<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_01_23_0511255</id>
	<title>How Do You Measure a Game's Worth?</title>
	<author>Soulskill</author>
	<datestamp>1264245960000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>RamblingJosh writes <i>"Video games can be very expensive these days, especially with so many great games on the horizon. So I wonder: how exactly do you <a href="http://www.ramblingsofagamer.com/?p=399">get the most gaming entertainment for your dollar</a>? '... the first thing I personally thought about when approaching this was money spent versus time played. Using <em>Final Fantasy Tactics: War of the Lions</em> as an example: I bought the game for about $30 Canadian, and played it for roughly 85 hours. That comes out to 2.83 hours per dollar spent, a pretty good number. In this case, the game was a lot of fun and it was cheap, and so the system works fairly well. There are so many other things to think about, though. What if the game wasn't so good? What about the fact that it's portable? ... What about the new content? Multiplayer?'"</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>RamblingJosh writes " Video games can be very expensive these days , especially with so many great games on the horizon .
So I wonder : how exactly do you get the most gaming entertainment for your dollar ?
'... the first thing I personally thought about when approaching this was money spent versus time played .
Using Final Fantasy Tactics : War of the Lions as an example : I bought the game for about $ 30 Canadian , and played it for roughly 85 hours .
That comes out to 2.83 hours per dollar spent , a pretty good number .
In this case , the game was a lot of fun and it was cheap , and so the system works fairly well .
There are so many other things to think about , though .
What if the game was n't so good ?
What about the fact that it 's portable ?
... What about the new content ?
Multiplayer ? ' "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>RamblingJosh writes "Video games can be very expensive these days, especially with so many great games on the horizon.
So I wonder: how exactly do you get the most gaming entertainment for your dollar?
'... the first thing I personally thought about when approaching this was money spent versus time played.
Using Final Fantasy Tactics: War of the Lions as an example: I bought the game for about $30 Canadian, and played it for roughly 85 hours.
That comes out to 2.83 hours per dollar spent, a pretty good number.
In this case, the game was a lot of fun and it was cheap, and so the system works fairly well.
There are so many other things to think about, though.
What if the game wasn't so good?
What about the fact that it's portable?
... What about the new content?
Multiplayer?'"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0511255.30868690</id>
	<title>Quality is more important than quantity</title>
	<author>PWNtheon</author>
	<datestamp>1264251600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Hours per dollar is only a way to measure the quantity of enjoyment, not the quality.

Take Braid, which i completed in a few hours. Compare it to World of Warcraft which i have spent way way too much time on. I probably got a lot more game time per dollar from WoW, but the enjoyment i had when playing Braid was much greater, even with no replayability or online multiplayer.

I am worried games these days often forego the quality part and focus too much on the quantity.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Hours per dollar is only a way to measure the quantity of enjoyment , not the quality .
Take Braid , which i completed in a few hours .
Compare it to World of Warcraft which i have spent way way too much time on .
I probably got a lot more game time per dollar from WoW , but the enjoyment i had when playing Braid was much greater , even with no replayability or online multiplayer .
I am worried games these days often forego the quality part and focus too much on the quantity .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hours per dollar is only a way to measure the quantity of enjoyment, not the quality.
Take Braid, which i completed in a few hours.
Compare it to World of Warcraft which i have spent way way too much time on.
I probably got a lot more game time per dollar from WoW, but the enjoyment i had when playing Braid was much greater, even with no replayability or online multiplayer.
I am worried games these days often forego the quality part and focus too much on the quantity.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0511255.30869420</id>
	<title>Hours played is irrelevant</title>
	<author>Andtalath</author>
	<datestamp>1264260060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The only thing hours played tells you is how much time you've sat in front of the game.</p><p>This would, for instance, make EVE in every way a better game then, say Trine.<br>I however like Trine much more than I like Eve.</p><p>We live in a society where you can have fun pretty much 24/7, except for when doing dishes or when I work, I don't get bored.<br>I've got weeks worth of sci-fi shows to watch, almost an eternal amount of gameplay from different games.<br>So, a game which makes me play it for hours upon hours isn't necessarily good, it's just time consuming.</p><p>So, I'd rather have really fun for a couple of hours than I'd have an eternal kind off ok game, it's just simply more meaningful.</p><p>Of course, there are exceptions like Alpha Centauri which is awesomely fun and very time-consuming, those are the ones which I place on piedestals as masterpieces.<br>Starcraft would be another such game, as would Baldur's Gate 1+2.</p><p>So, no, time-consuming does in no way mean that it's worth more, not unless you have endless of hours to waste and need stuff to do.<br>Also, social games are kinda strange since you pay to spend time with people, which you could quite easily do for free.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The only thing hours played tells you is how much time you 've sat in front of the game.This would , for instance , make EVE in every way a better game then , say Trine.I however like Trine much more than I like Eve.We live in a society where you can have fun pretty much 24/7 , except for when doing dishes or when I work , I do n't get bored.I 've got weeks worth of sci-fi shows to watch , almost an eternal amount of gameplay from different games.So , a game which makes me play it for hours upon hours is n't necessarily good , it 's just time consuming.So , I 'd rather have really fun for a couple of hours than I 'd have an eternal kind off ok game , it 's just simply more meaningful.Of course , there are exceptions like Alpha Centauri which is awesomely fun and very time-consuming , those are the ones which I place on piedestals as masterpieces.Starcraft would be another such game , as would Baldur 's Gate 1 + 2.So , no , time-consuming does in no way mean that it 's worth more , not unless you have endless of hours to waste and need stuff to do.Also , social games are kinda strange since you pay to spend time with people , which you could quite easily do for free .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The only thing hours played tells you is how much time you've sat in front of the game.This would, for instance, make EVE in every way a better game then, say Trine.I however like Trine much more than I like Eve.We live in a society where you can have fun pretty much 24/7, except for when doing dishes or when I work, I don't get bored.I've got weeks worth of sci-fi shows to watch, almost an eternal amount of gameplay from different games.So, a game which makes me play it for hours upon hours isn't necessarily good, it's just time consuming.So, I'd rather have really fun for a couple of hours than I'd have an eternal kind off ok game, it's just simply more meaningful.Of course, there are exceptions like Alpha Centauri which is awesomely fun and very time-consuming, those are the ones which I place on piedestals as masterpieces.Starcraft would be another such game, as would Baldur's Gate 1+2.So, no, time-consuming does in no way mean that it's worth more, not unless you have endless of hours to waste and need stuff to do.Also, social games are kinda strange since you pay to spend time with people, which you could quite easily do for free.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0511255.30868984</id>
	<title>DRM</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264255140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>DRM makes the game worth less. Online activation makes the game 50\% less worthy, limited online activation makes the game another 50\% less worthy.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>DRM makes the game worth less .
Online activation makes the game 50 \ % less worthy , limited online activation makes the game another 50 \ % less worthy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>DRM makes the game worth less.
Online activation makes the game 50\% less worthy, limited online activation makes the game another 50\% less worthy.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0511255.30870668</id>
	<title>Counterexample - "time suck"</title>
	<author>Web Goddess</author>
	<datestamp>1264271220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I searched the thread and found no mention of the time suck negative, whereas if a game is awesome rocks, you get more than your money's worth hour-wise, but lose like 2000 hours of your life playing it.  And flunk out of your PhD program.  Statistics (on game's value hours/dollar) was never your strong suit.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I searched the thread and found no mention of the time suck negative , whereas if a game is awesome rocks , you get more than your money 's worth hour-wise , but lose like 2000 hours of your life playing it .
And flunk out of your PhD program .
Statistics ( on game 's value hours/dollar ) was never your strong suit .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I searched the thread and found no mention of the time suck negative, whereas if a game is awesome rocks, you get more than your money's worth hour-wise, but lose like 2000 hours of your life playing it.
And flunk out of your PhD program.
Statistics (on game's value hours/dollar) was never your strong suit.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0511255.30868702</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0511255.30868806</id>
	<title>My take on it</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264252860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><b>Hours per [currency]</b><br>The longer a game can last, the better.</p><p><b>Does the game actually work?</b><br>How well is it?  Are there any silly bugs or horrible controls that ruin the gameplay?<br>Is the gameplay itself up to a decent standard?</p><p><b>Work or play?</b><br>Fun is always a good thing in games.  But challenges are always welcome too.<br>Does the game find the right balance between fun and annoyingly hard?<br>I like my challenges, but something near-enough impossible without a guide or extreme levels of trial and error just become annoying.<br>It the game actually challenging and not dumbing it down to lower the entry level?  (something that has happened a LOT on Wii sadly...)</p><p><b>"Replayability"</b><br>Does it let you continue on after "completing" main game?<br>Does it give you any incentive to replay the game? Such as extra options, stats or items, or the usual extra endings?<br>Does the game have an active landscape, rather than boring dull static landscape?<br>Does it force you through an area more than a few times?  (more than 4 is really stretching it, MMO and open-landscape type games are exempt in this case)</p><p><b>Uniqueness</b><br>I don't think there is much to say in this.<br>Any innovation in the game is usually a good thing, even something as small as how to assign points to characters. (Sphere Grids of FFX took the FF points assigning out of the usual menus and numbers for example)</p><p><b>Graphics and audio</b><br>Does it fit well with the game?  Even contrasting colors with the theme are good, such as Disney-bright primaries with an ultra-violent game.</p><p><b>Multiplayer</b> (if none, is ignored)<br>Decent multiplayer system?  Easy to setup games?</p><p>Online play?  Able to setup your own servers?  Or is it through some owned server?  Or both?<br>In both cases, do the games run just as smoothly as each other?<br>Free?  Decent Fees?  Pay-per-play plan?  (one reason i refuse to play most MMOs, i'm not going to have the time to play ~15/7/365!)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hours per [ currency ] The longer a game can last , the better.Does the game actually work ? How well is it ?
Are there any silly bugs or horrible controls that ruin the gameplay ? Is the gameplay itself up to a decent standard ? Work or play ? Fun is always a good thing in games .
But challenges are always welcome too.Does the game find the right balance between fun and annoyingly hard ? I like my challenges , but something near-enough impossible without a guide or extreme levels of trial and error just become annoying.It the game actually challenging and not dumbing it down to lower the entry level ?
( something that has happened a LOT on Wii sadly... ) " Replayability " Does it let you continue on after " completing " main game ? Does it give you any incentive to replay the game ?
Such as extra options , stats or items , or the usual extra endings ? Does the game have an active landscape , rather than boring dull static landscape ? Does it force you through an area more than a few times ?
( more than 4 is really stretching it , MMO and open-landscape type games are exempt in this case ) UniquenessI do n't think there is much to say in this.Any innovation in the game is usually a good thing , even something as small as how to assign points to characters .
( Sphere Grids of FFX took the FF points assigning out of the usual menus and numbers for example ) Graphics and audioDoes it fit well with the game ?
Even contrasting colors with the theme are good , such as Disney-bright primaries with an ultra-violent game.Multiplayer ( if none , is ignored ) Decent multiplayer system ?
Easy to setup games ? Online play ?
Able to setup your own servers ?
Or is it through some owned server ?
Or both ? In both cases , do the games run just as smoothly as each other ? Free ?
Decent Fees ?
Pay-per-play plan ?
( one reason i refuse to play most MMOs , i 'm not going to have the time to play ~ 15/7/365 !
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hours per [currency]The longer a game can last, the better.Does the game actually work?How well is it?
Are there any silly bugs or horrible controls that ruin the gameplay?Is the gameplay itself up to a decent standard?Work or play?Fun is always a good thing in games.
But challenges are always welcome too.Does the game find the right balance between fun and annoyingly hard?I like my challenges, but something near-enough impossible without a guide or extreme levels of trial and error just become annoying.It the game actually challenging and not dumbing it down to lower the entry level?
(something that has happened a LOT on Wii sadly...)"Replayability"Does it let you continue on after "completing" main game?Does it give you any incentive to replay the game?
Such as extra options, stats or items, or the usual extra endings?Does the game have an active landscape, rather than boring dull static landscape?Does it force you through an area more than a few times?
(more than 4 is really stretching it, MMO and open-landscape type games are exempt in this case)UniquenessI don't think there is much to say in this.Any innovation in the game is usually a good thing, even something as small as how to assign points to characters.
(Sphere Grids of FFX took the FF points assigning out of the usual menus and numbers for example)Graphics and audioDoes it fit well with the game?
Even contrasting colors with the theme are good, such as Disney-bright primaries with an ultra-violent game.Multiplayer (if none, is ignored)Decent multiplayer system?
Easy to setup games?Online play?
Able to setup your own servers?
Or is it through some owned server?
Or both?In both cases, do the games run just as smoothly as each other?Free?
Decent Fees?
Pay-per-play plan?
(one reason i refuse to play most MMOs, i'm not going to have the time to play ~15/7/365!
)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0511255.30868582</id>
	<title>Hours per dollar is good</title>
	<author>TheThiefMaster</author>
	<datestamp>1264249860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Time spent playing (per dollar) seems like a good measurement. If a game has other advantages beyond being good, such as being a mobile phone game you can play while sitting bored on a train, then that will cause you to play it more. Everything naturally factors in.</p><p>Of course, values between different people aren't comparable due to different tastes and amounts of time available to play games, and it's virtually impossible to work out in advance how many hours you will play the game for, but it's a good way to quantify a game's value.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Time spent playing ( per dollar ) seems like a good measurement .
If a game has other advantages beyond being good , such as being a mobile phone game you can play while sitting bored on a train , then that will cause you to play it more .
Everything naturally factors in.Of course , values between different people are n't comparable due to different tastes and amounts of time available to play games , and it 's virtually impossible to work out in advance how many hours you will play the game for , but it 's a good way to quantify a game 's value .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Time spent playing (per dollar) seems like a good measurement.
If a game has other advantages beyond being good, such as being a mobile phone game you can play while sitting bored on a train, then that will cause you to play it more.
Everything naturally factors in.Of course, values between different people aren't comparable due to different tastes and amounts of time available to play games, and it's virtually impossible to work out in advance how many hours you will play the game for, but it's a good way to quantify a game's value.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0511255.30868704</id>
	<title>Duke Nukem Forever</title>
	<author>Max(10)</author>
	<datestamp>1264251780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>is priceless.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>is priceless .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>is priceless.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0511255.30869988</id>
	<title>Re:Hours per dollar is good</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264265700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think its a lot more complex than that. Time spent is good, but it can be exploited - I spent a lot more time on WoW but I wouldn't say thats because WoW is a good game, its because so much of the time spent was doing mundane drawn out actions like travel. A lot of RPGs have this -- They can force you to spend more time playing by being just interesting enough to keep you playing, while slowing you down with as much travel, required combat to grind, etc  to inflate the hours played.</p><p>On the other hand you have a game like Braid or Portal, which I didnt spend nearly as much time on  and almost certainly paid more per hour for, but I would rank both of those above a lot of games just because of how concise they were - You played it and you finished it like you would finish reading a story.</p><p>Then theres competitive games like Quake, Street Fighter, Counterstrike, and similar games. The story there is irrelevant and you have to weigh the worth based on  how well multiplayer plays as that is really the only metric that matters.</p><p>So I guess what I'm saying is theres no one metric that you can apply to all games,  different games have different things that make them good or bad.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think its a lot more complex than that .
Time spent is good , but it can be exploited - I spent a lot more time on WoW but I would n't say thats because WoW is a good game , its because so much of the time spent was doing mundane drawn out actions like travel .
A lot of RPGs have this -- They can force you to spend more time playing by being just interesting enough to keep you playing , while slowing you down with as much travel , required combat to grind , etc to inflate the hours played.On the other hand you have a game like Braid or Portal , which I didnt spend nearly as much time on and almost certainly paid more per hour for , but I would rank both of those above a lot of games just because of how concise they were - You played it and you finished it like you would finish reading a story.Then theres competitive games like Quake , Street Fighter , Counterstrike , and similar games .
The story there is irrelevant and you have to weigh the worth based on how well multiplayer plays as that is really the only metric that matters.So I guess what I 'm saying is theres no one metric that you can apply to all games , different games have different things that make them good or bad .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think its a lot more complex than that.
Time spent is good, but it can be exploited - I spent a lot more time on WoW but I wouldn't say thats because WoW is a good game, its because so much of the time spent was doing mundane drawn out actions like travel.
A lot of RPGs have this -- They can force you to spend more time playing by being just interesting enough to keep you playing, while slowing you down with as much travel, required combat to grind, etc  to inflate the hours played.On the other hand you have a game like Braid or Portal, which I didnt spend nearly as much time on  and almost certainly paid more per hour for, but I would rank both of those above a lot of games just because of how concise they were - You played it and you finished it like you would finish reading a story.Then theres competitive games like Quake, Street Fighter, Counterstrike, and similar games.
The story there is irrelevant and you have to weigh the worth based on  how well multiplayer plays as that is really the only metric that matters.So I guess what I'm saying is theres no one metric that you can apply to all games,  different games have different things that make them good or bad.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0511255.30868582</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0511255.30868868</id>
	<title>Re:Hours per dollar is good</title>
	<author>beelsebob</author>
	<datestamp>1264253820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><em>if we take into account only time spent per dollar PAC MAN and TETRIS are the best games ever developed !</em><br>No, they are the games with the highest worth (value), not the best.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>if we take into account only time spent per dollar PAC MAN and TETRIS are the best games ever developed ! No , they are the games with the highest worth ( value ) , not the best .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>if we take into account only time spent per dollar PAC MAN and TETRIS are the best games ever developed !No, they are the games with the highest worth (value), not the best.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0511255.30868702</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0511255.30868618</id>
	<title>ghahaha</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264250580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>easy really</p><p>i just dowload shit from tpb<br>there are only about two or three games per year worth purchasing</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>easy reallyi just dowload shit from tpbthere are only about two or three games per year worth purchasing</tokentext>
<sentencetext>easy reallyi just dowload shit from tpbthere are only about two or three games per year worth purchasing</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0511255.30869814</id>
	<title>What did I do with it?</title>
	<author>Fractal Dice</author>
	<datestamp>1264263900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>My measure of a game's value is how many features find their way into my own games, stories and conversations.</p><p>I know my opinion is probably an anomaly, but I hate dead entertainment that one just experiences then never uses - if it's just some time-passing endorphin rush, it's as pointless as taking drugs.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>My measure of a game 's value is how many features find their way into my own games , stories and conversations.I know my opinion is probably an anomaly , but I hate dead entertainment that one just experiences then never uses - if it 's just some time-passing endorphin rush , it 's as pointless as taking drugs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My measure of a game's value is how many features find their way into my own games, stories and conversations.I know my opinion is probably an anomaly, but I hate dead entertainment that one just experiences then never uses - if it's just some time-passing endorphin rush, it's as pointless as taking drugs.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0511255.30868880</id>
	<title>Re:Disagree</title>
	<author>Hognoxious</author>
	<datestamp>1264253940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If it was mediocre I don't think I could play it for that long.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If it was mediocre I do n't think I could play it for that long .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If it was mediocre I don't think I could play it for that long.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0511255.30868746</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0511255.30868798</id>
	<title>influence of bad game parts</title>
	<author>Catil</author>
	<datestamp>1264252800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The sole amount of time spent playing a game doesn't consider the parts of the game that didn't entertain or were even frustrating. I guess you can't just substract these "wasted" hours either because a 20 hour game without any frustrating parts is likely to entertain you more than a 30 hour game that includes 10 hours of frustration. It depends a lot on how much your free time playing games is worth to you in the first place. It may even be worth so much that you enjoy a five minute Solitair game a lot more than going through five minutes of just learning the controls of any other game, as an extreme example. The location of the bad game parts is also important as five minutes of frustation every now and then are less likely to decrease your entertainment than a bad two hour part in one go, especially if that were your only two hours of playtime that weekend.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The sole amount of time spent playing a game does n't consider the parts of the game that did n't entertain or were even frustrating .
I guess you ca n't just substract these " wasted " hours either because a 20 hour game without any frustrating parts is likely to entertain you more than a 30 hour game that includes 10 hours of frustration .
It depends a lot on how much your free time playing games is worth to you in the first place .
It may even be worth so much that you enjoy a five minute Solitair game a lot more than going through five minutes of just learning the controls of any other game , as an extreme example .
The location of the bad game parts is also important as five minutes of frustation every now and then are less likely to decrease your entertainment than a bad two hour part in one go , especially if that were your only two hours of playtime that weekend .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The sole amount of time spent playing a game doesn't consider the parts of the game that didn't entertain or were even frustrating.
I guess you can't just substract these "wasted" hours either because a 20 hour game without any frustrating parts is likely to entertain you more than a 30 hour game that includes 10 hours of frustration.
It depends a lot on how much your free time playing games is worth to you in the first place.
It may even be worth so much that you enjoy a five minute Solitair game a lot more than going through five minutes of just learning the controls of any other game, as an extreme example.
The location of the bad game parts is also important as five minutes of frustation every now and then are less likely to decrease your entertainment than a bad two hour part in one go, especially if that were your only two hours of playtime that weekend.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0511255.30868774</id>
	<title>Re:Hours per dollar is good</title>
	<author>Savage-Rabbit</author>
	<datestamp>1264252620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Time spent playing (per dollar) seems like a good measurement. If a game has other advantages beyond being good, such as being a mobile phone game you can play while sitting bored on a train, then that will cause you to play it more. Everything naturally factors in.</p><p>Of course, values between different people aren't comparable due to different tastes and amounts of time available to play games, and it's virtually impossible to work out in advance how many hours you will play the game for, but it's a good way to quantify a game's value.</p></div><p>It's one way but not the only one. I paid about the same amount of money for Quake I and Duke Nukem, I also spent about the same amount of time playing them. As far as I was concerned Duke Nukem was the better game by far even though it didn't have nearly as much eye-candy as other games it was just more 'fun' to play. The same applies to Half Life I and II and Unreal as well, now that I think about it, were also superior games IMHO. A good game should take more than one weekend to complete (single player). I wouldn't even mind having the story spread out over a few expansion packs like Half Life (as long as they don't get greedy with the pricing), it should have a plot that makes sense, it should be 'fun' to play and I'd be willing to lose a bit of eye candy for things like playability, good AI and big well designed maps with lots of open spaces  etc...   I don't know about the rest of you, but take the some of the Doom series games for example, those endless rooms and hallways started boring me to tears after a while. Games other than 1st person shooters have different requirements. Take for example Civilization, going by length of game play it's a winner. I can still waste an entire day playing Civilization IV but they could improve the AI. In a game like that AI is really important.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Time spent playing ( per dollar ) seems like a good measurement .
If a game has other advantages beyond being good , such as being a mobile phone game you can play while sitting bored on a train , then that will cause you to play it more .
Everything naturally factors in.Of course , values between different people are n't comparable due to different tastes and amounts of time available to play games , and it 's virtually impossible to work out in advance how many hours you will play the game for , but it 's a good way to quantify a game 's value.It 's one way but not the only one .
I paid about the same amount of money for Quake I and Duke Nukem , I also spent about the same amount of time playing them .
As far as I was concerned Duke Nukem was the better game by far even though it did n't have nearly as much eye-candy as other games it was just more 'fun ' to play .
The same applies to Half Life I and II and Unreal as well , now that I think about it , were also superior games IMHO .
A good game should take more than one weekend to complete ( single player ) .
I would n't even mind having the story spread out over a few expansion packs like Half Life ( as long as they do n't get greedy with the pricing ) , it should have a plot that makes sense , it should be 'fun ' to play and I 'd be willing to lose a bit of eye candy for things like playability , good AI and big well designed maps with lots of open spaces etc... I do n't know about the rest of you , but take the some of the Doom series games for example , those endless rooms and hallways started boring me to tears after a while .
Games other than 1st person shooters have different requirements .
Take for example Civilization , going by length of game play it 's a winner .
I can still waste an entire day playing Civilization IV but they could improve the AI .
In a game like that AI is really important .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Time spent playing (per dollar) seems like a good measurement.
If a game has other advantages beyond being good, such as being a mobile phone game you can play while sitting bored on a train, then that will cause you to play it more.
Everything naturally factors in.Of course, values between different people aren't comparable due to different tastes and amounts of time available to play games, and it's virtually impossible to work out in advance how many hours you will play the game for, but it's a good way to quantify a game's value.It's one way but not the only one.
I paid about the same amount of money for Quake I and Duke Nukem, I also spent about the same amount of time playing them.
As far as I was concerned Duke Nukem was the better game by far even though it didn't have nearly as much eye-candy as other games it was just more 'fun' to play.
The same applies to Half Life I and II and Unreal as well, now that I think about it, were also superior games IMHO.
A good game should take more than one weekend to complete (single player).
I wouldn't even mind having the story spread out over a few expansion packs like Half Life (as long as they don't get greedy with the pricing), it should have a plot that makes sense, it should be 'fun' to play and I'd be willing to lose a bit of eye candy for things like playability, good AI and big well designed maps with lots of open spaces  etc...   I don't know about the rest of you, but take the some of the Doom series games for example, those endless rooms and hallways started boring me to tears after a while.
Games other than 1st person shooters have different requirements.
Take for example Civilization, going by length of game play it's a winner.
I can still waste an entire day playing Civilization IV but they could improve the AI.
In a game like that AI is really important.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0511255.30868582</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0511255.30889366</id>
	<title>Re:A games worth</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264432620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Just because some old guy uses WoW to lure you into his van, doesn't mean you're getting your moneys worth. You could just hang out on AOL Chat boards and get the same without the monthly investment.. or join the Catholic church</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Just because some old guy uses WoW to lure you into his van , does n't mean you 're getting your moneys worth .
You could just hang out on AOL Chat boards and get the same without the monthly investment.. or join the Catholic church</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just because some old guy uses WoW to lure you into his van, doesn't mean you're getting your moneys worth.
You could just hang out on AOL Chat boards and get the same without the monthly investment.. or join the Catholic church</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0511255.30868606</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0511255.30871506</id>
	<title>Plaid Factor, I guess</title>
	<author>grikdog</author>
	<datestamp>1264277520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I've played Mike Goetz' B03 version of CP/M Adventure (really Crowther &amp; Woods's, with a few additions) on every computer I've owned since my Kaypro 10, thanks to emulation software.  The original CP/M files cost nothing but download time (at 300 baud on a SmartModem, measured in hours, IIRC), and I've played them unmodified since 1984.  On this repurposed Dell Inspiron 1525 running Jaunty Jackalope, I use the excellent YAZE emulator by Andreas Gerlich.  Hilariously, this old text adventure runs an order of magnitude or two faster than it ever did running natively on the Kaypro.
<br> <br>
<tt>
<a href="http://www.ifarchive.org/if-archive/games/cpm/cpm-advent-b03.zip" title="ifarchive.org">http://www.ifarchive.org/if-archive/games/cpm/cpm-advent-b03.zip</a> [ifarchive.org] <br>
<a href="http://www.mathematik.uni-ulm.de/users/ag/yaze-ag/" title="uni-ulm.de">http://www.mathematik.uni-ulm.de/users/ag/yaze-ag/</a> [uni-ulm.de] </tt>
<br> <br>
So, on the Scotch parsimony principle of cost benefit, Time Plaid divided by Cost, this one game is worth about 80 grillion pazools.  Probably a universal principle; I've just spent January replaying every Star Ocean game ever released in English, and will move on to Blue Sphere (in Japanese on the GBC) shortly.  After that, maybe FF12 again, who knows...?  (What's a life for?)</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've played Mike Goetz ' B03 version of CP/M Adventure ( really Crowther &amp; Woods 's , with a few additions ) on every computer I 've owned since my Kaypro 10 , thanks to emulation software .
The original CP/M files cost nothing but download time ( at 300 baud on a SmartModem , measured in hours , IIRC ) , and I 've played them unmodified since 1984 .
On this repurposed Dell Inspiron 1525 running Jaunty Jackalope , I use the excellent YAZE emulator by Andreas Gerlich .
Hilariously , this old text adventure runs an order of magnitude or two faster than it ever did running natively on the Kaypro .
http : //www.ifarchive.org/if-archive/games/cpm/cpm-advent-b03.zip [ ifarchive.org ] http : //www.mathematik.uni-ulm.de/users/ag/yaze-ag/ [ uni-ulm.de ] So , on the Scotch parsimony principle of cost benefit , Time Plaid divided by Cost , this one game is worth about 80 grillion pazools .
Probably a universal principle ; I 've just spent January replaying every Star Ocean game ever released in English , and will move on to Blue Sphere ( in Japanese on the GBC ) shortly .
After that , maybe FF12 again , who knows... ?
( What 's a life for ?
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've played Mike Goetz' B03 version of CP/M Adventure (really Crowther &amp; Woods's, with a few additions) on every computer I've owned since my Kaypro 10, thanks to emulation software.
The original CP/M files cost nothing but download time (at 300 baud on a SmartModem, measured in hours, IIRC), and I've played them unmodified since 1984.
On this repurposed Dell Inspiron 1525 running Jaunty Jackalope, I use the excellent YAZE emulator by Andreas Gerlich.
Hilariously, this old text adventure runs an order of magnitude or two faster than it ever did running natively on the Kaypro.
http://www.ifarchive.org/if-archive/games/cpm/cpm-advent-b03.zip [ifarchive.org] 
http://www.mathematik.uni-ulm.de/users/ag/yaze-ag/ [uni-ulm.de] 
 
