<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_03_26_1537228</id>
	<title>GameStop Sued Over Lack of DLC For Used Games</title>
	<author>Soulskill</author>
	<datestamp>1269623160000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>Absolut187 writes <i>"According to IGN, 'A lawsuit filed earlier this week against retailer GameStop says the company is "deceptively misleading" its customers into believing a used game purchased from the store comes with all packaged downloadable content advertised on the box. This content, however, is <a href="http://ps3.ign.com/articles/107/1079852p1.html">only made available for free to those who purchase the game new</a>, as the code to access the content can be only used one time.' I personally don't have a problem with publishers charging for DLC.  IMHO, you put in the effort to make it, you have the right to (try) to charge whatever you want.  I have the right to take it or leave it if I don't find your price fair (same goes for the main game).  But what about the used game market?  Should publishers be allowed to destroy the used market for their games by including 'free' DLC with a one-time use code?  Should the copyright doctrine of 'first-sale' have any effect here?  Or is it up to the consumer (frequently children) to realize that the product will have a reduced resale value due to the one-time nature of the DLC code?  Is this any different from the use of unique 'CD-Keys' that are required for online play (e.g. for Blizzard games since 1997 or earlier)?"</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>Absolut187 writes " According to IGN , 'A lawsuit filed earlier this week against retailer GameStop says the company is " deceptively misleading " its customers into believing a used game purchased from the store comes with all packaged downloadable content advertised on the box .
This content , however , is only made available for free to those who purchase the game new , as the code to access the content can be only used one time .
' I personally do n't have a problem with publishers charging for DLC .
IMHO , you put in the effort to make it , you have the right to ( try ) to charge whatever you want .
I have the right to take it or leave it if I do n't find your price fair ( same goes for the main game ) .
But what about the used game market ?
Should publishers be allowed to destroy the used market for their games by including 'free ' DLC with a one-time use code ?
Should the copyright doctrine of 'first-sale ' have any effect here ?
Or is it up to the consumer ( frequently children ) to realize that the product will have a reduced resale value due to the one-time nature of the DLC code ?
Is this any different from the use of unique 'CD-Keys ' that are required for online play ( e.g .
for Blizzard games since 1997 or earlier ) ?
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Absolut187 writes "According to IGN, 'A lawsuit filed earlier this week against retailer GameStop says the company is "deceptively misleading" its customers into believing a used game purchased from the store comes with all packaged downloadable content advertised on the box.
This content, however, is only made available for free to those who purchase the game new, as the code to access the content can be only used one time.
' I personally don't have a problem with publishers charging for DLC.
IMHO, you put in the effort to make it, you have the right to (try) to charge whatever you want.
I have the right to take it or leave it if I don't find your price fair (same goes for the main game).
But what about the used game market?
Should publishers be allowed to destroy the used market for their games by including 'free' DLC with a one-time use code?
Should the copyright doctrine of 'first-sale' have any effect here?
Or is it up to the consumer (frequently children) to realize that the product will have a reduced resale value due to the one-time nature of the DLC code?
Is this any different from the use of unique 'CD-Keys' that are required for online play (e.g.
for Blizzard games since 1997 or earlier)?
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31630130</id>
	<title>First Digital Sale</title>
	<author>CopaceticOpus</author>
	<datestamp>1269631800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>These restrictions, gimmicks, and weird clauses tied to the purchase of a game are probably legal. However, they are clearly an attempt to damage a product's resale value, and they are in spirit a violation of the first sale doctrine.</p><p>We need strong laws to protect the right to resell digital content, just as the first sale doctrine protects our rights to resell our physical property as we choose. Such a law would clearly be fair and in the best interest of the consumer.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>These restrictions , gimmicks , and weird clauses tied to the purchase of a game are probably legal .
However , they are clearly an attempt to damage a product 's resale value , and they are in spirit a violation of the first sale doctrine.We need strong laws to protect the right to resell digital content , just as the first sale doctrine protects our rights to resell our physical property as we choose .
Such a law would clearly be fair and in the best interest of the consumer .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>These restrictions, gimmicks, and weird clauses tied to the purchase of a game are probably legal.
However, they are clearly an attempt to damage a product's resale value, and they are in spirit a violation of the first sale doctrine.We need strong laws to protect the right to resell digital content, just as the first sale doctrine protects our rights to resell our physical property as we choose.
Such a law would clearly be fair and in the best interest of the consumer.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31631100</id>
	<title>Some online games recognize first sale</title>
	<author>bugnuts</author>
	<datestamp>1269635760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Although blizzard is not known for being particularly open with their tech by going after private servers and such, they will recognize first sale by making any world of Warcraft game playable if bought used.  Cd keys can't be reused and it's against the Eula to give your account to the new purchaser, but that person can send in the physical cd key and will be sent a new one to make a new account.</p><p>I would love to see dlc hacks get tested in court and win a precedent.  There are so many analogies which show how messed up this is<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... Like having options on your car only valid for the original purchaser, like having your AC disabled when you buy used.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Although blizzard is not known for being particularly open with their tech by going after private servers and such , they will recognize first sale by making any world of Warcraft game playable if bought used .
Cd keys ca n't be reused and it 's against the Eula to give your account to the new purchaser , but that person can send in the physical cd key and will be sent a new one to make a new account.I would love to see dlc hacks get tested in court and win a precedent .
There are so many analogies which show how messed up this is ... Like having options on your car only valid for the original purchaser , like having your AC disabled when you buy used .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Although blizzard is not known for being particularly open with their tech by going after private servers and such, they will recognize first sale by making any world of Warcraft game playable if bought used.
Cd keys can't be reused and it's against the Eula to give your account to the new purchaser, but that person can send in the physical cd key and will be sent a new one to make a new account.I would love to see dlc hacks get tested in court and win a precedent.
There are so many analogies which show how messed up this is ... Like having options on your car only valid for the original purchaser, like having your AC disabled when you buy used.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31628996</id>
	<title>Re:Yep GameSpot is at fault</title>
	<author>spottedkangaroo</author>
	<datestamp>1269627900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>paypal sided with you?  then you're certainly correct.  QED.</htmltext>
<tokenext>paypal sided with you ?
then you 're certainly correct .
QED .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>paypal sided with you?
then you're certainly correct.
QED.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31628812</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31631170</id>
	<title>Re:Suckers.</title>
	<author>mcgrew</author>
	<datestamp>1269635940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>I have no love for GameStop</i></p><p>I do, they put food on my younest daughter's table; she manages one in Kentucky (just across the river from Ohio).</p><p><i>I think the most offensive thing here is that this idiot would actually buy a used game for a mere $5 discount.</i></p><p>It's no different than used movies or CDs anywhere. Somebody stole my Star Wars episodes 1-3, and looking to replace them I found a set at the <a href="http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&amp;source=s\_q&amp;hl=en&amp;geocode=&amp;q=elf+shelf&amp;sll=39.764682,-89.63458&amp;sspn=0.102527,0.15398&amp;ie=UTF8&amp;hq=elf+shelf&amp;hnear=&amp;ll=39.80062,-89.65019&amp;spn=0,359.961505&amp;z=15&amp;layer=c&amp;cbll=39.800616,-89.650065&amp;panoid=G9zV5qy42dREogXiFxVnFQ&amp;cbp=12,345.26,,0,6.59" title="google.com">Elf Shelf</a> [google.com] here in town, for ten bucks apiece. Thinking that outrageous for used movies, I passed.</p><p>I later found brand new copies at WalMart for the same price. What's worse, they pay $2 for a used DVD.</p><p><a href="http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&amp;source=s\_q&amp;hl=en&amp;geocode=&amp;q=elf+shelf&amp;sll=39.764682,-89.63458&amp;sspn=0.102527,0.15398&amp;ie=UTF8&amp;hq=elf+shelf&amp;hnear=&amp;ll=39.800492,-89.647064&amp;spn=0,359.84602&amp;z=13&amp;layer=c&amp;cbll=39.800546,-89.646935&amp;panoid=sAy50GdpGCznCKF-VtA9CQ&amp;cbp=12,46.41,,0,8.68" title="google.com">Recycled Records</a> [google.com] is no better. A used CD in good shape costs eight bucks there.</p><p>Links are to Google Streetview of the storefronts.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have no love for GameStopI do , they put food on my younest daughter 's table ; she manages one in Kentucky ( just across the river from Ohio ) .I think the most offensive thing here is that this idiot would actually buy a used game for a mere $ 5 discount.It 's no different than used movies or CDs anywhere .
Somebody stole my Star Wars episodes 1-3 , and looking to replace them I found a set at the Elf Shelf [ google.com ] here in town , for ten bucks apiece .
Thinking that outrageous for used movies , I passed.I later found brand new copies at WalMart for the same price .
What 's worse , they pay $ 2 for a used DVD.Recycled Records [ google.com ] is no better .
A used CD in good shape costs eight bucks there.Links are to Google Streetview of the storefronts .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have no love for GameStopI do, they put food on my younest daughter's table; she manages one in Kentucky (just across the river from Ohio).I think the most offensive thing here is that this idiot would actually buy a used game for a mere $5 discount.It's no different than used movies or CDs anywhere.
Somebody stole my Star Wars episodes 1-3, and looking to replace them I found a set at the Elf Shelf [google.com] here in town, for ten bucks apiece.
Thinking that outrageous for used movies, I passed.I later found brand new copies at WalMart for the same price.
What's worse, they pay $2 for a used DVD.Recycled Records [google.com] is no better.
A used CD in good shape costs eight bucks there.Links are to Google Streetview of the storefronts.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31628842</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31631128</id>
	<title>Re:Why not both?</title>
	<author>lgarner</author>
	<datestamp>1269635820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It sounds like the publisher fulfilled their obligation when *they* sold the game.  Now that Gamestop is selling it, I'd say it's up to Gamestop to fulfill the obligation.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It sounds like the publisher fulfilled their obligation when * they * sold the game .
Now that Gamestop is selling it , I 'd say it 's up to Gamestop to fulfill the obligation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It sounds like the publisher fulfilled their obligation when *they* sold the game.
Now that Gamestop is selling it, I'd say it's up to Gamestop to fulfill the obligation.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31629008</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31628912</id>
	<title>Re:Why not both?</title>
	<author>rockNme2349</author>
	<datestamp>1269627600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Ideally, the system should also have a "relinquish" command. If I buy a game, get the DLC, then decide to sell the game, I should be able to "deactivate" that code (assuming it's tied to my gamer id or something? Who knows.)  Then the next person can download the dlc for free.  GameStop might even require people to log in and deactivate their codes before trading in a game, so as not to screw over the next user.</p></div><p>The entire reason the DLC system is being used is so that the content does NOT travel with the game, reducing the resale value.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Ideally , the system should also have a " relinquish " command .
If I buy a game , get the DLC , then decide to sell the game , I should be able to " deactivate " that code ( assuming it 's tied to my gamer id or something ?
Who knows .
) Then the next person can download the dlc for free .
GameStop might even require people to log in and deactivate their codes before trading in a game , so as not to screw over the next user.The entire reason the DLC system is being used is so that the content does NOT travel with the game , reducing the resale value .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ideally, the system should also have a "relinquish" command.
If I buy a game, get the DLC, then decide to sell the game, I should be able to "deactivate" that code (assuming it's tied to my gamer id or something?
Who knows.
)  Then the next person can download the dlc for free.
GameStop might even require people to log in and deactivate their codes before trading in a game, so as not to screw over the next user.The entire reason the DLC system is being used is so that the content does NOT travel with the game, reducing the resale value.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31628748</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31628826</id>
	<title>Destroying?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269627420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Should publishers be allowed to destroy the used market for their games by including 'free' DLC with a one-time use code?</i></p><p>How would it destroy the used game market?  The free DLC is just a bonus/incentive for all people who bought the game new.  Some people may not even use the code and it would still be valid if you bought that copy used.</p><p>How is this GameStop's problem?  An easy way around this would just to put up a notice in-store saying "DLC codes in used games not guaranteed to be valid."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Should publishers be allowed to destroy the used market for their games by including 'free ' DLC with a one-time use code ? How would it destroy the used game market ?
The free DLC is just a bonus/incentive for all people who bought the game new .
Some people may not even use the code and it would still be valid if you bought that copy used.How is this GameStop 's problem ?
An easy way around this would just to put up a notice in-store saying " DLC codes in used games not guaranteed to be valid .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Should publishers be allowed to destroy the used market for their games by including 'free' DLC with a one-time use code?How would it destroy the used game market?
The free DLC is just a bonus/incentive for all people who bought the game new.
Some people may not even use the code and it would still be valid if you bought that copy used.How is this GameStop's problem?
An easy way around this would just to put up a notice in-store saying "DLC codes in used games not guaranteed to be valid.
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31631124</id>
	<title>Re:Why not both?</title>
	<author>CS\_Snapple</author>
	<datestamp>1269635820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Huh. Well, my cereal also tells me they're a prize in the bottom of every box. Clearly, they're in the wrong here, because if I open the box, eat a few bowls of cereal, and dig around and take the toy out, then close my box and resell it to someone, the box still says "A prize in the bottom of every box!" How dare they mislead the people I'm reselling to with their false advertisement! Certainly isn't my job to advertise what shortcomings my used product might have.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Huh .
Well , my cereal also tells me they 're a prize in the bottom of every box .
Clearly , they 're in the wrong here , because if I open the box , eat a few bowls of cereal , and dig around and take the toy out , then close my box and resell it to someone , the box still says " A prize in the bottom of every box !
" How dare they mislead the people I 'm reselling to with their false advertisement !
Certainly is n't my job to advertise what shortcomings my used product might have .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Huh.
Well, my cereal also tells me they're a prize in the bottom of every box.
Clearly, they're in the wrong here, because if I open the box, eat a few bowls of cereal, and dig around and take the toy out, then close my box and resell it to someone, the box still says "A prize in the bottom of every box!
" How dare they mislead the people I'm reselling to with their false advertisement!
Certainly isn't my job to advertise what shortcomings my used product might have.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31629008</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31628812</id>
	<title>Yep GameSpot is at fault</title>
	<author>commodore64\_love</author>
	<datestamp>1269627420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If there's some kind of bold feature list that says "free downloadable content" on the game's cover, then GameSpot and other sellers need to take a marker or sticker and block it out, because otherwise it's false advertising.</p><p>It's just like when I bought a Used Xbox 360.  The description said "turn on the wireless controller and start playing immediately" but when I receive the X360 no controller was included.  I contacted the seller and he tried to deny responsibility because "that was just a generic description from Microsoft and only applies to new consoles not used."   However when I complained to Paypal they sided with me and gave me a $20 refund (which I then used to buy the missing controller).</p><p>Used or new, sellers are responsible for what they advertise.  If it's on the cover's description it either must be included, or if excluded, blacked-out of the cover.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If there 's some kind of bold feature list that says " free downloadable content " on the game 's cover , then GameSpot and other sellers need to take a marker or sticker and block it out , because otherwise it 's false advertising.It 's just like when I bought a Used Xbox 360 .
The description said " turn on the wireless controller and start playing immediately " but when I receive the X360 no controller was included .
I contacted the seller and he tried to deny responsibility because " that was just a generic description from Microsoft and only applies to new consoles not used .
" However when I complained to Paypal they sided with me and gave me a $ 20 refund ( which I then used to buy the missing controller ) .Used or new , sellers are responsible for what they advertise .
If it 's on the cover 's description it either must be included , or if excluded , blacked-out of the cover .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If there's some kind of bold feature list that says "free downloadable content" on the game's cover, then GameSpot and other sellers need to take a marker or sticker and block it out, because otherwise it's false advertising.It's just like when I bought a Used Xbox 360.
The description said "turn on the wireless controller and start playing immediately" but when I receive the X360 no controller was included.
I contacted the seller and he tried to deny responsibility because "that was just a generic description from Microsoft and only applies to new consoles not used.
"   However when I complained to Paypal they sided with me and gave me a $20 refund (which I then used to buy the missing controller).Used or new, sellers are responsible for what they advertise.
If it's on the cover's description it either must be included, or if excluded, blacked-out of the cover.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31630240</id>
	<title>Missing the point?</title>
	<author>d34dluk3</author>
	<datestamp>1269632160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm seeing a lot of posts wondering why the content isn't included on the disc / doesn't travel with the disc when it's sold. That's the whole point of this content. It's being intentionally sold only with new games to differentiate them from their used counterparts. </p><p>This is an economic move by the developers to cripple the used game resale market. EA pioneered this as "Project 10 Dollar" and it seems to be catching on. I personally think it's brilliant as I hate GameStop and their price-gouging tactics, but opinions are obviously going to vary.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm seeing a lot of posts wondering why the content is n't included on the disc / does n't travel with the disc when it 's sold .
That 's the whole point of this content .
It 's being intentionally sold only with new games to differentiate them from their used counterparts .
This is an economic move by the developers to cripple the used game resale market .
EA pioneered this as " Project 10 Dollar " and it seems to be catching on .
I personally think it 's brilliant as I hate GameStop and their price-gouging tactics , but opinions are obviously going to vary .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm seeing a lot of posts wondering why the content isn't included on the disc / doesn't travel with the disc when it's sold.
That's the whole point of this content.
It's being intentionally sold only with new games to differentiate them from their used counterparts.
This is an economic move by the developers to cripple the used game resale market.
EA pioneered this as "Project 10 Dollar" and it seems to be catching on.
I personally think it's brilliant as I hate GameStop and their price-gouging tactics, but opinions are obviously going to vary.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31630668</id>
	<title>Re:A meritless Lawsuit</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269633900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You might want to post under a different name than "CorporateSuit" when creating topics such as this one.</p><p>Just sayin'</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You might want to post under a different name than " CorporateSuit " when creating topics such as this one.Just sayin'</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You might want to post under a different name than "CorporateSuit" when creating topics such as this one.Just sayin'</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31628860</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31629814</id>
	<title>Re:CD-Key</title>
	<author>WaXHeLL</author>
	<datestamp>1269630540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>WoW CD Keys don't travel with the game...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>WoW CD Keys do n't travel with the game.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>WoW CD Keys don't travel with the game...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31628938</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31630564</id>
	<title>Re:Yes game companies should be allowed to do this</title>
	<author>!IH</author>
	<datestamp>1269633420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> And I think that <i>should</i> be the responsibility of the used-game sellers, not the publisher. They're the ones who know that copy's used, after all.</p></div><p>Surely it should be the responsibility of the publisher, as they would be the ones that know what doesn't work a second time? So long as the seller marks it as "used", what else reasonably could they do?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>And I think that should be the responsibility of the used-game sellers , not the publisher .
They 're the ones who know that copy 's used , after all.Surely it should be the responsibility of the publisher , as they would be the ones that know what does n't work a second time ?
So long as the seller marks it as " used " , what else reasonably could they do ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext> And I think that should be the responsibility of the used-game sellers, not the publisher.
They're the ones who know that copy's used, after all.Surely it should be the responsibility of the publisher, as they would be the ones that know what doesn't work a second time?
So long as the seller marks it as "used", what else reasonably could they do?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31628974</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31629588</id>
	<title>The DLC XRC, BBQ!</title>
	<author>noidentity</author>
	<datestamp>1269629880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Not everyone is familiar with online games and whatever DLC means. After some trial-and-error, I'm thinking it means downloadable content. But sheesh, define terms if it's not common.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Not everyone is familiar with online games and whatever DLC means .
After some trial-and-error , I 'm thinking it means downloadable content .
But sheesh , define terms if it 's not common .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not everyone is familiar with online games and whatever DLC means.
After some trial-and-error, I'm thinking it means downloadable content.
But sheesh, define terms if it's not common.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31629286</id>
	<title>Re:Why not both?</title>
	<author>Maximum Prophet</author>
	<datestamp>1269628860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The misguided part of all this is going after Gamestop. The fault lies with the publisher advertising free dlc and requiring payment. Gamestop is just a store who sold you the used game.</p></div><p>And if Gamestop altered the box to match reality, they could be sued by the publishers for messing with their trademarks or somesuch.  i.e.  Some people legally bought Barbie(tm) dolls, modded and sold them.  Mattel(tm) sued because they didn't want BDSM Barbie.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The misguided part of all this is going after Gamestop .
The fault lies with the publisher advertising free dlc and requiring payment .
Gamestop is just a store who sold you the used game.And if Gamestop altered the box to match reality , they could be sued by the publishers for messing with their trademarks or somesuch .
i.e. Some people legally bought Barbie ( tm ) dolls , modded and sold them .
Mattel ( tm ) sued because they did n't want BDSM Barbie .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The misguided part of all this is going after Gamestop.
The fault lies with the publisher advertising free dlc and requiring payment.
Gamestop is just a store who sold you the used game.And if Gamestop altered the box to match reality, they could be sued by the publishers for messing with their trademarks or somesuch.
i.e.  Some people legally bought Barbie(tm) dolls, modded and sold them.
Mattel(tm) sued because they didn't want BDSM Barbie.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31629008</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31629308</id>
	<title>Why sue Gamestop?</title>
	<author>Junior J. Junior III</author>
	<datestamp>1269628980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>GameStop has no control over the fact that the codes are single-use.  That's completely up to the publisher.  Sue them.</p><p>GameStop sells used games at reduced prices, reflecting that the games are used.  If a game doesn't have a manual, or has a case that is missing the artwork panel, they still sell it.  It might cost less.  If the DLC code for a game has been used, how exactly would GameStop be able to determine this, in order to adjust the price accordingly?  I would think that their pricing assumes that the DLC code is not good, since it cannot be relied or proved good.</p><p>That's it, case closed.</p><p>Publishers:  wake up and make the DLC codes re-usable.  Forget the used market for a second.  If my console breaks and I have to get it replaced I am going to be pissed off if I have to re-purchase DLC that I already own.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>GameStop has no control over the fact that the codes are single-use .
That 's completely up to the publisher .
Sue them.GameStop sells used games at reduced prices , reflecting that the games are used .
If a game does n't have a manual , or has a case that is missing the artwork panel , they still sell it .
It might cost less .
If the DLC code for a game has been used , how exactly would GameStop be able to determine this , in order to adjust the price accordingly ?
I would think that their pricing assumes that the DLC code is not good , since it can not be relied or proved good.That 's it , case closed.Publishers : wake up and make the DLC codes re-usable .
Forget the used market for a second .
If my console breaks and I have to get it replaced I am going to be pissed off if I have to re-purchase DLC that I already own .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>GameStop has no control over the fact that the codes are single-use.
That's completely up to the publisher.
Sue them.GameStop sells used games at reduced prices, reflecting that the games are used.
If a game doesn't have a manual, or has a case that is missing the artwork panel, they still sell it.
It might cost less.
If the DLC code for a game has been used, how exactly would GameStop be able to determine this, in order to adjust the price accordingly?
I would think that their pricing assumes that the DLC code is not good, since it cannot be relied or proved good.That's it, case closed.Publishers:  wake up and make the DLC codes re-usable.
Forget the used market for a second.
If my console breaks and I have to get it replaced I am going to be pissed off if I have to re-purchase DLC that I already own.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31632032</id>
	<title>No problem here.</title>
	<author>aekafan</author>
	<datestamp>1269596220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I just buy the game, and get the DLC from other sources as usual.  Why waste time and effort,suing, especially the wrong people as in this case, and not just get the stuff and play it?</htmltext>
<tokenext>I just buy the game , and get the DLC from other sources as usual .
Why waste time and effort,suing , especially the wrong people as in this case , and not just get the stuff and play it ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I just buy the game, and get the DLC from other sources as usual.
Why waste time and effort,suing, especially the wrong people as in this case, and not just get the stuff and play it?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31630674</id>
	<title>Xbox live demo</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269633960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>adamjgp (1229860) writes:   "Also, I wouldn't be surprised if Gamestop Corporate sent out a mandate to keep this information from the customer, similar to the way that they tell employees to sell reserved copies of games to non-reserved customer walk-ins on release day."</p><p>(Former GameStop employee) What store were you working at? We would hold reserve copies for 24 hours before reselling them. And reserve money was always able to be used as credit later, either on the game or on anything else in the store.</p><p>Also, how is this different from when Microsoft launched XBOX live? Almost any game that was Live capable had a pamphlet in it with a code for 60days free on live. Many times this pamphlet was still in games that got resold to Gamestop. Is this not the same scenario? People seemed to understand that a one-time code may or may not have already been used in a used sale.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>adamjgp ( 1229860 ) writes : " Also , I would n't be surprised if Gamestop Corporate sent out a mandate to keep this information from the customer , similar to the way that they tell employees to sell reserved copies of games to non-reserved customer walk-ins on release day .
" ( Former GameStop employee ) What store were you working at ?
We would hold reserve copies for 24 hours before reselling them .
And reserve money was always able to be used as credit later , either on the game or on anything else in the store.Also , how is this different from when Microsoft launched XBOX live ?
Almost any game that was Live capable had a pamphlet in it with a code for 60days free on live .
Many times this pamphlet was still in games that got resold to Gamestop .
Is this not the same scenario ?
People seemed to understand that a one-time code may or may not have already been used in a used sale .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>adamjgp (1229860) writes:   "Also, I wouldn't be surprised if Gamestop Corporate sent out a mandate to keep this information from the customer, similar to the way that they tell employees to sell reserved copies of games to non-reserved customer walk-ins on release day.
"(Former GameStop employee) What store were you working at?
We would hold reserve copies for 24 hours before reselling them.
And reserve money was always able to be used as credit later, either on the game or on anything else in the store.Also, how is this different from when Microsoft launched XBOX live?
Almost any game that was Live capable had a pamphlet in it with a code for 60days free on live.
Many times this pamphlet was still in games that got resold to Gamestop.
Is this not the same scenario?
People seemed to understand that a one-time code may or may not have already been used in a used sale.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31635116</id>
	<title>Resale market support?</title>
	<author>cdrguru</author>
	<datestamp>1269612840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I find it humorous that somehow people think the publisher of a game should support a resale market in any fashion whatsoever.</p><p>OK, last night while walking past a Denny's someone came by and asked if I would like to buy a "used" dinner.  I was very upset that it didn't include a napkin, knife and fork like the first purchasor got and I think Denny's is very unfair in not supporting the resale market.  Does this make any more sense?</p><p>There are things that simply cannot be resold.  The idea of first sale doctrine is that you can't make it illegal to resell products that can be resold.  I don't think it addresses in any manner the conversion of resaleable products to non-resaleable products by the original manufacturer.  Because if there was any sort of law or principal at work here car manufacturers would have been sued out of existance a long, long time ago.  Why is it exactly that a car loses 50\% of its value within the first 24 hours after a sale?</p><p>And why doesn't Denny's support the resale market?  While the knife and fork might not have been that handy, I assure you the napkin would have been helpful indeed.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I find it humorous that somehow people think the publisher of a game should support a resale market in any fashion whatsoever.OK , last night while walking past a Denny 's someone came by and asked if I would like to buy a " used " dinner .
I was very upset that it did n't include a napkin , knife and fork like the first purchasor got and I think Denny 's is very unfair in not supporting the resale market .
Does this make any more sense ? There are things that simply can not be resold .
The idea of first sale doctrine is that you ca n't make it illegal to resell products that can be resold .
I do n't think it addresses in any manner the conversion of resaleable products to non-resaleable products by the original manufacturer .
Because if there was any sort of law or principal at work here car manufacturers would have been sued out of existance a long , long time ago .
Why is it exactly that a car loses 50 \ % of its value within the first 24 hours after a sale ? And why does n't Denny 's support the resale market ?
While the knife and fork might not have been that handy , I assure you the napkin would have been helpful indeed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I find it humorous that somehow people think the publisher of a game should support a resale market in any fashion whatsoever.OK, last night while walking past a Denny's someone came by and asked if I would like to buy a "used" dinner.
I was very upset that it didn't include a napkin, knife and fork like the first purchasor got and I think Denny's is very unfair in not supporting the resale market.
Does this make any more sense?There are things that simply cannot be resold.
The idea of first sale doctrine is that you can't make it illegal to resell products that can be resold.
I don't think it addresses in any manner the conversion of resaleable products to non-resaleable products by the original manufacturer.
Because if there was any sort of law or principal at work here car manufacturers would have been sued out of existance a long, long time ago.
Why is it exactly that a car loses 50\% of its value within the first 24 hours after a sale?And why doesn't Denny's support the resale market?
While the knife and fork might not have been that handy, I assure you the napkin would have been helpful indeed.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31630340</id>
	<title>Re:The Bigger Picture.</title>
	<author>mcgrew</author>
	<datestamp>1269632520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>/me peers into his crystal ball....<br></i><br>Balls of crystal? I'd have gotten a less fragile implant.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>/me peers into his crystal ball....Balls of crystal ?
