<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_01_06_0456202</id>
	<title>EA Shutting Down Video Game Servers Prematurely</title>
	<author>Soulskill</author>
	<datestamp>1262778120000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>Spacezilla writes <i>"EA is dropping the bomb on a number of their video game servers, shutting down the online fun for many of their Xbox 360, PC and PlayStation 3 games. Not only is the inclusion of PS3 and Xbox 360 titles odd, <a href="http://www.playstationuniversity.com/ea-shuts-down-video-game-servers-prematurely-1846/">the date the games were released is even more surprising</a>. Yes, <em>Madden 07</em> and <em>08</em> are included in the shutdown... but <em>Madden 09</em> on all consoles as well?"</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>Spacezilla writes " EA is dropping the bomb on a number of their video game servers , shutting down the online fun for many of their Xbox 360 , PC and PlayStation 3 games .
Not only is the inclusion of PS3 and Xbox 360 titles odd , the date the games were released is even more surprising .
Yes , Madden 07 and 08 are included in the shutdown... but Madden 09 on all consoles as well ?
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Spacezilla writes "EA is dropping the bomb on a number of their video game servers, shutting down the online fun for many of their Xbox 360, PC and PlayStation 3 games.
Not only is the inclusion of PS3 and Xbox 360 titles odd, the date the games were released is even more surprising.
Yes, Madden 07 and 08 are included in the shutdown... but Madden 09 on all consoles as well?
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0456202.30668546</id>
	<title>Re:No surprise there</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262787960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Consumers need to demand the ability to run private game servers. Then boycott. If your going to boycott something you should tell they company why you are doing so, I would encourage everyone who is pissed of about this to contact EA prior to the boycott.</p><p>They will listen when they see the market drop. Just because they ignore complaint emails now doesn't mean they will continue to do so when they notice their falling profit line..</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Consumers need to demand the ability to run private game servers .
Then boycott .
If your going to boycott something you should tell they company why you are doing so , I would encourage everyone who is pissed of about this to contact EA prior to the boycott.They will listen when they see the market drop .
Just because they ignore complaint emails now does n't mean they will continue to do so when they notice their falling profit line. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Consumers need to demand the ability to run private game servers.
Then boycott.
If your going to boycott something you should tell they company why you are doing so, I would encourage everyone who is pissed of about this to contact EA prior to the boycott.They will listen when they see the market drop.
Just because they ignore complaint emails now doesn't mean they will continue to do so when they notice their falling profit line..</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0456202.30668166</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0456202.30670706</id>
	<title>Re:2009 was last year, move with the times</title>
	<author>SlothDead</author>
	<datestamp>1262797980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Oh, you mean that the year in the title isn't the release date, it's the expiry date?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Oh , you mean that the year in the title is n't the release date , it 's the expiry date ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oh, you mean that the year in the title isn't the release date, it's the expiry date?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0456202.30667892</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0456202.30675216</id>
	<title>Why is this surprising?</title>
	<author>frank\_adrian314159</author>
	<datestamp>1262773920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>... but Madden 09 on all consoles as well?</i> </p><p>They need to sell Madden '10 somehow.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>... but Madden 09 on all consoles as well ?
They need to sell Madden '10 somehow .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... but Madden 09 on all consoles as well?
They need to sell Madden '10 somehow.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0456202.30677114</id>
	<title>Re:Box</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262783700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Blizzard released its last patch for Starcraft eleven years after release, and they have no sign of shutting multiplayer down.</p></div><p>Well, I WILL rain on your Blizzard parade:</p><p>All 3 of those games can be played multiplayer on an isolated LAN. Why? Because the games have their own built-in server code and don't NEED to run through a central server. You will be able to play those games multiplayer until the stars burn out no matter what Blizzard does in the future. So your statements about Blizzard showing "no signs" of "shutting multiplayer down" are irrelevant.</p><p>Starcraft 2, however, will require a connection to the internet and the Blizzard Battlenet servers for any multiplayer mode. As far as I know they have not announced the timeline for keeping the server active but once they decide to shut them down, there will be no more multiplayer unless someone releases a 'black market' server replacement. From what I've heard Diablo 3 will follow this same model.</p><p>So to answer your question- they will pull the multiplayer support whenever they feel they are no longer making enough money off the game sales. It costs them to keep those servers up, so as long as they are keeping expansions coming they'll keep the servers active. I would personally expect at least 3 years, but at this point even Blizzard does not know how long they will keep them going.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Blizzard released its last patch for Starcraft eleven years after release , and they have no sign of shutting multiplayer down.Well , I WILL rain on your Blizzard parade : All 3 of those games can be played multiplayer on an isolated LAN .
Why ? Because the games have their own built-in server code and do n't NEED to run through a central server .
You will be able to play those games multiplayer until the stars burn out no matter what Blizzard does in the future .
So your statements about Blizzard showing " no signs " of " shutting multiplayer down " are irrelevant.Starcraft 2 , however , will require a connection to the internet and the Blizzard Battlenet servers for any multiplayer mode .
As far as I know they have not announced the timeline for keeping the server active but once they decide to shut them down , there will be no more multiplayer unless someone releases a 'black market ' server replacement .
From what I 've heard Diablo 3 will follow this same model.So to answer your question- they will pull the multiplayer support whenever they feel they are no longer making enough money off the game sales .
It costs them to keep those servers up , so as long as they are keeping expansions coming they 'll keep the servers active .
I would personally expect at least 3 years , but at this point even Blizzard does not know how long they will keep them going .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Blizzard released its last patch for Starcraft eleven years after release, and they have no sign of shutting multiplayer down.Well, I WILL rain on your Blizzard parade:All 3 of those games can be played multiplayer on an isolated LAN.
Why? Because the games have their own built-in server code and don't NEED to run through a central server.
You will be able to play those games multiplayer until the stars burn out no matter what Blizzard does in the future.
So your statements about Blizzard showing "no signs" of "shutting multiplayer down" are irrelevant.Starcraft 2, however, will require a connection to the internet and the Blizzard Battlenet servers for any multiplayer mode.
As far as I know they have not announced the timeline for keeping the server active but once they decide to shut them down, there will be no more multiplayer unless someone releases a 'black market' server replacement.
From what I've heard Diablo 3 will follow this same model.So to answer your question- they will pull the multiplayer support whenever they feel they are no longer making enough money off the game sales.
It costs them to keep those servers up, so as long as they are keeping expansions coming they'll keep the servers active.
I would personally expect at least 3 years, but at this point even Blizzard does not know how long they will keep them going.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0456202.30668860</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0456202.30671122</id>
	<title>Re:What Happened?</title>
	<author>lymond01</author>
	<datestamp>1262799600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>On the PS3:</p><p>Medal of Honor<br>Crysis<br>Dead Space<br>Dragon Age (aaaaawesome)<br>Brutal Legend (not awesome)<br>Army of Two<br>Rock Band<br>Command and Conquer<br>Lord of the Rings (including the very awesome Battle for Middle Earth series for PC)</p><p>But those games you mentioned: Skyfox, Racing Destruction Set, Bard's Tale -- those were critical pieces of my childhood and I wouldn't be the gaming geek I am today without them.  Making a new Racing Destruction Set allowing the same 3/4 perspective plus first person or behind-the-car views with today's technology would be awesome.  Such a great game.  Bard's Tale lost me at the end of Bard's Tale 2 where you had to walk around a 1x1 building 7 times or something like that to open the door -- I had to look up how to do it the clues were so obscure.  Still a great series though.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>On the PS3 : Medal of HonorCrysisDead SpaceDragon Age ( aaaaawesome ) Brutal Legend ( not awesome ) Army of TwoRock BandCommand and ConquerLord of the Rings ( including the very awesome Battle for Middle Earth series for PC ) But those games you mentioned : Skyfox , Racing Destruction Set , Bard 's Tale -- those were critical pieces of my childhood and I would n't be the gaming geek I am today without them .
Making a new Racing Destruction Set allowing the same 3/4 perspective plus first person or behind-the-car views with today 's technology would be awesome .
Such a great game .
Bard 's Tale lost me at the end of Bard 's Tale 2 where you had to walk around a 1x1 building 7 times or something like that to open the door -- I had to look up how to do it the clues were so obscure .
Still a great series though .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>On the PS3:Medal of HonorCrysisDead SpaceDragon Age (aaaaawesome)Brutal Legend (not awesome)Army of TwoRock BandCommand and ConquerLord of the Rings (including the very awesome Battle for Middle Earth series for PC)But those games you mentioned: Skyfox, Racing Destruction Set, Bard's Tale -- those were critical pieces of my childhood and I wouldn't be the gaming geek I am today without them.
Making a new Racing Destruction Set allowing the same 3/4 perspective plus first person or behind-the-car views with today's technology would be awesome.
Such a great game.
Bard's Tale lost me at the end of Bard's Tale 2 where you had to walk around a 1x1 building 7 times or something like that to open the door -- I had to look up how to do it the clues were so obscure.
Still a great series though.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0456202.30668026</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0456202.30668252</id>
	<title>Money, Money, and Money.</title>
	<author>NoPantsJim</author>
	<datestamp>1262785620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>"Yes, Madden 07 and 08 are included in the shutdown... but Madden 09 on all consoles as well"
<br> <br>
The economy blows, so to the average guy, is it really worth $50 to upgrade to 10 or is 09 good enough as it is?
<br> <br>
It just boils down to money. Plain and simple. Not even the cost of running the servers, but forcing everyone that thought Madden 09 was just fine for their needs to go out and pickup Madden 10.</htmltext>
<tokenext>" Yes , Madden 07 and 08 are included in the shutdown... but Madden 09 on all consoles as well " The economy blows , so to the average guy , is it really worth $ 50 to upgrade to 10 or is 09 good enough as it is ?
It just boils down to money .
Plain and simple .
Not even the cost of running the servers , but forcing everyone that thought Madden 09 was just fine for their needs to go out and pickup Madden 10 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Yes, Madden 07 and 08 are included in the shutdown... but Madden 09 on all consoles as well"
 
The economy blows, so to the average guy, is it really worth $50 to upgrade to 10 or is 09 good enough as it is?
It just boils down to money.
Plain and simple.
Not even the cost of running the servers, but forcing everyone that thought Madden 09 was just fine for their needs to go out and pickup Madden 10.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0456202.30668176</id>
	<title>Re:Gamestop</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262785140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>EA execs must be circle-jerking right now. They hindered used games sales and forced customers to buy the newest update, all in one fell swoop. I find it hilarious, though. EA customers have to be the dumbest of the dumb.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>EA execs must be circle-jerking right now .
They hindered used games sales and forced customers to buy the newest update , all in one fell swoop .
I find it hilarious , though .
EA customers have to be the dumbest of the dumb .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>EA execs must be circle-jerking right now.
They hindered used games sales and forced customers to buy the newest update, all in one fell swoop.
I find it hilarious, though.
EA customers have to be the dumbest of the dumb.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0456202.30668088</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0456202.30672236</id>
	<title>Re:Do without football</title>
	<author>mrdoogee</author>
	<datestamp>1262803920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>[citation needed]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>[ citation needed ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>[citation needed]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0456202.30669484</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0456202.30669076</id>
	<title>Re:2009 was last year, move with the times</title>
	<author>Thansal</author>
	<datestamp>1262791260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is really all kinds of awesome.  Not only will they release a new (whatever sport) game every year, they will now shut down all but the latest for online play.  It is GENIUS I tell you!</p><p>What ever happened to EA's "We will stop being evil, we swear" thing they said a while back? I remember the followed it for a few months.  I guess they then realized that the vast majority of their customers are slack jawed idiots, not because they play sports games (as much as I find them uninteresting), but because will take whatever is dished out.</p><p>Admittedly, I guess I am a slack jawed idiot, because I still buy EA titles every so often...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is really all kinds of awesome .
Not only will they release a new ( whatever sport ) game every year , they will now shut down all but the latest for online play .
It is GENIUS I tell you ! What ever happened to EA 's " We will stop being evil , we swear " thing they said a while back ?
I remember the followed it for a few months .
I guess they then realized that the vast majority of their customers are slack jawed idiots , not because they play sports games ( as much as I find them uninteresting ) , but because will take whatever is dished out.Admittedly , I guess I am a slack jawed idiot , because I still buy EA titles every so often.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is really all kinds of awesome.
Not only will they release a new (whatever sport) game every year, they will now shut down all but the latest for online play.
It is GENIUS I tell you!What ever happened to EA's "We will stop being evil, we swear" thing they said a while back?
I remember the followed it for a few months.
I guess they then realized that the vast majority of their customers are slack jawed idiots, not because they play sports games (as much as I find them uninteresting), but because will take whatever is dished out.Admittedly, I guess I am a slack jawed idiot, because I still buy EA titles every so often...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0456202.30667892</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0456202.30667926</id>
	<title>Madden 0x10</title>
	<author>Pikoro</author>
	<datestamp>1262782560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Perhaps they will release the next version as Madden 0x10 so it will be good until 2016?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Perhaps they will release the next version as Madden 0x10 so it will be good until 2016 ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Perhaps they will release the next version as Madden 0x10 so it will be good until 2016?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0456202.30667884</id>
	<title>I, for one</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262782140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Find this maddening.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Find this maddening .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Find this maddening.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0456202.30669306</id>
	<title>Re:Do without football</title>
	<author>Stregano</author>
	<datestamp>1262792340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I agree with this.  Whether we like it or not, since EA holds the rights to NFL, if you want to play a NFL game, you have to play by EA's rules.
<br> <br>
When they shut down the servers for 09 and under, they want you to go and buy Madden 10 if you want to play online, which is going to be your only choice.
<br> <br>
Or EA could stop being stubborn with m$ and let m$ handle those servers since m$ did offer to do that for them way back in the day.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I agree with this .
Whether we like it or not , since EA holds the rights to NFL , if you want to play a NFL game , you have to play by EA 's rules .
When they shut down the servers for 09 and under , they want you to go and buy Madden 10 if you want to play online , which is going to be your only choice .
Or EA could stop being stubborn with m $ and let m $ handle those servers since m $ did offer to do that for them way back in the day .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I agree with this.
Whether we like it or not, since EA holds the rights to NFL, if you want to play a NFL game, you have to play by EA's rules.
When they shut down the servers for 09 and under, they want you to go and buy Madden 10 if you want to play online, which is going to be your only choice.
Or EA could stop being stubborn with m$ and let m$ handle those servers since m$ did offer to do that for them way back in the day.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0456202.30668324</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0456202.30668088</id>
	<title>Gamestop</title>
	<author>Culture20</author>
	<datestamp>1262784060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Suddenly, a lot of used games just lost some value.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Suddenly , a lot of used games just lost some value .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Suddenly, a lot of used games just lost some value.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0456202.30672384</id>
	<title>Re:2009 was last year, move with the times</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262804520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sorry to play the devil's advocate, but I think you're missing something here. Quake is played mainly by tech savvy computer geeks, or at the very least, people who might be able to set up their own server or have friends who play who can do that.</p><p>Madden '0x is played primarily by armchair quarterbacks, who likely have no idea how to set up any servers. It's not that nobody would set any up, it's about all the *support* calls they would get from those guys trying to do it themselves. Can you imagine that? Either the support lines would be clogged due to these calls or they'd have to hire a HUGE staff, which would cost a whole lot more than pissing off some customers who haven't upgraded yet.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sorry to play the devil 's advocate , but I think you 're missing something here .
Quake is played mainly by tech savvy computer geeks , or at the very least , people who might be able to set up their own server or have friends who play who can do that.Madden '0x is played primarily by armchair quarterbacks , who likely have no idea how to set up any servers .
It 's not that nobody would set any up , it 's about all the * support * calls they would get from those guys trying to do it themselves .
Can you imagine that ?
Either the support lines would be clogged due to these calls or they 'd have to hire a HUGE staff , which would cost a whole lot more than pissing off some customers who have n't upgraded yet .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sorry to play the devil's advocate, but I think you're missing something here.
Quake is played mainly by tech savvy computer geeks, or at the very least, people who might be able to set up their own server or have friends who play who can do that.Madden '0x is played primarily by armchair quarterbacks, who likely have no idea how to set up any servers.
It's not that nobody would set any up, it's about all the *support* calls they would get from those guys trying to do it themselves.
Can you imagine that?
Either the support lines would be clogged due to these calls or they'd have to hire a HUGE staff, which would cost a whole lot more than pissing off some customers who haven't upgraded yet.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0456202.30669344</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0456202.30669856</id>
	<title>Re:What Happened?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262795040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I loved bards tale and pinball construction set.  Two awesome games.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I loved bards tale and pinball construction set .
Two awesome games .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I loved bards tale and pinball construction set.
Two awesome games.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0456202.30668026</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0456202.30668624</id>
	<title>Re:And another reason why you don't buy EA...</title>
	<author>Jaysyn</author>
	<datestamp>1262788440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Hint: If you bought a couple of <b>multiplayer</b> EA games, that includes you. But at least you got a chance. ^^</p></div><p>TFTFY</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Hint : If you bought a couple of multiplayer EA games , that includes you .
But at least you got a chance .
^ ^ TFTFY</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hint: If you bought a couple of multiplayer EA games, that includes you.
But at least you got a chance.
^^TFTFY
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0456202.30668244</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0456202.30674854</id>
	<title>Re:What Happened?</title>
	<author>Carnildo</author>
	<datestamp>1262772360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>ECA was a great company.  Whatever happened to them?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>ECA was a great company .
Whatever happened to them ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>ECA was a great company.
Whatever happened to them?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0456202.30668026</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0456202.30669418</id>
	<title>Re:Some thoughts</title>
	<author>rwv</author>
	<datestamp>1262792880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>a longer term view eventually yeilds better returns</p></div><p>It's possible that this move is a long-term view and that it's actually an awesome business model.  What I think EA is saying is that they have the best sports games and other retailers are so far behind that there is no clear competitive threat.

</p><p>To that effect, they're right because the audio clip slogan that plays at the beginning "EA Sports.  It's in the game." is so ingrained in my head that I can't remember the last time I played a non-EA sports game.