So, on the Scotch parsimony principle of cost benefit, Time Plaid divided by Cost, this one game is worth about 80 grillion pazools.
Probably a universal principle; I've just spent January replaying every Star Ocean game ever released in English, and will move on to Blue Sphere (in Japanese on the GBC) shortly.
After that, maybe FF12 again, who knows...?
(What's a life for?
)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0511255.30869178</id>
	<title>By all the pleasure ...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264257360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>... it gives here on Earth?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>... it gives here on Earth ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... it gives here on Earth?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0511255.30868638</id>
	<title>Internet play is a huge factor</title>
	<author>lena\_10326</author>
	<datestamp>1264250760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>It encourages re-use over the long term because:

<ol>
<li>Players create the drama and "script" the dialog.</li>
<li>Open ended which permits game play not conceived by the game authors.</li>
<li>Encourages game mods which causes the game to endure long after the expected expiration.</li>
<li>Making mods becomes it's own fun activity separate from the game.</li>
<li>Encourages public player rankings and forums. Another fun activity separate from the game.</li>
<li>Enduring games encourage the game developer to continue supplying content updates which can be cheaper than original game purchase.</li>
</ol></htmltext>
<tokenext>It encourages re-use over the long term because : Players create the drama and " script " the dialog .
Open ended which permits game play not conceived by the game authors .
Encourages game mods which causes the game to endure long after the expected expiration .
Making mods becomes it 's own fun activity separate from the game .
Encourages public player rankings and forums .
Another fun activity separate from the game .
Enduring games encourage the game developer to continue supplying content updates which can be cheaper than original game purchase .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It encourages re-use over the long term because:


Players create the drama and "script" the dialog.
Open ended which permits game play not conceived by the game authors.
Encourages game mods which causes the game to endure long after the expected expiration.
Making mods becomes it's own fun activity separate from the game.
Encourages public player rankings and forums.
Another fun activity separate from the game.
Enduring games encourage the game developer to continue supplying content updates which can be cheaper than original game purchase.
</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0511255.30868600</id>
	<title>Counterexample</title>
	<author>Toonol</author>
	<datestamp>1264250160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>The new Silent Hill game for the Wii, Shattered Memories, was <i>amazingly</i> good; innovative, deep, intelligent... and maybe 8 hours long.  $7.50 an hour.  Absolutely worth it, in the sense a great movie is, even though it fails the $/hour test.<br> <br>

On the other hand, a good strategy game, like any of the incarnations of Fire Emblem, can easily top a hundred hours.  The metric has to be total enjoyment... and fond remembrance of the game counts into that total.  Hell, the game is probably worth an extra quarter if it generates a decent slashdot post.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The new Silent Hill game for the Wii , Shattered Memories , was amazingly good ; innovative , deep , intelligent... and maybe 8 hours long .
$ 7.50 an hour .
Absolutely worth it , in the sense a great movie is , even though it fails the $ /hour test .
On the other hand , a good strategy game , like any of the incarnations of Fire Emblem , can easily top a hundred hours .
The metric has to be total enjoyment... and fond remembrance of the game counts into that total .
Hell , the game is probably worth an extra quarter if it generates a decent slashdot post .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The new Silent Hill game for the Wii, Shattered Memories, was amazingly good; innovative, deep, intelligent... and maybe 8 hours long.
$7.50 an hour.
Absolutely worth it, in the sense a great movie is, even though it fails the $/hour test.
On the other hand, a good strategy game, like any of the incarnations of Fire Emblem, can easily top a hundred hours.
The metric has to be total enjoyment... and fond remembrance of the game counts into that total.
Hell, the game is probably worth an extra quarter if it generates a decent slashdot post.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0511255.30871142</id>
	<title>Re:Hours per dollar is good</title>
	<author>Nakor BlueRider</author>
	<datestamp>1264275180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This is actually very true of some games that are so good the first time through that replay value is less of a factor.  Off the top of my head, the Phoenix Wright series' success can back this up.  So can any of the more successful story-based adventure games.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is actually very true of some games that are so good the first time through that replay value is less of a factor .
Off the top of my head , the Phoenix Wright series ' success can back this up .
So can any of the more successful story-based adventure games .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is actually very true of some games that are so good the first time through that replay value is less of a factor.
Off the top of my head, the Phoenix Wright series' success can back this up.
So can any of the more successful story-based adventure games.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0511255.30868726</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0511255.30869554</id>
	<title>"What if the game wasn't so good?"</title>
	<author>Antiocheian</author>
	<datestamp>1264261260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ethical piracy is the solution: download the game, crack it (if it needs) and start playing it. If you like it, pay for it.</p><p>If you didn't like it, just delete it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ethical piracy is the solution : download the game , crack it ( if it needs ) and start playing it .
If you like it , pay for it.If you did n't like it , just delete it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ethical piracy is the solution: download the game, crack it (if it needs) and start playing it.
If you like it, pay for it.If you didn't like it, just delete it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0511255.30868804</id>
	<title>I have the answer</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264252860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Easy; each game is worth 99 cents.</p><p>Sent from my iPhone</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Easy ; each game is worth 99 cents.Sent from my iPhone</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Easy; each game is worth 99 cents.Sent from my iPhone</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0511255.30870060</id>
	<title>Re:Hours per dollar is good</title>
	<author>TBBle</author>
	<datestamp>1264266480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'd disagree that it's a different standard. Dollars per hour is only part of it though, the other half is the dollar value you put on the entertainment.</p><p>Hours per dollar spent and dollars enjoyed per hour. You estimate these two amounts, and you get an estimate of dollars enjoyed versus dollars spent.</p><p>So you're (or at least I'm, maybe I'm alone in this...) generally looking at games or DVDs or occasionally audio CDs and trying to guess how long/often I'll play 'em, and whether the entertainment per hour is sufficient to justify the cost-per-hour.</p><p>Portal's a great example someone used below, because it's only 6 hours, but it's 6 high-quality hours, which you might pay more per-hour for than six hours of something dreadful.</p><p>Games big difference over the cinema (and actually a commonality with books and audio CDs and DVDs) is that in the case of cinema, the entertainment length is arbitrarily limited by someone else, so you know the dollars-per-hour up front.</p><p>For everything else, you have to guesstimate how much you're going to play/read/listen to something (I wouldn't pay for an album I'll listen to once through, but I'll buy an album which has a song or two I've had on my shortlist of songs for a month...)</p><p>All the control you have over cinema entertainment  (or a concert) is leaving early if you wish. That comes down to a sunk-cost consideration, which I can't say I've ever done, but I can see that people reach the point where they're enjoying a movie not at all (eg. $0/hour benefit).</p><p>I personally generally use my income per hour when I consider entertainment dollars per hour. Something'd better be damn good for me to spend more than the income I make in an hour on it, but my Steam purchase history suggests that for $5, I'll buy something that I never expect to play...</p><p>This also means that I generally give new full-price games a few hours at least, so they're dragged down to below my wage level, before they go onto the shelf and I forget to ever finish 'em.</p><p>And funnily enough, I like longer movies because I do feel I'm getting better value for my ticket. Short-but-awesome will beat long-and-underwhelming still.</p><p>On the other hand, I don't really apply this to books, but only because they're almost always less than an hour's work in cost, and more than an hour to read. So they're already below my pain threshold, in that respect.</p><p>Graphic novels, on the gripping hand, are hideously expensive on a per-hour basis, so I generally buy only that which I know I'll enjoy. And I still always feel that it was too short for the cost.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'd disagree that it 's a different standard .
Dollars per hour is only part of it though , the other half is the dollar value you put on the entertainment.Hours per dollar spent and dollars enjoyed per hour .
You estimate these two amounts , and you get an estimate of dollars enjoyed versus dollars spent.So you 're ( or at least I 'm , maybe I 'm alone in this... ) generally looking at games or DVDs or occasionally audio CDs and trying to guess how long/often I 'll play 'em , and whether the entertainment per hour is sufficient to justify the cost-per-hour.Portal 's a great example someone used below , because it 's only 6 hours , but it 's 6 high-quality hours , which you might pay more per-hour for than six hours of something dreadful.Games big difference over the cinema ( and actually a commonality with books and audio CDs and DVDs ) is that in the case of cinema , the entertainment length is arbitrarily limited by someone else , so you know the dollars-per-hour up front.For everything else , you have to guesstimate how much you 're going to play/read/listen to something ( I would n't pay for an album I 'll listen to once through , but I 'll buy an album which has a song or two I 've had on my shortlist of songs for a month... ) All the control you have over cinema entertainment ( or a concert ) is leaving early if you wish .
That comes down to a sunk-cost consideration , which I ca n't say I 've ever done , but I can see that people reach the point where they 're enjoying a movie not at all ( eg .
$ 0/hour benefit ) .I personally generally use my income per hour when I consider entertainment dollars per hour .
Something 'd better be damn good for me to spend more than the income I make in an hour on it , but my Steam purchase history suggests that for $ 5 , I 'll buy something that I never expect to play...This also means that I generally give new full-price games a few hours at least , so they 're dragged down to below my wage level , before they go onto the shelf and I forget to ever finish 'em.And funnily enough , I like longer movies because I do feel I 'm getting better value for my ticket .
Short-but-awesome will beat long-and-underwhelming still.On the other hand , I do n't really apply this to books , but only because they 're almost always less than an hour 's work in cost , and more than an hour to read .
So they 're already below my pain threshold , in that respect.Graphic novels , on the gripping hand , are hideously expensive on a per-hour basis , so I generally buy only that which I know I 'll enjoy .
And I still always feel that it was too short for the cost .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'd disagree that it's a different standard.
Dollars per hour is only part of it though, the other half is the dollar value you put on the entertainment.Hours per dollar spent and dollars enjoyed per hour.
You estimate these two amounts, and you get an estimate of dollars enjoyed versus dollars spent.So you're (or at least I'm, maybe I'm alone in this...) generally looking at games or DVDs or occasionally audio CDs and trying to guess how long/often I'll play 'em, and whether the entertainment per hour is sufficient to justify the cost-per-hour.Portal's a great example someone used below, because it's only 6 hours, but it's 6 high-quality hours, which you might pay more per-hour for than six hours of something dreadful.Games big difference over the cinema (and actually a commonality with books and audio CDs and DVDs) is that in the case of cinema, the entertainment length is arbitrarily limited by someone else, so you know the dollars-per-hour up front.For everything else, you have to guesstimate how much you're going to play/read/listen to something (I wouldn't pay for an album I'll listen to once through, but I'll buy an album which has a song or two I've had on my shortlist of songs for a month...)All the control you have over cinema entertainment  (or a concert) is leaving early if you wish.
That comes down to a sunk-cost consideration, which I can't say I've ever done, but I can see that people reach the point where they're enjoying a movie not at all (eg.
$0/hour benefit).I personally generally use my income per hour when I consider entertainment dollars per hour.
Something'd better be damn good for me to spend more than the income I make in an hour on it, but my Steam purchase history suggests that for $5, I'll buy something that I never expect to play...This also means that I generally give new full-price games a few hours at least, so they're dragged down to below my wage level, before they go onto the shelf and I forget to ever finish 'em.And funnily enough, I like longer movies because I do feel I'm getting better value for my ticket.
Short-but-awesome will beat long-and-underwhelming still.On the other hand, I don't really apply this to books, but only because they're almost always less than an hour's work in cost, and more than an hour to read.
So they're already below my pain threshold, in that respect.Graphic novels, on the gripping hand, are hideously expensive on a per-hour basis, so I generally buy only that which I know I'll enjoy.
And I still always feel that it was too short for the cost.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0511255.30868726</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0511255.30870490</id>
	<title>Re:Hours per dollar is good</title>
	<author>npsimons</author>
	<datestamp>1264269900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>I might pay $30 for a ticket to a concert for a set of songs I'll only hear ONCE... but I might think no cd is worth $15, even though the experience could be replicated hundreds of times.</p></div></blockquote><p>No home stereo will ever be able to reproduce that kind of experience (for better or for worse).  Even if you were to get the whole same sound system set up again then pop in the CD, you wouldn't get the spontaneous riffing that you would get from a live band (if a live band doesn't *ever* change their songs, why are you going to see them perform?).  Others can argue the merits or demerits of being in a very large crowd of people who also like the band.  Which brings up another point . . . </p><p>Movies at the theater have the advantage that the screen is bigger and the sound (hopefully) better, yet most people I know would rather stay at home and watch a rented movie, and I don't think it's the cost.  When you have audiences talking on their cellphones or yelling things (and I don't just mean whole audience cheers or boos) at performers who can't react, it really detracts from the experience.  Ironically, theaters' biggest customers are causing the loss of a large majority of their other customers.  There doesn't seem to be an easy solution to this for the theaters.  Luckily, you can still rent a movie for dirt cheap and see it in the comfort of your own home, with or without people who will yell at the screen.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I might pay $ 30 for a ticket to a concert for a set of songs I 'll only hear ONCE... but I might think no cd is worth $ 15 , even though the experience could be replicated hundreds of times.No home stereo will ever be able to reproduce that kind of experience ( for better or for worse ) .
Even if you were to get the whole same sound system set up again then pop in the CD , you would n't get the spontaneous riffing that you would get from a live band ( if a live band does n't * ever * change their songs , why are you going to see them perform ? ) .
Others can argue the merits or demerits of being in a very large crowd of people who also like the band .
Which brings up another point .
. .
Movies at the theater have the advantage that the screen is bigger and the sound ( hopefully ) better , yet most people I know would rather stay at home and watch a rented movie , and I do n't think it 's the cost .
When you have audiences talking on their cellphones or yelling things ( and I do n't just mean whole audience cheers or boos ) at performers who ca n't react , it really detracts from the experience .
Ironically , theaters ' biggest customers are causing the loss of a large majority of their other customers .
There does n't seem to be an easy solution to this for the theaters .
Luckily , you can still rent a movie for dirt cheap and see it in the comfort of your own home , with or without people who will yell at the screen .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I might pay $30 for a ticket to a concert for a set of songs I'll only hear ONCE... but I might think no cd is worth $15, even though the experience could be replicated hundreds of times.No home stereo will ever be able to reproduce that kind of experience (for better or for worse).
Even if you were to get the whole same sound system set up again then pop in the CD, you wouldn't get the spontaneous riffing that you would get from a live band (if a live band doesn't *ever* change their songs, why are you going to see them perform?).
Others can argue the merits or demerits of being in a very large crowd of people who also like the band.
Which brings up another point .
. .
Movies at the theater have the advantage that the screen is bigger and the sound (hopefully) better, yet most people I know would rather stay at home and watch a rented movie, and I don't think it's the cost.
When you have audiences talking on their cellphones or yelling things (and I don't just mean whole audience cheers or boos) at performers who can't react, it really detracts from the experience.
Ironically, theaters' biggest customers are causing the loss of a large majority of their other customers.
There doesn't seem to be an easy solution to this for the theaters.
Luckily, you can still rent a movie for dirt cheap and see it in the comfort of your own home, with or without people who will yell at the screen.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0511255.30868726</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0511255.30868712</id>
	<title>Re:Hours per dollar is good</title>
	<author>biryokumaru</author>
	<datestamp>1264251900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>For the designers, the quality would probably be more in line with dollars per time spent playing, presuming they want you to buy another game.</p><p>Maybe that's just EA.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>For the designers , the quality would probably be more in line with dollars per time spent playing , presuming they want you to buy another game.Maybe that 's just EA .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For the designers, the quality would probably be more in line with dollars per time spent playing, presuming they want you to buy another game.Maybe that's just EA.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0511255.30868582</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0511255.30869130</id>
	<title>I like short games</title>
	<author>slim</author>
	<datestamp>1264256820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>For games with a beginning, middle and end - I'm grateful if they're short. 8 hours or so is good. So dollars/hour is not a good metric for me. I'd rather quality than quantity.</p><p>Replay value is always welcome, of course - but it depends on the type of game. I'm all for something I can buy, *really* enjoy for 8 hours, then trade in.</p><p>For me $10/hour of actual fun, is better than $1/hour of tedious grinding. Of course some people enjoy grinding... weirdos.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>For games with a beginning , middle and end - I 'm grateful if they 're short .
8 hours or so is good .
So dollars/hour is not a good metric for me .
I 'd rather quality than quantity.Replay value is always welcome , of course - but it depends on the type of game .
I 'm all for something I can buy , * really * enjoy for 8 hours , then trade in.For me $ 10/hour of actual fun , is better than $ 1/hour of tedious grinding .
Of course some people enjoy grinding... weirdos .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For games with a beginning, middle and end - I'm grateful if they're short.
8 hours or so is good.
So dollars/hour is not a good metric for me.
I'd rather quality than quantity.Replay value is always welcome, of course - but it depends on the type of game.
I'm all for something I can buy, *really* enjoy for 8 hours, then trade in.For me $10/hour of actual fun, is better than $1/hour of tedious grinding.
Of course some people enjoy grinding... weirdos.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0511255.30868726</id>
	<title>Re:Hours per dollar is good</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264252080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>But that seems so different than the standards we apply to other media.  I might pay $30 for a ticket to a concert for a set of songs I'll only hear ONCE... but I might think no cd is worth $15, even though the experience could be replicated hundreds of times.  A 60 minute movie doesn't start off with a 100\% advantage over a 120 minute movie, simply because of enjoyment per hour.<br> <br>

