MMOs are now Casinos.

11213141517

Comments

  • TorvalTorval Member LegendaryPosts: 13,766
    laserit said:
    Lol at the progression debate. This thread is about the money game, and for the publishers and developers it's a total win. They're bringing in more money per hour played than they've ever dreamed of.

    It's the modern day arcade, keep popping in them quarters, except your doing it from home and on your own machine.

    What a gig 
    Gross Revenue and Net Revenue are extremely different things. I agree that the gross revenue for games is much higher now than it was in the past... However, the net has not changed drastically, and in fact has caused many companies to either scale back, or go under. The margins on todays games are not as good as they used to be, and companies need to be much more efficient to compete in todays markets.
    Why do you think the margins are much narrower? I wouldn't have suspected that. If anything I would have thought with the power of current tech and decades of experience it would be easier than ever to leverage wider profit margins. So that's interesting.
    MadFrenchie
    Avatar Artist: U2
    Album: War (Remastered)
    Featured Tracks: Seconds, "40"
  • MadFrenchieMadFrenchie Nashville, TNMember RarePosts: 1,931
    edited August 5
    Iselin said:
    I don't really play any MMORPGs unless the leveling is enjoyable since I know that I will level alts to compare different classes/skill sets with each other. I have always thought that rushing to end game was a weird motivation for playing them since that is the part of them that least appeals to me.

    On the subject of playing to their strengths... this has been one of my constant criticisms of the genre for a long time. Shoehorning single player quests as the main leveling mechanic just seems like such a waste of resources to me when their focus should really be on creating new reasons to group casually or formally - not in a retro "let's make all content hard for soloers" way but more like building on the zone or game-wide threats that can't be ignored like Rift, GW2 and others have flirted with.

    We need that group/community activity with consequences development focus to really make them stand out as something fun and unique instead of being perceived by some as an annoyance that needs to be endured in order to get to the good stuff.
    Precisely.  The fact that folks will literally pay money to shorten the progression experience speaks to the misguided direction the genre seems to be taking.

    As @Torval and I discussed in another thread, it's not enough to simply throw up some servers and demand folks pay you regularly anymore.  But I think the subscription method can still be used effectively to create a strong niche that plays to the strengths of the genre.  The shared world shooters, suvival games, etc. would indeed still be around; we just don't need MMORPG developers to try and force their square peg into that round hole.  Find the square hole, instead.  The game needs to be as much about the unexpected as the expected.  The player should feel swept up in the events of the world, not like the world is simply a slot machine ready to take a quarter to give you a spin of the RNG wheel (both figuratively and literally).
    Post edited by MadFrenchie on
    TorvalIselinGdemamiCecropia

    image
  • EldurianEldurian Member RarePosts: 1,412
    The issue with steep vertical progression and enjoyable leveling / not gated content is that they are two features that don't go together.

    Let's list all our primary content in MMORPGs:

    1. Quests
    2. Dungeons
    3. World Events
    4. PvP Arenas
    5. Open World PvP 
    6. Territorial Control
    7. Trading (Including the transportation of goods such as in ArcheAge)
    8. Resource Gathering
    9. Crafting
    10. Housing / Guild Halls

    Quests - In your general MMO questing tends to be zoned with the vast majority of quests in a zone falling within a certain level range. To give players options there tends to be more than one zone for each level range. Vertical progression harms this content in that it becomes too easy past a certain point. If you are actually running quests for the enjoyment of the quests themselves you can run into situations where you are actually punished for leveling by the quests you want to run become overly simple due to your level (This is a major issue for me on my hobbit in LOTRO when I did every Shire quest). You also will almost certainly run into situations where it is unenjoyable to quest together with friends because of level gap.

    Some games due attempt to solve this by deleveling people in certain areas. But beyond this being a hated feature by many, it's almost never balanced well. In short the more variance in player power, the more difficult it becomes to balance content and deleveling systems. An issue that is non-existant in games without vertical progression and much simpler in games where vertical progression is limited / realistic.

    Dungeons - Dungeons suffer many of the same problems you do with quests. They are built for players of a specific level, then that level changes. Many games allow you to do the same dungeon at multiple levels having epic or hard mode versions of dungeons. But you almost never see dungeons that you can run at every single level. I'm going to assume that this again is due to the massive difficulty that would be involved in balancing such a system.