</p><p>By bringing in a massive cash injection from 2010 sales they are poised to spend lots of money to make the 2012 titles that much better.  The only part that I'd wish they changed was charging $60 for a new game.  If they tacked on a "turn in your old game and get 50\% off" model (as a gamer, I own Tiger Wood 2009 for Wii, but can't justify getting TW 2010 even though it's significantly improved by Motion Plus technology) they'd simultaneously damage aftermarket sales and prop up new sales - but there's no evidence they're willing to pursue this strategy.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>a longer term view eventually yeilds better returnsIt 's possible that this move is a long-term view and that it 's actually an awesome business model .
What I think EA is saying is that they have the best sports games and other retailers are so far behind that there is no clear competitive threat .
To that effect , they 're right because the audio clip slogan that plays at the beginning " EA Sports .
It 's in the game .
" is so ingrained in my head that I ca n't remember the last time I played a non-EA sports game .
By bringing in a massive cash injection from 2010 sales they are poised to spend lots of money to make the 2012 titles that much better .
The only part that I 'd wish they changed was charging $ 60 for a new game .
If they tacked on a " turn in your old game and get 50 \ % off " model ( as a gamer , I own Tiger Wood 2009 for Wii , but ca n't justify getting TW 2010 even though it 's significantly improved by Motion Plus technology ) they 'd simultaneously damage aftermarket sales and prop up new sales - but there 's no evidence they 're willing to pursue this strategy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>a longer term view eventually yeilds better returnsIt's possible that this move is a long-term view and that it's actually an awesome business model.
What I think EA is saying is that they have the best sports games and other retailers are so far behind that there is no clear competitive threat.
To that effect, they're right because the audio clip slogan that plays at the beginning "EA Sports.
It's in the game.
" is so ingrained in my head that I can't remember the last time I played a non-EA sports game.
By bringing in a massive cash injection from 2010 sales they are poised to spend lots of money to make the 2012 titles that much better.
The only part that I'd wish they changed was charging $60 for a new game.
If they tacked on a "turn in your old game and get 50\% off" model (as a gamer, I own Tiger Wood 2009 for Wii, but can't justify getting TW 2010 even though it's significantly improved by Motion Plus technology) they'd simultaneously damage aftermarket sales and prop up new sales - but there's no evidence they're willing to pursue this strategy.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0456202.30668470</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0456202.30668908</id>
	<title>Some of those games are still onsale???</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262790180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Closing servers 12-24 months after the end of sale of a product seems about reasonable. The problem is that those games are still on sale! While they are discounted, there no way for the customer to know that it is purchasing less than advertised.<br>
&nbsp; EA should have:<br>- Put them end-of-sales and remove them from primary sale market.<br>- Force the retailer that mark them as being sold without/with limited online gaming capability.</p><p>This certainly misleading from EA part and I smell a class action suit...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Closing servers 12-24 months after the end of sale of a product seems about reasonable .
The problem is that those games are still on sale !
While they are discounted , there no way for the customer to know that it is purchasing less than advertised .
  EA should have : - Put them end-of-sales and remove them from primary sale market.- Force the retailer that mark them as being sold without/with limited online gaming capability.This certainly misleading from EA part and I smell a class action suit.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Closing servers 12-24 months after the end of sale of a product seems about reasonable.
The problem is that those games are still on sale!
While they are discounted, there no way for the customer to know that it is purchasing less than advertised.
  EA should have:- Put them end-of-sales and remove them from primary sale market.- Force the retailer that mark them as being sold without/with limited online gaming capability.This certainly misleading from EA part and I smell a class action suit...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0456202.30670534</id>
	<title>Re:Do without football</title>
	<author>RobDude</author>
	<datestamp>1262797440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That same argument can be made about the vast majority of realistic video games.</p><p>FPS?  Go join the military.  Guitar Hero?  Join a band.  Fighting game?  Go take MMA classes.  Madden?  Go play Football.  Soccer game?  Go outside and play soccer.</p><p>Naturally, if you give it more than the most superficial consideration - you'd be able to see that there is a world of difference between turning on a game and pressing 'play' and doing it in real life.  You also make the incorrect assumption that everyone who enjoys video games is physically able to participate in the real-world physical version.</p><p>I can turn on FIFA 09 and play for 30 minutes after work.  I'd be hard pressed to organize a game of soccer with 22 of my friends.  I'd be even more hard pressed to play a full season of soccer with the World Cup as my goal.</p><p>First, the in-game players are designed to emulate the abilities of real world, *professional* players.  99.9999\% of the population cannot play on that level.  Second, there is dramatically different levels of risk associated with the two tasks.  Playing soccer in real life is far more dangerous than on the video game.  I broke my arm playing soccer, I've never done that playing a video game.  Third, you've got logistic issues.....you need a place to play, you need goals, you need nets, you need gear, you should really have a ref.  Those things aren't free.  And if you want to have any sort of structure - with teams and scores - you'll need insurance.</p><p>I played on a local Rugby team around here for a season a few years after college.  It was fun - but we were part of a league and the dues to cover the insurance, pay the ref, and hold a field were not cheap.  And that's not addressing the costs of the uniform, the gear, nor the travel (nor the liquor afterwords, but that's a different story).</p><p>Bottom line is - you are talking about two things that are completely different.  They aren't mutually exclusive.  They are only superficially related.  Not liking a type of video game is fine.  Liking a real-world equivalent is fine.  But advocating that the 'real world' version is a good replacement for the video game really misses the point of video games.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That same argument can be made about the vast majority of realistic video games.FPS ?
Go join the military .
Guitar Hero ?
Join a band .
Fighting game ?
Go take MMA classes .
Madden ? Go play Football .
Soccer game ?
Go outside and play soccer.Naturally , if you give it more than the most superficial consideration - you 'd be able to see that there is a world of difference between turning on a game and pressing 'play ' and doing it in real life .
You also make the incorrect assumption that everyone who enjoys video games is physically able to participate in the real-world physical version.I can turn on FIFA 09 and play for 30 minutes after work .
I 'd be hard pressed to organize a game of soccer with 22 of my friends .
I 'd be even more hard pressed to play a full season of soccer with the World Cup as my goal.First , the in-game players are designed to emulate the abilities of real world , * professional * players .
99.9999 \ % of the population can not play on that level .
Second , there is dramatically different levels of risk associated with the two tasks .
Playing soccer in real life is far more dangerous than on the video game .
I broke my arm playing soccer , I 've never done that playing a video game .
Third , you 've got logistic issues.....you need a place to play , you need goals , you need nets , you need gear , you should really have a ref .
Those things are n't free .
And if you want to have any sort of structure - with teams and scores - you 'll need insurance.I played on a local Rugby team around here for a season a few years after college .
It was fun - but we were part of a league and the dues to cover the insurance , pay the ref , and hold a field were not cheap .
And that 's not addressing the costs of the uniform , the gear , nor the travel ( nor the liquor afterwords , but that 's a different story ) .Bottom line is - you are talking about two things that are completely different .
They are n't mutually exclusive .
They are only superficially related .
Not liking a type of video game is fine .
Liking a real-world equivalent is fine .
But advocating that the 'real world ' version is a good replacement for the video game really misses the point of video games .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That same argument can be made about the vast majority of realistic video games.FPS?
Go join the military.
Guitar Hero?
Join a band.
Fighting game?
Go take MMA classes.
Madden?  Go play Football.
Soccer game?
Go outside and play soccer.Naturally, if you give it more than the most superficial consideration - you'd be able to see that there is a world of difference between turning on a game and pressing 'play' and doing it in real life.
You also make the incorrect assumption that everyone who enjoys video games is physically able to participate in the real-world physical version.I can turn on FIFA 09 and play for 30 minutes after work.
I'd be hard pressed to organize a game of soccer with 22 of my friends.
I'd be even more hard pressed to play a full season of soccer with the World Cup as my goal.First, the in-game players are designed to emulate the abilities of real world, *professional* players.
99.9999\% of the population cannot play on that level.
Second, there is dramatically different levels of risk associated with the two tasks.
Playing soccer in real life is far more dangerous than on the video game.
I broke my arm playing soccer, I've never done that playing a video game.
Third, you've got logistic issues.....you need a place to play, you need goals, you need nets, you need gear, you should really have a ref.
Those things aren't free.
And if you want to have any sort of structure - with teams and scores - you'll need insurance.I played on a local Rugby team around here for a season a few years after college.
It was fun - but we were part of a league and the dues to cover the insurance, pay the ref, and hold a field were not cheap.
And that's not addressing the costs of the uniform, the gear, nor the travel (nor the liquor afterwords, but that's a different story).Bottom line is - you are talking about two things that are completely different.
They aren't mutually exclusive.
They are only superficially related.
Not liking a type of video game is fine.
Liking a real-world equivalent is fine.
But advocating that the 'real world' version is a good replacement for the video game really misses the point of video games.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0456202.30668588</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0456202.30689352</id>
	<title>Re:Some thoughts</title>
	<author>True Grit</author>
	<datestamp>1262868960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I do think there is enough evidence out there that a longer term view eventually yeilds better returns.</p></div><p>With a publicly traded company, the only thing that matters is what the stockholders think.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>We should try and break the 18mo CEO cycle.</p></div><p>If its the shareholders demanding 'progress' on an annual, or even quarterly, basis, then who the CEO happens to be, won't make a damn bit of difference.  A company's officers answer to the stockholders, and *only* the stockholders.  This is the root problem:  shareholders only interested in the short-term.</p><p>P&amp;G is merely an exception to the rule;  they aren't the only one, but its difficult to buck the normal stockholder's expectation of regular, near-term profits.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do think there is enough evidence out there that a longer term view eventually yeilds better returns.With a publicly traded company , the only thing that matters is what the stockholders think.We should try and break the 18mo CEO cycle.If its the shareholders demanding 'progress ' on an annual , or even quarterly , basis , then who the CEO happens to be , wo n't make a damn bit of difference .
A company 's officers answer to the stockholders , and * only * the stockholders .
This is the root problem : shareholders only interested in the short-term.P&amp;G is merely an exception to the rule ; they are n't the only one , but its difficult to buck the normal stockholder 's expectation of regular , near-term profits .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I do think there is enough evidence out there that a longer term view eventually yeilds better returns.With a publicly traded company, the only thing that matters is what the stockholders think.We should try and break the 18mo CEO cycle.If its the shareholders demanding 'progress' on an annual, or even quarterly, basis, then who the CEO happens to be, won't make a damn bit of difference.
A company's officers answer to the stockholders, and *only* the stockholders.
This is the root problem:  shareholders only interested in the short-term.P&amp;G is merely an exception to the rule;  they aren't the only one, but its difficult to buck the normal stockholder's expectation of regular, near-term profits.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0456202.30668470</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0456202.30672646</id>
	<title>Re:Do without football</title>
	<author>eharvill</author>
	<datestamp>1262805660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Past/recurrent injuries are the main reasons I no longer play real soccer.  The ability manage a team, control my players, score amazing goals I could never pull off in real life are reasons that I play the video game version these days.  Oh yeah, I can also win the World Cup, FA Cup, Champions League, etc.  I'll never be able to play on the pitch at Wembley's either...</htmltext>
<tokenext>Past/recurrent injuries are the main reasons I no longer play real soccer .
The ability manage a team , control my players , score amazing goals I could never pull off in real life are reasons that I play the video game version these days .
Oh yeah , I can also win the World Cup , FA Cup , Champions League , etc .
I 'll never be able to play on the pitch at Wembley 's either.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Past/recurrent injuries are the main reasons I no longer play real soccer.
The ability manage a team, control my players, score amazing goals I could never pull off in real life are reasons that I play the video game version these days.
Oh yeah, I can also win the World Cup, FA Cup, Champions League, etc.
I'll never be able to play on the pitch at Wembley's either...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0456202.30668588</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0456202.30668322</id>
	<title>Re:Direct multiplayer?</title>
	<author>SilentChasm</author>
	<datestamp>1262786220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>For most games on Xbox Live microsoft hosts the matchmaking servers and the friends thing as well. It means that you should be able to play the game online forever until microsoft shuts down the server.</p><p>I know of one non-EA exception which only shut down part of the online component to a mech game that needed a special controller (very niche), and it was for the original xbox.</p><p>EA forces online games to use their servers for matchmaking rather than the general ones. It means that at any time EA can stop providing them and you can no longer play those games online (such as all the ones with 20XX in the name) possibly forcing you to upgrade.</p><p>The players on consoles are the servers in that they host the actual gameplay related stuff like this person shoots here, this person jumps, etc. The status info (so and so is playing Game X) on the consoles is still handled by microsoft/sony/nintendo.</p><p>The whole part of EA being able to stop online play on old games is why I don't buy from them. I could understand taking off old games that were for the original xbox for example but nothing from the last couple years.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>For most games on Xbox Live microsoft hosts the matchmaking servers and the friends thing as well .
It means that you should be able to play the game online forever until microsoft shuts down the server.I know of one non-EA exception which only shut down part of the online component to a mech game that needed a special controller ( very niche ) , and it was for the original xbox.EA forces online games to use their servers for matchmaking rather than the general ones .
It means that at any time EA can stop providing them and you can no longer play those games online ( such as all the ones with 20XX in the name ) possibly forcing you to upgrade.The players on consoles are the servers in that they host the actual gameplay related stuff like this person shoots here , this person jumps , etc .
The status info ( so and so is playing Game X ) on the consoles is still handled by microsoft/sony/nintendo.The whole part of EA being able to stop online play on old games is why I do n't buy from them .
I could understand taking off old games that were for the original xbox for example but nothing from the last couple years .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For most games on Xbox Live microsoft hosts the matchmaking servers and the friends thing as well.
It means that you should be able to play the game online forever until microsoft shuts down the server.I know of one non-EA exception which only shut down part of the online component to a mech game that needed a special controller (very niche), and it was for the original xbox.EA forces online games to use their servers for matchmaking rather than the general ones.
It means that at any time EA can stop providing them and you can no longer play those games online (such as all the ones with 20XX in the name) possibly forcing you to upgrade.The players on consoles are the servers in that they host the actual gameplay related stuff like this person shoots here, this person jumps, etc.
The status info (so and so is playing Game X) on the consoles is still handled by microsoft/sony/nintendo.The whole part of EA being able to stop online play on old games is why I don't buy from them.
I could understand taking off old games that were for the original xbox for example but nothing from the last couple years.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0456202.30667940</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0456202.30671568</id>
	<title>Tarnished and rotten to the core</title>
	<author>swordgeek</author>
	<datestamp>1262801280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A few days ago there was a link to an article about the most 'tarnished' tech companies. I suggested EA, because they used to be the very best of the best, and now they're...this.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A few days ago there was a link to an article about the most 'tarnished ' tech companies .
I suggested EA , because they used to be the very best of the best , and now they 're...this .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A few days ago there was a link to an article about the most 'tarnished' tech companies.
I suggested EA, because they used to be the very best of the best, and now they're...this.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0456202.30670728</id>
	<title>Model years</title>
	<author>AlpineR</author>
	<datestamp>1262798040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Madden '10 <em>came out</em> in August 2009. Just like cars, they start selling a new model year months before that calendar year arrives. Madden '09 will have been out for 18 months and out of production for six months.</p><p>But the thing that still doesn't make sense: If the box says that online play will be available for one year from release date, then anyone who bought the latest version available in July 2009 will have had only six months of online access. And theoretically EA could shut down the server the day after the last player bought Madden '09. Evil.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Madden '10 came out in August 2009 .
Just like cars , they start selling a new model year months before that calendar year arrives .
Madden '09 will have been out for 18 months and out of production for six months.But the thing that still does n't make sense : If the box says that online play will be available for one year from release date , then anyone who bought the latest version available in July 2009 will have had only six months of online access .
And theoretically EA could shut down the server the day after the last player bought Madden '09 .
Evil .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Madden '10 came out in August 2009.
Just like cars, they start selling a new model year months before that calendar year arrives.
Madden '09 will have been out for 18 months and out of production for six months.But the thing that still doesn't make sense: If the box says that online play will be available for one year from release date, then anyone who bought the latest version available in July 2009 will have had only six months of online access.
And theoretically EA could shut down the server the day after the last player bought Madden '09.
Evil.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0456202.30670100</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0456202.30669048</id>
	<title>Re:"but please feel free to buy our '10 versions!"</title>
	<author>YourExperiment</author>
	<datestamp>1262791020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>That's like a mugger leaving a card thanking you for your custom and asking you to use his services again.</p></div><p>It's more like if he offered to sell you a new wallet, while politely reminding you that he'd probably be back to steal it again at the same time next year.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's like a mugger leaving a card thanking you for your custom and asking you to use his services again.It 's more like if he offered to sell you a new wallet , while politely reminding you that he 'd probably be back to steal it again at the same time next year .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's like a mugger leaving a card thanking you for your custom and asking you to use his services again.It's more like if he offered to sell you a new wallet, while politely reminding you that he'd probably be back to steal it again at the same time next year.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0456202.30667944</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0456202.30668508</id>
	<title>Re:Do without football</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262787720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>With EA holding the exclusive license for both NFL and FIFA, that means we just get one shitty "official roster" game per year rather than seven.</p><p>Imagine a world in which those shitty games then didn't make money. Why, maybe all the ridiculous amounts of money spent on giving Madden 11 more shoelace detail and graphical advertising textures on the knocked-out teeth could go instead into making some interesting and fun games.</p><p>You want to play football? Go outside. Grab a ball. Find some friends. They're probably just as out of shape as you are, couch potato, so it'll be an even match.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>With EA holding the exclusive license for both NFL and FIFA , that means we just get one shitty " official roster " game per year rather than seven.Imagine a world in which those shitty games then did n't make money .
Why , maybe all the ridiculous amounts of money spent on giving Madden 11 more shoelace detail and graphical advertising textures on the knocked-out teeth could go instead into making some interesting and fun games.You want to play football ?
Go outside .
Grab a ball .
Find some friends .
They 're probably just as out of shape as you are , couch potato , so it 'll be an even match .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>With EA holding the exclusive license for both NFL and FIFA, that means we just get one shitty "official roster" game per year rather than seven.Imagine a world in which those shitty games then didn't make money.
Why, maybe all the ridiculous amounts of money spent on giving Madden 11 more shoelace detail and graphical advertising textures on the knocked-out teeth could go instead into making some interesting and fun games.You want to play football?
Go outside.
Grab a ball.
Find some friends.
They're probably just as out of shape as you are, couch potato, so it'll be an even match.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0456202.30668324</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0456202.30668470</id>
	<title>Re:Some thoughts</title>
	<author>DarkOx</author>
	<datestamp>1262787480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Its a short sited probably ultimately self defeating goal.  I was listening to PBS business report just last night and they were interviewing some economics professors who were discussing how the move to always maximize share holder value has not actually lead to better share holder returns over the longer time period of the past two decades.</p><p>They also pointed out one company P&amp;G pretty well stayed on the build new business and protect the customers perception of value, noting that it outperformed the market over those two decades.  Now obviously you'd need to go through alot more data to reach sound conclusions.</p><p>I do think there is enough evidence out there that a longer term view eventually yeilds better returns.  We should try and break the 18mo CEO cycle.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Its a short sited probably ultimately self defeating goal .
I was listening to PBS business report just last night and they were interviewing some economics professors who were discussing how the move to always maximize share holder value has not actually lead to better share holder returns over the longer time period of the past two decades.They also pointed out one company P&amp;G pretty well stayed on the build new business and protect the customers perception of value , noting that it outperformed the market over those two decades .
Now obviously you 'd need to go through alot more data to reach sound conclusions.I do think there is enough evidence out there that a longer term view eventually yeilds better returns .
We should try and break the 18mo CEO cycle .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Its a short sited probably ultimately self defeating goal.
I was listening to PBS business report just last night and they were interviewing some economics professors who were discussing how the move to always maximize share holder value has not actually lead to better share holder returns over the longer time period of the past two decades.They also pointed out one company P&amp;G pretty well stayed on the build new business and protect the customers perception of value, noting that it outperformed the market over those two decades.
Now obviously you'd need to go through alot more data to reach sound conclusions.I do think there is enough evidence out there that a longer term view eventually yeilds better returns.
We should try and break the 18mo CEO cycle.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0456202.30668190</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0456202.30672024</id>
	<title>Re:I, for one</title>
	<author>TheSpoom</author>
	<datestamp>1262803080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's enforced obsolescence.  If you can't play the game you bought last year, it means you need the one they released this year.</p><p>Simple marketing.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's enforced obsolescence .
If you ca n't play the game you bought last year , it means you need the one they released this year.Simple marketing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's enforced obsolescence.
If you can't play the game you bought last year, it means you need the one they released this year.Simple marketing.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0456202.30667884</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0456202.30668198</id>
	<title>So the rule is</title>
	<author>EdgeyEdgey</author>
	<datestamp>1262785260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Never by anything from EA that has a date in the title
<br> <br> Or called Facebreaker</htmltext>
<tokenext>Never by anything from EA that has a date in the title Or called Facebreaker</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Never by anything from EA that has a date in the title
  Or called Facebreaker</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0456202.30668026</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0456202.30668326</id>
	<title>Intellectual property rights</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262786280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If it is -so- old and useless that they will deprive the users of the functionality they PURCHASED, how is it they can still retain IP rights which prevent people from standing up their own Madden 07 and 08 servers? This needs to go to court. They cannot have it both ways. "It's too valueable for us to allow the customers who purchased the game, the rights to the IP, but it is so worthless that we aren't going to provide the purchased functionality." Nice arguement.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If it is -so- old and useless that they will deprive the users of the functionality they PURCHASED , how is it they can still retain IP rights which prevent people from standing up their own Madden 07 and 08 servers ?
This needs to go to court .
They can not have it both ways .
" It 's too valueable for us to allow the customers who purchased the game , the rights to the IP , but it is so worthless that we are n't going to provide the purchased functionality .
" Nice arguement .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If it is -so- old and useless that they will deprive the users of the functionality they PURCHASED, how is it they can still retain IP rights which prevent people from standing up their own Madden 07 and 08 servers?
This needs to go to court.
They cannot have it both ways.
"It's too valueable for us to allow the customers who purchased the game, the rights to the IP, but it is so worthless that we aren't going to provide the purchased functionality.
" Nice arguement.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0456202.30669692</id>
	<title>Re:Why the need to shut down anything</title>
	<author>eth1</author>
	<datestamp>1262794320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Surely it is not beyond the resources of EA to buy a server farm and run virtualized instances of game servers on demand. If a game becomes less popular, the VMs timeout and shutdown. If it's very popular more instances get spawned. I don't see any reason that they have to physically decommission or repurpose anything in this day &amp; age.</p></div><p>No, no... Some fancy automated system would be too expensive. A *REAL* bonus-hungry EA exec would just release, "SimServerFarm," where the object is to increase your SimGamer population as much as possible by optimizing your Madden/NBA/NCAA zoning and building an efficient cabling system between them. Of course, it would be online-only, and hooked into the VM management console...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Surely it is not beyond the resources of EA to buy a server farm and run virtualized instances of game servers on demand .
If a game becomes less popular , the VMs timeout and shutdown .
If it 's very popular more instances get spawned .
I do n't see any reason that they have to physically decommission or repurpose anything in this day &amp; age.No , no... Some fancy automated system would be too expensive .
A * REAL * bonus-hungry EA exec would just release , " SimServerFarm , " where the object is to increase your SimGamer population as much as possible by optimizing your Madden/NBA/NCAA zoning and building an efficient cabling system between them .
Of course , it would be online-only , and hooked into the VM management console.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Surely it is not beyond the resources of EA to buy a server farm and run virtualized instances of game servers on demand.
If a game becomes less popular, the VMs timeout and shutdown.
If it's very popular more instances get spawned.
I don't see any reason that they have to physically decommission or repurpose anything in this day &amp; age.No, no... Some fancy automated system would be too expensive.
A *REAL* bonus-hungry EA exec would just release, "SimServerFarm," where the object is to increase your SimGamer population as much as possible by optimizing your Madden/NBA/NCAA zoning and building an efficient cabling system between them.
Of course, it would be online-only, and hooked into the VM management console...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0456202.30668206</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0456202.30674276</id>
	<title>Battlefield 2142 is in trouble also...</title>
	<author>mergatoriod</author>
	<datestamp>1262769420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The battlefield 2142 community has been experiencing global lag issues over the past weeks with no response from EA/Dice.  Their customer support is virtually non existent, and they are expecting everyone to pony up for Bad Company 2.  This has all the hallmarks of a business ready to implode.  I just hope that this recent announcement is to free up server space for a growing battlefield community and not just to boost shareholder profits.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The battlefield 2142 community has been experiencing global lag issues over the past weeks with no response from EA/Dice .
Their customer support is virtually non existent , and they are expecting everyone to pony up for Bad Company 2 .
This has all the hallmarks of a business ready to implode .
I just hope that this recent announcement is to free up server space for a growing battlefield community and not just to boost shareholder profits .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The battlefield 2142 community has been experiencing global lag issues over the past weeks with no response from EA/Dice.
Their customer support is virtually non existent, and they are expecting everyone to pony up for Bad Company 2.
This has all the hallmarks of a business ready to implode.
I just hope that this recent announcement is to free up server space for a growing battlefield community and not just to boost shareholder profits.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0456202.30677936</id>
	<title>Xlink kai?</title>
	<author>capebretonsux</author>
	<datestamp>1262789340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Haven't read through all the posts, so not sure if it's been addressed yet, but would something like xlink kai be able to come up with a solution to the problem?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Have n't read through all the posts , so not sure if it 's been addressed yet , but would something like xlink kai be able to come up with a solution to the problem ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Haven't read through all the posts, so not sure if it's been addressed yet, but would something like xlink kai be able to come up with a solution to the problem?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0456202.30667910</id>
	<title>The only people who have anything to whine about..</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262782380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...are the idiots who bought the terrible EA games in the first place. I, for one, have no pity.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...are the idiots who bought the terrible EA games in the first place .
I , for one , have no pity .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...are the idiots who bought the terrible EA games in the first place.
I, for one, have no pity.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0456202.30668588</id>
	<title>Re:Do without football</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262788260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I never understood why people play soccer games anyways. Why people watch soccer is already mysterious enough to me, but remotely understandable; but why the hell would you play a game which imitates something you could easily do with a bunch of friends (or even strangers) somewhere outside, for cheap? I'm not a big soccer player, but I sure know that regardless of how bad I am, I'm gonna have more fun playing *actual* soccer than some strange video game copy of it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I never understood why people play soccer games anyways .
Why people watch soccer is already mysterious enough to me , but remotely understandable ; but why the hell would you play a game which imitates something you could easily do with a bunch of friends ( or even strangers ) somewhere outside , for cheap ?
I 'm not a big soccer player , but I sure know that regardless of how bad I am , I 'm gon na have more fun playing * actual * soccer than some strange video game copy of it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I never understood why people play soccer games anyways.
Why people watch soccer is already mysterious enough to me, but remotely understandable; but why the hell would you play a game which imitates something you could easily do with a bunch of friends (or even strangers) somewhere outside, for cheap?
I'm not a big soccer player, but I sure know that regardless of how bad I am, I'm gonna have more fun playing *actual* soccer than some strange video game copy of it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0456202.30668324</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0456202.30671984</id>
	<title>Re:What Happened?</title>
	<author>Sleepy</author>
	<datestamp>1262802960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>EA was never great, even back then. What made EA huge is they were simply "good" games, and they could raise enough money to buy out all of their competition.</p><p>This gave EA yet more leverage with retail... and when all the indie retail shops and smaller chains folded leaving pretty much just GameSpot... well, that pretty much killed off everything else in the ecosystem. Trip Hawkins was a total douche, and set the stage for who EA is today.</p><p>EA is like a corporate amoeba, with all the powers of Microsoft and Monsanto rolled into one. I'm honestly curious why EA hasn't just put out their own hardware platform, but the answer is probably because they don't "need" to, and they're much more powerful controlling all of the platforms from behind the scenes.</p><p>EA is pretty much the reason I have AVOIDED consoles, and always stuck with PC games, where you have many more choices. I did get a PS3, mainly for Blu-Ray and as a media center.</p><p>Someone gave me a steering wheel and pedal set as a gift, so I bought  NASCAR 09 for the PS3.</p><p>Here's what I expect of any game: that it will be frozen in time, and obviously not contain 2010 players cars, or information.<br>Putting the "year" in the title should simply designate what year or version I bought... just like say Microsoft Word or Gentoo versions.</p><p>What I did NOT expect is that EA had a remote doomsday switch for these games, so they can kill off the old version.<br>If that's the case (and it looks like NASCAR 09 is scheduled for termination in Europe) I'm seriously fucking pissed.</p><p>We all say "boycott XXX" and "I'll never buy from XXX", but when a cool game comes out memories get short.<br>But if you shell out a ton of money for a game, it's YOURS.</p><p>They can call it "taking down the servers", but I call it theft and when my game stops working, EA will have burned me in a way that I can't EVER forget.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>EA was never great , even back then .
What made EA huge is they were simply " good " games , and they could raise enough money to buy out all of their competition.This gave EA yet more leverage with retail... and when all the indie retail shops and smaller chains folded leaving pretty much just GameSpot... well , that pretty much killed off everything else in the ecosystem .
Trip Hawkins was a total douche , and set the stage for who EA is today.EA is like a corporate amoeba , with all the powers of Microsoft and Monsanto rolled into one .
I 'm honestly curious why EA has n't just put out their own hardware platform , but the answer is probably because they do n't " need " to , and they 're much more powerful controlling all of the platforms from behind the scenes.EA is pretty much the reason I have AVOIDED consoles , and always stuck with PC games , where you have many more choices .
I did get a PS3 , mainly for Blu-Ray and as a media center.Someone gave me a steering wheel and pedal set as a gift , so I bought NASCAR 09 for the PS3.Here 's what I expect of any game : that it will be frozen in time , and obviously not contain 2010 players cars , or information.Putting the " year " in the title should simply designate what year or version I bought... just like say Microsoft Word or Gentoo versions.What I did NOT expect is that EA had a remote doomsday switch for these games , so they can kill off the old version.If that 's the case ( and it looks like NASCAR 09 is scheduled for termination in Europe ) I 'm seriously fucking pissed.We all say " boycott XXX " and " I 'll never buy from XXX " , but when a cool game comes out memories get short.But if you shell out a ton of money for a game , it 's YOURS.They can call it " taking down the servers " , but I call it theft and when my game stops working , EA will have burned me in a way that I ca n't EVER forget .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>EA was never great, even back then.
What made EA huge is they were simply "good" games, and they could raise enough money to buy out all of their competition.This gave EA yet more leverage with retail... and when all the indie retail shops and smaller chains folded leaving pretty much just GameSpot... well, that pretty much killed off everything else in the ecosystem.
Trip Hawkins was a total douche, and set the stage for who EA is today.EA is like a corporate amoeba, with all the powers of Microsoft and Monsanto rolled into one.
I'm honestly curious why EA hasn't just put out their own hardware platform, but the answer is probably because they don't "need" to, and they're much more powerful controlling all of the platforms from behind the scenes.EA is pretty much the reason I have AVOIDED consoles, and always stuck with PC games, where you have many more choices.
I did get a PS3, mainly for Blu-Ray and as a media center.Someone gave me a steering wheel and pedal set as a gift, so I bought  NASCAR 09 for the PS3.Here's what I expect of any game: that it will be frozen in time, and obviously not contain 2010 players cars, or information.Putting the "year" in the title should simply designate what year or version I bought... just like say Microsoft Word or Gentoo versions.What I did NOT expect is that EA had a remote doomsday switch for these games, so they can kill off the old version.If that's the case (and it looks like NASCAR 09 is scheduled for termination in Europe) I'm seriously fucking pissed.We all say "boycott XXX" and "I'll never buy from XXX", but when a cool game comes out memories get short.But if you shell out a ton of money for a game, it's YOURS.They can call it "taking down the servers", but I call it theft and when my game stops working, EA will have burned me in a way that I can't EVER forget.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0456202.30668026</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0456202.30668950</id>
	<title>Re:Watch out, MW2 lovers...</title>
	<author>MrMickS</author>
	<datestamp>1262790480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This would be the case if the publishers of COD4 had the same attitude as EA. EA ruthlessly release yearly versions of games and drop the previous years. In the store at the weekend I noticed that I could still buy a new COD4 for the Xbox 360. There is no incentive to drop support for COD4 as they can still make money from downloadable maps on Xbox live. Likewise the same will be true for MW2.</p><p>EA's entire sports business model is based on the fact that people will spend money to buy essentially the same game with roster changes year after year. They've probably found that, with the recession, people have held off doing this for a couple of years and its hit their bottom line. Hence shutting down the servers. If you want to play online, buy the new version.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This would be the case if the publishers of COD4 had the same attitude as EA .
EA ruthlessly release yearly versions of games and drop the previous years .
In the store at the weekend I noticed that I could still buy a new COD4 for the Xbox 360 .
There is no incentive to drop support for COD4 as they can still make money from downloadable maps on Xbox live .
Likewise the same will be true for MW2.EA 's entire sports business model is based on the fact that people will spend money to buy essentially the same game with roster changes year after year .
They 've probably found that , with the recession , people have held off doing this for a couple of years and its hit their bottom line .
Hence shutting down the servers .
If you want to play online , buy the new version .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This would be the case if the publishers of COD4 had the same attitude as EA.
EA ruthlessly release yearly versions of games and drop the previous years.
In the store at the weekend I noticed that I could still buy a new COD4 for the Xbox 360.
There is no incentive to drop support for COD4 as they can still make money from downloadable maps on Xbox live.
Likewise the same will be true for MW2.EA's entire sports business model is based on the fact that people will spend money to buy essentially the same game with roster changes year after year.
They've probably found that, with the recession, people have held off doing this for a couple of years and its hit their bottom line.
Hence shutting down the servers.
If you want to play online, buy the new version.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0456202.30668542</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0456202.30667900</id>
	<title>List of games</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262782260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you're games follow the following format and year is less than or equal to 09, chances are online play is over for you.</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp;</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you 're games follow the following format and year is less than or equal to 09 , chances are online play is over for you .
   </tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you're games follow the following format and year is less than or equal to 09, chances are online play is over for you.
   </sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0456202.30668600</id>
	<title>This is why...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262788320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...the whole concept of 'renting' software (as the Forces of Evil would describe it) that needs validation from a company server, is bullshit.</p><p>You sell me a game at $50-$60 price point, I want to own it forever, and have the media to install it when I want without requiring some crappy check-in procedure.  You claim I'm only 'renting' it?  Then  'rent' it to me at a rental price-point, like $10.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...the whole concept of 'renting ' software ( as the Forces of Evil would describe it ) that needs validation from a company server , is bullshit.You sell me a game at $ 50- $ 60 price point , I want to own it forever , and have the media to install it when I want without requiring some crappy check-in procedure .
You claim I 'm only 'renting ' it ?
Then 'rent ' it to me at a rental price-point , like $ 10 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...the whole concept of 'renting' software (as the Forces of Evil would describe it) that needs validation from a company server, is bullshit.You sell me a game at $50-$60 price point, I want to own it forever, and have the media to install it when I want without requiring some crappy check-in procedure.
You claim I'm only 'renting' it?
Then  'rent' it to me at a rental price-point, like $10.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0456202.30669620</id>
	<title>Re:Do without football</title>
	<author>gid</author>
	<datestamp>1262793900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Last time I went around the neighborhood asking 30+ year old Dads to come out and play they all looked at me funny.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Last time I went around the neighborhood asking 30 + year old Dads to come out and play they all looked at me funny .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Last time I went around the neighborhood asking 30+ year old Dads to come out and play they all looked at me funny.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0456202.30668588</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0456202.30668568</id>
	<title>Killing the second hand market</title>
	<author>AmiMoJo</author>
	<datestamp>1262788080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is probably just a ploy to kill off the second hand and discounted games market. Only people who pay full price for the latest update get to play online.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is probably just a ploy to kill off the second hand and discounted games market .
Only people who pay full price for the latest update get to play online .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is probably just a ploy to kill off the second hand and discounted games market.
Only people who pay full price for the latest update get to play online.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0456202.30668052</id>
	<title>That'll teach you</title>
	<author>jayhawk88</author>
	<datestamp>1262783700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...to only buy versions of their games every few years, despite the fact that EA traditionally only makes cosmetic and superficial changes to yearly release games, yet of course charges full price for them. When you think about it, it's damn near like stealing.</p><p>At least we know the good people at EA are continuing to find innovative and new ways to be evil.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...to only buy versions of their games every few years , despite the fact that EA traditionally only makes cosmetic and superficial changes to yearly release games , yet of course charges full price for them .
When you think about it , it 's damn near like stealing.At least we know the good people at EA are continuing to find innovative and new ways to be evil .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...to only buy versions of their games every few years, despite the fact that EA traditionally only makes cosmetic and superficial changes to yearly release games, yet of course charges full price for them.
When you think about it, it's damn near like stealing.At least we know the good people at EA are continuing to find innovative and new ways to be evil.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0456202.30678296</id>
	<title>Re:Watch out, MW2 lovers...</title>
	<author>PaganRitual</author>
	<datestamp>1262792700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>MW2 will be different again because no doubt there will be DLC that will be a required purchase lest the servers refuse you access based on an unmatched version.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>MW2 will be different again because no doubt there will be DLC that will be a required purchase lest the servers refuse you access based on an unmatched version .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>MW2 will be different again because no doubt there will be DLC that will be a required purchase lest the servers refuse you access based on an unmatched version.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0456202.30668542</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0456202.30672098</id>
	<title>Re:No surprise there</title>
	<author>CodeBuster</author>
	<datestamp>1262803320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>This why people shouldn't buy their games.</p></div><p>It is a good reason, but its not the only one. EA also uses intrusive DRM in their games which damages users' computers and doesn't respect their property (namely the aforementioned computer) or their freedom. I have neither bought nor played an EA game for a long time now and with the way things are going it doesn't look like that will change any time soon. Message to EA: DRM KILLS THE FUN OF GAMING, DRM == LOST SALE, END THE MADNESS AND DUMP DRM.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>This why people should n't buy their games.It is a good reason , but its not the only one .
EA also uses intrusive DRM in their games which damages users ' computers and does n't respect their property ( namely the aforementioned computer ) or their freedom .
I have neither bought nor played an EA game for a long time now and with the way things are going it does n't look like that will change any time soon .
Message to EA : DRM KILLS THE FUN OF GAMING , DRM = = LOST SALE , END THE MADNESS AND DUMP DRM .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This why people shouldn't buy their games.It is a good reason, but its not the only one.
EA also uses intrusive DRM in their games which damages users' computers and doesn't respect their property (namely the aforementioned computer) or their freedom.
I have neither bought nor played an EA game for a long time now and with the way things are going it doesn't look like that will change any time soon.
Message to EA: DRM KILLS THE FUN OF GAMING, DRM == LOST SALE, END THE MADNESS AND DUMP DRM.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0456202.30668166</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0456202.30669046</id>
	<title>Re:Money, Money, and Money.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262790960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Not to defend them or anything but it is understandable.  Is 10 out?  I dont follow that series.  But if it is I bet you can get 09 for like 3 bucks used.  Almost no one is still playing it if 10 is out.  I saw this with used games for years.  The next version of a sports game would come out and everyone rushed to trade in the prev year.  As all the leagues, teams, etc... moved onto the next game.</p><p>I wouldnt be surprised if the players on those games range in the hundreds instead of the thousands it was when it first came out.  But I could be wrong.  Now they could be cool and release specs/code so people could host their own servers.  But I doubt they would even bother to do this.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not to defend them or anything but it is understandable .
Is 10 out ?
I dont follow that series .
But if it is I bet you can get 09 for like 3 bucks used .
Almost no one is still playing it if 10 is out .
I saw this with used games for years .
The next version of a sports game would come out and everyone rushed to trade in the prev year .
As all the leagues , teams , etc... moved onto the next game.I wouldnt be surprised if the players on those games range in the hundreds instead of the thousands it was when it first came out .
But I could be wrong .
Now they could be cool and release specs/code so people could host their own servers .
But I doubt they would even bother to do this .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not to defend them or anything but it is understandable.
Is 10 out?
I dont follow that series.
But if it is I bet you can get 09 for like 3 bucks used.
Almost no one is still playing it if 10 is out.
I saw this with used games for years.
The next version of a sports game would come out and everyone rushed to trade in the prev year.
As all the leagues, teams, etc... moved onto the next game.I wouldnt be surprised if the players on those games range in the hundreds instead of the thousands it was when it first came out.
But I could be wrong.
Now they could be cool and release specs/code so people could host their own servers.
But I doubt they would even bother to do this.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0456202.30668252</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0456202.30668678</id>
	<title>Re:Money, Money, and Money.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262788800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm not a big sports game player, but if a company shut down a major feature of the previous year's version that I bought so they could push this year's new version on me, I'd seriously reconsider ever buying from them again.  So you pay them $50 for Madden 10 and then what?  You get 12 months or so of play before they shut that down to push Madden 11?  I can't see this working to increase sales that much.  Instead, I think it will tarnish EA's reputation which will lead to reduced sales in the long run.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm not a big sports game player , but if a company shut down a major feature of the previous year 's version that I bought so they could push this year 's new version on me , I 'd seriously reconsider ever buying from them again .
So you pay them $ 50 for Madden 10 and then what ?
You get 12 months or so of play before they shut that down to push Madden 11 ?
I ca n't see this working to increase sales that much .
Instead , I think it will tarnish EA 's reputation which will lead to reduced sales in the long run .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm not a big sports game player, but if a company shut down a major feature of the previous year's version that I bought so they could push this year's new version on me, I'd seriously reconsider ever buying from them again.
So you pay them $50 for Madden 10 and then what?
You get 12 months or so of play before they shut that down to push Madden 11?
I can't see this working to increase sales that much.
Instead, I think it will tarnish EA's reputation which will lead to reduced sales in the long run.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0456202.30668252</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0456202.30672256</id>
	<title>EA 4TW...</title>
	<author>Viper2026</author>
	<datestamp>1262803980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Despite being treated more or less like shit, time after time after time, it it beyond me why people continue to dish over their money to EA</htmltext>
<tokenext>Despite being treated more or less like shit , time after time after time , it it beyond me why people continue to dish over their money to EA</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Despite being treated more or less like shit, time after time after time, it it beyond me why people continue to dish over their money to EA</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0456202.30669886</id>
	<title>check the eula!</title>
	<author>trum4n</author>
	<datestamp>1262795160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>EA reserves the right...to screw you out of your money at any time.