Some types of games... some types of <i>experiences</i>... can really only be experienced once.  The ephemeral quality of the experience certainly doesn't detract from it's value.  Dollars per hour seems like a crass measurement.  We don't judge books by dollars per page.  Well, at least that's only a minor factor.</htmltext>
<tokenext>But that seems so different than the standards we apply to other media .
I might pay $ 30 for a ticket to a concert for a set of songs I 'll only hear ONCE... but I might think no cd is worth $ 15 , even though the experience could be replicated hundreds of times .
A 60 minute movie does n't start off with a 100 \ % advantage over a 120 minute movie , simply because of enjoyment per hour .
Some types of games... some types of experiences... can really only be experienced once .
The ephemeral quality of the experience certainly does n't detract from it 's value .
Dollars per hour seems like a crass measurement .
We do n't judge books by dollars per page .
Well , at least that 's only a minor factor .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But that seems so different than the standards we apply to other media.
I might pay $30 for a ticket to a concert for a set of songs I'll only hear ONCE... but I might think no cd is worth $15, even though the experience could be replicated hundreds of times.
A 60 minute movie doesn't start off with a 100\% advantage over a 120 minute movie, simply because of enjoyment per hour.
Some types of games... some types of experiences... can really only be experienced once.
The ephemeral quality of the experience certainly doesn't detract from it's value.
Dollars per hour seems like a crass measurement.
We don't judge books by dollars per page.
Well, at least that's only a minor factor.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0511255.30868582</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0511255.30869158</id>
	<title>Replay Value</title>
	<author>ScotlynHatt</author>
	<datestamp>1264257180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>So there are some games that I continue to play years after they come out due to the mod community. Half Life 2 and Battlefield 2 are two that have to be into the pennies per hour by now; I don't even have an estimate.

That said, if you look at the direction COD-MW2 decided to take, from a single player perspective, you see the cost per hour go way up. Multiplayer certainly improves the value but the plan is to control development of maps/mods and charge for them, so the long-term value does not improve for the gamer, only the company.</htmltext>
<tokenext>So there are some games that I continue to play years after they come out due to the mod community .
Half Life 2 and Battlefield 2 are two that have to be into the pennies per hour by now ; I do n't even have an estimate .
That said , if you look at the direction COD-MW2 decided to take , from a single player perspective , you see the cost per hour go way up .
Multiplayer certainly improves the value but the plan is to control development of maps/mods and charge for them , so the long-term value does not improve for the gamer , only the company .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So there are some games that I continue to play years after they come out due to the mod community.
Half Life 2 and Battlefield 2 are two that have to be into the pennies per hour by now; I don't even have an estimate.
That said, if you look at the direction COD-MW2 decided to take, from a single player perspective, you see the cost per hour go way up.
Multiplayer certainly improves the value but the plan is to control development of maps/mods and charge for them, so the long-term value does not improve for the gamer, only the company.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0511255.30873888</id>
	<title>It depends on how much money you have.</title>
	<author>Paxtez</author>
	<datestamp>1264251540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>When I was younger I used to use the $$PerHour measure for a lot of things, but now that I've gotten older and I have more money than I did before I find I use it less and less.  These days I am much more willing to spend more money on a game or a good meal or a night out since using/wasting $50 isn't the end of the world.</p><p>Using a $$PerHour makes the assumption that a $ to everyone is the same.  Maybe if you were to divide it again by your hourly pay rate?  ($$PerHour / $PayRate)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>When I was younger I used to use the $ $ PerHour measure for a lot of things , but now that I 've gotten older and I have more money than I did before I find I use it less and less .
These days I am much more willing to spend more money on a game or a good meal or a night out since using/wasting $ 50 is n't the end of the world.Using a $ $ PerHour makes the assumption that a $ to everyone is the same .
Maybe if you were to divide it again by your hourly pay rate ?
( $ $ PerHour / $ PayRate )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When I was younger I used to use the $$PerHour measure for a lot of things, but now that I've gotten older and I have more money than I did before I find I use it less and less.
These days I am much more willing to spend more money on a game or a good meal or a night out since using/wasting $50 isn't the end of the world.Using a $$PerHour makes the assumption that a $ to everyone is the same.
Maybe if you were to divide it again by your hourly pay rate?
($$PerHour / $PayRate)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0511255.30872644</id>
	<title>Re:Hours per dollar is a rubbish measure</title>
	<author>Totenglocke</author>
	<datestamp>1264242240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No one that I've seen has mentioned "time to complete" they said "time spent playing".  It doesn't matter if the game takes a long time to beat as long as it's a good game and you decide to play it multiple times (such as games like Deus Ex with multiple endings).  So even if "the best game ever" only takes 29 hours to complete, you'll play it multiple times as opposed to "the generally amusing game" which you'll probably only play once or twice.</p><p>Most of my games are so good that I've played them multiple times, meaning that the bang for my buck is WAY off the charts.  I can only think of one game I own that I've only played once, and that's Dungeon Siege, though I may reinstall it because I found an Ultima V mod for Dungeon Siege.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No one that I 've seen has mentioned " time to complete " they said " time spent playing " .
It does n't matter if the game takes a long time to beat as long as it 's a good game and you decide to play it multiple times ( such as games like Deus Ex with multiple endings ) .
So even if " the best game ever " only takes 29 hours to complete , you 'll play it multiple times as opposed to " the generally amusing game " which you 'll probably only play once or twice.Most of my games are so good that I 've played them multiple times , meaning that the bang for my buck is WAY off the charts .
I can only think of one game I own that I 've only played once , and that 's Dungeon Siege , though I may reinstall it because I found an Ultima V mod for Dungeon Siege .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No one that I've seen has mentioned "time to complete" they said "time spent playing".
It doesn't matter if the game takes a long time to beat as long as it's a good game and you decide to play it multiple times (such as games like Deus Ex with multiple endings).
So even if "the best game ever" only takes 29 hours to complete, you'll play it multiple times as opposed to "the generally amusing game" which you'll probably only play once or twice.Most of my games are so good that I've played them multiple times, meaning that the bang for my buck is WAY off the charts.
I can only think of one game I own that I've only played once, and that's Dungeon Siege, though I may reinstall it because I found an Ultima V mod for Dungeon Siege.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0511255.30868876</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0511255.30868702</id>
	<title>Re:Hours per dollar is good</title>
	<author>brunokummel</author>
	<datestamp>1264251780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I don't think a game's worth measurement is quite that simple.. I hadn't come up with the exact formula yet, but I guess it envolves a little bit of nice graphics, multiplayer capabillity, difficulty, game's control, expansibility<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... <br>if we take into account only time spent per dollar  PAC MAN and TETRIS are the best games ever developed !</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't think a game 's worth measurement is quite that simple.. I had n't come up with the exact formula yet , but I guess it envolves a little bit of nice graphics , multiplayer capabillity , difficulty , game 's control , expansibility ... if we take into account only time spent per dollar PAC MAN and TETRIS are the best games ever developed !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't think a game's worth measurement is quite that simple.. I hadn't come up with the exact formula yet, but I guess it envolves a little bit of nice graphics, multiplayer capabillity, difficulty, game's control, expansibility ... if we take into account only time spent per dollar  PAC MAN and TETRIS are the best games ever developed !</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0511255.30868582</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0511255.30870358</id>
	<title>I solved the problem too:</title>
	<author>BESTouff</author>
	<datestamp>1264268940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Don't pay for games.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Do n't pay for games .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Don't pay for games.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0511255.30868648</id>
	<title>ffs</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264251000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Maybe not everything has to have a fucking number attached to it. Just enjoy things and let them be. Does knowing Street Fighter had a pleasure quotient of 3.64 change anything about the time you spent playing it?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe not everything has to have a fucking number attached to it .
Just enjoy things and let them be .
Does knowing Street Fighter had a pleasure quotient of 3.64 change anything about the time you spent playing it ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe not everything has to have a fucking number attached to it.
Just enjoy things and let them be.
Does knowing Street Fighter had a pleasure quotient of 3.64 change anything about the time you spent playing it?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0511255.30871888</id>
	<title>Re:Hours per dollar is good</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264279740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think what you are missing is the idea of paying $X for an <i>experience</i> and then calculating based on that.</p><p>I've played Resident Evil 4 on the Wii about 10 times now. That equates to something like $1.10 per hour of play time. I also have DVDs that I've watched upwards of 10 times. This also comes out at something like $1.10 to $1.20 per hour.</p><p>A movie, however, is a different experience from a DVD. I go with my friends and pay the $15 to $20 for the 2 hour movie. The experience is worth the $10 per hour for the movie because it is more than just the movie.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think what you are missing is the idea of paying $ X for an experience and then calculating based on that.I 've played Resident Evil 4 on the Wii about 10 times now .
That equates to something like $ 1.10 per hour of play time .
I also have DVDs that I 've watched upwards of 10 times .
This also comes out at something like $ 1.10 to $ 1.20 per hour.A movie , however , is a different experience from a DVD .
I go with my friends and pay the $ 15 to $ 20 for the 2 hour movie .
The experience is worth the $ 10 per hour for the movie because it is more than just the movie .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think what you are missing is the idea of paying $X for an experience and then calculating based on that.I've played Resident Evil 4 on the Wii about 10 times now.
That equates to something like $1.10 per hour of play time.
I also have DVDs that I've watched upwards of 10 times.
This also comes out at something like $1.10 to $1.20 per hour.A movie, however, is a different experience from a DVD.
I go with my friends and pay the $15 to $20 for the 2 hour movie.
The experience is worth the $10 per hour for the movie because it is more than just the movie.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0511255.30868726</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0511255.30869284</id>
	<title>"Worth" isn't objective or explicitly quantifiable</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264258620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>These days I've become skeptical of videogames. When they're all self-masturbatory derivative affairs, do "playtime" or "features" really tell the whole story of worth? Or even at all? What about their meaning or impact on the player? I've started judging worth of videogames based on how seriously they take themselves as a medium for communication. If a game can stand on its own two legs and say something to a person who isn't a hardcore gamer, then that's valuable.
<br> <br>
Now, that's not something quantitative like the OP seems to be looking for, but as far as I'm concerned, Braid or World of Goo are both worth just as much as Final Fantasy Tactics even though FFT may have had 4-5x more "playtime". I still, more than a year later will ruminate on some of the themes in these games, and the mental spaces and emotions they elicited from me, and that's a value you can't quantify.
<br> <br>
At the same time, I disagree with having this perception that value scales based on what "bonuses" or additional play features it provides me. I was never one to buy a DVD for special features, and I'm not one to buy a videogame now for special gameplay modes or whatever. I wouldn't pay more than $25 for any game, regardless, but then I am also a poor graduate student so that's probably a factor as well.</htmltext>
<tokenext>These days I 've become skeptical of videogames .
When they 're all self-masturbatory derivative affairs , do " playtime " or " features " really tell the whole story of worth ?
Or even at all ?
What about their meaning or impact on the player ?
I 've started judging worth of videogames based on how seriously they take themselves as a medium for communication .
If a game can stand on its own two legs and say something to a person who is n't a hardcore gamer , then that 's valuable .
Now , that 's not something quantitative like the OP seems to be looking for , but as far as I 'm concerned , Braid or World of Goo are both worth just as much as Final Fantasy Tactics even though FFT may have had 4-5x more " playtime " .
I still , more than a year later will ruminate on some of the themes in these games , and the mental spaces and emotions they elicited from me , and that 's a value you ca n't quantify .
At the same time , I disagree with having this perception that value scales based on what " bonuses " or additional play features it provides me .
I was never one to buy a DVD for special features , and I 'm not one to buy a videogame now for special gameplay modes or whatever .
I would n't pay more than $ 25 for any game , regardless , but then I am also a poor graduate student so that 's probably a factor as well .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>These days I've become skeptical of videogames.
When they're all self-masturbatory derivative affairs, do "playtime" or "features" really tell the whole story of worth?
Or even at all?
What about their meaning or impact on the player?
I've started judging worth of videogames based on how seriously they take themselves as a medium for communication.
If a game can stand on its own two legs and say something to a person who isn't a hardcore gamer, then that's valuable.
Now, that's not something quantitative like the OP seems to be looking for, but as far as I'm concerned, Braid or World of Goo are both worth just as much as Final Fantasy Tactics even though FFT may have had 4-5x more "playtime".
I still, more than a year later will ruminate on some of the themes in these games, and the mental spaces and emotions they elicited from me, and that's a value you can't quantify.
At the same time, I disagree with having this perception that value scales based on what "bonuses" or additional play features it provides me.
I was never one to buy a DVD for special features, and I'm not one to buy a videogame now for special gameplay modes or whatever.
I wouldn't pay more than $25 for any game, regardless, but then I am also a poor graduate student so that's probably a factor as well.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0511255.30868698</id>
	<title>Easy...</title>
	<author>Windwraith</author>
	<datestamp>1264251660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...if you remember the game after 2-3 years, it is good.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...if you remember the game after 2-3 years , it is good .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...if you remember the game after 2-3 years, it is good.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0511255.30868932</id>
	<title>Hours per dollar is a good metric</title>
	<author>Opportunist</author>
	<datestamp>1264254480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>But it's not the only metric. Let's ponder all those hours spent in FPS games with the old "get key from location A, run to location B on the other end of the map, get Key for A again" spiel. That's no fun and simply a time sink. We did it for a single reason: To get it behind us so we can continue having fun. So I'd propose that those hours of "tedium" should be subtracted from the "play time", or even count against the play time that could be considered "fun time".</p><p>The best game would obviously not be repetitive or, if it is, still be enjoyable while you repeat yourself. All games are repetitive to some degree. The interface only has so many options, as do AI or gameplay. Gaining new weapons (FPS) or units (RTS) can either be just another set of tools or a completely new experience, and that's something to consider when pondering the value. Getting an automatic gun compared to your old repeating shotgun in a FPS can alter the style of game, or it can just be a necessity if the enemies just get harder to reflect this. Essentially, if the old gun becomes useless in every aspect once you have the new gun because it is simply no longer a viable choice, it's a bad development. You did not get a new option, you just got a new skin. Likewise, RTS. If new units make the old ones obsolete, you did not get new units. You only got a replacement and basically have to play with the same amount of choices you had before. New skins, but no new options.</p><p>I like it when games guide you into the play style, when you start out with a limited set of options to get to know the interface and all, and then it expands from there. giving you more and more options over time (preferably giving you the option that you wished you had when you finally get it without engineering the situation to require this option. Usually that means it is only a viable option in very specific, almost necessarily artificially created situations). But those should be options. Not requirements.</p><p>And that's just me. I, for one, could not stomach the item grind of games like WoW, but appearantly that's something a good deal of people enjoy. My metric for a "good game" is probably not the same you would use. For me it has to give me more and more options over the course of the game. When I get no new options, the fun starts to decline and the repetition starts. Multiplayer can help here a lot, given that a human opponent is harder to figure out and requires you to adapt your strategy to stay on par with him, but a computer AI will eventually be figured out fully and you will develop a winning strategy.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>But it 's not the only metric .
Let 's ponder all those hours spent in FPS games with the old " get key from location A , run to location B on the other end of the map , get Key for A again " spiel .
That 's no fun and simply a time sink .
We did it for a single reason : To get it behind us so we can continue having fun .
So I 'd propose that those hours of " tedium " should be subtracted from the " play time " , or even count against the play time that could be considered " fun time " .The best game would obviously not be repetitive or , if it is , still be enjoyable while you repeat yourself .
All games are repetitive to some degree .
The interface only has so many options , as do AI or gameplay .
Gaining new weapons ( FPS ) or units ( RTS ) can either be just another set of tools or a completely new experience , and that 's something to consider when pondering the value .
Getting an automatic gun compared to your old repeating shotgun in a FPS can alter the style of game , or it can just be a necessity if the enemies just get harder to reflect this .
Essentially , if the old gun becomes useless in every aspect once you have the new gun because it is simply no longer a viable choice , it 's a bad development .
You did not get a new option , you just got a new skin .
Likewise , RTS .
If new units make the old ones obsolete , you did not get new units .
You only got a replacement and basically have to play with the same amount of choices you had before .
New skins , but no new options.I like it when games guide you into the play style , when you start out with a limited set of options to get to know the interface and all , and then it expands from there .
giving you more and more options over time ( preferably giving you the option that you wished you had when you finally get it without engineering the situation to require this option .
Usually that means it is only a viable option in very specific , almost necessarily artificially created situations ) .
But those should be options .
Not requirements.And that 's just me .
I , for one , could not stomach the item grind of games like WoW , but appearantly that 's something a good deal of people enjoy .
My metric for a " good game " is probably not the same you would use .
For me it has to give me more and more options over the course of the game .
When I get no new options , the fun starts to decline and the repetition starts .
Multiplayer can help here a lot , given that a human opponent is harder to figure out and requires you to adapt your strategy to stay on par with him , but a computer AI will eventually be figured out fully and you will develop a winning strategy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But it's not the only metric.
Let's ponder all those hours spent in FPS games with the old "get key from location A, run to location B on the other end of the map, get Key for A again" spiel.
That's no fun and simply a time sink.
We did it for a single reason: To get it behind us so we can continue having fun.
So I'd propose that those hours of "tedium" should be subtracted from the "play time", or even count against the play time that could be considered "fun time".The best game would obviously not be repetitive or, if it is, still be enjoyable while you repeat yourself.
All games are repetitive to some degree.
The interface only has so many options, as do AI or gameplay.
Gaining new weapons (FPS) or units (RTS) can either be just another set of tools or a completely new experience, and that's something to consider when pondering the value.
Getting an automatic gun compared to your old repeating shotgun in a FPS can alter the style of game, or it can just be a necessity if the enemies just get harder to reflect this.
Essentially, if the old gun becomes useless in every aspect once you have the new gun because it is simply no longer a viable choice, it's a bad development.
You did not get a new option, you just got a new skin.
Likewise, RTS.
If new units make the old ones obsolete, you did not get new units.
You only got a replacement and basically have to play with the same amount of choices you had before.
New skins, but no new options.I like it when games guide you into the play style, when you start out with a limited set of options to get to know the interface and all, and then it expands from there.
giving you more and more options over time (preferably giving you the option that you wished you had when you finally get it without engineering the situation to require this option.
Usually that means it is only a viable option in very specific, almost necessarily artificially created situations).
But those should be options.
Not requirements.And that's just me.
I, for one, could not stomach the item grind of games like WoW, but appearantly that's something a good deal of people enjoy.
My metric for a "good game" is probably not the same you would use.
For me it has to give me more and more options over the course of the game.
When I get no new options, the fun starts to decline and the repetition starts.
Multiplayer can help here a lot, given that a human opponent is harder to figure out and requires you to adapt your strategy to stay on par with him, but a computer AI will eventually be figured out fully and you will develop a winning strategy.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0511255.30869040</id>
	<title>Did you enjoy it?</title>
	<author>D J Horn</author>
	<datestamp>1264255680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I've never really felt the need to scrutinize an experience and boil down its dollars to hours-of-enjoyment ratio. You can of course - there are a lot of factors you could take into account - but generally speaking I find if I enjoyed the game, it was worth the cost.</p><p>If you find yourself questioning whether or not the game was worth it, it probably wasn't.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've never really felt the need to scrutinize an experience and boil down its dollars to hours-of-enjoyment ratio .
You can of course - there are a lot of factors you could take into account - but generally speaking I find if I enjoyed the game , it was worth the cost.If you find yourself questioning whether or not the game was worth it , it probably was n't .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've never really felt the need to scrutinize an experience and boil down its dollars to hours-of-enjoyment ratio.
You can of course - there are a lot of factors you could take into account - but generally speaking I find if I enjoyed the game, it was worth the cost.If you find yourself questioning whether or not the game was worth it, it probably wasn't.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0511255.30868674</id>
	<title>Whether or not I bought it.</title>
	<author>Jerrei</author>
	<datestamp>1264251420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>uuuhm. I mean whether or not I returned it to my local retailer an hour after installing.</htmltext>
<tokenext>uuuhm .
I mean whether or not I returned it to my local retailer an hour after installing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>uuuhm.
I mean whether or not I returned it to my local retailer an hour after installing.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0511255.30871328</id>
	<title>Re:Hours per dollar is a rubbish measure</title>
	<author>CaseCrash</author>
	<datestamp>1264276440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>It's like judging the quality of a book by the number of pages.</p></div><p>Wasn't that the idea behind the Wheel of Time series?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's like judging the quality of a book by the number of pages.Was n't that the idea behind the Wheel of Time series ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's like judging the quality of a book by the number of pages.Wasn't that the idea behind the Wheel of Time series?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0511255.30868876</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0511255.30868636</id>
	<title>That, and the sense of accomplishment</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264250700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hours per dollar is an excellent measurement.</p><p>If the game has a predefined mission (most FPS) a good measurement is if you can play through the game without losing your temper or caving in. One game that promised high playability was Tomb Raider Anniversary - but at one point (elevator before lava caves) it becomes tough and complex enough that only the best could finish it. So if you manage to actually finish the game, that's a good measurement of quality since finisheing a game gives the player a sense of accomplishment. Unlike the sense of utter failure he experiences if unable to finish (which should give a healthy negative score).</p><p>An example of a game with a very high h/$ score must be Unreal Tournament 2004. I still play the bugger, still try out new maps and still burn a couple of hours a week playing a relaxing onslought against the bots. I'd say the $/h ratio is somewhere in the  area<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hours per dollar is an excellent measurement.If the game has a predefined mission ( most FPS ) a good measurement is if you can play through the game without losing your temper or caving in .
One game that promised high playability was Tomb Raider Anniversary - but at one point ( elevator before lava caves ) it becomes tough and complex enough that only the best could finish it .
So if you manage to actually finish the game , that 's a good measurement of quality since finisheing a game gives the player a sense of accomplishment .
Unlike the sense of utter failure he experiences if unable to finish ( which should give a healthy negative score ) .An example of a game with a very high h/ $ score must be Unreal Tournament 2004 .
I still play the bugger , still try out new maps and still burn a couple of hours a week playing a relaxing onslought against the bots .
I 'd say the $ /h ratio is somewhere in the area : )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hours per dollar is an excellent measurement.If the game has a predefined mission (most FPS) a good measurement is if you can play through the game without losing your temper or caving in.
One game that promised high playability was Tomb Raider Anniversary - but at one point (elevator before lava caves) it becomes tough and complex enough that only the best could finish it.
So if you manage to actually finish the game, that's a good measurement of quality since finisheing a game gives the player a sense of accomplishment.
Unlike the sense of utter failure he experiences if unable to finish (which should give a healthy negative score).An example of a game with a very high h/$ score must be Unreal Tournament 2004.
I still play the bugger, still try out new maps and still burn a couple of hours a week playing a relaxing onslought against the bots.
I'd say the $/h ratio is somewhere in the  area :)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0511255.30868598</id>
	<title>quite easily</title>
	<author>shishikyuu</author>
	<datestamp>1264250100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>
(time played in hours/2 x metacritc score)/4

