<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_02_19_0715259</id>
	<title>Sony Joins the Offensive Against Pre-Owned Games</title>
	<author>Soulskill</author>
	<datestamp>1266577860000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>BanjoTed writes <i>"In a move to counter sales of pre-owned games, EA recently revealed DLC perks for those who buy new copies of <em>Mass Effect 2</em> and <em>Battlefield: Bad Company 2</em>. Now, PlayStation platform holder <a href="http://www.mcvuk.com/news/37605/Now-Sony-joins-pre-owned-offensive">Sony has jumped on the bandwagon</a> with similar plans for the PSP's <em>SOCOM: Fireteam Bravo 3</em>. '[Players] will need to register their game online before they are able to access the multiplayer component of the title. UMD copies will use a redeemable code while the digital version will authenticate automatically in the background. Furthermore ... anyone buying a pre-owned copy of the game will be forced to cough up $20 to obtain a code to play online."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>BanjoTed writes " In a move to counter sales of pre-owned games , EA recently revealed DLC perks for those who buy new copies of Mass Effect 2 and Battlefield : Bad Company 2 .
Now , PlayStation platform holder Sony has jumped on the bandwagon with similar plans for the PSP 's SOCOM : Fireteam Bravo 3 .
' [ Players ] will need to register their game online before they are able to access the multiplayer component of the title .
UMD copies will use a redeemable code while the digital version will authenticate automatically in the background .
Furthermore ... anyone buying a pre-owned copy of the game will be forced to cough up $ 20 to obtain a code to play online .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>BanjoTed writes "In a move to counter sales of pre-owned games, EA recently revealed DLC perks for those who buy new copies of Mass Effect 2 and Battlefield: Bad Company 2.
Now, PlayStation platform holder Sony has jumped on the bandwagon with similar plans for the PSP's SOCOM: Fireteam Bravo 3.
'[Players] will need to register their game online before they are able to access the multiplayer component of the title.
UMD copies will use a redeemable code while the digital version will authenticate automatically in the background.
Furthermore ... anyone buying a pre-owned copy of the game will be forced to cough up $20 to obtain a code to play online.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0715259.31211542</id>
	<title>Re:Weeeellllllllll.</title>
	<author>DiEx-15</author>
	<datestamp>1266694680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Why do I get the feeling this will not end well for Sony or EA?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why do I get the feeling this will not end well for Sony or EA ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why do I get the feeling this will not end well for Sony or EA?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0715259.31197586</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0715259.31198876</id>
	<title>Re:Pre-owned = Piracy</title>
	<author>nurb432</author>
	<datestamp>1266593280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It is a 'potential lost sale' since they didn't get the initial media cost out of you, so you must be a thief or something.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It is a 'potential lost sale ' since they did n't get the initial media cost out of you , so you must be a thief or something .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It is a 'potential lost sale' since they didn't get the initial media cost out of you, so you must be a thief or something.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0715259.31197600</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0715259.31198388</id>
	<title>Re:Getting sick of this shit</title>
	<author>Lumpy</author>
	<datestamp>1266590400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>morph into greedy bastards?   EA games is the second most greedy company on the planet.  The executives there eat the souls of any developer asking for more than a pittance to work there.   They stake out the victim on the board room table and all take turns drinking their soul...</p><p>Sony?  they just eat people.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>morph into greedy bastards ?
EA games is the second most greedy company on the planet .
The executives there eat the souls of any developer asking for more than a pittance to work there .
They stake out the victim on the board room table and all take turns drinking their soul...Sony ?
they just eat people .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>morph into greedy bastards?
EA games is the second most greedy company on the planet.
The executives there eat the souls of any developer asking for more than a pittance to work there.
They stake out the victim on the board room table and all take turns drinking their soul...Sony?
they just eat people.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0715259.31197930</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0715259.31208418</id>
	<title>Re:Weeeellllllllll.</title>
	<author>shnull</author>
	<datestamp>1266696540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>they do seem to get better at maneuvring themselves closer to a position of absolute checkmate</htmltext>
<tokenext>they do seem to get better at maneuvring themselves closer to a position of absolute checkmate</tokentext>
<sentencetext>they do seem to get better at maneuvring themselves closer to a position of absolute checkmate</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0715259.31197586</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0715259.31198452</id>
	<title>Re:It's a company. Of course it's right.</title>
	<author>oh-dark-thirty</author>
	<datestamp>1266590820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Wow...you are either a successful executive of a company that has merely a passing regard for it's customers (like, oh, say...Sony?), or the kool-aid has taken full effect.  Either way, your misguided sense of what a corporation is able to do is quite amusing.  Invoking the Bible is just icing on the cake.

The first sale doctrine applies here, and my rights as a consumer are being diminished by immediately devauling the resale value of the product I have purchased.  This is not like driving a car off the lot and losing intrinsic value due to depreciation; it's due to the corporate interest to maximize their profit by taking away my right to a fair resale value as determined by the used game marketplace.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Wow...you are either a successful executive of a company that has merely a passing regard for it 's customers ( like , oh , say...Sony ?
) , or the kool-aid has taken full effect .
Either way , your misguided sense of what a corporation is able to do is quite amusing .
Invoking the Bible is just icing on the cake .
The first sale doctrine applies here , and my rights as a consumer are being diminished by immediately devauling the resale value of the product I have purchased .
This is not like driving a car off the lot and losing intrinsic value due to depreciation ; it 's due to the corporate interest to maximize their profit by taking away my right to a fair resale value as determined by the used game marketplace .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wow...you are either a successful executive of a company that has merely a passing regard for it's customers (like, oh, say...Sony?
), or the kool-aid has taken full effect.
Either way, your misguided sense of what a corporation is able to do is quite amusing.
Invoking the Bible is just icing on the cake.
The first sale doctrine applies here, and my rights as a consumer are being diminished by immediately devauling the resale value of the product I have purchased.
This is not like driving a car off the lot and losing intrinsic value due to depreciation; it's due to the corporate interest to maximize their profit by taking away my right to a fair resale value as determined by the used game marketplace.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0715259.31197816</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0715259.31198796</id>
	<title>First Sale Doctrine...   They can't avoid it...</title>
	<author>GuyverDH</author>
	<datestamp>1266592920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is easily solvable, and with little effort on the software vendor's part.</p><p>Allow the game code to be *gasp* un-registered.</p><p>There... The game won't play on the computer you are removing it from, and the code is now clean for the new owner.</p><p>Of course, that would make too much sense, and would require a class action lawsuit to force the companies to do it, even though it would actually make the game industry compliant with first sale doctrine.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is easily solvable , and with little effort on the software vendor 's part.Allow the game code to be * gasp * un-registered.There... The game wo n't play on the computer you are removing it from , and the code is now clean for the new owner.Of course , that would make too much sense , and would require a class action lawsuit to force the companies to do it , even though it would actually make the game industry compliant with first sale doctrine .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is easily solvable, and with little effort on the software vendor's part.Allow the game code to be *gasp* un-registered.There... The game won't play on the computer you are removing it from, and the code is now clean for the new owner.Of course, that would make too much sense, and would require a class action lawsuit to force the companies to do it, even though it would actually make the game industry compliant with first sale doctrine.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0715259.31198622</id>
	<title>Re:Pre-owned = Piracy</title>
	<author>Tjebbe</author>
	<datestamp>1266591900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm assuming that 50 there is a typo; most second-hand games i've seen in stores are about 10\% cheaper, which for me has always been the reason not to buy them (for only 10\% more i have a shiny new one).</p><p>Apart from that, I think the vast majority of the money received by people selling their old games goes straight into new ones, so if the publishers 'defeat' second-hand sale, people who usually sell their games won't have as much to spend on new ones. People who usually buy used games might buy a few more new ones now, but less than they would second-hand. So the only thing the publishers are really taking here is second-hand markup by stores. And while that is quite a bit of money, I'm not convinced that that amount is worth screwing your real customers over.</p><p>But then again, service to customers has been lost down the drain of shareholders for quite some time now. As customers, we're the meat being sold, not the other way around.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm assuming that 50 there is a typo ; most second-hand games i 've seen in stores are about 10 \ % cheaper , which for me has always been the reason not to buy them ( for only 10 \ % more i have a shiny new one ) .Apart from that , I think the vast majority of the money received by people selling their old games goes straight into new ones , so if the publishers 'defeat ' second-hand sale , people who usually sell their games wo n't have as much to spend on new ones .
People who usually buy used games might buy a few more new ones now , but less than they would second-hand .
So the only thing the publishers are really taking here is second-hand markup by stores .
And while that is quite a bit of money , I 'm not convinced that that amount is worth screwing your real customers over.But then again , service to customers has been lost down the drain of shareholders for quite some time now .
As customers , we 're the meat being sold , not the other way around .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm assuming that 50 there is a typo; most second-hand games i've seen in stores are about 10\% cheaper, which for me has always been the reason not to buy them (for only 10\% more i have a shiny new one).Apart from that, I think the vast majority of the money received by people selling their old games goes straight into new ones, so if the publishers 'defeat' second-hand sale, people who usually sell their games won't have as much to spend on new ones.
People who usually buy used games might buy a few more new ones now, but less than they would second-hand.
So the only thing the publishers are really taking here is second-hand markup by stores.
And while that is quite a bit of money, I'm not convinced that that amount is worth screwing your real customers over.But then again, service to customers has been lost down the drain of shareholders for quite some time now.
As customers, we're the meat being sold, not the other way around.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0715259.31198052</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0715259.31199776</id>
	<title>Re:It's a company. Of course it's right.</title>
	<author>ViViDboarder</author>
	<datestamp>1266597660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yea, some mods really need to mod this as Funny or something...  People are really not getting it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yea , some mods really need to mod this as Funny or something... People are really not getting it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yea, some mods really need to mod this as Funny or something...  People are really not getting it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0715259.31197816</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0715259.31197958</id>
	<title>Mass Effect 2 is a game?</title>
	<author>keryeski</author>
	<datestamp>1266586140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I thought it was just one big movie you had to watch.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I thought it was just one big movie you had to watch .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I thought it was just one big movie you had to watch.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0715259.31198692</id>
	<title>add up?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266592320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>new PS3 game $59.99 (+DLC, typically $5.99, $9.99, $14.99)<br>when done, sell it and get $15 from gamestop<br>net cost $45 (51,55,60)</p><p>buy a used PS3 game $54.99 (+ $20 penalty)(+DLC, typically $5.99, $9.99, $14.99)<br>when done, sell it and get $1 from gamestop<br>net cost $74 (80,84,99)</p><p>hrmmm</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>new PS3 game $ 59.99 ( + DLC , typically $ 5.99 , $ 9.99 , $ 14.99 ) when done , sell it and get $ 15 from gamestopnet cost $ 45 ( 51,55,60 ) buy a used PS3 game $ 54.99 ( + $ 20 penalty ) ( + DLC , typically $ 5.99 , $ 9.99 , $ 14.99 ) when done , sell it and get $ 1 from gamestopnet cost $ 74 ( 80,84,99 ) hrmmm</tokentext>
<sentencetext>new PS3 game $59.99 (+DLC, typically $5.99, $9.99, $14.99)when done, sell it and get $15 from gamestopnet cost $45 (51,55,60)buy a used PS3 game $54.99 (+ $20 penalty)(+DLC, typically $5.99, $9.99, $14.99)when done, sell it and get $1 from gamestopnet cost $74 (80,84,99)hrmmm</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0715259.31202950</id>
	<title>Vocabulary Nazi Warning</title>
	<author>zooblethorpe</author>
	<datestamp>1266612840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>...until that happens they can <b>flaunt</b> the law all they want.</p></div></blockquote><p>Neato, so they're busy waving around a copy of the law, and / or bragging about it?<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p><p>From <a href="http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/flaunt" title="merriam-webster.com">Merriam-Webster:</a> [merriam-webster.com] </p><p>&lt;----------<br>
Main Entry: <b>flaunt</b> <br>
Function: <i>verb</i> <br>
Etymology: perhaps of Scandinavian origin; akin to Old Norse <i>flana</i> to rush around<br>
Date: 1566<br>
<br>
<i>intransitive verb</i> <br>
 1 : to display or obtrude oneself to public notice &lt;a great flaunting crowd &mdash; Charles Dickens&gt;<br>
2 : to wave or flutter showily &lt;the flag flaunts in the breeze&gt;<br>
<br>
<i>transitive verb</i> <br>
 1 : to display ostentatiously or impudently : parade &lt;flaunting his superiority&gt;<br>
2 : to treat contemptuously &lt;flaunted the rules &mdash; Louis Untermeyer&gt; <b>(see note)</b> <br>
<br>
synonyms see <i>show</i> <br>
----------&gt;</p><p>The word you're looking for here is <b>flout</b>: </p><p>&lt;----------<br>
Main Entry: <b>flout</b> <br>
Function: <i>verb</i> <br>
Etymology: probably from Middle English flouten to play the flute, from floute flute<br>
Date: 1551<br>
<br>
<i>transitive verb</i> <br>
 : to treat with contemptuous disregard : scorn &lt;flouting the rules&gt;<br>
<br>
<i>intransitive verb</i> <br>
 : to indulge in scornful behavior<br>
<br>
synonyms see <i>scoff</i> <br>
----------&gt;</p><p> <b>Note:</b> It seems enough folks have confused <i>flout</i> and <i>flaunt</i> that the two are increasingly conflated, as noted in the second transitive definition for <i>flaunt</i> above.  M-W includes a usage note at the bottom of the entry for <i>flaunt</i> describing this.  (However, it's also worth noting that some of their examples as given indicate possible confusion by M-W's own editorial staff.)</p><p>One possibly useful mnemonic is to think of <i>flaunt</i> as a flag waving, and to think of <i>flout</i> as getting out of something.</p><p>Cheers,</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>...until that happens they can flaunt the law all they want.Neato , so they 're busy waving around a copy of the law , and / or bragging about it ?
: ) From Merriam-Webster : [ merriam-webster.com ] Main Entry : flaunt Function : verb Etymology : perhaps of Scandinavian origin ; akin to Old Norse flana to rush around Date : 1566 intransitive verb 1 : to display or obtrude oneself to public notice 2 : to wave or flutter showily transitive verb 1 : to display ostentatiously or impudently : parade 2 : to treat contemptuously ( see note ) synonyms see show ---------- &gt; The word you 're looking for here is flout : Main Entry : flout Function : verb Etymology : probably from Middle English flouten to play the flute , from floute flute Date : 1551 transitive verb : to treat with contemptuous disregard : scorn intransitive verb : to indulge in scornful behavior synonyms see scoff ---------- &gt; Note : It seems enough folks have confused flout and flaunt that the two are increasingly conflated , as noted in the second transitive definition for flaunt above .
M-W includes a usage note at the bottom of the entry for flaunt describing this .
( However , it 's also worth noting that some of their examples as given indicate possible confusion by M-W 's own editorial staff .
) One possibly useful mnemonic is to think of flaunt as a flag waving , and to think of flout as getting out of something.Cheers ,</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...until that happens they can flaunt the law all they want.Neato, so they're busy waving around a copy of the law, and / or bragging about it?
:)From Merriam-Webster: [merriam-webster.com] 
Main Entry: flaunt 
Function: verb 
Etymology: perhaps of Scandinavian origin; akin to Old Norse flana to rush around
Date: 1566

intransitive verb 
 1 : to display or obtrude oneself to public notice 
2 : to wave or flutter showily 

transitive verb 
 1 : to display ostentatiously or impudently : parade 
2 : to treat contemptuously  (see note) 

synonyms see show 
----------&gt;The word you're looking for here is flout: 
Main Entry: flout 
Function: verb 
Etymology: probably from Middle English flouten to play the flute, from floute flute
Date: 1551

transitive verb 
 : to treat with contemptuous disregard : scorn 

intransitive verb 
 : to indulge in scornful behavior

synonyms see scoff 
----------&gt; Note: It seems enough folks have confused flout and flaunt that the two are increasingly conflated, as noted in the second transitive definition for flaunt above.
M-W includes a usage note at the bottom of the entry for flaunt describing this.
(However, it's also worth noting that some of their examples as given indicate possible confusion by M-W's own editorial staff.
)One possibly useful mnemonic is to think of flaunt as a flag waving, and to think of flout as getting out of something.Cheers,
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0715259.31197928</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0715259.31199410</id>
	<title>Going after Rentals?</title>
	<author>FriedSpam</author>
	<datestamp>1266595800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It may not be as much about pre-owned games as rentals.  I suspect this may an attempt to regain revenue from the rental stream, such as gamefly.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It may not be as much about pre-owned games as rentals .
I suspect this may an attempt to regain revenue from the rental stream , such as gamefly .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It may not be as much about pre-owned games as rentals.
I suspect this may an attempt to regain revenue from the rental stream, such as gamefly.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0715259.31200266</id>
	<title>Re:Weeeellllllllll.</title>
	<author>Red Flayer</author>
	<datestamp>1266599820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Personally I'm all up for it because the only people who benefit from the used game market are retailers who buy used games for a few dollars and resell them for close to the retail price. Quite why anyone pays such high prices for used games is beyond me.</p></div></blockquote><p>Nonsense.  Plenty of people buy &amp; sell used games through other routes than mall stores.  Amazon, EBay, sneakernet, etc.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Personally I 'm all up for it because the only people who benefit from the used game market are retailers who buy used games for a few dollars and resell them for close to the retail price .
Quite why anyone pays such high prices for used games is beyond me.Nonsense .
Plenty of people buy &amp; sell used games through other routes than mall stores .
Amazon , EBay , sneakernet , etc .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Personally I'm all up for it because the only people who benefit from the used game market are retailers who buy used games for a few dollars and resell them for close to the retail price.
Quite why anyone pays such high prices for used games is beyond me.Nonsense.
Plenty of people buy &amp; sell used games through other routes than mall stores.
Amazon, EBay, sneakernet, etc.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0715259.31199560</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0715259.31197724</id>
	<title>Re:Bypassing doctrine of first sale</title>
	<author>Richard\_at\_work</author>
	<datestamp>1266583620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>They aren't controlling the downstream sale of the product, they are controlling access to a related service, which does not contravene the first sale doctrine.</htmltext>
<tokenext>They are n't controlling the downstream sale of the product , they are controlling access to a related service , which does not contravene the first sale doctrine .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They aren't controlling the downstream sale of the product, they are controlling access to a related service, which does not contravene the first sale doctrine.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0715259.31197598</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0715259.31199042</id>
	<title>Great for single players</title>
	<author>wjousts</author>
	<datestamp>1266594000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Look at the bright side, this is great news for people who only play single player and only buy used. Used copies of this game willl have to be <i>at least</i> $20 less than new or new would actually be a better deal! Well done Sony, you've just reduced the cost of used games!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Look at the bright side , this is great news for people who only play single player and only buy used .
Used copies of this game willl have to be at least $ 20 less than new or new would actually be a better deal !
Well done Sony , you 've just reduced the cost of used games !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Look at the bright side, this is great news for people who only play single player and only buy used.
Used copies of this game willl have to be at least $20 less than new or new would actually be a better deal!
Well done Sony, you've just reduced the cost of used games!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0715259.31197960</id>
	<title>"recieved positively", not by consumers</title>
	<author>grimJester</author>
	<datestamp>1266586200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I may be overly cynical, but I think the talk of piracy while eroding / bypassing every consumer protection law under the sun is more for political reasons than to reassure their customers. They want to cover their asses in advance of the inevitable EFF lawsuits. If they lose any of those, they'll lobby for new laws.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I may be overly cynical , but I think the talk of piracy while eroding / bypassing every consumer protection law under the sun is more for political reasons than to reassure their customers .
They want to cover their asses in advance of the inevitable EFF lawsuits .
If they lose any of those , they 'll lobby for new laws .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I may be overly cynical, but I think the talk of piracy while eroding / bypassing every consumer protection law under the sun is more for political reasons than to reassure their customers.
They want to cover their asses in advance of the inevitable EFF lawsuits.
If they lose any of those, they'll lobby for new laws.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0715259.31197616</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0715259.31198912</id>
	<title>Re:You think you bought it but actually you didnt</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266593460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>But you didn't buy it!  You do not own the software, you own the right to USE the software.  If you owned it, you should have the source code and you could modify it and the works.  You just are purchasing a right to use.  Stop whining people.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>But you did n't buy it !
You do not own the software , you own the right to USE the software .
If you owned it , you should have the source code and you could modify it and the works .
You just are purchasing a right to use .
Stop whining people .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But you didn't buy it!
You do not own the software, you own the right to USE the software.
If you owned it, you should have the source code and you could modify it and the works.
You just are purchasing a right to use.
Stop whining people.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0715259.31197870</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0715259.31199838</id>
	<title>Re:NOT PIRACY</title>
	<author>CronoCloud</author>
	<datestamp>1266597840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Splitscreen does suck, admittedly HD has made it a touch more tolerable, but it sucks.</p><p>I play Champions of Norrath with a friend, he doesn't have his PS2 connected to the Internet.  If he did, I'd prefer to play the game online and not have him come over.  Why?  Because when you play same screen co-op you have to stay together, and when one person pulls up the inventory the other player can do nothing except look at their inventory themselves if they want.</p><p>Splitscreen is for after-school kid gamers, not adults for whom it's more difficult to schedule gaming sessions.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Splitscreen does suck , admittedly HD has made it a touch more tolerable , but it sucks.I play Champions of Norrath with a friend , he does n't have his PS2 connected to the Internet .
If he did , I 'd prefer to play the game online and not have him come over .
Why ? Because when you play same screen co-op you have to stay together , and when one person pulls up the inventory the other player can do nothing except look at their inventory themselves if they want.Splitscreen is for after-school kid gamers , not adults for whom it 's more difficult to schedule gaming sessions .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Splitscreen does suck, admittedly HD has made it a touch more tolerable, but it sucks.I play Champions of Norrath with a friend, he doesn't have his PS2 connected to the Internet.
If he did, I'd prefer to play the game online and not have him come over.
Why?  Because when you play same screen co-op you have to stay together, and when one person pulls up the inventory the other player can do nothing except look at their inventory themselves if they want.Splitscreen is for after-school kid gamers, not adults for whom it's more difficult to schedule gaming sessions.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0715259.31198012</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0715259.31199282</id>
	<title>Re:Someone doesn't like second hand market?</title>
	<author>kilfarsnar</author>
	<datestamp>1266595080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I thought the same thing.  How did some of these companies get the idea that they should be the only ones to sell stuff?</htmltext>
<tokenext>I thought the same thing .
How did some of these companies get the idea that they should be the only ones to sell stuff ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I thought the same thing.
How did some of these companies get the idea that they should be the only ones to sell stuff?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0715259.31197590</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0715259.31205146</id>
	<title>Re:It's a company. Of course it's right.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266578400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You are teh winz0rz</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You are teh winz0rz</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You are teh winz0rz</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0715259.31197816</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0715259.31209150</id>
	<title>This is insane.</title>
	<author>DaVince21</author>
	<datestamp>1266668340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No more free market? Way to go, guys.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No more free market ?
Way to go , guys .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No more free market?
Way to go, guys.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0715259.31201356</id>
	<title>Re:NOT PIRACY</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266604440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The funny thing is, there is such a huge catalog of games and systems, you can be perfectly happy playing old games till the day you die.  I don't see why anyone would need to pay $60 year after year fo identical FPS's and Madden games with slightly updated graphics and barely tweaked gameplay.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The funny thing is , there is such a huge catalog of games and systems , you can be perfectly happy playing old games till the day you die .
I do n't see why anyone would need to pay $ 60 year after year fo identical FPS 's and Madden games with slightly updated graphics and barely tweaked gameplay .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The funny thing is, there is such a huge catalog of games and systems, you can be perfectly happy playing old games till the day you die.
I don't see why anyone would need to pay $60 year after year fo identical FPS's and Madden games with slightly updated graphics and barely tweaked gameplay.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0715259.31197638</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0715259.31198676</id>
	<title>Re:It benefits the consumer, really.</title>
	<author>sorak</author>
	<datestamp>1266592200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They're like a proctologist who says "people must love this. They keep showing up, don't they?"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They 're like a proctologist who says " people must love this .
They keep showing up , do n't they ?
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They're like a proctologist who says "people must love this.
They keep showing up, don't they?
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0715259.31197616</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0715259.31203380</id>
	<title>Re:NOT PIRACY</title>
	<author>viruswatts</author>
	<datestamp>1266571260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>it is the first "cooperative player with a history when playing both of them" I have been able to play (since I played Army of Two for PS3!).</p></div><p>First self coop game?  <a href="http://www.nekogames.jp/mt/2008/01/cursor10.html" title="nekogames.jp" rel="nofollow">In this game</a> [nekogames.jp] you have 10 cursors to get though the level and collect as many pyramids as you can.  (I also don't claim this to be the first though.)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>it is the first " cooperative player with a history when playing both of them " I have been able to play ( since I played Army of Two for PS3 !
) .First self coop game ?
In this game [ nekogames.jp ] you have 10 cursors to get though the level and collect as many pyramids as you can .
( I also do n't claim this to be the first though .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>it is the first "cooperative player with a history when playing both of them" I have been able to play (since I played Army of Two for PS3!
).First self coop game?
In this game [nekogames.jp] you have 10 cursors to get though the level and collect as many pyramids as you can.
(I also don't claim this to be the first though.
)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0715259.31197638</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0715259.31197928</id>
	<title>Re:Bypassing doctrine of first sale</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266585960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It doesnt bypass anything. The first sale doctrine still applies, and Sony has to allow the transfer of DLC to other accounts. Of course someone has to sue them first to force them to respect the law, until that happens they can flaunt the law all they want.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It doesnt bypass anything .
The first sale doctrine still applies , and Sony has to allow the transfer of DLC to other accounts .
Of course someone has to sue them first to force them to respect the law , until that happens they can flaunt the law all they want .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It doesnt bypass anything.
The first sale doctrine still applies, and Sony has to allow the transfer of DLC to other accounts.
Of course someone has to sue them first to force them to respect the law, until that happens they can flaunt the law all they want.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0715259.31197598</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0715259.31198674</id>
	<title>Makes sense why game makers want to kill PC gaming</title>
	<author>postmortem</author>
	<datestamp>1266592140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It is all about not giving any choice to user/loser when bending him over.</p><p>The more platform is open, the less room they have to pull stunts like this.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It is all about not giving any choice to user/loser when bending him over.The more platform is open , the less room they have to pull stunts like this .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It is all about not giving any choice to user/loser when bending him over.The more platform is open, the less room they have to pull stunts like this.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0715259.31198614</id>
	<title>Re:Pre-owned = Piracy</title>
	<author>elrous0</author>
	<datestamp>1266591840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>What really shocks me, just shocks me, is that Sony is leading this charge. They've always been so open and consumer-oriented in the past, never greedy or proprietary at all. This is more the kind of thing I would expect from those control freaks in the Linux community, not good player like Sony.</htmltext>
<tokenext>What really shocks me , just shocks me , is that Sony is leading this charge .
They 've always been so open and consumer-oriented in the past , never greedy or proprietary at all .
This is more the kind of thing I would expect from those control freaks in the Linux community , not good player like Sony .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What really shocks me, just shocks me, is that Sony is leading this charge.
They've always been so open and consumer-oriented in the past, never greedy or proprietary at all.
This is more the kind of thing I would expect from those control freaks in the Linux community, not good player like Sony.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0715259.31197600</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0715259.31206306</id>
	<title>Re:Can I join the war against the term "pre owned"</title>
	<author>Existential Wombat</author>
	<datestamp>1266585120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You should join the bigger war against the misuse of the prefix pre-.</p><p>Pre-owned <i>should</i> mean 'before it's been owned'</p><p>How many times do you see stuff like 'pre-sliced' on bagels, bread etc. to mean ready sliced, a pre-lit xmas tree which already has lights on it.</p><p>Pre means before. Like on the front of fix.</p><p>(I can tell it's Friday by my own posts)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You should join the bigger war against the misuse of the prefix pre-.Pre-owned should mean 'before it 's been owned'How many times do you see stuff like 'pre-sliced ' on bagels , bread etc .
to mean ready sliced , a pre-lit xmas tree which already has lights on it.Pre means before .
Like on the front of fix .
( I can tell it 's Friday by my own posts )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You should join the bigger war against the misuse of the prefix pre-.Pre-owned should mean 'before it's been owned'How many times do you see stuff like 'pre-sliced' on bagels, bread etc.
to mean ready sliced, a pre-lit xmas tree which already has lights on it.Pre means before.
Like on the front of fix.
(I can tell it's Friday by my own posts)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0715259.31198784</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0715259.31200408</id>
	<title>Corporate Disappointment</title>
	<author>Spinnacre</author>
	<datestamp>1266600360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>&lt;Rant&gt;
<br>
Wtf is wrong with the gaming industry? First Ubisoft closing down servers for relatively new games, then their crappy DRM. Now Sony and EA cracking down on things they haven't, and shouldn't mind. If they want to get rewards for their games, which are fantastic, don't you think that they should let people play them? It seems that the era of plug in and play games has ended.
<br>
&lt;/Rant&gt;</htmltext>
<tokenext>Wtf is wrong with the gaming industry ?
First Ubisoft closing down servers for relatively new games , then their crappy DRM .
Now Sony and EA cracking down on things they have n't , and should n't mind .
If they want to get rewards for their games , which are fantastic , do n't you think that they should let people play them ?
It seems that the era of plug in and play games has ended .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>

Wtf is wrong with the gaming industry?
First Ubisoft closing down servers for relatively new games, then their crappy DRM.
Now Sony and EA cracking down on things they haven't, and shouldn't mind.
If they want to get rewards for their games, which are fantastic, don't you think that they should let people play them?
It seems that the era of plug in and play games has ended.