Ever notice on one of their PC games you can click through the opening logos, except theirs? They have always been evil in my book.</htmltext>
<tokenext>EA reserves the right...to screw you out of your money at any time .
Ever notice on one of their PC games you can click through the opening logos , except theirs ?
They have always been evil in my book .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>EA reserves the right...to screw you out of your money at any time.
Ever notice on one of their PC games you can click through the opening logos, except theirs?
They have always been evil in my book.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0456202.30670302</id>
	<title>Re:This is why...</title>
	<author>Lisandro</author>
	<datestamp>1262796600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I have never played the Madden series (thank you God), but does it require a server only for online gaming, or single player as well? In that case, you can still use the software you paid for.</p><p>I know it's nitpicking, and most likely the main appeal of the game was the online part, but stil.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have never played the Madden series ( thank you God ) , but does it require a server only for online gaming , or single player as well ?
In that case , you can still use the software you paid for.I know it 's nitpicking , and most likely the main appeal of the game was the online part , but stil .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have never played the Madden series (thank you God), but does it require a server only for online gaming, or single player as well?
In that case, you can still use the software you paid for.I know it's nitpicking, and most likely the main appeal of the game was the online part, but stil.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0456202.30668600</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0456202.30673244</id>
	<title>And this is why...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262808060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>People need to embrace free software solutions for gaming rather than non-free solutions from EA, M$, $ony-Bony, Pretendo, $ega, etc.    An open standards type console would be a far better solution than non-free consoles such as the M$ Idiot-Box, Pretendo Pi$$, and the $ony-Bony Pixelation $tation.  Free, libre solutions solutions allow for decentralized servers while non-free solutions tend to favor to lock the sheep into centralized servers and charge a monthly fee for services, after charging for the non-free software.</p><p>--<br>Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.<br>Friends do assist M$ addicted friends in committing suicide.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>People need to embrace free software solutions for gaming rather than non-free solutions from EA , M $ , $ ony-Bony , Pretendo , $ ega , etc .
An open standards type console would be a far better solution than non-free consoles such as the M $ Idiot-Box , Pretendo Pi $ $ , and the $ ony-Bony Pixelation $ tation .
Free , libre solutions solutions allow for decentralized servers while non-free solutions tend to favor to lock the sheep into centralized servers and charge a monthly fee for services , after charging for the non-free software.--Friends do n't help friends install M $ junk.Friends do assist M $ addicted friends in committing suicide .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>People need to embrace free software solutions for gaming rather than non-free solutions from EA, M$, $ony-Bony, Pretendo, $ega, etc.
An open standards type console would be a far better solution than non-free consoles such as the M$ Idiot-Box, Pretendo Pi$$, and the $ony-Bony Pixelation $tation.
Free, libre solutions solutions allow for decentralized servers while non-free solutions tend to favor to lock the sheep into centralized servers and charge a monthly fee for services, after charging for the non-free software.--Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.Friends do assist M$ addicted friends in committing suicide.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0456202.30667914</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0456202.30671884</id>
	<title>Re:Gamestop</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262802600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Since when did old sports games have any value at used game stores? Sports games depreciate faster than any other genre because of the yearly updates that inevitably come out.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Since when did old sports games have any value at used game stores ?
Sports games depreciate faster than any other genre because of the yearly updates that inevitably come out .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Since when did old sports games have any value at used game stores?
Sports games depreciate faster than any other genre because of the yearly updates that inevitably come out.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0456202.30668088</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0456202.30669344</id>
	<title>Re:2009 was last year, move with the times</title>
	<author>mcgrew</author>
	<datestamp>1262792580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>one more reason to avoid EA games.</i></p><p>One more reason to avoid any game that depends on its publisher's servers. If I want to play Quake online I still can, and that came out well over ten years ago.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>one more reason to avoid EA games.One more reason to avoid any game that depends on its publisher 's servers .
If I want to play Quake online I still can , and that came out well over ten years ago .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>one more reason to avoid EA games.One more reason to avoid any game that depends on its publisher's servers.
If I want to play Quake online I still can, and that came out well over ten years ago.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0456202.30667892</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0456202.30670100</id>
	<title>Re:Box</title>
	<author>MobyDisk</author>
	<datestamp>1262795820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>online service is only provided for 1 year from release date</p></div><p>I don't know the release date of Madden '09, but Madden '10 comes out in August, while the shutdown of Madden '09 is February 2nd.  So... nobody can play the game online between Feburary and August?  That doesn't make sense.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>online service is only provided for 1 year from release dateI do n't know the release date of Madden '09 , but Madden '10 comes out in August , while the shutdown of Madden '09 is February 2nd .
So... nobody can play the game online between Feburary and August ?
That does n't make sense .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>online service is only provided for 1 year from release dateI don't know the release date of Madden '09, but Madden '10 comes out in August, while the shutdown of Madden '09 is February 2nd.
So... nobody can play the game online between Feburary and August?
That doesn't make sense.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0456202.30668156</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0456202.30670460</id>
	<title>Re:Some thoughts</title>
	<author>zippthorne</author>
	<datestamp>1262797260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I do think there is enough evidence out there that a longer term view eventually yeilds better returns. We should try and break the 18mo CEO cycle.</p></div><p>We need to get over the "corporate savior" model of CEO selection and realize that the locus of people capable of performing those functions is larger than the pool of "lords" it currently is perceived to be: CEOs are overpaid because they have successfully convinced the market they are rare.  Much like DeBeers did with diamonds.</p><p>Management is a cost center: Just like physical plant, you can't do business without it, but it's not the business you do.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do think there is enough evidence out there that a longer term view eventually yeilds better returns .
We should try and break the 18mo CEO cycle.We need to get over the " corporate savior " model of CEO selection and realize that the locus of people capable of performing those functions is larger than the pool of " lords " it currently is perceived to be : CEOs are overpaid because they have successfully convinced the market they are rare .
Much like DeBeers did with diamonds.Management is a cost center : Just like physical plant , you ca n't do business without it , but it 's not the business you do .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I do think there is enough evidence out there that a longer term view eventually yeilds better returns.
We should try and break the 18mo CEO cycle.We need to get over the "corporate savior" model of CEO selection and realize that the locus of people capable of performing those functions is larger than the pool of "lords" it currently is perceived to be: CEOs are overpaid because they have successfully convinced the market they are rare.
Much like DeBeers did with diamonds.Management is a cost center: Just like physical plant, you can't do business without it, but it's not the business you do.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0456202.30668470</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0456202.30671042</id>
	<title>Re:What Happened?</title>
	<author>rainmaestro</author>
	<datestamp>1262799300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Mirror's Edge was fun, even though no one bought it.</p><p>Of course, the PC version was riddled with freezes and core dumps. But for the half a level between everything going wonky, it was enjoyable.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Mirror 's Edge was fun , even though no one bought it.Of course , the PC version was riddled with freezes and core dumps .
But for the half a level between everything going wonky , it was enjoyable .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Mirror's Edge was fun, even though no one bought it.Of course, the PC version was riddled with freezes and core dumps.
But for the half a level between everything going wonky, it was enjoyable.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0456202.30668026</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0456202.30672170</id>
	<title>Re:Watch out, MW2 lovers...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262803680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Funny that.<br>The reaction from the MW2 alarmist community was "What could possibly go wrong if the servers go down? U DONT GET TO LAN ANYMORE LOLOLOLZZZZZ".</p><p>Well, here's my rebuttal:</p><p>You still get LAN play on Modern Warfare 2, you just host it on one of the participating PC's, instead of having the option of a dedicated server on the LAN. So even if the MW2 matchmaking infrastructure goes down (which I seriously doubt it will, at least nowhere near the timeframe under which EA have been decommissioning their servers), you still have the option of local games.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Funny that.The reaction from the MW2 alarmist community was " What could possibly go wrong if the servers go down ?
U DONT GET TO LAN ANYMORE LOLOLOLZZZZZ " .Well , here 's my rebuttal : You still get LAN play on Modern Warfare 2 , you just host it on one of the participating PC 's , instead of having the option of a dedicated server on the LAN .
So even if the MW2 matchmaking infrastructure goes down ( which I seriously doubt it will , at least nowhere near the timeframe under which EA have been decommissioning their servers ) , you still have the option of local games .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Funny that.The reaction from the MW2 alarmist community was "What could possibly go wrong if the servers go down?
U DONT GET TO LAN ANYMORE LOLOLOLZZZZZ".Well, here's my rebuttal:You still get LAN play on Modern Warfare 2, you just host it on one of the participating PC's, instead of having the option of a dedicated server on the LAN.
So even if the MW2 matchmaking infrastructure goes down (which I seriously doubt it will, at least nowhere near the timeframe under which EA have been decommissioning their servers), you still have the option of local games.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0456202.30668542</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0456202.30669002</id>
	<title>Re:What Happened?</title>
	<author>adam525</author>
	<datestamp>1262790840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Racing destruction set was great!  Building your own tracks with lots of jumps and "Lunar" gravity.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Racing destruction set was great !
Building your own tracks with lots of jumps and " Lunar " gravity .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Racing destruction set was great!
Building your own tracks with lots of jumps and "Lunar" gravity.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0456202.30668026</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0456202.30670954</id>
	<title>I will never purchase an EA game again</title>
	<author>TrogL</author>
	<datestamp>1262798940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I had troubles with one of their games (clearly marked on the packaging) and emailed tech support.