being portable doesn't change the value of the game, but does lower the cost of the platform.</htmltext>
<tokenext>( time played in hours/2 x metacritc score ) /4 being portable does n't change the value of the game , but does lower the cost of the platform .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
(time played in hours/2 x metacritc score)/4

being portable doesn't change the value of the game, but does lower the cost of the platform.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0511255.30875914</id>
	<title>Re:DRM</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264270380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>limited online activation makes the game another 50\% less worthy.</p></div><p>To clarify, that's another 50\% off the original worth, for a total worth of 0.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>limited online activation makes the game another 50 \ % less worthy.To clarify , that 's another 50 \ % off the original worth , for a total worth of 0 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>limited online activation makes the game another 50\% less worthy.To clarify, that's another 50\% off the original worth, for a total worth of 0.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0511255.30868984</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0511255.30871556</id>
	<title>The proper measure involves calculus</title>
	<author>Combatjuan</author>
	<datestamp>1264277880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Time/Money is a poor metric for reasons many have posted.  I think my formula is pretty decent.  It is a pretty good approximation of my actual feelings about a game.

Let f(t) be the function of fun over the course of a game.
Let E be the constant that represents my average entertainment during my freetime (when I could choose to play a video game or not).

Then the value of a game to me is the (integral on t of (f() - E)) / (cost of the game + small constant) + various bonus constants.

These various constants tip the scales a bit but don't generally massively change the overall value.
They include positive bonuses for:
 * Open Source
 * Cross Platform
 * "Independently" developed

Games that have done very well by this metric:
 * Civilization I, II, IV, Alpha Centauri, the original Colonization
 * Half Life (original) + free Counterstrike and Day of Defeat mods
 * Dwarf Fortress (bay12games.com)
 * Company of Heroes
 * Starcraft and Warcraft II</htmltext>
<tokenext>Time/Money is a poor metric for reasons many have posted .
I think my formula is pretty decent .
It is a pretty good approximation of my actual feelings about a game .
Let f ( t ) be the function of fun over the course of a game .
Let E be the constant that represents my average entertainment during my freetime ( when I could choose to play a video game or not ) .
Then the value of a game to me is the ( integral on t of ( f ( ) - E ) ) / ( cost of the game + small constant ) + various bonus constants .
These various constants tip the scales a bit but do n't generally massively change the overall value .
They include positive bonuses for : * Open Source * Cross Platform * " Independently " developed Games that have done very well by this metric : * Civilization I , II , IV , Alpha Centauri , the original Colonization * Half Life ( original ) + free Counterstrike and Day of Defeat mods * Dwarf Fortress ( bay12games.com ) * Company of Heroes * Starcraft and Warcraft II</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Time/Money is a poor metric for reasons many have posted.
I think my formula is pretty decent.
It is a pretty good approximation of my actual feelings about a game.
Let f(t) be the function of fun over the course of a game.
Let E be the constant that represents my average entertainment during my freetime (when I could choose to play a video game or not).
Then the value of a game to me is the (integral on t of (f() - E)) / (cost of the game + small constant) + various bonus constants.
These various constants tip the scales a bit but don't generally massively change the overall value.
They include positive bonuses for:
 * Open Source
 * Cross Platform
 * "Independently" developed

Games that have done very well by this metric:
 * Civilization I, II, IV, Alpha Centauri, the original Colonization
 * Half Life (original) + free Counterstrike and Day of Defeat mods
 * Dwarf Fortress (bay12games.com)
 * Company of Heroes
 * Starcraft and Warcraft II</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0511255.30868980</id>
	<title>A big flaw</title>
	<author>Xeno man</author>
	<datestamp>1264255080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>I think the question it self is flawed. Your trying to assign a quantitative number to a game as if it represents some level of value that you can extract at a later date. A game isn't a used car. A car can be worth $100 or it can be worth $20,000. A game has only 2 choices. It's worth it, or it's not. The problem is that it is an individual test of worth so your standards of worth it or not worth it, or even any number system you can come up with, are going to be completely irrelevant to me. People can spend hours on end playing Bejeweled or any other time waster type game and it can be completely worth the time spend playing it because they enjoyed it the entire time. Personally I don't thing it's worth it because I don't enjoy those types of games for very long. So all ready there is inconsistency in the "worth" of a game and I'm just referring to free flash games. I haven't even brought in money yet. <br> <br>

Once you start talking about money, in the end your only going to spend what you can afford. Everyone earns different amounts of money and has different responsibilities. A teen living at home may not have a problem dropping an entire pay cheque on rock band where an older adult with a mortgage and kids will be more particular about spending money. Of course the more money you have the less value money has. If your a millionaire you will be more willing to throw away money on crappy games than someone making minimum wage so again this value of worth is meaningless to anyone else but yourself. <br> <br>

Personally a game is worth it if I really enjoyed playing it but the experience is enhanced by friends that play the same game. We can talk about the game afterwords and  share experiences and even play multiplayer games together which is more enjoyable than random strangers online. If your looking to get value out of a game, buy games that your friends have that you can play together. If you want to stretch you money, buy single player games your friends don't have and you can trade and borrow games with each other so you can experience more. <br> <br>

If your looking for advice on games to buy, look to your friends. If your trying to evaluate what you already have, your over thinking it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think the question it self is flawed .
Your trying to assign a quantitative number to a game as if it represents some level of value that you can extract at a later date .
A game is n't a used car .
A car can be worth $ 100 or it can be worth $ 20,000 .
A game has only 2 choices .
It 's worth it , or it 's not .
The problem is that it is an individual test of worth so your standards of worth it or not worth it , or even any number system you can come up with , are going to be completely irrelevant to me .
People can spend hours on end playing Bejeweled or any other time waster type game and it can be completely worth the time spend playing it because they enjoyed it the entire time .
Personally I do n't thing it 's worth it because I do n't enjoy those types of games for very long .
So all ready there is inconsistency in the " worth " of a game and I 'm just referring to free flash games .
I have n't even brought in money yet .
Once you start talking about money , in the end your only going to spend what you can afford .
Everyone earns different amounts of money and has different responsibilities .
A teen living at home may not have a problem dropping an entire pay cheque on rock band where an older adult with a mortgage and kids will be more particular about spending money .
Of course the more money you have the less value money has .
If your a millionaire you will be more willing to throw away money on crappy games than someone making minimum wage so again this value of worth is meaningless to anyone else but yourself .
Personally a game is worth it if I really enjoyed playing it but the experience is enhanced by friends that play the same game .
We can talk about the game afterwords and share experiences and even play multiplayer games together which is more enjoyable than random strangers online .
If your looking to get value out of a game , buy games that your friends have that you can play together .
If you want to stretch you money , buy single player games your friends do n't have and you can trade and borrow games with each other so you can experience more .
If your looking for advice on games to buy , look to your friends .
If your trying to evaluate what you already have , your over thinking it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think the question it self is flawed.
Your trying to assign a quantitative number to a game as if it represents some level of value that you can extract at a later date.
A game isn't a used car.
A car can be worth $100 or it can be worth $20,000.
A game has only 2 choices.
It's worth it, or it's not.
The problem is that it is an individual test of worth so your standards of worth it or not worth it, or even any number system you can come up with, are going to be completely irrelevant to me.
People can spend hours on end playing Bejeweled or any other time waster type game and it can be completely worth the time spend playing it because they enjoyed it the entire time.
Personally I don't thing it's worth it because I don't enjoy those types of games for very long.
So all ready there is inconsistency in the "worth" of a game and I'm just referring to free flash games.
I haven't even brought in money yet.
Once you start talking about money, in the end your only going to spend what you can afford.
Everyone earns different amounts of money and has different responsibilities.
A teen living at home may not have a problem dropping an entire pay cheque on rock band where an older adult with a mortgage and kids will be more particular about spending money.
Of course the more money you have the less value money has.
If your a millionaire you will be more willing to throw away money on crappy games than someone making minimum wage so again this value of worth is meaningless to anyone else but yourself.
Personally a game is worth it if I really enjoyed playing it but the experience is enhanced by friends that play the same game.
We can talk about the game afterwords and  share experiences and even play multiplayer games together which is more enjoyable than random strangers online.
If your looking to get value out of a game, buy games that your friends have that you can play together.
If you want to stretch you money, buy single player games your friends don't have and you can trade and borrow games with each other so you can experience more.
If your looking for advice on games to buy, look to your friends.
If your trying to evaluate what you already have, your over thinking it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0511255.30872392</id>
	<title>No Game</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264240020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No game is worth more than $20.00.  Same for any computer software.  And $20.00 is for the very best game or software.  the worth drops off quickly for the mediocre crap that most games and software for sale today turn out to be.  Mostly I have found free software and games to be worth more that whats for sale.  Good example:  Smokin Guns.  A free game that is more fun most of the games you would pay $50.00 or more for.</p><p>Tired of crappy games that are clones of ones you are already bored with?  Tired of paying through the nose for mediocre software?  Vote with your wallet!!!!!!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No game is worth more than $ 20.00 .
Same for any computer software .
And $ 20.00 is for the very best game or software .
the worth drops off quickly for the mediocre crap that most games and software for sale today turn out to be .
Mostly I have found free software and games to be worth more that whats for sale .
Good example : Smokin Guns .
A free game that is more fun most of the games you would pay $ 50.00 or more for.Tired of crappy games that are clones of ones you are already bored with ?
Tired of paying through the nose for mediocre software ?
Vote with your wallet ! ! ! ! !
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No game is worth more than $20.00.
Same for any computer software.
And $20.00 is for the very best game or software.
the worth drops off quickly for the mediocre crap that most games and software for sale today turn out to be.
Mostly I have found free software and games to be worth more that whats for sale.
Good example:  Smokin Guns.
A free game that is more fun most of the games you would pay $50.00 or more for.Tired of crappy games that are clones of ones you are already bored with?
Tired of paying through the nose for mediocre software?
Vote with your wallet!!!!!
!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0511255.30869292</id>
	<title>There is no one size fits all measurement</title>
	<author>thetoadwarrior</author>
	<datestamp>1264258740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I think you just have to play a game. You either enjoy it or you don't. Cost per time may work in most instances but I wouldn't have said Street Fighter 2 was less worthy than Tetris just because I've played Tetris longer or that Portal wasn't very enjoyable despite being very short.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think you just have to play a game .
You either enjoy it or you do n't .
Cost per time may work in most instances but I would n't have said Street Fighter 2 was less worthy than Tetris just because I 've played Tetris longer or that Portal was n't very enjoyable despite being very short .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think you just have to play a game.
You either enjoy it or you don't.
Cost per time may work in most instances but I wouldn't have said Street Fighter 2 was less worthy than Tetris just because I've played Tetris longer or that Portal wasn't very enjoyable despite being very short.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0511255.30870894</id>
	<title>One word:</title>
	<author>lq\_x\_pl</author>
	<datestamp>1264273260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><b>Replayability</b>
<br>
Can I, after shelling out 50 bucks, play it multiple times through and still enjoy it?
<br>
This is one area where the original Deus Ex really excelled.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Replayability Can I , after shelling out 50 bucks , play it multiple times through and still enjoy it ?
This is one area where the original Deus Ex really excelled .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Replayability