</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0715259.31199562</id>
	<title>Only affects Infrastructure mode.</title>
	<author>CronoCloud</author>
	<datestamp>1266596580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Lets get this straight here</p><p>When you buy the retail game, you get the code for infrastructure play with it, no additional charge.</p><p>Buy used, the code is tied to the previous users account, so you need a new one.</p><p>But....you only need the code for infrastructure, ad hoc play isn't tied to it.  And since SCEfoo has released ad hoc party for the PS3, you can still play online with a used copy, but only via ad hoc party on a PS3, so you're cut out of the usual SOCOM game community.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Lets get this straight hereWhen you buy the retail game , you get the code for infrastructure play with it , no additional charge.Buy used , the code is tied to the previous users account , so you need a new one.But....you only need the code for infrastructure , ad hoc play is n't tied to it .
And since SCEfoo has released ad hoc party for the PS3 , you can still play online with a used copy , but only via ad hoc party on a PS3 , so you 're cut out of the usual SOCOM game community .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Lets get this straight hereWhen you buy the retail game, you get the code for infrastructure play with it, no additional charge.Buy used, the code is tied to the previous users account, so you need a new one.But....you only need the code for infrastructure, ad hoc play isn't tied to it.
And since SCEfoo has released ad hoc party for the PS3, you can still play online with a used copy, but only via ad hoc party on a PS3, so you're cut out of the usual SOCOM game community.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0715259.31198012</id>
	<title>Re:NOT PIRACY</title>
	<author>tepples</author>
	<datestamp>1266586740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I only want a multiplayer videogame that I can play at home with my friends</p></div><p>A lot of people who regularly post to Slashdot seem to think split-screen sucks, and they think multiple gaming PCs and multiple copies of each game per household are worth the price. I am not one of them; I just wanted to warn you about the groupthink you're up against.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I only want a multiplayer videogame that I can play at home with my friendsA lot of people who regularly post to Slashdot seem to think split-screen sucks , and they think multiple gaming PCs and multiple copies of each game per household are worth the price .
I am not one of them ; I just wanted to warn you about the groupthink you 're up against .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I only want a multiplayer videogame that I can play at home with my friendsA lot of people who regularly post to Slashdot seem to think split-screen sucks, and they think multiple gaming PCs and multiple copies of each game per household are worth the price.
I am not one of them; I just wanted to warn you about the groupthink you're up against.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0715259.31197638</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0715259.31204568</id>
	<title>So when you sell the game...</title>
	<author>roc97007</author>
	<datestamp>1266576000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><nobr> <wbr></nobr>...be sure to write the code with a sharpie on the case.  Or am I missing something?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...be sure to write the code with a sharpie on the case .
Or am I missing something ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext> ...be sure to write the code with a sharpie on the case.
Or am I missing something?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0715259.31198294</id>
	<title>Missed Chance?</title>
	<author>CFBMoo1</author>
	<datestamp>1266589680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If your that upset over where on-line games are going like this then stop crying and start building your own. Honestly, these companies didn't start out all big and fancy. They started out in a garage or a campus lab or some basement or something. Start creating instead of just consuming, you might make a hit that way and blow their lock-ins out of the water.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If your that upset over where on-line games are going like this then stop crying and start building your own .
Honestly , these companies did n't start out all big and fancy .
They started out in a garage or a campus lab or some basement or something .
Start creating instead of just consuming , you might make a hit that way and blow their lock-ins out of the water .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If your that upset over where on-line games are going like this then stop crying and start building your own.
Honestly, these companies didn't start out all big and fancy.
They started out in a garage or a campus lab or some basement or something.
Start creating instead of just consuming, you might make a hit that way and blow their lock-ins out of the water.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0715259.31197600</id>
	<title>Pre-owned = Piracy</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266582060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yes, charging buyers of pre-owned games 20 bucks will show those dirty pirates. In other news, as part of my own ongoing fight against piracy I'll install self-destruct mechanisms and DRM in cars and charging 1k for every driver authentication beyond the first. Because I don't want my car analogies to be pirated. It makes perfect sense, I assure you.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , charging buyers of pre-owned games 20 bucks will show those dirty pirates .
In other news , as part of my own ongoing fight against piracy I 'll install self-destruct mechanisms and DRM in cars and charging 1k for every driver authentication beyond the first .
Because I do n't want my car analogies to be pirated .
It makes perfect sense , I assure you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, charging buyers of pre-owned games 20 bucks will show those dirty pirates.
In other news, as part of my own ongoing fight against piracy I'll install self-destruct mechanisms and DRM in cars and charging 1k for every driver authentication beyond the first.
Because I don't want my car analogies to be pirated.
It makes perfect sense, I assure you.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0715259.31201782</id>
	<title>Re:Getting sick of this shit</title>
	<author>IorDMUX</author>
	<datestamp>1266606480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>very time you go back to camp in DAO some asshole is standing in the back with a bright yellow exclamation mark saying "Buy the DLC for my quest!".</p></div><p>I purchased the retail version of Dragon Age: Origins and started playing it in mid-January.  The first time that farmer/miner/peasant/whatever showed up and started spinning his life story for me, I was fairly impressed.  It is such a CRPG trope to have every third villager drop his life story in your lap, but this one was different.  It was well written and well acted, it was well thought out, and it even contained personal ties to my character and his story.  <br> <br>And then the dirt-loving scumbag hit me with a shortcut to purchase the DLC of his quest from Bioware.  I was so turned off from the game that I dove into Final Fantasy VII PC (heavily patched with graphical/audio/difficulty mods aplenty), where I remain.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>very time you go back to camp in DAO some asshole is standing in the back with a bright yellow exclamation mark saying " Buy the DLC for my quest !
" .I purchased the retail version of Dragon Age : Origins and started playing it in mid-January .
The first time that farmer/miner/peasant/whatever showed up and started spinning his life story for me , I was fairly impressed .
It is such a CRPG trope to have every third villager drop his life story in your lap , but this one was different .
It was well written and well acted , it was well thought out , and it even contained personal ties to my character and his story .
And then the dirt-loving scumbag hit me with a shortcut to purchase the DLC of his quest from Bioware .
I was so turned off from the game that I dove into Final Fantasy VII PC ( heavily patched with graphical/audio/difficulty mods aplenty ) , where I remain .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>very time you go back to camp in DAO some asshole is standing in the back with a bright yellow exclamation mark saying "Buy the DLC for my quest!
".I purchased the retail version of Dragon Age: Origins and started playing it in mid-January.
The first time that farmer/miner/peasant/whatever showed up and started spinning his life story for me, I was fairly impressed.
It is such a CRPG trope to have every third villager drop his life story in your lap, but this one was different.
It was well written and well acted, it was well thought out, and it even contained personal ties to my character and his story.
And then the dirt-loving scumbag hit me with a shortcut to purchase the DLC of his quest from Bioware.
I was so turned off from the game that I dove into Final Fantasy VII PC (heavily patched with graphical/audio/difficulty mods aplenty), where I remain.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0715259.31197930</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0715259.31198886</id>
	<title>Re:It's a company. Of course it's right.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266593400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You shoul'd be working 12hours for the rest of ur life and to impress u'r boss or urself even more if it applys as is seems to, do that for just a minimum wage! And no whining excuses or your just a looser yourself!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You shoul 'd be working 12hours for the rest of ur life and to impress u'r boss or urself even more if it applys as is seems to , do that for just a minimum wage !
And no whining excuses or your just a looser yourself !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You shoul'd be working 12hours for the rest of ur life and to impress u'r boss or urself even more if it applys as is seems to, do that for just a minimum wage!
And no whining excuses or your just a looser yourself!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0715259.31197816</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0715259.31197638</id>
	<title>NOT PIRACY</title>
	<author>xtracto</author>
	<datestamp>1266582300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>The sad thing about this is that, this has NOTHING to do with illegal distribution of games.<br><br>This has all to do with greedy corporations who keep moving towards the "software as a service" paradigm.<br><br>Nowadays, a lot of games you "buy" contain only a very small offline playing offering.<br><br>I only want a multiplayer videogame that I can play at home with my friends (at home two!). I just got the "Spyborgs" game for Wii... I haven't had so much fun in some time; it is the first "cooperative player with a history when playing both of them" I have been able to play (since I played Army of Two for PS3!).</htmltext>
<tokenext>The sad thing about this is that , this has NOTHING to do with illegal distribution of games.This has all to do with greedy corporations who keep moving towards the " software as a service " paradigm.Nowadays , a lot of games you " buy " contain only a very small offline playing offering.I only want a multiplayer videogame that I can play at home with my friends ( at home two ! ) .
I just got the " Spyborgs " game for Wii... I have n't had so much fun in some time ; it is the first " cooperative player with a history when playing both of them " I have been able to play ( since I played Army of Two for PS3 !
) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The sad thing about this is that, this has NOTHING to do with illegal distribution of games.This has all to do with greedy corporations who keep moving towards the "software as a service" paradigm.Nowadays, a lot of games you "buy" contain only a very small offline playing offering.I only want a multiplayer videogame that I can play at home with my friends (at home two!).
I just got the "Spyborgs" game for Wii... I haven't had so much fun in some time; it is the first "cooperative player with a history when playing both of them" I have been able to play (since I played Army of Two for PS3!
).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0715259.31199242</id>
	<title>Oh boy...</title>
	<author>TakeoffZebra</author>
	<datestamp>1266594900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>So how long until they decide the used market as a whole is profiting from their products? I mean, why are they only targeting video games when they could go after Blu-rays, DVDs, CDs and all the various hardware as well? This may be the beginning of dark times for the entertainment market...</htmltext>
<tokenext>So how long until they decide the used market as a whole is profiting from their products ?
I mean , why are they only targeting video games when they could go after Blu-rays , DVDs , CDs and all the various hardware as well ?
This may be the beginning of dark times for the entertainment market.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So how long until they decide the used market as a whole is profiting from their products?
I mean, why are they only targeting video games when they could go after Blu-rays, DVDs, CDs and all the various hardware as well?
This may be the beginning of dark times for the entertainment market...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0715259.31197624</id>
	<title>Illogical?</title>
	<author>Antony-Kyre</author>
	<datestamp>1266582240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Given that the former owner doesn't have access to the game, wouldn't Sony be profiting off someone not using their online subscription anymore? If they want money so badly, they should require an annual subscription.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Given that the former owner does n't have access to the game , would n't Sony be profiting off someone not using their online subscription anymore ?
If they want money so badly , they should require an annual subscription .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Given that the former owner doesn't have access to the game, wouldn't Sony be profiting off someone not using their online subscription anymore?
If they want money so badly, they should require an annual subscription.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0715259.31199288</id>
	<title>That's ok, I joined an offensive against</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266595140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Over-hyped mass produced games a long time ago. Guess what Sony, if you're selling less copy it's not because of "piracy", it's because I'm busy playing games like Falcon 4.0 (yeah, 10 years after release), Hearts of Iron 2 (yeah, also 5+ years old), Magestorm (also 10+ years old), etc. Your old business model sucked, and your new one sucks even more. Good luck. You'll need it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Over-hyped mass produced games a long time ago .
Guess what Sony , if you 're selling less copy it 's not because of " piracy " , it 's because I 'm busy playing games like Falcon 4.0 ( yeah , 10 years after release ) , Hearts of Iron 2 ( yeah , also 5 + years old ) , Magestorm ( also 10 + years old ) , etc .
Your old business model sucked , and your new one sucks even more .
Good luck .
You 'll need it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Over-hyped mass produced games a long time ago.
Guess what Sony, if you're selling less copy it's not because of "piracy", it's because I'm busy playing games like Falcon 4.0 (yeah, 10 years after release), Hearts of Iron 2 (yeah, also 5+ years old), Magestorm (also 10+ years old), etc.
Your old business model sucked, and your new one sucks even more.
Good luck.
You'll need it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0715259.31199342</id>
	<title>Re:It's a company. Of course it's right.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266595440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>/. needs a voting section for "Stupidest POST of ALL TIME".<br>I vote for this dolt.</p><p>
&nbsp;</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>/ .
needs a voting section for " Stupidest POST of ALL TIME " .I vote for this dolt .
 </tokentext>
<sentencetext>/.
needs a voting section for "Stupidest POST of ALL TIME".I vote for this dolt.
 </sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0715259.31197816</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0715259.31204440</id>
	<title>Sony isn't the first</title>
	<author>guspasho</author>
	<datestamp>1266575520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Companies like Valve and Apple have been doing this for years. I can't resell the games I buy through Steam or the Apple App Store, and I can't get them used.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Companies like Valve and Apple have been doing this for years .
I ca n't resell the games I buy through Steam or the Apple App Store , and I ca n't get them used .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Companies like Valve and Apple have been doing this for years.
I can't resell the games I buy through Steam or the Apple App Store, and I can't get them used.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0715259.31197818</id>
	<title>this really saddens me</title>
	<author>2fuf</author>
	<datestamp>1266584700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>I used to be a fan of my C64 games as a kid and I loved playing PC games for years. So much in fact I tried breaking into game development and ran the local IGDA chpater for some years.

My heart is still with games and I think they are a wonderful extension to the artforms of literature, cinema and storytelling.

When I see how the game dev industry treats its customers these days, I really get the feeling they are way beyond stretching their welcome. Games (especially console games) are so icredibly overpriced and lacking of creativity and intellectual depth that I wonder why gamers are still interested in buying/playing them.

I haven't upgraded my gaming pc for almost 8 years now and I only have a Wii because my wife like the balance board games (and admittedly I love being her audience).
The only games I occassionaly play are the really old ones, like Civ II/III Baldur's Gate stuff, the good old Sierra point and clicks (Larry, 2D King Quest) because of the humor and fun in these games. Also I really love firing up the C64 emulator for a quick round of classics.

When will they stop squeezing customers for every penny and drop the incredible graphics/hardware performance race that has been polluting the game content for the past decade. I don't give a damn about 3D performnace or yet another FPS, come up with something new, interesting exciting. Something that doesn't insult my intelligence and challenges and entertains me in a more subtle way.

Dear Douglas Adams I miss you, you were well on your way to solve this problem but you passed too soon.

Oh god, is no one going to change this rotten game dev industry we're having?
Perhaps I'm just an old fool blabbering about the lost good old days, but doesn't anyone agree that it's not supposed to be like this?