Two weeks later I got an snarky email back saying they did not support games from other manufacturers.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I had troubles with one of their games ( clearly marked on the packaging ) and emailed tech support .
Two weeks later I got an snarky email back saying they did not support games from other manufacturers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I had troubles with one of their games (clearly marked on the packaging) and emailed tech support.
Two weeks later I got an snarky email back saying they did not support games from other manufacturers.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0456202.30668838</id>
	<title>some needs to make there own PC NFL and NHL game a</title>
	<author>Joe The Dragon</author>
	<datestamp>1262789820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>some needs to make there own PC NFL and NHL game and let the courts take up the lock in to ea games.</p><p>There are not makeing a pc game so there may be a way under the law to have a pc NFL game.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>some needs to make there own PC NFL and NHL game and let the courts take up the lock in to ea games.There are not makeing a pc game so there may be a way under the law to have a pc NFL game .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>some needs to make there own PC NFL and NHL game and let the courts take up the lock in to ea games.There are not makeing a pc game so there may be a way under the law to have a pc NFL game.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0456202.30668644</id>
	<title>Re:Intellectual property rights</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262788500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This is one of the "benefits" of having software licensed instead of owned. You didn't buy a game, you bought a license to play it, and EA can modify that license at any time. As others have noted, the box says they'll provide online play for a year, and guarantee nothing past that.

I don't think the problem is with the concept of licensing, but that the publisher can insert pretty much any terms they want. There has to be some common sense here. The publisher wants to be protected from piracy, fine. But the customer should be protected from having the value of what they purchased diminished at the whims of the publisher, too.