    World Events - Like quests and dungeons, it's not scaled well. Events that should involve the entire player base tend to exclude lower levels or be overly easy for high levels.

    PvP Arenas - These aren't even fun with the disparity is too high, and it almost always is. You tend to either kill everyone too easily, or die too easily, taking out the challenge and satisfaction of legitimately killing another player through practice and skill or inducing rage as you die against opponents you had not hope of beating no matter how well you played and how poorly they did.

    Open World PvP - Disparity makes this the absolute worst. Most of the complaints you hear about Open World PvP are in reality driven by gear disparity. Dieing to a level 100 in a level 20 zone isn't a product of Open World PvP. It's a product of the game making progression so ridiculous that opponents who are literally impossible for you to beat even exist. 

    Territorial Control - The absolute most fun content in any MMO in my opinion. Only problem is all low level / low gearscore players are effectively blocked out from taking any meaningful part in it because of the power gap.

    Trading - In terms of playing the auction house / market this is one of the only things you can do enjoyably on a low level character (Unless they make skills involved in doing this type of content as they do in EVE for instance.) In terms of transportation of goods like you see in ArcheAge and EVE, if you go through any zones you have the need to defend yourself you may be tossing goods in the trash if you don't have the levels to defend them. Especially in PvP areas of highly populated games/servers. Some competition over goods is great but it's a lot less enjoyable when one side doesn't even stand a chance due to gear.

    Resource Gathering - Again, you may be blocked out from doing this if there are high level NPCs or hostile players in the area you want to gather. It would be fun if you had some chance of winning but when gear and level effectively means you will die in one shot to any stronger player it locks you out of harvesting anywhere outside of safe zones enjoyably until max level.

    Crafting - In most MMOs there are few goods you can craft at low levels more valuable than the materials involved in making them. Crafting is one of the few areas I'm ok with some progression but it does need to be useful starting at level 1. You shouldn't have to spend weeks, months, or years taking losses on crafting to make anything that will turn an even slight profit. It's not realistic and more importantly, it's not fun. Solving this issue is largely about making crafting a more involved process though. When you can straight up AFK while crafting after you have the resources it makes sense that it's something that generates no value. That value needs to come from effort few games allow you to put in.

    Housing / Guild Halls - Pretty much one of the only things not ruined by vertical progression in most MMOs. Yay! 

    So like 80% of the main content in MMOs suffers from vertical progression in nearly every MMO 90% in ones that have neato good transportation systems like ArcheAge and EVE. The lower the vertical progression, the lesser these problems.

    For instance while 90% of EVE is negatively effected by vertical progression, the negative effect is lessened because the vertical progression is lower, and there is no level grinding. So EVE is actually one of the few tolerable MMOs on the market if you despise power gaps.

    Personally I think we need some more MMOs that ditch the gap entirely beyond temporary upgrades that are easily lost (Meaning that if you go into combat with super awesome gear, and die in super awesome gear, you suffer a lot more than someone who dies in crap gear.) But at least more games like EVE that address the gap and make it more reasonable would be nice.
    Gdemami
  • nariusseldonnariusseldon santa clara, CAMember RarePosts: 27,083
    Eldurian said:

    If virtual world building was the problem then Minecraft wouldn't be one of the most popular games of all time, and certainly one of the biggest in the past few years.
    It is not a "problem" per se. Just not that many games care about it. For every minecraft, there are many more non-virtual world games. In fact, even minecraft is not a real persistent virtual world game.
  • EldurianEldurian Member RarePosts: 1,412
    edited August 7
    nariusseldon said:

    For every minecraft, there are many more non-virtual world games...
    And those games aren't MMOs. And that's ok. But they aren't going to satisfy anyone who wants an MMO. 

    You can serve chicken (Small Scale Multiplayer) and call it beef (MMOs) but you're just going to piss off anyone who actually wanted beef.

    Your argument is "Everyone hate's tough meat (Grinding). Nobody is eating beef anymore. Chicken is overtaking the market. Let's just call the chicken beef and save the beef industry."

    My argument is "Everyone hate's tough meat (Grinding). How about we stop making every single steak well-done and try serving some of it medium rare or grind it up and make hamburger (Address the grind)."

    If you actually like beef, I think it's clear which argument makes sense, and one is just someone wasting everyone's time with nonsense. 