*sigh*</htmltext>
<tokenext>I used to be a fan of my C64 games as a kid and I loved playing PC games for years .
So much in fact I tried breaking into game development and ran the local IGDA chpater for some years .
My heart is still with games and I think they are a wonderful extension to the artforms of literature , cinema and storytelling .
When I see how the game dev industry treats its customers these days , I really get the feeling they are way beyond stretching their welcome .
Games ( especially console games ) are so icredibly overpriced and lacking of creativity and intellectual depth that I wonder why gamers are still interested in buying/playing them .
I have n't upgraded my gaming pc for almost 8 years now and I only have a Wii because my wife like the balance board games ( and admittedly I love being her audience ) .
The only games I occassionaly play are the really old ones , like Civ II/III Baldur 's Gate stuff , the good old Sierra point and clicks ( Larry , 2D King Quest ) because of the humor and fun in these games .
Also I really love firing up the C64 emulator for a quick round of classics .
When will they stop squeezing customers for every penny and drop the incredible graphics/hardware performance race that has been polluting the game content for the past decade .
I do n't give a damn about 3D performnace or yet another FPS , come up with something new , interesting exciting .
Something that does n't insult my intelligence and challenges and entertains me in a more subtle way .
Dear Douglas Adams I miss you , you were well on your way to solve this problem but you passed too soon .
Oh god , is no one going to change this rotten game dev industry we 're having ?
Perhaps I 'm just an old fool blabbering about the lost good old days , but does n't anyone agree that it 's not supposed to be like this ?
* sigh *</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I used to be a fan of my C64 games as a kid and I loved playing PC games for years.
So much in fact I tried breaking into game development and ran the local IGDA chpater for some years.
My heart is still with games and I think they are a wonderful extension to the artforms of literature, cinema and storytelling.
When I see how the game dev industry treats its customers these days, I really get the feeling they are way beyond stretching their welcome.
Games (especially console games) are so icredibly overpriced and lacking of creativity and intellectual depth that I wonder why gamers are still interested in buying/playing them.
I haven't upgraded my gaming pc for almost 8 years now and I only have a Wii because my wife like the balance board games (and admittedly I love being her audience).
The only games I occassionaly play are the really old ones, like Civ II/III Baldur's Gate stuff, the good old Sierra point and clicks (Larry, 2D King Quest) because of the humor and fun in these games.
Also I really love firing up the C64 emulator for a quick round of classics.
When will they stop squeezing customers for every penny and drop the incredible graphics/hardware performance race that has been polluting the game content for the past decade.
I don't give a damn about 3D performnace or yet another FPS, come up with something new, interesting exciting.
Something that doesn't insult my intelligence and challenges and entertains me in a more subtle way.
Dear Douglas Adams I miss you, you were well on your way to solve this problem but you passed too soon.
Oh god, is no one going to change this rotten game dev industry we're having?
Perhaps I'm just an old fool blabbering about the lost good old days, but doesn't anyone agree that it's not supposed to be like this?
*sigh*</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0715259.31199700</id>
	<title>Excuse me Mister Smartass troll.</title>
	<author>JDmetro</author>
	<datestamp>1266597300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>But I own a company and I can't do whatever I want. The size of the company is what matters not the company in itself. Large companies give <b>LARGE</b> campain contributions and so our goverment does whatever they are told in exchange for the money to get elected. So in short the large companies own the government. Has nothing to do with hippies.</htmltext>
<tokenext>But I own a company and I ca n't do whatever I want .
The size of the company is what matters not the company in itself .
Large companies give LARGE campain contributions and so our goverment does whatever they are told in exchange for the money to get elected .
So in short the large companies own the government .
Has nothing to do with hippies .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But I own a company and I can't do whatever I want.
The size of the company is what matters not the company in itself.
Large companies give LARGE campain contributions and so our goverment does whatever they are told in exchange for the money to get elected.
So in short the large companies own the government.
Has nothing to do with hippies.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0715259.31197816</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0715259.31197804</id>
	<title>Used games are not harming the New Game Market!</title>
	<author>Anita Coney</author>
	<datestamp>1266584640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So many people think that the used game market is somehow harming the new game market.  They are completely wrong. Through the magic of <i>a priori</i> reasoning, I know that you cannot be harmed merely because you're not getting what you are not entitled.</p><p>Let me explain. Wouldn't it be awesome if your coworkers gave you a cut of their salary, for no reason whatsoever? Wouldn't it be great if you walked into a bank one day and the teller decided to give you a portion of the bank's holdings, for no reason whatsoever?</p><p>Yep, that would be awesome, no doubt about it. But are you being harmed because your coworkers and bank are not giving you money you don't deserve? Nope.</p><p>That's what's going on with the new game and used game markets. The new game industry somehow feels entitled to profits from the used game market. Despite having absolutely no legal basis for such entitlement. In the United States we have the right of first sale. What that means is that we can sell what we bought, even if what we bought was copyrighted material. So we have a right to sell our DVDs, CD, and used games.</p><p>Of course someone will say that my coworker/bank analogies fail because they don't take into consideration that the game industry created the games that the used game market is selling. If you think that, you're completely missing the point.</p><p>The fact that the game industry originally created the game is completely irrelevant to whether it is entitled to any profits from secondary or tertiary sales. It does not have such a right to profits. None whatsoever. No more than General Motors has a right to profit from the sale of the used Chevy truck you just sold. GM created the truck, does it deserve a cut from every subsequent sale? What about your house, should the contractor get a cut when you sell it, when it's sold 100 years from now? (I live in a house originally built in 1856, exactly who am I supposed to pay when I resell and move out?)</p><p>My point is, much like how you have no rights to your coworkers pay, and much like how you have no rights to your bank's holdings, the new game industry has no right to profits from the used game market. None whatsoever.</p><p>Of course the new game industry outright lies and claims that the used game market "Is profiting from the sale of our games." It's a lie because once the new game industry sells a particular copy of the game; it is no longer their game. They have absolutely no ownership right in that particular copy. So to accuse the used game market of taking or stealing their property is an outright lie.</p><p>I have no doubt that someone will argue that the new game industry is being harmed because of lost sales. I.e., consumers are buying from the used game market rather than from the new game industry which is causing the new game industry to lose money.</p><p>Let's get one thing straight: Losing sales to a competitor is not harm. It's competition.</p><p>The new game industry's claim that it's being harmed from the used game market is as asinine as McDonalds claiming it is being harmed by Burger King.</p><p>Now certainly if Burger King was unfairly or illegally competing, for example, if Burger King ignored health and safety laws to keep their prices lower, in that circumstance one could argue that McDonalds would be harmed by the unfair and illegal competition.</p><p>But in this instance there is no illegality or unfairness in the used game market. It's not illegal for consumers to resell their games. It's not unfair to price those used games lower because the products are necessarily inferior to the new ones.</p><p>If your industry is somehow being harmed by perfectly legal and fair competition, then it's about time change careers because you have a complete misunderstanding about how capitalism is supposed to work. You are not entitled to someone else's profits, merely because you want them. Get over it.</p><p>Unfortunately, this is exactly why the new game industry is having laws passed to make it more difficult to sell used games. Despite what corporations say, they don't really want to compete in a free market, they want the government to bend over and protect them from legal competition.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So many people think that the used game market is somehow harming the new game market .
They are completely wrong .
Through the magic of a priori reasoning , I know that you can not be harmed merely because you 're not getting what you are not entitled.Let me explain .
Would n't it be awesome if your coworkers gave you a cut of their salary , for no reason whatsoever ?
Would n't it be great if you walked into a bank one day and the teller decided to give you a portion of the bank 's holdings , for no reason whatsoever ? Yep , that would be awesome , no doubt about it .
But are you being harmed because your coworkers and bank are not giving you money you do n't deserve ?
Nope.That 's what 's going on with the new game and used game markets .
The new game industry somehow feels entitled to profits from the used game market .
Despite having absolutely no legal basis for such entitlement .
In the United States we have the right of first sale .
What that means is that we can sell what we bought , even if what we bought was copyrighted material .
So we have a right to sell our DVDs , CD , and used games.Of course someone will say that my coworker/bank analogies fail because they do n't take into consideration that the game industry created the games that the used game market is selling .
If you think that , you 're completely missing the point.The fact that the game industry originally created the game is completely irrelevant to whether it is entitled to any profits from secondary or tertiary sales .
It does not have such a right to profits .
None whatsoever .
No more than General Motors has a right to profit from the sale of the used Chevy truck you just sold .
GM created the truck , does it deserve a cut from every subsequent sale ?
What about your house , should the contractor get a cut when you sell it , when it 's sold 100 years from now ?
( I live in a house originally built in 1856 , exactly who am I supposed to pay when I resell and move out ?
) My point is , much like how you have no rights to your coworkers pay , and much like how you have no rights to your bank 's holdings , the new game industry has no right to profits from the used game market .
None whatsoever.Of course the new game industry outright lies and claims that the used game market " Is profiting from the sale of our games .
" It 's a lie because once the new game industry sells a particular copy of the game ; it is no longer their game .
They have absolutely no ownership right in that particular copy .
So to accuse the used game market of taking or stealing their property is an outright lie.I have no doubt that someone will argue that the new game industry is being harmed because of lost sales .
I.e. , consumers are buying from the used game market rather than from the new game industry which is causing the new game industry to lose money.Let 's get one thing straight : Losing sales to a competitor is not harm .
It 's competition.The new game industry 's claim that it 's being harmed from the used game market is as asinine as McDonalds claiming it is being harmed by Burger King.Now certainly if Burger King was unfairly or illegally competing , for example , if Burger King ignored health and safety laws to keep their prices lower , in that circumstance one could argue that McDonalds would be harmed by the unfair and illegal competition.But in this instance there is no illegality or unfairness in the used game market .
It 's not illegal for consumers to resell their games .
It 's not unfair to price those used games lower because the products are necessarily inferior to the new ones.If your industry is somehow being harmed by perfectly legal and fair competition , then it 's about time change careers because you have a complete misunderstanding about how capitalism is supposed to work .
You are not entitled to someone else 's profits , merely because you want them .
Get over it.Unfortunately , this is exactly why the new game industry is having laws passed to make it more difficult to sell used games .
Despite what corporations say , they do n't really want to compete in a free market , they want the government to bend over and protect them from legal competition .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So many people think that the used game market is somehow harming the new game market.
They are completely wrong.
Through the magic of a priori reasoning, I know that you cannot be harmed merely because you're not getting what you are not entitled.Let me explain.
Wouldn't it be awesome if your coworkers gave you a cut of their salary, for no reason whatsoever?
Wouldn't it be great if you walked into a bank one day and the teller decided to give you a portion of the bank's holdings, for no reason whatsoever?Yep, that would be awesome, no doubt about it.
But are you being harmed because your coworkers and bank are not giving you money you don't deserve?
Nope.That's what's going on with the new game and used game markets.
The new game industry somehow feels entitled to profits from the used game market.
Despite having absolutely no legal basis for such entitlement.
In the United States we have the right of first sale.
What that means is that we can sell what we bought, even if what we bought was copyrighted material.
So we have a right to sell our DVDs, CD, and used games.Of course someone will say that my coworker/bank analogies fail because they don't take into consideration that the game industry created the games that the used game market is selling.
If you think that, you're completely missing the point.The fact that the game industry originally created the game is completely irrelevant to whether it is entitled to any profits from secondary or tertiary sales.
It does not have such a right to profits.
None whatsoever.
No more than General Motors has a right to profit from the sale of the used Chevy truck you just sold.
GM created the truck, does it deserve a cut from every subsequent sale?
What about your house, should the contractor get a cut when you sell it, when it's sold 100 years from now?
(I live in a house originally built in 1856, exactly who am I supposed to pay when I resell and move out?
)My point is, much like how you have no rights to your coworkers pay, and much like how you have no rights to your bank's holdings, the new game industry has no right to profits from the used game market.
None whatsoever.Of course the new game industry outright lies and claims that the used game market "Is profiting from the sale of our games.
" It's a lie because once the new game industry sells a particular copy of the game; it is no longer their game.
They have absolutely no ownership right in that particular copy.
So to accuse the used game market of taking or stealing their property is an outright lie.I have no doubt that someone will argue that the new game industry is being harmed because of lost sales.
I.e., consumers are buying from the used game market rather than from the new game industry which is causing the new game industry to lose money.Let's get one thing straight: Losing sales to a competitor is not harm.
It's competition.The new game industry's claim that it's being harmed from the used game market is as asinine as McDonalds claiming it is being harmed by Burger King.Now certainly if Burger King was unfairly or illegally competing, for example, if Burger King ignored health and safety laws to keep their prices lower, in that circumstance one could argue that McDonalds would be harmed by the unfair and illegal competition.But in this instance there is no illegality or unfairness in the used game market.
It's not illegal for consumers to resell their games.
It's not unfair to price those used games lower because the products are necessarily inferior to the new ones.If your industry is somehow being harmed by perfectly legal and fair competition, then it's about time change careers because you have a complete misunderstanding about how capitalism is supposed to work.
You are not entitled to someone else's profits, merely because you want them.
Get over it.Unfortunately, this is exactly why the new game industry is having laws passed to make it more difficult to sell used games.
Despite what corporations say, they don't really want to compete in a free market, they want the government to bend over and protect them from legal competition.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0715259.31197974</id>
	<title>I'm far from an anti-Sony fanboy</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266586380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>but seriously Sony, I speak on behalf of everyone who waits a couple of months to pick up the games at less than half price in the bargain bin because I can't drop $100 (AU) on a game straight up, when I say a big "Fuck You".</htmltext>
<tokenext>but seriously Sony , I speak on behalf of everyone who waits a couple of months to pick up the games at less than half price in the bargain bin because I ca n't drop $ 100 ( AU ) on a game straight up , when I say a big " Fuck You " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>but seriously Sony, I speak on behalf of everyone who waits a couple of months to pick up the games at less than half price in the bargain bin because I can't drop $100 (AU) on a game straight up, when I say a big "Fuck You".</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0715259.31197870</id>
	<title>You think you bought it but actually you didnt</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266585240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>basically this is what they are saying you.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>basically this is what they are saying you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>basically this is what they are saying you.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0715259.31197880</id>
	<title>You know where this is going, right?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266585360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>First it was a couple nonessential gear items, now it's the entire multiplayer component.  They're taking not-so-baby-steps toward a world where when you buy the game you get a one-time code to activate the whole thing, and reselling the physical media is pointless because the game simply won't function without another code.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>First it was a couple nonessential gear items , now it 's the entire multiplayer component .
They 're taking not-so-baby-steps toward a world where when you buy the game you get a one-time code to activate the whole thing , and reselling the physical media is pointless because the game simply wo n't function without another code .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>First it was a couple nonessential gear items, now it's the entire multiplayer component.
They're taking not-so-baby-steps toward a world where when you buy the game you get a one-time code to activate the whole thing, and reselling the physical media is pointless because the game simply won't function without another code.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0715259.31200148</id>
	<title>Dick move.</title>
	<author>Akira Kogami</author>
	<datestamp>1266599280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>These aren't "similar plans." There's a huge difference between perks for new buyers and punishment for used buyers.</htmltext>
<tokenext>These are n't " similar plans .
" There 's a huge difference between perks for new buyers and punishment for used buyers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>These aren't "similar plans.
" There's a huge difference between perks for new buyers and punishment for used buyers.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0715259.31199880</id>
	<title>Re:NOT PIRACY</title>
	<author>brkello</author>
	<datestamp>1266598020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>So buy the games that give you the features you want and don't buy the games that don't.</htmltext>
<tokenext>So buy the games that give you the features you want and do n't buy the games that do n't .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So buy the games that give you the features you want and don't buy the games that don't.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0715259.31197638</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0715259.31201844</id>
	<title>I can only hope...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266606840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I consider myself a pretty avid gamer.   Games are my hobby, that's what I do when I'm not at school or work...  I like to play games for their story, games like Modern Warfare 2, and other games with a high online population.  I'm not much for player versus player, I don't like how people treat each other online, and to be perfectly honest, I'm terrible at facing other people in games.</p><p>But it makes me wonder... if Sony were to follow in the footsteps with what the other guys did with DRM (Making you pay ~$20-30 for a new code to play online), I wonder if this would drive down the cost of used games?  I know for a fact, at least with GameStop, that fairly new games (ei: games that came out within the past 3 months or so), GameStop will buy these games off of you for like $30 store credit (No idea what they give you in cash, but its far less), and they will go and resell the game for about $5-10 off the New sticker price.  (It's a pretty good business plan really:  They get $60 off you, you finish the game, you sell it back to them at half of what you paid, $30, they make $30 still and they can go and resell it for another $50 or so!  note: I'm not taking into consideration tax, or how much they actually buy each individual game for in mass)</p><p>I guess what I am hoping here is that games that require a "New Code" to play online will be cheaper in re-retail because no one is going to pay ~$45-55 for a used copy of a game if they can buy that same exact game for $60 and save a few bucks (At least that's how my mind works...).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I consider myself a pretty avid gamer .
Games are my hobby , that 's what I do when I 'm not at school or work... I like to play games for their story , games like Modern Warfare 2 , and other games with a high online population .
I 'm not much for player versus player , I do n't like how people treat each other online , and to be perfectly honest , I 'm terrible at facing other people in games.But it makes me wonder... if Sony were to follow in the footsteps with what the other guys did with DRM ( Making you pay ~ $ 20-30 for a new code to play online ) , I wonder if this would drive down the cost of used games ?
I know for a fact , at least with GameStop , that fairly new games ( ei : games that came out within the past 3 months or so ) , GameStop will buy these games off of you for like $ 30 store credit ( No idea what they give you in cash , but its far less ) , and they will go and resell the game for about $ 5-10 off the New sticker price .
( It 's a pretty good business plan really : They get $ 60 off you , you finish the game , you sell it back to them at half of what you paid , $ 30 , they make $ 30 still and they can go and resell it for another $ 50 or so !
note : I 'm not taking into consideration tax , or how much they actually buy each individual game for in mass ) I guess what I am hoping here is that games that require a " New Code " to play online will be cheaper in re-retail because no one is going to pay ~ $ 45-55 for a used copy of a game if they can buy that same exact game for $ 60 and save a few bucks ( At least that 's how my mind works... ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I consider myself a pretty avid gamer.
Games are my hobby, that's what I do when I'm not at school or work...  I like to play games for their story, games like Modern Warfare 2, and other games with a high online population.
I'm not much for player versus player, I don't like how people treat each other online, and to be perfectly honest, I'm terrible at facing other people in games.But it makes me wonder... if Sony were to follow in the footsteps with what the other guys did with DRM (Making you pay ~$20-30 for a new code to play online), I wonder if this would drive down the cost of used games?
I know for a fact, at least with GameStop, that fairly new games (ei: games that came out within the past 3 months or so), GameStop will buy these games off of you for like $30 store credit (No idea what they give you in cash, but its far less), and they will go and resell the game for about $5-10 off the New sticker price.
(It's a pretty good business plan really:  They get $60 off you, you finish the game, you sell it back to them at half of what you paid, $30, they make $30 still and they can go and resell it for another $50 or so!
note: I'm not taking into consideration tax, or how much they actually buy each individual game for in mass)I guess what I am hoping here is that games that require a "New Code" to play online will be cheaper in re-retail because no one is going to pay ~$45-55 for a used copy of a game if they can buy that same exact game for $60 and save a few bucks (At least that's how my mind works...).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0715259.31201366</id>
	<title>Re:It benefits the consumer, really.</title>
	<author>Sir\_Sri</author>
	<datestamp>1266604440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>it isn't supposed to benefit the consumer.  It's supposed to benefit their bottom line.  Which in the long run, benefits the people who want a better, more diverse range of games to play.</p><p>It's the same thinking as paywalls on news websites - we aren't making enough money now, even though we have x customers.  If we add a paywall, we'll only have 0.y *x customers, but at least we'll have enough money to stay in business and provide them content.  The users who pay may even get a better experience this way if they make more money doing it.</p><p>Why would customers be happy about it?  Well if I'm paying for a game, and getting the same experience as someone who pirated it, and they represent 19/20 players, and then they start to add DRM which gimps the game to keep those 19/20 people out (and still doesn't work) I'm not exactly feeling like their strategy is pro customer.  Now though, they're saying things like 'free DLC when you preorder' well really that means you're paying $60 for the DLC and the the game is free because you could have pirated it and just had to buy the DLC, but at least I feel like I'm not stealing their stuff, and I'm getting something out of paying money.  UBIsofts system is bad because it punishes you for having bought their product.  The EA system of DLC is good because it rewards you for paying for the game, but if you won't pay for the game or DLC elements of it, you're not getting the same experience as someone who does.  The Sony thing is half and half, they're just advertising it badly, not that I can think of a better way.  Buy our product, get free multiplayer, don't buy our product, pay for multiplayer!  But then I suppose they have the problems as EA and their DLC - you can still get the rest of the game for free, or a lot less used/pirated.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>it is n't supposed to benefit the consumer .
It 's supposed to benefit their bottom line .
Which in the long run , benefits the people who want a better , more diverse range of games to play.It 's the same thinking as paywalls on news websites - we are n't making enough money now , even though we have x customers .
If we add a paywall , we 'll only have 0.y * x customers , but at least we 'll have enough money to stay in business and provide them content .
The users who pay may even get a better experience this way if they make more money doing it.Why would customers be happy about it ?
Well if I 'm paying for a game , and getting the same experience as someone who pirated it , and they represent 19/20 players , and then they start to add DRM which gimps the game to keep those 19/20 people out ( and still does n't work ) I 'm not exactly feeling like their strategy is pro customer .
Now though , they 're saying things like 'free DLC when you preorder ' well really that means you 're paying $ 60 for the DLC and the the game is free because you could have pirated it and just had to buy the DLC , but at least I feel like I 'm not stealing their stuff , and I 'm getting something out of paying money .
UBIsofts system is bad because it punishes you for having bought their product .
The EA system of DLC is good because it rewards you for paying for the game , but if you wo n't pay for the game or DLC elements of it , you 're not getting the same experience as someone who does .
The Sony thing is half and half , they 're just advertising it badly , not that I can think of a better way .
Buy our product , get free multiplayer , do n't buy our product , pay for multiplayer !
But then I suppose they have the problems as EA and their DLC - you can still get the rest of the game for free , or a lot less used/pirated .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>it isn't supposed to benefit the consumer.
It's supposed to benefit their bottom line.
Which in the long run, benefits the people who want a better, more diverse range of games to play.It's the same thinking as paywalls on news websites - we aren't making enough money now, even though we have x customers.
If we add a paywall, we'll only have 0.y *x customers, but at least we'll have enough money to stay in business and provide them content.
The users who pay may even get a better experience this way if they make more money doing it.Why would customers be happy about it?
Well if I'm paying for a game, and getting the same experience as someone who pirated it, and they represent 19/20 players, and then they start to add DRM which gimps the game to keep those 19/20 people out (and still doesn't work) I'm not exactly feeling like their strategy is pro customer.
Now though, they're saying things like 'free DLC when you preorder' well really that means you're paying $60 for the DLC and the the game is free because you could have pirated it and just had to buy the DLC, but at least I feel like I'm not stealing their stuff, and I'm getting something out of paying money.
UBIsofts system is bad because it punishes you for having bought their product.
The EA system of DLC is good because it rewards you for paying for the game, but if you won't pay for the game or DLC elements of it, you're not getting the same experience as someone who does.
The Sony thing is half and half, they're just advertising it badly, not that I can think of a better way.
Buy our product, get free multiplayer, don't buy our product, pay for multiplayer!
But then I suppose they have the problems as EA and their DLC - you can still get the rest of the game for free, or a lot less used/pirated.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0715259.31197616</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0715259.31199834</id>
	<title>Re:It's a company. Of course it's right.</title>
	<author>nickmalthus</author>
	<datestamp>1266597840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Being the astute Capitalist that you are surely you are aware that Capitalism is contingent upon property rights protected by the government. Since IP is only a legal concept it does fall in the purview of government regulation. Currently due to the first sale doctrine massive amounts of game capital has been created by our society that has value and can actually appreciate. Gamestop alone makes billions of dollars in revenue a year and millions of people go to a free marketplace to buy and sell games. Now two corporations, Sony and Microsoft, who have a monopoly on their prospective online markets, wish to altogether eliminate that form of property ownership and assume full control of all gaming transactions. It is their plan to distort the market so that no one can by or sell games without their involvement and approval. Since most of us have taken economic courses we all know that all corporations desire to become monopolies and we also know that monopolies do not benefit consumers. Being the diligent citizens that we are here at slashdot we are alarmed by these wannabe cartels and their attempted authoritative seizure of the free market. It is little wonder with large corporations attempting these unscrupulous tactics that 10\% of the people own 71\% of the wealth in America.
</p><p>
With that said, if they do attempt these tactics gamers will rebel. I personally purchase 60\% of my games used but most of the new ones I do buy are sequels to ones I have enjoyed before. I also prefer to buy games for the PS3 instead of the 360 because of free online play although Sony will soon follow Microsoft and charge subscriptions. I consider myself a game collector so all of the games I buy I keep. If property ownership is removed the console game market I will dramatically decrease my spending. Right now gaming has a high entertainment value in that one can buy a used game relatively cheap and play it for many hours. With elimination of first sale prices will be kept artificially high to increase profit. No longer will I consume the variety of games that I did before and will be extremely more selective of the titles that I will be forced to buy new due to price sensitivity. Most likely I will probably only buy triple A titles. If the market gets too domineering I will switch back over to PC gaming that is a more open platform. In the 80's there was a console depression and if Microsoft and Sony attempt to violate the principles of the free market that made them successful they will face the consequences. </p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Being the astute Capitalist that you are surely you are aware that Capitalism is contingent upon property rights protected by the government .
Since IP is only a legal concept it does fall in the purview of government regulation .
Currently due to the first sale doctrine massive amounts of game capital has been created by our society that has value and can actually appreciate .
Gamestop alone makes billions of dollars in revenue a year and millions of people go to a free marketplace to buy and sell games .
Now two corporations , Sony and Microsoft , who have a monopoly on their prospective online markets , wish to altogether eliminate that form of property ownership and assume full control of all gaming transactions .
It is their plan to distort the market so that no one can by or sell games without their involvement and approval .
Since most of us have taken economic courses we all know that all corporations desire to become monopolies and we also know that monopolies do not benefit consumers .
Being the diligent citizens that we are here at slashdot we are alarmed by these wannabe cartels and their attempted authoritative seizure of the free market .
It is little wonder with large corporations attempting these unscrupulous tactics that 10 \ % of the people own 71 \ % of the wealth in America .
With that said , if they do attempt these tactics gamers will rebel .
I personally purchase 60 \ % of my games used but most of the new ones I do buy are sequels to ones I have enjoyed before .
I also prefer to buy games for the PS3 instead of the 360 because of free online play although Sony will soon follow Microsoft and charge subscriptions .
I consider myself a game collector so all of the games I buy I keep .
If property ownership is removed the console game market I will dramatically decrease my spending .
Right now gaming has a high entertainment value in that one can buy a used game relatively cheap and play it for many hours .
With elimination of first sale prices will be kept artificially high to increase profit .
No longer will I consume the variety of games that I did before and will be extremely more selective of the titles that I will be forced to buy new due to price sensitivity .
Most likely I will probably only buy triple A titles .
If the market gets too domineering I will switch back over to PC gaming that is a more open platform .
In the 80 's there was a console depression and if Microsoft and Sony attempt to violate the principles of the free market that made them successful they will face the consequences .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Being the astute Capitalist that you are surely you are aware that Capitalism is contingent upon property rights protected by the government.
Since IP is only a legal concept it does fall in the purview of government regulation.
Currently due to the first sale doctrine massive amounts of game capital has been created by our society that has value and can actually appreciate.
Gamestop alone makes billions of dollars in revenue a year and millions of people go to a free marketplace to buy and sell games.
Now two corporations, Sony and Microsoft, who have a monopoly on their prospective online markets, wish to altogether eliminate that form of property ownership and assume full control of all gaming transactions.
It is their plan to distort the market so that no one can by or sell games without their involvement and approval.
Since most of us have taken economic courses we all know that all corporations desire to become monopolies and we also know that monopolies do not benefit consumers.
Being the diligent citizens that we are here at slashdot we are alarmed by these wannabe cartels and their attempted authoritative seizure of the free market.
It is little wonder with large corporations attempting these unscrupulous tactics that 10\% of the people own 71\% of the wealth in America.
With that said, if they do attempt these tactics gamers will rebel.
I personally purchase 60\% of my games used but most of the new ones I do buy are sequels to ones I have enjoyed before.
I also prefer to buy games for the PS3 instead of the 360 because of free online play although Sony will soon follow Microsoft and charge subscriptions.
I consider myself a game collector so all of the games I buy I keep.
If property ownership is removed the console game market I will dramatically decrease my spending.
Right now gaming has a high entertainment value in that one can buy a used game relatively cheap and play it for many hours.
With elimination of first sale prices will be kept artificially high to increase profit.
No longer will I consume the variety of games that I did before and will be extremely more selective of the titles that I will be forced to buy new due to price sensitivity.
Most likely I will probably only buy triple A titles.
If the market gets too domineering I will switch back over to PC gaming that is a more open platform.
In the 80's there was a console depression and if Microsoft and Sony attempt to violate the principles of the free market that made them successful they will face the consequences. </sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0715259.31197816</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0715259.31210892</id>
	<title>Re:It's a company. Of course it's right.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266689700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>ha ha... it will be easier to vote progressive, enable more regulations, and repeal tax cuts<br>here is the logic that the ultra rich miss-&gt; one vote one person. The tipping point is nearly here. Obama was just a false positive on the way. But it IS coming.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>ha ha... it will be easier to vote progressive , enable more regulations , and repeal tax cutshere is the logic that the ultra rich miss- &gt; one vote one person .
The tipping point is nearly here .
Obama was just a false positive on the way .
But it IS coming .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>ha ha... it will be easier to vote progressive, enable more regulations, and repeal tax cutshere is the logic that the ultra rich miss-&gt; one vote one person.
The tipping point is nearly here.
Obama was just a false positive on the way.
But it IS coming.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0715259.31197816</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0715259.31201618</id>
	<title>Don't most MMO operate like this?</title>
	<author>GKevlin</author>
	<datestamp>1266605640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Isn't this proposed Sony model closer to the way Blizzard and friends work their MMOs.  If I buy a copy of WoW, I can't resell it.  The copy I bought is tied to my account even after my account is cancelled.  You can't legally sell your account (which is argubly what you were paying for in the first place) because it is against their ToS.