I 'd have gotten a less fragile implant .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>/me peers into his crystal ball....Balls of crystal?
I'd have gotten a less fragile implant.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31628634</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31630548</id>
	<title>Re:Why not both?</title>
	<author>MattSausage</author>
	<datestamp>1269633420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm not sure if you read the article or not.. but that is EXACTLY what they did.  Problem was, when the DLC was purchased it drove the total cost of the game over the original cost of a full retail brand new game.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm not sure if you read the article or not.. but that is EXACTLY what they did .
Problem was , when the DLC was purchased it drove the total cost of the game over the original cost of a full retail brand new game .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm not sure if you read the article or not.. but that is EXACTLY what they did.
Problem was, when the DLC was purchased it drove the total cost of the game over the original cost of a full retail brand new game.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31628748</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31631922</id>
	<title>Re:Yep GameSpot is at fault</title>
	<author>Sloppy</author>
	<datestamp>1269595860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>otherwise it's false advertising</p></div></blockquote><p>I think the issue is <em>whose</em> false advertising it is.</p><p>Suppose Tide makes a laundry detergent where the packaging says, "The whitest whites" and I put it on a shelf in my store and you buy it.  But you use it and don't get whitest whites, and that makes you mad.  Very understandable.  But is your complaint with <em>me</em> or with <em>Tide?</em></p><p>And does this change if <em>I</em> happen to know that Tide doesn't really get you the whitest whites? Does it change if the packaging used to not say that, but then a new pallet came in and I stocked it, not realizing that they had added these words to the box?  Or what if I did realize the wording had changed, but then didn't even bother to test whether or not it delivers the whitest whites, before I went ahead and put it on the shelves?</p><p>Am I, a reseller, responsible for Tide's words on their box?</p><p>No matter how I answer these questions, I can't help but think you're going to be more angry at Tide than with me.  Maybe not, though.  I think it's a bit of a stretch to say I'm <em>totally</em> without responsibility.  Hmm.</p><p>What really sucks here, is that the very idea of a one-time use code reeks of a defective product, manufactured in bad faith.  Most widgets for sale just don't [deliberately fail to] work like that.  But some <em>do</em>, e.g. gift cards, and they're not really evil (well, not evil in this way, I mean; I still don't get why people give no-interests loans to retailers, but that's their problem, not mine).  But Gamestop <em>knows</em> the products are created in bad faith; it's reasonable to assume they're informed about how shady the game business is. They should have taken the game back.  I know that I if were mad enough at my grocery store over some Tide, they would take it back (whether they're required to or not), and laundry detergent isn't even a shady business (as far as I know).</p><p>It's just murky no matter how much I look at it.  Makes me glad I don't buy many games.  Fuck those guys.  What the consumer ought to be learning from this isn't "don't buy used games," but rather "don't buy games."</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>otherwise it 's false advertisingI think the issue is whose false advertising it is.Suppose Tide makes a laundry detergent where the packaging says , " The whitest whites " and I put it on a shelf in my store and you buy it .
But you use it and do n't get whitest whites , and that makes you mad .
Very understandable .
But is your complaint with me or with Tide ? And does this change if I happen to know that Tide does n't really get you the whitest whites ?
Does it change if the packaging used to not say that , but then a new pallet came in and I stocked it , not realizing that they had added these words to the box ?
Or what if I did realize the wording had changed , but then did n't even bother to test whether or not it delivers the whitest whites , before I went ahead and put it on the shelves ? Am I , a reseller , responsible for Tide 's words on their box ? No matter how I answer these questions , I ca n't help but think you 're going to be more angry at Tide than with me .
Maybe not , though .
I think it 's a bit of a stretch to say I 'm totally without responsibility .
Hmm.What really sucks here , is that the very idea of a one-time use code reeks of a defective product , manufactured in bad faith .
Most widgets for sale just do n't [ deliberately fail to ] work like that .
But some do , e.g .
gift cards , and they 're not really evil ( well , not evil in this way , I mean ; I still do n't get why people give no-interests loans to retailers , but that 's their problem , not mine ) .
But Gamestop knows the products are created in bad faith ; it 's reasonable to assume they 're informed about how shady the game business is .
They should have taken the game back .
I know that I if were mad enough at my grocery store over some Tide , they would take it back ( whether they 're required to or not ) , and laundry detergent is n't even a shady business ( as far as I know ) .It 's just murky no matter how much I look at it .
Makes me glad I do n't buy many games .
Fuck those guys .
What the consumer ought to be learning from this is n't " do n't buy used games , " but rather " do n't buy games .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>otherwise it's false advertisingI think the issue is whose false advertising it is.Suppose Tide makes a laundry detergent where the packaging says, "The whitest whites" and I put it on a shelf in my store and you buy it.
But you use it and don't get whitest whites, and that makes you mad.
Very understandable.
But is your complaint with me or with Tide?And does this change if I happen to know that Tide doesn't really get you the whitest whites?
Does it change if the packaging used to not say that, but then a new pallet came in and I stocked it, not realizing that they had added these words to the box?
Or what if I did realize the wording had changed, but then didn't even bother to test whether or not it delivers the whitest whites, before I went ahead and put it on the shelves?Am I, a reseller, responsible for Tide's words on their box?No matter how I answer these questions, I can't help but think you're going to be more angry at Tide than with me.
Maybe not, though.
I think it's a bit of a stretch to say I'm totally without responsibility.
Hmm.What really sucks here, is that the very idea of a one-time use code reeks of a defective product, manufactured in bad faith.
Most widgets for sale just don't [deliberately fail to] work like that.
But some do, e.g.
gift cards, and they're not really evil (well, not evil in this way, I mean; I still don't get why people give no-interests loans to retailers, but that's their problem, not mine).
But Gamestop knows the products are created in bad faith; it's reasonable to assume they're informed about how shady the game business is.
They should have taken the game back.
I know that I if were mad enough at my grocery store over some Tide, they would take it back (whether they're required to or not), and laundry detergent isn't even a shady business (as far as I know).It's just murky no matter how much I look at it.
Makes me glad I don't buy many games.
Fuck those guys.
What the consumer ought to be learning from this isn't "don't buy used games," but rather "don't buy games.
"
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31628812</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31631840</id>
	<title>Re:Why sue Gamestop?</title>
	<author>Khyber</author>
	<datestamp>1269595500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"If my console breaks and I have to get it replaced I am going to be pissed off if I have to re-purchase DLC that I already own."</p><p>Well, considering those DLCs are usually tied to an account made on the console, as long as you remember your login and password there should be no problems with that.</p><p>Even Steam figured this one out.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" If my console breaks and I have to get it replaced I am going to be pissed off if I have to re-purchase DLC that I already own .
" Well , considering those DLCs are usually tied to an account made on the console , as long as you remember your login and password there should be no problems with that.Even Steam figured this one out .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"If my console breaks and I have to get it replaced I am going to be pissed off if I have to re-purchase DLC that I already own.
"Well, considering those DLCs are usually tied to an account made on the console, as long as you remember your login and password there should be no problems with that.Even Steam figured this one out.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31629308</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31630522</id>
	<title>Re:Why not both?</title>
	<author>Ixokai</author>
	<datestamp>1269633240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Uhh.</p><p>This is a silly comparison. There's nothing that the DAO DLC adds that you couldn't add yourself by making a mod-- or use one of the -countless- mods others have put out there that do -precisely- that.</p><p>They released the whole DAO toolchain; there's almost nothing they give you in a purchasable DLC that its not entirely possible for you to add yourself, or others to add. The exception is new models which is a PITA to make, but still possible.</p><p>That's different then the Mass Effect situation, where the only way you can get certain things is by having that one-time use Cerebrus network code.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Uhh.This is a silly comparison .
There 's nothing that the DAO DLC adds that you could n't add yourself by making a mod-- or use one of the -countless- mods others have put out there that do -precisely- that.They released the whole DAO toolchain ; there 's almost nothing they give you in a purchasable DLC that its not entirely possible for you to add yourself , or others to add .
The exception is new models which is a PITA to make , but still possible.That 's different then the Mass Effect situation , where the only way you can get certain things is by having that one-time use Cerebrus network code .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Uhh.This is a silly comparison.
There's nothing that the DAO DLC adds that you couldn't add yourself by making a mod-- or use one of the -countless- mods others have put out there that do -precisely- that.They released the whole DAO toolchain; there's almost nothing they give you in a purchasable DLC that its not entirely possible for you to add yourself, or others to add.
The exception is new models which is a PITA to make, but still possible.That's different then the Mass Effect situation, where the only way you can get certain things is by having that one-time use Cerebrus network code.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31629116</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31631176</id>
	<title>Re:Yep GameSpot is at fault</title>
	<author>CS\_Snapple</author>
	<datestamp>1269636000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well, I've got it all figured out. Just don't specify what the free downloadable content advertised on the box actually is, and then make sure you always have some really trivial downloadable content available. Like, say, a new desktop icon for the game.</p><p>There, now you still have your one-use DLC, but you're still providing something after that one-use is to to satisfy the advertising on the box cover.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , I 've got it all figured out .
Just do n't specify what the free downloadable content advertised on the box actually is , and then make sure you always have some really trivial downloadable content available .
Like , say , a new desktop icon for the game.There , now you still have your one-use DLC , but you 're still providing something after that one-use is to to satisfy the advertising on the box cover .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, I've got it all figured out.
Just don't specify what the free downloadable content advertised on the box actually is, and then make sure you always have some really trivial downloadable content available.
Like, say, a new desktop icon for the game.There, now you still have your one-use DLC, but you're still providing something after that one-use is to to satisfy the advertising on the box cover.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31628812</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31629220</id>
	<title>Re:Suckers.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269628620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>They probably gave the previous owner $20 for this game and then turn around and sell it for $55. </i></p><p>You're completely free to sell your game on eBay or Craigslist for whatever you can get for it.</p><p>Don't blame GameStop for making it easy and convenient to buy and sell used games just because they make more profit than you like.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They probably gave the previous owner $ 20 for this game and then turn around and sell it for $ 55 .
You 're completely free to sell your game on eBay or Craigslist for whatever you can get for it.Do n't blame GameStop for making it easy and convenient to buy and sell used games just because they make more profit than you like .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They probably gave the previous owner $20 for this game and then turn around and sell it for $55.
You're completely free to sell your game on eBay or Craigslist for whatever you can get for it.Don't blame GameStop for making it easy and convenient to buy and sell used games just because they make more profit than you like.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31628842</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31637606</id>
	<title>Re:The Bigger Picture.</title>
	<author>KDR\_11k</author>
	<datestamp>1269723300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A used copy only appears if the owner of a new copy decides that holding on to the game is less valuable than what he could do with the money he can resell it for. Considering that Game Stop doesn't pay a lot for trade-ins that would mean the game has lost a LOT of value for the original owner. The way to prevent used sales is to make sure the game doesn't become worthless to a customer that fast, not to force some artificial limitations on trade. Making a game that lasts ten hours and is then practically worthless will obviously result in used sales but it's not because Game Stop is evil. Failing to give your product long term value will result in used sales.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A used copy only appears if the owner of a new copy decides that holding on to the game is less valuable than what he could do with the money he can resell it for .
Considering that Game Stop does n't pay a lot for trade-ins that would mean the game has lost a LOT of value for the original owner .
The way to prevent used sales is to make sure the game does n't become worthless to a customer that fast , not to force some artificial limitations on trade .
Making a game that lasts ten hours and is then practically worthless will obviously result in used sales but it 's not because Game Stop is evil .
Failing to give your product long term value will result in used sales .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A used copy only appears if the owner of a new copy decides that holding on to the game is less valuable than what he could do with the money he can resell it for.
Considering that Game Stop doesn't pay a lot for trade-ins that would mean the game has lost a LOT of value for the original owner.
The way to prevent used sales is to make sure the game doesn't become worthless to a customer that fast, not to force some artificial limitations on trade.
Making a game that lasts ten hours and is then practically worthless will obviously result in used sales but it's not because Game Stop is evil.
Failing to give your product long term value will result in used sales.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31631886</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31629166</id>
	<title>Re:You know...</title>
	<author>ircmaxell</author>
	<datestamp>1269628440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>I understand that publishers don't make any money off used games sales</p></div></blockquote><p>
Sure they do.  The ability for someone to sell a game will cause some people to buy more games new.  Say they buy a $60 game.  Then, in a month when they are tired of it, if they can sell it for $45, the next new game will only cost them $15.  The publisher got $120 in sales, but the buyer only paid $75 (well, neglecting the time-cost of money).  I'd bet this is the way a lot of younger people buy brand new games.  They sell one or more slightly older games to pay for the newest one...  Sure, there are some like me that don't sell games unless they really suck, but then again I have the money to be able to do that.  If I was pushing a strict budget, you can bet I would sell the older games to finance the newer ones (and when you're talking a 5 or 10\% difference between new and used, why not go new and have a better chance of resale later)...</p><blockquote><div><p>Why are publishers being such dicks about used games?</p></div></blockquote><p> Because they can, and because we still buy their games.  It's as simple as that.  If we as a unit boycotted games that have these kind of stupid restrictions, I'd bet they will change their policies.  But the fact of the matter is that most people don't care enough to make a boycott effective (and hence it won't work)...  Does it suck?  Absolutely...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I understand that publishers do n't make any money off used games sales Sure they do .
The ability for someone to sell a game will cause some people to buy more games new .
Say they buy a $ 60 game .
Then , in a month when they are tired of it , if they can sell it for $ 45 , the next new game will only cost them $ 15 .
The publisher got $ 120 in sales , but the buyer only paid $ 75 ( well , neglecting the time-cost of money ) .
I 'd bet this is the way a lot of younger people buy brand new games .
They sell one or more slightly older games to pay for the newest one... Sure , there are some like me that do n't sell games unless they really suck , but then again I have the money to be able to do that .
If I was pushing a strict budget , you can bet I would sell the older games to finance the newer ones ( and when you 're talking a 5 or 10 \ % difference between new and used , why not go new and have a better chance of resale later ) ...Why are publishers being such dicks about used games ?
Because they can , and because we still buy their games .
It 's as simple as that .
If we as a unit boycotted games that have these kind of stupid restrictions , I 'd bet they will change their policies .
But the fact of the matter is that most people do n't care enough to make a boycott effective ( and hence it wo n't work ) ... Does it suck ?
Absolutely.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I understand that publishers don't make any money off used games sales
Sure they do.
The ability for someone to sell a game will cause some people to buy more games new.
Say they buy a $60 game.
Then, in a month when they are tired of it, if they can sell it for $45, the next new game will only cost them $15.
The publisher got $120 in sales, but the buyer only paid $75 (well, neglecting the time-cost of money).
I'd bet this is the way a lot of younger people buy brand new games.
They sell one or more slightly older games to pay for the newest one...  Sure, there are some like me that don't sell games unless they really suck, but then again I have the money to be able to do that.
If I was pushing a strict budget, you can bet I would sell the older games to finance the newer ones (and when you're talking a 5 or 10\% difference between new and used, why not go new and have a better chance of resale later)...Why are publishers being such dicks about used games?
Because they can, and because we still buy their games.
It's as simple as that.
If we as a unit boycotted games that have these kind of stupid restrictions, I'd bet they will change their policies.
But the fact of the matter is that most people don't care enough to make a boycott effective (and hence it won't work)...  Does it suck?
Absolutely...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31628742</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31628888</id>
	<title>AC SPEAKS!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269627540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>IANAL, and certainly not an american one, from where i assume the story originates; but in the uk, any thing that is explicitly provided free with the purchase of another good, must be given for free without purchase of the good. the idea being to stop false advertisement, if it's free then it's free (i.e. not conditional on the sale)...</p><p>a common example of this is 'FREE ENTRY INTO PRIZE DRAW!' on chocolate wrappers, where free entry can as be gained by contacting the company... thanks to this law.</p><p>i would think a similar argument could be said about free content for software games though this is probably untested. also i have no idea if the second hand nature of the sale alleviates the publisher of this burden.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>IANAL , and certainly not an american one , from where i assume the story originates ; but in the uk , any thing that is explicitly provided free with the purchase of another good , must be given for free without purchase of the good .
the idea being to stop false advertisement , if it 's free then it 's free ( i.e .
not conditional on the sale ) ...a common example of this is 'FREE ENTRY INTO PRIZE DRAW !
' on chocolate wrappers , where free entry can as be gained by contacting the company... thanks to this law.i would think a similar argument could be said about free content for software games though this is probably untested .
also i have no idea if the second hand nature of the sale alleviates the publisher of this burden .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>IANAL, and certainly not an american one, from where i assume the story originates; but in the uk, any thing that is explicitly provided free with the purchase of another good, must be given for free without purchase of the good.
the idea being to stop false advertisement, if it's free then it's free (i.e.
not conditional on the sale)...a common example of this is 'FREE ENTRY INTO PRIZE DRAW!
' on chocolate wrappers, where free entry can as be gained by contacting the company... thanks to this law.i would think a similar argument could be said about free content for software games though this is probably untested.
also i have no idea if the second hand nature of the sale alleviates the publisher of this burden.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31630636</id>
	<title>Isn't this an easy fix?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269633780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Isn't it as simply as just posting a warning at the cash-wraps stating "Gamestop takes no responsibility for claims made by publishers on their box art"?</p><p>Solved<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... buck passed.</p><p>Also not to mention GameStop's policy on returning used merchandise is pretty solid<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.... 7-days for a full refund 30 days for an exchange<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... if you don't realize your DLC isn't free in a week, then I'm sorry you weren't graced with the cognitive capacity to be rational about your mistakes. If it's a gift? Stop complaining you got a game for free<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.. pony up the dough if you want the added bonus shit.</p><p>All pack in Free DLC stuff is a new form of Collector's/Limited/Special/Legendary/Super Spiffy editions. Think of the used game as the regular version you didn't have to pay extra for.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Is n't it as simply as just posting a warning at the cash-wraps stating " Gamestop takes no responsibility for claims made by publishers on their box art " ? Solved ... buck passed.Also not to mention GameStop 's policy on returning used merchandise is pretty solid .... 7-days for a full refund 30 days for an exchange ... if you do n't realize your DLC is n't free in a week , then I 'm sorry you were n't graced with the cognitive capacity to be rational about your mistakes .
If it 's a gift ?
Stop complaining you got a game for free .. pony up the dough if you want the added bonus shit.All pack in Free DLC stuff is a new form of Collector 's/Limited/Special/Legendary/Super Spiffy editions .
Think of the used game as the regular version you did n't have to pay extra for .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Isn't it as simply as just posting a warning at the cash-wraps stating "Gamestop takes no responsibility for claims made by publishers on their box art"?Solved ... buck passed.Also not to mention GameStop's policy on returning used merchandise is pretty solid .... 7-days for a full refund 30 days for an exchange ... if you don't realize your DLC isn't free in a week, then I'm sorry you weren't graced with the cognitive capacity to be rational about your mistakes.
If it's a gift?
Stop complaining you got a game for free .. pony up the dough if you want the added bonus shit.All pack in Free DLC stuff is a new form of Collector's/Limited/Special/Legendary/Super Spiffy editions.
Think of the used game as the regular version you didn't have to pay extra for.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31632320</id>
	<title>Resale Market</title>
	<author>wisnoskij</author>
	<datestamp>1269597360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>To developers the resale market is akin to the piracy market, the people stealing money from them.<br>Of course they will try to destroy it.</p><p>They even have more reasons to hate the resale market since not only does it remove game sales, people are making money off it their loss in sales.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>To developers the resale market is akin to the piracy market , the people stealing money from them.Of course they will try to destroy it.They even have more reasons to hate the resale market since not only does it remove game sales , people are making money off it their loss in sales .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>To developers the resale market is akin to the piracy market, the people stealing money from them.Of course they will try to destroy it.They even have more reasons to hate the resale market since not only does it remove game sales, people are making money off it their loss in sales.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31631546</id>
	<title>Re:Good for Consumers.</title>
	<author>h4rr4r</author>
	<datestamp>1269594300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No, this should mean the original product is cheaper, since it cannot be resold for as much.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No , this should mean the original product is cheaper , since it can not be resold for as much .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No, this should mean the original product is cheaper, since it cannot be resold for as much.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31629184</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31629638</id>
	<title>First sale doctrine is an emancipation</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269630060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>getting Bobbs-Merrill Co. v. Straus, 210 U.S. 339 (1908) extended.</p><p>A License is per se a negotiated object and must exhibit the clear and unique signs of having been the result of an honest negotiation. Negotiations among several economic actors will have the result of Licenses that are unique to each set of negotiators. Identical licenses are evidence that the transactions did in fact not involve a negotiation of terms between the economic actors and should be considered as a sale. These sales would be subject to the first sale doctrine, as should any body of licenses (save a small numbers exemption) that are identical and fail to exhibit the obvious signs of being the product of a negotiated transaction.</p><p>The First Sale Doctrine is as much about emancipation as the well know proclamation. Otherwise we all face an enmeshing servitude.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>getting Bobbs-Merrill Co. v. Straus , 210 U.S. 339 ( 1908 ) extended.A License is per se a negotiated object and must exhibit the clear and unique signs of having been the result of an honest negotiation .
Negotiations among several economic actors will have the result of Licenses that are unique to each set of negotiators .
Identical licenses are evidence that the transactions did in fact not involve a negotiation of terms between the economic actors and should be considered as a sale .
These sales would be subject to the first sale doctrine , as should any body of licenses ( save a small numbers exemption ) that are identical and fail to exhibit the obvious signs of being the product of a negotiated transaction.The First Sale Doctrine is as much about emancipation as the well know proclamation .
Otherwise we all face an enmeshing servitude .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>getting Bobbs-Merrill Co. v. Straus, 210 U.S. 339 (1908) extended.A License is per se a negotiated object and must exhibit the clear and unique signs of having been the result of an honest negotiation.
Negotiations among several economic actors will have the result of Licenses that are unique to each set of negotiators.
Identical licenses are evidence that the transactions did in fact not involve a negotiation of terms between the economic actors and should be considered as a sale.
These sales would be subject to the first sale doctrine, as should any body of licenses (save a small numbers exemption) that are identical and fail to exhibit the obvious signs of being the product of a negotiated transaction.The First Sale Doctrine is as much about emancipation as the well know proclamation.
Otherwise we all face an enmeshing servitude.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31629098</id>
	<title>Re:Why not both?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269628260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Battlefield: Bad Company 2 actually has a system in place just like the one you described, minus the relinquishing part.</p><p>If you buy it new, then you get a map code to get DLC maps, which are probably already on the disc, but also enables you to freely download the map pack that is coming out when Medal of Honor 2 is being released.</p><p>If you buy it used, then the code can be purchased separately. I forget the price, but it was not $3.</p><p>I am not a huge fan of the system, but I can appreciate their dilemma. GameStop sets up itself to push used copies of the games because it's almost pure profit for them--they pay very low trade-in costs compared to the actual used sale price.  In a lot of cases, they are probably selling the same game multiple times without giving any of it back--from used game sales--to the publisher.</p><p>In the olden days I probably would have taken less issue with it now because, now, publishers generally host content for the game's that does cost them money (computers and, in particular, staffing).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Battlefield : Bad Company 2 actually has a system in place just like the one you described , minus the relinquishing part.If you buy it new , then you get a map code to get DLC maps , which are probably already on the disc , but also enables you to freely download the map pack that is coming out when Medal of Honor 2 is being released.If you buy it used , then the code can be purchased separately .
I forget the price , but it was not $ 3.I am not a huge fan of the system , but I can appreciate their dilemma .
GameStop sets up itself to push used copies of the games because it 's almost pure profit for them--they pay very low trade-in costs compared to the actual used sale price .
In a lot of cases , they are probably selling the same game multiple times without giving any of it back--from used game sales--to the publisher.In the olden days I probably would have taken less issue with it now because , now , publishers generally host content for the game 's that does cost them money ( computers and , in particular , staffing ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Battlefield: Bad Company 2 actually has a system in place just like the one you described, minus the relinquishing part.If you buy it new, then you get a map code to get DLC maps, which are probably already on the disc, but also enables you to freely download the map pack that is coming out when Medal of Honor 2 is being released.If you buy it used, then the code can be purchased separately.
I forget the price, but it was not $3.I am not a huge fan of the system, but I can appreciate their dilemma.
GameStop sets up itself to push used copies of the games because it's almost pure profit for them--they pay very low trade-in costs compared to the actual used sale price.
In a lot of cases, they are probably selling the same game multiple times without giving any of it back--from used game sales--to the publisher.In the olden days I probably would have taken less issue with it now because, now, publishers generally host content for the game's that does cost them money (computers and, in particular, staffing).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31628748</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31628792</id>
	<title>One more reason</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269627360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If the trend continues it will just lead to more piracy, which at the end of the day affects the game publishers/developers exactly the same way as used game sales. The producers of the game make no money either way, all their trying to do is give you a reason to purchase the game rather than buy it used; makes business sense, the issue they're running into is that people are accustomed to used games being just as good as new ones. At the end of the day I can see this seriously reducing the market for used console games, as well as ruining the social aspect of some of the games, no longer can you take your disk to a friends house and expect the same game play experience.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If the trend continues it will just lead to more piracy , which at the end of the day affects the game publishers/developers exactly the same way as used game sales .
The producers of the game make no money either way , all their trying to do is give you a reason to purchase the game rather than buy it used ; makes business sense , the issue they 're running into is that people are accustomed to used games being just as good as new ones .
At the end of the day I can see this seriously reducing the market for used console games , as well as ruining the social aspect of some of the games , no longer can you take your disk to a friends house and expect the same game play experience .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If the trend continues it will just lead to more piracy, which at the end of the day affects the game publishers/developers exactly the same way as used game sales.
The producers of the game make no money either way, all their trying to do is give you a reason to purchase the game rather than buy it used; makes business sense, the issue they're running into is that people are accustomed to used games being just as good as new ones.
At the end of the day I can see this seriously reducing the market for used console games, as well as ruining the social aspect of some of the games, no longer can you take your disk to a friends house and expect the same game play experience.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31631388</id>
	<title>Re:The Bigger Picture.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269636840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><nobr> <wbr></nobr></p><div class="quote"><p>/me peers into his crystal ball....</p><p>
&nbsp; I see game publishers<br>starting to make complete games included on disc as DLC then make the unlock<br>code only valid for the original purchaser.  That obliterates the<br>resale market.</p></div><p>Why the crystal ball? How is this different from Limited Installs and Online Activation being done now? The future is now.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>/me peers into his crystal ball... .   I see game publishersstarting to make complete games included on disc as DLC then make the unlockcode only valid for the original purchaser .
That obliterates theresale market.Why the crystal ball ?
How is this different from Limited Installs and Online Activation being done now ?
The future is now .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> /me peers into his crystal ball....
  I see game publishersstarting to make complete games included on disc as DLC then make the unlockcode only valid for the original purchaser.
That obliterates theresale market.Why the crystal ball?
How is this different from Limited Installs and Online Activation being done now?
The future is now.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31628634</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31633350</id>
	<title>Re:Nope - GameSpot is not at fault</title>
	<author>DM9290</author>
	<datestamp>1269602040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>"If there's some kind of bold feature list that says "free downloadable content" on the game's cover, then GameSpot and other sellers need to take a marker or sticker and block it out, because otherwise it's false advertising."</p><p>But Gamestop isn't making the claim - the game company is.</p></div><p>the party selling the product is the party marking the claim.  it makes no difference who originally printed it.</p><p>By your logic, if I found an empty box on the road I ought to have the right to sue the manufacturer because it says on the outside of the box that there's a product inside.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>" If there 's some kind of bold feature list that says " free downloadable content " on the game 's cover , then GameSpot and other sellers need to take a marker or sticker and block it out , because otherwise it 's false advertising .
" But Gamestop is n't making the claim - the game company is.the party selling the product is the party marking the claim .
it makes no difference who originally printed it.By your logic , if I found an empty box on the road I ought to have the right to sue the manufacturer because it says on the outside of the box that there 's a product inside .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"If there's some kind of bold feature list that says "free downloadable content" on the game's cover, then GameSpot and other sellers need to take a marker or sticker and block it out, because otherwise it's false advertising.
