1721215_98</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28720153
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28724067
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1721215_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28720007
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28720193
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28721363
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28727517
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1721215_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28720301
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28720905
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1721215_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28720007
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28720193
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28721363
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28726409
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1721215_91</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28720025
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28720429
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1721215_77</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28720301
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28723691
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1721215_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28720165
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28720609
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1721215_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28720477
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28723179
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1721215_79</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28720007
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28720133
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28724421
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1721215_82</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28720569
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28721047
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_16_1721215_55</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28720301
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28723301
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_16_1721215.27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28720353
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_16_1721215.25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28720029
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28720257
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28722919
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_16_1721215.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28720815
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28721229
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28721071
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_16_1721215.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28720165
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28720609
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_16_1721215.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28720025
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28722291
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28720343
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28720625
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28722199
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28720109
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28720285
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28723727
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28720429
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_16_1721215.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28720075
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28720867
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28721285
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28721883
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28720305
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28720957
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28720935
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28720717
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28720727
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28722639
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28720621
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28721459
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28722235
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28730079
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28721033
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28721449
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28743975
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28725653
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28725717
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28725921
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28725973
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28754687
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28725709
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28721087
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_16_1721215.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28722737
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_16_1721215.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28720179
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_16_1721215.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28720517
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_16_1721215.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28720007
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28720133
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28721527
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28722989
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28746297
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28721059
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28726505
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28727647
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28729163
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28724421
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28723145
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28725583
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28724053
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28729627
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28730547
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28721333
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28725289
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28723167
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28727057
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28728257
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28723461
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28725297
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28721911
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28723017
-----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28729297
-----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28730015
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28725619
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28723633
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28728927
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28724315
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28720193
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28721043
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28722007
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28721973
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28732031
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28725377
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28726285
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28721363
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28727517
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28725409
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28726409
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28723677
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28722719
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28722957
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28723079
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28723319
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28721907
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28743687
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28784001
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_16_1721215.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28720947
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_16_1721215.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28722987
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_16_1721215.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28720487
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_16_1721215.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28720477
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28722349
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28723179
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28721009
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28722517
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28721743
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28722775
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_16_1721215.28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28721615
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_16_1721215.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28721345
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_16_1721215.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28720569
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28721383
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28722867
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28722311
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28721047
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_16_1721215.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28720505
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_16_1721215.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28721249
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28725725
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28723769
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28728959
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28722411
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28723517
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28778039
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28724335
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28722407
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28727521
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_16_1721215.29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28722219
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28725205
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_16_1721215.22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28720301
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28723301
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28720913
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28721717
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28721747
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28721143
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28723691
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28720905
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28722289
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_16_1721215.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28722147
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_16_1721215.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28723121
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_16_1721215.20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28720273
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_16_1721215.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28720237
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28720447
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28720377
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28720757
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28720595
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28735767
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28720623
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_16_1721215.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28722605
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_16_1721215.23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28720163
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28720413
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28723641
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28720395
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28722009
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28729131
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_16_1721215.26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28720361
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28720863
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_16_1721215.21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28720153
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28724067
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28723861
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28723859
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_16_1721215.24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_16_1721215.28721705
</commentlist>
</conversation>