I'm not saying that I agree with Sony.  I think it's like trying to squeeze blood from a stone when they should instead be innovating and developing new ideas, but I'm suprised that everyone is so angered by a model that has been around for a while.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Is n't this proposed Sony model closer to the way Blizzard and friends work their MMOs .
If I buy a copy of WoW , I ca n't resell it .
The copy I bought is tied to my account even after my account is cancelled .
You ca n't legally sell your account ( which is argubly what you were paying for in the first place ) because it is against their ToS .
I 'm not saying that I agree with Sony .
I think it 's like trying to squeeze blood from a stone when they should instead be innovating and developing new ideas , but I 'm suprised that everyone is so angered by a model that has been around for a while .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Isn't this proposed Sony model closer to the way Blizzard and friends work their MMOs.
If I buy a copy of WoW, I can't resell it.
The copy I bought is tied to my account even after my account is cancelled.
You can't legally sell your account (which is argubly what you were paying for in the first place) because it is against their ToS.
I'm not saying that I agree with Sony.
I think it's like trying to squeeze blood from a stone when they should instead be innovating and developing new ideas, but I'm suprised that everyone is so angered by a model that has been around for a while.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0715259.31224814</id>
	<title>Re:Used games are not harming the New Game Market!</title>
	<author>cavebison</author>
	<datestamp>1266766020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>[quote]Through the magic of a priori reasoning, I know that you cannot be harmed merely because you're not getting what you are not entitled.[/quote]<br>Ironic, as this is the reason people use for pirating some games: "They're using draconian DRM, it's not fair to me, so I'll go pirate/crack this game, because I should be able to play it without following their rules."</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>[ quote ] Through the magic of a priori reasoning , I know that you can not be harmed merely because you 're not getting what you are not entitled .
[ /quote ] Ironic , as this is the reason people use for pirating some games : " They 're using draconian DRM , it 's not fair to me , so I 'll go pirate/crack this game , because I should be able to play it without following their rules .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>[quote]Through the magic of a priori reasoning, I know that you cannot be harmed merely because you're not getting what you are not entitled.
[/quote]Ironic, as this is the reason people use for pirating some games: "They're using draconian DRM, it's not fair to me, so I'll go pirate/crack this game, because I should be able to play it without following their rules.
"
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0715259.31197804</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0715259.31197830</id>
	<title>What nonsense</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266584760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We used to buy a silver disk and it contained a game. As long there was an active userbase playing it, you would have multiplayer. Otherwise, you'd organize a night of multiplayer gaming with friends or play single player mode. But the game was yours to play.</p><p>If I look at it, the games industry is evolving to a SaaS-model; you pay a subscription fee on a games base and when you stop paying you are denied access.</p><p>it wouldn't surprice me, with latest Nvidea's realtime rendering farm et al, we'd soon have a subscribers base "gamers account", where you can pay monthly for "casual gaming", a more expensive "regular gaming"-account or "extreme all the latest games at fuckplenty fps"-account giving you access to certain titles/types of games which you can play realtime over wire.</p><p>Gaming like we've known before, on brown or silver disks, seems to be phasing out forever.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We used to buy a silver disk and it contained a game .
As long there was an active userbase playing it , you would have multiplayer .
Otherwise , you 'd organize a night of multiplayer gaming with friends or play single player mode .
But the game was yours to play.If I look at it , the games industry is evolving to a SaaS-model ; you pay a subscription fee on a games base and when you stop paying you are denied access.it would n't surprice me , with latest Nvidea 's realtime rendering farm et al , we 'd soon have a subscribers base " gamers account " , where you can pay monthly for " casual gaming " , a more expensive " regular gaming " -account or " extreme all the latest games at fuckplenty fps " -account giving you access to certain titles/types of games which you can play realtime over wire.Gaming like we 've known before , on brown or silver disks , seems to be phasing out forever .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We used to buy a silver disk and it contained a game.
As long there was an active userbase playing it, you would have multiplayer.
Otherwise, you'd organize a night of multiplayer gaming with friends or play single player mode.
But the game was yours to play.If I look at it, the games industry is evolving to a SaaS-model; you pay a subscription fee on a games base and when you stop paying you are denied access.it wouldn't surprice me, with latest Nvidea's realtime rendering farm et al, we'd soon have a subscribers base "gamers account", where you can pay monthly for "casual gaming", a more expensive "regular gaming"-account or "extreme all the latest games at fuckplenty fps"-account giving you access to certain titles/types of games which you can play realtime over wire.Gaming like we've known before, on brown or silver disks, seems to be phasing out forever.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0715259.31209170</id>
	<title>Re:this really saddens me</title>
	<author>DaVince21</author>
	<datestamp>1266668820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You're taking it a bit too far, or you haven't been looking very far, because there's plenty of originality in modern games if you know where to look (which is mostly NOT the mainstream). Many indie games are actually a very nice or interesting play, and there's even commercially sold  (usually cheap) games that are a lot of fun because of their humor and personality.</p><p>Check out Psychonauts. And basically anything released by Telltale Games. Members of the old LucasArts games team have worked on those games.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p><p>As for indie games, there's Knytt Stories, and Cave Story, and World of Goo... Plenty to go around, actually. tigsource.com should help there, a lot of people there are also into retro gaming so there should be plenty of choice.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You 're taking it a bit too far , or you have n't been looking very far , because there 's plenty of originality in modern games if you know where to look ( which is mostly NOT the mainstream ) .
Many indie games are actually a very nice or interesting play , and there 's even commercially sold ( usually cheap ) games that are a lot of fun because of their humor and personality.Check out Psychonauts .
And basically anything released by Telltale Games .
Members of the old LucasArts games team have worked on those games .
: ) As for indie games , there 's Knytt Stories , and Cave Story , and World of Goo... Plenty to go around , actually .
tigsource.com should help there , a lot of people there are also into retro gaming so there should be plenty of choice .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You're taking it a bit too far, or you haven't been looking very far, because there's plenty of originality in modern games if you know where to look (which is mostly NOT the mainstream).
Many indie games are actually a very nice or interesting play, and there's even commercially sold  (usually cheap) games that are a lot of fun because of their humor and personality.Check out Psychonauts.
And basically anything released by Telltale Games.
Members of the old LucasArts games team have worked on those games.
:)As for indie games, there's Knytt Stories, and Cave Story, and World of Goo... Plenty to go around, actually.
tigsource.com should help there, a lot of people there are also into retro gaming so there should be plenty of choice.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0715259.31197818</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0715259.31198760</id>
	<title>Re:It's a company. Of course it's right.</title>
	<author>dunezone</author>
	<datestamp>1266592620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>If a corporation does it, that makes it right.</p></div><p>
This is just wrong in so many ways. By that logic we wouldn't have anti-trust laws, safety regulations, or anything cause the corporation is always in the right. Well lets look at three examples where corporations were in the wrong and it required legislation to fix it.
<br>
<br>
We now have food regulation in place because a can of beef contained more than just beef. The corporations believed they could save money by filling a can of beef with half beef and half whatever the hell they wanted without telling us. Now we have food regulations in place to prevent this cause corporations were not trusted to do what was right.
<br>
<br>
Cars used to not have seat belts and the corporations claimed putting a seat belt in gave off the impression of a car not being safe. We now have legislation in place that require automobiles to have seat belts because cars were unsafe without seat belts.
<br>
<br>
And ENRON executives were in the right to deliberately lie about profits and performance of the company because simply whatever the corporation does makes its right. Now we have multiple anti-trust laws in place to make executives responsible for what they sign off.
<br>
<br>
Three examples of where corporations were wrong and cost lives. Why the hell would corporations be in the right in any of these examples?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If a corporation does it , that makes it right .
This is just wrong in so many ways .
By that logic we would n't have anti-trust laws , safety regulations , or anything cause the corporation is always in the right .
Well lets look at three examples where corporations were in the wrong and it required legislation to fix it .
We now have food regulation in place because a can of beef contained more than just beef .
The corporations believed they could save money by filling a can of beef with half beef and half whatever the hell they wanted without telling us .
Now we have food regulations in place to prevent this cause corporations were not trusted to do what was right .
Cars used to not have seat belts and the corporations claimed putting a seat belt in gave off the impression of a car not being safe .
We now have legislation in place that require automobiles to have seat belts because cars were unsafe without seat belts .
And ENRON executives were in the right to deliberately lie about profits and performance of the company because simply whatever the corporation does makes its right .
Now we have multiple anti-trust laws in place to make executives responsible for what they sign off .
Three examples of where corporations were wrong and cost lives .
Why the hell would corporations be in the right in any of these examples ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If a corporation does it, that makes it right.
This is just wrong in so many ways.
By that logic we wouldn't have anti-trust laws, safety regulations, or anything cause the corporation is always in the right.
Well lets look at three examples where corporations were in the wrong and it required legislation to fix it.
We now have food regulation in place because a can of beef contained more than just beef.
The corporations believed they could save money by filling a can of beef with half beef and half whatever the hell they wanted without telling us.
Now we have food regulations in place to prevent this cause corporations were not trusted to do what was right.
Cars used to not have seat belts and the corporations claimed putting a seat belt in gave off the impression of a car not being safe.
We now have legislation in place that require automobiles to have seat belts because cars were unsafe without seat belts.
And ENRON executives were in the right to deliberately lie about profits and performance of the company because simply whatever the corporation does makes its right.
Now we have multiple anti-trust laws in place to make executives responsible for what they sign off.
Three examples of where corporations were wrong and cost lives.
Why the hell would corporations be in the right in any of these examples?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0715259.31197816</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0715259.31198624</id>
	<title>Re:It's a company. Of course it's right.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266591900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Unfortunately what you write is correct.<br>That is, if a corporation decides to do something illegal, then they will just pressure to pass a law to make it legal.<br>That's the issue, actually. It is a bad thing. You're so smart I don't need to explain that to you.<br>Or maybe I do, a quick search shows you're retarded: <a href="http://twitter.com/quotemstr" title="twitter.com" rel="nofollow">http://twitter.com/quotemstr</a> [twitter.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Unfortunately what you write is correct.That is , if a corporation decides to do something illegal , then they will just pressure to pass a law to make it legal.That 's the issue , actually .
It is a bad thing .
You 're so smart I do n't need to explain that to you.Or maybe I do , a quick search shows you 're retarded : http : //twitter.com/quotemstr [ twitter.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Unfortunately what you write is correct.That is, if a corporation decides to do something illegal, then they will just pressure to pass a law to make it legal.That's the issue, actually.
It is a bad thing.
You're so smart I don't need to explain that to you.Or maybe I do, a quick search shows you're retarded: http://twitter.com/quotemstr [twitter.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0715259.31197816</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0715259.31198784</id>
	<title>Can I join the war against the term "pre owned"</title>
	<author>Sycraft-fu</author>
	<datestamp>1266592800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Seriously, it is "used." I have no idea why used has become a dirty word. "Pre-owned" is a BS term, that is more complex than it needs to be. Used is fine.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Seriously , it is " used .
" I have no idea why used has become a dirty word .
" Pre-owned " is a BS term , that is more complex than it needs to be .
Used is fine .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Seriously, it is "used.
" I have no idea why used has become a dirty word.
"Pre-owned" is a BS term, that is more complex than it needs to be.
Used is fine.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0715259.31198610</id>
	<title>Re:It benefits the consumer, really.</title>
	<author>volpe</author>
	<datestamp>1266591840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"We will be greeted as liberators! With sweets and flowers!"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" We will be greeted as liberators !
With sweets and flowers !
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"We will be greeted as liberators!
With sweets and flowers!
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0715259.31197616</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0715259.31198694</id>
	<title>Re:I beg to differ - this *is* Piracy</title>
	<author>elrous0</author>
	<datestamp>1266592320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>No, they've found a way to end-run around the law by saying "You're perfectly free to buy or sell used games, they just won't work without the one-time only activation code."</htmltext>
<tokenext>No , they 've found a way to end-run around the law by saying " You 're perfectly free to buy or sell used games , they just wo n't work without the one-time only activation code .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No, they've found a way to end-run around the law by saying "You're perfectly free to buy or sell used games, they just won't work without the one-time only activation code.
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0715259.31197810</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0715259.31200404</id>
	<title>No way it'll work...</title>
	<author>zerospeaks</author>
	<datestamp>1266600300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>"anyone buying a pre-owned copy of the game will be forced to cough up $20 to obtain a code to play online."

The majority of gamestop customers is 15 yr olds without credit cards. I doubt this will work. Meanwhile an adult like me will just wait until the game is on sale for 20 bucks after it has been out a year.</htmltext>
<tokenext>" anyone buying a pre-owned copy of the game will be forced to cough up $ 20 to obtain a code to play online .
" The majority of gamestop customers is 15 yr olds without credit cards .
I doubt this will work .
Meanwhile an adult like me will just wait until the game is on sale for 20 bucks after it has been out a year .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"anyone buying a pre-owned copy of the game will be forced to cough up $20 to obtain a code to play online.
"

The majority of gamestop customers is 15 yr olds without credit cards.
I doubt this will work.
Meanwhile an adult like me will just wait until the game is on sale for 20 bucks after it has been out a year.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0715259.31197930</id>
	<title>Getting sick of this shit</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266586020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>I just don't give a damn about the DLC.  I played Dragon Age and Mass Effect 2 all the way through without even noticing the little DLC registration cards in the box (typically those are just advertisements) until someone mentioned them.  Both games were good and complete.  The presence of free-if-you-buy-it-from-us DLC isn't going to motivate me to ignore a used game if it is available.

What pisses me off is in-game advertisements for DLC.  Every time you go back to camp in DAO some asshole is standing in the back with a bright yellow exclamation mark saying "Buy the DLC for my quest!".  No, asshole, if you don't represent a playable part of my game, get the fuck out.  I'm afraid we'll see a lot more of this sort of thing in the future, as our (more profitable than ever) game companies continue to morph into greedy bastards like the rest of the entertainment industry.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I just do n't give a damn about the DLC .
I played Dragon Age and Mass Effect 2 all the way through without even noticing the little DLC registration cards in the box ( typically those are just advertisements ) until someone mentioned them .
Both games were good and complete .
The presence of free-if-you-buy-it-from-us DLC is n't going to motivate me to ignore a used game if it is available .
What pisses me off is in-game advertisements for DLC .
Every time you go back to camp in DAO some asshole is standing in the back with a bright yellow exclamation mark saying " Buy the DLC for my quest ! " .
No , asshole , if you do n't represent a playable part of my game , get the fuck out .
I 'm afraid we 'll see a lot more of this sort of thing in the future , as our ( more profitable than ever ) game companies continue to morph into greedy bastards like the rest of the entertainment industry .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I just don't give a damn about the DLC.
I played Dragon Age and Mass Effect 2 all the way through without even noticing the little DLC registration cards in the box (typically those are just advertisements) until someone mentioned them.
Both games were good and complete.
The presence of free-if-you-buy-it-from-us DLC isn't going to motivate me to ignore a used game if it is available.
What pisses me off is in-game advertisements for DLC.
Every time you go back to camp in DAO some asshole is standing in the back with a bright yellow exclamation mark saying "Buy the DLC for my quest!".
No, asshole, if you don't represent a playable part of my game, get the fuck out.
I'm afraid we'll see a lot more of this sort of thing in the future, as our (more profitable than ever) game companies continue to morph into greedy bastards like the rest of the entertainment industry.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0715259.31204536</id>
	<title>Re:Getting sick of this shit</title>
	<author>Lord\_Jeremy</author>
	<datestamp>1266575880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The serious problem IMO is when you hear about DLC being or having been released on launch day, which was the case with Dragon Age Origins and I believe Mass Effect 2. That just really pisses me off because they're withholding content that was developed alongside the full game. The concept of expansion packs used to be such that they would sell you a full game at standard price, then work on an XP for a year, then release that. Now they sell you less than a full game at full price and expect you to shell out more for the rest of the game. The fundamental difference is that with the old model, you were given everything that was ready for release at the release date. Any secondary content was developed afterwards, to foster continued interest in the game. Now the publishers so greedy that they believe a full game should cost more than the accepted standard price, so they give you half of what's ready for $50 and the rest in $10 packs.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The serious problem IMO is when you hear about DLC being or having been released on launch day , which was the case with Dragon Age Origins and I believe Mass Effect 2 .
That just really pisses me off because they 're withholding content that was developed alongside the full game .
The concept of expansion packs used to be such that they would sell you a full game at standard price , then work on an XP for a year , then release that .
Now they sell you less than a full game at full price and expect you to shell out more for the rest of the game .
The fundamental difference is that with the old model , you were given everything that was ready for release at the release date .
Any secondary content was developed afterwards , to foster continued interest in the game .
Now the publishers so greedy that they believe a full game should cost more than the accepted standard price , so they give you half of what 's ready for $ 50 and the rest in $ 10 packs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The serious problem IMO is when you hear about DLC being or having been released on launch day, which was the case with Dragon Age Origins and I believe Mass Effect 2.
That just really pisses me off because they're withholding content that was developed alongside the full game.
The concept of expansion packs used to be such that they would sell you a full game at standard price, then work on an XP for a year, then release that.
Now they sell you less than a full game at full price and expect you to shell out more for the rest of the game.
The fundamental difference is that with the old model, you were given everything that was ready for release at the release date.
Any secondary content was developed afterwards, to foster continued interest in the game.
Now the publishers so greedy that they believe a full game should cost more than the accepted standard price, so they give you half of what's ready for $50 and the rest in $10 packs.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0715259.31197930</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0715259.31200244</id>
	<title>Re:Weeeellllllllll.</title>
	<author>Orbijx</author>
	<datestamp>1266599700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It has a varying level of difficulty, depending on which PSP you've picked up.</p><p>As of my last foray into that realm:</p><p>PSP-1000 was the easiest to exploit, depending on firmware version. May need to have a go at it with a service mode battery if the firmware version is too high.</p><p>PSP-2000 usually requires a service mode battery and a 256 MB or larger memory stick to exploit. The batteries are cheap (about <a href="http://www.dealextreme.com/details.dx/sku.12472" title="dealextreme.com">$7</a> [dealextreme.com] online if you know wher).</p><p>PSP-3000 had only a HEN exploit to date, which would allow one to run homebrew, but no PSP or PSX games. There's a few scattered claims that one could get a partial CFW onto the unit that would enable the playing of <em>backups</em>, but I've not had that experience.</p><p>PSP GO is a STOP. Return this box to the nearest retailer for full refund. You can't even play your legally purchased UMD games on this device, from what I understand.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It has a varying level of difficulty , depending on which PSP you 've picked up.As of my last foray into that realm : PSP-1000 was the easiest to exploit , depending on firmware version .
May need to have a go at it with a service mode battery if the firmware version is too high.PSP-2000 usually requires a service mode battery and a 256 MB or larger memory stick to exploit .
The batteries are cheap ( about $ 7 [ dealextreme.com ] online if you know wher ) .PSP-3000 had only a HEN exploit to date , which would allow one to run homebrew , but no PSP or PSX games .
There 's a few scattered claims that one could get a partial CFW onto the unit that would enable the playing of backups , but I 've not had that experience.PSP GO is a STOP .
Return this box to the nearest retailer for full refund .
You ca n't even play your legally purchased UMD games on this device , from what I understand .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It has a varying level of difficulty, depending on which PSP you've picked up.As of my last foray into that realm:PSP-1000 was the easiest to exploit, depending on firmware version.
May need to have a go at it with a service mode battery if the firmware version is too high.PSP-2000 usually requires a service mode battery and a 256 MB or larger memory stick to exploit.
The batteries are cheap (about $7 [dealextreme.com] online if you know wher).PSP-3000 had only a HEN exploit to date, which would allow one to run homebrew, but no PSP or PSX games.
There's a few scattered claims that one could get a partial CFW onto the unit that would enable the playing of backups, but I've not had that experience.PSP GO is a STOP.
Return this box to the nearest retailer for full refund.
You can't even play your legally purchased UMD games on this device, from what I understand.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0715259.31197586</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0715259.31200864</id>
	<title>Re:Repeat</title>
	<author>Jerrei</author>
	<datestamp>1266602280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Because they go out of their way to make everyone believe piracy is a heinous, unforgivable crime on par with rape and murder. The avarage consumer has come to believe they have no choice but to either not play the game or pay to be taken advantage of.

I fear what the gaming industry would become without piracy as a constant competitor.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Because they go out of their way to make everyone believe piracy is a heinous , unforgivable crime on par with rape and murder .
The avarage consumer has come to believe they have no choice but to either not play the game or pay to be taken advantage of .
I fear what the gaming industry would become without piracy as a constant competitor .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because they go out of their way to make everyone believe piracy is a heinous, unforgivable crime on par with rape and murder.
The avarage consumer has come to believe they have no choice but to either not play the game or pay to be taken advantage of.
I fear what the gaming industry would become without piracy as a constant competitor.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0715259.31198104</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0715259.31201030</id>
	<title>I don't understand the outrage over this</title>
	<author>Flipao</author>
	<datestamp>1266603120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Free DLC should be considered an added perk for buying the game, not something that should be taken for granted. Steam is doing far more damage to the second hand market than EA can do at the moment.
<br> <br>
Any multiplayer game that requires a login to play (going as far back as Diablo II or Neverwinter Nights) would have also had this restriction, meaning the seller would need to give up his Battle.net, Bioware ID, etc...  for the new buyer to be able to play online.<br> <br>
 I am all against restricted copy protection and DRM. EA have always been fairly rubbish at supporting their own games anyway. Free DLC should be considered a step in the right direction.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Free DLC should be considered an added perk for buying the game , not something that should be taken for granted .
Steam is doing far more damage to the second hand market than EA can do at the moment .
Any multiplayer game that requires a login to play ( going as far back as Diablo II or Neverwinter Nights ) would have also had this restriction , meaning the seller would need to give up his Battle.net , Bioware ID , etc... for the new buyer to be able to play online .
I am all against restricted copy protection and DRM .
EA have always been fairly rubbish at supporting their own games anyway .
Free DLC should be considered a step in the right direction .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Free DLC should be considered an added perk for buying the game, not something that should be taken for granted.
Steam is doing far more damage to the second hand market than EA can do at the moment.
Any multiplayer game that requires a login to play (going as far back as Diablo II or Neverwinter Nights) would have also had this restriction, meaning the seller would need to give up his Battle.net, Bioware ID, etc...  for the new buyer to be able to play online.
I am all against restricted copy protection and DRM.
EA have always been fairly rubbish at supporting their own games anyway.
Free DLC should be considered a step in the right direction.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0715259.31197702</id>
	<title>Re:It benefits the consumer, really.</title>
	<author>Fluffeh</author>
	<datestamp>1266583380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><blockquote><div><p>Koller is also confident that consumers will react well to the news - despite the fact that Ubisoft was forced to defend its proposition in the face of angry gamers.

"From our research, this will be received quite positively," he insisted.</p></div></blockquote><p>

They really are completely delusional. What benefit does this provide to the consumers that they'll react positively to? Is there even any theoretical benefit to the consumer?