I'm not sure what a good legal framework would be, though. You could say any game designed to play exclusively online (such as WoW) would not have to provide the ability to run private servers, but any game that has both online and offline functionality (Madden, et al) would be required to offer the software to run a private server. The downside to this is that EA would just require an Internet connection for any game you could play online, whether you intend to do so or not. Then again, I guess you could go all the way and not have any exceptions at all. If you ever intend to shut down your online service, you have to provide the tools to set up private servers--period. I'm sure this would be fought tooth and nail, but if the online experience is a major selling point, who is the game publisher to forcibly obsolete your software?</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is one of the " benefits " of having software licensed instead of owned .
You did n't buy a game , you bought a license to play it , and EA can modify that license at any time .
As others have noted , the box says they 'll provide online play for a year , and guarantee nothing past that .
I do n't think the problem is with the concept of licensing , but that the publisher can insert pretty much any terms they want .
There has to be some common sense here .
The publisher wants to be protected from piracy , fine .
But the customer should be protected from having the value of what they purchased diminished at the whims of the publisher , too .
I 'm not sure what a good legal framework would be , though .
You could say any game designed to play exclusively online ( such as WoW ) would not have to provide the ability to run private servers , but any game that has both online and offline functionality ( Madden , et al ) would be required to offer the software to run a private server .
The downside to this is that EA would just require an Internet connection for any game you could play online , whether you intend to do so or not .
Then again , I guess you could go all the way and not have any exceptions at all .
If you ever intend to shut down your online service , you have to provide the tools to set up private servers--period .
I 'm sure this would be fought tooth and nail , but if the online experience is a major selling point , who is the game publisher to forcibly obsolete your software ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is one of the "benefits" of having software licensed instead of owned.
You didn't buy a game, you bought a license to play it, and EA can modify that license at any time.
As others have noted, the box says they'll provide online play for a year, and guarantee nothing past that.
I don't think the problem is with the concept of licensing, but that the publisher can insert pretty much any terms they want.
There has to be some common sense here.
The publisher wants to be protected from piracy, fine.
But the customer should be protected from having the value of what they purchased diminished at the whims of the publisher, too.
I'm not sure what a good legal framework would be, though.
You could say any game designed to play exclusively online (such as WoW) would not have to provide the ability to run private servers, but any game that has both online and offline functionality (Madden, et al) would be required to offer the software to run a private server.
The downside to this is that EA would just require an Internet connection for any game you could play online, whether you intend to do so or not.
Then again, I guess you could go all the way and not have any exceptions at all.
If you ever intend to shut down your online service, you have to provide the tools to set up private servers--period.
I'm sure this would be fought tooth and nail, but if the online experience is a major selling point, who is the game publisher to forcibly obsolete your software?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0456202.30668326</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0456202.30674724</id>
	<title>Re:2009 was last year, move with the times</title>
	<author>AmiMoJo</author>
	<datestamp>1262771580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>But they publisher let the community take them over and it still works.</p></div></blockquote><p>It's probably impossible for games tied to XBOX Live. Even if they did release a patch and the necessary server software it's all tied in to your Live account.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>But they publisher let the community take them over and it still works.It 's probably impossible for games tied to XBOX Live .
Even if they did release a patch and the necessary server software it 's all tied in to your Live account .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But they publisher let the community take them over and it still works.It's probably impossible for games tied to XBOX Live.
Even if they did release a patch and the necessary server software it's all tied in to your Live account.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0456202.30670402</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0456202.30668206</id>
	<title>Why the need to shut down anything</title>
	<author>DrXym</author>
	<datestamp>1262785320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Surely it is not beyond the resources of EA to buy a server farm and run virtualized instances of game servers on demand. If a game becomes less popular, the VMs timeout and shutdown. If it's very popular more instances get spawned. I don't see any reason that they have to physically decommission or repurpose anything in this day &amp; age.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Surely it is not beyond the resources of EA to buy a server farm and run virtualized instances of game servers on demand .
If a game becomes less popular , the VMs timeout and shutdown .
If it 's very popular more instances get spawned .
I do n't see any reason that they have to physically decommission or repurpose anything in this day &amp; age .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Surely it is not beyond the resources of EA to buy a server farm and run virtualized instances of game servers on demand.
If a game becomes less popular, the VMs timeout and shutdown.
If it's very popular more instances get spawned.
I don't see any reason that they have to physically decommission or repurpose anything in this day &amp; age.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0456202.30671966</id>
	<title>Re:2009 was last year, move with the times</title>
	<author>Totenglocke</author>
	<datestamp>1262802900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Bingo.  I refuse to buy games that require online activation for this very reason.  The idiots who don't get why online activation is bad say "Oh, well they're a big company, they'll never go out of business and even if they did, they'd release a patch to remove it beforehand".  Always stay away from letting a company control your property.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Bingo .
I refuse to buy games that require online activation for this very reason .
The idiots who do n't get why online activation is bad say " Oh , well they 're a big company , they 'll never go out of business and even if they did , they 'd release a patch to remove it beforehand " .
Always stay away from letting a company control your property .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Bingo.
I refuse to buy games that require online activation for this very reason.
The idiots who don't get why online activation is bad say "Oh, well they're a big company, they'll never go out of business and even if they did, they'd release a patch to remove it beforehand".
Always stay away from letting a company control your property.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0456202.30669344</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0456202.30670748</id>
	<title>Re:And another reason why you don't buy EA...</title>
	<author>mcgrew</author>
	<datestamp>1262798100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>The only reason they are not selling empty boxes</i></p><p>New from EA -- Air Guitar Hero!!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The only reason they are not selling empty boxesNew from EA -- Air Guitar Hero !
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The only reason they are not selling empty boxesNew from EA -- Air Guitar Hero!
!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0456202.30668244</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0456202.30669946</id>
	<title>Re:Why the need to shut down anything</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262795400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Old Republic the MMO is developed by Bioware/EA. That's probably going to need *a lot* of servers. They might be cleaning house and moving some of the servers from the less popular games over. The Madden 09 server going down is a bit shocking though.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Old Republic the MMO is developed by Bioware/EA .
That 's probably going to need * a lot * of servers .
They might be cleaning house and moving some of the servers from the less popular games over .
The Madden 09 server going down is a bit shocking though .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Old Republic the MMO is developed by Bioware/EA.
That's probably going to need *a lot* of servers.
They might be cleaning house and moving some of the servers from the less popular games over.
The Madden 09 server going down is a bit shocking though.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0456202.30668206</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0456202.30669020</id>
	<title>Timing</title>
	<author>rook166</author>
	<datestamp>1262790900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I think the timing of this announcement is really the icing on the cake - just long enough after the holidays for everyone to have opened their gifts and can't return them anymore. I wonder how many people would have returned Madden 10 back to stores knowing that the online play was likely only to last until 04/2011. And how many people who were feeling the economic crunch got used copies of Madden 09?</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think the timing of this announcement is really the icing on the cake - just long enough after the holidays for everyone to have opened their gifts and ca n't return them anymore .
I wonder how many people would have returned Madden 10 back to stores knowing that the online play was likely only to last until 04/2011 .
And how many people who were feeling the economic crunch got used copies of Madden 09 ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think the timing of this announcement is really the icing on the cake - just long enough after the holidays for everyone to have opened their gifts and can't return them anymore.
I wonder how many people would have returned Madden 10 back to stores knowing that the online play was likely only to last until 04/2011.
And how many people who were feeling the economic crunch got used copies of Madden 09?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0456202.30668458</id>
	<title>Re:Do without football</title>
	<author>PIBM</author>
	<datestamp>1262787360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Totally! Just go out and play for real.</p><p>Didn't RTFA, but can't you keep playing the game alone, or with your friends in the confort of your home, just not on the internet?</p><p>What fun is it fighting random newbs on the internet anyway ?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Totally !
Just go out and play for real.Did n't RTFA , but ca n't you keep playing the game alone , or with your friends in the confort of your home , just not on the internet ? What fun is it fighting random newbs on the internet anyway ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Totally!
Just go out and play for real.Didn't RTFA, but can't you keep playing the game alone, or with your friends in the confort of your home, just not on the internet?What fun is it fighting random newbs on the internet anyway ?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0456202.30668324</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0456202.30671186</id>
	<title>Is anyone...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262799900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>really surprised?  We're talking about EA here.  The destroyer of purchased IP and studios to their own and shareholder detriment.</p><p>What's really strange is that so many of the titles are the old EA standby sports games which they seem to have been able to rely upon year after year while they destroy studios and their IP that they've purchased, e.g. Origin Systems, etc.</p><p>I guess that EA must be tired of being in business, as this looks like prime opportunity for some new developers to come in and muscle in on their core sports franchise space...  Hell all they'd have to do was to produce a halfway decent game and allow indefinite online play.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>really surprised ?
We 're talking about EA here .
The destroyer of purchased IP and studios to their own and shareholder detriment.What 's really strange is that so many of the titles are the old EA standby sports games which they seem to have been able to rely upon year after year while they destroy studios and their IP that they 've purchased , e.g .
Origin Systems , etc.I guess that EA must be tired of being in business , as this looks like prime opportunity for some new developers to come in and muscle in on their core sports franchise space... Hell all they 'd have to do was to produce a halfway decent game and allow indefinite online play .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>really surprised?
We're talking about EA here.
The destroyer of purchased IP and studios to their own and shareholder detriment.What's really strange is that so many of the titles are the old EA standby sports games which they seem to have been able to rely upon year after year while they destroy studios and their IP that they've purchased, e.g.
Origin Systems, etc.I guess that EA must be tired of being in business, as this looks like prime opportunity for some new developers to come in and muscle in on their core sports franchise space...  Hell all they'd have to do was to produce a halfway decent game and allow indefinite online play.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0456202.30672670</id>
	<title>Re:No surprise there</title>
	<author>thetoadwarrior</author>
	<datestamp>1262805720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I agree the problem with sports games is that they cater to a group where a lot of people have to buy each season's new jersey, player cards, hat an so on. Buying the new season's game is just a badge to show how hardcore of a football,baseball, etc fan they are.
<br> <br>
That's why EA paid for an NFL licence monopoly and are willing to stick by Tiger rather than let his name go in case his scandal blows over quickly and someone else picks up his name.
<br> <br>
EA knows they can count on them and these tactics are probably more just to keep the less dedicated fans in line with EA's plans.
<br> <br>
The best way to stop this would be to get more competition in sports games. Then I bet you will find someone will cater for this and EA will likely copy them.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I agree the problem with sports games is that they cater to a group where a lot of people have to buy each season 's new jersey , player cards , hat an so on .
Buying the new season 's game is just a badge to show how hardcore of a football,baseball , etc fan they are .
That 's why EA paid for an NFL licence monopoly and are willing to stick by Tiger rather than let his name go in case his scandal blows over quickly and someone else picks up his name .
EA knows they can count on them and these tactics are probably more just to keep the less dedicated fans in line with EA 's plans .
The best way to stop this would be to get more competition in sports games .
Then I bet you will find someone will cater for this and EA will likely copy them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I agree the problem with sports games is that they cater to a group where a lot of people have to buy each season's new jersey, player cards, hat an so on.
Buying the new season's game is just a badge to show how hardcore of a football,baseball, etc fan they are.
That's why EA paid for an NFL licence monopoly and are willing to stick by Tiger rather than let his name go in case his scandal blows over quickly and someone else picks up his name.
EA knows they can count on them and these tactics are probably more just to keep the less dedicated fans in line with EA's plans.
The best way to stop this would be to get more competition in sports games.
Then I bet you will find someone will cater for this and EA will likely copy them.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0456202.30668546</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0456202.30667944</id>
	<title>"but please feel free to buy our '10 versions!"</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262782620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>That's like a mugger leaving a card thanking you for your custom and asking you to use his services again.</htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's like a mugger leaving a card thanking you for your custom and asking you to use his services again .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's like a mugger leaving a card thanking you for your custom and asking you to use his services again.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0456202.30670346</id>
	<title>Re:I, for one</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262796720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Madden 07 and 08 are included in the shutdown... but Madden 09 on all consoles as well?</p></div></blockquote><p>How else can they make you buy their shovelware every year?</p><p>As an aside, yesterday I bought a used copy of FIFA 08 for 98 pence from a high street retailer. Not being a particular fan of football games, this is about as much as I was willing to pay and no different from spending fifty times that for this year's iteration.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Madden 07 and 08 are included in the shutdown... but Madden 09 on all consoles as well ? How else can they make you buy their shovelware every year ? As an aside , yesterday I bought a used copy of FIFA 08 for 98 pence from a high street retailer .
Not being a particular fan of football games , this is about as much as I was willing to pay and no different from spending fifty times that for this year 's iteration .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Madden 07 and 08 are included in the shutdown... but Madden 09 on all consoles as well?How else can they make you buy their shovelware every year?As an aside, yesterday I bought a used copy of FIFA 08 for 98 pence from a high street retailer.
Not being a particular fan of football games, this is about as much as I was willing to pay and no different from spending fifty times that for this year's iteration.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0456202.30667884</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0456202.30675260</id>
	<title>Re:Some thoughts</title>
	<author>slimjim8094</author>
	<datestamp>1262774100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Of course, we all know that. Firing half your employees will let you coast through the quarter on inertia, with half the expense - so double the profit. Obviously, a few quarters later that doesn't work.</p><p>The problem is, a CEO looking out for their best interest will fire half the employees, see it through to the next quarter, and leave with a huge parachute because they "did the company so well".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Of course , we all know that .
Firing half your employees will let you coast through the quarter on inertia , with half the expense - so double the profit .
Obviously , a few quarters later that does n't work.The problem is , a CEO looking out for their best interest will fire half the employees , see it through to the next quarter , and leave with a huge parachute because they " did the company so well " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Of course, we all know that.
Firing half your employees will let you coast through the quarter on inertia, with half the expense - so double the profit.
Obviously, a few quarters later that doesn't work.The problem is, a CEO looking out for their best interest will fire half the employees, see it through to the next quarter, and leave with a huge parachute because they "did the company so well".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0456202.30668470</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0456202.30670496</id>
	<title>Re:Watch out, MW2 lovers...</title>
	<author>kalirion</author>
	<datestamp>1262797320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well MW2 servers won't be shut down until MW3 is out, so what's the problem, right?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well MW2 servers wo n't be shut down until MW3 is out , so what 's the problem , right ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well MW2 servers won't be shut down until MW3 is out, so what's the problem, right?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0456202.30668542</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0456202.30669210</id>
	<title>Re:"but please feel free to buy our '10 versions!"</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262791980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>That's like a mugger leaving a card thanking you for your custom and asking you to use his services again.</p></div><p>is that you Uncle Sugar?!?! I thought you only came around during tax time.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's like a mugger leaving a card thanking you for your custom and asking you to use his services again.is that you Uncle Sugar ? ! ? !
I thought you only came around during tax time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's like a mugger leaving a card thanking you for your custom and asking you to use his services again.is that you Uncle Sugar?!?!
I thought you only came around during tax time.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0456202.30667944</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0456202.30669932</id>
	<title>Re:This is why...</title>
	<author>nedlohs</author>
	<datestamp>1262795340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You don't get to tell them what the price points are, other than by not buying/renting it if they want too much.</p><p>It says on the box they can do this, if that makes it not worth $50 then don't buy it for $50.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You do n't get to tell them what the price points are , other than by not buying/renting it if they want too much.It says on the box they can do this , if that makes it not worth $ 50 then do n't buy it for $ 50 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You don't get to tell them what the price points are, other than by not buying/renting it if they want too much.It says on the box they can do this, if that makes it not worth $50 then don't buy it for $50.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0456202.30668600</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0456202.30668914</id>
	<title>Re:Box</title>
	<author>Blue Stone</author>
	<datestamp>1262790240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It sounds like EA is trying to reposition their brand. Perhaps they should go the whole way and rebrand entirely.</p><p>EA (Electronic Arts) becomes BO (Built-in Obsolescence).</p><p>From 'EA Sports, it's in the game' to 'BO Sports, the contents of this box stink'.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It sounds like EA is trying to reposition their brand .
Perhaps they should go the whole way and rebrand entirely.EA ( Electronic Arts ) becomes BO ( Built-in Obsolescence ) .From 'EA Sports , it 's in the game ' to 'BO Sports , the contents of this box stink' .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It sounds like EA is trying to reposition their brand.
Perhaps they should go the whole way and rebrand entirely.EA (Electronic Arts) becomes BO (Built-in Obsolescence).From 'EA Sports, it's in the game' to 'BO Sports, the contents of this box stink'.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0456202.30668156</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0456202.30669618</id>
	<title>Re:some needs to make there own PC NFL and NHL gam</title>
	<author>guruevi</author>
	<datestamp>1262793840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I believe that EA purchased the exclusive rights to use the NFL/NHL logo's in video games. You can make a football/hockey/baseball/basketball game but I don't believe you will ever be able to use the official logo's, players and outfits.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I believe that EA purchased the exclusive rights to use the NFL/NHL logo 's in video games .
You can make a football/hockey/baseball/basketball game but I do n't believe you will ever be able to use the official logo 's , players and outfits .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I believe that EA purchased the exclusive rights to use the NFL/NHL logo's in video games.
You can make a football/hockey/baseball/basketball game but I don't believe you will ever be able to use the official logo's, players and outfits.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0456202.30668838</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0456202.30667892</id>
	<title>2009 was last year, move with the times</title>
	<author>hanabal</author>
	<datestamp>1262782200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>well 2009 was so last year. and the games are always released a year early, madden 09 was actually released in 08. But yeah, this is pretty disgusting. one more reason to avoid EA games. forced obsolescence is the new hotness for the new decade</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>well 2009 was so last year .
and the games are always released a year early , madden 09 was actually released in 08 .
But yeah , this is pretty disgusting .
one more reason to avoid EA games .
forced obsolescence is the new hotness for the new decade</tokentext>
<sentencetext>well 2009 was so last year.
and the games are always released a year early, madden 09 was actually released in 08.
But yeah, this is pretty disgusting.
one more reason to avoid EA games.
forced obsolescence is the new hotness for the new decade</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0456202.30675004</id>
	<title>Hm</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262772960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is odd. A couple days ago my 360 was acting funny. It'd sign me out of Xbox live and clear my achievements anytime I played a game. One of these games was Madden '10.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is odd .
A couple days ago my 360 was acting funny .
It 'd sign me out of Xbox live and clear my achievements anytime I played a game .
One of these games was Madden '10 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is odd.
A couple days ago my 360 was acting funny.
It'd sign me out of Xbox live and clear my achievements anytime I played a game.
One of these games was Madden '10.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0456202.30668026</id>
	<title>What Happened?</title>
	<author>mrpacmanjel</author>
	<datestamp>1262783460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I remember back in the early eighties EA used to release some great games.</p><p>Anyone remember Skyfox, Pinball Construction Set, The Bard's Tale series and Racing Destruction Set?</p><p>All they seem to do now is publish endless sports titles and I imagine the licensing fees must be huge.</p><p>Maybe it is a "Good Thing" they are shutting down the services for these titles - one less reason to buy them.</p><p>The decision seems to be mainly the Sports Division of EA hopefully this decision won't start affecting other games genres.</p><p>Games affected:</p><p>February 2, 2010 Online Service Shutdown</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; * UEFA Champions League 07 PC and x360<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; * Facebreaker x360 and PS3<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; * Fantasy Football 09 x360 and PS3<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; * FIFA 07 PSP, PS2, PC<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; * Fight Night Round 3 PS2<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; * Madden 08 Wii<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; * Madden 08 PC<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; * Madden 09 Xbox1<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; * Madden 09 Wii and PSP<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; * March Madness 07 x360<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; * NBA 07 PSP, x360<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; * NBA 08 PS2, PSP, Wii<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; * NBA 09 Wii - Europe only<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; * NBA Street (2007) PS3 and x360<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; * NCAA Football 08 PS2<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; * NCAA Football 09 PS2<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; * NASCAR 08 PS2<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; * NASCAR 09 PS2<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; * NASCAR 09 PS3 and x360 - Europe Only<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; * NFL Tour PS3 and x360<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; * NHL 07 PSP and x360<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; * NHL 08 PC<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; * Tiger Woods 07 PC<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; * Madden 09 x360 and PS3<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; * Madden 07 Xbox 360</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I remember back in the early eighties EA used to release some great games.Anyone remember Skyfox , Pinball Construction Set , The Bard 's Tale series and Racing Destruction Set ? All they seem to do now is publish endless sports titles and I imagine the licensing fees must be huge.Maybe it is a " Good Thing " they are shutting down the services for these titles - one less reason to buy them.The decision seems to be mainly the Sports Division of EA hopefully this decision wo n't start affecting other games genres.Games affected : February 2 , 2010 Online Service Shutdown         * UEFA Champions League 07 PC and x360         * Facebreaker x360 and PS3         * Fantasy Football 09 x360 and PS3         * FIFA 07 PSP , PS2 , PC         * Fight Night Round 3 PS2         * Madden 08 Wii         * Madden 08 PC         * Madden 09 Xbox1         * Madden 09 Wii and PSP         * March Madness 07 x360         * NBA 07 PSP , x360         * NBA 08 PS2 , PSP , Wii         * NBA 09 Wii - Europe only         * NBA Street ( 2007 ) PS3 and x360         * NCAA Football 08 PS2         * NCAA Football 09 PS2         * NASCAR 08 PS2         * NASCAR 09 PS2         * NASCAR 09 PS3 and x360 - Europe Only         * NFL Tour PS3 and x360         * NHL 07 PSP and x360         * NHL 08 PC         * Tiger Woods 07 PC         * Madden 09 x360 and PS3         * Madden 07 Xbox 360</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I remember back in the early eighties EA used to release some great games.Anyone remember Skyfox, Pinball Construction Set, The Bard's Tale series and Racing Destruction Set?All they seem to do now is publish endless sports titles and I imagine the licensing fees must be huge.Maybe it is a "Good Thing" they are shutting down the services for these titles - one less reason to buy them.The decision seems to be mainly the Sports Division of EA hopefully this decision won't start affecting other games genres.Games affected:February 2, 2010 Online Service Shutdown
        * UEFA Champions League 07 PC and x360
        * Facebreaker x360 and PS3
        * Fantasy Football 09 x360 and PS3
        * FIFA 07 PSP, PS2, PC
        * Fight Night Round 3 PS2
        * Madden 08 Wii
        * Madden 08 PC
        * Madden 09 Xbox1
        * Madden 09 Wii and PSP
        * March Madness 07 x360
        * NBA 07 PSP, x360
        * NBA 08 PS2, PSP, Wii
        * NBA 09 Wii - Europe only
        * NBA Street (2007) PS3 and x360
        * NCAA Football 08 PS2
        * NCAA Football 09 PS2
        * NASCAR 08 PS2
        * NASCAR 09 PS2
        * NASCAR 09 PS3 and x360 - Europe Only
        * NFL Tour PS3 and x360
        * NHL 07 PSP and x360
        * NHL 08 PC
        * Tiger Woods 07 PC
        * Madden 09 x360 and PS3
        * Madden 07 Xbox 360</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0456202.30671372</id>
	<title>Re:What Happened?</title>
	<author>colesw</author>
	<datestamp>1262800500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>And that next necessary update will be Madden 11.</htmltext>
<tokenext>And that next necessary update will be Madden 11 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And that next necessary update will be Madden 11.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0456202.30670012</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0456202.30668694</id>
	<title>Re:Do without football</title>
	<author>mcvos</author>
	<datestamp>1262788860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>With EA holding the exclusive license for both NFL and FIFA, I guess you're just asking the world to do without football video games. Do I understand you correctly?</p></div><p>Only without officially trademark-licensed football  video games. You're still free to make games that don't use the names NFL and FIFA, and don't contain players whose names are owned by those organisations.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>With EA holding the exclusive license for both NFL and FIFA , I guess you 're just asking the world to do without football video games .
Do I understand you correctly ? Only without officially trademark-licensed football video games .
You 're still free to make games that do n't use the names NFL and FIFA , and do n't contain players whose names are owned by those organisations .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>With EA holding the exclusive license for both NFL and FIFA, I guess you're just asking the world to do without football video games.
Do I understand you correctly?Only without officially trademark-licensed football  video games.
You're still free to make games that don't use the names NFL and FIFA, and don't contain players whose names are owned by those organisations.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0456202.30668324</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0456202.30673612</id>
	<title>Re:2009 was last year, move with the times</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262809740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I can still find DeusEx, Unreal, UT and Postal2 servers.</p><p>