"But Gamestop isn't making the claim - the game company is.the party selling the product is the party marking the claim.
it makes no difference who originally printed it.By your logic, if I found an empty box on the road I ought to have the right to sue the manufacturer because it says on the outside of the box that there's a product inside.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31629570</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31629448</id>
	<title>Re:Suckers.</title>
	<author>SydShamino</author>
	<datestamp>1269629460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And if GameStop has a sign posted in the store pointing out that used products are sold "As Is" and may be missing extras noted on the box, I 100\% agree with you.</p><p>Lacking downloadable content isn't much different than lacking the free Dragon Age 2 temporary tattoos and bumper sticker, or the instruction manual, or anything else that might be advertised on the box but is missing with a used product.  Provided it's posted, let the buyer beware.  And yes I include the DVD; provided such a disclaimer is posted, if you are stupid enough to buy a used game without ensuring the DVD is included, it's your fault.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And if GameStop has a sign posted in the store pointing out that used products are sold " As Is " and may be missing extras noted on the box , I 100 \ % agree with you.Lacking downloadable content is n't much different than lacking the free Dragon Age 2 temporary tattoos and bumper sticker , or the instruction manual , or anything else that might be advertised on the box but is missing with a used product .
Provided it 's posted , let the buyer beware .
And yes I include the DVD ; provided such a disclaimer is posted , if you are stupid enough to buy a used game without ensuring the DVD is included , it 's your fault .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And if GameStop has a sign posted in the store pointing out that used products are sold "As Is" and may be missing extras noted on the box, I 100\% agree with you.Lacking downloadable content isn't much different than lacking the free Dragon Age 2 temporary tattoos and bumper sticker, or the instruction manual, or anything else that might be advertised on the box but is missing with a used product.
Provided it's posted, let the buyer beware.
And yes I include the DVD; provided such a disclaimer is posted, if you are stupid enough to buy a used game without ensuring the DVD is included, it's your fault.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31628842</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31629184</id>
	<title>Good for Consumers.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269628560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I've got two game that use this types of system, Dragon Age: Origins and Mass Effect 2. I honestly think this system is good for consumers in the end because it should decrease the cost of used games. We all know the Gamestop, as well as the other used game sellers, make a killing on buying and selling used games and this may get them thinking about reduced the price on these titles. I find buying a used copy for $5 less then the new copy and bit ridiculous in the first place and I'm hoping this will have the effect of reducing costs. As for the DLC itself, it is never a fundamental part of the game, it is simply a bonus you are getting for supporting the game developer. It is like getting something free for buying new and I like free stuff.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've got two game that use this types of system , Dragon Age : Origins and Mass Effect 2 .
I honestly think this system is good for consumers in the end because it should decrease the cost of used games .
We all know the Gamestop , as well as the other used game sellers , make a killing on buying and selling used games and this may get them thinking about reduced the price on these titles .
I find buying a used copy for $ 5 less then the new copy and bit ridiculous in the first place and I 'm hoping this will have the effect of reducing costs .
As for the DLC itself , it is never a fundamental part of the game , it is simply a bonus you are getting for supporting the game developer .
It is like getting something free for buying new and I like free stuff .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've got two game that use this types of system, Dragon Age: Origins and Mass Effect 2.
I honestly think this system is good for consumers in the end because it should decrease the cost of used games.
We all know the Gamestop, as well as the other used game sellers, make a killing on buying and selling used games and this may get them thinking about reduced the price on these titles.
I find buying a used copy for $5 less then the new copy and bit ridiculous in the first place and I'm hoping this will have the effect of reducing costs.
As for the DLC itself, it is never a fundamental part of the game, it is simply a bonus you are getting for supporting the game developer.
It is like getting something free for buying new and I like free stuff.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31629378</id>
	<title>You know...</title>
	<author>TheSpoom</author>
	<datestamp>1269629220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm surprised that game companies haven't started doing this whole one-time console locking code business for <i>the whole game</i>.  It would completely destroy the used games market for that game, forcing people to buy it new if they wanted to play the game at all.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm surprised that game companies have n't started doing this whole one-time console locking code business for the whole game .
It would completely destroy the used games market for that game , forcing people to buy it new if they wanted to play the game at all .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm surprised that game companies haven't started doing this whole one-time console locking code business for the whole game.
It would completely destroy the used games market for that game, forcing people to buy it new if they wanted to play the game at all.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31631826</id>
	<title>Re:Suckers.</title>
	<author>bluefoxlucid</author>
	<datestamp>1269595380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
Have you noticed Metroid Prime 3 still sells for $50?  It's several years old.
</p><p>
Back in the day, a year after release a game cost about $30, or maybe $20.  They started at $50 but bottomed out at $20 new.  Gamestop couldn't risk buying a used game TODAY and finding they can only resell it for $20 in 4 months.  The new game was $40, marked down from its release day date of $50; they had to resell at about $30 maybe?  So $15-$20 is what they'd have to charge... but in 4 more months, if that game didn't turn over, it'd be $20.  And the price goes down because the market is less hot for the title right now!
</p><p>
It's really hard to sell used games in that atmosphere; but what's now annoying me is that I can't buy new games for $20 after 9 months to a year.
</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Have you noticed Metroid Prime 3 still sells for $ 50 ?
It 's several years old .
Back in the day , a year after release a game cost about $ 30 , or maybe $ 20 .
They started at $ 50 but bottomed out at $ 20 new .
Gamestop could n't risk buying a used game TODAY and finding they can only resell it for $ 20 in 4 months .
The new game was $ 40 , marked down from its release day date of $ 50 ; they had to resell at about $ 30 maybe ?
So $ 15- $ 20 is what they 'd have to charge... but in 4 more months , if that game did n't turn over , it 'd be $ 20 .
And the price goes down because the market is less hot for the title right now !
It 's really hard to sell used games in that atmosphere ; but what 's now annoying me is that I ca n't buy new games for $ 20 after 9 months to a year .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
Have you noticed Metroid Prime 3 still sells for $50?
It's several years old.
Back in the day, a year after release a game cost about $30, or maybe $20.
They started at $50 but bottomed out at $20 new.
Gamestop couldn't risk buying a used game TODAY and finding they can only resell it for $20 in 4 months.
The new game was $40, marked down from its release day date of $50; they had to resell at about $30 maybe?
So $15-$20 is what they'd have to charge... but in 4 more months, if that game didn't turn over, it'd be $20.
And the price goes down because the market is less hot for the title right now!
It's really hard to sell used games in that atmosphere; but what's now annoying me is that I can't buy new games for $20 after 9 months to a year.
</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31628842</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31634600</id>
	<title>Re:Good for Consumers.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269609600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> I honestly think this system is good for consumers in the end because it should decrease the cost of used games. </p></div><p>Game retailers aren't the only ones who sell their used games. This hurts the consumers who sell their game to recoup costs of buying them</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I honestly think this system is good for consumers in the end because it should decrease the cost of used games .
Game retailers are n't the only ones who sell their used games .
This hurts the consumers who sell their game to recoup costs of buying them</tokentext>
<sentencetext> I honestly think this system is good for consumers in the end because it should decrease the cost of used games.
Game retailers aren't the only ones who sell their used games.
This hurts the consumers who sell their game to recoup costs of buying them
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31629184</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31628946</id>
	<title>Re:Why not both?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269627720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>That's what they do.  That's why they're being sued.  GameStop is selling a box that says the game has multiplayer.  It does not, you have to buy it if the game isn't new.</htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's what they do .
That 's why they 're being sued .
GameStop is selling a box that says the game has multiplayer .
It does not , you have to buy it if the game is n't new .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's what they do.
That's why they're being sued.
GameStop is selling a box that says the game has multiplayer.
It does not, you have to buy it if the game isn't new.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31628748</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31631402</id>
	<title>Re:The Bigger Picture.</title>
	<author>Nyder</author>
	<datestamp>1269636900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><nobr> <wbr></nobr></p><div class="quote"><p>/me peers into his crystal ball....</p><p>
&nbsp; I see game publishers<br>starting to make complete games included on disc as DLC then make the unlock<br>code only valid for the original purchaser.  That obliterates the<br>resale market.</p></div><p>Your crystal ball didn't tell you that, unless it happens to be a news reader.<br>Sony has already talked about including this sort of stuff in some psp games that have, or are about to get released.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>/me peers into his crystal ball... .   I see game publishersstarting to make complete games included on disc as DLC then make the unlockcode only valid for the original purchaser .
That obliterates theresale market.Your crystal ball did n't tell you that , unless it happens to be a news reader.Sony has already talked about including this sort of stuff in some psp games that have , or are about to get released .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> /me peers into his crystal ball....
  I see game publishersstarting to make complete games included on disc as DLC then make the unlockcode only valid for the original purchaser.
That obliterates theresale market.Your crystal ball didn't tell you that, unless it happens to be a news reader.Sony has already talked about including this sort of stuff in some psp games that have, or are about to get released.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31628634</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31630250</id>
	<title>Re:You know...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269632160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Of course they (the publishers) see that as someone else choosing to spend $45 on a used game instead of buying a new game from them.</p><p>The re-seller in your example may purchase more new games with the extra money from his old games, but that doesn't equal the "lost sale" that the publishers perceive.  And it's slight worse than that - most newly released games are already available second hand within a few days of release - and at only a very slight discount.  In exchange for a paltry discount on a breaking new game, the publisher loses a sale.  I see brand-new, just released games already in the second-hand game bin 24 hours after it hit the shelves and usually only 2 or 3 pounds cheaper.  And unlike most physical goods, there's less of a stigma about used games - there is no degredation of quality in used software.  Most of us are not concerned with having a shiny new copy of the DVD as long as it works, unlike - for example - walking around in a second hand suit.</p><p>I sound like I'm on their side, don't I? Well I'm not.  I do empaphise - this immediate undercutting must put a dent in their sales.  But it's part and parcel of commerce.  Any non-disposable product you produce is subject to be resold, given away, shared etc.  You take that into account.  You make the idea of owning the shiny new one more attractive.  You don't start using kill switches or disposable components.</p><p>I dislike the way the games stores have pushed and grown the second-hand market to it's current state.  Second hand used to mean getting an older game a few weeks or months later at a reasonable price.  Now it means cutting out the publisher for hardly any benefit to me. &pound;3 off a &pound;50 is nothing, really.  But it's still going to beat the full price new copies.</p><p>But the publishers approach to this is equally deplorable - one-shot DLC? DRM (since that what's it's really for nowadays)?  Non-transferable online components in a single player game?  It's like trying to fix a problem by making your products worse, not better.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Of course they ( the publishers ) see that as someone else choosing to spend $ 45 on a used game instead of buying a new game from them.The re-seller in your example may purchase more new games with the extra money from his old games , but that does n't equal the " lost sale " that the publishers perceive .
And it 's slight worse than that - most newly released games are already available second hand within a few days of release - and at only a very slight discount .
In exchange for a paltry discount on a breaking new game , the publisher loses a sale .
I see brand-new , just released games already in the second-hand game bin 24 hours after it hit the shelves and usually only 2 or 3 pounds cheaper .
And unlike most physical goods , there 's less of a stigma about used games - there is no degredation of quality in used software .
Most of us are not concerned with having a shiny new copy of the DVD as long as it works , unlike - for example - walking around in a second hand suit.I sound like I 'm on their side , do n't I ?
Well I 'm not .
I do empaphise - this immediate undercutting must put a dent in their sales .
But it 's part and parcel of commerce .
Any non-disposable product you produce is subject to be resold , given away , shared etc .
You take that into account .
You make the idea of owning the shiny new one more attractive .
You do n't start using kill switches or disposable components.I dislike the way the games stores have pushed and grown the second-hand market to it 's current state .
Second hand used to mean getting an older game a few weeks or months later at a reasonable price .
Now it means cutting out the publisher for hardly any benefit to me .
  3 off a   50 is nothing , really .
But it 's still going to beat the full price new copies.But the publishers approach to this is equally deplorable - one-shot DLC ?
DRM ( since that what 's it 's really for nowadays ) ?
Non-transferable online components in a single player game ?
It 's like trying to fix a problem by making your products worse , not better .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Of course they (the publishers) see that as someone else choosing to spend $45 on a used game instead of buying a new game from them.The re-seller in your example may purchase more new games with the extra money from his old games, but that doesn't equal the "lost sale" that the publishers perceive.
And it's slight worse than that - most newly released games are already available second hand within a few days of release - and at only a very slight discount.
In exchange for a paltry discount on a breaking new game, the publisher loses a sale.
I see brand-new, just released games already in the second-hand game bin 24 hours after it hit the shelves and usually only 2 or 3 pounds cheaper.
And unlike most physical goods, there's less of a stigma about used games - there is no degredation of quality in used software.
Most of us are not concerned with having a shiny new copy of the DVD as long as it works, unlike - for example - walking around in a second hand suit.I sound like I'm on their side, don't I?
Well I'm not.
I do empaphise - this immediate undercutting must put a dent in their sales.
But it's part and parcel of commerce.
Any non-disposable product you produce is subject to be resold, given away, shared etc.
You take that into account.
You make the idea of owning the shiny new one more attractive.
You don't start using kill switches or disposable components.I dislike the way the games stores have pushed and grown the second-hand market to it's current state.
Second hand used to mean getting an older game a few weeks or months later at a reasonable price.
Now it means cutting out the publisher for hardly any benefit to me.
£3 off a £50 is nothing, really.
But it's still going to beat the full price new copies.But the publishers approach to this is equally deplorable - one-shot DLC?
DRM (since that what's it's really for nowadays)?
Non-transferable online components in a single player game?
It's like trying to fix a problem by making your products worse, not better.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31629166</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31633936</id>
	<title>Re:Yes game companies should be allowed to do this</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269605340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Yes, game companies should be allowed to do one-time-use codes in their games.</p></div><p>No, they shouldn't.  It's a pretty clear attempt to circumvent the doctrine of first sale.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , game companies should be allowed to do one-time-use codes in their games.No , they should n't .
It 's a pretty clear attempt to circumvent the doctrine of first sale .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, game companies should be allowed to do one-time-use codes in their games.No, they shouldn't.
It's a pretty clear attempt to circumvent the doctrine of first sale.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31628974</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31628688</id>
	<title>Re:What is DLC?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269627000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Dick Loving Cunt</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Dick Loving Cunt</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Dick Loving Cunt</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31628642</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31629570</id>
	<title>Nope - GameSpot is not at fault</title>
	<author>Blue Stone</author>
	<datestamp>1269629820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"If there's some kind of bold feature list that says "free downloadable content" on the game's cover, then GameSpot and other sellers need to take a marker or sticker and block it out, because otherwise it's false advertising."</p><p>But Gamestop isn't making the claim - the game company is.</p><p>Better yet would be that since games are able to be sold and re-sold, any claim that appears on the cover regarding free add-ons, should apply to the first purchaser or the hundredth. If a game company wants to charge for add-ons, then the problem goes away.</p><p>But of course the real reason they're including one-time codes is because they want to kill the second-hand market. Shame on them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" If there 's some kind of bold feature list that says " free downloadable content " on the game 's cover , then GameSpot and other sellers need to take a marker or sticker and block it out , because otherwise it 's false advertising .
" But Gamestop is n't making the claim - the game company is.Better yet would be that since games are able to be sold and re-sold , any claim that appears on the cover regarding free add-ons , should apply to the first purchaser or the hundredth .
If a game company wants to charge for add-ons , then the problem goes away.But of course the real reason they 're including one-time codes is because they want to kill the second-hand market .
Shame on them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"If there's some kind of bold feature list that says "free downloadable content" on the game's cover, then GameSpot and other sellers need to take a marker or sticker and block it out, because otherwise it's false advertising.
"But Gamestop isn't making the claim - the game company is.Better yet would be that since games are able to be sold and re-sold, any claim that appears on the cover regarding free add-ons, should apply to the first purchaser or the hundredth.
If a game company wants to charge for add-ons, then the problem goes away.But of course the real reason they're including one-time codes is because they want to kill the second-hand market.
Shame on them.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31628812</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31631528</id>
	<title>Re:Why not both?</title>
	<author>ildon</author>
	<datestamp>1269594240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is not false advertising because the box art is not intended to advertise for the secondary market. It's intended to advertise for the initial retail market. If the game box original came with a <a href="http://levelupnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/dragon\_age\_3.jpg" title="levelupnews.com">cloth map</a> [levelupnews.com], and the person who sold the game to Gamestop kept the map, they couldn't very well remove the part of the box art that claims there's a cloth map inside the box. They could possibly put a warning on the box or inform customers in a more general sense the they can't promise used games will still contain the extras that were originally included in the box, but they would still not be responsible for the original box art now being inaccurate (and nor would the original game company be responsible since originally the box did have a cloth map in it).</p><p>This is exactly the same situation. There was an extra included in the original packaging. The initial buyer kept the extra and resold the game to a secondary retailer. Secondary retail sells used game "as is". The DLC (at least the EA games I've seen so far that include it) is not required to play the game, just like the cloth map is not required to play the game. It's just an extra to give you some incentive to purchase a new copy instead of a used copy.</p><p>The first thing I thought when I saw this article was "this is going to get thrown out".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is not false advertising because the box art is not intended to advertise for the secondary market .
It 's intended to advertise for the initial retail market .
If the game box original came with a cloth map [ levelupnews.com ] , and the person who sold the game to Gamestop kept the map , they could n't very well remove the part of the box art that claims there 's a cloth map inside the box .
They could possibly put a warning on the box or inform customers in a more general sense the they ca n't promise used games will still contain the extras that were originally included in the box , but they would still not be responsible for the original box art now being inaccurate ( and nor would the original game company be responsible since originally the box did have a cloth map in it ) .This is exactly the same situation .
There was an extra included in the original packaging .
The initial buyer kept the extra and resold the game to a secondary retailer .
Secondary retail sells used game " as is " .
The DLC ( at least the EA games I 've seen so far that include it ) is not required to play the game , just like the cloth map is not required to play the game .
It 's just an extra to give you some incentive to purchase a new copy instead of a used copy.The first thing I thought when I saw this article was " this is going to get thrown out " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is not false advertising because the box art is not intended to advertise for the secondary market.
It's intended to advertise for the initial retail market.
If the game box original came with a cloth map [levelupnews.com], and the person who sold the game to Gamestop kept the map, they couldn't very well remove the part of the box art that claims there's a cloth map inside the box.
They could possibly put a warning on the box or inform customers in a more general sense the they can't promise used games will still contain the extras that were originally included in the box, but they would still not be responsible for the original box art now being inaccurate (and nor would the original game company be responsible since originally the box did have a cloth map in it).This is exactly the same situation.
There was an extra included in the original packaging.
The initial buyer kept the extra and resold the game to a secondary retailer.
Secondary retail sells used game "as is".
The DLC (at least the EA games I've seen so far that include it) is not required to play the game, just like the cloth map is not required to play the game.
It's just an extra to give you some incentive to purchase a new copy instead of a used copy.The first thing I thought when I saw this article was "this is going to get thrown out".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31629008</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31629158</id>
	<title>Re:The Bigger Picture.</title>
	<author>The MAZZTer</author>
	<datestamp>1269628440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>My crystal ball says <a href="http://www.steampowered.com/" title="steampowered.com">people will buy games online</a> [steampowered.com] which can't be resold.  Oh wait, that was my crystal ball OF THE PAST.  My bad.</htmltext>
<tokenext>My crystal ball says people will buy games online [ steampowered.com ] which ca n't be resold .
Oh wait , that was my crystal ball OF THE PAST .
My bad .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My crystal ball says people will buy games online [steampowered.com] which can't be resold.
Oh wait, that was my crystal ball OF THE PAST.
My bad.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31628634</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31629606</id>
	<title>Re:Read the summary</title>
	<author>aynoknman</author>
	<datestamp>1269629940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>But even the summary mentions "downloadable content".</p></div><p>The fault is in the summary. If you are going to use an uncommon three letter abbreviation (TLA), for something you have already used in long form, put the TLA in parentheses first.
</p><p>
I am not a grammar Nazi, it just avoids discussions like this one. </p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>But even the summary mentions " downloadable content " .The fault is in the summary .
If you are going to use an uncommon three letter abbreviation ( TLA ) , for something you have already used in long form , put the TLA in parentheses first .
I am not a grammar Nazi , it just avoids discussions like this one .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But even the summary mentions "downloadable content".The fault is in the summary.
If you are going to use an uncommon three letter abbreviation (TLA), for something you have already used in long form, put the TLA in parentheses first.
I am not a grammar Nazi, it just avoids discussions like this one. 
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31628686</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31629594</id>
	<title>Re:The Bigger Picture.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269629940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>I think the obvious solution is for the game developer to allow online sale of new codes to unlock DLC (at a low price).</p></div></blockquote><p>You are assuming that the entire purpose of DLC is not to obliterate the secondary market for games. There's no reason to release DLC <i>except</i> to ruin the used game market.  We now have the DLC already finished when the game is released and <i>even included on the disk with the original game</i>.  How much more obvious can it be?</p><p>The real lawsuit should be by Gamestop against the game publishers.  The people who now keep companies like Gamestop in business will just start getting their games from scene releases and keep the money in their pockets.  I'm not saying this is right, but we've seen it happen time and time again.  I'm continually shocked at how there are scene cracks of games <i>and</i> DLC within a day of the release date.  Of course, I wouldn't download cracked games via bittorrent because that would be wrong, but I have no doubt that every time the game industry comes out with one of these brilliant schemes to squeeze an extra few dollars out of consumers it really just serves to create more people who are willing to violate the law.</p><p>"DLC" is just a gimmick, and something of an insulting one at that.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think the obvious solution is for the game developer to allow online sale of new codes to unlock DLC ( at a low price ) .You are assuming that the entire purpose of DLC is not to obliterate the secondary market for games .
There 's no reason to release DLC except to ruin the used game market .
We now have the DLC already finished when the game is released and even included on the disk with the original game .
How much more obvious can it be ? The real lawsuit should be by Gamestop against the game publishers .
The people who now keep companies like Gamestop in business will just start getting their games from scene releases and keep the money in their pockets .
I 'm not saying this is right , but we 've seen it happen time and time again .
I 'm continually shocked at how there are scene cracks of games and DLC within a day of the release date .
Of course , I would n't download cracked games via bittorrent because that would be wrong , but I have no doubt that every time the game industry comes out with one of these brilliant schemes to squeeze an extra few dollars out of consumers it really just serves to create more people who are willing to violate the law .
" DLC " is just a gimmick , and something of an insulting one at that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think the obvious solution is for the game developer to allow online sale of new codes to unlock DLC (at a low price).You are assuming that the entire purpose of DLC is not to obliterate the secondary market for games.
There's no reason to release DLC except to ruin the used game market.
We now have the DLC already finished when the game is released and even included on the disk with the original game.
How much more obvious can it be?The real lawsuit should be by Gamestop against the game publishers.
The people who now keep companies like Gamestop in business will just start getting their games from scene releases and keep the money in their pockets.
I'm not saying this is right, but we've seen it happen time and time again.
I'm continually shocked at how there are scene cracks of games and DLC within a day of the release date.
Of course, I wouldn't download cracked games via bittorrent because that would be wrong, but I have no doubt that every time the game industry comes out with one of these brilliant schemes to squeeze an extra few dollars out of consumers it really just serves to create more people who are willing to violate the law.
"DLC" is just a gimmick, and something of an insulting one at that.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31628768</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31630126</id>
	<title>Re:You know...</title>
	<author>Talennor</author>
	<datestamp>1269631800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>...I understand that publishers don't make any money off used games sales...I get that.</p></div><p>Actually, you're wrong.  Publishers do make money off used game sales.  Not directly, but easy to see if you analyze the system.</p><p>Person A buys a game new (ex. $50), plays it, sells it to a used game broker (ex. $20).<br>Person B buys the used game from the broker (ex. $40), part of this purchase goes to the broker for facilitating the transaction, part goes to subsidize the original purchase price (the $20 Person A received when selling the game comes from this purchase).</p><p>So Person A effectively purchased the game for less money.  The lower price for Person A either allows him to purchase the game in the first place (was his perceived utility of the game between $30 and $50?), or leaves leftover money for the purchase of another game (this is his hobby).</p><p>So through the secondary market, Persons A and B share the cost.  If, as the your hypothetical publisher who doesn't "make any money off used game sales" argues, Persons A and B would both have bought the game for $50 each, giving them earnings of $100, then the game could have been priced closer to that $100 knowing the secondary market would allow for the cost sharing (let's say MSRP of $80, giving the broker a $20 piece of the $100 pie).  If it wouldn't have sold for $80 to $100, then both A and B weren't interested enough to each pay $50, were they?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>...I understand that publishers do n't make any money off used games sales...I get that.Actually , you 're wrong .
Publishers do make money off used game sales .
Not directly , but easy to see if you analyze the system.Person A buys a game new ( ex .
$ 50 ) , plays it , sells it to a used game broker ( ex .
$ 20 ) .Person B buys the used game from the broker ( ex .
$ 40 ) , part of this purchase goes to the broker for facilitating the transaction , part goes to subsidize the original purchase price ( the $ 20 Person A received when selling the game comes from this purchase ) .So Person A effectively purchased the game for less money .
The lower price for Person A either allows him to purchase the game in the first place ( was his perceived utility of the game between $ 30 and $ 50 ?
) , or leaves leftover money for the purchase of another game ( this is his hobby ) .So through the secondary market , Persons A and B share the cost .
If , as the your hypothetical publisher who does n't " make any money off used game sales " argues , Persons A and B would both have bought the game for $ 50 each , giving them earnings of $ 100 , then the game could have been priced closer to that $ 100 knowing the secondary market would allow for the cost sharing ( let 's say MSRP of $ 80 , giving the broker a $ 20 piece of the $ 100 pie ) .
If it would n't have sold for $ 80 to $ 100 , then both A and B were n't interested enough to each pay $ 50 , were they ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...I understand that publishers don't make any money off used games sales...I get that.Actually, you're wrong.
Publishers do make money off used game sales.
Not directly, but easy to see if you analyze the system.Person A buys a game new (ex.
$50), plays it, sells it to a used game broker (ex.
$20).Person B buys the used game from the broker (ex.
$40), part of this purchase goes to the broker for facilitating the transaction, part goes to subsidize the original purchase price (the $20 Person A received when selling the game comes from this purchase).So Person A effectively purchased the game for less money.
The lower price for Person A either allows him to purchase the game in the first place (was his perceived utility of the game between $30 and $50?
), or leaves leftover money for the purchase of another game (this is his hobby).So through the secondary market, Persons A and B share the cost.
If, as the your hypothetical publisher who doesn't "make any money off used game sales" argues, Persons A and B would both have bought the game for $50 each, giving them earnings of $100, then the game could have been priced closer to that $100 knowing the secondary market would allow for the cost sharing (let's say MSRP of $80, giving the broker a $20 piece of the $100 pie).
If it wouldn't have sold for $80 to $100, then both A and B weren't interested enough to each pay $50, were they?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31628742</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31630440</id>
	<title>Re:It's not just games..</title>
	<author>thePowerOfGrayskull</author>
	<datestamp>1269633000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Resulting in a net save of $120...</htmltext>
<tokenext>Resulting in a net save of $ 120.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Resulting in a net save of $120...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31628884</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31631580</id>
	<title>Your logic is flawed</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269594420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The publisher only got $120 from those two sales if the buyer bought them both *new*.</p><p>If he cares about getting $25-30 back for his game (its not really $45 as your post posits) then he's also likely to buy it used instead of new to save $5.  So the publisher gets nothing from that sale, and GameStop pockets the $55 minus $25-40.</p><p>Also, by pushing used sales instead of new ones, GameStop cannabalizes the new game sales.  Suppose each used copy is owned by, on average, 3 different people and the third owner decides to keep it.  That means the publisher is only getting 1/3rd of the sales, while GameStop gets 2/3rds and with higher margins to boot.</p><p>So the reality is that the publisher is getting like $20 from those two sales, and they want a bigger slice (obviously).</p><p>By being cheapskate enough to try to save $5 on a game, or to punt it back and recover half of their initial investment, gamers are directing a lot of the money spent on games into the pockets of GameStop rather than the people who actually make and publish the games.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The publisher only got $ 120 from those two sales if the buyer bought them both * new * .If he cares about getting $ 25-30 back for his game ( its not really $ 45 as your post posits ) then he 's also likely to buy it used instead of new to save $ 5 .
So the publisher gets nothing from that sale , and GameStop pockets the $ 55 minus $ 25-40.Also , by pushing used sales instead of new ones , GameStop cannabalizes the new game sales .
Suppose each used copy is owned by , on average , 3 different people and the third owner decides to keep it .
That means the publisher is only getting 1/3rd of the sales , while GameStop gets 2/3rds and with higher margins to boot.So the reality is that the publisher is getting like $ 20 from those two sales , and they want a bigger slice ( obviously ) .By being cheapskate enough to try to save $ 5 on a game , or to punt it back and recover half of their initial investment , gamers are directing a lot of the money spent on games into the pockets of GameStop rather than the people who actually make and publish the games .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The publisher only got $120 from those two sales if the buyer bought them both *new*.If he cares about getting $25-30 back for his game (its not really $45 as your post posits) then he's also likely to buy it used instead of new to save $5.