Maybe the research was done entirely among Sony executives.</p></div><p>It's the oldest story in the book. If you repeat something enough people will eventually believe it. Besides, how often have you seen press statements that don't appear to make any sense at all, but they still play the "Hai, this is what we do" statement. It's sad, but it works in the bigger picture. A lot of investors simply lap that shit up.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Koller is also confident that consumers will react well to the news - despite the fact that Ubisoft was forced to defend its proposition in the face of angry gamers .
" From our research , this will be received quite positively , " he insisted .
They really are completely delusional .
What benefit does this provide to the consumers that they 'll react positively to ?
Is there even any theoretical benefit to the consumer ?
Maybe the research was done entirely among Sony executives.It 's the oldest story in the book .
If you repeat something enough people will eventually believe it .
Besides , how often have you seen press statements that do n't appear to make any sense at all , but they still play the " Hai , this is what we do " statement .
It 's sad , but it works in the bigger picture .
A lot of investors simply lap that shit up .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Koller is also confident that consumers will react well to the news - despite the fact that Ubisoft was forced to defend its proposition in the face of angry gamers.
"From our research, this will be received quite positively," he insisted.
They really are completely delusional.
What benefit does this provide to the consumers that they'll react positively to?
Is there even any theoretical benefit to the consumer?
Maybe the research was done entirely among Sony executives.It's the oldest story in the book.
If you repeat something enough people will eventually believe it.
Besides, how often have you seen press statements that don't appear to make any sense at all, but they still play the "Hai, this is what we do" statement.
It's sad, but it works in the bigger picture.
A lot of investors simply lap that shit up.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0715259.31197616</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0715259.31197712</id>
	<title>Re:Someone doesn't like second hand market?</title>
	<author>KyoMamoru</author>
	<datestamp>1266583440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>To be honest, the PSP has always been a playground for Custom Firmware since the initial 'Fat PSP.' The ease at which the console works when hacked with games and what not is simply astonishing, and so I can see why they need to do something about it. This is a situation where the desire to conquer the 'Free Frontier' and the 'Used Games Market' are overlapping strategies. The benefit to the consumer here [in their eyes] is that the servers won't be bogged down by players not paying, and the reduction of hacks in game play.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>To be honest , the PSP has always been a playground for Custom Firmware since the initial 'Fat PSP .
' The ease at which the console works when hacked with games and what not is simply astonishing , and so I can see why they need to do something about it .
This is a situation where the desire to conquer the 'Free Frontier ' and the 'Used Games Market ' are overlapping strategies .
The benefit to the consumer here [ in their eyes ] is that the servers wo n't be bogged down by players not paying , and the reduction of hacks in game play .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>To be honest, the PSP has always been a playground for Custom Firmware since the initial 'Fat PSP.
' The ease at which the console works when hacked with games and what not is simply astonishing, and so I can see why they need to do something about it.
This is a situation where the desire to conquer the 'Free Frontier' and the 'Used Games Market' are overlapping strategies.
The benefit to the consumer here [in their eyes] is that the servers won't be bogged down by players not paying, and the reduction of hacks in game play.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0715259.31197590</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0715259.31208070</id>
	<title>As an avid gamer...</title>
	<author>altern1ty</author>
	<datestamp>1266604440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>...I'll be glad to wait until the prices on these games drop into the sub-$30 range. If that means waiting two years to play a decent game instead of being able to trade games in to get it at a decent price on release day, that's more than fine by me. And if the publishers are willing to punish me for buying or selling their games used, I'm willing to hold my money back from them until the "Game of the year" editions with all the special content included come out for a lower price. I can only see this hurting the publishers and Sony in the very near future.</htmltext>
<tokenext>...I 'll be glad to wait until the prices on these games drop into the sub- $ 30 range .
If that means waiting two years to play a decent game instead of being able to trade games in to get it at a decent price on release day , that 's more than fine by me .
And if the publishers are willing to punish me for buying or selling their games used , I 'm willing to hold my money back from them until the " Game of the year " editions with all the special content included come out for a lower price .
I can only see this hurting the publishers and Sony in the very near future .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...I'll be glad to wait until the prices on these games drop into the sub-$30 range.
If that means waiting two years to play a decent game instead of being able to trade games in to get it at a decent price on release day, that's more than fine by me.
And if the publishers are willing to punish me for buying or selling their games used, I'm willing to hold my money back from them until the "Game of the year" editions with all the special content included come out for a lower price.
I can only see this hurting the publishers and Sony in the very near future.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0715259.31198052</id>
	<title>Re:Pre-owned = Piracy</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266587460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's not the consumers that are the problem here, it's the games stores that have transitioned their business models to selling new games, buying them back for $20 a week later, and putting them right back on sale at $50 under the new price, resulting in sales of new copies dropping off a cliff about three days after release, and massive profits for the stores.  It would really help if the publishers called their bluff on this shit, but as it stands that's not going to happen, they'll just take it out on the customers.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's not the consumers that are the problem here , it 's the games stores that have transitioned their business models to selling new games , buying them back for $ 20 a week later , and putting them right back on sale at $ 50 under the new price , resulting in sales of new copies dropping off a cliff about three days after release , and massive profits for the stores .
It would really help if the publishers called their bluff on this shit , but as it stands that 's not going to happen , they 'll just take it out on the customers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's not the consumers that are the problem here, it's the games stores that have transitioned their business models to selling new games, buying them back for $20 a week later, and putting them right back on sale at $50 under the new price, resulting in sales of new copies dropping off a cliff about three days after release, and massive profits for the stores.
It would really help if the publishers called their bluff on this shit, but as it stands that's not going to happen, they'll just take it out on the customers.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0715259.31197600</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0715259.31208000</id>
	<title>DLC doesn't work for some</title>
	<author>lpq</author>
	<datestamp>1266603240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you are behind a proxy or firewall you are s-o-l With EA's DLC.  They don't use standard ports they use proprietary ports that you'd have to analyze and adapt for on a per-vendor or per-game basis.  It's pretty sucky.</p><p>
&nbsp;</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you are behind a proxy or firewall you are s-o-l With EA 's DLC .
They do n't use standard ports they use proprietary ports that you 'd have to analyze and adapt for on a per-vendor or per-game basis .
It 's pretty sucky .
 </tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you are behind a proxy or firewall you are s-o-l With EA's DLC.
They don't use standard ports they use proprietary ports that you'd have to analyze and adapt for on a per-vendor or per-game basis.
It's pretty sucky.
 </sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0715259.31198984</id>
	<title>Gamefly?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266593820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This made me think if this system was applied to any media, like television series or movies.  Imagine a day you buy the whole series on dvd but it's only authorized to be viewed by you (technical details aside).  Currently we have rental systems in place like Netflix that in a way, offer you the content for less on a borrowed nature.</p><p>Gamefly does this for games, will they be able to offer these games for rent?  I assume not with this DRM but should they be able to?  When I rent this online game I'm allowed to play it for only as long as I have it.. then when i send it back to the company they can rent it out to another individual to play online?  It would be interesting if they're able to work out a temporary pass syetm with the publisher (this user is allowed to use this code until the disc is returned and then that code is revoked).  If I were Gamefly I'd start looking at that now... since this system propogating would eventually destroy their business.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This made me think if this system was applied to any media , like television series or movies .
Imagine a day you buy the whole series on dvd but it 's only authorized to be viewed by you ( technical details aside ) .
Currently we have rental systems in place like Netflix that in a way , offer you the content for less on a borrowed nature.Gamefly does this for games , will they be able to offer these games for rent ?
I assume not with this DRM but should they be able to ?
When I rent this online game I 'm allowed to play it for only as long as I have it.. then when i send it back to the company they can rent it out to another individual to play online ?
It would be interesting if they 're able to work out a temporary pass syetm with the publisher ( this user is allowed to use this code until the disc is returned and then that code is revoked ) .
If I were Gamefly I 'd start looking at that now... since this system propogating would eventually destroy their business .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This made me think if this system was applied to any media, like television series or movies.
Imagine a day you buy the whole series on dvd but it's only authorized to be viewed by you (technical details aside).
Currently we have rental systems in place like Netflix that in a way, offer you the content for less on a borrowed nature.Gamefly does this for games, will they be able to offer these games for rent?
I assume not with this DRM but should they be able to?
When I rent this online game I'm allowed to play it for only as long as I have it.. then when i send it back to the company they can rent it out to another individual to play online?
It would be interesting if they're able to work out a temporary pass syetm with the publisher (this user is allowed to use this code until the disc is returned and then that code is revoked).
If I were Gamefly I'd start looking at that now... since this system propogating would eventually destroy their business.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0715259.31198496</id>
	<title>Crappy Games</title>
	<author>pipboy9999</author>
	<datestamp>1266591120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You know, I don't think I will be bothered by all this restrictions on pre-owned games, and for that matter DRM, registration, mandatory network connections etc. It seems to me that the games that get the "We need to get every penny possible out of this" focus from the publishers are the types of games that IMO suck. Personally I don't get all that bothered by it since, with a few exceptions, I am really sick of the Madden *Insert Year Here*, Generic Space Marine Kills a Ton of Aliens, or Overly Bloody FPS games that <i>every one</i> is making these days. I am sure that some of them are actually a quality product, but until the video game industry gets its creativity and soul back, I wont be sending much of my money their way.<br> <br>I want my SNES/Gensis glory days back damn-it!</htmltext>
<tokenext>You know , I do n't think I will be bothered by all this restrictions on pre-owned games , and for that matter DRM , registration , mandatory network connections etc .
It seems to me that the games that get the " We need to get every penny possible out of this " focus from the publishers are the types of games that IMO suck .
Personally I do n't get all that bothered by it since , with a few exceptions , I am really sick of the Madden * Insert Year Here * , Generic Space Marine Kills a Ton of Aliens , or Overly Bloody FPS games that every one is making these days .
I am sure that some of them are actually a quality product , but until the video game industry gets its creativity and soul back , I wont be sending much of my money their way .
I want my SNES/Gensis glory days back damn-it !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You know, I don't think I will be bothered by all this restrictions on pre-owned games, and for that matter DRM, registration, mandatory network connections etc.
It seems to me that the games that get the "We need to get every penny possible out of this" focus from the publishers are the types of games that IMO suck.
Personally I don't get all that bothered by it since, with a few exceptions, I am really sick of the Madden *Insert Year Here*, Generic Space Marine Kills a Ton of Aliens, or Overly Bloody FPS games that every one is making these days.
I am sure that some of them are actually a quality product, but until the video game industry gets its creativity and soul back, I wont be sending much of my money their way.
I want my SNES/Gensis glory days back damn-it!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0715259.31198334</id>
	<title>Free DLC versus screwing people...</title>
	<author>Lumpy</author>
	<datestamp>1266590040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Honestly EA's free DLC for new only is only fluf.   the freebies they give you for ME2 are a joke and useless compared to other gear in the game it's nothing you need to finish the game and honestly only gives you a leg up for the first hour of playing (the black hole gun will actually screw you if you use it instead of the grenade launcher.) and the cerebus network is 100\% useless.</p><p>free DLC is typically junk that only impresses people for a very short time.. like the crap free DLC that Dr Pepper is giving away.</p><p>Taking away the ability to play online?   that's simply screwing people and disabling a big part of the game.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Honestly EA 's free DLC for new only is only fluf .
the freebies they give you for ME2 are a joke and useless compared to other gear in the game it 's nothing you need to finish the game and honestly only gives you a leg up for the first hour of playing ( the black hole gun will actually screw you if you use it instead of the grenade launcher .
) and the cerebus network is 100 \ % useless.free DLC is typically junk that only impresses people for a very short time.. like the crap free DLC that Dr Pepper is giving away.Taking away the ability to play online ?
that 's simply screwing people and disabling a big part of the game .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Honestly EA's free DLC for new only is only fluf.
the freebies they give you for ME2 are a joke and useless compared to other gear in the game it's nothing you need to finish the game and honestly only gives you a leg up for the first hour of playing (the black hole gun will actually screw you if you use it instead of the grenade launcher.
) and the cerebus network is 100\% useless.free DLC is typically junk that only impresses people for a very short time.. like the crap free DLC that Dr Pepper is giving away.Taking away the ability to play online?
that's simply screwing people and disabling a big part of the game.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0715259.31198880</id>
	<title>Mass Effect 2</title>
	<author>Logical Zebra</author>
	<datestamp>1266593340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The inability to use online multiplayer unless you are the original purchaser is pretty ludicrous.  Video game companies claim that they lose money by consumers purchasing used games.  This may be true to some extent, but those used games had to be purchased new at some point.  And what about games that have been out of print for long periods of time?  Why should I be penalized for that?</p><p>To be fair to <em>Mass Effect 2</em>, however, the "Cerberus Network" registration code that you receive with an original game copy only gives you three free DLC packs; it does not break half the game as Sony does in TFA.  You can still play <em>ME2</em> without registering the game; you simply do not have access to DLC (most of which has sucked thus far).  It remains to be seen if <em>purchasing</em> DLC requires registration.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The inability to use online multiplayer unless you are the original purchaser is pretty ludicrous .
Video game companies claim that they lose money by consumers purchasing used games .
This may be true to some extent , but those used games had to be purchased new at some point .
And what about games that have been out of print for long periods of time ?
Why should I be penalized for that ? To be fair to Mass Effect 2 , however , the " Cerberus Network " registration code that you receive with an original game copy only gives you three free DLC packs ; it does not break half the game as Sony does in TFA .
You can still play ME2 without registering the game ; you simply do not have access to DLC ( most of which has sucked thus far ) .
It remains to be seen if purchasing DLC requires registration .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The inability to use online multiplayer unless you are the original purchaser is pretty ludicrous.
Video game companies claim that they lose money by consumers purchasing used games.
This may be true to some extent, but those used games had to be purchased new at some point.
And what about games that have been out of print for long periods of time?
Why should I be penalized for that?To be fair to Mass Effect 2, however, the "Cerberus Network" registration code that you receive with an original game copy only gives you three free DLC packs; it does not break half the game as Sony does in TFA.
You can still play ME2 without registering the game; you simply do not have access to DLC (most of which has sucked thus far).
It remains to be seen if purchasing DLC requires registration.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0715259.31199658</id>
	<title>Yawn. Who cares.</title>
	<author>DarthVain</author>
	<datestamp>1266597060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So long as Sony is upfront about its policy (which may be in question given it is Sony) who cares.</p><p>There is a very easy solution. Vote with your wallet. Don't buy the game. If you feeling really pissed, don't buy Sony products. They will get the message eventually, or if they don't they won't be around much longer.</p><p>It really is that simple.</p><p>However if they "trick" people into buying their products, and then once it is too late announce that "Oh BTW that thing you just bought is now crippled by this DRM, you must be online or register online, etc... to actually play our game". That would piss me off to the point where I would be demanding my money back.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So long as Sony is upfront about its policy ( which may be in question given it is Sony ) who cares.There is a very easy solution .
Vote with your wallet .
Do n't buy the game .
If you feeling really pissed , do n't buy Sony products .
They will get the message eventually , or if they do n't they wo n't be around much longer.It really is that simple.However if they " trick " people into buying their products , and then once it is too late announce that " Oh BTW that thing you just bought is now crippled by this DRM , you must be online or register online , etc... to actually play our game " .
That would piss me off to the point where I would be demanding my money back .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So long as Sony is upfront about its policy (which may be in question given it is Sony) who cares.There is a very easy solution.
Vote with your wallet.
Don't buy the game.
If you feeling really pissed, don't buy Sony products.
They will get the message eventually, or if they don't they won't be around much longer.It really is that simple.However if they "trick" people into buying their products, and then once it is too late announce that "Oh BTW that thing you just bought is now crippled by this DRM, you must be online or register online, etc... to actually play our game".
That would piss me off to the point where I would be demanding my money back.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0715259.31202292</id>
	<title>Re:It's a company. Of course it's right.</title>
	<author>Khyber</author>
	<datestamp>1266609480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"This is just wrong in so many ways."</p><p>WOOOOOOOOOOSH!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" This is just wrong in so many ways .
" WOOOOOOOOOOSH !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"This is just wrong in so many ways.
"WOOOOOOOOOOSH!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0715259.31198760</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0715259.31200640</id>
	<title>Re:Bypassing doctrine of first sale</title>
	<author>thePowerOfGrayskull</author>
	<datestamp>1266601260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>IANAL<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... but it seems to me that supplemental digital downloads sound like the only valid way to do this. You can make additional content available at your discretion, to those people whom you choose - especially if the conditions for downloading specifically state no redistribution rights (because you're agreeing to those terms by accepting the optional content in exchange - that content was not part of the original sale). You cannot, as you say, prevent someone from selling content you paid for (the boxed game and everything advertised on it) to someone else.
<p>
Of course, this is just the result of logically thinking it through - the law and logic often seem to diverge.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>IANAL ... but it seems to me that supplemental digital downloads sound like the only valid way to do this .
You can make additional content available at your discretion , to those people whom you choose - especially if the conditions for downloading specifically state no redistribution rights ( because you 're agreeing to those terms by accepting the optional content in exchange - that content was not part of the original sale ) .
You can not , as you say , prevent someone from selling content you paid for ( the boxed game and everything advertised on it ) to someone else .
Of course , this is just the result of logically thinking it through - the law and logic often seem to diverge .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>IANAL ... but it seems to me that supplemental digital downloads sound like the only valid way to do this.
You can make additional content available at your discretion, to those people whom you choose - especially if the conditions for downloading specifically state no redistribution rights (because you're agreeing to those terms by accepting the optional content in exchange - that content was not part of the original sale).
You cannot, as you say, prevent someone from selling content you paid for (the boxed game and everything advertised on it) to someone else.
Of course, this is just the result of logically thinking it through - the law and logic often seem to diverge.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0715259.31197598</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0715259.31197810</id>
	<title>I beg to differ - this *is* Piracy</title>
	<author>afc\_wimbledon</author>
	<datestamp>1266584640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>...and Sony are the pirates, "sealing" from people legitimately buy the game second-hand.</htmltext>
<tokenext>...and Sony are the pirates , " sealing " from people legitimately buy the game second-hand .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...and Sony are the pirates, "sealing" from people legitimately buy the game second-hand.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0715259.31197638</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0715259.31198208</id>
	<title>Re:You know where this is going, right?</title>
	<author>KiwiRed</author>
	<datestamp>1266589020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>And yet they'll be charging full price for the physical media.</htmltext>
<tokenext>And yet they 'll be charging full price for the physical media .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And yet they'll be charging full price for the physical media.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0715259.31197880</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0715259.31198990</id>
	<title>Re:Used games are not harming the New Game Market!</title>
	<author>b4dc0d3r</author>
	<datestamp>1266593820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You're funny, you think common sense will win.  If I sell a used car, or table, or piece of gum, I pretty much have to sell it cheaper than when I bought it.  Except for collectibles or antiques, products generally decline in value due to age.</p><p>The funny part is where a video game, being bits on a DVD, cannot deteriorate.  You can enter a gaming shop and see a game new in box for $60, or the exact same thing "used" for a good bit less.  Why are used games less valuable than new, despite being exactly the same?  They aren't less functional, nor are they dingy or in need of cleaning (the used games stores usually clean as much as possible first).</p><p>So how does used game sale make sense?  Usually it's older titles that are available used, and value diminishes over time as new games usurp older ones.  Even Sony drops the price on games after a while.</p><p>The kicker is when you buy an older game that says clearly on the back, like many "classic" PS2 games, that online play is no longer available because the servers are down.  You can buy lots of multiplayer games now and only play the single-player missions.  That's decreased value.</p><p>So what Sony is saying here is they are guaranteeing servers will be up and playable when you buy a used game, I'm with Sony on this one because it takes time and money to support online gaming.  However, if they don't make an exception for games with no online play to begin with, then no value is being lost in a used game transaction.  You should be able to sell the game back to Sony at cost, and they can re-sell it to whomever at retail value.  But Sony doesn't want that either, obviously.  And of course online games should be given away free, with online play being its own subscription.  I mean, if I buy a game and play it for 10 hours online, my purchase cost is supporting someone who hammers the server 16 hours a day.  That's out of line.</p><p>That's what makes me conclude that the entire used game market is very much misguided to start with, and this decision only complicates things.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You 're funny , you think common sense will win .
If I sell a used car , or table , or piece of gum , I pretty much have to sell it cheaper than when I bought it .
Except for collectibles or antiques , products generally decline in value due to age.The funny part is where a video game , being bits on a DVD , can not deteriorate .
You can enter a gaming shop and see a game new in box for $ 60 , or the exact same thing " used " for a good bit less .
Why are used games less valuable than new , despite being exactly the same ?
They are n't less functional , nor are they dingy or in need of cleaning ( the used games stores usually clean as much as possible first ) .So how does used game sale make sense ?
Usually it 's older titles that are available used , and value diminishes over time as new games usurp older ones .
Even Sony drops the price on games after a while.The kicker is when you buy an older game that says clearly on the back , like many " classic " PS2 games , that online play is no longer available because the servers are down .
You can buy lots of multiplayer games now and only play the single-player missions .
That 's decreased value.So what Sony is saying here is they are guaranteeing servers will be up and playable when you buy a used game , I 'm with Sony on this one because it takes time and money to support online gaming .
However , if they do n't make an exception for games with no online play to begin with , then no value is being lost in a used game transaction .
You should be able to sell the game back to Sony at cost , and they can re-sell it to whomever at retail value .
But Sony does n't want that either , obviously .
And of course online games should be given away free , with online play being its own subscription .
I mean , if I buy a game and play it for 10 hours online , my purchase cost is supporting someone who hammers the server 16 hours a day .
That 's out of line.That 's what makes me conclude that the entire used game market is very much misguided to start with , and this decision only complicates things .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You're funny, you think common sense will win.
If I sell a used car, or table, or piece of gum, I pretty much have to sell it cheaper than when I bought it.
Except for collectibles or antiques, products generally decline in value due to age.The funny part is where a video game, being bits on a DVD, cannot deteriorate.
You can enter a gaming shop and see a game new in box for $60, or the exact same thing "used" for a good bit less.
Why are used games less valuable than new, despite being exactly the same?
They aren't less functional, nor are they dingy or in need of cleaning (the used games stores usually clean as much as possible first).So how does used game sale make sense?
Usually it's older titles that are available used, and value diminishes over time as new games usurp older ones.
Even Sony drops the price on games after a while.The kicker is when you buy an older game that says clearly on the back, like many "classic" PS2 games, that online play is no longer available because the servers are down.
You can buy lots of multiplayer games now and only play the single-player missions.
That's decreased value.So what Sony is saying here is they are guaranteeing servers will be up and playable when you buy a used game, I'm with Sony on this one because it takes time and money to support online gaming.
However, if they don't make an exception for games with no online play to begin with, then no value is being lost in a used game transaction.
You should be able to sell the game back to Sony at cost, and they can re-sell it to whomever at retail value.
But Sony doesn't want that either, obviously.
And of course online games should be given away free, with online play being its own subscription.
I mean, if I buy a game and play it for 10 hours online, my purchase cost is supporting someone who hammers the server 16 hours a day.
That's out of line.That's what makes me conclude that the entire used game market is very much misguided to start with, and this decision only complicates things.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0715259.31197804</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0715259.31198004</id>
	<title>Awful</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266586680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This will be awful for  <a href="http://www.inspirecoms.com/" title="inspirecoms.com" rel="nofollow">call centre</a> [inspirecoms.com] workers</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This will be awful for call centre [ inspirecoms.com ] workers</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This will be awful for  call centre [inspirecoms.com] workers</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0715259.31200488</id>
	<title>Please add tag "secondsale"</title>
	<author>GabriellaKat</author>
	<datestamp>1266600600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Please add the tag  "secondsale".

Why?

Because thats the ONLY way Sony will get money from my family. Because when the  USED game drops to $10 or so in the bargin bin at GameStop, and the new add on BS drops to $5 or FREE is the only way any company that pulls this will get my money for a PS3 or Xbox360 title.

I now understand pirates who create serial crack programs so much better, and the ones who will soon create a "always online spoof" program. Withoutadoubt someone somewhere is pissed off right about now and hard at work on both.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Please add the tag " secondsale " .
Why ? Because thats the ONLY way Sony will get money from my family .
Because when the USED game drops to $ 10 or so in the bargin bin at GameStop , and the new add on BS drops to $ 5 or FREE is the only way any company that pulls this will get my money for a PS3 or Xbox360 title .
I now understand pirates who create serial crack programs so much better , and the ones who will soon create a " always online spoof " program .
Withoutadoubt someone somewhere is pissed off right about now and hard at work on both .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Please add the tag  "secondsale".
Why?

Because thats the ONLY way Sony will get money from my family.
Because when the  USED game drops to $10 or so in the bargin bin at GameStop, and the new add on BS drops to $5 or FREE is the only way any company that pulls this will get my money for a PS3 or Xbox360 title.
I now understand pirates who create serial crack programs so much better, and the ones who will soon create a "always online spoof" program.
Withoutadoubt someone somewhere is pissed off right about now and hard at work on both.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0715259.31201862</id>
	<title>Why stop there?</title>
	<author>Bones3D\_mac</author>
	<datestamp>1266606900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why stop there when these companies could just sell the game engine alone on discs for $9.95 in a jewel case, then sell the user the content entirely as DLC subject to the "no refunds" policy at $40 as a form of "activation"? That way, if anyone rushes to buy the next big title of the season for $10, then decides they don't like it, the most they could get back is the $9.95, while the game manufacturers get to pocket the remaining $40 each time some poor sucker gets handed the same disc the manufacturer repackages over and over...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why stop there when these companies could just sell the game engine alone on discs for $ 9.95 in a jewel case , then sell the user the content entirely as DLC subject to the " no refunds " policy at $ 40 as a form of " activation " ?
That way , if anyone rushes to buy the next big title of the season for $ 10 , then decides they do n't like it , the most they could get back is the $ 9.95 , while the game manufacturers get to pocket the remaining $ 40 each time some poor sucker gets handed the same disc the manufacturer repackages over and over.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why stop there when these companies could just sell the game engine alone on discs for $9.95 in a jewel case, then sell the user the content entirely as DLC subject to the "no refunds" policy at $40 as a form of "activation"?
That way, if anyone rushes to buy the next big title of the season for $10, then decides they don't like it, the most they could get back is the $9.95, while the game manufacturers get to pocket the remaining $40 each time some poor sucker gets handed the same disc the manufacturer repackages over and over...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0715259.31200168</id>
	<title>The end of resale</title>
	<author>CopaceticOpus</author>
	<datestamp>1266599340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I am afraid that resale for console games is a doomed concept. Given the increases in hard drive capacity and broadband speed, it has become very easy to offer a game for online sale. As the percentage of gamers who have these resources continues to grow, we will reach a tipping point where it makes sense to offer a full game for sale online only. (This is already the case for small console games, but is generally not true yet for full-sized games which retail for over $50.)</p><p>People will fight against this and resist it, but when push comes to shove, if the game is desirable enough it will sell. The rules of competition only apply to a certain extent. If one restaurant overcharges for a burger, you can go to another restaurant. If a company sells Halo 7 under unfavorable terms, you either accept it or you don't play that particular game.</p><p>Once a few high-profile games establish the profitability of this scheme, it won't take long for all the major companies to switch over to this model (much to the chagrin of physical retailers, who will be reduced to selling access codes rather than physical products, until they go out of business.)</p><p>I would object to this practice based on the first sale doctrine. If they want to distribute games this way, they should have to provide a mechanism for transfer of ownership. However, recent legal proceedings seem to uphold the "pretend it's not a sale" doctrine, which states that you can use trick language to call the transaction a license or a subscription, even though the purchaser is thinking of it as a sale in his mind.</p><p>This all makes me disappointed, as I enjoy getting used games at a bargain, or occasionally buying a new one and then reselling it after beating the game. I can't see myself being too excited about paying $60 for a full game, and so it will become a rare transaction. I hope that I'm wrong somehow, but it just seems inevitable.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I am afraid that resale for console games is a doomed concept .
Given the increases in hard drive capacity and broadband speed , it has become very easy to offer a game for online sale .
As the percentage of gamers who have these resources continues to grow , we will reach a tipping point where it makes sense to offer a full game for sale online only .
( This is already the case for small console games , but is generally not true yet for full-sized games which retail for over $ 50 .
) People will fight against this and resist it , but when push comes to shove , if the game is desirable enough it will sell .
The rules of competition only apply to a certain extent .
If one restaurant overcharges for a burger , you can go to another restaurant .
If a company sells Halo 7 under unfavorable terms , you either accept it or you do n't play that particular game.Once a few high-profile games establish the profitability of this scheme , it wo n't take long for all the major companies to switch over to this model ( much to the chagrin of physical retailers , who will be reduced to selling access codes rather than physical products , until they go out of business .
) I would object to this practice based on the first sale doctrine .
If they want to distribute games this way , they should have to provide a mechanism for transfer of ownership .
However , recent legal proceedings seem to uphold the " pretend it 's not a sale " doctrine , which states that you can use trick language to call the transaction a license or a subscription , even though the purchaser is thinking of it as a sale in his mind.This all makes me disappointed , as I enjoy getting used games at a bargain , or occasionally buying a new one and then reselling it after beating the game .
I ca n't see myself being too excited about paying $ 60 for a full game , and so it will become a rare transaction .
I hope that I 'm wrong somehow , but it just seems inevitable .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I am afraid that resale for console games is a doomed concept.
Given the increases in hard drive capacity and broadband speed, it has become very easy to offer a game for online sale.
As the percentage of gamers who have these resources continues to grow, we will reach a tipping point where it makes sense to offer a full game for sale online only.
(This is already the case for small console games, but is generally not true yet for full-sized games which retail for over $50.
)People will fight against this and resist it, but when push comes to shove, if the game is desirable enough it will sell.
The rules of competition only apply to a certain extent.
If one restaurant overcharges for a burger, you can go to another restaurant.
If a company sells Halo 7 under unfavorable terms, you either accept it or you don't play that particular game.Once a few high-profile games establish the profitability of this scheme, it won't take long for all the major companies to switch over to this model (much to the chagrin of physical retailers, who will be reduced to selling access codes rather than physical products, until they go out of business.
)I would object to this practice based on the first sale doctrine.
If they want to distribute games this way, they should have to provide a mechanism for transfer of ownership.
However, recent legal proceedings seem to uphold the "pretend it's not a sale" doctrine, which states that you can use trick language to call the transaction a license or a subscription, even though the purchaser is thinking of it as a sale in his mind.This all makes me disappointed, as I enjoy getting used games at a bargain, or occasionally buying a new one and then reselling it after beating the game.
I can't see myself being too excited about paying $60 for a full game, and so it will become a rare transaction.
I hope that I'm wrong somehow, but it just seems inevitable.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0715259.31197616</id>
	<title>It benefits the consumer, really.</title>
	<author>Posting=!Working</author>
	<datestamp>1266582240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Koller is also confident that consumers will react well to the news - despite the fact that Ubisoft was forced to defend its proposition in the face of angry gamers.

"From our research, this will be received quite positively," he insisted.</p></div></blockquote><p>

They really are completely delusional. What benefit does this provide to the consumers that they'll react positively to? Is there even any theoretical benefit to the consumer?