Can I, after shelling out 50 bucks, play it multiple times through and still enjoy it?
This is one area where the original Deus Ex really excelled.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0511255.30868888</id>
	<title>Games are cheap</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264254060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>$2 per hour is about as cheap as a hobby can get. Only watching TV might be cheaper, but that doesn't count, and even gaming can get that cheap, too, by playing an online-game for 200 hours month and just paying $10.</p><p>So why even bother?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>$ 2 per hour is about as cheap as a hobby can get .
Only watching TV might be cheaper , but that does n't count , and even gaming can get that cheap , too , by playing an online-game for 200 hours month and just paying $ 10.So why even bother ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>$2 per hour is about as cheap as a hobby can get.
Only watching TV might be cheaper, but that doesn't count, and even gaming can get that cheap, too, by playing an online-game for 200 hours month and just paying $10.So why even bother?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0511255.30871106</id>
	<title>Money is a minor cost</title>
	<author>AlpineR</author>
	<datestamp>1264275000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think the flaw with the question is that it presumes money is rare and time is unlimited. Maybe they are if you're a kid living on a small allowance and killing time until you get a driver's license. But as a grown up I find that my time is the limiting factor. With more time I can earn more money. So with games costing tens of dollars, the time I spend acquiring, learning, and playing is worth far more dollar-wise than the game itself.</p><p>So the worth of a game is how much I enjoy playing it versus time spent on other activities. Elegance, depth of play, session length, and availability of opponents are the key factors for me. The game needs to look nice, feel nice, and respond smoothly to controls. It should be easy enough to learn in twenty minutes but sophisticated enough to reward years of replay. I should be able to complete a session in half an hour or generate stories and fond memories from sessions lasting two hours or longer. And it needs to have balanced computer opponents, readily available online opponents, or be easy to introduce to casual gaming friends.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think the flaw with the question is that it presumes money is rare and time is unlimited .
Maybe they are if you 're a kid living on a small allowance and killing time until you get a driver 's license .
But as a grown up I find that my time is the limiting factor .
With more time I can earn more money .
So with games costing tens of dollars , the time I spend acquiring , learning , and playing is worth far more dollar-wise than the game itself.So the worth of a game is how much I enjoy playing it versus time spent on other activities .
Elegance , depth of play , session length , and availability of opponents are the key factors for me .
The game needs to look nice , feel nice , and respond smoothly to controls .
It should be easy enough to learn in twenty minutes but sophisticated enough to reward years of replay .
I should be able to complete a session in half an hour or generate stories and fond memories from sessions lasting two hours or longer .
And it needs to have balanced computer opponents , readily available online opponents , or be easy to introduce to casual gaming friends .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think the flaw with the question is that it presumes money is rare and time is unlimited.
Maybe they are if you're a kid living on a small allowance and killing time until you get a driver's license.
But as a grown up I find that my time is the limiting factor.
With more time I can earn more money.
So with games costing tens of dollars, the time I spend acquiring, learning, and playing is worth far more dollar-wise than the game itself.So the worth of a game is how much I enjoy playing it versus time spent on other activities.
Elegance, depth of play, session length, and availability of opponents are the key factors for me.
The game needs to look nice, feel nice, and respond smoothly to controls.
It should be easy enough to learn in twenty minutes but sophisticated enough to reward years of replay.
I should be able to complete a session in half an hour or generate stories and fond memories from sessions lasting two hours or longer.
And it needs to have balanced computer opponents, readily available online opponents, or be easy to introduce to casual gaming friends.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0511255.30868980</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0511255.30869058</id>
	<title>Immersion</title>
	<author>ubersoldat2k7</author>
	<datestamp>1264255980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I know I like a game when I've played too much of it. I really liked Fallout 3 and every time I hear about the "National Mall" I'm automatically thinking about mutants. Also, I once picked one of my wife's hair clips, just in case I needed later.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I know I like a game when I 've played too much of it .
I really liked Fallout 3 and every time I hear about the " National Mall " I 'm automatically thinking about mutants .
Also , I once picked one of my wife 's hair clips , just in case I needed later .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I know I like a game when I've played too much of it.
I really liked Fallout 3 and every time I hear about the "National Mall" I'm automatically thinking about mutants.
Also, I once picked one of my wife's hair clips, just in case I needed later.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0511255.30873048</id>
	<title>time is also a cost</title>
	<author>DaveGod</author>
	<datestamp>1264245240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I value my time as much as my money. Some games have very boring periods and frankly there's better things I could be doing with that time, so I see an opportunity cost there - the section actually makes the game <i>less</i> valuable, despite adding time. I'd pay good money to never have to watch that Indiana Jones crap again.</p><p>Economists use <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utility" title="wikipedia.org">utility</a> [wikipedia.org] in an attempt to quantify satisfaction, though most concede it's almost meaningless to do so in practice so they'll go with preferences when possible (preference, i.e. "more utility than the other" is reasonably reliable, trying to quantify how much more is nigh impossible). </p><p>It's even more complicated than that though. you can't necessarily just sample the best bits, or cut out the worst bits, and arrive at more entertainment per hour. With any story the whole should be much more than the sum of it's parts.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I value my time as much as my money .
Some games have very boring periods and frankly there 's better things I could be doing with that time , so I see an opportunity cost there - the section actually makes the game less valuable , despite adding time .
I 'd pay good money to never have to watch that Indiana Jones crap again.Economists use utility [ wikipedia.org ] in an attempt to quantify satisfaction , though most concede it 's almost meaningless to do so in practice so they 'll go with preferences when possible ( preference , i.e .
" more utility than the other " is reasonably reliable , trying to quantify how much more is nigh impossible ) .
It 's even more complicated than that though .
you ca n't necessarily just sample the best bits , or cut out the worst bits , and arrive at more entertainment per hour .
With any story the whole should be much more than the sum of it 's parts .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I value my time as much as my money.
Some games have very boring periods and frankly there's better things I could be doing with that time, so I see an opportunity cost there - the section actually makes the game less valuable, despite adding time.
I'd pay good money to never have to watch that Indiana Jones crap again.Economists use utility [wikipedia.org] in an attempt to quantify satisfaction, though most concede it's almost meaningless to do so in practice so they'll go with preferences when possible (preference, i.e.
"more utility than the other" is reasonably reliable, trying to quantify how much more is nigh impossible).
It's even more complicated than that though.
you can't necessarily just sample the best bits, or cut out the worst bits, and arrive at more entertainment per hour.
With any story the whole should be much more than the sum of it's parts.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0511255.30868682</id>
	<title>Impossible</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264251480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The truth is, you can only measure it after you've played the game, and not before. And so the only way to find out whether the game will be any good is by reading reviews. Still there is a possibility that the experience of the person who reviewed the game, and even the average experience of the people who reviewed it may not match your own. It's the same for movies, music, pictures and other works of art.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The truth is , you can only measure it after you 've played the game , and not before .
And so the only way to find out whether the game will be any good is by reading reviews .
Still there is a possibility that the experience of the person who reviewed the game , and even the average experience of the people who reviewed it may not match your own .
It 's the same for movies , music , pictures and other works of art .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The truth is, you can only measure it after you've played the game, and not before.
And so the only way to find out whether the game will be any good is by reading reviews.
Still there is a possibility that the experience of the person who reviewed the game, and even the average experience of the people who reviewed it may not match your own.
It's the same for movies, music, pictures and other works of art.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0511255.30869236</id>
	<title>Re:Counterexample</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264258140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Another counterexample:</p><p>The Professor Layton Series for DS is made up of over 100 small puzzles, you can save at pretty much any time, and when you load your file, there's a quick explanation of what was going on last time you played.</p><p>The two games probably took me about 12 hours each to play through, and I bought them for US$30+tax. That's<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.5 hrs/dollar, which isn't great. However, the nature of the game allowed me to play it on a vacation when I had many 10 minute blocks of time here and there -- this game just worked for that. And, when I'm done, my dad will play through both; it's basically the only game he has ever really clicked with.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Another counterexample : The Professor Layton Series for DS is made up of over 100 small puzzles , you can save at pretty much any time , and when you load your file , there 's a quick explanation of what was going on last time you played.The two games probably took me about 12 hours each to play through , and I bought them for US $ 30 + tax .
That 's .5 hrs/dollar , which is n't great .
However , the nature of the game allowed me to play it on a vacation when I had many 10 minute blocks of time here and there -- this game just worked for that .
And , when I 'm done , my dad will play through both ; it 's basically the only game he has ever really clicked with .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Another counterexample:The Professor Layton Series for DS is made up of over 100 small puzzles, you can save at pretty much any time, and when you load your file, there's a quick explanation of what was going on last time you played.The two games probably took me about 12 hours each to play through, and I bought them for US$30+tax.
That's .5 hrs/dollar, which isn't great.
However, the nature of the game allowed me to play it on a vacation when I had many 10 minute blocks of time here and there -- this game just worked for that.
And, when I'm done, my dad will play through both; it's basically the only game he has ever really clicked with.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0511255.30868600</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0511255.30869436</id>
	<title>Re:Hours per dollar is good</title>
	<author>epiphani</author>
	<datestamp>1264260180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Fantastic point.  Portal is a good example of that.  The game was bundled, but for a 6 hour experience, it was amazing.</p><p>How to price a 6 hour experience, on the other hand, is a little tricky.  I'm sure I would have been annoyed to have spent $60 on a 6 hour game, regardless of its awesomeness.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Fantastic point .
Portal is a good example of that .
The game was bundled , but for a 6 hour experience , it was amazing.How to price a 6 hour experience , on the other hand , is a little tricky .
I 'm sure I would have been annoyed to have spent $ 60 on a 6 hour game , regardless of its awesomeness .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Fantastic point.
Portal is a good example of that.
The game was bundled, but for a 6 hour experience, it was amazing.How to price a 6 hour experience, on the other hand, is a little tricky.
I'm sure I would have been annoyed to have spent $60 on a 6 hour game, regardless of its awesomeness.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0511255.30868726</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0511255.30868878</id>
	<title>Re:Hours per dollar is good</title>
	<author>A12m0v</author>
	<datestamp>1264253940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's why I only play Role-play games, especially Japanese. I get +80hrs out of them on average, not including extra playthroughs for games that offer multiple endings and multiple paths.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's why I only play Role-play games , especially Japanese .
I get + 80hrs out of them on average , not including extra playthroughs for games that offer multiple endings and multiple paths .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's why I only play Role-play games, especially Japanese.
I get +80hrs out of them on average, not including extra playthroughs for games that offer multiple endings and multiple paths.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0511255.30868582</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0511255.30870322</id>
	<title>Re:Hours per dollar is good</title>
	<author>bertoelcon</author>
	<datestamp>1264268700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I think it should be jumped to dollars/enjoyed hour, that way you separate waste of time parts and actually good parts of the game.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think it should be jumped to dollars/enjoyed hour , that way you separate waste of time parts and actually good parts of the game .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think it should be jumped to dollars/enjoyed hour, that way you separate waste of time parts and actually good parts of the game.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0511255.30868582</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0511255.30868944</id>
	<title>Price is mostly irrelevant, if the game is great</title>
	<author>hansamurai</author>
	<datestamp>1264254660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If a game is great, I don't think the price you paid matters at all.  I paid $15 for Braid on Xbox Live Arcade late 2008 and absolutely loved it.  I saw the game for like $2 on the Steam sale over the holiday and was just smiling at how cheap it was now because so many more people would try it out.  It didn't seem to matter to me at all that I paid almost eight times more than the current asking price.</p><p>Of course, that game was only $15 to begin with.</p><p>I'm getting the collector's edition of Mass Effect 2 on Tuesday, that's a $70 drop but I'm honestly confident the game is going to rock and that price will be irrelevant in the long run.  If the game sucks, at least I can jump on the reseller's market early.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If a game is great , I do n't think the price you paid matters at all .
I paid $ 15 for Braid on Xbox Live Arcade late 2008 and absolutely loved it .
I saw the game for like $ 2 on the Steam sale over the holiday and was just smiling at how cheap it was now because so many more people would try it out .
It did n't seem to matter to me at all that I paid almost eight times more than the current asking price.Of course , that game was only $ 15 to begin with.I 'm getting the collector 's edition of Mass Effect 2 on Tuesday , that 's a $ 70 drop but I 'm honestly confident the game is going to rock and that price will be irrelevant in the long run .
If the game sucks , at least I can jump on the reseller 's market early .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If a game is great, I don't think the price you paid matters at all.
I paid $15 for Braid on Xbox Live Arcade late 2008 and absolutely loved it.
I saw the game for like $2 on the Steam sale over the holiday and was just smiling at how cheap it was now because so many more people would try it out.
It didn't seem to matter to me at all that I paid almost eight times more than the current asking price.Of course, that game was only $15 to begin with.I'm getting the collector's edition of Mass Effect 2 on Tuesday, that's a $70 drop but I'm honestly confident the game is going to rock and that price will be irrelevant in the long run.
If the game sucks, at least I can jump on the reseller's market early.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0511255.30873806</id>
	<title>You'll buy several games for novelty, anyway</title>
	<author>noidentity</author>
	<datestamp>1264250940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If there's an economic question, it's when you don't have enough funds to buy all the current systems or all the well-rated games for any system. Even if a particular game gave a lot of enjoyment per dollar, you can't buy the same game again to get that enjoyment all over; you must buy a different game to get more enjoyment. Even if the next game doesn't give as much enjoyment per dollar, it's still more than you were getting from the previous game at that point.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If there 's an economic question , it 's when you do n't have enough funds to buy all the current systems or all the well-rated games for any system .
Even if a particular game gave a lot of enjoyment per dollar , you ca n't buy the same game again to get that enjoyment all over ; you must buy a different game to get more enjoyment .
Even if the next game does n't give as much enjoyment per dollar , it 's still more than you were getting from the previous game at that point .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If there's an economic question, it's when you don't have enough funds to buy all the current systems or all the well-rated games for any system.
Even if a particular game gave a lot of enjoyment per dollar, you can't buy the same game again to get that enjoyment all over; you must buy a different game to get more enjoyment.
Even if the next game doesn't give as much enjoyment per dollar, it's still more than you were getting from the previous game at that point.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0511255.30871666</id>
	<title>Resell value?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264278540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Some games are worth playing just once, or twice, or thrice. But then, at some point, you might sell the game back. So your total cost for playing the game for however-many-hours is reduced by its sell-back price.</p><p>Some games you might choose to rent instead of purchase. Or borrow from a friend.</p><p>My point is, the "worth" of a game to a person is a sticky subject, because the idea is useless without contrasting it to a method of actual payment for the game. Analysis of F2P MMOs with cash shops gets even more confusing.</p><p>How to get the most gaming for your dollar? Use your best judgement and common sense, and whatever you do, don't ask slashdot: you'll just end up with a slew of conflicting responses and differences of opinion.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Some games are worth playing just once , or twice , or thrice .
But then , at some point , you might sell the game back .
So your total cost for playing the game for however-many-hours is reduced by its sell-back price.Some games you might choose to rent instead of purchase .
Or borrow from a friend.My point is , the " worth " of a game to a person is a sticky subject , because the idea is useless without contrasting it to a method of actual payment for the game .
Analysis of F2P MMOs with cash shops gets even more confusing.How to get the most gaming for your dollar ?
Use your best judgement and common sense , and whatever you do , do n't ask slashdot : you 'll just end up with a slew of conflicting responses and differences of opinion .
; )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Some games are worth playing just once, or twice, or thrice.
But then, at some point, you might sell the game back.
So your total cost for playing the game for however-many-hours is reduced by its sell-back price.Some games you might choose to rent instead of purchase.
Or borrow from a friend.My point is, the "worth" of a game to a person is a sticky subject, because the idea is useless without contrasting it to a method of actual payment for the game.
Analysis of F2P MMOs with cash shops gets even more confusing.How to get the most gaming for your dollar?
Use your best judgement and common sense, and whatever you do, don't ask slashdot: you'll just end up with a slew of conflicting responses and differences of opinion.
;)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0511255.30871326</id>
	<title>Re:That's simple.</title>
	<author>Rockoon</author>
	<datestamp>1264276440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>"Just one more turn"<br>
<br>
CIV, CIV2, CIV3, and CIV4 are the best values ever. No other game even comes close. No. Other. Game.</htmltext>
<tokenext>" Just one more turn " CIV , CIV2 , CIV3 , and CIV4 are the best values ever .
No other game even comes close .
No. Other .
Game .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Just one more turn"

CIV, CIV2, CIV3, and CIV4 are the best values ever.
No other game even comes close.
No. Other.
Game.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0511255.30869172</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0511255.30868620</id>
	<title>Replayability</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264250580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How long am I going to play this game for? Is it going to pull me back in at some point in the future? How much thought will I put into playing this game? (The more the better)</p><p>Replayability is usually determined by the level of customization offered. Being able to play the game in a different way usually changes a mediocre experience into a fantastic one.</p><p>A good example of a game I come back to often is Civilization 4. It has lots of fantastic mods, is fairly open ended and allows you to play the game in many different ways without forcing you into a single strategy or objective. RPGs usually have a fairly high replay value as well.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How long am I going to play this game for ?
Is it going to pull me back in at some point in the future ?
How much thought will I put into playing this game ?
( The more the better ) Replayability is usually determined by the level of customization offered .
Being able to play the game in a different way usually changes a mediocre experience into a fantastic one.A good example of a game I come back to often is Civilization 4 .
It has lots of fantastic mods , is fairly open ended and allows you to play the game in many different ways without forcing you into a single strategy or objective .
RPGs usually have a fairly high replay value as well .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How long am I going to play this game for?
Is it going to pull me back in at some point in the future?
How much thought will I put into playing this game?
(The more the better)Replayability is usually determined by the level of customization offered.
Being able to play the game in a different way usually changes a mediocre experience into a fantastic one.A good example of a game I come back to often is Civilization 4.
It has lots of fantastic mods, is fairly open ended and allows you to play the game in many different ways without forcing you into a single strategy or objective.
RPGs usually have a fairly high replay value as well.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0511255.30869560</id>
	<title>Very simple</title>
	<author>Charliemopps</author>
	<datestamp>1264261320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's simple:

1. You average decent game that will give the acerage gamer at least several months of enjoyment (Example: Team Fortress 2): $50
2. Any game that didn't turn out quite right... or a game that is just a mod of another game (Example: Soldier of Fortune series): $30
3. All Major MMOs (Example: WOW, LOTRO, EVE): FREE!!! With a $15 monthly sub... these games do not need a barrier to players even starting them when the player knows they will only get 30days of play out of the game right out of the box. They are idiots for charging for the box) Micro transactions kill your player base eventually and keep away really dedicated players. Stop trying to milk us. They may make each player worth more but those players will start leaving in greater and greater numbers when they get sick of the treatment.
4. Indie MMOs: (Example: Wurm) Free to play, with special severs for those of us that want more that cost $8/month to play or so.

If this amount of money isn't enough to pay the bills then you either A. Spent to much making the game or B. Made a game that sucks and you don't have enough player base. In most cases both are true.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's simple : 1 .
You average decent game that will give the acerage gamer at least several months of enjoyment ( Example : Team Fortress 2 ) : $ 50 2 .
Any game that did n't turn out quite right... or a game that is just a mod of another game ( Example : Soldier of Fortune series ) : $ 30 3 .
All Major MMOs ( Example : WOW , LOTRO , EVE ) : FREE ! ! !
With a $ 15 monthly sub... these games do not need a barrier to players even starting them when the player knows they will only get 30days of play out of the game right out of the box .
They are idiots for charging for the box ) Micro transactions kill your player base eventually and keep away really dedicated players .
Stop trying to milk us .
They may make each player worth more but those players will start leaving in greater and greater numbers when they get sick of the treatment .
4. Indie MMOs : ( Example : Wurm ) Free to play , with special severs for those of us that want more that cost $ 8/month to play or so .
If this amount of money is n't enough to pay the bills then you either A. Spent to much making the game or B. Made a game that sucks and you do n't have enough player base .
In most cases both are true .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's simple:

1.
You average decent game that will give the acerage gamer at least several months of enjoyment (Example: Team Fortress 2): $50
2.
Any game that didn't turn out quite right... or a game that is just a mod of another game (Example: Soldier of Fortune series): $30
3.
All Major MMOs (Example: WOW, LOTRO, EVE): FREE!!!
With a $15 monthly sub... these games do not need a barrier to players even starting them when the player knows they will only get 30days of play out of the game right out of the box.
They are idiots for charging for the box) Micro transactions kill your player base eventually and keep away really dedicated players.
Stop trying to milk us.
They may make each player worth more but those players will start leaving in greater and greater numbers when they get sick of the treatment.
4. Indie MMOs: (Example: Wurm) Free to play, with special severs for those of us that want more that cost $8/month to play or so.
If this amount of money isn't enough to pay the bills then you either A. Spent to much making the game or B. Made a game that sucks and you don't have enough player base.
In most cases both are true.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0511255.30871298</id>
	<title>Re:Hours per dollar is a rubbish measure</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264276260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You count the hours you actually play the game, not the hours a single playthrough takes. That 29-hour "best game ever" has a lot more replay value than a 30 hour generally amusing game. And the occasional 60-hour RPG that gets put down after 15 and never picked up again only counts as 15.</p><p>I go another step up when figuring out if a game console overall was worth the money, too; count all the money spent on the system, peripherals, and games, and compare that to the total time spent using it. Try doing this in advance when considering whether to buy a new system (important nowdays since some of the hardware, peripherals, and games have gone up a ways in price and the gameplay length may have gone down, depending on your individual tastes).</p><p>Another book analogy: I count a book as more valuable if I not only read and enjoy it but also lend it to a friend who reads and enjoys it. Likewise for games; if I enjoy a game so much I tell a friend he HAS to play it, lend it to him, and he enjoys it too, then that game was worth more.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You count the hours you actually play the game , not the hours a single playthrough takes .
That 29-hour " best game ever " has a lot more replay value than a 30 hour generally amusing game .
And the occasional 60-hour RPG that gets put down after 15 and never picked up again only counts as 15.I go another step up when figuring out if a game console overall was worth the money , too ; count all the money spent on the system , peripherals , and games , and compare that to the total time spent using it .
Try doing this in advance when considering whether to buy a new system ( important nowdays since some of the hardware , peripherals , and games have gone up a ways in price and the gameplay length may have gone down , depending on your individual tastes ) .Another book analogy : I count a book as more valuable if I not only read and enjoy it but also lend it to a friend who reads and enjoys it .
Likewise for games ; if I enjoy a game so much I tell a friend he HAS to play it , lend it to him , and he enjoys it too , then that game was worth more .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You count the hours you actually play the game, not the hours a single playthrough takes.
That 29-hour "best game ever" has a lot more replay value than a 30 hour generally amusing game.
And the occasional 60-hour RPG that gets put down after 15 and never picked up again only counts as 15.I go another step up when figuring out if a game console overall was worth the money, too; count all the money spent on the system, peripherals, and games, and compare that to the total time spent using it.
Try doing this in advance when considering whether to buy a new system (important nowdays since some of the hardware, peripherals, and games have gone up a ways in price and the gameplay length may have gone down, depending on your individual tastes).Another book analogy: I count a book as more valuable if I not only read and enjoy it but also lend it to a friend who reads and enjoys it.
Likewise for games; if I enjoy a game so much I tell a friend he HAS to play it, lend it to him, and he enjoys it too, then that game was worth more.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0511255.30868876</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0511255.30869912</id>
	<title>Dollars per hour is a dangerous metric</title>
	<author>roystgnr</author>
	<datestamp>1264264860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm 30.  I still love playing video games, and if surveys are to be believed, 50\% of people who agree are even older than I am.  That means many of them also have long work hours, decent pay, wives and/or children, home and extended family responsibilities...</p><p>And it means that we're all experienced enough and wise enough to recognize "filler" for what it is.  A repetitive level that tacks an hour onto gameplay may decrease the "dollars per hour" spent on the game, but it's not going to win you any new fans or get any extra purchasers for your sequel.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm 30 .
I still love playing video games , and if surveys are to be believed , 50 \ % of people who agree are even older than I am .
That means many of them also have long work hours , decent pay , wives and/or children , home and extended family responsibilities...And it means that we 're all experienced enough and wise enough to recognize " filler " for what it is .
A repetitive level that tacks an hour onto gameplay may decrease the " dollars per hour " spent on the game , but it 's not going to win you any new fans or get any extra purchasers for your sequel .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm 30.
I still love playing video games, and if surveys are to be believed, 50\% of people who agree are even older than I am.
That means many of them also have long work hours, decent pay, wives and/or children, home and extended family responsibilities...And it means that we're all experienced enough and wise enough to recognize "filler" for what it is.
A repetitive level that tacks an hour onto gameplay may decrease the "dollars per hour" spent on the game, but it's not going to win you any new fans or get any extra purchasers for your sequel.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0511255.30868746</id>
	<title>Disagree</title>
	<author>Joce640k</author>
	<datestamp>1264252200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'd rather play a really exciting game for ten hours than a mediocre game for thirty hours.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'd rather play a really exciting game for ten hours than a mediocre game for thirty hours .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'd rather play a really exciting game for ten hours than a mediocre game for thirty hours.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0511255.30868582</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0511255.30870924</id>
	<title>Re:Impossible</title>
	<author>Hatta</author>
	<datestamp>1264273500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's why word of mouth is better than reviews.  After you get to know someone, you know how well their tastes correlate with yours.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's why word of mouth is better than reviews .
After you get to know someone , you know how well their tastes correlate with yours .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's why word of mouth is better than reviews.
After you get to know someone, you know how well their tastes correlate with yours.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0511255.30868682</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0511255.30870706</id>
	<title>worth = $ / (enjoyment x hours)</title>
	<author>LinuxRulz</author>
	<datestamp>1264271520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>value = $ / (enjoyment x hours)<br>I believe this would be the correct formula to determine what a game's worth, as only $/h is really a wrong metric for a something we don't enjoy.<br>But this leads to the real question: How can we measure how much we enjoy a game? We can replay a game and enjoy it the same the second time or just be bored as it gets repetitive. In the same way, we may not really enjoy level grinding because mechanics get repetitive during the first pass.</p><p>After many readings and discussions, my definition of "enjoyment of a game" is trying to find patterns in a game and establishing a strategy. The human brain is apparently good at this and "provides satisfaction" when finding a specific pattern. As long as I'm trying different things and as I'm not stuck in a local maxima I'm enjoying something because of the impression of improvement. For this reason, there are repetitive tasks that are classified as fun (like RPG level grinding) as long as there are patterns to be found (like finding the most efficien levelling path).<br>But it's not always directly related to pattern finding as much as "self improvement". A musical rhythm game has a duration of fun, as long as I have a feeling of improvement. So I had a lot of fun during the 2 first passes as I was getting better, but then started having similar scores for trying again, and it got less fun. So the net value would be  cost/(2*game time).<br>As a counter example, in a racing game, there are less patterns to be found and less self improvement; yes, you can buy new/faster cars ingame but play the same level in the same conditions and you won't necessarily get better. That I would evaluate as (cost*2)/(game time).</p><p>The above examples are obviously totally arbitrary and I intentionally do not mention any game name as the values are different between individuals (unless you have the exact same learning rate as I do). But I hope it helps some of you clarify your metric of what's a game worth.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>value = $ / ( enjoyment x hours ) I believe this would be the correct formula to determine what a game 's worth , as only $ /h is really a wrong metric for a something we do n't enjoy.But this leads to the real question : How can we measure how much we enjoy a game ?
We can replay a game and enjoy it the same the second time or just be bored as it gets repetitive .
In the same way , we may not really enjoy level grinding because mechanics get repetitive during the first pass.After many readings and discussions , my definition of " enjoyment of a game " is trying to find patterns in a game and establishing a strategy .
The human brain is apparently good at this and " provides satisfaction " when finding a specific pattern .
As long as I 'm trying different things and as I 'm not stuck in a local maxima I 'm enjoying something because of the impression of improvement .
For this reason , there are repetitive tasks that are classified as fun ( like RPG level grinding ) as long as there are patterns to be found ( like finding the most efficien levelling path ) .But it 's not always directly related to pattern finding as much as " self improvement " .
A musical rhythm game has a duration of fun , as long as I have a feeling of improvement .
So I had a lot of fun during the 2 first passes as I was getting better , but then started having similar scores for trying again , and it got less fun .
So the net value would be cost/ ( 2 * game time ) .As a counter example , in a racing game , there are less patterns to be found and less self improvement ; yes , you can buy new/faster cars ingame but play the same level in the same conditions and you wo n't necessarily get better .
That I would evaluate as ( cost * 2 ) / ( game time ) .The above examples are obviously totally arbitrary and I intentionally do not mention any game name as the values are different between individuals ( unless you have the exact same learning rate as I do ) .
But I hope it helps some of you clarify your metric of what 's a game worth .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>value = $ / (enjoyment x hours)I believe this would be the correct formula to determine what a game's worth, as only $/h is really a wrong metric for a something we don't enjoy.But this leads to the real question: How can we measure how much we enjoy a game?
We can replay a game and enjoy it the same the second time or just be bored as it gets repetitive.
In the same way, we may not really enjoy level grinding because mechanics get repetitive during the first pass.After many readings and discussions, my definition of "enjoyment of a game" is trying to find patterns in a game and establishing a strategy.
The human brain is apparently good at this and "provides satisfaction" when finding a specific pattern.
As long as I'm trying different things and as I'm not stuck in a local maxima I'm enjoying something because of the impression of improvement.
For this reason, there are repetitive tasks that are classified as fun (like RPG level grinding) as long as there are patterns to be found (like finding the most efficien levelling path).But it's not always directly related to pattern finding as much as "self improvement".
A musical rhythm game has a duration of fun, as long as I have a feeling of improvement.
So I had a lot of fun during the 2 first passes as I was getting better, but then started having similar scores for trying again, and it got less fun.
So the net value would be  cost/(2*game time).As a counter example, in a racing game, there are less patterns to be found and less self improvement; yes, you can buy new/faster cars ingame but play the same level in the same conditions and you won't necessarily get better.
That I would evaluate as (cost*2)/(game time).The above examples are obviously totally arbitrary and I intentionally do not mention any game name as the values are different between individuals (unless you have the exact same learning rate as I do).
But I hope it helps some of you clarify your metric of what's a game worth.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0511255.30872202</id>
	<title>Re:Counterexample</title>
	<author>cgenman</author>
	<datestamp>1264238700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And you have to look at available alternatives for time as well.  Assuming you could borrow a bunch of great games from your friends, would you rather play Shattered Memories, No More Heroes, A Boy and His Blob, Muramasa, and Mad World... or Fire Emblem once.  Sure, game X might be amazing, but with the alternatives out there, is it amazing *enough* to warrant all the time not spent doing other things?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And you have to look at available alternatives for time as well .
Assuming you could borrow a bunch of great games from your friends , would you rather play Shattered Memories , No More Heroes , A Boy and His Blob , Muramasa , and Mad World... or Fire Emblem once .
Sure , game X might be amazing , but with the alternatives out there , is it amazing * enough * to warrant all the time not spent doing other things ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And you have to look at available alternatives for time as well.
Assuming you could borrow a bunch of great games from your friends, would you rather play Shattered Memories, No More Heroes, A Boy and His Blob, Muramasa, and Mad World... or Fire Emblem once.
Sure, game X might be amazing, but with the alternatives out there, is it amazing *enough* to warrant all the time not spent doing other things?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0511255.30868600</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0511255.30869696</id>
	<title>Re:A games worth</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264262640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>So, twice for <i>how</i> many hundreds of hours? Sorry dude, going out drinking and randomly meeting people totally beats WoW in sex-per-time-invested.</htmltext>
<tokenext>So , twice for how many hundreds of hours ?
Sorry dude , going out drinking and randomly meeting people totally beats WoW in sex-per-time-invested .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So, twice for how many hundreds of hours?
Sorry dude, going out drinking and randomly meeting people totally beats WoW in sex-per-time-invested.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0511255.30868606</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0511255.30869968</id>
	<title>Dollars per hour is exactly backwards</title>
	<author>Z8</author>
	<datestamp>1264265460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>When you play a game, you get enjoyment/fun/insight/whatever (call it goodness), but in order to get that you sacrifice money (the price) but you also sacrifice time.  Maybe it's just me, because I have a job that pays well but takes lots of time, but time is usually more important than money.  If a game provides the same total fun but lasts 20 hours instead of 40, I'd easily pay 2-3 times as much.</p><p>Hours needs to go in the <b>denominator</b> not the <b>numerator</b>.  For instance:  value = hours / dollars is wrong.  Value = goodness / (hours * dollars) is much better.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>When you play a game , you get enjoyment/fun/insight/whatever ( call it goodness ) , but in order to get that you sacrifice money ( the price ) but you also sacrifice time .
Maybe it 's just me , because I have a job that pays well but takes lots of time , but time is usually more important than money .
If a game provides the same total fun but lasts 20 hours instead of 40 , I 'd easily pay 2-3 times as much.Hours needs to go in the denominator not the numerator .
For instance : value = hours / dollars is wrong .
Value = goodness / ( hours * dollars ) is much better .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When you play a game, you get enjoyment/fun/insight/whatever (call it goodness), but in order to get that you sacrifice money (the price) but you also sacrifice time.
Maybe it's just me, because I have a job that pays well but takes lots of time, but time is usually more important than money.
If a game provides the same total fun but lasts 20 hours instead of 40, I'd easily pay 2-3 times as much.Hours needs to go in the denominator not the numerator.
For instance:  value = hours / dollars is wrong.
Value = goodness / (hours * dollars) is much better.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0511255.30868876</id>
	<title>Hours per dollar is a rubbish measure</title>
	<author>91degrees</author>
	<datestamp>1264253880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>This means that a generally amusing game that takes 30 hours to complete is better value than the best game ever that takes 29 hours to complete.  <br> <br>
It's like judging the quality of a book by the number of pages.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This means that a generally amusing game that takes 30 hours to complete is better value than the best game ever that takes 29 hours to complete .
It 's like judging the quality of a book by the number of pages .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This means that a generally amusing game that takes 30 hours to complete is better value than the best game ever that takes 29 hours to complete.
It's like judging the quality of a book by the number of pages.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0511255.30883638</id>
	<title>Is in my collection of course</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264336920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If I buy the game, it will be in my collection for a long long time. I buy to collect and replay.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;-)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If I buy the game , it will be in my collection for a long long time .
I buy to collect and replay .
; - )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If I buy the game, it will be in my collection for a long long time.
I buy to collect and replay.
;-)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0511255.30868974</id>
	<title>Re:Hours per dollar is good</title>
	<author>Wescotte</author>
	<datestamp>1264255020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If you're playing in an Arcade chances are dollar/hour of entertainment ratio is very very low.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If you 're playing in an Arcade chances are dollar/hour of entertainment ratio is very very low .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you're playing in an Arcade chances are dollar/hour of entertainment ratio is very very low.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0511255.30868702</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0511255.30869410</id>
	<title>The Romans said</title>
	<author>Dunbal</author>
	<datestamp>1264260000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>De gustibus non est disputandum</i></p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; Gaming experience is highly subjective, and therefore there is no way to measure it. Therefore you are attempting to measure a subjective gaming experience by measuring objective quantities associated with a game: time played versus cost of game, etc. However these are not necessarily indicators of a good gaming experience, any number of other subjective variables come into play, such as attention span, willingness to become involved in the game world or user interface, etc.</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; In other words, you could pay professionals to do expensive market research into what makes a "good" game rather than just asking slashdot, and still walk away with doubts - because after all there's always the chance that 1) people who are willing to take time to answer surveys and participate in research do not necessarily represent your target market and 2) people lie on surveys.</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; There's no sure thing to any business venture - it always involves risk. Common sense (and looking at past successes) should tell the game maket what people want. But if you stick to that, you'll just keep making newer versions of the same product, the gamers will get bored. So innovation is also necessary. But there's no way to be absolutely certain about what makes a "good" game. Usually when you try to make everyone happy, however, you end up disappointing everyone. Look at a game like Falcon 4.0: it never sold much, it was over priced, and it was complicated as hell. And yet no other fighter jet simulation comes close, it has a loyal fan base, it has been modded so far from the original that several different, stand alone games now exist based on the old original Falcon 4. We're talking over 10 years later, which is a lifetime for computer games, and many people (myself included) still play it. But it's a niche game, with very loyal (but very few) followers. Then look at something (I will stick to combat sims) aimed at a broader market: Combat Flight Simulator 3. Without modding, it is generally considered a flop for many reasons, despite having an adequate user interface, adequate flight models, adequate graphics, etc. However it did not excel at anything. It tried to please the arcade type gamer and the "hard core" gamer, and failed at both.</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>De gustibus non est disputandum       Gaming experience is highly subjective , and therefore there is no way to measure it .
Therefore you are attempting to measure a subjective gaming experience by measuring objective quantities associated with a game : time played versus cost of game , etc .
However these are not necessarily indicators of a good gaming experience , any number of other subjective variables come into play , such as attention span , willingness to become involved in the game world or user interface , etc .