    Just like "Let's just call LoL is an MMO!" Is an argument that doesn't satisfy anyone who enjoys MMOs.
    Post edited by Eldurian on
    Gdemami
  • Superman0XSuperman0X San Jose, CAMember UncommonPosts: 1,932
    Torval said:
    laserit said:
    Lol at the progression debate. This thread is about the money game, and for the publishers and developers it's a total win. They're bringing in more money per hour played than they've ever dreamed of.

    It's the modern day arcade, keep popping in them quarters, except your doing it from home and on your own machine.

    What a gig 
    Gross Revenue and Net Revenue are extremely different things. I agree that the gross revenue for games is much higher now than it was in the past... However, the net has not changed drastically, and in fact has caused many companies to either scale back, or go under. The margins on todays games are not as good as they used to be, and companies need to be much more efficient to compete in todays markets.
    Why do you think the margins are much narrower? I wouldn't have suspected that. If anything I would have thought with the power of current tech and decades of experience it would be easier than ever to leverage wider profit margins. So that's interesting.
    The simple answer, competition. Todays consumer has many more products/companies competing for their dollar, and because of this, they get more buying power for that dollar. In the past (almost) 20 years the market has changed dramatically from a time when there were only a handful of options available to a time where there are so many, that you cant even list them all. There is also much more diversity of options, and different ways to spend your money.

    If you look at the numbers for publicly traded gaming companies (NCSOFT just put out recent numbers), you can see their net revenue growth has slowed compared to the past. They are still seeing strong gross revenue growth, but it is not translating to similar growth in net revenue. the biggest growth in cost has come in two areas; marketing and service. They spend a lot of money to convince customers to choose their products, and then in service to keep them using them. This is all because of the competition.

    One of the main reasons why many gaming companies changed focus from PC to Mobile was because they felt that PC was too competitive, and they didnt like the shrinking margins.  Mobile was perceived to be where they could grow these margins back to previous levels. However, due to EVERYONE trying to do the same thing, it didnt really happen for most of them.
    GdemamiTorval
  • nariusseldonnariusseldon santa clara, CAMember RarePosts: 27,083
    Eldurian said:
    nariusseldon said:

    For every minecraft, there are many more non-virtual world games...
    And those games aren't MMOs. And that's ok. But they aren't going to satisfy anyone who wants an MMO. 

    Neither is minecraft.

     You are probably overestimating the population who ONLY want MMOs. I doubt most players care that much about MMO. For them, if a game is good, play it .. whether it is MMO or not is pretty irrelevant.
  • EldurianEldurian Member RarePosts: 1,412
    edited August 7
    Eldurian said:

    And those games aren't MMOs. And that's ok. But they aren't going to satisfy anyone who wants an MMO. 

     You are probably overestimating the population who ONLY want MMOs. I doubt most players care that much about MMO. For them, if a game is good, play it .. whether it is MMO or not is pretty irrelevant.
    Most players probably don't. Of the kind who are looking for games titled MMOs, near 100% who will choose to play a game because it labeled itself as an MMO will.

    Sort of like how I like chicken, and if I say "I'm feeling adventurous bring me some kind of meat dish you think is good" to the waiter, and they bring me chicken, I will happily consume it. And if I'm feeling in the mood for a MOBA I'll happily play SMITE.

    But if I say "I'll take a full rack of ribs please" and I get served chicken my reaction is going to be "Um, there's been a mistake. I ordered ribs. Can you take this back and bring me some ribs?"

    So what is the point in labeling a game as an MMO when it isn't? That label is meant to attract people who enjoy MMOs. Sure, maybe most people won't care. But it will piss off near 100% of the players who are drawn in by the MMO label. Not only that, it turns away people repulsed by the MMO label (As the WoW generation of MMOs has done to many.)
    Post edited by Eldurian on
    MadFrenchieTuor7GdemamicameltosisCecropia
  • nariusseldonnariusseldon santa clara, CAMember RarePosts: 27,083
    Eldurian said:

    Most players probably don't. Of the kind who are looking for games titled MMOs, near 100% who will choose to play a game because it labeled itself as an MMO will.


    Sure .. just that the MMO group is no where big enough for devs of these games to care. This is no different than saying some wants to play text adventures. Sure .. they are only happy if they have text adventures to play .. but their pop is so small that no one will care. 