So the publisher gets nothing from that sale, and GameStop pockets the $55 minus $25-40.Also, by pushing used sales instead of new ones, GameStop cannabalizes the new game sales.
Suppose each used copy is owned by, on average, 3 different people and the third owner decides to keep it.
That means the publisher is only getting 1/3rd of the sales, while GameStop gets 2/3rds and with higher margins to boot.So the reality is that the publisher is getting like $20 from those two sales, and they want a bigger slice (obviously).By being cheapskate enough to try to save $5 on a game, or to punt it back and recover half of their initial investment, gamers are directing a lot of the money spent on games into the pockets of GameStop rather than the people who actually make and publish the games.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31629166</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31630728</id>
	<title>Re:You know...</title>
	<author>Watter</author>
	<datestamp>1269634140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><blockquote><div><p>I understand that publishers don't make any money off used games sales</p></div></blockquote><p>
Sure they do.  The ability for someone to sell a game will cause some people to buy more games new.</p></div><p>The ability to sell a game back affects not only the willingness to buy more games, but the express ability to do so. Publishers are losing far less to used game sales than they claim. It's the piracy argument all over again. They intentionally only look at the bare surface of a situation.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I understand that publishers do n't make any money off used games sales Sure they do .
The ability for someone to sell a game will cause some people to buy more games new.The ability to sell a game back affects not only the willingness to buy more games , but the express ability to do so .
Publishers are losing far less to used game sales than they claim .
It 's the piracy argument all over again .
They intentionally only look at the bare surface of a situation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I understand that publishers don't make any money off used games sales
Sure they do.
The ability for someone to sell a game will cause some people to buy more games new.The ability to sell a game back affects not only the willingness to buy more games, but the express ability to do so.
Publishers are losing far less to used game sales than they claim.
It's the piracy argument all over again.
They intentionally only look at the bare surface of a situation.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31629166</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31630714</id>
	<title>Re:Good for Consumers.</title>
	<author>Dan667</author>
	<datestamp>1269634080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>it is a bad deal as they did not lower the cost of the game, but held back content they should have given.</htmltext>
<tokenext>it is a bad deal as they did not lower the cost of the game , but held back content they should have given .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>it is a bad deal as they did not lower the cost of the game, but held back content they should have given.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31629184</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31630772</id>
	<title>Re:CD-Key</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269634260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Which is the great part of older Blizzard games, if I remember correctly, more than one person can be using the same CD key, but not using Battle.net/online at the same time. Which is what the person above me just said, so... Yeah. Although this may have clarified it a bit.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Which is the great part of older Blizzard games , if I remember correctly , more than one person can be using the same CD key , but not using Battle.net/online at the same time .
Which is what the person above me just said , so... Yeah. Although this may have clarified it a bit .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Which is the great part of older Blizzard games, if I remember correctly, more than one person can be using the same CD key, but not using Battle.net/online at the same time.
Which is what the person above me just said, so... Yeah. Although this may have clarified it a bit.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31628938</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31629338</id>
	<title>Re:Why not both?</title>
	<author>steveo777</author>
	<datestamp>1269629100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's not like they're charging money for the game to be playable or completable. I think this is a brilliant way to keep people buying new content. Bioware knows that they're losing a used sale so they make up for it by offering some trivial (I have played Mass Effect 2, and it IS trival) DLC that you may or may not want. They also know that there would be massive upheaval if they forced you to pay $5 to complete the game if you buy it used.</p><p>Also, I think that the case is valid against Gamestop, and that it is a used game. New means unused, by anyone.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's not like they 're charging money for the game to be playable or completable .
I think this is a brilliant way to keep people buying new content .
Bioware knows that they 're losing a used sale so they make up for it by offering some trivial ( I have played Mass Effect 2 , and it IS trival ) DLC that you may or may not want .
They also know that there would be massive upheaval if they forced you to pay $ 5 to complete the game if you buy it used.Also , I think that the case is valid against Gamestop , and that it is a used game .
New means unused , by anyone .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's not like they're charging money for the game to be playable or completable.
I think this is a brilliant way to keep people buying new content.
Bioware knows that they're losing a used sale so they make up for it by offering some trivial (I have played Mass Effect 2, and it IS trival) DLC that you may or may not want.
They also know that there would be massive upheaval if they forced you to pay $5 to complete the game if you buy it used.Also, I think that the case is valid against Gamestop, and that it is a used game.
New means unused, by anyone.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31628748</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31629840</id>
	<title>Re:You know...</title>
	<author>WaXHeLL</author>
	<datestamp>1269630660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Because instead of a single person suing gamestop, you might have gamestop suing the video game publisher...  which i'm sure is a legal fight they don't want to take on...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Because instead of a single person suing gamestop , you might have gamestop suing the video game publisher... which i 'm sure is a legal fight they do n't want to take on.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because instead of a single person suing gamestop, you might have gamestop suing the video game publisher...  which i'm sure is a legal fight they don't want to take on...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31629378</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31628974</id>
	<title>Yes game companies should be allowed to do this</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269627780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes, game companies should be allowed to do one-time-use codes in their games. Yes, this is going to mean the games aren't particularly attractive in the used-game market. The problem is stores like GameStop that don't clearly mark their used games clearly as to what's advertised on the packaging that <i>isn't</i> actually going to be available because somebody else has already used it up. And I think that <i>should</i> be the responsibility of the used-game sellers, not the publisher. They're the ones who know that copy's used, after all.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , game companies should be allowed to do one-time-use codes in their games .
Yes , this is going to mean the games are n't particularly attractive in the used-game market .
The problem is stores like GameStop that do n't clearly mark their used games clearly as to what 's advertised on the packaging that is n't actually going to be available because somebody else has already used it up .
And I think that should be the responsibility of the used-game sellers , not the publisher .
They 're the ones who know that copy 's used , after all .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, game companies should be allowed to do one-time-use codes in their games.
Yes, this is going to mean the games aren't particularly attractive in the used-game market.
The problem is stores like GameStop that don't clearly mark their used games clearly as to what's advertised on the packaging that isn't actually going to be available because somebody else has already used it up.
And I think that should be the responsibility of the used-game sellers, not the publisher.
They're the ones who know that copy's used, after all.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31630302</id>
	<title>Re:You know...</title>
	<author>wift</author>
	<datestamp>1269632400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Wow, that is a pretty fancy logical fallacy there.  There is no reason for customer to use the money on a game at GS or for on another game that is from the same publisher.  Hell they may get wise and buy a used games instead.  GS makes money off of used games, publisher do not which is why they are trying to use expiring DLC to sweeten a new deal and to go completely DL games which eliminates the used game market and GS from the picture.  Publishers would jump for job if the used game market dried up.  Of course those who buy used games would then decided whether to buy new, pirate the game or move on and do something else.  Seems to me that the publishers can't come out and kill the used market directly or they will piss off a lot of people into not buying anything.</p><p>Law suit worthy or even justified? Doubt it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Wow , that is a pretty fancy logical fallacy there .
There is no reason for customer to use the money on a game at GS or for on another game that is from the same publisher .
Hell they may get wise and buy a used games instead .
GS makes money off of used games , publisher do not which is why they are trying to use expiring DLC to sweeten a new deal and to go completely DL games which eliminates the used game market and GS from the picture .
Publishers would jump for job if the used game market dried up .
Of course those who buy used games would then decided whether to buy new , pirate the game or move on and do something else .
Seems to me that the publishers ca n't come out and kill the used market directly or they will piss off a lot of people into not buying anything.Law suit worthy or even justified ?
Doubt it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wow, that is a pretty fancy logical fallacy there.
There is no reason for customer to use the money on a game at GS or for on another game that is from the same publisher.
Hell they may get wise and buy a used games instead.
GS makes money off of used games, publisher do not which is why they are trying to use expiring DLC to sweeten a new deal and to go completely DL games which eliminates the used game market and GS from the picture.
Publishers would jump for job if the used game market dried up.
Of course those who buy used games would then decided whether to buy new, pirate the game or move on and do something else.
Seems to me that the publishers can't come out and kill the used market directly or they will piss off a lot of people into not buying anything.Law suit worthy or even justified?
Doubt it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31629166</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31633024</id>
	<title>Re:Good for Consumers.</title>
	<author>LateArthurDent</author>
	<datestamp>1269600300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I've got two game that use this types of system, Dragon Age: Origins and Mass Effect 2. I honestly think this system is good for consumers in the end because it should decrease the cost of used games.</p> </div><p>You've fallen into EA's trap.  The crap additional "free DLC" that I didn't bother to install even with the game that I bought new is just the first wave, designed to make you accept the state of things.  They're moving towards giving you essentially a cd-key in order to play the game at all.  And since it's also activated online, you won't be able to sell your game at all.</p><p>They're not interested in making used games more attractive, they're interested in killing the market.  That's why even in this original iteration, they've carefully designed the price of the "free dlc" to be just over the price difference between a used and new copy.</p><p>And those of us who wait a year or so before buying a game, so we can pick it up new for $20?  The repackaged 1-year old games won't give you the "free" content, mark my words.</p><p>The entire <b>concept</b> of downloadable content is unacceptable, unless you were allowed to sell it and transfer your license to other people, with no restrictions.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've got two game that use this types of system , Dragon Age : Origins and Mass Effect 2 .
I honestly think this system is good for consumers in the end because it should decrease the cost of used games .
You 've fallen into EA 's trap .
The crap additional " free DLC " that I did n't bother to install even with the game that I bought new is just the first wave , designed to make you accept the state of things .
They 're moving towards giving you essentially a cd-key in order to play the game at all .
And since it 's also activated online , you wo n't be able to sell your game at all.They 're not interested in making used games more attractive , they 're interested in killing the market .
That 's why even in this original iteration , they 've carefully designed the price of the " free dlc " to be just over the price difference between a used and new copy.And those of us who wait a year or so before buying a game , so we can pick it up new for $ 20 ?
The repackaged 1-year old games wo n't give you the " free " content , mark my words.The entire concept of downloadable content is unacceptable , unless you were allowed to sell it and transfer your license to other people , with no restrictions .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've got two game that use this types of system, Dragon Age: Origins and Mass Effect 2.
I honestly think this system is good for consumers in the end because it should decrease the cost of used games.
You've fallen into EA's trap.
The crap additional "free DLC" that I didn't bother to install even with the game that I bought new is just the first wave, designed to make you accept the state of things.
They're moving towards giving you essentially a cd-key in order to play the game at all.
And since it's also activated online, you won't be able to sell your game at all.They're not interested in making used games more attractive, they're interested in killing the market.
That's why even in this original iteration, they've carefully designed the price of the "free dlc" to be just over the price difference between a used and new copy.And those of us who wait a year or so before buying a game, so we can pick it up new for $20?
The repackaged 1-year old games won't give you the "free" content, mark my words.The entire concept of downloadable content is unacceptable, unless you were allowed to sell it and transfer your license to other people, with no restrictions.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31629184</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31628860</id>
	<title>A meritless Lawsuit</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269627480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's not going to work.  Gamestop is rich enough to have lawyers that will squash this little unification of idiots.  I have no love for Gamestop, but I downright hate litigous morons.  This "I'll sue everyone because I'm almost too stupid to breathe!" attitude SHOULD be stomped on, even if it is stomped on by an "Evil Inc."</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's not going to work .
Gamestop is rich enough to have lawyers that will squash this little unification of idiots .
I have no love for Gamestop , but I downright hate litigous morons .
This " I 'll sue everyone because I 'm almost too stupid to breathe !
" attitude SHOULD be stomped on , even if it is stomped on by an " Evil Inc. "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's not going to work.
Gamestop is rich enough to have lawyers that will squash this little unification of idiots.
I have no love for Gamestop, but I downright hate litigous morons.
This "I'll sue everyone because I'm almost too stupid to breathe!
" attitude SHOULD be stomped on, even if it is stomped on by an "Evil Inc."</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31644888</id>
	<title>Re:The Bigger Picture.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269708780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> I see game publishers starting to make complete games</p></div><p>Holy smokes, that would be an improvement!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I see game publishers starting to make complete gamesHoly smokes , that would be an improvement !</tokentext>
<sentencetext> I see game publishers starting to make complete gamesHoly smokes, that would be an improvement!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31628634</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31633010</id>
	<title>Re:AC SPEAKS!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269600240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The alternative free entry to competitons is because otherwise the organiser would need a lottery or raffle license. Offering free entry by another means (usually writing to a specified address) avoids the need to apply for such a license. If you ever see a competition where the *only* form of entry involves paying money to the organiser (eg by purchase of a product, or a premium rate phone call), they *must* quote details of their license.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The alternative free entry to competitons is because otherwise the organiser would need a lottery or raffle license .
Offering free entry by another means ( usually writing to a specified address ) avoids the need to apply for such a license .
If you ever see a competition where the * only * form of entry involves paying money to the organiser ( eg by purchase of a product , or a premium rate phone call ) , they * must * quote details of their license .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The alternative free entry to competitons is because otherwise the organiser would need a lottery or raffle license.
Offering free entry by another means (usually writing to a specified address) avoids the need to apply for such a license.
If you ever see a competition where the *only* form of entry involves paying money to the organiser (eg by purchase of a product, or a premium rate phone call), they *must* quote details of their license.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31628888</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31628722</id>
	<title>Re:What is DLC?</title>
	<author>DevConcepts</author>
	<datestamp>1269627120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>downloadable content (DLC)</htmltext>
<tokenext>downloadable content ( DLC )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>downloadable content (DLC)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31628642</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31628884</id>
	<title>It's not just games..</title>
	<author>RabidRabb1t</author>
	<datestamp>1269627540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Textbook publishers have been doing an analogous thing for years.  They set up some pitiful homework website and the code to use it only comes bundled with the new book or will set you back $49.99.  Usually this isn't an issue, but some prof's are too lazy to grade the homework and get roped into this scheme (e.g.: mastering physics).  It's a total scam.  I, for one, bought an old copy of the textbook used for $30.  Then i found out that because I didn't buy the new, ~200 textbook, I would have to pay $50 to do my homework!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Textbook publishers have been doing an analogous thing for years .
They set up some pitiful homework website and the code to use it only comes bundled with the new book or will set you back $ 49.99 .
Usually this is n't an issue , but some prof 's are too lazy to grade the homework and get roped into this scheme ( e.g .
: mastering physics ) .
It 's a total scam .
I , for one , bought an old copy of the textbook used for $ 30 .
Then i found out that because I did n't buy the new , ~ 200 textbook , I would have to pay $ 50 to do my homework !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Textbook publishers have been doing an analogous thing for years.
They set up some pitiful homework website and the code to use it only comes bundled with the new book or will set you back $49.99.
Usually this isn't an issue, but some prof's are too lazy to grade the homework and get roped into this scheme (e.g.
: mastering physics).
It's a total scam.
I, for one, bought an old copy of the textbook used for $30.
Then i found out that because I didn't buy the new, ~200 textbook, I would have to pay $50 to do my homework!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31628938</id>
	<title>CD-Key</title>
	<author>rockNme2349</author>
	<datestamp>1269627720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Is this any different from the use of unique 'CD-Keys' that are required for online play (e.g. for Blizzard games since 1997 or earlier)?</p></div><p>Yes, the CD Keys for Blizzard Games travel with the game. Only one can be active online at any time, but you are perfectly able to uninstall the game and sell it to someone else. DLC is locked in.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Is this any different from the use of unique 'CD-Keys ' that are required for online play ( e.g .
for Blizzard games since 1997 or earlier ) ? Yes , the CD Keys for Blizzard Games travel with the game .
Only one can be active online at any time , but you are perfectly able to uninstall the game and sell it to someone else .
DLC is locked in .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is this any different from the use of unique 'CD-Keys' that are required for online play (e.g.
for Blizzard games since 1997 or earlier)?Yes, the CD Keys for Blizzard Games travel with the game.
Only one can be active online at any time, but you are perfectly able to uninstall the game and sell it to someone else.
DLC is locked in.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31629116</id>
	<title>Re:Why not both?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269628260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>The problem is publishers can't be trusted not to abuse the system. Already in Dragon Age you have to buy DLC in order to increase your backpack beyond a tiny limit. For a game that involves a fair bit of trawling dungeons and collecting junk to sell, having sufficient storage space for your non-quest items, while not being critical, does make life a hell of a lot easier. By allowing essential game components to be pushed into one time use DLC, they can kill the used market or charge ridiculous prices for their DLC.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The problem is publishers ca n't be trusted not to abuse the system .
Already in Dragon Age you have to buy DLC in order to increase your backpack beyond a tiny limit .
For a game that involves a fair bit of trawling dungeons and collecting junk to sell , having sufficient storage space for your non-quest items , while not being critical , does make life a hell of a lot easier .
By allowing essential game components to be pushed into one time use DLC , they can kill the used market or charge ridiculous prices for their DLC .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The problem is publishers can't be trusted not to abuse the system.
Already in Dragon Age you have to buy DLC in order to increase your backpack beyond a tiny limit.
For a game that involves a fair bit of trawling dungeons and collecting junk to sell, having sufficient storage space for your non-quest items, while not being critical, does make life a hell of a lot easier.
By allowing essential game components to be pushed into one time use DLC, they can kill the used market or charge ridiculous prices for their DLC.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31628748</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31637592</id>
	<title>Re:"free" one use DLC is fine</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269723060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Gamestop sells a physical game and they guarantee that the game will work.  The Publisher is one one claiming there is extra content.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Gamestop sells a physical game and they guarantee that the game will work .
The Publisher is one one claiming there is extra content .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Gamestop sells a physical game and they guarantee that the game will work.
The Publisher is one one claiming there is extra content.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31629112</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31638556</id>
	<title>Re:The Bigger Picture.</title>
	<author>KDR\_11k</author>
	<datestamp>1269695100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Most places don't allow used PC game sales anyway because even without online activation the CD key is usually used up so online multiplayer isn't an option.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Most places do n't allow used PC game sales anyway because even without online activation the CD key is usually used up so online multiplayer is n't an option .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Most places don't allow used PC game sales anyway because even without online activation the CD key is usually used up so online multiplayer isn't an option.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31629158</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31634126</id>
	<title>Re:Yes game companies should be allowed to do this</title>
	<author>Xtifr</author>
	<datestamp>1269606540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Yes, game companies should be allowed to do one-time-use codes in their games.</p></div><p>Only if they're clearly marked as such.  They're claiming it's a feature of the game <em>when it's not</em>!  If it were a feature of the game, then re-installing the game on a different machine wouldn't change things.  Instead, it's a feature of the <em>initial</em> installation, <em>not the game</em>!  It's false advertising!</p><p>Note that this has nothing to do with used games sales.  I can <em>give</em> my copy of a game to a friend, and suddenly it doesn't work as advertised!  And there's no indication on the box that that's the case.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , game companies should be allowed to do one-time-use codes in their games.Only if they 're clearly marked as such .
They 're claiming it 's a feature of the game when it 's not !
If it were a feature of the game , then re-installing the game on a different machine would n't change things .
Instead , it 's a feature of the initial installation , not the game !
It 's false advertising ! Note that this has nothing to do with used games sales .
I can give my copy of a game to a friend , and suddenly it does n't work as advertised !
And there 's no indication on the box that that 's the case .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, game companies should be allowed to do one-time-use codes in their games.Only if they're clearly marked as such.
They're claiming it's a feature of the game when it's not!
If it were a feature of the game, then re-installing the game on a different machine wouldn't change things.
Instead, it's a feature of the initial installation, not the game!
It's false advertising!Note that this has nothing to do with used games sales.
I can give my copy of a game to a friend, and suddenly it doesn't work as advertised!
And there's no indication on the box that that's the case.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31628974</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31630164</id>
	<title>Re:Maybe he should look at the box next time</title>
	<author>Khyber</author>
	<datestamp>1269631920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I got news for you.</p><p>Any sale is a retail sale unless you have a reseller license.</p><p>Check your local state laws on sales tax - it explicitly defines a retail sale.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I got news for you.Any sale is a retail sale unless you have a reseller license.Check your local state laws on sales tax - it explicitly defines a retail sale .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I got news for you.Any sale is a retail sale unless you have a reseller license.Check your local state laws on sales tax - it explicitly defines a retail sale.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31629454</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31630412</id>
	<title>Re:Yep GameSpot is at fault</title>
	<author>Khyber</author>
	<datestamp>1269632880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>'If there's some kind of bold feature list that says "free downloadable content" on the game's cover, then GameSpot and other sellers need to take a marker or sticker and block it out, because otherwise it's false advertising."</p><p>Just how is it GS's fault that the PUBLISHER THAT PRINTED THE GAME BOX contains false advertising?</p><p>I think you might want to look up some prior caselaw concerning modified product without permission - even a modified game box can be considered a breach of trademark. Mattel did this with modified Barbie dolls that had been legally purchased beforehand.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>'If there 's some kind of bold feature list that says " free downloadable content " on the game 's cover , then GameSpot and other sellers need to take a marker or sticker and block it out , because otherwise it 's false advertising .
" Just how is it GS 's fault that the PUBLISHER THAT PRINTED THE GAME BOX contains false advertising ? I think you might want to look up some prior caselaw concerning modified product without permission - even a modified game box can be considered a breach of trademark .
Mattel did this with modified Barbie dolls that had been legally purchased beforehand .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>'If there's some kind of bold feature list that says "free downloadable content" on the game's cover, then GameSpot and other sellers need to take a marker or sticker and block it out, because otherwise it's false advertising.
"Just how is it GS's fault that the PUBLISHER THAT PRINTED THE GAME BOX contains false advertising?I think you might want to look up some prior caselaw concerning modified product without permission - even a modified game box can be considered a breach of trademark.
Mattel did this with modified Barbie dolls that had been legally purchased beforehand.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31628812</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31629620</id>
	<title>Like buying a used car</title>
	<author>jmcwork</author>
	<datestamp>1269630000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>and not getting the 'new car' smell.

But really, how many other things do you buy used and lose something over a new version: a book with a special coupon insert, DVD with ticket to the sequel, cereal missing the toy (strike that last one!)</htmltext>
<tokenext>and not getting the 'new car ' smell .
But really , how many other things do you buy used and lose something over a new version : a book with a special coupon insert , DVD with ticket to the sequel , cereal missing the toy ( strike that last one !
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>and not getting the 'new car' smell.
But really, how many other things do you buy used and lose something over a new version: a book with a special coupon insert, DVD with ticket to the sequel, cereal missing the toy (strike that last one!
)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31658150</id>
	<title>Re:You know...</title>
	<author>brkello</author>
	<datestamp>1269881460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I said this further up.  Used game sales aren't necessary for people to be exposed to a game.  They can borrow it or pirate it.  Can't really do much to stop those two.  If you can damage the used market, or manage to recover some profit off of it through DLC, then that is more profit for the company.<br> <br>People's concepts on here that this will hurt the companies bottom line more than help are naive at best.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I said this further up .
Used game sales are n't necessary for people to be exposed to a game .
They can borrow it or pirate it .
Ca n't really do much to stop those two .
If you can damage the used market , or manage to recover some profit off of it through DLC , then that is more profit for the company .
People 's concepts on here that this will hurt the companies bottom line more than help are naive at best .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I said this further up.
Used game sales aren't necessary for people to be exposed to a game.
They can borrow it or pirate it.
Can't really do much to stop those two.
If you can damage the used market, or manage to recover some profit off of it through DLC, then that is more profit for the company.
People's concepts on here that this will hurt the companies bottom line more than help are naive at best.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31629166</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31631192</id>
	<title>Re:Maybe he should look at the box next time</title>
	<author>AaronMK</author>
	<datestamp>1269636060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't care what the box says.  (In small fine print, no less.)  First sale is one of those few rights spelled out specifically in our copyright law.  It should not be some right of the publisher to diminish your rights as a purchaser.  Should writing on a box magically change that?</p><p>Even if the DLC did not come with the game, you should have the right to sell it with (or without) the game.  This would not be hard to facilitate on the current consoles.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't care what the box says .
( In small fine print , no less .
) First sale is one of those few rights spelled out specifically in our copyright law .
It should not be some right of the publisher to diminish your rights as a purchaser .
Should writing on a box magically change that ? Even if the DLC did not come with the game , you should have the right to sell it with ( or without ) the game .
This would not be hard to facilitate on the current consoles .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't care what the box says.
(In small fine print, no less.
)  First sale is one of those few rights spelled out specifically in our copyright law.
It should not be some right of the publisher to diminish your rights as a purchaser.
Should writing on a box magically change that?Even if the DLC did not come with the game, you should have the right to sell it with (or without) the game.
This would not be hard to facilitate on the current consoles.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31629454</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31658106</id>
	<title>Re:The Bigger Picture.</title>
	<author>brkello</author>
	<datestamp>1269881280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Analogies are used to make a complex problem easier to understand.  This isn't a complex problem so all an analogy does is confuse the discussion.<br> <br>The problem with your analogy is that the cost of a car is much different than the cost of a game.  Most people can afford a game.  If they can't, they generally can wait for the game to become a "classic" or fall in to the bargain bin (in either case, they are buying it for a reduced price).<br> <br>Also, your anecdote doesn't make sense in regards to the point you are trying to make.  Your friend could have just borrowed the game.  He didn't need to touch the used market.  Also, since he was able to buy ME2, it is clear that he wasn't a "buyers that would not or cannot participate in the primary market.:buyers that would not or cannot participate in the primary market."<br> <br>There really is no reason for game companies to encourage used game sales.  People can already borrow or pirate if they want to try something out.  It was that used games were just as much money to them as a pirated game.  With DLC, now they still have a chance to gain some profit for their work.  While I don't particularly like it, it does make sense from a business perspective and I understand why they do it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Analogies are used to make a complex problem easier to understand .
This is n't a complex problem so all an analogy does is confuse the discussion .
The problem with your analogy is that the cost of a car is much different than the cost of a game .
Most people can afford a game .
If they ca n't , they generally can wait for the game to become a " classic " or fall in to the bargain bin ( in either case , they are buying it for a reduced price ) .
Also , your anecdote does n't make sense in regards to the point you are trying to make .
Your friend could have just borrowed the game .
He did n't need to touch the used market .
Also , since he was able to buy ME2 , it is clear that he was n't a " buyers that would not or can not participate in the primary market .
: buyers that would not or can not participate in the primary market .
" There really is no reason for game companies to encourage used game sales .
People can already borrow or pirate if they want to try something out .
It was that used games were just as much money to them as a pirated game .
With DLC , now they still have a chance to gain some profit for their work .
While I do n't particularly like it , it does make sense from a business perspective and I understand why they do it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Analogies are used to make a complex problem easier to understand.
This isn't a complex problem so all an analogy does is confuse the discussion.
The problem with your analogy is that the cost of a car is much different than the cost of a game.
Most people can afford a game.
If they can't, they generally can wait for the game to become a "classic" or fall in to the bargain bin (in either case, they are buying it for a reduced price).
Also, your anecdote doesn't make sense in regards to the point you are trying to make.
Your friend could have just borrowed the game.
He didn't need to touch the used market.
Also, since he was able to buy ME2, it is clear that he wasn't a "buyers that would not or cannot participate in the primary market.
:buyers that would not or cannot participate in the primary market.
" There really is no reason for game companies to encourage used game sales.
People can already borrow or pirate if they want to try something out.
It was that used games were just as much money to them as a pirated game.
With DLC, now they still have a chance to gain some profit for their work.
While I don't particularly like it, it does make sense from a business perspective and I understand why they do it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31630450</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31640966</id>
	<title>Re:Nope - GameSpot is not at fault</title>
	<author>fatalfury</author>
	<datestamp>1269715200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I don't think GameSpot is at fault completely. I can see where someone who doesn't purchase used games very often may be misled in thinking that DLC would be available if it was advertised on the cover. However, most used game buyers and used product buyers in general are aware that items that might be included in a new condition item may not be in a used condition item. I don't expect digital codes to work for me if I buy a used game or any other item.
<br> <br>
If I were GameStop, I would add a disclaimer somewhere explaining that digital codes in used games may not work. I think this lawsuit has some merit but it ultimately frivolous. GameStop has a pretty lenient return policy. You have 7 days to return your used game. If you buy a game for the DLC and it doesn't work, just return it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't think GameSpot is at fault completely .
I can see where someone who does n't purchase used games very often may be misled in thinking that DLC would be available if it was advertised on the cover .
However , most used game buyers and used product buyers in general are aware that items that might be included in a new condition item may not be in a used condition item .
I do n't expect digital codes to work for me if I buy a used game or any other item .
If I were GameStop , I would add a disclaimer somewhere explaining that digital codes in used games may not work .
I think this lawsuit has some merit but it ultimately frivolous .