Old Evil: Microsoft</p><p>
New Evil: EA </p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I can still find DeusEx , Unreal , UT and Postal2 servers .
Old Evil : Microsoft New Evil : EA</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I can still find DeusEx, Unreal, UT and Postal2 servers.
Old Evil: Microsoft
New Evil: EA </sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0456202.30669344</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0456202.30668166</id>
	<title>No surprise there</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262784960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>If I may defend EA on one point, they do actually make it very clear they will shut down the service anytime they feel like it. In fact I think it's on the back of the game boxes as well. This isn't a surprise. They did this with their PC versions for some time.
<br> <br>
This why people shouldn't buy their games. There is no need for EA to be the middle man in online gaming but they do it purely to have control. They don't need you playing Madden 08 year after year. They need you to buy every version. Quite frankly I'm surprised they don't shut the servers down for the previous version the day the new version is released. It probably will get to that point.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If I may defend EA on one point , they do actually make it very clear they will shut down the service anytime they feel like it .
In fact I think it 's on the back of the game boxes as well .
This is n't a surprise .
They did this with their PC versions for some time .
This why people should n't buy their games .
There is no need for EA to be the middle man in online gaming but they do it purely to have control .
They do n't need you playing Madden 08 year after year .
They need you to buy every version .
Quite frankly I 'm surprised they do n't shut the servers down for the previous version the day the new version is released .
It probably will get to that point .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If I may defend EA on one point, they do actually make it very clear they will shut down the service anytime they feel like it.
In fact I think it's on the back of the game boxes as well.
This isn't a surprise.
They did this with their PC versions for some time.
This why people shouldn't buy their games.
There is no need for EA to be the middle man in online gaming but they do it purely to have control.
They don't need you playing Madden 08 year after year.
They need you to buy every version.
Quite frankly I'm surprised they don't shut the servers down for the previous version the day the new version is released.
It probably will get to that point.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0456202.30671768</id>
	<title>Re:Money, Money, and Money.</title>
	<author>harl</author>
	<datestamp>1262802120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How did Wii, PSP, and XBOX1 become all consoles?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How did Wii , PSP , and XBOX1 become all consoles ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How did Wii, PSP, and XBOX1 become all consoles?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0456202.30668252</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0456202.30671416</id>
	<title>Re:Do without football</title>
	<author>BobMcD</author>
	<datestamp>1262800740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Playing a game has numerous advantages over the real thing.  Safety and comfort being chief among them.  Am I supposed to go fetch a real sword and start soliciting quests from people, killing everything that gets in my way for the 'experience' of it?  Why then wouldn't this apply to sport games, if only on a less extreme level?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Playing a game has numerous advantages over the real thing .
Safety and comfort being chief among them .
Am I supposed to go fetch a real sword and start soliciting quests from people , killing everything that gets in my way for the 'experience ' of it ?
Why then would n't this apply to sport games , if only on a less extreme level ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Playing a game has numerous advantages over the real thing.
Safety and comfort being chief among them.
Am I supposed to go fetch a real sword and start soliciting quests from people, killing everything that gets in my way for the 'experience' of it?
Why then wouldn't this apply to sport games, if only on a less extreme level?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0456202.30668458</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0456202.30668466</id>
	<title>Odd?</title>
	<author>CodingHero</author>
	<datestamp>1262787480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>"Not only is the inclusion of PS3 and Xbox 360 titles odd . .<nobr> <wbr></nobr>."

Why is it odd to include PS3 and Xbox 360 and not-so-odd to shut down servers for PC gamers?</htmltext>
<tokenext>" Not only is the inclusion of PS3 and Xbox 360 titles odd .
. .
" Why is it odd to include PS3 and Xbox 360 and not-so-odd to shut down servers for PC gamers ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Not only is the inclusion of PS3 and Xbox 360 titles odd .
. .
"

Why is it odd to include PS3 and Xbox 360 and not-so-odd to shut down servers for PC gamers?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0456202.30668232</id>
	<title>Luckily for us</title>
	<author>santax</author>
	<datestamp>1262785500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>We can set up dedicated servers for the games we love. Oh wait...

Hard to believe that you pay for 60 euro's for a game and 1 or 2 years later you can't play it anymore. Now what should I do. Buy the new Madden, or buy a modchip...</htmltext>
<tokenext>We can set up dedicated servers for the games we love .
Oh wait.. . Hard to believe that you pay for 60 euro 's for a game and 1 or 2 years later you ca n't play it anymore .
Now what should I do .
Buy the new Madden , or buy a modchip.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We can set up dedicated servers for the games we love.
Oh wait...