Maybe the research was done entirely among Sony executives.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Koller is also confident that consumers will react well to the news - despite the fact that Ubisoft was forced to defend its proposition in the face of angry gamers .
" From our research , this will be received quite positively , " he insisted .
They really are completely delusional .
What benefit does this provide to the consumers that they 'll react positively to ?
Is there even any theoretical benefit to the consumer ?
Maybe the research was done entirely among Sony executives .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Koller is also confident that consumers will react well to the news - despite the fact that Ubisoft was forced to defend its proposition in the face of angry gamers.
"From our research, this will be received quite positively," he insisted.
They really are completely delusional.
What benefit does this provide to the consumers that they'll react positively to?
Is there even any theoretical benefit to the consumer?
Maybe the research was done entirely among Sony executives.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0715259.31199164</id>
	<title>It's cool, this is a shining example of capitalism</title>
	<author>grasshoppa</author>
	<datestamp>1266594540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They feel the need to screw their customers, and I feel the need not to buy their products.</p><p>Shine on, Sony.  Shine on.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They feel the need to screw their customers , and I feel the need not to buy their products.Shine on , Sony .
Shine on .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They feel the need to screw their customers, and I feel the need not to buy their products.Shine on, Sony.
Shine on.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0715259.31197602</id>
	<title>Preowned?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266582060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Root kit?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Root kit ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Root kit?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0715259.31198100</id>
	<title>Re:Used games are not harming the New Game Market!</title>
	<author>JasterBobaMereel</author>
	<datestamp>1266587820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They are in other words competing with their own older products, just like the car industry</p><p>If Ford started producing rubbish cars then the second hand car market would take up the slack and people who want a Ford would buy second hand cars</p><p>If the games industry are not producing games people want anymore then people will buy second hand games</p><p>The solution is to make games people want to buy, rather than crippling or charging for older games</p><p>What's next the music industry charging more for older songs so that new songs will be played/bought instead?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They are in other words competing with their own older products , just like the car industryIf Ford started producing rubbish cars then the second hand car market would take up the slack and people who want a Ford would buy second hand carsIf the games industry are not producing games people want anymore then people will buy second hand gamesThe solution is to make games people want to buy , rather than crippling or charging for older gamesWhat 's next the music industry charging more for older songs so that new songs will be played/bought instead ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They are in other words competing with their own older products, just like the car industryIf Ford started producing rubbish cars then the second hand car market would take up the slack and people who want a Ford would buy second hand carsIf the games industry are not producing games people want anymore then people will buy second hand gamesThe solution is to make games people want to buy, rather than crippling or charging for older gamesWhat's next the music industry charging more for older songs so that new songs will be played/bought instead?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0715259.31197804</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0715259.31232266</id>
	<title>Re:Weeeellllllllll.</title>
	<author>vuffi\_raa</author>
	<datestamp>1266865140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>online doesn't currently work for any of the custom firmwares as the psn link currently only allows authorized firmwares, you can't even browse the store ( which is pretty dumb if you ask me)</htmltext>
<tokenext>online does n't currently work for any of the custom firmwares as the psn link currently only allows authorized firmwares , you ca n't even browse the store ( which is pretty dumb if you ask me )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>online doesn't currently work for any of the custom firmwares as the psn link currently only allows authorized firmwares, you can't even browse the store ( which is pretty dumb if you ask me)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0715259.31197586</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0715259.31198898</id>
	<title>Re:Weeeellllllllll.</title>
	<author>furby076</author>
	<datestamp>1266593400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>While I don't object to the reward for buying brand new, I do object to having to register seperately to play online.  1) It's an extra step which I shouldn't have to take, and 2) It just means the game company will sell my information so I get more spam.</p><p>Well, I'll make sure to avoid any games that require me to register online to play online.  I've registered with Xbox live and PS3 network - i don't need to register anymore.  In fact, even games that have a seperate registeration to track my online progress - yea i could care less how I rank against the rest of the world so I never do it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>While I do n't object to the reward for buying brand new , I do object to having to register seperately to play online .
1 ) It 's an extra step which I should n't have to take , and 2 ) It just means the game company will sell my information so I get more spam.Well , I 'll make sure to avoid any games that require me to register online to play online .
I 've registered with Xbox live and PS3 network - i do n't need to register anymore .
In fact , even games that have a seperate registeration to track my online progress - yea i could care less how I rank against the rest of the world so I never do it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>While I don't object to the reward for buying brand new, I do object to having to register seperately to play online.
1) It's an extra step which I shouldn't have to take, and 2) It just means the game company will sell my information so I get more spam.Well, I'll make sure to avoid any games that require me to register online to play online.
I've registered with Xbox live and PS3 network - i don't need to register anymore.
In fact, even games that have a seperate registeration to track my online progress - yea i could care less how I rank against the rest of the world so I never do it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0715259.31197586</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0715259.31198722</id>
	<title>Why not gather together and BUY SONY</title>
	<author>JohnRoss1968</author>
	<datestamp>1266592440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If your so against how sony does business then put your money where your mouth is.<br>Slashdot should start up a fund to buy Sony stock. Also people could buy stock on their own and pledge to back up Slashdot in the boardroom if or when you had enough shares to have a voice at the stockholders meetings.<br>Just buy a share here and there and pledge to back a DRM Free Sony</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If your so against how sony does business then put your money where your mouth is.Slashdot should start up a fund to buy Sony stock .
Also people could buy stock on their own and pledge to back up Slashdot in the boardroom if or when you had enough shares to have a voice at the stockholders meetings.Just buy a share here and there and pledge to back a DRM Free Sony</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If your so against how sony does business then put your money where your mouth is.Slashdot should start up a fund to buy Sony stock.
Also people could buy stock on their own and pledge to back up Slashdot in the boardroom if or when you had enough shares to have a voice at the stockholders meetings.Just buy a share here and there and pledge to back a DRM Free Sony</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0715259.31201574</id>
	<title>They want it both ways...</title>
	<author>postermmxvicom</author>
	<datestamp>1266605400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>One thing that angers me, is how they want the benefits of selling a physical item<b> <i>and</i> </b> a license.<br> <br>

Do you want to sell me a license? Fine. Then I want to be able to archive my software any way I want so that I can use my license which you sold me long after your crappy software medium fails me. Why is my license even tied to something like a product key? Do I forfeit my right to the license I bought because your sticker wore off? Or because I forgot my key? Or because your company went under and your validation servers are offline? Do I forfeit my license because your disc broke? Why wont you replace the disc <b>at cost</b>. I <i>bought</i> the license already!!! I don't need to buy another license! What am I going to do with two licenses?<br> <br>

Do you want to sell me something instead of licensing it? No, you don't. So there isnt even any reason to bring up the hypothetical.</htmltext>
<tokenext>One thing that angers me , is how they want the benefits of selling a physical item and a license .
Do you want to sell me a license ?
Fine. Then I want to be able to archive my software any way I want so that I can use my license which you sold me long after your crappy software medium fails me .
Why is my license even tied to something like a product key ?
Do I forfeit my right to the license I bought because your sticker wore off ?
Or because I forgot my key ?
Or because your company went under and your validation servers are offline ?
Do I forfeit my license because your disc broke ?
Why wont you replace the disc at cost .
I bought the license already ! ! !
I do n't need to buy another license !
What am I going to do with two licenses ?
Do you want to sell me something instead of licensing it ?
No , you do n't .
So there isnt even any reason to bring up the hypothetical .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One thing that angers me, is how they want the benefits of selling a physical item and  a license.
Do you want to sell me a license?
Fine. Then I want to be able to archive my software any way I want so that I can use my license which you sold me long after your crappy software medium fails me.
Why is my license even tied to something like a product key?
Do I forfeit my right to the license I bought because your sticker wore off?
Or because I forgot my key?
Or because your company went under and your validation servers are offline?
Do I forfeit my license because your disc broke?
Why wont you replace the disc at cost.
I bought the license already!!!
I don't need to buy another license!
What am I going to do with two licenses?
Do you want to sell me something instead of licensing it?
No, you don't.
So there isnt even any reason to bring up the hypothetical.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0715259.31198104</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0715259.31197598</id>
	<title>Bypassing doctrine of first sale</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266582060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Digital downloads and online registration bypasses the doctrine/right of first sale which states, essentially that copyright owners cannot control downstream sales of the product purchased. For some reason, this is more difficult to apply to computer software, most likely because of eulas being supported by the courts.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Digital downloads and online registration bypasses the doctrine/right of first sale which states , essentially that copyright owners can not control downstream sales of the product purchased .
For some reason , this is more difficult to apply to computer software , most likely because of eulas being supported by the courts .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Digital downloads and online registration bypasses the doctrine/right of first sale which states, essentially that copyright owners cannot control downstream sales of the product purchased.
For some reason, this is more difficult to apply to computer software, most likely because of eulas being supported by the courts.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0715259.31198746</id>
	<title>Just say no!</title>
	<author>derekg52</author>
	<datestamp>1266592560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>As usual, vote with your wallet and refuse to purchase any game with this "feature".</htmltext>
<tokenext>As usual , vote with your wallet and refuse to purchase any game with this " feature " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As usual, vote with your wallet and refuse to purchase any game with this "feature".</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0715259.31198654</id>
	<title>Re:NOT PIRACY</title>
	<author>elrous0</author>
	<datestamp>1266592020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I've been saying for years that it was only a matter of time before every game you buy will require online registration before it will even boot and used games will be effectively outlawed. People used to scoff when I said that, but they don't anymore.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've been saying for years that it was only a matter of time before every game you buy will require online registration before it will even boot and used games will be effectively outlawed .
People used to scoff when I said that , but they do n't anymore .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've been saying for years that it was only a matter of time before every game you buy will require online registration before it will even boot and used games will be effectively outlawed.
People used to scoff when I said that, but they don't anymore.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0715259.31197638</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0715259.31197950</id>
	<title>Re:Someone doesn't like second hand market?</title>
	<author>erroneus</author>
	<datestamp>1266586140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>1. Most people STILL don't know about that.  What's more, some of the people I have discussed it with are not exactly joes on the street -- they are people with technical experience, knowledge and inclination.<br>2. It was so long ago, most people don't have that on the forefront of their minds.</p><p>With that said, I agree with you that it's a dumb move for Sony, but many many companies are becoming increasingly aggressive and arrogant when it comes to the consumer.  Perhaps their creation and backing of ACTA is making them somewhat overconfident.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>1 .
Most people STILL do n't know about that .
What 's more , some of the people I have discussed it with are not exactly joes on the street -- they are people with technical experience , knowledge and inclination.2 .
It was so long ago , most people do n't have that on the forefront of their minds.With that said , I agree with you that it 's a dumb move for Sony , but many many companies are becoming increasingly aggressive and arrogant when it comes to the consumer .
Perhaps their creation and backing of ACTA is making them somewhat overconfident .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>1.
Most people STILL don't know about that.
What's more, some of the people I have discussed it with are not exactly joes on the street -- they are people with technical experience, knowledge and inclination.2.
It was so long ago, most people don't have that on the forefront of their minds.With that said, I agree with you that it's a dumb move for Sony, but many many companies are becoming increasingly aggressive and arrogant when it comes to the consumer.
Perhaps their creation and backing of ACTA is making them somewhat overconfident.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0715259.31197590</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0715259.31200500</id>
	<title>Re:Used games are not harming the New Game Market!</title>
	<author>troll8901</author>
	<datestamp>1266600660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><nobr> <wbr></nobr></p><div class="quote"><p>... McDonalds claiming it is being harmed by Burger King.</p></div><p>No, no, it's McDonald's claiming it is being harmed by used McDonald's burgers.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>... McDonalds claiming it is being harmed by Burger King.No , no , it 's McDonald 's claiming it is being harmed by used McDonald 's burgers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> ... McDonalds claiming it is being harmed by Burger King.No, no, it's McDonald's claiming it is being harmed by used McDonald's burgers.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0715259.31197804</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0715259.31202474</id>
	<title>Re:Used games are not harming the New Game Market!</title>
	<author>WISGarageGuy</author>
	<datestamp>1266610680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I agree completely with this comment. I can't comprehend what would make the game industry believe they should get a cut of the used game market, it's completely ridiculous.

Giving DLC perks for new purchases, I suppose I can live with, but charging $20 to get online with a used version is crazy. Considering how poorly the PS3 has been doing since its release, I don't think Sony should be doing more to upset the gamers they depend on.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I agree completely with this comment .
I ca n't comprehend what would make the game industry believe they should get a cut of the used game market , it 's completely ridiculous .
Giving DLC perks for new purchases , I suppose I can live with , but charging $ 20 to get online with a used version is crazy .
Considering how poorly the PS3 has been doing since its release , I do n't think Sony should be doing more to upset the gamers they depend on .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I agree completely with this comment.
I can't comprehend what would make the game industry believe they should get a cut of the used game market, it's completely ridiculous.
Giving DLC perks for new purchases, I suppose I can live with, but charging $20 to get online with a used version is crazy.
Considering how poorly the PS3 has been doing since its release, I don't think Sony should be doing more to upset the gamers they depend on.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0715259.31197804</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0715259.31201448</id>
	<title>Re:Used games are not harming the New Game Market!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266604920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I am on the fence here.  On one hand, sony is entitled to a nominal fee to keep the online experience functioning.  After all they incur costs to run their servers and infrastructure.  Further the single copy of the game that gets resold 3 times, gets 2 times more use than sony anticipated with the original sale.  IE: if customer x buys the game and plays for a month online and then sells to customer y who plays online for 2 years etc. the original price didn't factor in the amount of use of the additional secondary customers.  So I guess sony is saying go ahead and resell the game, but if you do this particular copy will cost us more to maintain and therefore we should be entitled to recoup our costs.  The questions I have are: what will happen to the likes of Blockbuster and other game rental places if this happens?  I think this will backfire on sony and end up devaluing their product.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I am on the fence here .
On one hand , sony is entitled to a nominal fee to keep the online experience functioning .
After all they incur costs to run their servers and infrastructure .
Further the single copy of the game that gets resold 3 times , gets 2 times more use than sony anticipated with the original sale .
IE : if customer x buys the game and plays for a month online and then sells to customer y who plays online for 2 years etc .
the original price did n't factor in the amount of use of the additional secondary customers .
So I guess sony is saying go ahead and resell the game , but if you do this particular copy will cost us more to maintain and therefore we should be entitled to recoup our costs .
The questions I have are : what will happen to the likes of Blockbuster and other game rental places if this happens ?
I think this will backfire on sony and end up devaluing their product .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I am on the fence here.
On one hand, sony is entitled to a nominal fee to keep the online experience functioning.
After all they incur costs to run their servers and infrastructure.
Further the single copy of the game that gets resold 3 times, gets 2 times more use than sony anticipated with the original sale.
IE: if customer x buys the game and plays for a month online and then sells to customer y who plays online for 2 years etc.
the original price didn't factor in the amount of use of the additional secondary customers.
So I guess sony is saying go ahead and resell the game, but if you do this particular copy will cost us more to maintain and therefore we should be entitled to recoup our costs.
The questions I have are: what will happen to the likes of Blockbuster and other game rental places if this happens?
I think this will backfire on sony and end up devaluing their product.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0715259.31197804</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0715259.31197882</id>
	<title>Humph!</title>
	<author>backbyter</author>
	<datestamp>1266585360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I guess since the last game console I bought was a Magnavox Odyssey, this really doesn't affect me directly.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I guess since the last game console I bought was a Magnavox Odyssey , this really does n't affect me directly .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I guess since the last game console I bought was a Magnavox Odyssey, this really doesn't affect me directly.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0715259.31198448</id>
	<title>Aren't we just leasing the software anyway?</title>
	<author>GrubLord</author>
	<datestamp>1266590820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't know if that's how it is for games yet, but doesn't the agreement you have to click through to use just about any software nowadays basically say that you don't own the software, you are merely leasing the right to use (play) it?</p><p>If that's how the licenses on these games read, all this talk of first-sale rights and such becomes irrelevant.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't know if that 's how it is for games yet , but does n't the agreement you have to click through to use just about any software nowadays basically say that you do n't own the software , you are merely leasing the right to use ( play ) it ? If that 's how the licenses on these games read , all this talk of first-sale rights and such becomes irrelevant .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't know if that's how it is for games yet, but doesn't the agreement you have to click through to use just about any software nowadays basically say that you don't own the software, you are merely leasing the right to use (play) it?If that's how the licenses on these games read, all this talk of first-sale rights and such becomes irrelevant.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0715259.31201004</id>
	<title>Buying used games</title>
	<author>uxbn\_kuribo</author>
	<datestamp>1266603000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>What Sony forgets is that the majority of games that I buy used are stuff that I would never--- EVER--- have bought new.

I paid like $3 for a copy of Disaster Report for the PS2. Would I have paid $20 for that? Hell no.

The benefit you get from buying a game new as opposed to used are that it'll be in perfect condition, and you'll be one of the first people to be playing it. If you want it used--- and cheap--- you're going to be waiting 6 months to a year. (I'm not talking the difference between getting a game for $40 at GameStop as opposed to $50 brand new)</htmltext>
<tokenext>What Sony forgets is that the majority of games that I buy used are stuff that I would never--- EVER--- have bought new .
I paid like $ 3 for a copy of Disaster Report for the PS2 .
Would I have paid $ 20 for that ?
Hell no .
The benefit you get from buying a game new as opposed to used are that it 'll be in perfect condition , and you 'll be one of the first people to be playing it .
If you want it used--- and cheap--- you 're going to be waiting 6 months to a year .
( I 'm not talking the difference between getting a game for $ 40 at GameStop as opposed to $ 50 brand new )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What Sony forgets is that the majority of games that I buy used are stuff that I would never--- EVER--- have bought new.
I paid like $3 for a copy of Disaster Report for the PS2.
Would I have paid $20 for that?
Hell no.
The benefit you get from buying a game new as opposed to used are that it'll be in perfect condition, and you'll be one of the first people to be playing it.
If you want it used--- and cheap--- you're going to be waiting 6 months to a year.
(I'm not talking the difference between getting a game for $40 at GameStop as opposed to $50 brand new)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0715259.31199972</id>
	<title>Good Lord</title>
	<author>seven of five</author>
	<datestamp>1266598380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Twenty dollars only to sign up? Haven't they learned anything? They should be charging $20 every time you <i>play</i>. <br> <br>/sarcasm</htmltext>
<tokenext>Twenty dollars only to sign up ?
Have n't they learned anything ?
They should be charging $ 20 every time you play .
/sarcasm</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Twenty dollars only to sign up?
Haven't they learned anything?
They should be charging $20 every time you play.
/sarcasm</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0715259.31199882</id>
	<title>Why not download only?</title>
	<author>sqlrob</author>
	<datestamp>1266598020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sony has dabbled in a few download only titles for the PSP, with empty boxes with codes at various retailers.</p><p>Why didn't they do that here? It seems as if the backlash would be less.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sony has dabbled in a few download only titles for the PSP , with empty boxes with codes at various retailers.Why did n't they do that here ?
It seems as if the backlash would be less .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sony has dabbled in a few download only titles for the PSP, with empty boxes with codes at various retailers.Why didn't they do that here?
It seems as if the backlash would be less.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0715259.31198910</id>
	<title>Re:Used games are not harming the New Game Market!</title>
	<author>uncmathguy</author>
	<datestamp>1266593460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I like your argument, and here is another to support your thesis: people buy new games because they know they can resell them.  If this option were taken away, or highly devalued, then fewer people would buy games new.
<br> <br>
There is no way I'd spend $60 on a game to play through once and let it sit on a shelf.  However, if I thought I would sell it for $40 after I'm done, then that's only $20 for the experience.  Since plenty of people (myself included) probably plan on reselling and end up not, this must end up making money for game publishers.
<br> <br>
Of course I have no data to back up my claim.  Maybe Sony does.  But their move strikes me as odd: potentially fewer people will buy the game new because of lower resale value.  Additionally, because resale value will be lowered, the used copy will sell for less, and so be more appealing.
<br> <br>
Admittedly this is more true for those of us who don't play online as much, but for everyone else, Sony is simply making the products of their real competitors (other game publishers) more valuable.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I like your argument , and here is another to support your thesis : people buy new games because they know they can resell them .
If this option were taken away , or highly devalued , then fewer people would buy games new .
There is no way I 'd spend $ 60 on a game to play through once and let it sit on a shelf .
However , if I thought I would sell it for $ 40 after I 'm done , then that 's only $ 20 for the experience .
Since plenty of people ( myself included ) probably plan on reselling and end up not , this must end up making money for game publishers .
Of course I have no data to back up my claim .
Maybe Sony does .
But their move strikes me as odd : potentially fewer people will buy the game new because of lower resale value .
Additionally , because resale value will be lowered , the used copy will sell for less , and so be more appealing .
Admittedly this is more true for those of us who do n't play online as much , but for everyone else , Sony is simply making the products of their real competitors ( other game publishers ) more valuable .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I like your argument, and here is another to support your thesis: people buy new games because they know they can resell them.
If this option were taken away, or highly devalued, then fewer people would buy games new.
There is no way I'd spend $60 on a game to play through once and let it sit on a shelf.
However, if I thought I would sell it for $40 after I'm done, then that's only $20 for the experience.
Since plenty of people (myself included) probably plan on reselling and end up not, this must end up making money for game publishers.
Of course I have no data to back up my claim.
Maybe Sony does.
But their move strikes me as odd: potentially fewer people will buy the game new because of lower resale value.
Additionally, because resale value will be lowered, the used copy will sell for less, and so be more appealing.
Admittedly this is more true for those of us who don't play online as much, but for everyone else, Sony is simply making the products of their real competitors (other game publishers) more valuable.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0715259.31197804</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0715259.31197590</id>
	<title>Someone doesn't like second hand market?</title>
	<author>Sunnz</author>
	<datestamp>1266581940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Doesn't look like a smart move to me after all the bad press with the sony DRM and rootkit.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Does n't look like a smart move to me after all the bad press with the sony DRM and rootkit .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Doesn't look like a smart move to me after all the bad press with the sony DRM and rootkit.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0715259.31201430</id>
	<title>Re:It's a company. Of course it's right.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266604860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>He's a troll, you dumbass.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>He 's a troll , you dumbass .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>He's a troll, you dumbass.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0715259.31198760</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0715259.31199312</id>
	<title>Re:Used games are not harming the New Game Market!</title>
	<author>RemoWilliams84</author>
	<datestamp>1266595200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What I've always wondered is if these publishers are soo worried about not getting there cut from the used game market, why don't they print a little offer in every book saying that they will purchase your used games back from you.  Make an offer a little better than what Gamestop is giving, and maybe an incentive to take a credit for another purchase from that publisher.</p><p>That way people could sell there used Madden 07 back to EA for $8 instead of the $5 that gamestop would give you.  Then they could sell that used copy for $15 on the website.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What I 've always wondered is if these publishers are soo worried about not getting there cut from the used game market , why do n't they print a little offer in every book saying that they will purchase your used games back from you .
Make an offer a little better than what Gamestop is giving , and maybe an incentive to take a credit for another purchase from that publisher.That way people could sell there used Madden 07 back to EA for $ 8 instead of the $ 5 that gamestop would give you .
Then they could sell that used copy for $ 15 on the website .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What I've always wondered is if these publishers are soo worried about not getting there cut from the used game market, why don't they print a little offer in every book saying that they will purchase your used games back from you.
Make an offer a little better than what Gamestop is giving, and maybe an incentive to take a credit for another purchase from that publisher.That way people could sell there used Madden 07 back to EA for $8 instead of the $5 that gamestop would give you.
Then they could sell that used copy for $15 on the website.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0715259.31197804</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0715259.31198104</id>
	<title>Repeat</title>
	<author>Meneth</author>
	<datestamp>1266587880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Piracy is the better choice.