GameStop has a pretty lenient return policy .
You have 7 days to return your used game .
If you buy a game for the DLC and it does n't work , just return it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't think GameSpot is at fault completely.
I can see where someone who doesn't purchase used games very often may be misled in thinking that DLC would be available if it was advertised on the cover.
However, most used game buyers and used product buyers in general are aware that items that might be included in a new condition item may not be in a used condition item.
I don't expect digital codes to work for me if I buy a used game or any other item.
If I were GameStop, I would add a disclaimer somewhere explaining that digital codes in used games may not work.
I think this lawsuit has some merit but it ultimately frivolous.
GameStop has a pretty lenient return policy.
You have 7 days to return your used game.
If you buy a game for the DLC and it doesn't work, just return it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31629570</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31630096</id>
	<title>Re:You know...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269631680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Except they don't sell it for $45.  Gamespot buys it second-hand for $30, and resells it for $55, $5 less than the full retail copy, and the second hand copy is missing DLC that costs $15 to purchase for a anyone but the first sale (where it was bundled with a one time use code).  Gamespot makes $15-$30 on the initial sale, and they make another $25 on the secondary sale (and for every time they sell it again after that).  The original game developer got a whopping $30 out of this transaction, and a single second hand sale (when combined with the original sale) nets Gamestop twice what the original developer made.</p><p>You can see why the developers who are actually producing something would want to move towards a DLC model where they can capture -some- revenue from the second hand market, rather than losing it ALL to Gamespot.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Except they do n't sell it for $ 45 .
Gamespot buys it second-hand for $ 30 , and resells it for $ 55 , $ 5 less than the full retail copy , and the second hand copy is missing DLC that costs $ 15 to purchase for a anyone but the first sale ( where it was bundled with a one time use code ) .
Gamespot makes $ 15- $ 30 on the initial sale , and they make another $ 25 on the secondary sale ( and for every time they sell it again after that ) .
The original game developer got a whopping $ 30 out of this transaction , and a single second hand sale ( when combined with the original sale ) nets Gamestop twice what the original developer made.You can see why the developers who are actually producing something would want to move towards a DLC model where they can capture -some- revenue from the second hand market , rather than losing it ALL to Gamespot .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Except they don't sell it for $45.
Gamespot buys it second-hand for $30, and resells it for $55, $5 less than the full retail copy, and the second hand copy is missing DLC that costs $15 to purchase for a anyone but the first sale (where it was bundled with a one time use code).
Gamespot makes $15-$30 on the initial sale, and they make another $25 on the secondary sale (and for every time they sell it again after that).
The original game developer got a whopping $30 out of this transaction, and a single second hand sale (when combined with the original sale) nets Gamestop twice what the original developer made.You can see why the developers who are actually producing something would want to move towards a DLC model where they can capture -some- revenue from the second hand market, rather than losing it ALL to Gamespot.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31629166</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31630002</id>
	<title>Re:The Bigger Picture.</title>
	<author>jitterman</author>
	<datestamp>1269631260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I see legions, using P2P and usenet to bypass any codes whatsoever...  Fortunately, that hasn't entirely obliterated the original sale market yet (despite what publishers would tell you).</htmltext>
<tokenext>I see legions , using P2P and usenet to bypass any codes whatsoever... Fortunately , that has n't entirely obliterated the original sale market yet ( despite what publishers would tell you ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I see legions, using P2P and usenet to bypass any codes whatsoever...  Fortunately, that hasn't entirely obliterated the original sale market yet (despite what publishers would tell you).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31628634</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31630662</id>
	<title>Re:The Bigger Picture.</title>
	<author>Bakkster</author>
	<datestamp>1269633900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well, the point of pack-in DLC is to continue to make money from the secondary market.  The publishers only dislike the secondary market because they don't get paid.  If they can make $10-20 in DLC guaranteed from used game sales, then their opposition to resale disappears.
</p><p>You're also right about the 'this quest is on the game disc, but we wanted you to pay us more for it' DLC.  Of course, there's lots of other DLC that's totally reasonable from a consumer perspective, too.  Most notable would be songs for Rock Band and Guitar Hero.  The alternative is terrible full-disc releases (GH:80s for example) where you need to pay for 30 songs in order to get the 5 you actually want.  They also aren't developed until well after the time where they could be included disk, they aren't necessary patches or intentionally removed from the game, and they have a definite non-zero cost to produce (licensing).  That's a perfect example of DLC that's good for the company <strong>and</strong> the consumer.  Other examples are car packs for racing games (also requiring licensing and adding to the gameplay) or, to a lesser extent, map packs in a shooter or any other game.
</p><p>No sense throwing the baby out with the bathwater.  Hate the instrusive and offensive DLC (included on the disk, Dragon Age character that prompts you in-game to purchase), but it's really not all bad.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , the point of pack-in DLC is to continue to make money from the secondary market .
The publishers only dislike the secondary market because they do n't get paid .
If they can make $ 10-20 in DLC guaranteed from used game sales , then their opposition to resale disappears .
You 're also right about the 'this quest is on the game disc , but we wanted you to pay us more for it ' DLC .
Of course , there 's lots of other DLC that 's totally reasonable from a consumer perspective , too .
Most notable would be songs for Rock Band and Guitar Hero .
The alternative is terrible full-disc releases ( GH : 80s for example ) where you need to pay for 30 songs in order to get the 5 you actually want .
They also are n't developed until well after the time where they could be included disk , they are n't necessary patches or intentionally removed from the game , and they have a definite non-zero cost to produce ( licensing ) .
That 's a perfect example of DLC that 's good for the company and the consumer .
Other examples are car packs for racing games ( also requiring licensing and adding to the gameplay ) or , to a lesser extent , map packs in a shooter or any other game .
No sense throwing the baby out with the bathwater .
Hate the instrusive and offensive DLC ( included on the disk , Dragon Age character that prompts you in-game to purchase ) , but it 's really not all bad .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, the point of pack-in DLC is to continue to make money from the secondary market.
The publishers only dislike the secondary market because they don't get paid.
If they can make $10-20 in DLC guaranteed from used game sales, then their opposition to resale disappears.
You're also right about the 'this quest is on the game disc, but we wanted you to pay us more for it' DLC.
Of course, there's lots of other DLC that's totally reasonable from a consumer perspective, too.
Most notable would be songs for Rock Band and Guitar Hero.
The alternative is terrible full-disc releases (GH:80s for example) where you need to pay for 30 songs in order to get the 5 you actually want.
They also aren't developed until well after the time where they could be included disk, they aren't necessary patches or intentionally removed from the game, and they have a definite non-zero cost to produce (licensing).
That's a perfect example of DLC that's good for the company and the consumer.
Other examples are car packs for racing games (also requiring licensing and adding to the gameplay) or, to a lesser extent, map packs in a shooter or any other game.
No sense throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
Hate the instrusive and offensive DLC (included on the disk, Dragon Age character that prompts you in-game to purchase), but it's really not all bad.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31629594</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31631640</id>
	<title>Re:Yep GameSpot is at fault</title>
	<author>bluefoxlucid</author>
	<datestamp>1269594660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>If there's some kind of bold feature list that says "free downloadable content" on the game's cover</p></div><p>
Is the content "Free," or "Included"?  This looks like "Shareware with activation required for full play" to me more than "Free content!"
</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If there 's some kind of bold feature list that says " free downloadable content " on the game 's cover Is the content " Free , " or " Included " ?
This looks like " Shareware with activation required for full play " to me more than " Free content !
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If there's some kind of bold feature list that says "free downloadable content" on the game's cover
Is the content "Free," or "Included"?
This looks like "Shareware with activation required for full play" to me more than "Free content!
"

	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31628812</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31633992</id>
	<title>Re:CD-Key</title>
	<author>HandleMyBidness</author>
	<datestamp>1269605700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The CD key is now tied to your battle.net account and cannot be resold.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The CD key is now tied to your battle.net account and can not be resold .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The CD key is now tied to your battle.net account and cannot be resold.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31628938</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31629454</id>
	<title>Maybe he should look at the box next time</title>
	<author>jim\_v2000</author>
	<datestamp>1269629460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><a href="http://i.imgur.com/6kjAx.jpg" title="imgur.com" rel="nofollow">Look on the left.</a> [imgur.com]
<br> <br>
It clearly says that the DLC is for retail purchases only.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Look on the left .
[ imgur.com ] It clearly says that the DLC is for retail purchases only .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Look on the left.
[imgur.com]
 
It clearly says that the DLC is for retail purchases only.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31628634</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31658194</id>
	<title>Re:Why not both?</title>
	<author>brkello</author>
	<datestamp>1269881640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>So they will just need to put stickers on the cellophane wrappers that say that so that the box doesn't say you can get anything for free.  It is obvious to me that stuff would only work for the new game, but I guess consumers are dumb and you have to account for that.</htmltext>
<tokenext>So they will just need to put stickers on the cellophane wrappers that say that so that the box does n't say you can get anything for free .
It is obvious to me that stuff would only work for the new game , but I guess consumers are dumb and you have to account for that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So they will just need to put stickers on the cellophane wrappers that say that so that the box doesn't say you can get anything for free.
It is obvious to me that stuff would only work for the new game, but I guess consumers are dumb and you have to account for that.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31629008</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31633444</id>
	<title>.,- /&amp;2</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269602520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>This kind of crap is why I don't pay for games...</htmltext>
<tokenext>This kind of crap is why I do n't pay for games.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This kind of crap is why I don't pay for games...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31630298</id>
	<title>Re:You know...</title>
	<author>Pawnn</author>
	<datestamp>1269632400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The trick is, you know that $45 that someone else paid?  Game companies want that guy to pay $60 as well.  The used game market prevents them from having that $15.  At least that's what the game company thinks.  Chances are, he may not buy the game new anyway.  But game companies don't know that, yet.  They'll have to crush the used game market and find out.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The trick is , you know that $ 45 that someone else paid ?
Game companies want that guy to pay $ 60 as well .
The used game market prevents them from having that $ 15 .
At least that 's what the game company thinks .
Chances are , he may not buy the game new anyway .
But game companies do n't know that , yet .
They 'll have to crush the used game market and find out .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The trick is, you know that $45 that someone else paid?
Game companies want that guy to pay $60 as well.
The used game market prevents them from having that $15.
At least that's what the game company thinks.
Chances are, he may not buy the game new anyway.
But game companies don't know that, yet.
They'll have to crush the used game market and find out.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31629166</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31630204</id>
	<title>Used Game Market</title>
	<author>sonicmerlin</author>
	<datestamp>1269632040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The used game market is the reason prices for games never drop much at retail.  Publishers know no matter how low they drop their prices they will be undercut by Gamestop.  That's why on a platform like Steam you see massive discounts and "clearance sale" prices, because publishers don't have to worry about losing money to resellers who simply skim the tail end of a game's sales tail off its profit curve.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The used game market is the reason prices for games never drop much at retail .
Publishers know no matter how low they drop their prices they will be undercut by Gamestop .
That 's why on a platform like Steam you see massive discounts and " clearance sale " prices , because publishers do n't have to worry about losing money to resellers who simply skim the tail end of a game 's sales tail off its profit curve .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The used game market is the reason prices for games never drop much at retail.
Publishers know no matter how low they drop their prices they will be undercut by Gamestop.
That's why on a platform like Steam you see massive discounts and "clearance sale" prices, because publishers don't have to worry about losing money to resellers who simply skim the tail end of a game's sales tail off its profit curve.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31628842</id>
	<title>Suckers.</title>
	<author>MaWeiTao</author>
	<datestamp>1269627480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I have no love for GameStop, but how is this deceptive? You're buying something used meaning that you're risking acquiring a compromised product. This might mean a missing manual, missing box or limited access to online content. I suppose what will come of this is that GameStop stops providing the box with the game.</p><p>I think the most offensive thing here is that this idiot would actually buy a used game for a mere $5 discount. This is the fundamental problem I have with the likes of GameStop. They probably gave the previous owner $20 for this game and then turn around and sell it for $55. The pricing on most of their used games is quite outrageous. But really, it's the fault of the consumer who is too lazy or impatient to shop around. You could probably walk into a Target or Walmart and find that same game, brand new, for $55. In fact, you can find Dragon Age on Amazon for $45. Wait a few extra days and in addition to paying no sales tax you get free shipping.</p><p>Keep in mind, I have no problem with selling used games. I have a problem with how GameStop screws people. But again, that's the fault of gamers and nobody else.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have no love for GameStop , but how is this deceptive ?
You 're buying something used meaning that you 're risking acquiring a compromised product .
This might mean a missing manual , missing box or limited access to online content .
I suppose what will come of this is that GameStop stops providing the box with the game.I think the most offensive thing here is that this idiot would actually buy a used game for a mere $ 5 discount .
This is the fundamental problem I have with the likes of GameStop .
They probably gave the previous owner $ 20 for this game and then turn around and sell it for $ 55 .
The pricing on most of their used games is quite outrageous .
But really , it 's the fault of the consumer who is too lazy or impatient to shop around .
You could probably walk into a Target or Walmart and find that same game , brand new , for $ 55 .
In fact , you can find Dragon Age on Amazon for $ 45 .
Wait a few extra days and in addition to paying no sales tax you get free shipping.Keep in mind , I have no problem with selling used games .
I have a problem with how GameStop screws people .
But again , that 's the fault of gamers and nobody else .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have no love for GameStop, but how is this deceptive?
You're buying something used meaning that you're risking acquiring a compromised product.
This might mean a missing manual, missing box or limited access to online content.
I suppose what will come of this is that GameStop stops providing the box with the game.I think the most offensive thing here is that this idiot would actually buy a used game for a mere $5 discount.
This is the fundamental problem I have with the likes of GameStop.
They probably gave the previous owner $20 for this game and then turn around and sell it for $55.
The pricing on most of their used games is quite outrageous.
But really, it's the fault of the consumer who is too lazy or impatient to shop around.
You could probably walk into a Target or Walmart and find that same game, brand new, for $55.
In fact, you can find Dragon Age on Amazon for $45.
Wait a few extra days and in addition to paying no sales tax you get free shipping.Keep in mind, I have no problem with selling used games.
I have a problem with how GameStop screws people.
But again, that's the fault of gamers and nobody else.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31630764</id>
	<title>they're doing crap like this with new releases</title>
	<author>jollyreaper</author>
	<datestamp>1269634260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Buy the standard version of the game for $49.99. But wait, the gold edition is shipping the same day! Get this exclusive handsome corinthian leather bullshit gold edition for $59.99. It includes those two skins and another special character.</p><p>I'm more than happy to pay for games but there's no fucking way I'm paying for this shit.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Buy the standard version of the game for $ 49.99 .
But wait , the gold edition is shipping the same day !
Get this exclusive handsome corinthian leather bullshit gold edition for $ 59.99 .
It includes those two skins and another special character.I 'm more than happy to pay for games but there 's no fucking way I 'm paying for this shit .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Buy the standard version of the game for $49.99.
But wait, the gold edition is shipping the same day!
Get this exclusive handsome corinthian leather bullshit gold edition for $59.99.
It includes those two skins and another special character.I'm more than happy to pay for games but there's no fucking way I'm paying for this shit.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31630750</id>
	<title>Re:You know...</title>
	<author>ITJC68</author>
	<datestamp>1269634200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Because they make no money on used games. If used games were not available people would be forced to buy the new product in order to play. That is their outlook on it. It costs money for game development and marketing but they make all that when the game is new. You are going to see more of this as time goes on. With Blizzard (warcraft) you could sell the game cds to a person but they would have to take over your account and without Blizzard catching on. That would be hard to do I suppose. Haven't tried it although I have no reason to as I still play.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Because they make no money on used games .
If used games were not available people would be forced to buy the new product in order to play .
That is their outlook on it .
It costs money for game development and marketing but they make all that when the game is new .
You are going to see more of this as time goes on .
With Blizzard ( warcraft ) you could sell the game cds to a person but they would have to take over your account and without Blizzard catching on .
That would be hard to do I suppose .
Have n't tried it although I have no reason to as I still play .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because they make no money on used games.
If used games were not available people would be forced to buy the new product in order to play.
That is their outlook on it.
It costs money for game development and marketing but they make all that when the game is new.
You are going to see more of this as time goes on.
With Blizzard (warcraft) you could sell the game cds to a person but they would have to take over your account and without Blizzard catching on.
That would be hard to do I suppose.
Haven't tried it although I have no reason to as I still play.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31628742</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31630362</id>
	<title>Re:It costs five times that much</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269632640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>If by "the article" you meant "global warming", your comment would be just as relevant as mine.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If by " the article " you meant " global warming " , your comment would be just as relevant as mine .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If by "the article" you meant "global warming", your comment would be just as relevant as mine.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31628916</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31629994</id>
	<title>Serves them right</title>
	<author>adamjgp</author>
	<datestamp>1269631200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Being a former Gamestop manager, this thrills me to death!  I'm sure if Gamestop treated their employees with a bit more respect and actually valued them, then maybe their employees would take it upon themselves to inform customers about these kinds of things.
<br> <br>
Also, I wouldn't be surprised if Gamestop Corporate sent out a mandate to keep this information from the customer, similar to the way that they tell employees to sell reserved copies of games to non-reserved customer walk-ins on release day.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Being a former Gamestop manager , this thrills me to death !
I 'm sure if Gamestop treated their employees with a bit more respect and actually valued them , then maybe their employees would take it upon themselves to inform customers about these kinds of things .
Also , I would n't be surprised if Gamestop Corporate sent out a mandate to keep this information from the customer , similar to the way that they tell employees to sell reserved copies of games to non-reserved customer walk-ins on release day .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Being a former Gamestop manager, this thrills me to death!
I'm sure if Gamestop treated their employees with a bit more respect and actually valued them, then maybe their employees would take it upon themselves to inform customers about these kinds of things.
Also, I wouldn't be surprised if Gamestop Corporate sent out a mandate to keep this information from the customer, similar to the way that they tell employees to sell reserved copies of games to non-reserved customer walk-ins on release day.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31629538</id>
	<title>Re:Suckers.</title>
	<author>Shimbo</author>
	<datestamp>1269629700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>You're buying something used meaning that you're risking acquiring a compromised product.</p> </div><p>I don't think it's reasonable for the buyer to take the risk when buying a boxed set at near full retail price. Really though, the publisher should makes it clear that they intend to screw the used market on the box. Free downloadable content (offer open to original purchaser only). Problem solved.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>You 're buying something used meaning that you 're risking acquiring a compromised product .
I do n't think it 's reasonable for the buyer to take the risk when buying a boxed set at near full retail price .
Really though , the publisher should makes it clear that they intend to screw the used market on the box .
Free downloadable content ( offer open to original purchaser only ) .
Problem solved .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You're buying something used meaning that you're risking acquiring a compromised product.
I don't think it's reasonable for the buyer to take the risk when buying a boxed set at near full retail price.
Really though, the publisher should makes it clear that they intend to screw the used market on the box.
Free downloadable content (offer open to original purchaser only).
Problem solved.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31628842</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31633086</id>
	<title>DLC problem?, more like Gamestop problem.....</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269600480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What's wrong with everyone here.........</p><p>I see the issue as a problem with piracy - pure and simple</p><p>Games companies issuing DLC only for the original purchaser is a fantastic way of them getting a slice of cash for every (well, a lot more anyway) game 'copy' out there</p><p>My isue here is with the used games resellers not discounting the 'second hand' game enough</p><p>provided you can purchase a used game copy AND the original DLC for a total less price than the brand new retail game, what's the problem?</p><p>People pirate games because they're too expensive, because they can, and because something 'free' is always good...innit?</p><p>DLC charging will, for a short while at least provide additional revenue for further game development.....untill the warez kiddiez figure out a crack and throw that DLC onto a cracked copy!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What 's wrong with everyone here.........I see the issue as a problem with piracy - pure and simpleGames companies issuing DLC only for the original purchaser is a fantastic way of them getting a slice of cash for every ( well , a lot more anyway ) game 'copy ' out thereMy isue here is with the used games resellers not discounting the 'second hand ' game enoughprovided you can purchase a used game copy AND the original DLC for a total less price than the brand new retail game , what 's the problem ? People pirate games because they 're too expensive , because they can , and because something 'free ' is always good...innit ? DLC charging will , for a short while at least provide additional revenue for further game development.....untill the warez kiddiez figure out a crack and throw that DLC onto a cracked copy !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What's wrong with everyone here.........I see the issue as a problem with piracy - pure and simpleGames companies issuing DLC only for the original purchaser is a fantastic way of them getting a slice of cash for every (well, a lot more anyway) game 'copy' out thereMy isue here is with the used games resellers not discounting the 'second hand' game enoughprovided you can purchase a used game copy AND the original DLC for a total less price than the brand new retail game, what's the problem?People pirate games because they're too expensive, because they can, and because something 'free' is always good...innit?DLC charging will, for a short while at least provide additional revenue for further game development.....untill the warez kiddiez figure out a crack and throw that DLC onto a cracked copy!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31641016</id>
	<title>Re:The Bigger Picture.</title>
	<author>wshs</author>
	<datestamp>1269715440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I believe DLC is twofold. First, it means they can sell nearly empty games at full retail, and then charge you for "expansions" which just result in a full proper game (I'm looking at you Guitar Hero). Second, it means the game has virtually no resale value. It essentially guarantees a steady flow of income since you don't have to put any effort into a release product, and nobody will purchase said release product used. It's quite a clever con job, and it's legal and risk free. Cosa Nostra would be proud.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I believe DLC is twofold .
First , it means they can sell nearly empty games at full retail , and then charge you for " expansions " which just result in a full proper game ( I 'm looking at you Guitar Hero ) .
Second , it means the game has virtually no resale value .
It essentially guarantees a steady flow of income since you do n't have to put any effort into a release product , and nobody will purchase said release product used .
It 's quite a clever con job , and it 's legal and risk free .
Cosa Nostra would be proud .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I believe DLC is twofold.
First, it means they can sell nearly empty games at full retail, and then charge you for "expansions" which just result in a full proper game (I'm looking at you Guitar Hero).
Second, it means the game has virtually no resale value.
It essentially guarantees a steady flow of income since you don't have to put any effort into a release product, and nobody will purchase said release product used.
It's quite a clever con job, and it's legal and risk free.
Cosa Nostra would be proud.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31629594</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31631512</id>
	<title>Re:The Bigger Picture.</title>
	<author>mattack2</author>
	<datestamp>1269594120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>There's no reason to release DLC except to ruin the used game market. We now have the DLC already finished when the game is released and even included on the disk with the original game. How much more obvious can it be?</p></div></blockquote><p>Isn't that true in only one case?  I'm not a gamer (have a PS2 and buy old games), but I thought that has only happened once so far.  I do watch the GameTrailers TV show, and they've had interviews with game producers talking about DLC ongoing for various games.  Not all of that DLC is done already..  So I think you're making a huge exaggeration, even though I do think that it's lame in the case that it happened.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>There 's no reason to release DLC except to ruin the used game market .
We now have the DLC already finished when the game is released and even included on the disk with the original game .
How much more obvious can it be ? Is n't that true in only one case ?
I 'm not a gamer ( have a PS2 and buy old games ) , but I thought that has only happened once so far .
I do watch the GameTrailers TV show , and they 've had interviews with game producers talking about DLC ongoing for various games .
Not all of that DLC is done already.. So I think you 're making a huge exaggeration , even though I do think that it 's lame in the case that it happened .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There's no reason to release DLC except to ruin the used game market.
We now have the DLC already finished when the game is released and even included on the disk with the original game.
How much more obvious can it be?Isn't that true in only one case?
I'm not a gamer (have a PS2 and buy old games), but I thought that has only happened once so far.
I do watch the GameTrailers TV show, and they've had interviews with game producers talking about DLC ongoing for various games.
Not all of that DLC is done already..  So I think you're making a huge exaggeration, even though I do think that it's lame in the case that it happened.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31629594</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31631852</id>
	<title>solution already exists</title>
	<author>DriveDog</author>
	<datestamp>1269595620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Enforced properly, existing laws would force retailers of used games to prominently display a notice that the used merchandise does not contain content equivalent to the new one. Resale value then falls. Over time, there would presumably be less demand for games that couldn't be resold for much, and publishers would notice a decline in demand for the new games that employ such tactics.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Enforced properly , existing laws would force retailers of used games to prominently display a notice that the used merchandise does not contain content equivalent to the new one .
Resale value then falls .
Over time , there would presumably be less demand for games that could n't be resold for much , and publishers would notice a decline in demand for the new games that employ such tactics .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Enforced properly, existing laws would force retailers of used games to prominently display a notice that the used merchandise does not contain content equivalent to the new one.
Resale value then falls.
Over time, there would presumably be less demand for games that couldn't be resold for much, and publishers would notice a decline in demand for the new games that employ such tactics.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31628876</id>
	<title>Sorry dude</title>
	<author>KneelBeforeZod</author>
	<datestamp>1269627540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Caveat emptor.  Let the buyer beware.  If you knew the game was USED then you had 7 days to return it.</p><p>But i wonder how much game studios profit from DLC addons to their games.  I'm thinkin Mass Effect 2, Fallout 3, GTA4, and others.  Because the worth of DLC is variable from a freebies to 10-15$, always a fraction of the original retail game disc.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Caveat emptor .
Let the buyer beware .
If you knew the game was USED then you had 7 days to return it.But i wonder how much game studios profit from DLC addons to their games .
I 'm thinkin Mass Effect 2 , Fallout 3 , GTA4 , and others .
Because the worth of DLC is variable from a freebies to 10-15 $ , always a fraction of the original retail game disc .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Caveat emptor.
Let the buyer beware.
If you knew the game was USED then you had 7 days to return it.But i wonder how much game studios profit from DLC addons to their games.
I'm thinkin Mass Effect 2, Fallout 3, GTA4, and others.
Because the worth of DLC is variable from a freebies to 10-15$, always a fraction of the original retail game disc.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31630450</id>
	<title>Re:The Bigger Picture.</title>
	<author>NotBornYesterday</author>
	<datestamp>1269633000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>You are assuming that the entire purpose of DLC is not to obliterate the secondary market for games</p></div><p>That's what kills me.  You would think that the game companies would <i>want</i> a robust secondary market.
</p><p>
(Sorry in advance)  A quick car analogy - High expected resale value on a car makes a high initial purchase price more justifiable.  It also makes the consumer more likely to buy another new car sooner, rather than wait until he/she can afford another steep investment with no resale value.  Buyers in the secondary market are often buyers that would not or cannot participate in the primary market.  A good used car is a good way to get someone to try your product who otherwise would never would have been exposed to it, and may get them to buy a new one next.
</p><p>
Here's a perfect real-life example.  My teenage son borrowed Mass Effect from a friend and liked it.  Eventually he bought a used copy of it.  When Mass Effect 2 came out, he was already in line for a new copy.  That new sale would likely never have happened if he hadn't experienced the first game free, then cheap.  If he can't sell one game to make cash for the next one, he will buy fewer games, and do so less often.  Game designers are shooting themselves in the foot by reducing the value of their games on the secondary market.  In the long run it will hurt them and the overall industry.  Of course, they won't see it that way.  If their sales drop because fewer people will pony up $60 - $80 for a game that is worth $0 in resale, they will find some way to blame it on someone or something else<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... downloaders<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... used games<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... anyone but themselves and their policies.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>You are assuming that the entire purpose of DLC is not to obliterate the secondary market for gamesThat 's what kills me .
You would think that the game companies would want a robust secondary market .
( Sorry in advance ) A quick car analogy - High expected resale value on a car makes a high initial purchase price more justifiable .
It also makes the consumer more likely to buy another new car sooner , rather than wait until he/she can afford another steep investment with no resale value .
Buyers in the secondary market are often buyers that would not or can not participate in the primary market .
A good used car is a good way to get someone to try your product who otherwise would never would have been exposed to it , and may get them to buy a new one next .
Here 's a perfect real-life example .
My teenage son borrowed Mass Effect from a friend and liked it .
Eventually he bought a used copy of it .
When Mass Effect 2 came out , he was already in line for a new copy .
That new sale would likely never have happened if he had n't experienced the first game free , then cheap .
If he ca n't sell one game to make cash for the next one , he will buy fewer games , and do so less often .
Game designers are shooting themselves in the foot by reducing the value of their games on the secondary market .
In the long run it will hurt them and the overall industry .
Of course , they wo n't see it that way .
If their sales drop because fewer people will pony up $ 60 - $ 80 for a game that is worth $ 0 in resale , they will find some way to blame it on someone or something else ... downloaders ... used games ... anyone but themselves and their policies .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You are assuming that the entire purpose of DLC is not to obliterate the secondary market for gamesThat's what kills me.
You would think that the game companies would want a robust secondary market.