Hard to believe that you pay for 60 euro's for a game and 1 or 2 years later you can't play it anymore.
Now what should I do.
Buy the new Madden, or buy a modchip...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0456202.30668156</id>
	<title>Box</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262784840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The back of the box clearly states(in small print) that the online service is only provided for 1 year from release date. The fact that they've lasted this long is just a bonus. I could understand if people were bitching and there was no warning, but there is.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The back of the box clearly states ( in small print ) that the online service is only provided for 1 year from release date .
The fact that they 've lasted this long is just a bonus .
I could understand if people were bitching and there was no warning , but there is .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The back of the box clearly states(in small print) that the online service is only provided for 1 year from release date.
The fact that they've lasted this long is just a bonus.
I could understand if people were bitching and there was no warning, but there is.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0456202.30680968</id>
	<title>Re:2009 was last year, move with the times</title>
	<author>jp10558</author>
	<datestamp>1262869920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The other thing that annoys me with this is (and I don't know that EA is to blame for this) I got a PS3 for christmas. I bought Madden 10. My cousin has an Xbox 360, and has Madden 10. He lives ~ 200 miles away now, but I was excited thinking that this new console system would now let us play the game together online. But no, we can't. Now, if this was a PC game, and he had a Dell while I have a Lenovo - we could still play the same game together.</p><p>I'm just glad I generally have little interest in online gaming on any platform, but it makes the online features of the PS3 almost a liability. I foolishly thought I could take my new PS3, drop in the new Madden game, and play. But no, I had to first wait to download a 185MB patch... This was one of the things I was trying to get away from in PC gaming and a reason I was going to consoles...</p><p>Overall, I'm much less "happy" with the PS3 than I was with the Genesis I got years ago... The games are good enough so far, but the experience is far too PC like, with new artificial restrictions.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The other thing that annoys me with this is ( and I do n't know that EA is to blame for this ) I got a PS3 for christmas .
I bought Madden 10 .
My cousin has an Xbox 360 , and has Madden 10 .
He lives ~ 200 miles away now , but I was excited thinking that this new console system would now let us play the game together online .
But no , we ca n't .
Now , if this was a PC game , and he had a Dell while I have a Lenovo - we could still play the same game together.I 'm just glad I generally have little interest in online gaming on any platform , but it makes the online features of the PS3 almost a liability .
I foolishly thought I could take my new PS3 , drop in the new Madden game , and play .
But no , I had to first wait to download a 185MB patch... This was one of the things I was trying to get away from in PC gaming and a reason I was going to consoles...Overall , I 'm much less " happy " with the PS3 than I was with the Genesis I got years ago... The games are good enough so far , but the experience is far too PC like , with new artificial restrictions .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The other thing that annoys me with this is (and I don't know that EA is to blame for this) I got a PS3 for christmas.
I bought Madden 10.
My cousin has an Xbox 360, and has Madden 10.
He lives ~ 200 miles away now, but I was excited thinking that this new console system would now let us play the game together online.
But no, we can't.
Now, if this was a PC game, and he had a Dell while I have a Lenovo - we could still play the same game together.I'm just glad I generally have little interest in online gaming on any platform, but it makes the online features of the PS3 almost a liability.
I foolishly thought I could take my new PS3, drop in the new Madden game, and play.
But no, I had to first wait to download a 185MB patch... This was one of the things I was trying to get away from in PC gaming and a reason I was going to consoles...Overall, I'm much less "happy" with the PS3 than I was with the Genesis I got years ago... The games are good enough so far, but the experience is far too PC like, with new artificial restrictions.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0456202.30667892</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0456202.30669846</id>
	<title>Re:And another reason why you don't buy EA...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262795040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Not really. EA single player games come with limited-activation-DRM that allows them to disable single player games whenever they feel like it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not really .
EA single player games come with limited-activation-DRM that allows them to disable single player games whenever they feel like it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not really.
EA single player games come with limited-activation-DRM that allows them to disable single player games whenever they feel like it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0456202.30668624</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0456202.30679098</id>
	<title>Re:I, for one</title>
	<author>interkin3tic</author>
	<datestamp>1262799840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Based on what I've seen, the vast majority of people already wanted the newest one.  The price for used madden whatever the current release was about 5 dollars less.  Last year's used was I think about half price.  Two years was somewhere around $5.  Gamestop would buy back two year old maddens, for about a quarter.  People lined up for hours yearly to get it.</p><p>I don't play sports games or watch them, so maybe it is a big deal to have current rosters, the latest players, but there was otherwise very little difference from what I could see.  It's madden football.  Buy the 3 year old copy for a smile, it's the same game being simulated, and there have been no major advancements in the simulation.  Pretend that one football player's name is actually another current football players name.  That doesn't seem to be going on at all, kids turned their noses up at the used copies.  Madden fans would sooner sell one of their two current gen systems rather than play a year old madden.</p><p>This is basically RIAA level greedy on the part of EA, they're playing sleazy to get only slightly more sales.</p><p>I guess an argument could be made that they are saving money by not maintaining the servers.  But I really don't think they're going to get many more sales.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Based on what I 've seen , the vast majority of people already wanted the newest one .
The price for used madden whatever the current release was about 5 dollars less .
Last year 's used was I think about half price .
Two years was somewhere around $ 5 .
Gamestop would buy back two year old maddens , for about a quarter .
People lined up for hours yearly to get it.I do n't play sports games or watch them , so maybe it is a big deal to have current rosters , the latest players , but there was otherwise very little difference from what I could see .
It 's madden football .
Buy the 3 year old copy for a smile , it 's the same game being simulated , and there have been no major advancements in the simulation .
Pretend that one football player 's name is actually another current football players name .
That does n't seem to be going on at all , kids turned their noses up at the used copies .
Madden fans would sooner sell one of their two current gen systems rather than play a year old madden.This is basically RIAA level greedy on the part of EA , they 're playing sleazy to get only slightly more sales.I guess an argument could be made that they are saving money by not maintaining the servers .
But I really do n't think they 're going to get many more sales .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Based on what I've seen, the vast majority of people already wanted the newest one.
The price for used madden whatever the current release was about 5 dollars less.
Last year's used was I think about half price.
Two years was somewhere around $5.
Gamestop would buy back two year old maddens, for about a quarter.
People lined up for hours yearly to get it.I don't play sports games or watch them, so maybe it is a big deal to have current rosters, the latest players, but there was otherwise very little difference from what I could see.
It's madden football.
Buy the 3 year old copy for a smile, it's the same game being simulated, and there have been no major advancements in the simulation.
Pretend that one football player's name is actually another current football players name.
That doesn't seem to be going on at all, kids turned their noses up at the used copies.
Madden fans would sooner sell one of their two current gen systems rather than play a year old madden.This is basically RIAA level greedy on the part of EA, they're playing sleazy to get only slightly more sales.I guess an argument could be made that they are saving money by not maintaining the servers.
But I really don't think they're going to get many more sales.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0456202.30672024</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0456202.30670402</id>
	<title>Re:2009 was last year, move with the times</title>
	<author>houstonbofh</author>
	<datestamp>1262796960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> <i>one more reason to avoid EA games.</i> </p><p>One more reason to avoid any game that depends on its publisher's servers. If I want to play Quake online I still can, and that came out well over ten years ago.</p></div><p>4x4 Evo2 came out 10 years ago and uses private servers.  But they publisher let the community take them over and it still works.  But EA doesn't understand that kind of loyalty, and would never do it.  It is why they will never get my money.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>one more reason to avoid EA games .
One more reason to avoid any game that depends on its publisher 's servers .
If I want to play Quake online I still can , and that came out well over ten years ago.4x4 Evo2 came out 10 years ago and uses private servers .
But they publisher let the community take them over and it still works .
But EA does n't understand that kind of loyalty , and would never do it .
It is why they will never get my money .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> one more reason to avoid EA games.
One more reason to avoid any game that depends on its publisher's servers.
If I want to play Quake online I still can, and that came out well over ten years ago.4x4 Evo2 came out 10 years ago and uses private servers.
But they publisher let the community take them over and it still works.
But EA doesn't understand that kind of loyalty, and would never do it.
It is why they will never get my money.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0456202.30669344</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0456202.30677002</id>
	<title>Re:Direct multiplayer?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262782920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>There's one thing i've never been that clear on with multiplayer gaming on consoles (only just got one, still avid PC gamer) - if you've 'friended' someone, eg on PSN or Live, are you still able to initiate a direct multiplayer game with that person?  Or is an EA server still required to act as some sort of broker?</p><p>From what I understand, I thought each of these games on consoles, that one of the players will be the 'server' - and that the role of the EA server is matchmaking etc, but clarification would be cool.  That is, is it possible to initiate a multiplayer session directly with another user, without the broker (i.e. EA Server)?</p></div><p>The answer is, it depends on the specific game. From what I've seen, most of the games that need to to disable NAT are just for the team-speak type interface, since that opens direct audio connections between the clients. However, if you are unable to start a "match" or a "game session" until you disable NAT, chances are pretty good you're acting as the server.</p><p>If you REALLY want to know, then sniff your network traffic and look at the remote IP's your UDP packets are headed to. If they are going into the dynamic space of an ISP then the game is using console's as servers, if the packets are going into an IP space used by EA or an affiliate then they are probably running the "server".</p><p>As for initiating sessions without the "broker", again it depends on the specific game. In some cases it will be technically possible, but you'll have to emulate the EA matchmaking server which probably violates some type of something or another. (yes, that's technical legal speech I used).</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>There 's one thing i 've never been that clear on with multiplayer gaming on consoles ( only just got one , still avid PC gamer ) - if you 've 'friended ' someone , eg on PSN or Live , are you still able to initiate a direct multiplayer game with that person ?
Or is an EA server still required to act as some sort of broker ? From what I understand , I thought each of these games on consoles , that one of the players will be the 'server ' - and that the role of the EA server is matchmaking etc , but clarification would be cool .
That is , is it possible to initiate a multiplayer session directly with another user , without the broker ( i.e .
EA Server ) ? The answer is , it depends on the specific game .
From what I 've seen , most of the games that need to to disable NAT are just for the team-speak type interface , since that opens direct audio connections between the clients .
However , if you are unable to start a " match " or a " game session " until you disable NAT , chances are pretty good you 're acting as the server.If you REALLY want to know , then sniff your network traffic and look at the remote IP 's your UDP packets are headed to .
If they are going into the dynamic space of an ISP then the game is using console 's as servers , if the packets are going into an IP space used by EA or an affiliate then they are probably running the " server " .As for initiating sessions without the " broker " , again it depends on the specific game .
In some cases it will be technically possible , but you 'll have to emulate the EA matchmaking server which probably violates some type of something or another .
( yes , that 's technical legal speech I used ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There's one thing i've never been that clear on with multiplayer gaming on consoles (only just got one, still avid PC gamer) - if you've 'friended' someone, eg on PSN or Live, are you still able to initiate a direct multiplayer game with that person?
Or is an EA server still required to act as some sort of broker?From what I understand, I thought each of these games on consoles, that one of the players will be the 'server' - and that the role of the EA server is matchmaking etc, but clarification would be cool.
That is, is it possible to initiate a multiplayer session directly with another user, without the broker (i.e.
EA Server)?The answer is, it depends on the specific game.
From what I've seen, most of the games that need to to disable NAT are just for the team-speak type interface, since that opens direct audio connections between the clients.
However, if you are unable to start a "match" or a "game session" until you disable NAT, chances are pretty good you're acting as the server.If you REALLY want to know, then sniff your network traffic and look at the remote IP's your UDP packets are headed to.
If they are going into the dynamic space of an ISP then the game is using console's as servers, if the packets are going into an IP space used by EA or an affiliate then they are probably running the "server".As for initiating sessions without the "broker", again it depends on the specific game.
In some cases it will be technically possible, but you'll have to emulate the EA matchmaking server which probably violates some type of something or another.
(yes, that's technical legal speech I used).
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0456202.30667940</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0456202.30668744</id>
	<title>Re:Do without football</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262789220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Are you sad that you cant rip them off like you rip off other devs?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Are you sad that you cant rip them off like you rip off other devs ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Are you sad that you cant rip them off like you rip off other devs?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0456202.30668324</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0456202.30669570</id>
	<title>Just look at Novalogic</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262793600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Novalogic still has servers running for "Delta Force 2" which is from 1999 (yes more than 10 years old), now that's what a I call an engagement in the community.</p><p>I'm glad I don't play EA games.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Novalogic still has servers running for " Delta Force 2 " which is from 1999 ( yes more than 10 years old ) , now that 's what a I call an engagement in the community.I 'm glad I do n't play EA games .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Novalogic still has servers running for "Delta Force 2" which is from 1999 (yes more than 10 years old), now that's what a I call an engagement in the community.I'm glad I don't play EA games.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0456202.30668640</id>
	<title>Don't lost sight of what this is really about</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262788500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Game publishers have a deep seated hatred of the reseller market for games.  By Cancelling service, not only does EA stand to cut some costs, but they also get to cripple the aftermarket sales of older games, forcing people to but new versions from EA instead.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Game publishers have a deep seated hatred of the reseller market for games .
By Cancelling service , not only does EA stand to cut some costs , but they also get to cripple the aftermarket sales of older games , forcing people to but new versions from EA instead .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Game publishers have a deep seated hatred of the reseller market for games.
By Cancelling service, not only does EA stand to cut some costs, but they also get to cripple the aftermarket sales of older games, forcing people to but new versions from EA instead.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0456202.30672402</id>
	<title>Re:Do without football</title>
	<author>mrdoogee</author>
	<datestamp>1262804580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So, you have 22 (21 other players, 1 ref) friends, a regulation field, 2 goals, and a  well lit facility to play it in?</p><p>I know I'm being pedantic, but there is something to be said for playing any "simulation" video game. I can go play football with my handfull of friends on a corner of a park with trash cans for goal posts, but sometimes I like to play a video game that lets me step into the shoes of a favorite team, or player.</p><p>There are a lot of people who really like to play sports in video games, and it sucks for them that in the case of NFL and FIFA there is only one publisher. Its like (but not exactly so) if SquareEnix were the only publisher of RPGs.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So , you have 22 ( 21 other players , 1 ref ) friends , a regulation field , 2 goals , and a well lit facility to play it in ? I know I 'm being pedantic , but there is something to be said for playing any " simulation " video game .
I can go play football with my handfull of friends on a corner of a park with trash cans for goal posts , but sometimes I like to play a video game that lets me step into the shoes of a favorite team , or player.There are a lot of people who really like to play sports in video games , and it sucks for them that in the case of NFL and FIFA there is only one publisher .
Its like ( but not exactly so ) if SquareEnix were the only publisher of RPGs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So, you have 22 (21 other players, 1 ref) friends, a regulation field, 2 goals, and a  well lit facility to play it in?I know I'm being pedantic, but there is something to be said for playing any "simulation" video game.
I can go play football with my handfull of friends on a corner of a park with trash cans for goal posts, but sometimes I like to play a video game that lets me step into the shoes of a favorite team, or player.There are a lot of people who really like to play sports in video games, and it sucks for them that in the case of NFL and FIFA there is only one publisher.
Its like (but not exactly so) if SquareEnix were the only publisher of RPGs.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0456202.30668588</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0456202.30672760</id>
	<title>Re:No surprise there</title>
	<author>rhizome</author>
	<datestamp>1262806020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>If I may defend EA on one point, they do actually make it very clear they will shut down the service anytime they feel like it. In fact I think it's on the back of the game boxes as well. This isn't a surprise.</i></p><p>Just because they say they'll be a dick someday doesn't change the fact that when that day comes they will indeed be dicks.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If I may defend EA on one point , they do actually make it very clear they will shut down the service anytime they feel like it .
In fact I think it 's on the back of the game boxes as well .
This is n't a surprise.Just because they say they 'll be a dick someday does n't change the fact that when that day comes they will indeed be dicks .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If I may defend EA on one point, they do actually make it very clear they will shut down the service anytime they feel like it.
In fact I think it's on the back of the game boxes as well.
This isn't a surprise.Just because they say they'll be a dick someday doesn't change the fact that when that day comes they will indeed be dicks.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0456202.30668166</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0456202.30673142</id>
	<title>Re:Killing the second hand market</title>
	<author>DragonWriter</author>
	<datestamp>1262807700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>This is probably just a ploy to kill off the second hand and discounted games market.</p></div> </blockquote><p>The ability to resell games on the secondhand market supports the price of new games. Killing the secondhand market only helps a publisher if they plan on cutting prices to make up for that, otherwise, they are reducing the market for new games, not expanding it. I would expect that this is more directed at people buying games, finding one that is satisfying, and keeping it for years rather than the resale market.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is probably just a ploy to kill off the second hand and discounted games market .
The ability to resell games on the secondhand market supports the price of new games .
Killing the secondhand market only helps a publisher if they plan on cutting prices to make up for that , otherwise , they are reducing the market for new games , not expanding it .
I would expect that this is more directed at people buying games , finding one that is satisfying , and keeping it for years rather than the resale market .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is probably just a ploy to kill off the second hand and discounted games market.
The ability to resell games on the secondhand market supports the price of new games.
Killing the secondhand market only helps a publisher if they plan on cutting prices to make up for that, otherwise, they are reducing the market for new games, not expanding it.
I would expect that this is more directed at people buying games, finding one that is satisfying, and keeping it for years rather than the resale market.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0456202.30668568</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0456202.30668860</id>
	<title>Re:Box</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262789940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Of course, it may be clearly stated on the box.  However, it's a matter of trusting a company or not.<br>Now, people who buy EA games will expect that their purchase will be useless after one or two years.</p><p>On the other hand,<br>Blizzard released its last patch for Diablo 2 eight years after release, and they have no sign of shutting multiplayer down.<br>Blizzard released its last patch for Starcraft eleven years after release, and they have no sign of shutting multiplayer down.<br>Blizzard released its last patch for Warcraft 3 six years after release (last month, actually), and they have no sign of shutting multiplayer down.</p><p>(AFAIK, the 1.24 patch for Warcraft 3, which was released last year, was a change of the API of its scripting engine to block security holes caused by malicious maps, not just small tweaks.  Who else does that for six-year-old games?)</p><p>and, how long do you expect Blizzard will support Starcraft 2 or Diablo 3, and hence, will your purchase be useful?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Of course , it may be clearly stated on the box .
However , it 's a matter of trusting a company or not.Now , people who buy EA games will expect that their purchase will be useless after one or two years.On the other hand,Blizzard released its last patch for Diablo 2 eight years after release , and they have no sign of shutting multiplayer down.Blizzard released its last patch for Starcraft eleven years after release , and they have no sign of shutting multiplayer down.Blizzard released its last patch for Warcraft 3 six years after release ( last month , actually ) , and they have no sign of shutting multiplayer down .
( AFAIK , the 1.24 patch for Warcraft 3 , which was released last year , was a change of the API of its scripting engine to block security holes caused by malicious maps , not just small tweaks .
Who else does that for six-year-old games ?
) and , how long do you expect Blizzard will support Starcraft 2 or Diablo 3 , and hence , will your purchase be useful ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Of course, it may be clearly stated on the box.
However, it's a matter of trusting a company or not.Now, people who buy EA games will expect that their purchase will be useless after one or two years.On the other hand,Blizzard released its last patch for Diablo 2 eight years after release, and they have no sign of shutting multiplayer down.Blizzard released its last patch for Starcraft eleven years after release, and they have no sign of shutting multiplayer down.Blizzard released its last patch for Warcraft 3 six years after release (last month, actually), and they have no sign of shutting multiplayer down.
(AFAIK, the 1.24 patch for Warcraft 3, which was released last year, was a change of the API of its scripting engine to block security holes caused by malicious maps, not just small tweaks.
Who else does that for six-year-old games?
)and, how long do you expect Blizzard will support Starcraft 2 or Diablo 3, and hence, will your purchase be useful?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0456202.30668156</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0456202.30672416</id>
	<title>Re:Do without football</title>
	<author>markhb</author>
	<datestamp>1262804640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>One young man I know, who requires a wheelchair to get around, finds the Wii version of Madden much more satisfying, not to mention possible, than your suggestion.</p><p>Plus, it's the NFLPA that licenses the players' names; the NFL licenses the team names and logos.  Without both you either get Tom Brady playing for "Boston" or the Patriots have Joe Schlabotnik at QB.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>One young man I know , who requires a wheelchair to get around , finds the Wii version of Madden much more satisfying , not to mention possible , than your suggestion.Plus , it 's the NFLPA that licenses the players ' names ; the NFL licenses the team names and logos .
Without both you either get Tom Brady playing for " Boston " or the Patriots have Joe Schlabotnik at QB .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One young man I know, who requires a wheelchair to get around, finds the Wii version of Madden much more satisfying, not to mention possible, than your suggestion.Plus, it's the NFLPA that licenses the players' names; the NFL licenses the team names and logos.
Without both you either get Tom Brady playing for "Boston" or the Patriots have Joe Schlabotnik at QB.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0456202.30668508</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0456202.30670806</id>
	<title>Re:Box</title>
	<author>j\_rhoden</author>
	<datestamp>1262798280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Also, even though it says Europe only in the list, this does hold true for NASCAR 09, since there won't be a new version of that game.  Polyphony Digital has the NASCAR license now, and it's supposed to show up in Gran Turismo 5, if that ever sees the light of day.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Also , even though it says Europe only in the list , this does hold true for NASCAR 09 , since there wo n't be a new version of that game .
Polyphony Digital has the NASCAR license now , and it 's supposed to show up in Gran Turismo 5 , if that ever sees the light of day .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Also, even though it says Europe only in the list, this does hold true for NASCAR 09, since there won't be a new version of that game.
Polyphony Digital has the NASCAR license now, and it's supposed to show up in Gran Turismo 5, if that ever sees the light of day.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0456202.30670100</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0456202.30667914</id>
	<title>And this is why...</title>
	<author>Serilleous</author>
	<datestamp>1262782440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>the option for customers to run dedicated servers are better.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...

but seriously, who plays Madden anyway?</htmltext>
<tokenext>the option for customers to run dedicated servers are better .
.. . but seriously , who plays Madden anyway ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>the option for customers to run dedicated servers are better.
...

but seriously, who plays Madden anyway?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0456202.30669746</id>
	<title>Re:Some thoughts</title>
	<author>DavidTC</author>
	<datestamp>1262794560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> <i>We should try and break the 18mo CEO cycle.</i> </p><p>
What we should do is pay the CEO in stock. Not stock <b>options</b> that he can choose to cash in or not, actual stock. Actual stock he cannot sell for five years.</p><p>
Pay them $100,000 a year and $2 million in current stock value, five years form now, and watch that stock price stay level and slowly go up. (Well, there needs to be some sort tax deferred structure there, as people can't actually pay taxes on $2 million on a $100,000 salary, but whatever.)</p><p>
Right now, they've got an incentive to make the stock randomly go up and down. Which is just what 'the stockholders' want, also, which is why I think this will never happen until we also do something else:</p><p>
Only let people buy and sell stock every six months. That's it. You buy part of a company, you cannot sell it for six months.</p><p>
It would instantly kill all the idiotic stuff going on in the stock market, and make people actually purchase stock that pays dividends, for said dividends, and only purchase companies they think will make them money <b>by making money</b>, instead of buying companies that will make them money because their stock value will go up next week and they can sell to someone else.</p><p>
The stock market is operating entirely incorrectly at this point. It should be a place that say 'You can come here and buy a tiny fraction of a company, and share in the profits, and, of course, the risk it might not make any' That is what it was designed to be.</p><p>
What it has turned into is a place that say 'Come here and purchases these abstract currencies and then try to sell them when their price is higher'. Hell, a good fraction of the stocks normally don't pay any dividends, making them literally valueless...you derive no benefit or value from owning them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We should try and break the 18mo CEO cycle .
What we should do is pay the CEO in stock .
Not stock options that he can choose to cash in or not , actual stock .
Actual stock he can not sell for five years .
Pay them $ 100,000 a year and $ 2 million in current stock value , five years form now , and watch that stock price stay level and slowly go up .
( Well , there needs to be some sort tax deferred structure there , as people ca n't actually pay taxes on $ 2 million on a $ 100,000 salary , but whatever .
) Right now , they 've got an incentive to make the stock randomly go up and down .
Which is just what 'the stockholders ' want , also , which is why I think this will never happen until we also do something else : Only let people buy and sell stock every six months .
That 's it .
You buy part of a company , you can not sell it for six months .
It would instantly kill all the idiotic stuff going on in the stock market , and make people actually purchase stock that pays dividends , for said dividends , and only purchase companies they think will make them money by making money , instead of buying companies that will make them money because their stock value will go up next week and they can sell to someone else .
The stock market is operating entirely incorrectly at this point .
It should be a place that say 'You can come here and buy a tiny fraction of a company , and share in the profits , and , of course , the risk it might not make any ' That is what it was designed to be .
What it has turned into is a place that say 'Come here and purchases these abstract currencies and then try to sell them when their price is higher' .
Hell , a good fraction of the stocks normally do n't pay any dividends , making them literally valueless...you derive no benefit or value from owning them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> We should try and break the 18mo CEO cycle.
What we should do is pay the CEO in stock.
Not stock options that he can choose to cash in or not, actual stock.
Actual stock he cannot sell for five years.
Pay them $100,000 a year and $2 million in current stock value, five years form now, and watch that stock price stay level and slowly go up.
(Well, there needs to be some sort tax deferred structure there, as people can't actually pay taxes on $2 million on a $100,000 salary, but whatever.
)
Right now, they've got an incentive to make the stock randomly go up and down.
Which is just what 'the stockholders' want, also, which is why I think this will never happen until we also do something else:
Only let people buy and sell stock every six months.
That's it.
You buy part of a company, you cannot sell it for six months.
It would instantly kill all the idiotic stuff going on in the stock market, and make people actually purchase stock that pays dividends, for said dividends, and only purchase companies they think will make them money by making money, instead of buying companies that will make them money because their stock value will go up next week and they can sell to someone else.
The stock market is operating entirely incorrectly at this point.
It should be a place that say 'You can come here and buy a tiny fraction of a company, and share in the profits, and, of course, the risk it might not make any' That is what it was designed to be.
What it has turned into is a place that say 'Come here and purchases these abstract currencies and then try to sell them when their price is higher'.
Hell, a good fraction of the stocks normally don't pay any dividends, making them literally valueless...you derive no benefit or value from owning them.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0456202.30668470</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0456202.30669484</id>
	<title>Re:Do without football</title>
	<author>gandhi\_2</author>
	<datestamp>1262793180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Because starting in February, if you want to play "football" with your friends, you must pay licensing fees to NFL. And anyone watching your game must pay royalties to NBC.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Because starting in February , if you want to play " football " with your friends , you must pay licensing fees to NFL .
And anyone watching your game must pay royalties to NBC .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because starting in February, if you want to play "football" with your friends, you must pay licensing fees to NFL.
And anyone watching your game must pay royalties to NBC.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0456202.30668458</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0456202.30668190</id>
	<title>Some thoughts</title>
	<author>igotmybfg</author>
	<datestamp>1262785200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Remember that the goal of any company including EA is not to make games, but to make money. They calculate they'll make more money by forcing people off the old games (at least the online parts) with the hope that some or most of those people will then upgrade to the newest version of the franchise:</p><blockquote><div><p>All of us at EA would like to thank you for your valued participation in our online gaming community and <b>hope that your enthusiasm for these games extends to our current lineup</b> and beyond.</p></div></blockquote><p>Other posters have expressed the hope that they'll release source code to the old games so that community-run versions of the servers can be developed. I submit that EA has a greater monetary incentive to keep the source closed - they can save a ton of money on development costs by slapping a new logo on last year's game, changing the version string, updating the player names, and releasing it again next year. </p><p>(soapbox alert) So why even play these games at all? What do you get after an hour of playing video games, besides a headache and high blood pressure? Why not go play an instrument, or play sports for real, or do something to improve yourself or the rest of the human race?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Remember that the goal of any company including EA is not to make games , but to make money .
They calculate they 'll make more money by forcing people off the old games ( at least the online parts ) with the hope that some or most of those people will then upgrade to the newest version of the franchise : All of us at EA would like to thank you for your valued participation in our online gaming community and hope that your enthusiasm for these games extends to our current lineup and beyond.Other posters have expressed the hope that they 'll release source code to the old games so that community-run versions of the servers can be developed .
I submit that EA has a greater monetary incentive to keep the source closed - they can save a ton of money on development costs by slapping a new logo on last year 's game , changing the version string , updating the player names , and releasing it again next year .
( soapbox alert ) So why even play these games at all ?
What do you get after an hour of playing video games , besides a headache and high blood pressure ?
Why not go play an instrument , or play sports for real , or do something to improve yourself or the rest of the human race ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Remember that the goal of any company including EA is not to make games, but to make money.
They calculate they'll make more money by forcing people off the old games (at least the online parts) with the hope that some or most of those people will then upgrade to the newest version of the franchise:All of us at EA would like to thank you for your valued participation in our online gaming community and hope that your enthusiasm for these games extends to our current lineup and beyond.Other posters have expressed the hope that they'll release source code to the old games so that community-run versions of the servers can be developed.
I submit that EA has a greater monetary incentive to keep the source closed - they can save a ton of money on development costs by slapping a new logo on last year's game, changing the version string, updating the player names, and releasing it again next year.
(soapbox alert) So why even play these games at all?
What do you get after an hour of playing video games, besides a headache and high blood pressure?
Why not go play an instrument, or play sports for real, or do something to improve yourself or the rest of the human race?
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0456202.30668244</id>
	<title>And another reason why you don't buy EA...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262785620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...in the first place.</p><p>They do not care at all if you have fun, or got anything from it.<br>They only care, if you give them the money. The only reason they are not selling empty boxes, is because they try to steer clear of getting a class action lawsuit for fraud. But they try to get as close as possible to that magic line, as long as it means more money.</p><p>And what do you expect from a company that basically works like a ancient galley, or a gulag... powered by mindless slaves, and controlled by someone who would sell his own grandmother for peanuts, or steal a lollipop from a child.</p><p>They work on the same basis, that makes the two party system work: Idiots, who don&rsquo;t learn from being fucked over.<br>Hint: If you bought a couple of EA games, that includes you. But at least you got a chance. ^^</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...in the first place.They do not care at all if you have fun , or got anything from it.They only care , if you give them the money .
The only reason they are not selling empty boxes , is because they try to steer clear of getting a class action lawsuit for fraud .
But they try to get as close as possible to that magic line , as long as it means more money.And what do you expect from a company that basically works like a ancient galley , or a gulag... powered by mindless slaves , and controlled by someone who would sell his own grandmother for peanuts , or steal a lollipop from a child.They work on the same basis , that makes the two party system work : Idiots , who don    t learn from being fucked over.Hint : If you bought a couple of EA games , that includes you .
But at least you got a chance .
^ ^</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...in the first place.They do not care at all if you have fun, or got anything from it.They only care, if you give them the money.
The only reason they are not selling empty boxes, is because they try to steer clear of getting a class action lawsuit for fraud.
But they try to get as close as possible to that magic line, as long as it means more money.And what do you expect from a company that basically works like a ancient galley, or a gulag... powered by mindless slaves, and controlled by someone who would sell his own grandmother for peanuts, or steal a lollipop from a child.They work on the same basis, that makes the two party system work: Idiots, who don’t learn from being fucked over.Hint: If you bought a couple of EA games, that includes you.
But at least you got a chance.
^^</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0456202.30667940</id>
	<title>Direct multiplayer?</title>
	<author>pete-wilko</author>
	<datestamp>1262782620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>There's one thing i've never been that clear on with multiplayer gaming on consoles (only just got one, still avid PC gamer) - if you've 'friended' someone, eg on PSN or Live, are you still able to initiate a direct multiplayer game with that person?  Or is an EA server still required to act as some sort of broker? <br> <br>