  • EldurianEldurian Member RarePosts: 1,412
    edited August 9
    Eldurian said:

    Most players probably don't. Of the kind who are looking for games titled MMOs, near 100% who will choose to play a game because it labeled itself as an MMO will.
    Sure .. just that the MMO group is no where big enough for devs of these games to care. This is no different than saying some wants to play text adventures. Sure .. they are only happy if they have text adventures to play .. but their pop is so small that no one will care. 
    But your logic fails.

    You see, nobody tries to label their game as a "text adventure" when it isn't. Because you're right, nobody cares about text adventures. Infact if a game labeled itself as a text adventure I would be less likely to purchase it.

    If nobody cares about the title MMO, then why falsify claims of being one? There is no point, unless that title still carries some weight that at least some people care about.

    And the people who care about that title, are the type who care whether or not it's used properly.

    If nobody cares about MMOs anymore, then drop the title and let the genre die as it should if there is no longer a market for it. There is no point in claiming to be something that "nobody cares about." Especially when you're not.
    Post edited by Eldurian on
    GdemamiCecropiaMadFrenchie
  • MoiraeMoirae New Orleans, LAMember RarePosts: 3,214
    Torval said:
    Moirae said:
    One of the many reasons I rarely play MMO's anymore.
    Do you play other kinds of game now or have you stopped gaming altogether?
    Yes, mostly RPG's. Skyrim, Mass Effect, Witcher, Dragon Age, etc. Gaming helps me unwind. I've found that most MMO's just pile the stress on. And you can believe I've had a hell of alot of stress in the last few years (job loss that hurt like hell, losing the ability to have children because all the parts have been cut out due to severe medical issues, and just yesterday having all my teeth pulled for dentures. Bad few years. Just bad). The only MMO I play anymore really is EQ2 and that's mostly the housing part. 

    I play RPG's to get away from it all. To become someone else for a while. But MMO's... they held so much promise and they've become a formulaic joke. 
    Torval
  • time007time007 Member UncommonPosts: 891
    i think alot of game suxxors nowadays.  it happens.  there are a jillion out there, i'd move on and not waste time on the crap ones honestly.  keep an eye out for camelot unchained, it won't have that stuff you posted about, dont worry.

    IMPORTANT:  Please keep all replies to my posts about GAMING.  Please no negative or backhanded comments directed at me personally.  If you are going to post a reply that includes how you feel about me, please don't bother replying & just ignore my post instead.  I'm on this forum to talk about GAMING.  Thank you.
    image

  • cameltosiscameltosis ipswichMember EpicPosts: 1,494
    Eldurian said:

    Most players probably don't. Of the kind who are looking for games titled MMOs, near 100% who will choose to play a game because it labeled itself as an MMO will.


    Sure .. just that the MMO group is no where big enough for devs of these games to care. This is no different than saying some wants to play text adventures. Sure .. they are only happy if they have text adventures to play .. but their pop is so small that no one will care. 


    Do you not think that this is an opportunity though?

    If you look at the actual MMOs that are on the market right now (meaning, those that allow 500+ players within the same virtual world), how many of them actually have features that utilise the power of massively-multiplayer? 

    Most are now solo orientated and are played in a solo manner. Group sizes are shrinking and the amount of group content is minimal. Classes are designed to be independent. Crafting has taken a back seat and is mostly pointless. Social features have been removed. Open world pvp is becoming rarer. Even the game engines used by most can't support large numbers of players. In short, the themepark approach to MMO design has resulted in the genre moving away from being massively-multiplayer. 

    Yet, the sandbox approach, which does utilise the power of massively-multiplayer, has never had the investment required to produce AAA games that are accessible to the masses. Since the release of WoW, no big developer has even attempted to make a good sandbox, let alone a AAA one. All we get is low quality sandboxes built around hardcore features that scare off most people. 


    I truly believe that if a big developer invested in a AAA sandbox title that really focused on being massively multiplayer, they would have a big hit on their hands. Not only would it appeal to people who are already fans of actual MMOs, but I believe it would attract a lot of new players to the genre once they see what it is actually capable of. It would be a risk as there is nothing comparable on the market right now, but if they chose a big IP to work with (for example, making GTA an MMO) then they would at least have a large fanbase to help them with initial sales. 
    GdemamiEldurianTuor7
  • nariusseldonnariusseldon santa clara, CAMember RarePosts: 27,083



    Sure .. just that the MMO group is no where big enough for devs of these games to care. This is no different than saying some wants to play text adventures. Sure .. they are only happy if they have text adventures to play .. but their pop is so small that no one will care. 