(Sorry in advance)  A quick car analogy - High expected resale value on a car makes a high initial purchase price more justifiable.
It also makes the consumer more likely to buy another new car sooner, rather than wait until he/she can afford another steep investment with no resale value.
Buyers in the secondary market are often buyers that would not or cannot participate in the primary market.
A good used car is a good way to get someone to try your product who otherwise would never would have been exposed to it, and may get them to buy a new one next.
Here's a perfect real-life example.
My teenage son borrowed Mass Effect from a friend and liked it.
Eventually he bought a used copy of it.
When Mass Effect 2 came out, he was already in line for a new copy.
That new sale would likely never have happened if he hadn't experienced the first game free, then cheap.
If he can't sell one game to make cash for the next one, he will buy fewer games, and do so less often.
Game designers are shooting themselves in the foot by reducing the value of their games on the secondary market.
In the long run it will hurt them and the overall industry.
Of course, they won't see it that way.
If their sales drop because fewer people will pony up $60 - $80 for a game that is worth $0 in resale, they will find some way to blame it on someone or something else ... downloaders ... used games ... anyone but themselves and their policies.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31629594</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31630396</id>
	<title>First sale doctrine</title>
	<author>JSBiff</author>
	<datestamp>1269632820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I've often wondered if those one-use codes for DLC are even really legal (in the U.S.), because of the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-sale\_doctrine" title="wikipedia.org">First Sale doctrine</a> [wikipedia.org].  Of course, until someone with money to spend on a lawsuit to settle the question, does, then we'll likely never know the answer.</p><p>Perhaps GameStop could sue one of the publishers on behalf of their customers, and make the case that the First Sale doctrine should prevent developers from locking DLC to a particular user.</p><p>Or, maybe some lawyer that specializes in class-actions could get a class-action suit going on behalf of the class of users who have purchased downloadable content (or downloadable games, through services like Steam, Direct2Drive, etc), based on the theory that by preventing users from exercising their second-sale rights, with regards to the DLC portion of the purchased product, the publishers have caused damages to those users (by devaluing their used copies). (I mean, if you think about it, if the resale value of used copies is reduced because of the 'missing' content, then you should be able to estimate some value for the 'free' DLC), then you added up all the copies of software which couldn't be sold at the expected resale price for a popular game like, say, Dragon Age: Origins, or Assassin's Creed 2, etc, it probably adds up to millions of dollars.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've often wondered if those one-use codes for DLC are even really legal ( in the U.S. ) , because of the First Sale doctrine [ wikipedia.org ] .
Of course , until someone with money to spend on a lawsuit to settle the question , does , then we 'll likely never know the answer.Perhaps GameStop could sue one of the publishers on behalf of their customers , and make the case that the First Sale doctrine should prevent developers from locking DLC to a particular user.Or , maybe some lawyer that specializes in class-actions could get a class-action suit going on behalf of the class of users who have purchased downloadable content ( or downloadable games , through services like Steam , Direct2Drive , etc ) , based on the theory that by preventing users from exercising their second-sale rights , with regards to the DLC portion of the purchased product , the publishers have caused damages to those users ( by devaluing their used copies ) .
( I mean , if you think about it , if the resale value of used copies is reduced because of the 'missing ' content , then you should be able to estimate some value for the 'free ' DLC ) , then you added up all the copies of software which could n't be sold at the expected resale price for a popular game like , say , Dragon Age : Origins , or Assassin 's Creed 2 , etc , it probably adds up to millions of dollars .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've often wondered if those one-use codes for DLC are even really legal (in the U.S.), because of the First Sale doctrine [wikipedia.org].
Of course, until someone with money to spend on a lawsuit to settle the question, does, then we'll likely never know the answer.Perhaps GameStop could sue one of the publishers on behalf of their customers, and make the case that the First Sale doctrine should prevent developers from locking DLC to a particular user.Or, maybe some lawyer that specializes in class-actions could get a class-action suit going on behalf of the class of users who have purchased downloadable content (or downloadable games, through services like Steam, Direct2Drive, etc), based on the theory that by preventing users from exercising their second-sale rights, with regards to the DLC portion of the purchased product, the publishers have caused damages to those users (by devaluing their used copies).
(I mean, if you think about it, if the resale value of used copies is reduced because of the 'missing' content, then you should be able to estimate some value for the 'free' DLC), then you added up all the copies of software which couldn't be sold at the expected resale price for a popular game like, say, Dragon Age: Origins, or Assassin's Creed 2, etc, it probably adds up to millions of dollars.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31629378</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31629416</id>
	<title>Re:Why not both?</title>
	<author>nedlohs</author>
	<datestamp>1269629340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So if I sell you a used car and you then find out that I had ripped out the stock stereo system and replaced it with a cardboard cutout, you are saying that Honda is responsible?</p><p>Gamestop sold a used game that did not contain all the material the new game contained. They need to state that upfront, not the publisher. It's possible a used game could still have the working codes, if the original owner didn't bother using them after all.</p><p>This is *exactly* the same as selling a used game without the manual - it's perfectly find as long as you don't hide that the manual isn't being sold with it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So if I sell you a used car and you then find out that I had ripped out the stock stereo system and replaced it with a cardboard cutout , you are saying that Honda is responsible ? Gamestop sold a used game that did not contain all the material the new game contained .
They need to state that upfront , not the publisher .
It 's possible a used game could still have the working codes , if the original owner did n't bother using them after all.This is * exactly * the same as selling a used game without the manual - it 's perfectly find as long as you do n't hide that the manual is n't being sold with it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So if I sell you a used car and you then find out that I had ripped out the stock stereo system and replaced it with a cardboard cutout, you are saying that Honda is responsible?Gamestop sold a used game that did not contain all the material the new game contained.
They need to state that upfront, not the publisher.
It's possible a used game could still have the working codes, if the original owner didn't bother using them after all.This is *exactly* the same as selling a used game without the manual - it's perfectly find as long as you don't hide that the manual isn't being sold with it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31629008</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31630078</id>
	<title>as somebody working in the games industry</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269631620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>can I please request that they sue the games industry instead, it might put some sense in upper management who seem intent on screwing people out of the games we work on.</p><p>AC for obvious reasons.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>can I please request that they sue the games industry instead , it might put some sense in upper management who seem intent on screwing people out of the games we work on.AC for obvious reasons .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>can I please request that they sue the games industry instead, it might put some sense in upper management who seem intent on screwing people out of the games we work on.AC for obvious reasons.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31630922</id>
	<title>Re:You know...</title>
	<author>pnewhook</author>
	<datestamp>1269635040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Just like publishers don't make any money off of libraries.
</p><p>This lawsuit is silly.  It's like suing the library that you didn't get the free bookmark that the bookstores hand out.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Just like publishers do n't make any money off of libraries .
This lawsuit is silly .
It 's like suing the library that you did n't get the free bookmark that the bookstores hand out .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just like publishers don't make any money off of libraries.
This lawsuit is silly.
It's like suing the library that you didn't get the free bookmark that the bookstores hand out.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31628742</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31636592</id>
	<title>Re:The Bigger Picture.</title>
	<author>Sabriel</author>
	<datestamp>1269623160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's okay - if it's over ten dollars, my Steam purchasing days are also in the past.</p><p>Want to give it to your brother?<br>Want to donate it to your local charity?<br>Want to sell it to your neighbour?</p><p>Steam? Can't do it.</p><p>I've gone back to buying real discs, from companies that still care. So yeah, no games with first-user-DLC traps either.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's okay - if it 's over ten dollars , my Steam purchasing days are also in the past.Want to give it to your brother ? Want to donate it to your local charity ? Want to sell it to your neighbour ? Steam ?
Ca n't do it.I 've gone back to buying real discs , from companies that still care .
So yeah , no games with first-user-DLC traps either .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's okay - if it's over ten dollars, my Steam purchasing days are also in the past.Want to give it to your brother?Want to donate it to your local charity?Want to sell it to your neighbour?Steam?
Can't do it.I've gone back to buying real discs, from companies that still care.
So yeah, no games with first-user-DLC traps either.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31629158</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31629850</id>
	<title>Re:Yep GameSpot is at fault</title>
	<author>Demonantis</author>
	<datestamp>1269630720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I completely agree, but I think there is a due diligence issue here too. If I purchase the game new then I would assume that the person I resell it too will have access to the DLC that I received with it. By that not being clearly explained to the purchaser that it will only work once then it is obviously not tied freely to the product itself but is instead another product completely. If I could prove that a majority of people have this expectation of togetherness. Which the blacking out expectation would demonstrate then the publisher is also committing false advertising because I should be informed of the separation of the two products. Especially when they are combining a consumable to an investment, like this situation because the DLC is not resell able while the game is.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I completely agree , but I think there is a due diligence issue here too .
If I purchase the game new then I would assume that the person I resell it too will have access to the DLC that I received with it .
By that not being clearly explained to the purchaser that it will only work once then it is obviously not tied freely to the product itself but is instead another product completely .
If I could prove that a majority of people have this expectation of togetherness .
Which the blacking out expectation would demonstrate then the publisher is also committing false advertising because I should be informed of the separation of the two products .
Especially when they are combining a consumable to an investment , like this situation because the DLC is not resell able while the game is .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I completely agree, but I think there is a due diligence issue here too.
If I purchase the game new then I would assume that the person I resell it too will have access to the DLC that I received with it.
By that not being clearly explained to the purchaser that it will only work once then it is obviously not tied freely to the product itself but is instead another product completely.
If I could prove that a majority of people have this expectation of togetherness.
Which the blacking out expectation would demonstrate then the publisher is also committing false advertising because I should be informed of the separation of the two products.
Especially when they are combining a consumable to an investment, like this situation because the DLC is not resell able while the game is.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31628812</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31630142</id>
	<title>Re:"free" one use DLC is fine</title>
	<author>Late Adopter</author>
	<datestamp>1269631860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I agree.  The reason such a thing doesn't really matter so much yet is (at least in my experience) the in-box DLC is just shiny extras, like in Forza 3, where I got a couple tracks and some cars, none of which are used in career mode.  It makes buying an original copy a little nicer, like the physical trinkets in old computer games, but it doesn't change the game.
<br> <br>
Now if we were talking entire expansion packs, like if the Fallout 3 GOTY edition came with DLC cards instead of an extra disc... then we'd be talking reduced value.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I agree .
The reason such a thing does n't really matter so much yet is ( at least in my experience ) the in-box DLC is just shiny extras , like in Forza 3 , where I got a couple tracks and some cars , none of which are used in career mode .
It makes buying an original copy a little nicer , like the physical trinkets in old computer games , but it does n't change the game .
Now if we were talking entire expansion packs , like if the Fallout 3 GOTY edition came with DLC cards instead of an extra disc... then we 'd be talking reduced value .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I agree.
The reason such a thing doesn't really matter so much yet is (at least in my experience) the in-box DLC is just shiny extras, like in Forza 3, where I got a couple tracks and some cars, none of which are used in career mode.
It makes buying an original copy a little nicer, like the physical trinkets in old computer games, but it doesn't change the game.
Now if we were talking entire expansion packs, like if the Fallout 3 GOTY edition came with DLC cards instead of an extra disc... then we'd be talking reduced value.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31629112</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31635662</id>
	<title>Re:The Bigger Picture.</title>
	<author>PopeRatzo</author>
	<datestamp>1269615960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Us game developers (so yes, I'm biased!) have to eat!</p></div></blockquote><p>Of course you do.  I'm just not yet convinced that piracy is eating into your caloric intake.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Us game developers ( so yes , I 'm biased !
) have to eat ! Of course you do .
I 'm just not yet convinced that piracy is eating into your caloric intake .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Us game developers (so yes, I'm biased!
) have to eat!Of course you do.
I'm just not yet convinced that piracy is eating into your caloric intake.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31631886</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31633814</id>
	<title>Re:Why not both?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269604800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>If anyone buys that same copy used, instead of "hell no", they should get a screen that says "This code has already been claimed. But for just $2.99, you too can have this exclusive content"</p></div><p>They should get a screen that say: "We sold this DLC to the original purchaser.  By the doctrine of first sale, we're required to allow them to resell it.  You bought the original game from them; so now the DLC is yours."</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If anyone buys that same copy used , instead of " hell no " , they should get a screen that says " This code has already been claimed .
But for just $ 2.99 , you too can have this exclusive content " They should get a screen that say : " We sold this DLC to the original purchaser .
By the doctrine of first sale , we 're required to allow them to resell it .
You bought the original game from them ; so now the DLC is yours .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If anyone buys that same copy used, instead of "hell no", they should get a screen that says "This code has already been claimed.
But for just $2.99, you too can have this exclusive content"They should get a screen that say: "We sold this DLC to the original purchaser.
By the doctrine of first sale, we're required to allow them to resell it.
You bought the original game from them; so now the DLC is yours.
"
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31628748</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31628910</id>
	<title>Re:Why not both?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269627600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Isn't that what EA is doing?  As far as I know, owners of used copies of recent EA games have the option of purchasing the "free" DLC that came with the new copy.  They don't offer the relinquish option, but it's EA so I doubt they ever will.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</htmltext>
<tokenext>Is n't that what EA is doing ?
As far as I know , owners of used copies of recent EA games have the option of purchasing the " free " DLC that came with the new copy .
They do n't offer the relinquish option , but it 's EA so I doubt they ever will .
: )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Isn't that what EA is doing?
As far as I know, owners of used copies of recent EA games have the option of purchasing the "free" DLC that came with the new copy.
They don't offer the relinquish option, but it's EA so I doubt they ever will.
:)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31628748</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31628642</id>
	<title>What is DLC?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269626820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Can anyone explain?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Can anyone explain ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Can anyone explain?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31628934</id>
	<title>In my opinion</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269627660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>In my opinion Game Stop aren't at fault. If I were going to buy a used game that's exactly the sort of thing I would ask about.

In my eyes it's more the fault of the game developers for putting that on the boxes/including DLC for free with games since they must know people buy games and then sell them on to shops like GameStop. Having said that, GameStop could've easily but stickers or similar on the boxes either covering the "includes DLC free" or "DLC not inlcuded when sold as used" or similar. But hey this all my humble opinion.</htmltext>
<tokenext>In my opinion Game Stop are n't at fault .
If I were going to buy a used game that 's exactly the sort of thing I would ask about .
In my eyes it 's more the fault of the game developers for putting that on the boxes/including DLC for free with games since they must know people buy games and then sell them on to shops like GameStop .
Having said that , GameStop could 've easily but stickers or similar on the boxes either covering the " includes DLC free " or " DLC not inlcuded when sold as used " or similar .
But hey this all my humble opinion .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In my opinion Game Stop aren't at fault.
If I were going to buy a used game that's exactly the sort of thing I would ask about.
In my eyes it's more the fault of the game developers for putting that on the boxes/including DLC for free with games since they must know people buy games and then sell them on to shops like GameStop.
Having said that, GameStop could've easily but stickers or similar on the boxes either covering the "includes DLC free" or "DLC not inlcuded when sold as used" or similar.
But hey this all my humble opinion.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31629112</id>
	<title>"free" one use DLC is fine</title>
	<author>nedlohs</author>
	<datestamp>1269628260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The buyers should be demanding a lower initial purchase price due to the lower resale value.</p><p>And if the box says there's included stuff that isn't included in the resale version the seller needs to state that. Just like that have to state that the manual is missing, etc.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The buyers should be demanding a lower initial purchase price due to the lower resale value.And if the box says there 's included stuff that is n't included in the resale version the seller needs to state that .
Just like that have to state that the manual is missing , etc .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The buyers should be demanding a lower initial purchase price due to the lower resale value.And if the box says there's included stuff that isn't included in the resale version the seller needs to state that.
Just like that have to state that the manual is missing, etc.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31628742</id>
	<title>You know...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269627180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...I understand that publishers don't make any money off used games sales...I get that.  What I don't get is why game makers still insist on doing their hardest to prevent the used game market from existing.</p><p>We can easily buy used cars, we can easily buy used computers, hell we can even easily buy used movies.  Why are publishers being such dicks about used games?<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/rhetorical question</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...I understand that publishers do n't make any money off used games sales...I get that .
What I do n't get is why game makers still insist on doing their hardest to prevent the used game market from existing.We can easily buy used cars , we can easily buy used computers , hell we can even easily buy used movies .
Why are publishers being such dicks about used games ?
/rhetorical question</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...I understand that publishers don't make any money off used games sales...I get that.
What I don't get is why game makers still insist on doing their hardest to prevent the used game market from existing.We can easily buy used cars, we can easily buy used computers, hell we can even easily buy used movies.
Why are publishers being such dicks about used games?
/rhetorical question</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31628652</id>
	<title>The real question.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269626880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>..of course is do they have battletoads?</htmltext>
<tokenext>..of course is do they have battletoads ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>..of course is do they have battletoads?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31630026</id>
	<title>Let's see</title>
	<author>Registered Coward v2</author>
	<datestamp>1269631380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Gamestop offers a 7 day return window - during which the purchaser can determine if the content is available or not; but the purchaser apparently didn't bother to try.  The cover art states that the DLC is available only to full retail purchasers; which was not the case here.  I fail to see how Gamestop, or even the publisher, did anything wrong.  I don't like the DLC model; but that's solved by not buying the product.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Gamestop offers a 7 day return window - during which the purchaser can determine if the content is available or not ; but the purchaser apparently did n't bother to try .
The cover art states that the DLC is available only to full retail purchasers ; which was not the case here .
I fail to see how Gamestop , or even the publisher , did anything wrong .
I do n't like the DLC model ; but that 's solved by not buying the product .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Gamestop offers a 7 day return window - during which the purchaser can determine if the content is available or not; but the purchaser apparently didn't bother to try.
The cover art states that the DLC is available only to full retail purchasers; which was not the case here.
I fail to see how Gamestop, or even the publisher, did anything wrong.
I don't like the DLC model; but that's solved by not buying the product.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31629572</id>
	<title>Re:Why not both?</title>
	<author>nedlohs</author>
	<datestamp>1269629880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Oh and do you have a citation for that?</p><p>I see some similar lawsuits all of which Mattel lost. The publishers can already sue Gamespot for numerous reasons that they won't win (that their games aren't close enough to the front, that the lights are the wrong color, etc, etc) adding another is irrelevant.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Oh and do you have a citation for that ? I see some similar lawsuits all of which Mattel lost .
The publishers can already sue Gamespot for numerous reasons that they wo n't win ( that their games are n't close enough to the front , that the lights are the wrong color , etc , etc ) adding another is irrelevant .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oh and do you have a citation for that?I see some similar lawsuits all of which Mattel lost.
The publishers can already sue Gamespot for numerous reasons that they won't win (that their games aren't close enough to the front, that the lights are the wrong color, etc, etc) adding another is irrelevant.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31629286</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31629640</id>
	<title>Re:Why sue Gamestop?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269630060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Make codes reusable: 1 time purchase
Make codes not-reuable: 1 time purchase + chance your hardware screws up you'll rebuy the game you already bought?  CHA-CHING!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Make codes reusable : 1 time purchase Make codes not-reuable : 1 time purchase + chance your hardware screws up you 'll rebuy the game you already bought ?
CHA-CHING !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Make codes reusable: 1 time purchase
Make codes not-reuable: 1 time purchase + chance your hardware screws up you'll rebuy the game you already bought?
CHA-CHING!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31629308</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31630908</id>
	<title>Re:Why not both?</title>
	<author>Twanfox</author>
	<datestamp>1269634980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If Gamestop is buying a single copy of a game once and selling multiple copies of that game, then I would suspect that Gamestop would be violating Copyright law and should get sued by the publishers. If, however, you mean that Gamestop is seeing the same copy of a game get traded back in to them multiple times, so what? That seems to me that Gamestop as a business is adding value to a discount/used game market, and they're getting their cut to maintain their business. Also, if gamers are buying that game, playing it through, and selling it back, then it doesn't seem to me like they're taking a up whole lot of the publisher's resources (hosted services, etc).</p><p>I mean, seriously. This kind of resale market happens in a number of industries, software is not the first nor is it to be the last. The only thing that seems to be different to me is that software publishers CAN double dip by creating one-time-use components. Any other physical artifact can always be sold again.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If Gamestop is buying a single copy of a game once and selling multiple copies of that game , then I would suspect that Gamestop would be violating Copyright law and should get sued by the publishers .
If , however , you mean that Gamestop is seeing the same copy of a game get traded back in to them multiple times , so what ?
That seems to me that Gamestop as a business is adding value to a discount/used game market , and they 're getting their cut to maintain their business .
Also , if gamers are buying that game , playing it through , and selling it back , then it does n't seem to me like they 're taking a up whole lot of the publisher 's resources ( hosted services , etc ) .I mean , seriously .
This kind of resale market happens in a number of industries , software is not the first nor is it to be the last .
The only thing that seems to be different to me is that software publishers CAN double dip by creating one-time-use components .
Any other physical artifact can always be sold again .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If Gamestop is buying a single copy of a game once and selling multiple copies of that game, then I would suspect that Gamestop would be violating Copyright law and should get sued by the publishers.
If, however, you mean that Gamestop is seeing the same copy of a game get traded back in to them multiple times, so what?
That seems to me that Gamestop as a business is adding value to a discount/used game market, and they're getting their cut to maintain their business.
Also, if gamers are buying that game, playing it through, and selling it back, then it doesn't seem to me like they're taking a up whole lot of the publisher's resources (hosted services, etc).I mean, seriously.
This kind of resale market happens in a number of industries, software is not the first nor is it to be the last.
The only thing that seems to be different to me is that software publishers CAN double dip by creating one-time-use components.
Any other physical artifact can always be sold again.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31629098</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31630964</id>
	<title>game stop is a over priced pawn shop with out the</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269635160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>game stop is a over priced pawn shop with out the rules that real pawn shops have.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>game stop is a over priced pawn shop with out the rules that real pawn shops have .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>game stop is a over priced pawn shop with out the rules that real pawn shops have.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31635218</id>
	<title>Once again...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269613380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Pirates win</p><p>Buyers get the shaft.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Pirates winBuyers get the shaft .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Pirates winBuyers get the shaft.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31629030</id>
	<title>Not like CD keys</title>
	<author>rxan</author>
	<datestamp>1269628020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> Is this any different from the use of unique 'CD-Keys' that are required for online play (e.g. for Blizzard games since 1997 or earlier)?</p></div><p>Yes it is different. For example the Blizzard games only required that one person used the game on Battle.net at a time. As long as whoever sold you the game uninstalls it from their machine, you're in the clear. But it's an act of pure faith.</p><p>The key difference is the one-time use codes. However I have usually found publishers to be pretty friendly when it comes to switching machines.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Is this any different from the use of unique 'CD-Keys ' that are required for online play ( e.g .
for Blizzard games since 1997 or earlier ) ? Yes it is different .
For example the Blizzard games only required that one person used the game on Battle.net at a time .
As long as whoever sold you the game uninstalls it from their machine , you 're in the clear .
But it 's an act of pure faith.The key difference is the one-time use codes .
However I have usually found publishers to be pretty friendly when it comes to switching machines .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Is this any different from the use of unique 'CD-Keys' that are required for online play (e.g.
for Blizzard games since 1997 or earlier)?Yes it is different.
For example the Blizzard games only required that one person used the game on Battle.net at a time.
As long as whoever sold you the game uninstalls it from their machine, you're in the clear.
But it's an act of pure faith.The key difference is the one-time use codes.
However I have usually found publishers to be pretty friendly when it comes to switching machines.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31629832</id>
	<title>Re:What is DLC?</title>
	<author>Yvan256</author>
	<datestamp>1269630660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>DeLorean Car.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>DeLorean Car .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>DeLorean Car.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31628642</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31631074</id>
	<title>Re:You know...</title>
	<author>dgatwood</author>
	<datestamp>1269635640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think you're way overestimating the profit to the manufacturer on the initial sale.  I'm not sure in software, but in most industries, channel costs are somewhere around 60-65\%, IIRC.  So for a $60 game, the publisher gets about $21-24.  If they sell the DLC at $15, they're making almost as much money on resale as they did on the original game.</p><p>The next logical step, then, is to eliminate the retail chain entirely.  At that point, they could sell copies at $20, still average more money per copy than before, and sell a lot more copies in total.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think you 're way overestimating the profit to the manufacturer on the initial sale .
I 'm not sure in software , but in most industries , channel costs are somewhere around 60-65 \ % , IIRC .
So for a $ 60 game , the publisher gets about $ 21-24 .
If they sell the DLC at $ 15 , they 're making almost as much money on resale as they did on the original game.The next logical step , then , is to eliminate the retail chain entirely .
At that point , they could sell copies at $ 20 , still average more money per copy than before , and sell a lot more copies in total .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think you're way overestimating the profit to the manufacturer on the initial sale.
I'm not sure in software, but in most industries, channel costs are somewhere around 60-65\%, IIRC.
So for a $60 game, the publisher gets about $21-24.
If they sell the DLC at $15, they're making almost as much money on resale as they did on the original game.The next logical step, then, is to eliminate the retail chain entirely.
At that point, they could sell copies at $20, still average more money per copy than before, and sell a lot more copies in total.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31630096</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31630716</id>
	<title>Re:Yes game companies should be allowed to do this</title>
	<author>Renraku</author>
	<datestamp>1269634080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The price should be adjusted according to what's missing.  For example, games without manuals or packaging usually go for a bit less than games that have both of those.  Games that don't have the included DLC available should have their prices lowered by the total value of the DLC.  That is, if it costs $15, then $15 is taken off the resale price when the code is used.</p><p>As long as this happens and proper notification is given at the time of sale, I see no problem with it.  Of course, it could be abused simply by flat out removing half the game unless you have a 'code' and then not selling the code.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The price should be adjusted according to what 's missing .
For example , games without manuals or packaging usually go for a bit less than games that have both of those .
Games that do n't have the included DLC available should have their prices lowered by the total value of the DLC .
That is , if it costs $ 15 , then $ 15 is taken off the resale price when the code is used.As long as this happens and proper notification is given at the time of sale , I see no problem with it .
Of course , it could be abused simply by flat out removing half the game unless you have a 'code ' and then not selling the code .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The price should be adjusted according to what's missing.
For example, games without manuals or packaging usually go for a bit less than games that have both of those.
Games that don't have the included DLC available should have their prices lowered by the total value of the DLC.
That is, if it costs $15, then $15 is taken off the resale price when the code is used.As long as this happens and proper notification is given at the time of sale, I see no problem with it.
Of course, it could be abused simply by flat out removing half the game unless you have a 'code' and then not selling the code.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31628974</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31628976</id>
	<title>Shale is fruity anyway</title>
	<author>Orga</author>
	<datestamp>1269627840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Really unless you like Zevrian you really don't need Shale in your party</htmltext>
<tokenext>Really unless you like Zevrian you really do n't need Shale in your party</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Really unless you like Zevrian you really don't need Shale in your party</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31629008</id>
	<title>Re:Why not both?</title>
	<author>The Moof</author>
	<datestamp>1269627960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>If anyone buys that same copy used, instead of "hell no", they should get a screen that says "This code has already been claimed. But for just $2.99, you too can have this exclusive content"</p></div><p>That is what happens already (EA even has a gimmicky name for it: "Project Ten Dollar").  And the basis for this lawsuit.<br> <br>
The lawsuit revolves around the box art advertising something like "2 Free Exclusive Maps for Download" and don't mention anything about it only working for the first buyer.  So your used game advertises 2 free maps (due to the publisher's box art), but when you go to redeem, they demand payment.  Cut and dry false advertising.  I can't tell you 'buy this and you get this free!' but demand cash for the free part after you purchase the original item.<br> <br>
The misguided part of all this is going after Gamestop.  The fault lies with the publisher advertising free dlc and requiring payment.  Gamestop is just a store who sold you the used game.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If anyone buys that same copy used , instead of " hell no " , they should get a screen that says " This code has already been claimed .
But for just $ 2.99 , you too can have this exclusive content " That is what happens already ( EA even has a gimmicky name for it : " Project Ten Dollar " ) .
And the basis for this lawsuit .
The lawsuit revolves around the box art advertising something like " 2 Free Exclusive Maps for Download " and do n't mention anything about it only working for the first buyer .
So your used game advertises 2 free maps ( due to the publisher 's box art ) , but when you go to redeem , they demand payment .
Cut and dry false advertising .
I ca n't tell you 'buy this and you get this free !
' but demand cash for the free part after you purchase the original item .
The misguided part of all this is going after Gamestop .
The fault lies with the publisher advertising free dlc and requiring payment .
Gamestop is just a store who sold you the used game .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If anyone buys that same copy used, instead of "hell no", they should get a screen that says "This code has already been claimed.