      In other words , you could pay professionals to do expensive market research into what makes a " good " game rather than just asking slashdot , and still walk away with doubts - because after all there 's always the chance that 1 ) people who are willing to take time to answer surveys and participate in research do not necessarily represent your target market and 2 ) people lie on surveys .
      There 's no sure thing to any business venture - it always involves risk .
Common sense ( and looking at past successes ) should tell the game maket what people want .
But if you stick to that , you 'll just keep making newer versions of the same product , the gamers will get bored .
So innovation is also necessary .
But there 's no way to be absolutely certain about what makes a " good " game .
Usually when you try to make everyone happy , however , you end up disappointing everyone .
Look at a game like Falcon 4.0 : it never sold much , it was over priced , and it was complicated as hell .
And yet no other fighter jet simulation comes close , it has a loyal fan base , it has been modded so far from the original that several different , stand alone games now exist based on the old original Falcon 4 .
We 're talking over 10 years later , which is a lifetime for computer games , and many people ( myself included ) still play it .
But it 's a niche game , with very loyal ( but very few ) followers .
Then look at something ( I will stick to combat sims ) aimed at a broader market : Combat Flight Simulator 3 .
Without modding , it is generally considered a flop for many reasons , despite having an adequate user interface , adequate flight models , adequate graphics , etc .
However it did not excel at anything .
It tried to please the arcade type gamer and the " hard core " gamer , and failed at both .
     </tokentext>
<sentencetext>De gustibus non est disputandum
      Gaming experience is highly subjective, and therefore there is no way to measure it.
Therefore you are attempting to measure a subjective gaming experience by measuring objective quantities associated with a game: time played versus cost of game, etc.
However these are not necessarily indicators of a good gaming experience, any number of other subjective variables come into play, such as attention span, willingness to become involved in the game world or user interface, etc.
      In other words, you could pay professionals to do expensive market research into what makes a "good" game rather than just asking slashdot, and still walk away with doubts - because after all there's always the chance that 1) people who are willing to take time to answer surveys and participate in research do not necessarily represent your target market and 2) people lie on surveys.
      There's no sure thing to any business venture - it always involves risk.
Common sense (and looking at past successes) should tell the game maket what people want.
But if you stick to that, you'll just keep making newer versions of the same product, the gamers will get bored.
So innovation is also necessary.
But there's no way to be absolutely certain about what makes a "good" game.
Usually when you try to make everyone happy, however, you end up disappointing everyone.
Look at a game like Falcon 4.0: it never sold much, it was over priced, and it was complicated as hell.
And yet no other fighter jet simulation comes close, it has a loyal fan base, it has been modded so far from the original that several different, stand alone games now exist based on the old original Falcon 4.
We're talking over 10 years later, which is a lifetime for computer games, and many people (myself included) still play it.
But it's a niche game, with very loyal (but very few) followers.
Then look at something (I will stick to combat sims) aimed at a broader market: Combat Flight Simulator 3.
Without modding, it is generally considered a flop for many reasons, despite having an adequate user interface, adequate flight models, adequate graphics, etc.
However it did not excel at anything.
It tried to please the arcade type gamer and the "hard core" gamer, and failed at both.
     </sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0511255.30871940</id>
	<title>Re:Hours per dollar is good</title>
	<author>drsquare</author>
	<datestamp>1264280100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Time spent playing (per dollar) seems like a good measurement</p></div></blockquote><p>That this, if you see games as time filler rather than entertainment, and value quantity over quality.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Time spent playing ( per dollar ) seems like a good measurementThat this , if you see games as time filler rather than entertainment , and value quantity over quality .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Time spent playing (per dollar) seems like a good measurementThat this, if you see games as time filler rather than entertainment, and value quantity over quality.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0511255.30868582</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0511255.30896406</id>
	<title>Real worth</title>
	<author>youngdev</author>
	<datestamp>1264416360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Here's the formula:</p><p>Real worth = (abs(cost\_of\_game)+(hours\_spent\_playing * player's\_normal\_hourly\_wage)) * (-1)</p><p>Think about that the next time you are boasting to your friends how you are a level 69 dark elf and you just completed your 98th Quest for the Golden Eye of Ramos (or some other such nonsense)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Here 's the formula : Real worth = ( abs ( cost \ _of \ _game ) + ( hours \ _spent \ _playing * player 's \ _normal \ _hourly \ _wage ) ) * ( -1 ) Think about that the next time you are boasting to your friends how you are a level 69 dark elf and you just completed your 98th Quest for the Golden Eye of Ramos ( or some other such nonsense )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Here's the formula:Real worth = (abs(cost\_of\_game)+(hours\_spent\_playing * player's\_normal\_hourly\_wage)) * (-1)Think about that the next time you are boasting to your friends how you are a level 69 dark elf and you just completed your 98th Quest for the Golden Eye of Ramos (or some other such nonsense)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0511255.30869172</id>
	<title>That's simple.</title>
	<author>Jaroslav.Tucek</author>
	<datestamp>1264257300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Everything is worth, what its purchaser will pay for it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Everything is worth , what its purchaser will pay for it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Everything is worth, what its purchaser will pay for it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0511255.30868768</id>
	<title>Re:Hours per dollar is good</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264252620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>( 0.4* Amount of Game Area Space * Average amount of interactive features per square pixel + 0.3 * Visual appeal + 0.3 * Gameplay ) / Game Price</p><p>The higher, the better.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>( 0.4 * Amount of Game Area Space * Average amount of interactive features per square pixel + 0.3 * Visual appeal + 0.3 * Gameplay ) / Game PriceThe higher , the better .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>( 0.4* Amount of Game Area Space * Average amount of interactive features per square pixel + 0.3 * Visual appeal + 0.3 * Gameplay ) / Game PriceThe higher, the better.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0511255.30868582</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0511255.30869508</id>
	<title>Try accounting</title>
	<author>Holammer</author>
	<datestamp>1264260840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Seriously, if you start to break down the worth of a game to $/h you might as well take a stab at the exciting &amp; noble art of accountancy.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... and by that logic it's PRICELESS to pirate a game.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Seriously , if you start to break down the worth of a game to $ /h you might as well take a stab at the exciting &amp; noble art of accountancy .
... and by that logic it 's PRICELESS to pirate a game .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Seriously, if you start to break down the worth of a game to $/h you might as well take a stab at the exciting &amp; noble art of accountancy.
... and by that logic it's PRICELESS to pirate a game.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0511255.30869204</id>
	<title>It's a Solved Problem</title>
	<author>Comatose51</author>
	<datestamp>1264257720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's however much you are willing to pay for the game.  Done.</p><p>Seriously.  One of the beautiful things about economics and capitalism is this principle of encapsulating the value of something with a price.  Different people look for different virtues in an object.  You might think time played is the correct measurement but a long game that goes bad in the end might be less valuable to me than a good, short and fun game.  It's all relative but we can all get to common unit of worth through by stating the price.</p><p>If after $30 for the game and playing it, you regretted it, then it was worth less than $30.  If you were happy about it, then it was worth more than $30 to you.  What the game can sell for in a free market is what it is worth.  That's the beauty of a free market.  It's not just an exchange for goods and services, it's a good information discovery tool.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's however much you are willing to pay for the game .
Done.Seriously. One of the beautiful things about economics and capitalism is this principle of encapsulating the value of something with a price .
Different people look for different virtues in an object .
You might think time played is the correct measurement but a long game that goes bad in the end might be less valuable to me than a good , short and fun game .
It 's all relative but we can all get to common unit of worth through by stating the price.If after $ 30 for the game and playing it , you regretted it , then it was worth less than $ 30 .
If you were happy about it , then it was worth more than $ 30 to you .
What the game can sell for in a free market is what it is worth .
That 's the beauty of a free market .
It 's not just an exchange for goods and services , it 's a good information discovery tool .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's however much you are willing to pay for the game.
Done.Seriously.  One of the beautiful things about economics and capitalism is this principle of encapsulating the value of something with a price.
Different people look for different virtues in an object.
You might think time played is the correct measurement but a long game that goes bad in the end might be less valuable to me than a good, short and fun game.
It's all relative but we can all get to common unit of worth through by stating the price.If after $30 for the game and playing it, you regretted it, then it was worth less than $30.
If you were happy about it, then it was worth more than $30 to you.
What the game can sell for in a free market is what it is worth.
That's the beauty of a free market.
It's not just an exchange for goods and services, it's a good information discovery tool.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0511255.30871002</id>
	<title>The same as everything else</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264274400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What people are willing to pay for it. It's a brilliant system, really.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What people are willing to pay for it .
It 's a brilliant system , really .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What people are willing to pay for it.
It's a brilliant system, really.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0511255.30869194</id>
	<title>Quality counts too</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264257600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Some games don't have any replay value, but are still worth the price. If I'm buying something like an FPS/RTS, I care a lot about the time/money ratio. But I've also enjoyed games like Mass Effect, or the indie game Machinarium, which were pointless after the first time through. The quality of the experience is worth it some times.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Some games do n't have any replay value , but are still worth the price .
If I 'm buying something like an FPS/RTS , I care a lot about the time/money ratio .
But I 've also enjoyed games like Mass Effect , or the indie game Machinarium , which were pointless after the first time through .
The quality of the experience is worth it some times .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Some games don't have any replay value, but are still worth the price.
If I'm buying something like an FPS/RTS, I care a lot about the time/money ratio.
But I've also enjoyed games like Mass Effect, or the indie game Machinarium, which were pointless after the first time through.
The quality of the experience is worth it some times.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0511255.30870634</id>
	<title>Re:Hours per dollar is good</title>
	<author>proslack</author>
	<datestamp>1264270980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>True. A unique (or rare) experience is worth more than the commonplace (at least to me).</htmltext>
<tokenext>True .
A unique ( or rare ) experience is worth more than the commonplace ( at least to me ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>True.
A unique (or rare) experience is worth more than the commonplace (at least to me).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0511255.30868726</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0511255.30869022</id>
	<title>MMOs</title>
	<author>lewster32</author>
	<datestamp>1264255500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It'd be interesting to see this metric applied to pay-monthly MMOs such as WoW, Eve etc - but then you really do have to take into consideration <em>satisfying gameplay</em> per dollar, and I think the result will be 'not much'.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 'd be interesting to see this metric applied to pay-monthly MMOs such as WoW , Eve etc - but then you really do have to take into consideration satisfying gameplay per dollar , and I think the result will be 'not much' .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It'd be interesting to see this metric applied to pay-monthly MMOs such as WoW, Eve etc - but then you really do have to take into consideration satisfying gameplay per dollar, and I think the result will be 'not much'.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0511255.30869994</id>
	<title>Best bang for the buck</title>
	<author>jemicron</author>
	<datestamp>1264265700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A deck of cards, only $2 or $3 to buy, offers hundreds of hours of play.  Plus, if you win at Poker it's an income source!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A deck of cards , only $ 2 or $ 3 to buy , offers hundreds of hours of play .
Plus , if you win at Poker it 's an income source !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A deck of cards, only $2 or $3 to buy, offers hundreds of hours of play.
Plus, if you win at Poker it's an income source!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0511255.30869512</id>
	<title>How about this?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264260840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How about rating games in how many money you would have spent on it?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How about rating games in how many money you would have spent on it ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How about rating games in how many money you would have spent on it?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0511255.30872858</id>
	<title>Great question...</title>
	<author>blixel</author>
	<datestamp>1264243860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I love this question as it is one I've thought about a few times. I'm not much of a gamer, so my "take" on this question is probably vastly different than a person who loves playing games. For the most part, I think games (especially video games) are an unproductive waste of time. Having said that, I understand that we all need some down time in order to enjoy life. While I prefer to spend my down time doing things that are every bit as unproductive as playing games, I do, nonetheless, play a game from time to time.</p><p>My favorite game of all time is Magic: The Gathering. I go through very long periods where I don't play at all (i.e. years), but I still have my card collection and I still get really addicted to it from time to time. I treat all my cards with care so that they will retain as much value as possible should I ever decide to sell my collection. (I keep all my cards in protective sleeves, and I store them away from sunlight.) The game can be very expensive over time because some rares (especially the newer mythic rares) can cost as much as a video game for 1 single card. On the other hand, you can get hours/weeks/months and even years of play out of a $9 pre-constructed deck.</p><p>For my time &amp; money, there's no better game.</p><p>As far as electronic video games go<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... I find it very difficult to get *any* value out of them at all. Video games bore me to tears. I would generally rather read a book, clean the house, surf the web, watch a movie, or do just about any other non-productive thing than play video games.</p><p>Having said that, there is one video game that comes to mind that I have gotten tremendous value out of. StarCraft. I bought the SC/Broodwar Battle Chest like 10+ years ago and I think I only paid $29 for it. But in the last 10 years, I have played that game off and on many, many times. In fact, about 2 months ago I got the urge to play it again<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... so I got my discs out, installed it, patched it, and played several games for a period of about 5 days. It was great fun<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... and I'm probably done with it for another year or two.</p><p>But the fact that this game from the late 90's is still working on modern hardware and modern operating systems is a true testament to the value that you can get from some games.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I love this question as it is one I 've thought about a few times .
I 'm not much of a gamer , so my " take " on this question is probably vastly different than a person who loves playing games .
For the most part , I think games ( especially video games ) are an unproductive waste of time .
Having said that , I understand that we all need some down time in order to enjoy life .
While I prefer to spend my down time doing things that are every bit as unproductive as playing games , I do , nonetheless , play a game from time to time.My favorite game of all time is Magic : The Gathering .
I go through very long periods where I do n't play at all ( i.e .
years ) , but I still have my card collection and I still get really addicted to it from time to time .
I treat all my cards with care so that they will retain as much value as possible should I ever decide to sell my collection .
( I keep all my cards in protective sleeves , and I store them away from sunlight .
) The game can be very expensive over time because some rares ( especially the newer mythic rares ) can cost as much as a video game for 1 single card .
On the other hand , you can get hours/weeks/months and even years of play out of a $ 9 pre-constructed deck.For my time &amp; money , there 's no better game.As far as electronic video games go ... I find it very difficult to get * any * value out of them at all .
Video games bore me to tears .
I would generally rather read a book , clean the house , surf the web , watch a movie , or do just about any other non-productive thing than play video games.Having said that , there is one video game that comes to mind that I have gotten tremendous value out of .
StarCraft. I bought the SC/Broodwar Battle Chest like 10 + years ago and I think I only paid $ 29 for it .
But in the last 10 years , I have played that game off and on many , many times .
In fact , about 2 months ago I got the urge to play it again ... so I got my discs out , installed it , patched it , and played several games for a period of about 5 days .
It was great fun ... and I 'm probably done with it for another year or two.But the fact that this game from the late 90 's is still working on modern hardware and modern operating systems is a true testament to the value that you can get from some games .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I love this question as it is one I've thought about a few times.
I'm not much of a gamer, so my "take" on this question is probably vastly different than a person who loves playing games.
For the most part, I think games (especially video games) are an unproductive waste of time.
Having said that, I understand that we all need some down time in order to enjoy life.
While I prefer to spend my down time doing things that are every bit as unproductive as playing games, I do, nonetheless, play a game from time to time.My favorite game of all time is Magic: The Gathering.
I go through very long periods where I don't play at all (i.e.
years), but I still have my card collection and I still get really addicted to it from time to time.
I treat all my cards with care so that they will retain as much value as possible should I ever decide to sell my collection.
(I keep all my cards in protective sleeves, and I store them away from sunlight.
) The game can be very expensive over time because some rares (especially the newer mythic rares) can cost as much as a video game for 1 single card.
On the other hand, you can get hours/weeks/months and even years of play out of a $9 pre-constructed deck.For my time &amp; money, there's no better game.As far as electronic video games go ... I find it very difficult to get *any* value out of them at all.
Video games bore me to tears.
I would generally rather read a book, clean the house, surf the web, watch a movie, or do just about any other non-productive thing than play video games.Having said that, there is one video game that comes to mind that I have gotten tremendous value out of.
StarCraft. I bought the SC/Broodwar Battle Chest like 10+ years ago and I think I only paid $29 for it.
But in the last 10 years, I have played that game off and on many, many times.
In fact, about 2 months ago I got the urge to play it again ... so I got my discs out, installed it, patched it, and played several games for a period of about 5 days.
It was great fun ... and I'm probably done with it for another year or two.But the fact that this game from the late 90's is still working on modern hardware and modern operating systems is a true testament to the value that you can get from some games.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0511255.30868808</id>
	<title>How Do You Measure a Games Worth?</title>
	<author>mildagaines</author>
	<datestamp>1264252860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>I have about 12-15 different games,dated from the 1930's to the 1950's, there are a couple that are in great shape but most of them are falling apart pretty badly or they have some game piecs missing.I'd like to sell them all as one lot.
<a href="http://www.articlesbase.com/health-articles/proactol-review-does-proactol-diet-pills-work-for-weight-loss-1707237.html" title="articlesbase.com" rel="nofollow">Proactol</a> [articlesbase.com]