It's been said before, but apparently it hasn't gotten old yet.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Piracy is the better choice .
It 's been said before , but apparently it has n't gotten old yet .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Piracy is the better choice.
It's been said before, but apparently it hasn't gotten old yet.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0715259.31198228</id>
	<title>Re:It benefits the consumer, really.</title>
	<author>rastilin</author>
	<datestamp>1266589200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>They really are completely delusional. What benefit does this provide to the consumers that they'll react positively to? Is there even any theoretical benefit to the consumer? Maybe the research was done entirely among Sony executives.</p></div><p>At this point, it wouldn't surprise me at all to find out that one or more of the Sony executives are in the pay of their competition. It would make perfect sense.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>They really are completely delusional .
What benefit does this provide to the consumers that they 'll react positively to ?
Is there even any theoretical benefit to the consumer ?
Maybe the research was done entirely among Sony executives.At this point , it would n't surprise me at all to find out that one or more of the Sony executives are in the pay of their competition .
It would make perfect sense .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They really are completely delusional.
What benefit does this provide to the consumers that they'll react positively to?
Is there even any theoretical benefit to the consumer?
Maybe the research was done entirely among Sony executives.At this point, it wouldn't surprise me at all to find out that one or more of the Sony executives are in the pay of their competition.
It would make perfect sense.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0715259.31197616</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0715259.31198968</id>
	<title>Re:It's a company. Of course it's right.</title>
	<author>Gr8Apes</author>
	<datestamp>1266593760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><nobr> <wbr></nobr></p><div class="quote"><p>...it's due to the corporate interest to maximize their profit by taking away my right to a fair resale value as determined by the used game marketplace.</p></div><p>So don't buy the product from them in the first place.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>...it 's due to the corporate interest to maximize their profit by taking away my right to a fair resale value as determined by the used game marketplace.So do n't buy the product from them in the first place .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> ...it's due to the corporate interest to maximize their profit by taking away my right to a fair resale value as determined by the used game marketplace.So don't buy the product from them in the first place.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0715259.31198452</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0715259.31198696</id>
	<title>Bad for everyone, even Sony</title>
	<author>ProppaT</author>
	<datestamp>1266592320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I find it so weird that these companies aren't forward thinking enough to see how the used game market HUGELY benefits them.  A few scenarios:</p><p>1)  Gamer - A gamer is probably going to buy all the titles they're excited about at launch.  They'll then buy the titles they wanted to play, but could wait for, used.  Low and behold, they really liked this title they bought used.  They go back and buy all the downloadable content.  They're actually excited about the sequel and buy it brand new.  And probably buy the downloadable content for it as well.  And if they didn't care for it, whatever.  THESE are the people who are keeping the industry and niche markets afloat to begin with.</p><p>2)  Casual Gamer - This is the guy who's probably only interested in the big, flagship titles.  Give him the newest Mario, Halo, Madden etc. and he's set.  He's probably buying a few games a year and they're probably going to be new from the store.  He'll probably borrow games before he buys a lot of used ones.  Will probably buy some of the older games that came out before he got his system used.  He's kept EA afloat for years buying the newest Madden game.</p><p>3)  Kids - This is the crowd that really chews through the used games.  Mom and dad take the kids shopping and the kids want a game.  Mom says "pick out something under $10/$20."  They end up getting some terrible game used that probably shouldn't have ever been bought new to begin with.  Like it or not, besides birthdays and Christmas this is the only way these kids are ever going to get games to play.  Mom and dad can't afford $60 a pop.  Kids don't care that it's new, just that it seems cool.  The industry makes very little off of kids, but these kids get older and get jobs and they become the new gamers and casual gamers.</p><p>4)  The Mooch - Just be glad this guy even bothers buying used games.  At least that stimulates the economy.  Would probably be just as happy to download games and play them with a mod chip.  You're not going to convert this guy.  Don't waste your time.</p><p>Like the old adage says, "Any press is good press" and I think this is how the industry should look at used games.  People buying used games are buying advertisement that will entice them to buy future games in the series and other games from the developer.  The more games people play, the more people like games and the more games they buy.  And, regardless if the game is bought new or used, there is still money to be made off of the DLC.  It's not news that Sony wants, very badly, to turn the game industry into a cloud market.  You buy the game and basically play it through the internet.  You own no physical item, just the entitlement to play the game.  All this will do is thwart people from buying nothing but the top tier games.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I find it so weird that these companies are n't forward thinking enough to see how the used game market HUGELY benefits them .
A few scenarios : 1 ) Gamer - A gamer is probably going to buy all the titles they 're excited about at launch .
They 'll then buy the titles they wanted to play , but could wait for , used .
Low and behold , they really liked this title they bought used .
They go back and buy all the downloadable content .
They 're actually excited about the sequel and buy it brand new .
And probably buy the downloadable content for it as well .
And if they did n't care for it , whatever .
THESE are the people who are keeping the industry and niche markets afloat to begin with.2 ) Casual Gamer - This is the guy who 's probably only interested in the big , flagship titles .
Give him the newest Mario , Halo , Madden etc .
and he 's set .
He 's probably buying a few games a year and they 're probably going to be new from the store .
He 'll probably borrow games before he buys a lot of used ones .
Will probably buy some of the older games that came out before he got his system used .
He 's kept EA afloat for years buying the newest Madden game.3 ) Kids - This is the crowd that really chews through the used games .
Mom and dad take the kids shopping and the kids want a game .
Mom says " pick out something under $ 10/ $ 20 .
" They end up getting some terrible game used that probably should n't have ever been bought new to begin with .
Like it or not , besides birthdays and Christmas this is the only way these kids are ever going to get games to play .
Mom and dad ca n't afford $ 60 a pop .
Kids do n't care that it 's new , just that it seems cool .
The industry makes very little off of kids , but these kids get older and get jobs and they become the new gamers and casual gamers.4 ) The Mooch - Just be glad this guy even bothers buying used games .
At least that stimulates the economy .
Would probably be just as happy to download games and play them with a mod chip .
You 're not going to convert this guy .
Do n't waste your time.Like the old adage says , " Any press is good press " and I think this is how the industry should look at used games .
People buying used games are buying advertisement that will entice them to buy future games in the series and other games from the developer .
The more games people play , the more people like games and the more games they buy .
And , regardless if the game is bought new or used , there is still money to be made off of the DLC .
It 's not news that Sony wants , very badly , to turn the game industry into a cloud market .
You buy the game and basically play it through the internet .
You own no physical item , just the entitlement to play the game .
All this will do is thwart people from buying nothing but the top tier games .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I find it so weird that these companies aren't forward thinking enough to see how the used game market HUGELY benefits them.
A few scenarios:1)  Gamer - A gamer is probably going to buy all the titles they're excited about at launch.
They'll then buy the titles they wanted to play, but could wait for, used.
Low and behold, they really liked this title they bought used.
They go back and buy all the downloadable content.
They're actually excited about the sequel and buy it brand new.
And probably buy the downloadable content for it as well.
And if they didn't care for it, whatever.
THESE are the people who are keeping the industry and niche markets afloat to begin with.2)  Casual Gamer - This is the guy who's probably only interested in the big, flagship titles.
Give him the newest Mario, Halo, Madden etc.
and he's set.
He's probably buying a few games a year and they're probably going to be new from the store.
He'll probably borrow games before he buys a lot of used ones.
Will probably buy some of the older games that came out before he got his system used.
He's kept EA afloat for years buying the newest Madden game.3)  Kids - This is the crowd that really chews through the used games.
Mom and dad take the kids shopping and the kids want a game.
Mom says "pick out something under $10/$20.
"  They end up getting some terrible game used that probably shouldn't have ever been bought new to begin with.
Like it or not, besides birthdays and Christmas this is the only way these kids are ever going to get games to play.
Mom and dad can't afford $60 a pop.
Kids don't care that it's new, just that it seems cool.
The industry makes very little off of kids, but these kids get older and get jobs and they become the new gamers and casual gamers.4)  The Mooch - Just be glad this guy even bothers buying used games.
At least that stimulates the economy.
Would probably be just as happy to download games and play them with a mod chip.
You're not going to convert this guy.
Don't waste your time.Like the old adage says, "Any press is good press" and I think this is how the industry should look at used games.
People buying used games are buying advertisement that will entice them to buy future games in the series and other games from the developer.
The more games people play, the more people like games and the more games they buy.
And, regardless if the game is bought new or used, there is still money to be made off of the DLC.
It's not news that Sony wants, very badly, to turn the game industry into a cloud market.
You buy the game and basically play it through the internet.
You own no physical item, just the entitlement to play the game.
All this will do is thwart people from buying nothing but the top tier games.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0715259.31199560</id>
	<title>Re:Weeeellllllllll.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266596580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How will you play the game online without the code if you've pirated it?  This is actually an anti-piracy measure that also has the benefit of killing the used game market.</p><p>Personally I'm all up for it because the only people who benefit from the used game market are retailers who buy used games for a few dollars and resell them for close to the retail price.  Quite why anyone pays such high prices for used games is beyond me.</p><p>I'd rather see people buying new games and rewarding the developers than buying second hand games and rewarding Gamespot for screwing them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How will you play the game online without the code if you 've pirated it ?
This is actually an anti-piracy measure that also has the benefit of killing the used game market.Personally I 'm all up for it because the only people who benefit from the used game market are retailers who buy used games for a few dollars and resell them for close to the retail price .
Quite why anyone pays such high prices for used games is beyond me.I 'd rather see people buying new games and rewarding the developers than buying second hand games and rewarding Gamespot for screwing them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How will you play the game online without the code if you've pirated it?
This is actually an anti-piracy measure that also has the benefit of killing the used game market.Personally I'm all up for it because the only people who benefit from the used game market are retailers who buy used games for a few dollars and resell them for close to the retail price.
Quite why anyone pays such high prices for used games is beyond me.I'd rather see people buying new games and rewarding the developers than buying second hand games and rewarding Gamespot for screwing them.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0715259.31197586</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0715259.31197932</id>
	<title>Easy</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266586020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>It may not be as bad as it sounds. They are just selling two distinct goods: the software for the game and the multiplayer service. Reselling the game should mean the reselling of both. Thus, you register with generic or false information (assuming they aren't nuts and ask for a CC or SS for something you already paid for) and when selling the game, you sell the disk and the code.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It may not be as bad as it sounds .
They are just selling two distinct goods : the software for the game and the multiplayer service .
Reselling the game should mean the reselling of both .
Thus , you register with generic or false information ( assuming they are n't nuts and ask for a CC or SS for something you already paid for ) and when selling the game , you sell the disk and the code .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It may not be as bad as it sounds.
They are just selling two distinct goods: the software for the game and the multiplayer service.
Reselling the game should mean the reselling of both.
Thus, you register with generic or false information (assuming they aren't nuts and ask for a CC or SS for something you already paid for) and when selling the game, you sell the disk and the code.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0715259.31209212</id>
	<title>PC games that aren't rated M</title>
	<author>tepples</author>
	<datestamp>1266669720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I just thought of something else:<p><div class="quote"><p>Splitscreen is for after-school kid gamers, not adults</p></div><p>PC games that aren't rated M are "for after-school kid gamers". Why don't they support multiple gamepads?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I just thought of something else : Splitscreen is for after-school kid gamers , not adultsPC games that are n't rated M are " for after-school kid gamers " .
Why do n't they support multiple gamepads ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I just thought of something else:Splitscreen is for after-school kid gamers, not adultsPC games that aren't rated M are "for after-school kid gamers".
Why don't they support multiple gamepads?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0715259.31199838</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0715259.31199762</id>
	<title>Economics fail?</title>
	<author>Lemming Mark</author>
	<datestamp>1266597540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm no economist but doesn't this constitute a lack of understanding of how their market works?  These attacks on the used game market seem to be based on a logic that if the used game market didn't exist, people would buy the same stuff new at higher prices.  But that only works if customers have infinite amounts of money and a burning need to buy *that particular item* and no other, surely?  In which case they just need to shake the customers a bit harder and the money will fall out.  But people are actually buying this stuff on a limited budget, so if you force people to "buy new or not at all" they might just chose not to buy!  Also, as others have noted, part of the value of an item you buy is that you can resell.  If you can't resell then the value to you is reduced, so these games ought to cost less - if they don't then you're getting a worse deal than before, potentially balancing out any free DLC that might have been bundled.</p><p>There's a bigger problem of interacting markets though.  You can trade in games in order to help finance the purchase of new games.  Maybe you can't afford that new game that just came out but if you could trade in a couple of titles you're bored of you might *just* be able to stretch your budget a little and get it.  If the used games market disappeared there'd be no trade in and you wouldn't have made that new purchase at all.  Used games also help attract people into shops where they may buy other titles.  And people will take a risk on a used title and maybe get into a series.</p><p>Examples:<br>* I've bought a few games used that didn't get such good reviews and enjoyed them because I knew I hadn't wasted money.  I might trade those in to buy a new title I really want, rather than waiting for lower prices / sales.<br>* I bought Halo: CE used, Halo 3 on heavy discount (but new), Halo 2 used.  Loved Halo.  Bought Halo Wars and Halo 3: ODST new very soon after they came out because the cheap copies of the earlier games had got me interested.  I'll probably pre-order Reach because I'm confident in its quality and want to get it as soon as possible.<br>* I bought Mirror's Edge used.  Part of the reason I bought it was because it was inexpensive.  I loved it and will probably buy the sequel new as long as it has decent reviews.</p><p>If you eliminate the second hand market I would have been disinclined to risk trying new series that I might not like, so I might never have become early buyers of the future releases.  I might also be more wary of new purchases that I could not trade in, although to be fair I'm usually quite careful about selecting ones I'll want to keep when I do buy new.</p><p>Rather than trying to undermine the used market, publishers ought to realise that - unpalatable as it is - their customers do not have unlimited money to spend on their games so the used market is an important part of the ecosystem that keeps their sales going and keeps the games market overall healthy.  If they want to sell more new games all they have to do is make games that people can't wait to play; if people are thinking "meh, I'll buy that later" then it's because their customers don't place that high a value on the game.  That's either because they don't have the money (so it's not a lost sale) or they're not interested (you need to make better games and / or allow them to get into a series cheaply, maybe through used sales!).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm no economist but does n't this constitute a lack of understanding of how their market works ?
These attacks on the used game market seem to be based on a logic that if the used game market did n't exist , people would buy the same stuff new at higher prices .
But that only works if customers have infinite amounts of money and a burning need to buy * that particular item * and no other , surely ?
In which case they just need to shake the customers a bit harder and the money will fall out .
But people are actually buying this stuff on a limited budget , so if you force people to " buy new or not at all " they might just chose not to buy !
Also , as others have noted , part of the value of an item you buy is that you can resell .
If you ca n't resell then the value to you is reduced , so these games ought to cost less - if they do n't then you 're getting a worse deal than before , potentially balancing out any free DLC that might have been bundled.There 's a bigger problem of interacting markets though .
You can trade in games in order to help finance the purchase of new games .
Maybe you ca n't afford that new game that just came out but if you could trade in a couple of titles you 're bored of you might * just * be able to stretch your budget a little and get it .
If the used games market disappeared there 'd be no trade in and you would n't have made that new purchase at all .
Used games also help attract people into shops where they may buy other titles .
And people will take a risk on a used title and maybe get into a series.Examples : * I 've bought a few games used that did n't get such good reviews and enjoyed them because I knew I had n't wasted money .
I might trade those in to buy a new title I really want , rather than waiting for lower prices / sales .
* I bought Halo : CE used , Halo 3 on heavy discount ( but new ) , Halo 2 used .
Loved Halo .
Bought Halo Wars and Halo 3 : ODST new very soon after they came out because the cheap copies of the earlier games had got me interested .
I 'll probably pre-order Reach because I 'm confident in its quality and want to get it as soon as possible .
* I bought Mirror 's Edge used .
Part of the reason I bought it was because it was inexpensive .
I loved it and will probably buy the sequel new as long as it has decent reviews.If you eliminate the second hand market I would have been disinclined to risk trying new series that I might not like , so I might never have become early buyers of the future releases .
I might also be more wary of new purchases that I could not trade in , although to be fair I 'm usually quite careful about selecting ones I 'll want to keep when I do buy new.Rather than trying to undermine the used market , publishers ought to realise that - unpalatable as it is - their customers do not have unlimited money to spend on their games so the used market is an important part of the ecosystem that keeps their sales going and keeps the games market overall healthy .
If they want to sell more new games all they have to do is make games that people ca n't wait to play ; if people are thinking " meh , I 'll buy that later " then it 's because their customers do n't place that high a value on the game .
That 's either because they do n't have the money ( so it 's not a lost sale ) or they 're not interested ( you need to make better games and / or allow them to get into a series cheaply , maybe through used sales !
) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm no economist but doesn't this constitute a lack of understanding of how their market works?
These attacks on the used game market seem to be based on a logic that if the used game market didn't exist, people would buy the same stuff new at higher prices.
But that only works if customers have infinite amounts of money and a burning need to buy *that particular item* and no other, surely?
In which case they just need to shake the customers a bit harder and the money will fall out.
But people are actually buying this stuff on a limited budget, so if you force people to "buy new or not at all" they might just chose not to buy!
Also, as others have noted, part of the value of an item you buy is that you can resell.
If you can't resell then the value to you is reduced, so these games ought to cost less - if they don't then you're getting a worse deal than before, potentially balancing out any free DLC that might have been bundled.There's a bigger problem of interacting markets though.
You can trade in games in order to help finance the purchase of new games.
Maybe you can't afford that new game that just came out but if you could trade in a couple of titles you're bored of you might *just* be able to stretch your budget a little and get it.
If the used games market disappeared there'd be no trade in and you wouldn't have made that new purchase at all.
Used games also help attract people into shops where they may buy other titles.
And people will take a risk on a used title and maybe get into a series.Examples:* I've bought a few games used that didn't get such good reviews and enjoyed them because I knew I hadn't wasted money.
I might trade those in to buy a new title I really want, rather than waiting for lower prices / sales.
* I bought Halo: CE used, Halo 3 on heavy discount (but new), Halo 2 used.
Loved Halo.
Bought Halo Wars and Halo 3: ODST new very soon after they came out because the cheap copies of the earlier games had got me interested.
I'll probably pre-order Reach because I'm confident in its quality and want to get it as soon as possible.
* I bought Mirror's Edge used.
Part of the reason I bought it was because it was inexpensive.
I loved it and will probably buy the sequel new as long as it has decent reviews.If you eliminate the second hand market I would have been disinclined to risk trying new series that I might not like, so I might never have become early buyers of the future releases.
I might also be more wary of new purchases that I could not trade in, although to be fair I'm usually quite careful about selecting ones I'll want to keep when I do buy new.Rather than trying to undermine the used market, publishers ought to realise that - unpalatable as it is - their customers do not have unlimited money to spend on their games so the used market is an important part of the ecosystem that keeps their sales going and keeps the games market overall healthy.
If they want to sell more new games all they have to do is make games that people can't wait to play; if people are thinking "meh, I'll buy that later" then it's because their customers don't place that high a value on the game.
That's either because they don't have the money (so it's not a lost sale) or they're not interested (you need to make better games and / or allow them to get into a series cheaply, maybe through used sales!
).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0715259.31202964</id>
	<title>open source</title>
	<author>celle</author>
	<datestamp>1266612900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you don't like what a game corporation is doing then start supporting, contributing, and using open source games. It's not like there isn't plenty of them out there. This shit would go away if the market disappears. Damn whining babies and spoiled brats.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you do n't like what a game corporation is doing then start supporting , contributing , and using open source games .
It 's not like there is n't plenty of them out there .
This shit would go away if the market disappears .
Damn whining babies and spoiled brats .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you don't like what a game corporation is doing then start supporting, contributing, and using open source games.
It's not like there isn't plenty of them out there.
This shit would go away if the market disappears.
Damn whining babies and spoiled brats.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0715259.31198048</id>
	<title>Re:NOT PIRACY</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266587400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>This is what you (in general) get when you allow complicated licensing systems. Think of it as
the end product of a certain type of evolution - greedy corporate evolution.
<p>
E.g. music: "You didn't buy the album, you bought the right to listen - to that physical disc only"
</p><p>
E.g. windows: "Windows is licensed only to the original computer that it was installed on. You have no
right to resell this copy of Windows, even if you don't want to use it."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is what you ( in general ) get when you allow complicated licensing systems .
Think of it as the end product of a certain type of evolution - greedy corporate evolution .
E.g. music : " You did n't buy the album , you bought the right to listen - to that physical disc only " E.g .
windows : " Windows is licensed only to the original computer that it was installed on .
You have no right to resell this copy of Windows , even if you do n't want to use it .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is what you (in general) get when you allow complicated licensing systems.
Think of it as
the end product of a certain type of evolution - greedy corporate evolution.
E.g. music: "You didn't buy the album, you bought the right to listen - to that physical disc only"