But for just $2.99, you too can have this exclusive content"That is what happens already (EA even has a gimmicky name for it: "Project Ten Dollar").
And the basis for this lawsuit.
The lawsuit revolves around the box art advertising something like "2 Free Exclusive Maps for Download" and don't mention anything about it only working for the first buyer.
So your used game advertises 2 free maps (due to the publisher's box art), but when you go to redeem, they demand payment.
Cut and dry false advertising.
I can't tell you 'buy this and you get this free!
' but demand cash for the free part after you purchase the original item.
The misguided part of all this is going after Gamestop.
The fault lies with the publisher advertising free dlc and requiring payment.
Gamestop is just a store who sold you the used game.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31628748</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31628916</id>
	<title>It costs five times that much</title>
	<author>tepples</author>
	<datestamp>1269627600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>If anyone buys that same copy used, instead of "hell no", they should get a screen that says "This code has already been claimed. But for just $2.99, you too can have this exclusive content"</p></div><p>If by $2.99 you meant $14.99, you have the situation described in the article.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If anyone buys that same copy used , instead of " hell no " , they should get a screen that says " This code has already been claimed .
But for just $ 2.99 , you too can have this exclusive content " If by $ 2.99 you meant $ 14.99 , you have the situation described in the article .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If anyone buys that same copy used, instead of "hell no", they should get a screen that says "This code has already been claimed.
But for just $2.99, you too can have this exclusive content"If by $2.99 you meant $14.99, you have the situation described in the article.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31628748</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31630648</id>
	<title>Re:The Bigger Picture.</title>
	<author>stonewallred</author>
	<datestamp>1269633840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I will say it. Other than WoW, and one other game ( bought three copies for me, my sister and mom)I torrent every game I have. Even the older ones I bought years ago D1,2, and LoD, NWN and xpac, etc etc. That way I can try the game, see if it is worth buying and not be ripped off 99 out of every 100 games that I buy. Plus I get a better product since the "pirates" have usually removed any DRM, and made installing the game a snap. Common sense would dictate that the stupid game publishers sell DLC, regardless of purchase number of purchase at all. Make the game, as they seem to be doing, $5.00 and all the DLC go for $5.00 a pop. By the time you unlock the ability to buy the DLC in game, and then buy it al, the publishers will have gotten their $50-60 bucks back and then cruise on to doubling their profits through the second hand market. And it would reduce piracy and get rid of retarded and annoying DRM.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I will say it .
Other than WoW , and one other game ( bought three copies for me , my sister and mom ) I torrent every game I have .
Even the older ones I bought years ago D1,2 , and LoD , NWN and xpac , etc etc .
That way I can try the game , see if it is worth buying and not be ripped off 99 out of every 100 games that I buy .
Plus I get a better product since the " pirates " have usually removed any DRM , and made installing the game a snap .
Common sense would dictate that the stupid game publishers sell DLC , regardless of purchase number of purchase at all .
Make the game , as they seem to be doing , $ 5.00 and all the DLC go for $ 5.00 a pop .
By the time you unlock the ability to buy the DLC in game , and then buy it al , the publishers will have gotten their $ 50-60 bucks back and then cruise on to doubling their profits through the second hand market .
And it would reduce piracy and get rid of retarded and annoying DRM .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I will say it.
Other than WoW, and one other game ( bought three copies for me, my sister and mom)I torrent every game I have.
Even the older ones I bought years ago D1,2, and LoD, NWN and xpac, etc etc.
That way I can try the game, see if it is worth buying and not be ripped off 99 out of every 100 games that I buy.
Plus I get a better product since the "pirates" have usually removed any DRM, and made installing the game a snap.
Common sense would dictate that the stupid game publishers sell DLC, regardless of purchase number of purchase at all.
Make the game, as they seem to be doing, $5.00 and all the DLC go for $5.00 a pop.
By the time you unlock the ability to buy the DLC in game, and then buy it al, the publishers will have gotten their $50-60 bucks back and then cruise on to doubling their profits through the second hand market.
And it would reduce piracy and get rid of retarded and annoying DRM.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31629594</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31628902</id>
	<title>Publishers</title>
	<author>magisterx</author>
	<datestamp>1269627600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I agree with ggeezz. I hate the "one time use codes". If it is part of the core game, then it should be on the disc with no need for codes. If it is an add on, then sell it to everyone as a separate add on. Even when I do buy it new, the need to input that code is an annoying detraction and slowdown from what is supposed to be a pleasant experience in my very limited leisure time. I love Dragon Age Origins, best game since Planescape Torment in my opinion, but putting in the codes for shale and the armor were a royal pain on a PS3.

I do not think any party has done anything ethically wrong really, but I think the publishers, not Gamestop, is taking a consumer-unfriendly and inconvient stance on this.

Also, this may not apply to eveyone, but when I buy a console game new, I do so factoring in the fact I can resell it as part of the price. If I loose the ability to do that, then either a game will have to be cheaper or it will have to be so good I am convinced it is really worth the full $60. Dragon Age Origins would pass that test, but most of the other games I have purchased recently would not...</htmltext>
<tokenext>I agree with ggeezz .
I hate the " one time use codes " .
If it is part of the core game , then it should be on the disc with no need for codes .
If it is an add on , then sell it to everyone as a separate add on .
Even when I do buy it new , the need to input that code is an annoying detraction and slowdown from what is supposed to be a pleasant experience in my very limited leisure time .
I love Dragon Age Origins , best game since Planescape Torment in my opinion , but putting in the codes for shale and the armor were a royal pain on a PS3 .
I do not think any party has done anything ethically wrong really , but I think the publishers , not Gamestop , is taking a consumer-unfriendly and inconvient stance on this .
Also , this may not apply to eveyone , but when I buy a console game new , I do so factoring in the fact I can resell it as part of the price .
If I loose the ability to do that , then either a game will have to be cheaper or it will have to be so good I am convinced it is really worth the full $ 60 .
Dragon Age Origins would pass that test , but most of the other games I have purchased recently would not.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I agree with ggeezz.
I hate the "one time use codes".
If it is part of the core game, then it should be on the disc with no need for codes.
If it is an add on, then sell it to everyone as a separate add on.
Even when I do buy it new, the need to input that code is an annoying detraction and slowdown from what is supposed to be a pleasant experience in my very limited leisure time.
I love Dragon Age Origins, best game since Planescape Torment in my opinion, but putting in the codes for shale and the armor were a royal pain on a PS3.
I do not think any party has done anything ethically wrong really, but I think the publishers, not Gamestop, is taking a consumer-unfriendly and inconvient stance on this.
Also, this may not apply to eveyone, but when I buy a console game new, I do so factoring in the fact I can resell it as part of the price.
If I loose the ability to do that, then either a game will have to be cheaper or it will have to be so good I am convinced it is really worth the full $60.
Dragon Age Origins would pass that test, but most of the other games I have purchased recently would not...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31631442</id>
	<title>Re:The Bigger Picture.</title>
	<author>metamatic</author>
	<datestamp>1269637080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>You are assuming that the entire purpose of DLC is not to obliterate the secondary market for games. There's no reason to release DLC except  to ruin the used game market.</p></div></blockquote><p>Not really true. It's also a great way to jack up the price of games without it being obvious on the sticker.</p><p>For example, you buy the latest online FPS, and find that there's a map pack ($15) and a weapons pack ($15) available as DLC. You have to buy them, or you can't find anyone else to play multiplayer with. Hey presto, the $60 sticker price is actually $90.</p><p>Then after a few months when you've moved on to the next game, you go to sell your game used. Except the Game Of The Year edition is now out, with the DLC included, for $30. Which means your used copy without any DLC is worth practically nothing, rather than $25.</p><p>I noticed this trend a while back. Ultimately, <a href="http://meta.ath0.com/2009/11/07/downloadable-content-a-dangerous-game/" title="ath0.com">I think the game publishers are playing a very dangerous game</a> [ath0.com] jacking up prices this way, because there are people like me who <em>would have</em> paid $50-60 for a new game, but will instead wait and buy the cheap copy a year later rather than be doubly screwed over by DLC.</p><p>It's possible that the extra money they make from suckers who still buy games brand new will more than offset what they lose from people like me no longer buying anything at first release, but I'm doubtful.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>You are assuming that the entire purpose of DLC is not to obliterate the secondary market for games .
There 's no reason to release DLC except to ruin the used game market.Not really true .
It 's also a great way to jack up the price of games without it being obvious on the sticker.For example , you buy the latest online FPS , and find that there 's a map pack ( $ 15 ) and a weapons pack ( $ 15 ) available as DLC .
You have to buy them , or you ca n't find anyone else to play multiplayer with .
Hey presto , the $ 60 sticker price is actually $ 90.Then after a few months when you 've moved on to the next game , you go to sell your game used .
Except the Game Of The Year edition is now out , with the DLC included , for $ 30 .
Which means your used copy without any DLC is worth practically nothing , rather than $ 25.I noticed this trend a while back .
Ultimately , I think the game publishers are playing a very dangerous game [ ath0.com ] jacking up prices this way , because there are people like me who would have paid $ 50-60 for a new game , but will instead wait and buy the cheap copy a year later rather than be doubly screwed over by DLC.It 's possible that the extra money they make from suckers who still buy games brand new will more than offset what they lose from people like me no longer buying anything at first release , but I 'm doubtful .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You are assuming that the entire purpose of DLC is not to obliterate the secondary market for games.
There's no reason to release DLC except  to ruin the used game market.Not really true.
It's also a great way to jack up the price of games without it being obvious on the sticker.For example, you buy the latest online FPS, and find that there's a map pack ($15) and a weapons pack ($15) available as DLC.
You have to buy them, or you can't find anyone else to play multiplayer with.
Hey presto, the $60 sticker price is actually $90.Then after a few months when you've moved on to the next game, you go to sell your game used.
Except the Game Of The Year edition is now out, with the DLC included, for $30.
Which means your used copy without any DLC is worth practically nothing, rather than $25.I noticed this trend a while back.
Ultimately, I think the game publishers are playing a very dangerous game [ath0.com] jacking up prices this way, because there are people like me who would have paid $50-60 for a new game, but will instead wait and buy the cheap copy a year later rather than be doubly screwed over by DLC.It's possible that the extra money they make from suckers who still buy games brand new will more than offset what they lose from people like me no longer buying anything at first release, but I'm doubtful.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31629594</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31628634</id>
	<title>The Bigger Picture.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269626820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><br>/me peers into his crystal ball....<br> <br> I see game publishers
starting to make complete games included on disc as DLC then make the unlock
code only valid for the original purchaser.  That obliterates the
resale market.</htmltext>
<tokenext>/me peers into his crystal ball.... I see game publishers starting to make complete games included on disc as DLC then make the unlock code only valid for the original purchaser .
That obliterates the resale market .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>/me peers into his crystal ball....  I see game publishers
starting to make complete games included on disc as DLC then make the unlock
code only valid for the original purchaser.
That obliterates the
resale market.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31631886</id>
	<title>Re:The Bigger Picture.</title>
	<author>Stumpeh</author>
	<datestamp>1269595740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Unfortunately the used games market is the one place that car analogies fall down on (Shocking, I know!). The difference is the time scales. When a brand new game comes out you can pick up a second hand copy within a week. Noone is mad enough to buy a car and resell it within the same time frame because they'll be out a few thousand local economic units at least. The only way to combat this is to effectively lock second hand buyers out of the market. Resale in games does nothing for the companies. if I'm willing to wait a week or two and buy second hand in the first place why would I have to have the sequel on launch day? The perfect solution would be resale of games after a limited timeframe. Give them a month or so to shift their first sale units then put them up for resale. The problem with that, of course, is that GameStop and their ilk make the vast majority of their money on resold games. They buy them for maybe a third of their RRP and resell them for a couple of dollars off RRP. How can they lose? There are two Electronics Boutiques in my local town both of which have one shelf rack (that's a stacked shelf maybe three feet across) devoted to new games for each platform and the remainder of the store (ten plus shelf racks per platform) devoted to second hand. How can those sorts of sales be good for the games market? Us game developers (so yes, I'm biased!) have to eat!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Unfortunately the used games market is the one place that car analogies fall down on ( Shocking , I know ! ) .
The difference is the time scales .
When a brand new game comes out you can pick up a second hand copy within a week .
Noone is mad enough to buy a car and resell it within the same time frame because they 'll be out a few thousand local economic units at least .
The only way to combat this is to effectively lock second hand buyers out of the market .
Resale in games does nothing for the companies .
if I 'm willing to wait a week or two and buy second hand in the first place why would I have to have the sequel on launch day ?
The perfect solution would be resale of games after a limited timeframe .
Give them a month or so to shift their first sale units then put them up for resale .
The problem with that , of course , is that GameStop and their ilk make the vast majority of their money on resold games .
They buy them for maybe a third of their RRP and resell them for a couple of dollars off RRP .
How can they lose ?
There are two Electronics Boutiques in my local town both of which have one shelf rack ( that 's a stacked shelf maybe three feet across ) devoted to new games for each platform and the remainder of the store ( ten plus shelf racks per platform ) devoted to second hand .
How can those sorts of sales be good for the games market ?
Us game developers ( so yes , I 'm biased !
) have to eat !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Unfortunately the used games market is the one place that car analogies fall down on (Shocking, I know!).
The difference is the time scales.
When a brand new game comes out you can pick up a second hand copy within a week.
Noone is mad enough to buy a car and resell it within the same time frame because they'll be out a few thousand local economic units at least.
The only way to combat this is to effectively lock second hand buyers out of the market.
Resale in games does nothing for the companies.
if I'm willing to wait a week or two and buy second hand in the first place why would I have to have the sequel on launch day?
The perfect solution would be resale of games after a limited timeframe.
Give them a month or so to shift their first sale units then put them up for resale.
The problem with that, of course, is that GameStop and their ilk make the vast majority of their money on resold games.
They buy them for maybe a third of their RRP and resell them for a couple of dollars off RRP.
How can they lose?
There are two Electronics Boutiques in my local town both of which have one shelf rack (that's a stacked shelf maybe three feet across) devoted to new games for each platform and the remainder of the store (ten plus shelf racks per platform) devoted to second hand.
How can those sorts of sales be good for the games market?
Us game developers (so yes, I'm biased!
) have to eat!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31630450</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31628748</id>
	<title>Why not both?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269627240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Honestly, I don't see why they can't get money from both the new and used market.</p><p>Keep the "one time use" DLC code in the box. Anyone who buys it new now has a "value add" (though, they are paying a premium for the new game)</p><p>If anyone buys that same copy used, instead of "hell no", they should get a screen that says "This code has already been claimed. But for just $2.99, you too can have this exclusive content"</p><p>I'm sure someone can find the right price for that-- and it'd effectively be pure profit. (No, you can't call it a lost sale. Instead, think of it as getting paid twice for the same product).</p><p>Ideally, the system should also have a "relinquish" command. If I buy a game, get the DLC, then decide to sell the game, I should be able to "deactivate" that code (assuming it's tied to my gamer id or something? Who knows.)  Then the next person can download the dlc for free.  GameStop might even require people to log in and deactivate their codes before trading in a game, so as not to screw over the next user.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Honestly , I do n't see why they ca n't get money from both the new and used market.Keep the " one time use " DLC code in the box .
Anyone who buys it new now has a " value add " ( though , they are paying a premium for the new game ) If anyone buys that same copy used , instead of " hell no " , they should get a screen that says " This code has already been claimed .
But for just $ 2.99 , you too can have this exclusive content " I 'm sure someone can find the right price for that-- and it 'd effectively be pure profit .
( No , you ca n't call it a lost sale .
Instead , think of it as getting paid twice for the same product ) .Ideally , the system should also have a " relinquish " command .
If I buy a game , get the DLC , then decide to sell the game , I should be able to " deactivate " that code ( assuming it 's tied to my gamer id or something ?
Who knows .
) Then the next person can download the dlc for free .
GameStop might even require people to log in and deactivate their codes before trading in a game , so as not to screw over the next user .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Honestly, I don't see why they can't get money from both the new and used market.Keep the "one time use" DLC code in the box.
Anyone who buys it new now has a "value add" (though, they are paying a premium for the new game)If anyone buys that same copy used, instead of "hell no", they should get a screen that says "This code has already been claimed.
But for just $2.99, you too can have this exclusive content"I'm sure someone can find the right price for that-- and it'd effectively be pure profit.
(No, you can't call it a lost sale.
Instead, think of it as getting paid twice for the same product).Ideally, the system should also have a "relinquish" command.
If I buy a game, get the DLC, then decide to sell the game, I should be able to "deactivate" that code (assuming it's tied to my gamer id or something?
Who knows.
)  Then the next person can download the dlc for free.
GameStop might even require people to log in and deactivate their codes before trading in a game, so as not to screw over the next user.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31637510</id>
	<title>Re:The Bigger Picture.</title>
	<author>KDR\_11k</author>
	<datestamp>1269721320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Doesn't work because most consoles aren't connected to the internet.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Does n't work because most consoles are n't connected to the internet .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Doesn't work because most consoles aren't connected to the internet.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31628634</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31631194</id>
	<title>Re:Good for Consumers.</title>
	<author>IndustrialComplex</author>
	<datestamp>1269636060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>I honestly think this system is good for consumers in the end because it should decrease the cost of used games. </i></p><p>It is horrible for consumers because it is decreasing the cost of used games by removing value from those items.  So right now you have $55 used games for $60 new games and a rebuy of the DLC at $15.</p><p>-Used Store adapts and lowers the price to $40.  This allows the person to still enjoy a discount.<br>-Publisher responds by increasing the cost of the DLC to $20.<br>-Used store adapts and reduces the price to $30.<br>-Publisher says "You aren't getting the point"  Sets 90\% of the game to be DLC and raises the price to $70.</p><p>Used store goes out of business.</p><p>The used market doesn't exist anymore.  The only thing people could sell at that point would be the entire damned 'Xbox Live' profiles.  And that would probably get you cut off by the publisher in a week.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I honestly think this system is good for consumers in the end because it should decrease the cost of used games .
It is horrible for consumers because it is decreasing the cost of used games by removing value from those items .
So right now you have $ 55 used games for $ 60 new games and a rebuy of the DLC at $ 15.-Used Store adapts and lowers the price to $ 40 .
This allows the person to still enjoy a discount.-Publisher responds by increasing the cost of the DLC to $ 20.-Used store adapts and reduces the price to $ 30.-Publisher says " You are n't getting the point " Sets 90 \ % of the game to be DLC and raises the price to $ 70.Used store goes out of business.The used market does n't exist anymore .
The only thing people could sell at that point would be the entire damned 'Xbox Live ' profiles .
And that would probably get you cut off by the publisher in a week .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I honestly think this system is good for consumers in the end because it should decrease the cost of used games.
It is horrible for consumers because it is decreasing the cost of used games by removing value from those items.
So right now you have $55 used games for $60 new games and a rebuy of the DLC at $15.-Used Store adapts and lowers the price to $40.
This allows the person to still enjoy a discount.-Publisher responds by increasing the cost of the DLC to $20.-Used store adapts and reduces the price to $30.-Publisher says "You aren't getting the point"  Sets 90\% of the game to be DLC and raises the price to $70.Used store goes out of business.The used market doesn't exist anymore.
The only thing people could sell at that point would be the entire damned 'Xbox Live' profiles.
And that would probably get you cut off by the publisher in a week.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31629184</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31630578</id>
	<title>Stupid People</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269633480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>First, this is not GameStops fault that a box says it comes with a code for free stuff.  As a used copy you should expect that the code is used.</p><p>Second, buying used games at GameStop is stupid anyway since those games are online in new or better used quality (with description) for cheaper.</p><p>Third, I do agree that manufacturers should never be allowed to print free content messages on the box.  It can be misleading for future sales.  They should stick to game description, features, and content that is on the disc.</p><p>Fourth, game makers should NEVER put content on a disc and make it unlockable after the fact with a code.  If you have time to finish the content and put it on the disc it should already be in the game.  This excess code takes up disc space that could be used for better graphics, shorter load times reading the disc, and more in game content.  All DLC should be just that, DOWNLOADABLE.  I think that Microsoft overcharges for 90\% of its content in the marketplace.  I think that more content should be free (like PC). The only issue I have ever had with DLC is the Marvel debocle.  I have the Gold Edition of the first Ultimate Alliance but removing the content for the second one, only months after is was released, makes it so the 10+ achievements related to the content are no longer possible.  They should release a game update removing the achievements and other download notifications if they are not planning on putting it back in the marketplace.</p><p>One last note, If your in the market to buy games with DLC included on the disc look for Gold or GOTY edition.  Games like GoW, Fallout 3, etc. have these that include map packs and campaign content.  Do some googleing before going into a store and looking like and idiot.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>First , this is not GameStops fault that a box says it comes with a code for free stuff .
As a used copy you should expect that the code is used.Second , buying used games at GameStop is stupid anyway since those games are online in new or better used quality ( with description ) for cheaper.Third , I do agree that manufacturers should never be allowed to print free content messages on the box .
It can be misleading for future sales .
They should stick to game description , features , and content that is on the disc.Fourth , game makers should NEVER put content on a disc and make it unlockable after the fact with a code .
If you have time to finish the content and put it on the disc it should already be in the game .
This excess code takes up disc space that could be used for better graphics , shorter load times reading the disc , and more in game content .
All DLC should be just that , DOWNLOADABLE .
I think that Microsoft overcharges for 90 \ % of its content in the marketplace .
I think that more content should be free ( like PC ) .
The only issue I have ever had with DLC is the Marvel debocle .
I have the Gold Edition of the first Ultimate Alliance but removing the content for the second one , only months after is was released , makes it so the 10 + achievements related to the content are no longer possible .
They should release a game update removing the achievements and other download notifications if they are not planning on putting it back in the marketplace.One last note , If your in the market to buy games with DLC included on the disc look for Gold or GOTY edition .
Games like GoW , Fallout 3 , etc .
have these that include map packs and campaign content .
Do some googleing before going into a store and looking like and idiot .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>First, this is not GameStops fault that a box says it comes with a code for free stuff.
As a used copy you should expect that the code is used.Second, buying used games at GameStop is stupid anyway since those games are online in new or better used quality (with description) for cheaper.Third, I do agree that manufacturers should never be allowed to print free content messages on the box.
It can be misleading for future sales.
They should stick to game description, features, and content that is on the disc.Fourth, game makers should NEVER put content on a disc and make it unlockable after the fact with a code.
If you have time to finish the content and put it on the disc it should already be in the game.
This excess code takes up disc space that could be used for better graphics, shorter load times reading the disc, and more in game content.
All DLC should be just that, DOWNLOADABLE.
I think that Microsoft overcharges for 90\% of its content in the marketplace.
I think that more content should be free (like PC).
The only issue I have ever had with DLC is the Marvel debocle.
I have the Gold Edition of the first Ultimate Alliance but removing the content for the second one, only months after is was released, makes it so the 10+ achievements related to the content are no longer possible.
They should release a game update removing the achievements and other download notifications if they are not planning on putting it back in the marketplace.One last note, If your in the market to buy games with DLC included on the disc look for Gold or GOTY edition.
Games like GoW, Fallout 3, etc.
have these that include map packs and campaign content.
Do some googleing before going into a store and looking like and idiot.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31628990</id>
	<title>Re:What is DLC?</title>
	<author>K. S. Kyosuke</author>
	<datestamp>1269627840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Don't Lose Cash (on it).</htmltext>
<tokenext>Do n't Lose Cash ( on it ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Don't Lose Cash (on it).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31628642</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31629456</id>
	<title>Re:You know...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269629460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They aren't doing anything to prevent used sales.  They're encouraging new sales with free stuff that makes the game a bit more fun or interesting.  The DLC that this kid didn't get is completely unessential.  There is no prevention.  Prevention would be requiring downloading DLC that makes the game playable or completable.  Even if they did make you do that, we have no right to be outraged unless the publishers don't tell us about this.</p><p>Bioware knows that people would catch on pretty fast if they <i>had</i> to download things to finish or play the game so they offer something trivial that you may or may not want.  It isn't quite the difference in price between used and new, but who knows.  I think it's brilliant.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They are n't doing anything to prevent used sales .
They 're encouraging new sales with free stuff that makes the game a bit more fun or interesting .
The DLC that this kid did n't get is completely unessential .
There is no prevention .
Prevention would be requiring downloading DLC that makes the game playable or completable .
Even if they did make you do that , we have no right to be outraged unless the publishers do n't tell us about this.Bioware knows that people would catch on pretty fast if they had to download things to finish or play the game so they offer something trivial that you may or may not want .
It is n't quite the difference in price between used and new , but who knows .
I think it 's brilliant .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They aren't doing anything to prevent used sales.
They're encouraging new sales with free stuff that makes the game a bit more fun or interesting.
The DLC that this kid didn't get is completely unessential.
There is no prevention.
Prevention would be requiring downloading DLC that makes the game playable or completable.
Even if they did make you do that, we have no right to be outraged unless the publishers don't tell us about this.Bioware knows that people would catch on pretty fast if they had to download things to finish or play the game so they offer something trivial that you may or may not want.
It isn't quite the difference in price between used and new, but who knows.
I think it's brilliant.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31628742</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31628768</id>
	<title>Re:The Bigger Picture.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269627300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>I think the obvious solution is for the game developer to allow online sale of new codes to unlock DLC (at a low price).  Then they would be improving the value of the secondhand market, AND be able to get in on that action.  Hey, they might even encourage users to sell their games!  After all, if a game is bought second-hand several times, and each of those buyers also pays for the DLC (because they are not the <b>original</b> buyers), then in the long run the resales of the game might be worth more to the game maker than the original sale.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think the obvious solution is for the game developer to allow online sale of new codes to unlock DLC ( at a low price ) .
Then they would be improving the value of the secondhand market , AND be able to get in on that action .
Hey , they might even encourage users to sell their games !
After all , if a game is bought second-hand several times , and each of those buyers also pays for the DLC ( because they are not the original buyers ) , then in the long run the resales of the game might be worth more to the game maker than the original sale .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think the obvious solution is for the game developer to allow online sale of new codes to unlock DLC (at a low price).
Then they would be improving the value of the secondhand market, AND be able to get in on that action.
Hey, they might even encourage users to sell their games!
After all, if a game is bought second-hand several times, and each of those buyers also pays for the DLC (because they are not the original buyers), then in the long run the resales of the game might be worth more to the game maker than the original sale.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31628634</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31632138</id>
	<title>Re:The Bigger Picture.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269596640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The phenomenon you talk about would have to outweigh the value for them in slowly moving the whole market to something resembling subscriptions. There is a lot of financial value for a large company in being able to predict how much money they're going to make in a particular month. It means they can invest the money with less risk (when you have money on the scale of an EA, you don't just put it in a savings account).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The phenomenon you talk about would have to outweigh the value for them in slowly moving the whole market to something resembling subscriptions .
There is a lot of financial value for a large company in being able to predict how much money they 're going to make in a particular month .
It means they can invest the money with less risk ( when you have money on the scale of an EA , you do n't just put it in a savings account ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The phenomenon you talk about would have to outweigh the value for them in slowly moving the whole market to something resembling subscriptions.
There is a lot of financial value for a large company in being able to predict how much money they're going to make in a particular month.
It means they can invest the money with less risk (when you have money on the scale of an EA, you don't just put it in a savings account).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31630450</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31631132</id>
	<title>Re:Why not both?</title>
	<author>h4rr4r</author>
	<datestamp>1269635820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They are not losing anything you shill. How much do you get paid to make these posts?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They are not losing anything you shill .
How much do you get paid to make these posts ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They are not losing anything you shill.
How much do you get paid to make these posts?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31629338</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31630344</id>
	<title>Re:You know...</title>
	<author>u-235-sentinel</author>
	<datestamp>1269632520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> Because they can, and because we still buy their games.  It's as simple as that.  If we as a unit boycotted games that have these kind of stupid restrictions, I'd bet they will change their policies.  But the fact of the matter is that most people don't care enough to make a boycott effective (and hence it won't work)...  Does it suck?  Absolutely...</p></div><p>That's why I'm not purchasing C&amp;C4.</p><p>Besides, I hear it doesn't work with linux<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;-)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Because they can , and because we still buy their games .
It 's as simple as that .
If we as a unit boycotted games that have these kind of stupid restrictions , I 'd bet they will change their policies .
But the fact of the matter is that most people do n't care enough to make a boycott effective ( and hence it wo n't work ) ... Does it suck ?
Absolutely...That 's why I 'm not purchasing C&amp;C4.Besides , I hear it does n't work with linux ; - )</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Because they can, and because we still buy their games.
It's as simple as that.
If we as a unit boycotted games that have these kind of stupid restrictions, I'd bet they will change their policies.