<a href="http://www.goarticles.com/cgi-bin/showa.cgi?C=2236872" title="goarticles.com" rel="nofollow">Force Factor</a> [goarticles.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>I have about 12-15 different games,dated from the 1930 's to the 1950 's , there are a couple that are in great shape but most of them are falling apart pretty badly or they have some game piecs missing.I 'd like to sell them all as one lot .
Proactol [ articlesbase.com ] Force Factor [ goarticles.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have about 12-15 different games,dated from the 1930's to the 1950's, there are a couple that are in great shape but most of them are falling apart pretty badly or they have some game piecs missing.I'd like to sell them all as one lot.
Proactol [articlesbase.com]


Force Factor [goarticles.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0511255.30870212</id>
	<title>It matters, at least</title>
	<author>twoallbeefpatties</author>
	<datestamp>1264267680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>But it IS a part of the formula, which is why some game magazines list "Replay Value" alongside their metrics for "Graphics/Sound" and "Gameplay."  Pull up the Gamespot review for Torchlight, and you'll see a little dollar sign on their "awards" for the game on the side, notifying the game as having a lot of value for the price you pay.  It's certainly not the single most important attribute of a game, but it's well worth taking note of.</htmltext>
<tokenext>But it IS a part of the formula , which is why some game magazines list " Replay Value " alongside their metrics for " Graphics/Sound " and " Gameplay .
" Pull up the Gamespot review for Torchlight , and you 'll see a little dollar sign on their " awards " for the game on the side , notifying the game as having a lot of value for the price you pay .
It 's certainly not the single most important attribute of a game , but it 's well worth taking note of .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But it IS a part of the formula, which is why some game magazines list "Replay Value" alongside their metrics for "Graphics/Sound" and "Gameplay.
"  Pull up the Gamespot review for Torchlight, and you'll see a little dollar sign on their "awards" for the game on the side, notifying the game as having a lot of value for the price you pay.
It's certainly not the single most important attribute of a game, but it's well worth taking note of.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0511255.30868876</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0511255.30868592</id>
	<title>Computer games?</title>
	<author>For a Free Internet</author>
	<datestamp>1264250100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is why I don't use computers. They are all causeing people to becomne fat and stupijdm because they dont read books any more. Indstead I read five novels every day and am a super genios. If you didn't waste your time playing computer games and selling your soul to the Italians you could be like me too. I thought that computers were for computing things like numbros and internetes but today they are just for sexxy6<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;ladies and wasting-time-games for fat kids. All things that are bad and immoral and wrong and dumb and stupid and bad. So be like me, a super genius a millonare and the greatest man in the world who does not ever EVER use a computer unless it is absolutely necessary to save the life of at least three non-Italian people.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is why I do n't use computers .
They are all causeing people to becomne fat and stupijdm because they dont read books any more .
Indstead I read five novels every day and am a super genios .
If you did n't waste your time playing computer games and selling your soul to the Italians you could be like me too .
I thought that computers were for computing things like numbros and internetes but today they are just for sexxy6 ; ladies and wasting-time-games for fat kids .
All things that are bad and immoral and wrong and dumb and stupid and bad .
So be like me , a super genius a millonare and the greatest man in the world who does not ever EVER use a computer unless it is absolutely necessary to save the life of at least three non-Italian people .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is why I don't use computers.
They are all causeing people to becomne fat and stupijdm because they dont read books any more.
Indstead I read five novels every day and am a super genios.
If you didn't waste your time playing computer games and selling your soul to the Italians you could be like me too.
I thought that computers were for computing things like numbros and internetes but today they are just for sexxy6 ;ladies and wasting-time-games for fat kids.
All things that are bad and immoral and wrong and dumb and stupid and bad.
So be like me, a super genius a millonare and the greatest man in the world who does not ever EVER use a computer unless it is absolutely necessary to save the life of at least three non-Italian people.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0511255.30868606</id>
	<title>A games worth</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264250400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>can only be measured by how many times it has gotten you laid.</p><p>Ive had 2 WOW hookups since ive been playing.</p><p>WOW: 2<br>every other game: 0</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>can only be measured by how many times it has gotten you laid.Ive had 2 WOW hookups since ive been playing.WOW : 2every other game : 0</tokentext>
<sentencetext>can only be measured by how many times it has gotten you laid.Ive had 2 WOW hookups since ive been playing.WOW: 2every other game: 0</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0511255.30870194</id>
	<title>How I rate video games</title>
	<author>Orion Blastar</author>
	<datestamp>1264267500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I use a negative rating the lowest score is the best game.</p><p>Sucklitude scale rating of 0 to 11. 11 sucks the most, none higher, 0 is worth playing, 5 or 6 is meh, 1 to 3 might be worth it used to buy.</p><p>I rate politicians by Hitlertude by how much like Hitler they are, or Stalintude by how much like Stalin they are.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I use a negative rating the lowest score is the best game.Sucklitude scale rating of 0 to 11 .
11 sucks the most , none higher , 0 is worth playing , 5 or 6 is meh , 1 to 3 might be worth it used to buy.I rate politicians by Hitlertude by how much like Hitler they are , or Stalintude by how much like Stalin they are .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I use a negative rating the lowest score is the best game.Sucklitude scale rating of 0 to 11.
11 sucks the most, none higher, 0 is worth playing, 5 or 6 is meh, 1 to 3 might be worth it used to buy.I rate politicians by Hitlertude by how much like Hitler they are, or Stalintude by how much like Stalin they are.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0511255.30872648</id>
	<title>Re:Hours per dollar is a rubbish measure</title>
	<author>Moridin42</author>
	<datestamp>1264242240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>$/hour isn't a judgement of quality. It is a factual ratio. A game can have a high ratio because it is a short, but very fun game. Or it can have a high ratio because it is a shitty game that everybody quits in a couple of hours. Either way, you can expect to spend more money for the hours you are likely to get out of the game.</p><p>Such information may be rubbish to you. It isn't to others. Its certainly a better piece of information than some reviewer's "I give it.. 4 out of 5" or an 87/100.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>$ /hour is n't a judgement of quality .
It is a factual ratio .
A game can have a high ratio because it is a short , but very fun game .
Or it can have a high ratio because it is a shitty game that everybody quits in a couple of hours .
Either way , you can expect to spend more money for the hours you are likely to get out of the game.Such information may be rubbish to you .
It is n't to others .
Its certainly a better piece of information than some reviewer 's " I give it.. 4 out of 5 " or an 87/100 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>$/hour isn't a judgement of quality.
It is a factual ratio.
A game can have a high ratio because it is a short, but very fun game.
Or it can have a high ratio because it is a shitty game that everybody quits in a couple of hours.
Either way, you can expect to spend more money for the hours you are likely to get out of the game.Such information may be rubbish to you.
It isn't to others.
Its certainly a better piece of information than some reviewer's "I give it.. 4 out of 5" or an 87/100.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0511255.30868876</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0511255.30870524</id>
	<title>Worth or Value?</title>
	<author>SuperCharlie</author>
	<datestamp>1264270140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>What it is WORTH is what you can sell it for. The VALUE is the enjoyment you get out of it which is purely subjective. I was a game *freak* for over 10 years when I realized almost every hour spent pushing A A B A A was an hour of my life sucked away for ever. I sold over 400 games and every system I had and now spend that time doing things in the real world. That has more value to me than any game ever could, but then again, thats subjective.</htmltext>
<tokenext>What it is WORTH is what you can sell it for .
The VALUE is the enjoyment you get out of it which is purely subjective .
I was a game * freak * for over 10 years when I realized almost every hour spent pushing A A B A A was an hour of my life sucked away for ever .
I sold over 400 games and every system I had and now spend that time doing things in the real world .
That has more value to me than any game ever could , but then again , thats subjective .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What it is WORTH is what you can sell it for.
The VALUE is the enjoyment you get out of it which is purely subjective.
I was a game *freak* for over 10 years when I realized almost every hour spent pushing A A B A A was an hour of my life sucked away for ever.
I sold over 400 games and every system I had and now spend that time doing things in the real world.
That has more value to me than any game ever could, but then again, thats subjective.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0511255.30868688</id>
	<title>Ob Bash.org quote</title>
	<author>wilkinc</author>
	<datestamp>1264251600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><a href="http://bash.org/?743428" title="bash.org" rel="nofollow">This</a> [bash.org] Bash quote is quite fitting here.</div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>This [ bash.org ] Bash quote is quite fitting here .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This [bash.org] Bash quote is quite fitting here.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0511255.30869114</id>
	<title>Re:Internet play is a huge factor</title>
	<author>malkavian</author>
	<datestamp>1264256640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Actually, Internet play for me in most games (apart from those I can choose to solo in, such as Guild Wars) is a null factor.  I honestly don't care for it, and if the game is 'multiplayer internet only', then no.. Not for me..<br>Yes, I'm sociable, but the amount of griefers, and people who consider that just because they're behind some anonymous screen makes them able to shout whatever kind of abuse they want, and play people around however they want (after all, it's just 'make a new character, use a new name') put me off this ages ago.  Plus the cheating that usually ends up rampant.<br>I enjoy a good story, so DLC, plus the ability to mod, and choose the mods you apply to suit your tastes and the story..  Definitely..<br>For scriptable, you just can't beat tabletop RPG..  Not in the near or medium term (perhaps in the long future it'll catch up),`so for story and script, I'll stick with tabletop..<br>Open ended..  DLC and mods help there.. DLC for extra chapters, as they usually have the same voice actors and a real feeling of continuity and extended story..<br>Player ranking, I never really got on with.  There are too many issues with that.  One being the aforementioned cheating (find a cheat, shoot up the rankings).  Either that, or it's all grind (spend your life behind the keyboard and you'll wend your way up this chart).  Neither appeal to me (and actually, I find them detrimental to my experience).<br>I don't think an enduring game has any reliance on internet play at all.  An enduring game is one which the developers built properly in the first place, one with engaging gameplay, a good engine, probably a good story that has the 'episodic' content that can reuse the engine, and support modding, along with being damn good fun to play.  Most of the games I still go back to are things like Diablo, Final Fantasy, Ratchet and Clank, Baldur's Gate, Descent, Starcraft and so on.  All pretty much non-internet..  They were just good fun to play!<br>One truly enduring one is NetHack (and Angband)..  Been playing those for a little over 20 years now, which I think counts as an enduring game..</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually , Internet play for me in most games ( apart from those I can choose to solo in , such as Guild Wars ) is a null factor .
I honestly do n't care for it , and if the game is 'multiplayer internet only ' , then no.. Not for me..Yes , I 'm sociable , but the amount of griefers , and people who consider that just because they 're behind some anonymous screen makes them able to shout whatever kind of abuse they want , and play people around however they want ( after all , it 's just 'make a new character , use a new name ' ) put me off this ages ago .
Plus the cheating that usually ends up rampant.I enjoy a good story , so DLC , plus the ability to mod , and choose the mods you apply to suit your tastes and the story.. Definitely..For scriptable , you just ca n't beat tabletop RPG.. Not in the near or medium term ( perhaps in the long future it 'll catch up ) , ` so for story and script , I 'll stick with tabletop..Open ended.. DLC and mods help there.. DLC for extra chapters , as they usually have the same voice actors and a real feeling of continuity and extended story..Player ranking , I never really got on with .
There are too many issues with that .
One being the aforementioned cheating ( find a cheat , shoot up the rankings ) .
Either that , or it 's all grind ( spend your life behind the keyboard and you 'll wend your way up this chart ) .
Neither appeal to me ( and actually , I find them detrimental to my experience ) .I do n't think an enduring game has any reliance on internet play at all .
An enduring game is one which the developers built properly in the first place , one with engaging gameplay , a good engine , probably a good story that has the 'episodic ' content that can reuse the engine , and support modding , along with being damn good fun to play .
Most of the games I still go back to are things like Diablo , Final Fantasy , Ratchet and Clank , Baldur 's Gate , Descent , Starcraft and so on .
All pretty much non-internet.. They were just good fun to play ! One truly enduring one is NetHack ( and Angband ) .. Been playing those for a little over 20 years now , which I think counts as an enduring game. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually, Internet play for me in most games (apart from those I can choose to solo in, such as Guild Wars) is a null factor.
I honestly don't care for it, and if the game is 'multiplayer internet only', then no.. Not for me..Yes, I'm sociable, but the amount of griefers, and people who consider that just because they're behind some anonymous screen makes them able to shout whatever kind of abuse they want, and play people around however they want (after all, it's just 'make a new character, use a new name') put me off this ages ago.
Plus the cheating that usually ends up rampant.I enjoy a good story, so DLC, plus the ability to mod, and choose the mods you apply to suit your tastes and the story..  Definitely..For scriptable, you just can't beat tabletop RPG..  Not in the near or medium term (perhaps in the long future it'll catch up),`so for story and script, I'll stick with tabletop..Open ended..  DLC and mods help there.. DLC for extra chapters, as they usually have the same voice actors and a real feeling of continuity and extended story..Player ranking, I never really got on with.
There are too many issues with that.
One being the aforementioned cheating (find a cheat, shoot up the rankings).
Either that, or it's all grind (spend your life behind the keyboard and you'll wend your way up this chart).
Neither appeal to me (and actually, I find them detrimental to my experience).I don't think an enduring game has any reliance on internet play at all.
An enduring game is one which the developers built properly in the first place, one with engaging gameplay, a good engine, probably a good story that has the 'episodic' content that can reuse the engine, and support modding, along with being damn good fun to play.
Most of the games I still go back to are things like Diablo, Final Fantasy, Ratchet and Clank, Baldur's Gate, Descent, Starcraft and so on.
All pretty much non-internet..  They were just good fun to play!One truly enduring one is NetHack (and Angband)..  Been playing those for a little over 20 years now, which I think counts as an enduring game..</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0511255.30868638</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0511255.30872582</id>
	<title>Obvious flaw</title>
	<author>Pinckney</author>
	<datestamp>1264241760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This would measure the worth of an uninspired grindfest, obtained for $0.01, to be great, even if it's a waste of time to play.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This would measure the worth of an uninspired grindfest , obtained for $ 0.01 , to be great , even if it 's a waste of time to play .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This would measure the worth of an uninspired grindfest, obtained for $0.01, to be great, even if it's a waste of time to play.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0511255.30898898</id>
	<title>my enjoyment is how i measure the worth of games</title>
	<author>Nyder</author>
	<datestamp>1264428600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I've been playing video games since the 70's.</p><p>I've played on almost every console system, and quite a few different computer systems.</p><p>And I base games off my enjoyment of them.</p><p>I play EQ2, have 2 accounts, I raid.<br>Lets see, i'm paying $30 a month for 2 accounts, and once i year it seems i have to buy the game over again (latest expansion, but they don't sell the expansions seperate anymore), so in 3 weeks, i'm shelling out $80 for the new expansion.</p><p>I also pay roughly $8 a month for some multiboxing software (with other benefits) for EQ2.</p><p>So $38x12 + $80 = It doesn't matter.</p><p>I get enjoyment out of it.</p><p>But now, Pc &amp; console games are sucking in comparison.  I download every new game that comes out (oh ya, I pirate) to check out, and very few, I mean, very few stay on my computer and get played, and those I generally (not always, but mostly) end up buying a copy.</p><p>Fallout 3, Need for Speed series.   Games I enjoy playing and games I bought after pirating them because I enjoyed them.</p><p>I've spent too many years being a consumer of this industry to let it play  it's bullshit games on me.</p><p>The truth is, most companies don't want their games pirated because they know if peeps don't spend money on them before trying, they won't afterwards.</p><p>But when everything comes down to it.  It's never about money, it's about enjoyment.</p><p>Like Dragon Age.   I didn't enjoy the game.  I was into the story at first, but after make a bunch of chars and doing the beginnings with them, I realised the game was a railroad ride for the most part.   It would give you a yes or no choice.   but if you hit no, it would just give you the choices over again.  I mean, wtf?  How is that choice?    Then the game taking me 5 hours to complete.</p><p>Maybe i'm spoiled by Nes and Snes (and genesis too!) rpg games that took weeks to months to finish.   Shesh, even the original SWKOTOR &amp; it's sequel's storylines where a lot longer then that.  Plus you had choice.</p><p>Only the stupid executives for the companies who make the games thinks in dollars.   Which is why the budget for the games are getting bigger, and what you get when you buy it is smaller.   Now they think they can package crap up in DLC's to drain more money out of you.</p><p>Sorry, if the game isn't enjoyable, you ain't getting any money out of me.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've been playing video games since the 70 's.I 've played on almost every console system , and quite a few different computer systems.And I base games off my enjoyment of them.I play EQ2 , have 2 accounts , I raid.Lets see , i 'm paying $ 30 a month for 2 accounts , and once i year it seems i have to buy the game over again ( latest expansion , but they do n't sell the expansions seperate anymore ) , so in 3 weeks , i 'm shelling out $ 80 for the new expansion.I also pay roughly $ 8 a month for some multiboxing software ( with other benefits ) for EQ2.So $ 38x12 + $ 80 = It does n't matter.I get enjoyment out of it.But now , Pc &amp; console games are sucking in comparison .
I download every new game that comes out ( oh ya , I pirate ) to check out , and very few , I mean , very few stay on my computer and get played , and those I generally ( not always , but mostly ) end up buying a copy.Fallout 3 , Need for Speed series .
Games I enjoy playing and games I bought after pirating them because I enjoyed them.I 've spent too many years being a consumer of this industry to let it play it 's bullshit games on me.The truth is , most companies do n't want their games pirated because they know if peeps do n't spend money on them before trying , they wo n't afterwards.But when everything comes down to it .
It 's never about money , it 's about enjoyment.Like Dragon Age .
I did n't enjoy the game .
I was into the story at first , but after make a bunch of chars and doing the beginnings with them , I realised the game was a railroad ride for the most part .
It would give you a yes or no choice .
but if you hit no , it would just give you the choices over again .
I mean , wtf ?
How is that choice ?
Then the game taking me 5 hours to complete.Maybe i 'm spoiled by Nes and Snes ( and genesis too !
) rpg games that took weeks to months to finish .
Shesh , even the original SWKOTOR &amp; it 's sequel 's storylines where a lot longer then that .
Plus you had choice.Only the stupid executives for the companies who make the games thinks in dollars .
Which is why the budget for the games are getting bigger , and what you get when you buy it is smaller .
Now they think they can package crap up in DLC 's to drain more money out of you.Sorry , if the game is n't enjoyable , you ai n't getting any money out of me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've been playing video games since the 70's.I've played on almost every console system, and quite a few different computer systems.And I base games off my enjoyment of them.I play EQ2, have 2 accounts, I raid.Lets see, i'm paying $30 a month for 2 accounts, and once i year it seems i have to buy the game over again (latest expansion, but they don't sell the expansions seperate anymore), so in 3 weeks, i'm shelling out $80 for the new expansion.I also pay roughly $8 a month for some multiboxing software (with other benefits) for EQ2.So $38x12 + $80 = It doesn't matter.I get enjoyment out of it.But now, Pc &amp; console games are sucking in comparison.
I download every new game that comes out (oh ya, I pirate) to check out, and very few, I mean, very few stay on my computer and get played, and those I generally (not always, but mostly) end up buying a copy.Fallout 3, Need for Speed series.
Games I enjoy playing and games I bought after pirating them because I enjoyed them.I've spent too many years being a consumer of this industry to let it play  it's bullshit games on me.The truth is, most companies don't want their games pirated because they know if peeps don't spend money on them before trying, they won't afterwards.But when everything comes down to it.
It's never about money, it's about enjoyment.Like Dragon Age.
I didn't enjoy the game.
I was into the story at first, but after make a bunch of chars and doing the beginnings with them, I realised the game was a railroad ride for the most part.
It would give you a yes or no choice.
but if you hit no, it would just give you the choices over again.
I mean, wtf?
How is that choice?
Then the game taking me 5 hours to complete.Maybe i'm spoiled by Nes and Snes (and genesis too!
) rpg games that took weeks to months to finish.
Shesh, even the original SWKOTOR &amp; it's sequel's storylines where a lot longer then that.
Plus you had choice.Only the stupid executives for the companies who make the games thinks in dollars.
Which is why the budget for the games are getting bigger, and what you get when you buy it is smaller.
Now they think they can package crap up in DLC's to drain more money out of you.Sorry, if the game isn't enjoyable, you ain't getting any money out of me.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0511255.30869044</id>
	<title>Frist stOp</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264255740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>What provides th3 consider that right</htmltext>
<tokenext>What provides th3 consider that right</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What provides th3 consider that right</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0511255.30868640</id>
	<title>Satisfaction to Price ratio.</title>
	<author>yanguang</author>
	<datestamp>1264250760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I bought Torchlight at $4.99 for the Steam deal back then. Best. Value. Ever. I give it 50 units of Awesome. Dragon Age: Origins gets 75 Awesome, but costs obviously more. In terms of a purchase decision, I actually hesitated for DAO. Steam's got it right with their deal system, sapping mah wallet dry.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I bought Torchlight at $ 4.99 for the Steam deal back then .
Best. Value .
Ever. I give it 50 units of Awesome .
Dragon Age : Origins gets 75 Awesome , but costs obviously more .
In terms of a purchase decision , I actually hesitated for DAO .
Steam 's got it right with their deal system , sapping mah wallet dry .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I bought Torchlight at $4.99 for the Steam deal back then.
Best. Value.
Ever. I give it 50 units of Awesome.
Dragon Age: Origins gets 75 Awesome, but costs obviously more.
In terms of a purchase decision, I actually hesitated for DAO.
Steam's got it right with their deal system, sapping mah wallet dry.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0511255.30869648</id>
	<title>Re:Hours per dollar is good</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264262160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Time spent playing (per dollar) seems like a good measurement"</p><p>I disagree, the fun of a game is not correlated with how much you paid for it, this obsession hours per dollar is quite absurd.  What is DOTA worth in hours per dollar?  Since when I bought War 3 DOTA did not yet exist.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Time spent playing ( per dollar ) seems like a good measurement " I disagree , the fun of a game is not correlated with how much you paid for it , this obsession hours per dollar is quite absurd .
What is DOTA worth in hours per dollar ?
Since when I bought War 3 DOTA did not yet exist .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Time spent playing (per dollar) seems like a good measurement"I disagree, the fun of a game is not correlated with how much you paid for it, this obsession hours per dollar is quite absurd.
What is DOTA worth in hours per dollar?
Since when I bought War 3 DOTA did not yet exist.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0511255.30868582</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0511255.30870118</id>
	<title>Does no one remember game prices in the early 90s?</title>
	<author>wilgibson</author>
	<datestamp>1264266960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>"Video games can be very expensive these days..."</p></div><p>I always seem to chuckle a bit when I hear or read this.  Games may be expensive, but they are no where near the prices I remember paying for a lot of games I bought back when the SNES was new.  $80 for Final Fantasy 3, $70 for Secret of Mana, heck I think I paid $60 for Killer Instinct.  Game prices may be expenses on the 360 and PS3 compared to the prices of last generation games, but they are not as bad as they used to be.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>" Video games can be very expensive these days... " I always seem to chuckle a bit when I hear or read this .
Games may be expensive , but they are no where near the prices I remember paying for a lot of games I bought back when the SNES was new .
$ 80 for Final Fantasy 3 , $ 70 for Secret of Mana , heck I think I paid $ 60 for Killer Instinct .
Game prices may be expenses on the 360 and PS3 compared to the prices of last generation games , but they are not as bad as they used to be .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Video games can be very expensive these days..."I always seem to chuckle a bit when I hear or read this.
Games may be expensive, but they are no where near the prices I remember paying for a lot of games I bought back when the SNES was new.
$80 for Final Fantasy 3, $70 for Secret of Mana, heck I think I paid $60 for Killer Instinct.
Game prices may be expenses on the 360 and PS3 compared to the prices of last generation games, but they are not as bad as they used to be.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0511255.30877740</id>
	<title>Hours per dollar is bad</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264343040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Time spent playing is not a good measure IMHO:</p><p>"One example that Blow cites is World of Warcraft, which he labels "unethical", stating that such games exploit players by using a simple reward-for-suffering scheme to keep them in front of their computer. In his view, developers need to think about what reinforcement the games are providing players when they reward them for performing certain actions." - <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan\_Blow" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">Jonathan Blow</a> [wikipedia.org] (of Braid fame)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Time spent playing is not a good measure IMHO : " One example that Blow cites is World of Warcraft , which he labels " unethical " , stating that such games exploit players by using a simple reward-for-suffering scheme to keep them in front of their computer .
In his view , developers need to think about what reinforcement the games are providing players when they reward them for performing certain actions .
" - Jonathan Blow [ wikipedia.org ] ( of Braid fame )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Time spent playing is not a good measure IMHO:"One example that Blow cites is World of Warcraft, which he labels "unethical", stating that such games exploit players by using a simple reward-for-suffering scheme to keep them in front of their computer.
In his view, developers need to think about what reinforcement the games are providing players when they reward them for performing certain actions.
" - Jonathan Blow [wikipedia.org] (of Braid fame)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0511255.30868582</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0511255.30869818</id>
	<title>Simple, really...</title>
	<author>Bones3D\_mac</author>
	<datestamp>1264263960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You determine a game's worth by how fun it is. (Obviously, this varies with the tastes of the user.)</p><p>So, how can you find out without dropping a fortune on a questionable title? First, don't buy new right off the bat. If possible, either wait for a demo or rent a title before purchasing. Also, hold off for about 3-4 months following the release date. This is about the point where stores begin discounting these titles by up to 50\%.</p><p>Finally, check sites like <a href="http://www.dealnews.com/" title="dealnews.com">DealNews</a> [dealnews.com] for updates on special pricing, or find a reliable store online that routinely offers cheap prices on titles you want. (Personally, I've found <a href="http://www.gogamer.com/" title="gogamer.com">GoGamer</a> [gogamer.com] to have fantastic discounts on new titles in their 48hr Madness section... sometimes by as much as $20 below average pricing on new titles.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You determine a game 's worth by how fun it is .
( Obviously , this varies with the tastes of the user .
) So , how can you find out without dropping a fortune on a questionable title ?
First , do n't buy new right off the bat .
If possible , either wait for a demo or rent a title before purchasing .
Also , hold off for about 3-4 months following the release date .
This is about the point where stores begin discounting these titles by up to 50 \ % .Finally , check sites like DealNews [ dealnews.com ] for updates on special pricing , or find a reliable store online that routinely offers cheap prices on titles you want .
( Personally , I 've found GoGamer [ gogamer.com ] to have fantastic discounts on new titles in their 48hr Madness section... sometimes by as much as $ 20 below average pricing on new titles .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You determine a game's worth by how fun it is.
(Obviously, this varies with the tastes of the user.
)So, how can you find out without dropping a fortune on a questionable title?
First, don't buy new right off the bat.
If possible, either wait for a demo or rent a title before purchasing.
Also, hold off for about 3-4 months following the release date.
This is about the point where stores begin discounting these titles by up to 50\%.Finally, check sites like DealNews [dealnews.com] for updates on special pricing, or find a reliable store online that routinely offers cheap prices on titles you want.
(Personally, I've found GoGamer [gogamer.com] to have fantastic discounts on new titles in their 48hr Madness section... sometimes by as much as $20 below average pricing on new titles.
)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_23_0511255_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0511255.30868600
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0511255.30869236
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_23_0511255_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0511255.30869172
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0511255.30871326
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_23_0511255_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0511255.30868582
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0511255.30868702
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0511255.30868868
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_23_0511255_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0511255.30868582
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0511255.30868768
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_23_0511255_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0511255.30868876
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0511255.30871328
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_23_0511255_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0511255.30868600
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0511255.30872202
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_23_0511255_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0511255.30868876
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0511255.30872648
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_23_0511255_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0511255.30868582
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0511255.30868878
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_23_0511255_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0511255.30868876
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0511255.30872644
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_23_0511255_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0511255.30868582
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0511255.30871940
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_23_0511255_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0511255.30868582
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0511255.30870322
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_23_0511255_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0511255.30868582
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0511255.30868702
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0511255.30870668
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_23_0511255_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0511255.30868876
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0511255.30871298
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_23_0511255_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0511255.30868582
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0511255.30868726
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0511255.30870634
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_23_0511255_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0511255.30868682
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0511255.30870924
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_23_0511255_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0511255.30868582
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0511255.30868702
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0511255.30868974
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_23_0511255_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0511255.30868876
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0511255.30870212
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_23_0511255_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0511255.30868582
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0511255.30869648
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_23_0511255_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0511255.30868984
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0511255.30875914
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_23_0511255_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0511255.30868582
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0511255.30868746
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0511255.30868880
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_23_0511255_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0511255.30868980
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0511255.30871106
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_23_0511255_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0511255.30868582
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0511255.30868726
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0511255.30871142
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_23_0511255_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0511255.30868582
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0511255.30868726
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0511255.30871888
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_23_0511255_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0511255.30868582
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0511255.30877740
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_23_0511255_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0511255.30868606
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0511255.30889366
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_23_0511255_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0511255.30868582
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0511255.30868774
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_23_0511255_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0511255.30868582
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0511255.30868712
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_23_0511255_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0511255.30868582
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0511255.30868726
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0511255.30870490
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_23_0511255_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0511255.30868606
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0511255.30869696
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_23_0511255_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0511255.30868582
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0511255.30868726
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0511255.30870060
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_23_0511255_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0511255.30868582
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0511255.30868726
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0511255.30869436
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_23_0511255_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0511255.30868638
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0511255.30869114
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_23_0511255_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0511255.30868582
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0511255.30869988
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_23_0511255.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0511255.30868606
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0511255.30869696
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0511255.30889366
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_23_0511255.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0511255.30868648
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_23_0511255.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0511255.30868620
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_23_0511255.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0511255.30868582
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0511255.30868746
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0511255.30868880
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0511255.30869988
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0511255.30869648
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0511255.30868726
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0511255.30870634
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0511255.30869436
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0511255.30871142
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0511255.30871888
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0511255.30870060
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0511255.30870490
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0511255.30868768
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0511255.30868878
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0511255.30871940
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0511255.30868712
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0511255.30877740
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0511255.30868774
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0511255.30868702
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0511255.30870668
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0511255.30868868
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0511255.30868974
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0511255.30870322
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_23_0511255.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0511255.30869040
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_23_0511255.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0511255.30868980
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0511255.30871106
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_23_0511255.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0511255.30869968
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_23_0511255.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0511255.30868682
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0511255.30870924
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_23_0511255.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0511255.30868698
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_23_0511255.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0511255.30868638
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0511255.30869114
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_23_0511255.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0511255.30868876
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0511255.30872644
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0511255.30871298
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0511255.30870212
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0511255.30871328
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0511255.30872648
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_23_0511255.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0511255.30869172
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0511255.30871326
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_23_0511255.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0511255.30868808
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_23_0511255.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0511255.30868804
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_23_0511255.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0511255.30869204
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_23_0511255.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0511255.30868932
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_23_0511255.22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0511255.30868688
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_23_0511255.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0511255.30870706
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_23_0511255.20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0511255.30868888
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_23_0511255.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0511255.30868984
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0511255.30875914
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_23_0511255.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0511255.30868600
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0511255.30869236
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0511255.30872202
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_23_0511255.23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0511255.30871556
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_23_0511255.21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0511255.30868636
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_23_0511255.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_0511255.30868598
</commentlist>
</conversation>