From what I understand, I thought each of these games on consoles, that one of the players will be the 'server' - and that the role of the EA server is matchmaking etc, but clarification would be cool.  That is, is it possible to initiate a multiplayer session directly with another user, without the broker (i.e. EA Server)?</htmltext>
<tokenext>There 's one thing i 've never been that clear on with multiplayer gaming on consoles ( only just got one , still avid PC gamer ) - if you 've 'friended ' someone , eg on PSN or Live , are you still able to initiate a direct multiplayer game with that person ?
Or is an EA server still required to act as some sort of broker ?
From what I understand , I thought each of these games on consoles , that one of the players will be the 'server ' - and that the role of the EA server is matchmaking etc , but clarification would be cool .
That is , is it possible to initiate a multiplayer session directly with another user , without the broker ( i.e .
EA Server ) ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There's one thing i've never been that clear on with multiplayer gaming on consoles (only just got one, still avid PC gamer) - if you've 'friended' someone, eg on PSN or Live, are you still able to initiate a direct multiplayer game with that person?
Or is an EA server still required to act as some sort of broker?
From what I understand, I thought each of these games on consoles, that one of the players will be the 'server' - and that the role of the EA server is matchmaking etc, but clarification would be cool.
That is, is it possible to initiate a multiplayer session directly with another user, without the broker (i.e.
EA Server)?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0456202.30670424</id>
	<title>Re:What Happened?</title>
	<author>DarKnyht</author>
	<datestamp>1262797080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Even more important to those wanting to complete their achievements and trophies, some of the games have rewards that require you to play online.  Once this happens they will effectively become unachievable.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Even more important to those wanting to complete their achievements and trophies , some of the games have rewards that require you to play online .
Once this happens they will effectively become unachievable .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Even more important to those wanting to complete their achievements and trophies, some of the games have rewards that require you to play online.
Once this happens they will effectively become unachievable.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0456202.30668026</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0456202.30672812</id>
	<title>Re:I, for one</title>
	<author>Opportunist</author>
	<datestamp>1262806320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Strange game. The only way to win seems to be not to play.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Strange game .
The only way to win seems to be not to play .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Strange game.
The only way to win seems to be not to play.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0456202.30672024</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0456202.30668720</id>
	<title>Re:Watch out, MW2 lovers...</title>
	<author>jfinke</author>
	<datestamp>1262788980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Not to defend IW or anything, because I think that they killed a lot of aspects of the game.  But, I believe that in this case, the individuals are hosting the game vs. IW hosting it.  Now, to what degree Steam / IW are involved in matchmaking I don't know.
</p><p>

Now, I have been surprised that the setup works at all.  But, it does work, for now.  But man, if something goes wrong, everyone in your party has to leave, you have to send invites out, etc....  It would have been much simpler to just included dedicated servers.  I will be surprised if the next version from IW comes out for the PC at all.  The consolization of the game reminds me of the shenanigans that EPIC pulled with UT3.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not to defend IW or anything , because I think that they killed a lot of aspects of the game .
But , I believe that in this case , the individuals are hosting the game vs. IW hosting it .
Now , to what degree Steam / IW are involved in matchmaking I do n't know .
Now , I have been surprised that the setup works at all .
But , it does work , for now .
But man , if something goes wrong , everyone in your party has to leave , you have to send invites out , etc.... It would have been much simpler to just included dedicated servers .
I will be surprised if the next version from IW comes out for the PC at all .
The consolization of the game reminds me of the shenanigans that EPIC pulled with UT3 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not to defend IW or anything, because I think that they killed a lot of aspects of the game.
But, I believe that in this case, the individuals are hosting the game vs. IW hosting it.
Now, to what degree Steam / IW are involved in matchmaking I don't know.
Now, I have been surprised that the setup works at all.
But, it does work, for now.
But man, if something goes wrong, everyone in your party has to leave, you have to send invites out, etc....  It would have been much simpler to just included dedicated servers.
I will be surprised if the next version from IW comes out for the PC at all.
The consolization of the game reminds me of the shenanigans that EPIC pulled with UT3.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0456202.30668542</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0456202.30671366</id>
	<title>Re:No surprise there</title>
	<author>apoc.famine</author>
	<datestamp>1262800500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's things like this that keep my 7-8 year boycott of anything stamped EA alive. I've pretty much forgotten which games started my boycott, but EA keeps giving me examples to work with.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's things like this that keep my 7-8 year boycott of anything stamped EA alive .
I 've pretty much forgotten which games started my boycott , but EA keeps giving me examples to work with .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's things like this that keep my 7-8 year boycott of anything stamped EA alive.
I've pretty much forgotten which games started my boycott, but EA keeps giving me examples to work with.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0456202.30668166</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0456202.30670012</id>
	<title>Re:What Happened?</title>
	<author>Monkeedude1212</author>
	<datestamp>1262795580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Maybe this is EAs plan to stop their endless sports cycle and get back to great games. Madden 10 will be the last Madden till it is deemed necessary for an update?</p><p>Heres hoping?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe this is EAs plan to stop their endless sports cycle and get back to great games .
Madden 10 will be the last Madden till it is deemed necessary for an update ? Heres hoping ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe this is EAs plan to stop their endless sports cycle and get back to great games.
Madden 10 will be the last Madden till it is deemed necessary for an update?Heres hoping?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0456202.30668026</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0456202.30668542</id>
	<title>Watch out, MW2 lovers...</title>
	<author>PopeRatzo</author>
	<datestamp>1262787960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Some weeks ago, there were some heated discussions here and elsewhere about COD4 Modern Warfare 2 and the decision NOT to include the capability to create dedicated servers for online play.  There was a great deal of anger from some COD4 fans who had found that the LAN play was the most exciting part of the COD4 experience.</p><p>The reaction from the MW2 fanboy community was "What could possibly go wrong?".</p><p>Well, here's your answer.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Some weeks ago , there were some heated discussions here and elsewhere about COD4 Modern Warfare 2 and the decision NOT to include the capability to create dedicated servers for online play .
There was a great deal of anger from some COD4 fans who had found that the LAN play was the most exciting part of the COD4 experience.The reaction from the MW2 fanboy community was " What could possibly go wrong ?
" .Well , here 's your answer .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Some weeks ago, there were some heated discussions here and elsewhere about COD4 Modern Warfare 2 and the decision NOT to include the capability to create dedicated servers for online play.
There was a great deal of anger from some COD4 fans who had found that the LAN play was the most exciting part of the COD4 experience.The reaction from the MW2 fanboy community was "What could possibly go wrong?
".Well, here's your answer.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0456202.30668324</id>
	<title>Do without football</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262786280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>With EA holding the exclusive license for both NFL and FIFA, I guess you're just asking the world to do without football video games. Do I understand you correctly?</htmltext>
<tokenext>With EA holding the exclusive license for both NFL and FIFA , I guess you 're just asking the world to do without football video games .
Do I understand you correctly ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>With EA holding the exclusive license for both NFL and FIFA, I guess you're just asking the world to do without football video games.
Do I understand you correctly?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0456202.30667910</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0456202.30676408</id>
	<title>Re:I, for one</title>
	<author>Runaway1956</author>
	<datestamp>1262779620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Simple marketing."</p><p>Marketing to the simple.</p><p>FTFY.  I've always said that buying consoles and the games to fit them was a simple minded activity.  Granted, I had an Atari, and a Commodore - ages ago.  When the PC became the "Big Thing", I never bought another console, or console game.  Aside from the two platforms mentioned, every single game that I've ever paid for are playable on my current machine.</p><p>Ahh well - if you're a Christian, Jesus said that the simple will always be with us.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Simple marketing .
" Marketing to the simple.FTFY .
I 've always said that buying consoles and the games to fit them was a simple minded activity .
Granted , I had an Atari , and a Commodore - ages ago .
When the PC became the " Big Thing " , I never bought another console , or console game .
Aside from the two platforms mentioned , every single game that I 've ever paid for are playable on my current machine.Ahh well - if you 're a Christian , Jesus said that the simple will always be with us .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Simple marketing.
"Marketing to the simple.FTFY.
I've always said that buying consoles and the games to fit them was a simple minded activity.
Granted, I had an Atari, and a Commodore - ages ago.
When the PC became the "Big Thing", I never bought another console, or console game.
Aside from the two platforms mentioned, every single game that I've ever paid for are playable on my current machine.Ahh well - if you're a Christian, Jesus said that the simple will always be with us.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0456202.30672024</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_0456202_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0456202.30667910
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0456202.30668324
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0456202.30668588
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0456202.30669620
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_0456202_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0456202.30668542
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0456202.30672170
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_0456202_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0456202.30668542
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0456202.30668950
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_0456202_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0456202.30668542
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0456202.30668720
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_0456202_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0456202.30667892
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0456202.30669344
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0456202.30671966
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_0456202_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0456202.30668252
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0456202.30669046
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_0456202_64</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0456202.30668026
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0456202.30671042
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_0456202_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0456202.30668166
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0456202.30671366
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_0456202_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0456202.30667892
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0456202.30670706
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_0456202_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0456202.30668244
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0456202.30668624
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0456202.30669846
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_0456202_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0456202.30668252
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0456202.30668678
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_0456202_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0456202.30668166
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0456202.30668546
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0456202.30672670
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_0456202_65</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0456202.30668244
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0456202.30670748
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_0456202_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0456202.30667892
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0456202.30669344
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0456202.30673612
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_0456202_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0456202.30668206
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0456202.30669946
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_0456202_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0456202.30667944
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0456202.30669210
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_0456202_57</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0456202.30668156
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0456202.30668860
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0456202.30677114
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_0456202_62</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0456202.30668190
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0456202.30668470
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0456202.30670460
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_0456202_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0456202.30667944
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0456202.30669048
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_0456202_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0456202.30668190
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0456202.30668470
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0456202.30675260
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_0456202_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0456202.30668156
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0456202.30670100
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0456202.30670806
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_0456202_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0456202.30667914
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0456202.30673244
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_0456202_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0456202.30668542
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0456202.30678296
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_0456202_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0456202.30668026
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0456202.30671122
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_0456202_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0456202.30668026
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0456202.30674854
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_0456202_56</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0456202.30667910
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0456202.30668324
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0456202.30668588
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0456202.30672402
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_0456202_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0456202.30668026
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0456202.30670012
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0456202.30671372
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_0456202_55</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0456202.30668166
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0456202.30672760
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_0456202_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0456202.30668026
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0456202.30669856
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_0456202_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0456202.30668600
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0456202.30669932
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_0456202_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0456202.30667910
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0456202.30668324
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0456202.30668458
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0456202.30669484
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0456202.30672236
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_0456202_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0456202.30668326
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0456202.30668644
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_0456202_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0456202.30667884
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0456202.30670346
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_0456202_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0456202.30668026
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0456202.30671984
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_0456202_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0456202.30668156
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0456202.30668914
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_0456202_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0456202.30667910
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0456202.30668324
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0456202.30668744
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_0456202_66</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0456202.30667892
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0456202.30669344
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0456202.30670402
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0456202.30674724
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_0456202_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0456202.30668568
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0456202.30673142
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_0456202_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0456202.30667884
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0456202.30672024
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0456202.30676408
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_0456202_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0456202.30667910
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0456202.30668324
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0456202.30669306
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_0456202_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0456202.30667940
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0456202.30677002
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_0456202_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0456202.30668190
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0456202.30668470
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0456202.30689352
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_0456202_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0456202.30668838
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0456202.30669618
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_0456202_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0456202.30667892
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0456202.30669344
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0456202.30672384
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_0456202_63</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0456202.30667884
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0456202.30672024
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0456202.30672812
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_0456202_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0456202.30668190
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0456202.30668470
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0456202.30669746
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_0456202_59</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0456202.30667910
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0456202.30668324
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0456202.30668508
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0456202.30672416
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_0456202_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0456202.30668206
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0456202.30669692
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_0456202_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0456202.30667940
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0456202.30668322
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_0456202_60</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0456202.30668088
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0456202.30671884
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_0456202_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0456202.30667892
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0456202.30669076
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_0456202_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0456202.30667884
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0456202.30672024
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0456202.30679098
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_0456202_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0456202.30667892
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0456202.30680968
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_0456202_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0456202.30668190
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0456202.30668470
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0456202.30669418
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_0456202_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0456202.30668542
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0456202.30670496
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_0456202_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0456202.30668166
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0456202.30672098
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_0456202_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0456202.30667910
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0456202.30668324
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0456202.30668694
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_0456202_58</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0456202.30668252
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0456202.30671768
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_0456202_61</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0456202.30668600
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0456202.30670302
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_0456202_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0456202.30668156
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0456202.30670100
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0456202.30670728
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_0456202_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0456202.30668026
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0456202.30668198
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_0456202_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0456202.30668026
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0456202.30669002
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_0456202_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0456202.30668088
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0456202.30668176
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_0456202_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0456202.30667910
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0456202.30668324
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0456202.30668458
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0456202.30671416
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_0456202_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0456202.30668026
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0456202.30670424
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_0456202_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0456202.30667910
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0456202.30668324
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0456202.30668588
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0456202.30672646
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_0456202_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0456202.30667910
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0456202.30668324
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0456202.30668588
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0456202.30670534
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_06_0456202.20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0456202.30668088
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0456202.30668176
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0456202.30671884
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_06_0456202.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0456202.30667944
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0456202.30669210
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0456202.30669048
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_06_0456202.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0456202.30668206
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0456202.30669946
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0456202.30669692
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_06_0456202.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0456202.30668026
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0456202.30669856
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0456202.30670424
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0456202.30674854
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0456202.30671042
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0456202.30670012
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0456202.30671372
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0456202.30671122
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0456202.30671984
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0456202.30668198
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0456202.30669002
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_06_0456202.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0456202.30668166
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0456202.30672760
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0456202.30671366
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0456202.30668546
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0456202.30672670
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0456202.30672098
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_06_0456202.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0456202.30667940
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0456202.30668322
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0456202.30677002
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_06_0456202.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0456202.30668326
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0456202.30668644
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_06_0456202.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0456202.30668542
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0456202.30668720
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0456202.30678296
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0456202.30670496
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0456202.30672170
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0456202.30668950
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_06_0456202.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0456202.30668640
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_06_0456202.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0456202.30668156
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0456202.30668860
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0456202.30677114
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0456202.30668914
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0456202.30670100
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0456202.30670728
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0456202.30670806
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_06_0456202.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0456202.30668052
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_06_0456202.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0456202.30667914
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0456202.30673244
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_06_0456202.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0456202.30668252
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0456202.30669046
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0456202.30671768
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0456202.30668678
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_06_0456202.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0456202.30668838
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0456202.30669618
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_06_0456202.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0456202.30667884
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0456202.30672024
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0456202.30679098
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0456202.30672812
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0456202.30676408
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0456202.30670346
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_06_0456202.23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0456202.30667900
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_06_0456202.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0456202.30671568
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_06_0456202.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0456202.30668568
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0456202.30673142
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_06_0456202.21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0456202.30668466
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_06_0456202.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0456202.30668600
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0456202.30670302
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0456202.30669932
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_06_0456202.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0456202.30668190
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0456202.30668470
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0456202.30675260
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0456202.30669746
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0456202.30670460
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0456202.30669418
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0456202.30689352
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_06_0456202.24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0456202.30667892
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0456202.30669076
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0456202.30669344
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0456202.30670402
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0456202.30674724
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0456202.30672384
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0456202.30671966
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0456202.30673612
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0456202.30670706
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0456202.30680968
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_06_0456202.22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0456202.30668244
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0456202.30670748
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0456202.30668624
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0456202.30669846
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_06_0456202.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0456202.30667910
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0456202.30668324
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0456202.30669306
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0456202.30668508
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0456202.30672416
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0456202.30668588
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0456202.30672402
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0456202.30670534
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0456202.30669620
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0456202.30672646
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0456202.30668458
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0456202.30669484
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0456202.30672236
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0456202.30671416
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0456202.30668694
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0456202.30668744
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_06_0456202.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_0456202.30667926
</commentlist>
</conversation>