But the fact of the matter is that most people don't care enough to make a boycott effective (and hence it won't work)...  Does it suck?
Absolutely...That's why I'm not purchasing C&amp;C4.Besides, I hear it doesn't work with linux ;-)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31629166</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31631902</id>
	<title>Re:You know...</title>
	<author>Khyber</author>
	<datestamp>1269595800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The entire industry couldn't handle the allied front of "First Sale Doctrine" lawsuits that would come about as a result. Very rarely has an allied front been used in a court but the few times it has it's been devastating to the defendant when settlement isn't an option. When an entire class of people come after you in court, you fucked up and even the court knows it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The entire industry could n't handle the allied front of " First Sale Doctrine " lawsuits that would come about as a result .
Very rarely has an allied front been used in a court but the few times it has it 's been devastating to the defendant when settlement is n't an option .
When an entire class of people come after you in court , you fucked up and even the court knows it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The entire industry couldn't handle the allied front of "First Sale Doctrine" lawsuits that would come about as a result.
Very rarely has an allied front been used in a court but the few times it has it's been devastating to the defendant when settlement isn't an option.
When an entire class of people come after you in court, you fucked up and even the court knows it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31629378</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31655220</id>
	<title>best piracy prevention?</title>
	<author>sw33tjimmy</author>
	<datestamp>1269865680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The answer is simple: only publish shitty games.<br> Ever see an Acclaim title at piratebay? negative.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The answer is simple : only publish shitty games .
Ever see an Acclaim title at piratebay ?
negative .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The answer is simple: only publish shitty games.
Ever see an Acclaim title at piratebay?
negative.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31634396</id>
	<title>Re:The Bigger Picture.</title>
	<author>sixsixtysix</author>
	<datestamp>1269608340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>the obvious solution is for the game publisher to make it as easy as possible to re-sell your game that you paid for. just have an account setting for transferring your keys to someone else's account.  this should be mandatory.
killing off secondary markets only leads to more piracy.</htmltext>
<tokenext>the obvious solution is for the game publisher to make it as easy as possible to re-sell your game that you paid for .
just have an account setting for transferring your keys to someone else 's account .
this should be mandatory .
killing off secondary markets only leads to more piracy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>the obvious solution is for the game publisher to make it as easy as possible to re-sell your game that you paid for.
just have an account setting for transferring your keys to someone else's account.
this should be mandatory.
killing off secondary markets only leads to more piracy.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31628768</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31638562</id>
	<title>Re:You know...</title>
	<author>KDR\_11k</author>
	<datestamp>1269695340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Gamespot makes $15-$30 on the initial sale</i></p><p>Isn't it more like $0-$5?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Gamespot makes $ 15- $ 30 on the initial saleIs n't it more like $ 0- $ 5 ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Gamespot makes $15-$30 on the initial saleIsn't it more like $0-$5?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31630096</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31632884</id>
	<title>DLC is also used to encourage pre-orders</title>
	<author>judeancodersfront</author>
	<datestamp>1269599700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>DLC can be used to encourage consumers to buy a game early instead of a competing product that comes out at the same time. <br> <br>

When Gamestop sells a 2 day old game for $55 the people who made that game don't see a dime. Is it wrong? No there is nothing wrong with used sales but you can't be upset with game companies that are tired of seeing sales go to Gamestop. I've never liked how Gamestop will push a used sale even when the price difference is 5 or 10 dollars.
<br> <br>
The video game business isn't as lucrative as people assume. Like many industries you have a handful of giant corps making big money while medium and small companies really have to watch their budgets. Gamestop has been aggressive with used game sales and DLC is how game companies are pushing back. Gamestop is like Wal-mart in that they so widespread that they have an effect on the market.</htmltext>
<tokenext>DLC can be used to encourage consumers to buy a game early instead of a competing product that comes out at the same time .
When Gamestop sells a 2 day old game for $ 55 the people who made that game do n't see a dime .
Is it wrong ?
No there is nothing wrong with used sales but you ca n't be upset with game companies that are tired of seeing sales go to Gamestop .
I 've never liked how Gamestop will push a used sale even when the price difference is 5 or 10 dollars .
The video game business is n't as lucrative as people assume .
Like many industries you have a handful of giant corps making big money while medium and small companies really have to watch their budgets .
Gamestop has been aggressive with used game sales and DLC is how game companies are pushing back .
Gamestop is like Wal-mart in that they so widespread that they have an effect on the market .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>DLC can be used to encourage consumers to buy a game early instead of a competing product that comes out at the same time.
When Gamestop sells a 2 day old game for $55 the people who made that game don't see a dime.
Is it wrong?
No there is nothing wrong with used sales but you can't be upset with game companies that are tired of seeing sales go to Gamestop.
I've never liked how Gamestop will push a used sale even when the price difference is 5 or 10 dollars.
The video game business isn't as lucrative as people assume.
Like many industries you have a handful of giant corps making big money while medium and small companies really have to watch their budgets.
Gamestop has been aggressive with used game sales and DLC is how game companies are pushing back.
Gamestop is like Wal-mart in that they so widespread that they have an effect on the market.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31629594</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31629146</id>
	<title>Re:Suckers.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269628380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I live in Seattle and therefor pay sales tax from Amazon, you insensitive clod!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I live in Seattle and therefor pay sales tax from Amazon , you insensitive clod !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I live in Seattle and therefor pay sales tax from Amazon, you insensitive clod!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31628842</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31630350</id>
	<title>Re:You know...</title>
	<author>IndustrialComplex</author>
	<datestamp>1269632640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>The DLC that this kid didn't get is completely unessential. </i></p><p>Until it is.  And in fact, it pretty much IS.</p><p>You can argue that certain parts of the game are not essential, but that wouldn't make any sense. Terms like essential simply do not fit with video games.  Nothing is essential in video games.  You could make the color red a DLC item and still not call it essential.  The terminology just doesn't work when applied to video games.</p><p>Right now I have a copy of ME2 that has features built into it which I cannot access.  What if those features were the last 2 levels?  In this case, I think that it's characters I don't have access to.</p><p>It's not the same product, and it bothers me.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The DLC that this kid did n't get is completely unessential .
Until it is .
And in fact , it pretty much IS.You can argue that certain parts of the game are not essential , but that would n't make any sense .
Terms like essential simply do not fit with video games .
Nothing is essential in video games .
You could make the color red a DLC item and still not call it essential .
The terminology just does n't work when applied to video games.Right now I have a copy of ME2 that has features built into it which I can not access .
What if those features were the last 2 levels ?
In this case , I think that it 's characters I do n't have access to.It 's not the same product , and it bothers me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The DLC that this kid didn't get is completely unessential.
Until it is.
And in fact, it pretty much IS.You can argue that certain parts of the game are not essential, but that wouldn't make any sense.
Terms like essential simply do not fit with video games.
Nothing is essential in video games.
You could make the color red a DLC item and still not call it essential.
The terminology just doesn't work when applied to video games.Right now I have a copy of ME2 that has features built into it which I cannot access.
What if those features were the last 2 levels?
In this case, I think that it's characters I don't have access to.It's not the same product, and it bothers me.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31629456</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31630512</id>
	<title>So far, this isn't really an issue.</title>
	<author>BitZtream</author>
	<datestamp>1269633180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You register the code with an account on the publishers system, so people selling their games will just need to create bs accounts to go with each game they intend to sell rather than tying the DLC to their own personal account.</p><p>When you sell the game, you sell the account username/password.</p><p>That'll solve the problem for a few more years.</p><p>But really, just stop buying the games, there are plenty of games out there that don't have Nazi DRM schemes or depend on DLC access codes to prevent reselling.</p><p>If you don't like what they are doing<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... stop giving them your business, but if you aren't actually going to make a stand, and you don't really care enough to do it<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... please shut the fuck up about it, I'm sick of seeing/hearing about it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You register the code with an account on the publishers system , so people selling their games will just need to create bs accounts to go with each game they intend to sell rather than tying the DLC to their own personal account.When you sell the game , you sell the account username/password.That 'll solve the problem for a few more years.But really , just stop buying the games , there are plenty of games out there that do n't have Nazi DRM schemes or depend on DLC access codes to prevent reselling.If you do n't like what they are doing ... stop giving them your business , but if you are n't actually going to make a stand , and you do n't really care enough to do it ... please shut the fuck up about it , I 'm sick of seeing/hearing about it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You register the code with an account on the publishers system, so people selling their games will just need to create bs accounts to go with each game they intend to sell rather than tying the DLC to their own personal account.When you sell the game, you sell the account username/password.That'll solve the problem for a few more years.But really, just stop buying the games, there are plenty of games out there that don't have Nazi DRM schemes or depend on DLC access codes to prevent reselling.If you don't like what they are doing ... stop giving them your business, but if you aren't actually going to make a stand, and you don't really care enough to do it ... please shut the fuck up about it, I'm sick of seeing/hearing about it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31631166</id>
	<title>Re:Suckers.</title>
	<author>h4rr4r</author>
	<datestamp>1269635940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So use glyde.com. Just a happy customer, you could also use many other online used/old game sellers.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So use glyde.com .
Just a happy customer , you could also use many other online used/old game sellers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So use glyde.com.
Just a happy customer, you could also use many other online used/old game sellers.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31628842</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31628686</id>
	<title>Read the summary</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269627000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I can understand not reading the article because it's often either busy or behind a paywall. But even the summary mentions "downloadable content".</htmltext>
<tokenext>I can understand not reading the article because it 's often either busy or behind a paywall .
But even the summary mentions " downloadable content " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I can understand not reading the article because it's often either busy or behind a paywall.
But even the summary mentions "downloadable content".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31628642</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31636094</id>
	<title>headline improvement</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269619020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>moar like "gamestop sued over lack of battletoads" amirite?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>moar like " gamestop sued over lack of battletoads " amirite ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>moar like "gamestop sued over lack of battletoads" amirite?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31630282</id>
	<title>First Sale is a Principle</title>
	<author>Bob9113</author>
	<datestamp>1269632280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The principle of first sale exists for a very specific reason, and it is exactly the case here. First sale exists precisely so that the buyer can have a standard, simple understanding of what "buy" means. Muddling the notion of "buy" makes the free market more complicated, inhibiting the ideal of perfect information.</p><p>Of course, in this country we regularly seek not the free market. This is particularly true of late with copyrighted works. Given the DoJ has been populated with former RIAA lawyers, you can guess how much the principles of free market capitalism will matter.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The principle of first sale exists for a very specific reason , and it is exactly the case here .
First sale exists precisely so that the buyer can have a standard , simple understanding of what " buy " means .
Muddling the notion of " buy " makes the free market more complicated , inhibiting the ideal of perfect information.Of course , in this country we regularly seek not the free market .
This is particularly true of late with copyrighted works .
Given the DoJ has been populated with former RIAA lawyers , you can guess how much the principles of free market capitalism will matter .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The principle of first sale exists for a very specific reason, and it is exactly the case here.
First sale exists precisely so that the buyer can have a standard, simple understanding of what "buy" means.
Muddling the notion of "buy" makes the free market more complicated, inhibiting the ideal of perfect information.Of course, in this country we regularly seek not the free market.
This is particularly true of late with copyrighted works.
Given the DoJ has been populated with former RIAA lawyers, you can guess how much the principles of free market capitalism will matter.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31630180</id>
	<title>Re:Why sue Gamestop?</title>
	<author>Late Adopter</author>
	<datestamp>1269631980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>If the DLC code for a game has been used, how exactly would GameStop be able to determine this, in order to adjust the price accordingly?</p></div><p>The DLC cards have a little tear-off cover, and the card explicitly states that the card is invalid if received without the cover intact.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If the DLC code for a game has been used , how exactly would GameStop be able to determine this , in order to adjust the price accordingly ? The DLC cards have a little tear-off cover , and the card explicitly states that the card is invalid if received without the cover intact .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If the DLC code for a game has been used, how exactly would GameStop be able to determine this, in order to adjust the price accordingly?The DLC cards have a little tear-off cover, and the card explicitly states that the card is invalid if received without the cover intact.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31629308</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31630374</id>
	<title>Re:The Bigger Picture.</title>
	<author>mcgrew</author>
	<datestamp>1269632700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Then they would be improving the value of the secondhand market</i></p><p>As things stand they want the second hand market to go away, and I doubt they're smart enough to follow your suggestion.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Then they would be improving the value of the secondhand marketAs things stand they want the second hand market to go away , and I doubt they 're smart enough to follow your suggestion .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Then they would be improving the value of the secondhand marketAs things stand they want the second hand market to go away, and I doubt they're smart enough to follow your suggestion.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31628768</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31629054</id>
	<title>Re:Yep GameSpot is at fault</title>
	<author>s73v3r</author>
	<datestamp>1269628080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>When you bought the system, did the seller say he was including a controller with it?</htmltext>
<tokenext>When you bought the system , did the seller say he was including a controller with it ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When you bought the system, did the seller say he was including a controller with it?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31628812</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31641084</id>
	<title>Re:CD-Key</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269715920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is no longer true since Battle.net was implemented.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is no longer true since Battle.net was implemented .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is no longer true since Battle.net was implemented.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31628938</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31630228</id>
	<title>Nothing to do with publishers...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269632100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This case isn't about the publishers, why is<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. framing it as such?  This is about GameStop advertising that this game comes with DLC when it did not.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This case is n't about the publishers , why is / .
framing it as such ?
This is about GameStop advertising that this game comes with DLC when it did not .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This case isn't about the publishers, why is /.
framing it as such?
This is about GameStop advertising that this game comes with DLC when it did not.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31628696</id>
	<title>First Anon Post!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269627000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sorry, had to put it up there before the other Anon guy tries to post, I actually bought<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. at GameStop, grabbed the CDkey and returned it, poor sap.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sorry , had to put it up there before the other Anon guy tries to post , I actually bought / .
at GameStop , grabbed the CDkey and returned it , poor sap .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sorry, had to put it up there before the other Anon guy tries to post, I actually bought /.
at GameStop, grabbed the CDkey and returned it, poor sap.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31630702</id>
	<title>Re:Suckers.</title>
	<author>Chees0rz</author>
	<datestamp>1269634080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I think the most offensive thing here is that this idiot would actually buy a used game for a mere $5 discount. This is the fundamental problem I have with the likes of GameStop. They probably gave the previous owner $20 for this game and then turn around and sell it for $55. </p></div><p>The advantage of buying used isn't always in the money saved...  GameStop has (or had) a 7 day full-refund (read: NOT STORE CREDIT) return policy on used games.  Don't like it?  Return it.  Too short and you beat it?  Return it.  Sure, you're only saving $5 off of retail, but you're getting some security that buying new doesn't grant.
<br> <br>
I've only taken advantage of this once for some ps3 game that took me 5 hours to beat and had barely any replay value.
<br> <br>
I know this was off topic, but I felt it had to be pointed out.  W.r.t the article... I don't really have much of a formed opinion yet.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think the most offensive thing here is that this idiot would actually buy a used game for a mere $ 5 discount .
This is the fundamental problem I have with the likes of GameStop .
They probably gave the previous owner $ 20 for this game and then turn around and sell it for $ 55 .
The advantage of buying used is n't always in the money saved... GameStop has ( or had ) a 7 day full-refund ( read : NOT STORE CREDIT ) return policy on used games .
Do n't like it ?
Return it .
Too short and you beat it ?
Return it .
Sure , you 're only saving $ 5 off of retail , but you 're getting some security that buying new does n't grant .
I 've only taken advantage of this once for some ps3 game that took me 5 hours to beat and had barely any replay value .
I know this was off topic , but I felt it had to be pointed out .
W.r.t the article... I do n't really have much of a formed opinion yet .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think the most offensive thing here is that this idiot would actually buy a used game for a mere $5 discount.
This is the fundamental problem I have with the likes of GameStop.
They probably gave the previous owner $20 for this game and then turn around and sell it for $55.
The advantage of buying used isn't always in the money saved...  GameStop has (or had) a 7 day full-refund (read: NOT STORE CREDIT) return policy on used games.
Don't like it?
Return it.
Too short and you beat it?
Return it.
Sure, you're only saving $5 off of retail, but you're getting some security that buying new doesn't grant.
I've only taken advantage of this once for some ps3 game that took me 5 hours to beat and had barely any replay value.
I know this was off topic, but I felt it had to be pointed out.
W.r.t the article... I don't really have much of a formed opinion yet.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31628842</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31630862</id>
	<title>Re:Yes game companies should be allowed to do this</title>
	<author>Khyber</author>
	<datestamp>1269634740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>But they can't determine without actually having the hardware to install and test the game to make sure that either the DLC code has been used or not - that's too much time, money, and effort.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>But they ca n't determine without actually having the hardware to install and test the game to make sure that either the DLC code has been used or not - that 's too much time , money , and effort .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But they can't determine without actually having the hardware to install and test the game to make sure that either the DLC code has been used or not - that's too much time, money, and effort.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31628974</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31629418</id>
	<title>I don't have much problem with it</title>
	<author>Sycraft-fu</author>
	<datestamp>1269629340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I would say it was a problem if game makers were deliberately leaving out important parts of the game as DLC to try and force new sales. I'm sure that'll happen at some point, but not so far. The two games I've seen it with are Mass Effect 2 and Dragon Age. In both cases, the DLC you got with buying new truly was an addon. The game was a complete game, worth $50, without the DLC. There wasn't some massive hole that you said "Man there really should be something to do here," or a very shortened game or anything.</p><p>I'm ok with that. They give you a bonus for purchasing it new.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I would say it was a problem if game makers were deliberately leaving out important parts of the game as DLC to try and force new sales .
I 'm sure that 'll happen at some point , but not so far .
The two games I 've seen it with are Mass Effect 2 and Dragon Age .
In both cases , the DLC you got with buying new truly was an addon .
The game was a complete game , worth $ 50 , without the DLC .
There was n't some massive hole that you said " Man there really should be something to do here , " or a very shortened game or anything.I 'm ok with that .
They give you a bonus for purchasing it new .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I would say it was a problem if game makers were deliberately leaving out important parts of the game as DLC to try and force new sales.
I'm sure that'll happen at some point, but not so far.
The two games I've seen it with are Mass Effect 2 and Dragon Age.
In both cases, the DLC you got with buying new truly was an addon.
The game was a complete game, worth $50, without the DLC.
There wasn't some massive hole that you said "Man there really should be something to do here," or a very shortened game or anything.I'm ok with that.
They give you a bonus for purchasing it new.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31628748</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31631320</id>
	<title>Re:You know...</title>
	<author>theangrypeon</author>
	<datestamp>1269636480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>What I don't get is why game makers still insist on doing their hardest to prevent the used game market from existing.</i></p><p>They aren't preventing the used game market from existing.  They are simply trying to to get a cut of the profits from used game sales.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What I do n't get is why game makers still insist on doing their hardest to prevent the used game market from existing.They are n't preventing the used game market from existing .
They are simply trying to to get a cut of the profits from used game sales .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What I don't get is why game makers still insist on doing their hardest to prevent the used game market from existing.They aren't preventing the used game market from existing.
They are simply trying to to get a cut of the profits from used game sales.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31628742</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31633106</id>
	<title>They don't want to kill off the used market</title>
	<author>judeancodersfront</author>
	<datestamp>1269600600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>they're just sick of Gamestop selling $55 used copies a couple days after release.

Gamestop is in every mall in America and they push a  low buy / high resale model. They basically operate like a pawn shop.</htmltext>
<tokenext>they 're just sick of Gamestop selling $ 55 used copies a couple days after release .
Gamestop is in every mall in America and they push a low buy / high resale model .
They basically operate like a pawn shop .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>they're just sick of Gamestop selling $55 used copies a couple days after release.
Gamestop is in every mall in America and they push a  low buy / high resale model.
They basically operate like a pawn shop.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31630450</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31630726</id>
	<title>Console gamers need to start waking up!</title>
	<author>ninjacheeseburger</author>
	<datestamp>1269634140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>When I was younger I used to buy a lot of used PC games, this was when the majority of games only needed a CD key to play. All you had to do was check the game came with the key you were away. As most of the second hand games were older titles, you couldn't by them in stores anyway, and if they game was good I would it would lead me to buying the sequel or another game by the same devs.

Recently though it has become a lot more hit and miss buying PC games second hand as some games can be registered to Steam, or have some sort of online activation which stops second hand users. This is rarely advertised on the box though.</htmltext>
<tokenext>When I was younger I used to buy a lot of used PC games , this was when the majority of games only needed a CD key to play .
All you had to do was check the game came with the key you were away .
As most of the second hand games were older titles , you could n't by them in stores anyway , and if they game was good I would it would lead me to buying the sequel or another game by the same devs .
Recently though it has become a lot more hit and miss buying PC games second hand as some games can be registered to Steam , or have some sort of online activation which stops second hand users .
This is rarely advertised on the box though .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When I was younger I used to buy a lot of used PC games, this was when the majority of games only needed a CD key to play.
All you had to do was check the game came with the key you were away.
As most of the second hand games were older titles, you couldn't by them in stores anyway, and if they game was good I would it would lead me to buying the sequel or another game by the same devs.
Recently though it has become a lot more hit and miss buying PC games second hand as some games can be registered to Steam, or have some sort of online activation which stops second hand users.
This is rarely advertised on the box though.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_26_1537228_77</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31629184
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31634600
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_26_1537228_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31629378
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31631902
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_26_1537228_79</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31628842
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31630702
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_26_1537228_84</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31628974
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31630564
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_26_1537228_55</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31629184
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31630714
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_26_1537228_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31628974
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31630862
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_26_1537228_69</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31629184
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31631546
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_26_1537228_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31628634
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31629454
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31631192
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_26_1537228_74</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31629378
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31629840
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_26_1537228_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31628634
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31630002
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_26_1537228_97</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31628842
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31629538
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_26_1537228_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31628742
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31630750
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_26_1537228_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31628634
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31637510
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_26_1537228_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31628974
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31630716
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_26_1537228_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31629112
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31637592
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_26_1537228_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31629308
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31629640
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_26_1537228_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31628974
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31634126
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_26_1537228_66</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31628642
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31628722
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_26_1537228_94</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31628634
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31628768
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31629594
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31630450
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31658106
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_26_1537228_89</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31628634
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31629158
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31636592
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_26_1537228_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31628842
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31631170
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_26_1537228_68</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31628812
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31631176
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_26_1537228_71</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31628748
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31628946
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_26_1537228_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31628742
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31629166
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31630096
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31638562
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_26_1537228_67</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31628634
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31628768
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31629594
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31631442
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_26_1537228_58</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31628642
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31629832
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_26_1537228_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31628748
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31630548
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_26_1537228_61</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31628748
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31629098
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31630908
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_26_1537228_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31628742
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31629166
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31630344
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_26_1537228_95</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31628748
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31629008
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31629286
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31629572
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_26_1537228_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31628634
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31630340
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_26_1537228_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31628742
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31629456
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31630350
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_26_1537228_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31628634
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31628768
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31629594
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31630450
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31631886
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31635662
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_26_1537228_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31628742
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31629166
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31630298
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_26_1537228_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31628748
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31629116
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31630522
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_26_1537228_88</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31628634
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31644888
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_26_1537228_59</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31628938
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31629814
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_26_1537228_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31628634
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31631388
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_26_1537228_92</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31628812
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31631640
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_26_1537228_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31628812
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31629570
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31633350
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_26_1537228_78</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31628860
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31630668
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_26_1537228_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31629184
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31633024
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_26_1537228_60</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31628742
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31629166
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31630728
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_26_1537228_83</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31628748
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31629418
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_26_1537228_56</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31628748
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31629008
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31631528
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_26_1537228_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31628634
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31628768
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31629594
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31631512
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_26_1537228_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31628742
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31630126
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_26_1537228_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31628812
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31631922
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_26_1537228_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31628634
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31628768
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31629594
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31630450
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31631886
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31637606
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_26_1537228_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31629184
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31631194
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_26_1537228_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31628842
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31629146
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_26_1537228_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31628742
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31629166
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31630096
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31631074
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_26_1537228_98</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31628634
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31631402
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_26_1537228_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31628742
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31631320
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_26_1537228_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31628634
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31628768
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31629594
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31632884
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_26_1537228_75</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31628634
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31629158
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31638556
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_26_1537228_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31628748
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31629008
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31658194
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_26_1537228_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31628842
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31631166
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_26_1537228_82</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31628842
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31629448
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_26_1537228_65</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31629378
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31630396
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_26_1537228_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31629112
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31630142
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_26_1537228_81</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31628742
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31629166
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31630250
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_26_1537228_99</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31628974
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31633936
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_26_1537228_72</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31628634
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31628768
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31629594
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31630450
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31633106
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_26_1537228_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31628812
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31628996
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_26_1537228_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31628634
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31628768
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31630374
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_26_1537228_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31628748
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31629338
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31631132
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_26_1537228_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31628812
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31629850
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_26_1537228_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31629308
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31630180
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_26_1537228_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31628742
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31629166
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31658150
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_26_1537228_96</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31628742
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31630922
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_26_1537228_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31628842
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31629220
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_26_1537228_73</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31628748
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31629008
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31629416
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_26_1537228_64</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31628748
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31628910
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_26_1537228_87</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31628812
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31629054
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_26_1537228_80</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31628812
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31629570
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31640966
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_26_1537228_63</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31628812
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31630412
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_26_1537228_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31629308
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31631840
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_26_1537228_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31628742
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31629166
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31630302
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_26_1537228_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31628634
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31628768
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31629594
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31641016
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_26_1537228_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31628748
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31629008
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31631124
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_26_1537228_70</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31628634
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31628768
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31629594
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31630648
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_26_1537228_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31628742
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31629166
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31631580
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_26_1537228_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31628642
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31628688
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_26_1537228_93</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31628938
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31641084
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_26_1537228_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31628748
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31628916
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31630362
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_26_1537228_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31628642
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31628990
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_26_1537228_86</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31628938
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31633992
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_26_1537228_57</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31628748
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31633814
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_26_1537228_62</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31628938
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31630772
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_26_1537228_90</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31628634
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31628768
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31629594
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31630450
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31632138
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_26_1537228_85</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31628634
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31628768
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31629594
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31630662
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_26_1537228_76</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31628748
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31628912
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_26_1537228_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31628888
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31633010
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_26_1537228_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31628634
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31629454
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31630164
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_26_1537228_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31628634
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31628768
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31634396
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_26_1537228_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31628884
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31630440
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_26_1537228_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31628842
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31631826
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_26_1537228_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31628642
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31628686
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31629606
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_26_1537228_91</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31628748
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31629008
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31631128
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_26_1537228.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31628884
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31630440
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_26_1537228.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31628748
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31628910
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31629008
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31631528
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31658194
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31629416
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31629286
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31629572
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31631128
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31631124
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31633814
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31628946
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31628916
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31630362
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31629116
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31630522
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31629338
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31631132
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31630548
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31629098
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31630908
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31629418
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31628912
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_26_1537228.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31629308
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31631840
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31629640
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31630180
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_26_1537228.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31628860
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31630668
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_26_1537228.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31629184
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31633024
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31630714
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31631194
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31631546
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31634600
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_26_1537228.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31628976
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_26_1537228.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31630026
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_26_1537228.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31630282
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_26_1537228.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31630204
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_26_1537228.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31628888
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31633010
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_26_1537228.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31628974
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31630716
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31634126
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31630862
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31633936
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31630564
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_26_1537228.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31629378
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31630396
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31631902
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31629840
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_26_1537228.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31628842
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31630702
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31631170
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31629220
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31629146
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31631166
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31629538
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31631826
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31629448
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_26_1537228.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31628742
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31630126
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31630750
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31631320
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31629166
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31630250
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31630096
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31631074
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31638562
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31630728
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31630298
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31658150
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31630344
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31630302
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31631580
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31629456
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31630350
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31630922
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_26_1537228.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31628812
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31628996
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31629850
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31631922
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31631176
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31629570
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31640966
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31633350
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31629054
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31630412
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31631640
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_26_1537228.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31628634
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31637510
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31630340
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31631388
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31629158
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31636592
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31638556
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31630002
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31631402
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31629454
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31631192
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31630164
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31644888
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31628768
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31634396
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31630374
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31629594
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31630648
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31631512
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31641016
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31630450
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31633106
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31631886
-----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31637606
-----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31635662
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31658106
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31632138
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31630662
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31631442
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31632884
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_26_1537228.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31628934
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_26_1537228.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31628642
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31628686
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31629606
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31628990
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31629832
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31628688
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31628722
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_26_1537228.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31628938
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31641084
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31630772
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31629814
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31633992
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_26_1537228.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31629112
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31637592
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1537228.31630142
</commentlist>
</conversation>