    Do you not think that this is an opportunity though?

    What i think is irrelevant (and for the record "no"). But look at what devs are thinking? Blizz hit it big with hearthstone & overwatch. Why confine themselves to MMOs when there are many other online game types?

    Why build online, persistent, worlds when a lobby and fun MP gameplay (or solo gameplay) will suffice?
    Gdemami
  • MadFrenchieMadFrenchie Nashville, TNMember RarePosts: 1,931
    Would this be considered the Second or Third Crusade, narius?  I'm trying to keep up.
    Cecropia

    image
  • nariusseldonnariusseldon santa clara, CAMember RarePosts: 27,083
    Would this be considered the Second or Third Crusade, narius?  I'm trying to keep up.

    well .. it is pale in comparison to the language crusade who want to, but can't, make people use the "correct" definition of MMO.

    But hey, may be you should actually play a MMO if you have trouble keeping up with my crusades. Given the devs seem to be doing what I am saying ... my crusade is going quite well. Can you say the same about yours?
    Gdemami
  • MadFrenchieMadFrenchie Nashville, TNMember RarePosts: 1,931
    edited August 14
    Would this be considered the Second or Third Crusade, narius?  I'm trying to keep up.

    well .. it is pale in comparison to the language crusade who want to, but can't, make people use the "correct" definition of MMO.

    But hey, may be you should actually play a MMO if you have trouble keeping up with my crusades. Given the devs seem to be doing what I am saying ... my crusade is going quite well. Can you say the same about yours?
    Not so sure it does; as of this posting, you hold the last reply on three different threads on the recent activity box, all giving this same spiel.

    This second paragraph is unimaginative trolling.  Maybe I should play an MMO?  I do play MMOs, multiple MMOs actually.  Not sure what that has to do with your little crusade here.
    Post edited by MadFrenchie on
    Gdemami

    image
  • EldurianEldurian Member RarePosts: 1,412
    edited August 14
    Would this be considered the Second or Third Crusade, narius?  I'm trying to keep up.

    well .. it is pale in comparison to the language crusade who want to, but can't, make people use the "correct" definition of MMO.

    But hey, may be you should actually play a MMO if you have trouble keeping up with my crusades. Given the devs seem to be doing what I am saying ... my crusade is going quite well. Can you say the same about yours?
    The thing is. Prettymuch everyone other than you, Gdemami, and a few of the more gullible posters on this board already accept the correct definition of MMO. It's an issue that would be long dead if you didn't bring it up every chance you get.
    Post edited by Eldurian on
    Gdemami
  • VengeSunsoarVengeSunsoar Member RarePosts: 6,258
    edited August 14
    It doesn't pale in comparison. Nari is the the most active participant in language debate. He constantly brings it up regardless of whether the topic is about it it or not.
    Post edited by VengeSunsoar on
    EldurianCecropia
    Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is bad.
  • GdemamiGdemami Member EpicPosts: 10,681
    Eldurian said:
    The thing is. Prettymuch everyone other than you, Gdemami, and a few of the more gullible posters on this board already accept the correct definition of MMO. 
    I am flattered!
  • nariusseldonnariusseldon santa clara, CAMember RarePosts: 27,083
    Eldurian said:

    The thing is. Prettymuch everyone other than you, Gdemami, and a few of the more gullible posters on this board already accept the correct definition of MMO. It's an issue that would be long dead if you didn't bring it up every chance you get.
    You miss mentioning the site itself.

    Sure, a few posters like yourself here are on the crusade of correcting the whole internet of how MMO is used, but the world does not resolve around a few people here. 
    Gdemami
  • EldurianEldurian Member RarePosts: 1,412
    Eldurian said:

    The thing is. Prettymuch everyone other than you, Gdemami, and a few of the more gullible posters on this board already accept the correct definition of MMO. It's an issue that would be long dead if you didn't bring it up every chance you get.
    You miss mentioning the site itself.