E.g.
windows: "Windows is licensed only to the original computer that it was installed on.
You have no
right to resell this copy of Windows, even if you don't want to use it.
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0715259.31197638</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0715259.31198700</id>
	<title>The 2nd hand market is evil</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266592320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why should Gamestop and others sell a used game for 95\% of the cost of a new game and have no overhead because of it? That is where the evil is, they rip off the consumer when they trade games in for little cash or credit then jack up the used game to high profit levels. Sony should charge $40 to get the game to play online again, not $20. Fuck them all.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why should Gamestop and others sell a used game for 95 \ % of the cost of a new game and have no overhead because of it ?
That is where the evil is , they rip off the consumer when they trade games in for little cash or credit then jack up the used game to high profit levels .
Sony should charge $ 40 to get the game to play online again , not $ 20 .
Fuck them all .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why should Gamestop and others sell a used game for 95\% of the cost of a new game and have no overhead because of it?
That is where the evil is, they rip off the consumer when they trade games in for little cash or credit then jack up the used game to high profit levels.
Sony should charge $40 to get the game to play online again, not $20.
Fuck them all.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0715259.31197956</id>
	<title>Bad for customers, but not unique</title>
	<author>glebovitz</author>
	<datestamp>1266586140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I personally am against any corporations policy that limit the resale of of products that require a high upfront fee. As mentioned above, we need to draw a defining line between product purchases and subscriptions. I feel deceived when a purchase a software boxed set and discover that I only have a right to use the product, not transfer ownership.</p><p>For example, I bought a Rosetta Stone boxed language set and discovered that I only have the right to use the product and am barred from reselling it. They control this by requiring each user to register online.</p><p>I would be happy to pay a monthly subscription, but, resent paying the entire fee upfront. The upfront fee requires me to take all the risk. If I don't use the product, then I get no value and cannot recoup my costs. Under a subscription model, I pay an initiation fee plus a monthly subscription. The company gets an up front fee for providing the product, but we share the risk. I pay only for the value I receive.</p><p>I like the TiVo model the best. I pay a monthly subscription fee, but have the option of purchasing a life time subscription. The life time  subscription is permanent and can be transferred with the TiVo device. That way I have a choice of an upfront transferable versus low monthly subscription fee.</p><p>
&nbsp;</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I personally am against any corporations policy that limit the resale of of products that require a high upfront fee .
As mentioned above , we need to draw a defining line between product purchases and subscriptions .
I feel deceived when a purchase a software boxed set and discover that I only have a right to use the product , not transfer ownership.For example , I bought a Rosetta Stone boxed language set and discovered that I only have the right to use the product and am barred from reselling it .
They control this by requiring each user to register online.I would be happy to pay a monthly subscription , but , resent paying the entire fee upfront .
The upfront fee requires me to take all the risk .
If I do n't use the product , then I get no value and can not recoup my costs .
Under a subscription model , I pay an initiation fee plus a monthly subscription .
The company gets an up front fee for providing the product , but we share the risk .
I pay only for the value I receive.I like the TiVo model the best .
I pay a monthly subscription fee , but have the option of purchasing a life time subscription .
The life time subscription is permanent and can be transferred with the TiVo device .
That way I have a choice of an upfront transferable versus low monthly subscription fee .
 </tokentext>
<sentencetext>I personally am against any corporations policy that limit the resale of of products that require a high upfront fee.
As mentioned above, we need to draw a defining line between product purchases and subscriptions.
I feel deceived when a purchase a software boxed set and discover that I only have a right to use the product, not transfer ownership.For example, I bought a Rosetta Stone boxed language set and discovered that I only have the right to use the product and am barred from reselling it.
They control this by requiring each user to register online.I would be happy to pay a monthly subscription, but, resent paying the entire fee upfront.
The upfront fee requires me to take all the risk.
If I don't use the product, then I get no value and cannot recoup my costs.
Under a subscription model, I pay an initiation fee plus a monthly subscription.
The company gets an up front fee for providing the product, but we share the risk.
I pay only for the value I receive.I like the TiVo model the best.
I pay a monthly subscription fee, but have the option of purchasing a life time subscription.
The life time  subscription is permanent and can be transferred with the TiVo device.
That way I have a choice of an upfront transferable versus low monthly subscription fee.
 </sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0715259.31208694</id>
	<title>Re:Sony isn't the first</title>
	<author>pandrijeczko</author>
	<datestamp>1266659220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'll give Valve some credit here - I purchased Half-Life 2 quite soon after it was released, then Valve released "The Orange Box" which had Portal, Team Fortress 2 and Half-Life 2 in it which I also bought. I was able to transfer my original Half-Life 2 license over to somebody else.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'll give Valve some credit here - I purchased Half-Life 2 quite soon after it was released , then Valve released " The Orange Box " which had Portal , Team Fortress 2 and Half-Life 2 in it which I also bought .
I was able to transfer my original Half-Life 2 license over to somebody else .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'll give Valve some credit here - I purchased Half-Life 2 quite soon after it was released, then Valve released "The Orange Box" which had Portal, Team Fortress 2 and Half-Life 2 in it which I also bought.
I was able to transfer my original Half-Life 2 license over to somebody else.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0715259.31204440</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0715259.31197586</id>
	<title>Weeeellllllllll.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266581940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If memory serves, isn't the PSP one of those systems it's (relatively) easy to pirate for?</p><p>I have a feeling Sony has traded getting no money from resales to getting no money because everyone's downloading a cracked version.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If memory serves , is n't the PSP one of those systems it 's ( relatively ) easy to pirate for ? I have a feeling Sony has traded getting no money from resales to getting no money because everyone 's downloading a cracked version .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If memory serves, isn't the PSP one of those systems it's (relatively) easy to pirate for?I have a feeling Sony has traded getting no money from resales to getting no money because everyone's downloading a cracked version.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0715259.31199966</id>
	<title>Re:Used games are not harming the New Game Market!</title>
	<author>brkello</author>
	<datestamp>1266598380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You wrote a lot but you make it overly complex.  It isn't, it is very simple.<br> <br>When people by new games, the game company gets money.  When people by used games, the game company doesn't get money. How you want to define harming is up to you, but the above it a fact.  So they came up with a scheme where they can make money off of those used sales now.  IANAL, but they sell you a license to use the game...not the game itself.  They can legally charge whatever they want because you are exchanging a license.  They can just say certain parts of the license doesn't transfer and make the other person pay.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You wrote a lot but you make it overly complex .
It is n't , it is very simple .
When people by new games , the game company gets money .
When people by used games , the game company does n't get money .
How you want to define harming is up to you , but the above it a fact .
So they came up with a scheme where they can make money off of those used sales now .
IANAL , but they sell you a license to use the game...not the game itself .
They can legally charge whatever they want because you are exchanging a license .
They can just say certain parts of the license does n't transfer and make the other person pay .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You wrote a lot but you make it overly complex.
It isn't, it is very simple.
When people by new games, the game company gets money.
When people by used games, the game company doesn't get money.
How you want to define harming is up to you, but the above it a fact.
So they came up with a scheme where they can make money off of those used sales now.
IANAL, but they sell you a license to use the game...not the game itself.
They can legally charge whatever they want because you are exchanging a license.
They can just say certain parts of the license doesn't transfer and make the other person pay.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0715259.31197804</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0715259.31198906</id>
	<title>Re:It's a company. Of course it's right.</title>
	<author>nurb432</author>
	<datestamp>1266593460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Until its a monopoly in a 'critical sector' i totally agree.</p><p>Its just a video game...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Until its a monopoly in a 'critical sector ' i totally agree.Its just a video game.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Until its a monopoly in a 'critical sector' i totally agree.Its just a video game...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0715259.31197816</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0715259.31202270</id>
	<title>Re:Used games are not harming the New Game Market!</title>
	<author>Khyber</author>
	<datestamp>1266609360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"The money from that sale goes to store, not the publisher. "</p><p>Uh, FUCKING DUH, because the store ALREADY PAID THE PUBLISHER TO HAVE THE GAMES ON THE SHELVES.</p><p>What, don't you know how business works? Pay for a product, mark it up, make profit.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" The money from that sale goes to store , not the publisher .
" Uh , FUCKING DUH , because the store ALREADY PAID THE PUBLISHER TO HAVE THE GAMES ON THE SHELVES.What , do n't you know how business works ?
Pay for a product , mark it up , make profit .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"The money from that sale goes to store, not the publisher.
"Uh, FUCKING DUH, because the store ALREADY PAID THE PUBLISHER TO HAVE THE GAMES ON THE SHELVES.What, don't you know how business works?
Pay for a product, mark it up, make profit.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0715259.31198094</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0715259.31199828</id>
	<title>Game companies keep digging their own graves</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266597840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Even regular people will get fed up with all the DRM and limitations that game companies keep pushing forward.</p><p>Oh look, MAME and over three decades of games we can run for FUCKING FREE!</p><p>Have fun, EA, Sony, Blizzard and all the other screwballs out there!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Even regular people will get fed up with all the DRM and limitations that game companies keep pushing forward.Oh look , MAME and over three decades of games we can run for FUCKING FREE ! Have fun , EA , Sony , Blizzard and all the other screwballs out there !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Even regular people will get fed up with all the DRM and limitations that game companies keep pushing forward.Oh look, MAME and over three decades of games we can run for FUCKING FREE!Have fun, EA, Sony, Blizzard and all the other screwballs out there!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0715259.31200490</id>
	<title>How is this the same bandwagon?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266600600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't see how this is the same bandwagon - it seems to me like they are completely opposite approaches. EA is rewarding people who buy new copies, while Sony is punishing people who buy second-hand.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't see how this is the same bandwagon - it seems to me like they are completely opposite approaches .
EA is rewarding people who buy new copies , while Sony is punishing people who buy second-hand .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't see how this is the same bandwagon - it seems to me like they are completely opposite approaches.
EA is rewarding people who buy new copies, while Sony is punishing people who buy second-hand.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0715259.31202374</id>
	<title>Re:Weeeellllllllll.</title>
	<author>h4rr4r</author>
	<datestamp>1266610260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>high prices?<br>I am buying ps2 games for 5-10 dollars. New would be 20-40.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>high prices ? I am buying ps2 games for 5-10 dollars .
New would be 20-40 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>high prices?I am buying ps2 games for 5-10 dollars.
New would be 20-40.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0715259.31199560</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0715259.31229914</id>
	<title>Used, not pre-owned</title>
	<author>AP31R0N</author>
	<datestamp>1266857580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>1) Pre is inappropriate for verbs<br>2) Pre means chronologically before, so pre-owned would mean before owned, NOT owned before.  Which would mean that it was never owned.  We have a term for a product no one has owned... NEW.<br>3) We have a term for something someone has used... USED.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>1 ) Pre is inappropriate for verbs2 ) Pre means chronologically before , so pre-owned would mean before owned , NOT owned before .
Which would mean that it was never owned .
We have a term for a product no one has owned... NEW.3 ) We have a term for something someone has used... USED .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>1) Pre is inappropriate for verbs2) Pre means chronologically before, so pre-owned would mean before owned, NOT owned before.
Which would mean that it was never owned.
We have a term for a product no one has owned... NEW.3) We have a term for something someone has used... USED.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0715259.31197816</id>
	<title>It's a company. Of course it's right.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266584700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A company can do whatever the hell it wants! Nobody forces you to buy these games after all. Between bong hits, you hippies whine that policies like this lead to decreased consumer choice, greater entrenchment of established players, less innovation, and <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rent\_seeking" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">price increases</a> [wikipedia.org] across the board. So what? That's just too bad. The right of a corporation to do anything it wants it spelled out in the Book of Job. If a corporation does it, that makes it right.</p><p>Still whining, huh? Are <i>you</i> a successful executive? No? When what business do you have talking about anything, loser? Don't like it? Go read a book, or move to a France, or preferably, impress your boss by putting in 12 hours at work tomorrow instead of the expected 10.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A company can do whatever the hell it wants !
Nobody forces you to buy these games after all .
Between bong hits , you hippies whine that policies like this lead to decreased consumer choice , greater entrenchment of established players , less innovation , and price increases [ wikipedia.org ] across the board .
So what ?
That 's just too bad .
The right of a corporation to do anything it wants it spelled out in the Book of Job .
If a corporation does it , that makes it right.Still whining , huh ?
Are you a successful executive ?
No ? When what business do you have talking about anything , loser ?
Do n't like it ?
Go read a book , or move to a France , or preferably , impress your boss by putting in 12 hours at work tomorrow instead of the expected 10 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A company can do whatever the hell it wants!
Nobody forces you to buy these games after all.
Between bong hits, you hippies whine that policies like this lead to decreased consumer choice, greater entrenchment of established players, less innovation, and price increases [wikipedia.org] across the board.
So what?
That's just too bad.
The right of a corporation to do anything it wants it spelled out in the Book of Job.
If a corporation does it, that makes it right.Still whining, huh?
Are you a successful executive?
No? When what business do you have talking about anything, loser?
Don't like it?
Go read a book, or move to a France, or preferably, impress your boss by putting in 12 hours at work tomorrow instead of the expected 10.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0715259.31198732</id>
	<title>Re:Someone doesn't like second hand market?</title>
	<author>elrous0</author>
	<datestamp>1266592500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The bad press about the rootkit never made it to mainstream media, and even so is long since forgotten. This is Sony we're talking about. They ALWAYS put profit and control above everything else. What little bad press they get out of doing stuff like this will pale in comparison to the money they will make if they can effectively used stuff like this to destroy the used game/DVD market.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The bad press about the rootkit never made it to mainstream media , and even so is long since forgotten .
This is Sony we 're talking about .
They ALWAYS put profit and control above everything else .
What little bad press they get out of doing stuff like this will pale in comparison to the money they will make if they can effectively used stuff like this to destroy the used game/DVD market .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The bad press about the rootkit never made it to mainstream media, and even so is long since forgotten.
This is Sony we're talking about.
They ALWAYS put profit and control above everything else.
What little bad press they get out of doing stuff like this will pale in comparison to the money they will make if they can effectively used stuff like this to destroy the used game/DVD market.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0715259.31197590</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0715259.31197802</id>
	<title>Re:It benefits the consumer, really.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266584640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm pretty sure their research has shown that the majority of gamers has no clue when it comes to these things and the few loudmouths that complain will fall in line because they are weak.</p><p>Saying "it will be received positively" means: "There won't be any negative consequences for us because our customers are chumps".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm pretty sure their research has shown that the majority of gamers has no clue when it comes to these things and the few loudmouths that complain will fall in line because they are weak.Saying " it will be received positively " means : " There wo n't be any negative consequences for us because our customers are chumps " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm pretty sure their research has shown that the majority of gamers has no clue when it comes to these things and the few loudmouths that complain will fall in line because they are weak.Saying "it will be received positively" means: "There won't be any negative consequences for us because our customers are chumps".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0715259.31197616</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0715259.31202900</id>
	<title>It's not just Sony by any means</title>
	<author>thetoadwarrior</author>
	<datestamp>1266612540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>As some may recall Mark Rein, from Epic Games, had a hard-on for bitching about used games for awhile. Most every publisher if tired sequels has done too.
<br> <br>
We like to talk about how big gaming is but if it's so big and well accepted now then how come they can't handle used sales like movies, books and music?
<br> <br>
Why do they often need to make employees work long loads of overtime for free?
<br> <br>
Why do prices have to keep increasing despite using cheaper media and having more customers?
<br> <br>
I really do like gaming but I don't think it's any surprise I play old games only new games from very specific publishers. I think in general gaming has jumped right into that area pop music is now and in general they just churn out shit people don't value. They play it because it's something to do but they don't really value it because they know it's shit.</htmltext>
<tokenext>As some may recall Mark Rein , from Epic Games , had a hard-on for bitching about used games for awhile .
Most every publisher if tired sequels has done too .
We like to talk about how big gaming is but if it 's so big and well accepted now then how come they ca n't handle used sales like movies , books and music ?
Why do they often need to make employees work long loads of overtime for free ?
Why do prices have to keep increasing despite using cheaper media and having more customers ?
I really do like gaming but I do n't think it 's any surprise I play old games only new games from very specific publishers .
I think in general gaming has jumped right into that area pop music is now and in general they just churn out shit people do n't value .
They play it because it 's something to do but they do n't really value it because they know it 's shit .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As some may recall Mark Rein, from Epic Games, had a hard-on for bitching about used games for awhile.
Most every publisher if tired sequels has done too.
We like to talk about how big gaming is but if it's so big and well accepted now then how come they can't handle used sales like movies, books and music?
Why do they often need to make employees work long loads of overtime for free?
Why do prices have to keep increasing despite using cheaper media and having more customers?
I really do like gaming but I don't think it's any surprise I play old games only new games from very specific publishers.
I think in general gaming has jumped right into that area pop music is now and in general they just churn out shit people don't value.
They play it because it's something to do but they don't really value it because they know it's shit.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0715259.31197590</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0715259.31199442</id>
	<title>I just bought MW2</title>
	<author>emanem</author>
	<datestamp>1266595980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>and it took me <b>only</b> 5 hrs to complete. If HMV gives me 40\% or more of the mkt price I'll be more than happy to bring it back to them.<br>
Sorry SONY but I don't give a cr*p when in first instance your games cost 50 GBP!!!! If I can have a little return/buy them at lower price, as in a <b>real</b> market scr*w you!<br>
Ciao!</htmltext>
<tokenext>and it took me only 5 hrs to complete .
If HMV gives me 40 \ % or more of the mkt price I 'll be more than happy to bring it back to them .
Sorry SONY but I do n't give a cr * p when in first instance your games cost 50 GBP ! ! ! !
If I can have a little return/buy them at lower price , as in a real market scr * w you !
Ciao !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>and it took me only 5 hrs to complete.
If HMV gives me 40\% or more of the mkt price I'll be more than happy to bring it back to them.
Sorry SONY but I don't give a cr*p when in first instance your games cost 50 GBP!!!!
If I can have a little return/buy them at lower price, as in a real market scr*w you!
Ciao!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0715259.31198526</id>
	<title>bad kitty</title>
	<author>flahwho</author>
	<datestamp>1266591300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>"... anyone buying a pre-owned copy of the game will be forced to cough up $20 to obtain a code to play online."
<br>
<br>
The only thing I'm coughing up is a hairball.
<br>
<br>
--<br>
I wanna be anarchy</htmltext>
<tokenext>" ... anyone buying a pre-owned copy of the game will be forced to cough up $ 20 to obtain a code to play online .
" The only thing I 'm coughing up is a hairball .
-- I wan na be anarchy</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"... anyone buying a pre-owned copy of the game will be forced to cough up $20 to obtain a code to play online.
"


The only thing I'm coughing up is a hairball.
--
I wanna be anarchy</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0715259.31199370</id>
	<title>The Truth</title>
	<author>Majinace</author>
	<datestamp>1266595560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Okay dudes, I think everyone has had their fun. The real truth is no one is going to be playing SOCOM regardless of anything.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Okay dudes , I think everyone has had their fun .
The real truth is no one is going to be playing SOCOM regardless of anything .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Okay dudes, I think everyone has had their fun.
The real truth is no one is going to be playing SOCOM regardless of anything.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0715259.31203550</id>
	<title>Re:Weeeellllllllll.</title>
	<author>Mr\_Silver</author>
	<datestamp>1266571800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>If memory serves, isn't the PSP one of those systems it's (relatively) easy to pirate for?</p></div></blockquote><p>Yes and No. PSP's up to the TA-088v3 motherboard (which were generally up till PSP-2000's released last year) were pretty each to hack and install custom firmware.</p><p>To this day, no-one has currently managed to get CFW working on TA-088v3's, the PSP-3000's and the PSP-Go's. There is one homebrew enabler, but it gets lost when you power-cycle the PSP - which means it's not quite as useful as it could be.</p><p>On top of that, the main CFW hacker (Dark Alex) appears to have thrown in the towel and the remaining people have been unable to crack open the 6.0 firmware. So everyone has generally upgraded to 5.33 GEN-B and have had to patch any 6.0 only games to get them to run.</p><p>At some point, Sony will find a way to lock them out too - and when that happens (and given the current "recent success" of the homebrew community) then there won't be any way left to either run homebrew or pirate games.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If memory serves , is n't the PSP one of those systems it 's ( relatively ) easy to pirate for ? Yes and No .
PSP 's up to the TA-088v3 motherboard ( which were generally up till PSP-2000 's released last year ) were pretty each to hack and install custom firmware.To this day , no-one has currently managed to get CFW working on TA-088v3 's , the PSP-3000 's and the PSP-Go 's .
There is one homebrew enabler , but it gets lost when you power-cycle the PSP - which means it 's not quite as useful as it could be.On top of that , the main CFW hacker ( Dark Alex ) appears to have thrown in the towel and the remaining people have been unable to crack open the 6.0 firmware .
So everyone has generally upgraded to 5.33 GEN-B and have had to patch any 6.0 only games to get them to run.At some point , Sony will find a way to lock them out too - and when that happens ( and given the current " recent success " of the homebrew community ) then there wo n't be any way left to either run homebrew or pirate games .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If memory serves, isn't the PSP one of those systems it's (relatively) easy to pirate for?Yes and No.
PSP's up to the TA-088v3 motherboard (which were generally up till PSP-2000's released last year) were pretty each to hack and install custom firmware.To this day, no-one has currently managed to get CFW working on TA-088v3's, the PSP-3000's and the PSP-Go's.
There is one homebrew enabler, but it gets lost when you power-cycle the PSP - which means it's not quite as useful as it could be.On top of that, the main CFW hacker (Dark Alex) appears to have thrown in the towel and the remaining people have been unable to crack open the 6.0 firmware.
So everyone has generally upgraded to 5.33 GEN-B and have had to patch any 6.0 only games to get them to run.At some point, Sony will find a way to lock them out too - and when that happens (and given the current "recent success" of the homebrew community) then there won't be any way left to either run homebrew or pirate games.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0715259.31197586</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0715259.31199074</id>
	<title>Re:Weeeellllllllll.</title>
	<author>0100010001010011</author>
	<datestamp>1266594120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Different divisions most likely.</p><p>Sony is a massive company. So large that sometimes the left hand doesn't know what the right is doing. I seem to remember a story about how Sony Music had a fit about Sony's MP3 Player. Because "MP3s were stealing".</p><p>I bet the PSP division wants as many people to buy the hardware as possible and doesn't care why. The games division is probably the one that is doing this.</p><p>Internal politics suck.</p><p>My Sony WEGA was one of the best TV's I ever owned. My dad still is using it at home with a converter box.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Different divisions most likely.Sony is a massive company .
So large that sometimes the left hand does n't know what the right is doing .
I seem to remember a story about how Sony Music had a fit about Sony 's MP3 Player .
Because " MP3s were stealing " .I bet the PSP division wants as many people to buy the hardware as possible and does n't care why .
The games division is probably the one that is doing this.Internal politics suck.My Sony WEGA was one of the best TV 's I ever owned .
My dad still is using it at home with a converter box .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Different divisions most likely.Sony is a massive company.
So large that sometimes the left hand doesn't know what the right is doing.
I seem to remember a story about how Sony Music had a fit about Sony's MP3 Player.
Because "MP3s were stealing".I bet the PSP division wants as many people to buy the hardware as possible and doesn't care why.
The games division is probably the one that is doing this.Internal politics suck.My Sony WEGA was one of the best TV's I ever owned.
My dad still is using it at home with a converter box.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0715259.31197586</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0715259.31198094</id>
	<title>Re:Used games are not harming the New Game Market!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266587820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>So many people think that the used game market is somehow harming the new game market. They are completely wrong. Through the magic of a priori reasoning, I know that you cannot be harmed merely because you're not getting what you are not entitled.</i>
<p>
Of course it harms new game sales. If someone can buy a new game for $60 vs a used game for $50 then obviously some people would choose the latter. The money from that sale goes to store, not the publisher.
</p><p>
How much they're losing is the big question. I wouldn't be surprised if it were 10-15\% of sales, more on some titles. Publishers should thank their stars that the likes of Gamestop are so greedy. If second hand prices were more reasonable I expect the \% loss would be even higher.
</p><p>
How do publishers combat the issue or clawback money?
</p><p>
The obvious way, the way that the likes of EA and others are following is to start bundling redemption codes in the box. But it only works games with a substantial multiplayer / online element. Doing so means second hand owners get a crippled game (e.g. because other people have the map pack that they don't) and must purchase the missing component on line. Also, since the second hand game is crippled its resale price is less and therefore people may be discouraged from selling the game since they get less for it.
</p><p>
A better way IMO is to produce decent games in the first place and to support them longer. People sell crap titles, those with no replay value and those where the servers are dead. Raise the quality bar and people will naturally be inclined to hang onto their titles longer. The less games in the second hand channel, the more people are likely to buy new.
</p><p>
Personally I buy most of my games brand new but I restrict myself to games which are highly rated. I don't see the point of rewarding bad games or bad publishers.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So many people think that the used game market is somehow harming the new game market .
They are completely wrong .
Through the magic of a priori reasoning , I know that you can not be harmed merely because you 're not getting what you are not entitled .
Of course it harms new game sales .
If someone can buy a new game for $ 60 vs a used game for $ 50 then obviously some people would choose the latter .
The money from that sale goes to store , not the publisher .
How much they 're losing is the big question .
I would n't be surprised if it were 10-15 \ % of sales , more on some titles .
Publishers should thank their stars that the likes of Gamestop are so greedy .
If second hand prices were more reasonable I expect the \ % loss would be even higher .
How do publishers combat the issue or clawback money ?
The obvious way , the way that the likes of EA and others are following is to start bundling redemption codes in the box .
But it only works games with a substantial multiplayer / online element .
Doing so means second hand owners get a crippled game ( e.g .
because other people have the map pack that they do n't ) and must purchase the missing component on line .
Also , since the second hand game is crippled its resale price is less and therefore people may be discouraged from selling the game since they get less for it .
A better way IMO is to produce decent games in the first place and to support them longer .
People sell crap titles , those with no replay value and those where the servers are dead .
Raise the quality bar and people will naturally be inclined to hang onto their titles longer .
The less games in the second hand channel , the more people are likely to buy new .
Personally I buy most of my games brand new but I restrict myself to games which are highly rated .
I do n't see the point of rewarding bad games or bad publishers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So many people think that the used game market is somehow harming the new game market.
They are completely wrong.
Through the magic of a priori reasoning, I know that you cannot be harmed merely because you're not getting what you are not entitled.
Of course it harms new game sales.
If someone can buy a new game for $60 vs a used game for $50 then obviously some people would choose the latter.
The money from that sale goes to store, not the publisher.
How much they're losing is the big question.
I wouldn't be surprised if it were 10-15\% of sales, more on some titles.
Publishers should thank their stars that the likes of Gamestop are so greedy.
If second hand prices were more reasonable I expect the \% loss would be even higher.
How do publishers combat the issue or clawback money?
The obvious way, the way that the likes of EA and others are following is to start bundling redemption codes in the box.
But it only works games with a substantial multiplayer / online element.
Doing so means second hand owners get a crippled game (e.g.
because other people have the map pack that they don't) and must purchase the missing component on line.
Also, since the second hand game is crippled its resale price is less and therefore people may be discouraged from selling the game since they get less for it.
A better way IMO is to produce decent games in the first place and to support them longer.
People sell crap titles, those with no replay value and those where the servers are dead.
Raise the quality bar and people will naturally be inclined to hang onto their titles longer.
The less games in the second hand channel, the more people are likely to buy new.
Personally I buy most of my games brand new but I restrict myself to games which are highly rated.
I don't see the point of rewarding bad games or bad publishers.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0715259.31197804</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_19_0715259_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0715259.31197816
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0715259.31198760
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0715259.31201430
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_19_0715259_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0715259.31197590
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0715259.31202900
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_19_0715259_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0715259.31197600
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0715259.31198052
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0715259.31198622
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_19_0715259_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0715259.31197870
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0715259.31198912
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_19_0715259_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0715259.31197586
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0715259.31203550
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_19_0715259_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0715259.31197816
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0715259.31210892
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_19_0715259_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0715259.31197616
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0715259.31197960
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_19_0715259_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0715259.31197586
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0715259.31199074
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_19_0715259_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0715259.31197638
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0715259.31198012
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0715259.31199838
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0715259.31209212
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_19_0715259_59</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0715259.31198104
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0715259.31201574
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_19_0715259_64</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0715259.31197638
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0715259.31199880
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_19_0715259_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0715259.31197816
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0715259.31198452
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0715259.31198968
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_19_0715259_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0715259.31197616
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0715259.31198228
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_19_0715259_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0715259.31197804
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0715259.31198990
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_19_0715259_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0715259.31197816
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0715259.31198886
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_19_0715259_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0715259.31197586
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0715259.31200244
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_19_0715259_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0715259.31197616
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0715259.31201366
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_19_0715259_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0715259.31197586
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0715259.31232266
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_19_0715259_61</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0715259.31197816
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0715259.31199700
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_19_0715259_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0715259.31197590
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0715259.31198732
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_19_0715259_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0715259.31197816
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0715259.31198906
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_19_0715259_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0715259.31197590
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0715259.31197950
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_19_0715259_62</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0715259.31197600
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0715259.31198614
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_19_0715259_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0715259.31197638
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0715259.31201356
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_19_0715259_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0715259.31197930
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0715259.31204536
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_19_0715259_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0715259.31197804
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0715259.31198094
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0715259.31202270
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_19_0715259_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0715259.31197586
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0715259.31211542
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_19_0715259_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0715259.31197586
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0715259.31198898
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_19_0715259_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0715259.31198784
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0715259.31206306
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_19_0715259_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0715259.31197930
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0715259.31201782
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_19_0715259_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0715259.31197804
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0715259.31198100
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_19_0715259_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0715259.31197804
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0715259.31200500
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_19_0715259_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0715259.31197586
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0715259.31208418
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_19_0715259_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0715259.31197598
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0715259.31200640
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_19_0715259_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0715259.31197816
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0715259.31199342
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_19_0715259_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0715259.31197930
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0715259.31198388
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_19_0715259_58</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0715259.31197638
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0715259.31203380
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_19_0715259_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0715259.31197804
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0715259.31198910
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_19_0715259_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0715259.31197600
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0715259.31198876
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_19_0715259_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0715259.31197804
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0715259.31199966
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_19_0715259_65</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0715259.31198104
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0715259.31200864
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_19_0715259_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0715259.31197586
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0715259.31199560
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0715259.31200266
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_19_0715259_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0715259.31204440
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0715259.31208694
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_19_0715259_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0715259.31197880
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0715259.31198208
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_19_0715259_57</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0715259.31197804
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0715259.31199312
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_19_0715259_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0715259.31197598
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0715259.31197928
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0715259.31202950
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_19_0715259_56</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0715259.31197598
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0715259.31197724
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_19_0715259_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0715259.31197638
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0715259.31198654
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_19_0715259_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0715259.31197816
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0715259.31199776
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_19_0715259_63</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0715259.31197590
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0715259.31199282
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_19_0715259_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0715259.31197638
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0715259.31198048
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_19_0715259_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0715259.31197818
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0715259.31209170
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_19_0715259_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0715259.31197590
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0715259.31197712
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_19_0715259_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0715259.31197616
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0715259.31198610
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_19_0715259_55</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0715259.31197804
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0715259.31224814
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_19_0715259_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0715259.31197816
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0715259.31199834
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_19_0715259_60</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0715259.31197804
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0715259.31201448
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_19_0715259_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0715259.31197816
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0715259.31205146
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_19_0715259_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0715259.31197616
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0715259.31198676
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_19_0715259_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0715259.31197816
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0715259.31198760
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0715259.31202292
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_19_0715259_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0715259.31197638
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0715259.31197810
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0715259.31198694
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_19_0715259_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0715259.31197816
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0715259.31198624
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_19_0715259_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0715259.31197616
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0715259.31197702
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_19_0715259_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0715259.31197616
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0715259.31197802
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_19_0715259_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0715259.31197586
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0715259.31199560
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0715259.31202374
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_19_0715259_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0715259.31197804
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0715259.31202474
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_19_0715259.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0715259.31197600
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0715259.31198876
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0715259.31198052
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0715259.31198622
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0715259.31198614
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_19_0715259.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0715259.31197930
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0715259.31201782
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0715259.31198388
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0715259.31204536
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_19_0715259.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0715259.31198448
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_19_0715259.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0715259.31201030
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_19_0715259.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0715259.31200168
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_19_0715259.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0715259.31199658
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_19_0715259.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0715259.31200408
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_19_0715259.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0715259.31197882
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_19_0715259.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0715259.31198104
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0715259.31200864
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0715259.31201574
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_19_0715259.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0715259.31197638
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0715259.31198012
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0715259.31199838
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0715259.31209212
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0715259.31197810
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0715259.31198694
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0715259.31198048
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0715259.31199880
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0715259.31203380
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0715259.31201356
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0715259.31198654
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_19_0715259.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0715259.31200404
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_19_0715259.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0715259.31197932
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_19_0715259.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0715259.31197958
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_19_0715259.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0715259.31197590
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0715259.31197712
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0715259.31197950
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0715259.31202900
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0715259.31199282
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0715259.31198732
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_19_0715259.22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0715259.31197818
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0715259.31209170
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_19_0715259.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0715259.31197804
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0715259.31198094
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0715259.31202270
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0715259.31201448
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0715259.31202474
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0715259.31198910
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0715259.31199966
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0715259.31198100
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0715259.31224814
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0715259.31200500
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0715259.31198990
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0715259.31199312
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_19_0715259.20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0715259.31197598
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0715259.31197928
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0715259.31202950
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0715259.31197724
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0715259.31200640
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_19_0715259.23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0715259.31198784
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0715259.31206306
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_19_0715259.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0715259.31204440
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0715259.31208694
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_19_0715259.21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0715259.31208070
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_19_0715259.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0715259.31197586
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0715259.31200244
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0715259.31208418
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0715259.31199074
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0715259.31203550
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0715259.31198898
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0715259.31211542
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0715259.31232266
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0715259.31199560
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0715259.31200266
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0715259.31202374
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_19_0715259.26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0715259.31197602
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_19_0715259.24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0715259.31198700
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_19_0715259.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0715259.31197616
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0715259.31197702
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0715259.31198228
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0715259.31197960
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0715259.31201366
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0715259.31197802
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0715259.31198610
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0715259.31198676
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_19_0715259.27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0715259.31197830
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_19_0715259.25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0715259.31197816
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0715259.31210892
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0715259.31198624
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0715259.31198452
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0715259.31198968
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0715259.31205146
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0715259.31199700
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0715259.31199342
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0715259.31199776
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0715259.31198886
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0715259.31198760
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0715259.31201430
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0715259.31202292
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0715259.31198906
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0715259.31199834
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_19_0715259.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0715259.31197870
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0715259.31198912
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_19_0715259.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0715259.31197880
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_0715259.31198208
</commentlist>
</conversation>