    Sure, a few posters like yourself here are on the crusade of correcting the whole internet of how MMO is used, but the world does not resolve around a few people here. 
    No it doesn't. Which is why if you were to go ask "What games do you consider to be MMOs" all around the gaming communities everywhere League of Legends and Hearthstone would be names you hardly ever hear. 

    It's why when you put "Define MMO" into Google your top results are things like this:

    massively multiplayer online game (MMOG or MMO) is an online game which is capable of supporting large numbers of players, typically from hundreds to thousands, simultaneously in the same instance (or world).
    Because it isn't just this site's community that supports the true definition. It's 99% of the whole damn internet. I'd say support is lower on this site than other places, both because this site is intentionally getting it wrong in order to stay more relevant and because people love to argue ridiculous points that don't even get argued over other places here.

    You are right that the vast majority of people don't put much thought into the definition of what MMO is. They just know what is an MMO and what isn't. They accept that games like EVE, WoW, and Runescape are, and they do not accept that games like League of Legends, Hearthstone, and ARK are.
    GdemamiTuor7
  • maskedweaselmaskedweasel houston, TXMember RarePosts: 9,190
    Eldurian said:
    Eldurian said:

    The thing is. Prettymuch everyone other than you, Gdemami, and a few of the more gullible posters on this board already accept the correct definition of MMO. It's an issue that would be long dead if you didn't bring it up every chance you get.
    You miss mentioning the site itself.

    Sure, a few posters like yourself here are on the crusade of correcting the whole internet of how MMO is used, but the world does not resolve around a few people here. 
    No it doesn't. Which is why if you were to go ask "What games do you consider to be MMOs" all around the gaming communities everywhere League of Legends and Hearthstone would be names you hardly ever hear. 

    It's why when you put "Define MMO" into Google your top results are things like this:

    massively multiplayer online game (MMOG or MMO) is an online game which is capable of supporting large numbers of players, typically from hundreds to thousands, simultaneously in the same instance (or world).
    Because it isn't just this site's community that supports the true definition. It's 99% of the whole damn internet. I'd say support is lower on this site than other places, both because this site is intentionally getting it wrong in order to stay more relevant and because people love to argue ridiculous points that don't even get argued over other places here.

    You are right that the vast majority of people don't put much thought into the definition of what MMO is. They just know what is an MMO and what isn't. They accept that games like EVE, WoW, and Runescape are, and they do not accept that games like League of Legends, Hearthstone, and ARK are.
    That's a debate for a whole other thread.  People often argue semantics on this topic specifically, but it really doesn't make sense to do so.  Early MMOs didn't have thousands of players, or multiple hundreds either.  Lobby games quite often can house hundreds of players in a chat or instance of some type but won't allow that many in a given instance outside of hubs.

    Basically every part of the word MMO can be subjective.  There is no single definition or threshold of what is needed to hit "MMO" status. 



  • nariusseldonnariusseldon santa clara, CAMember RarePosts: 27,083
    Eldurian said:

    Because it isn't just this site's community that supports the true definition. It's 99% of the whole damn internet. 
    lol .. you wish.

    Let's see  (after 5 min search):

    1) This best MMO list: http://www.gamesradar.com/best-mmorpg/
    #21 is star conflict where you only fight in instances, and there is not even a 3D lobby.

    2) In this thread asking for best MMO: https://www.reddit.com/r/MMORPG/comments/5yz9v6/best_mmos_to_play_in_2017/
    Warframe and Path of Exile are part of the responses.

    3) Even massively overpowered: http://massivelyop.com/tag/world-of-tanks/
    classifies world of tanks as a "historical mmofps sim".


    4) now let's go to metacritics' world of tank page .. and guess that the reviews are saying? And i quote:
    "Unique and confident in its place in the free-to-play world, this team-based MMO is a surefire winner, balancing fun with depth and detail with action."
    "This is by far the best free to play MMO out there at the moment. "
    "Whatever the case, this is one of the finest free-to-play MMOs to date."
    "World of Tanks is a fun, unique, free to play MMO that contains a huge number of different, real-life, models. "

    There are literally thousands upon thousands of examples like this. But i suppose you can keep sticking your head in the sand. 





  • ScorchienScorchien Hatboro, PAMember EpicPosts: 3,740
    Annnnnnnd ... the wheels on the Bus go Round and Round
    CecropiaTorvallaserit
Sign In or Register to comment.