Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

"MMO": How many players does it take?

2»

Comments

  • MendelMendel Member EpicPosts: 4,480
    Torval said:
    This is purely about the number of players per virtual environment. That is how you quantify the size of multiplayer in a game. Things like instances, persistence, or any other features or mechanics have absolutely no bearing on whether it's massively multiplayer or not.
    What does "virtual environment" mean to you? Because to me, things like instancing, layers, phases, channels, and culling has a dramatic effect on concurrency.

    To me it doesn't even matter if a game can have 250 players in a zone if I can only see 50 at a time no matter what; or if I go to a location to meet someone and they're not there because their character exists in another layer or phase.

    Then again I don't really care if some people call or feel their game an MMO or not. It just doesn't matter to me because I know it isn't going to be like first gen MMO concurrency and setting. There aren't enough well defined types of MMOs to characterize them all. Thus I lump them into the mmo-alikes.

    Is a game like FO76 with thousands of players across many servers any less massively multiplayer than games that have 500 people in a zone except I never see more than 50? I can server hop in FO76 all I want and see tons of different people just like changing phases or channels in another game. In fact I can more easily join my friends in FO76 than I can in some other games more traditionally labeled MMO.

    My point being that MMO doesn't mean any one thing and hasn't since they started introducing many zones and instances. How it works depends on the game and they all do it differently. MMO is different for every game, even those most would consider legit.

    Virtual environment means any virtual space which the player can traverse right now, without loading screens, and interact with the other players in that environment. If you cannot interact, i.e. play, with another player without going through a loading screen of some sort, they you cannot both be counted towards the multiplayer cap.


    So, in the case of instancing and layers, if you are in a different instance or layer, then you are not in the same virtual environment because there is no possibility of you being able to interact with those other players and that point in time. You'd have to leave your layer and join theirs. 




    In your example, FO76 is not Massively Multiplayer, as it has a low player cap. However, a game that supports 500 players per zone, but that zone is layered with each layer having a player cap of 50, is also not massively multiplayer. A player cap of 50 is definitely, 100%, an average multiplayer number, and is not massively multiplayer. This is why I said that server capacity has no bearing on whether a game is an MMO or not, because if you have 10,000 players per server, but a maximum of 75 players can actually play together at any given time (swtor....), then its still not massively mulitplayer.

    EQ1 and EQ2 both had quite a few loading screens.  I think both were the standard definition of Massively Multiplayer.  You may want to rethink your definition of MMO a bit, it doesn't include all first generation games.  Unless you want to make the statement that EQ1 and EQ2 weren't MMOs?  But I don't think that's what you intended.

    Also CoH used layered instancing to allow more than 50 people in an area.  CoH isn't quite 1st gen, but it would still be not counted as an MMO under your scheme.



    GdemamiAlBQuirkyfrancis_baud

    Logic, my dear, merely enables one to be wrong with great authority.

  • olepiolepi Member RarePosts: 1,579
    I think the first M in MMO is the Roman numeral for 1,000.

    The server should be able to handle up to at least 1,000 at a time, and should be able to support all 1,000 in a single zone.

    If you only allow 50 or 100 in the same zone simultaneously, that's just a co-op game.
    GdemamiAlBQuirkyfrancis_baud

    ------------
    2021: 44 years on the Net.


  • cameltosiscameltosis Member EpicPosts: 2,951
    Mendel said:
    Torval said:
    This is purely about the number of players per virtual environment. That is how you quantify the size of multiplayer in a game. Things like instances, persistence, or any other features or mechanics have absolutely no bearing on whether it's massively multiplayer or not.
    What does "virtual environment" mean to you? Because to me, things like instancing, layers, phases, channels, and culling has a dramatic effect on concurrency.

    To me it doesn't even matter if a game can have 250 players in a zone if I can only see 50 at a time no matter what; or if I go to a location to meet someone and they're not there because their character exists in another layer or phase.

    Then again I don't really care if some people call or feel their game an MMO or not. It just doesn't matter to me because I know it isn't going to be like first gen MMO concurrency and setting. There aren't enough well defined types of MMOs to characterize them all. Thus I lump them into the mmo-alikes.

    Is a game like FO76 with thousands of players across many servers any less massively multiplayer than games that have 500 people in a zone except I never see more than 50? I can server hop in FO76 all I want and see tons of different people just like changing phases or channels in another game. In fact I can more easily join my friends in FO76 than I can in some other games more traditionally labeled MMO.

    My point being that MMO doesn't mean any one thing and hasn't since they started introducing many zones and instances. How it works depends on the game and they all do it differently. MMO is different for every game, even those most would consider legit.

    Virtual environment means any virtual space which the player can traverse right now, without loading screens, and interact with the other players in that environment. If you cannot interact, i.e. play, with another player without going through a loading screen of some sort, they you cannot both be counted towards the multiplayer cap.


    So, in the case of instancing and layers, if you are in a different instance or layer, then you are not in the same virtual environment because there is no possibility of you being able to interact with those other players and that point in time. You'd have to leave your layer and join theirs. 




    In your example, FO76 is not Massively Multiplayer, as it has a low player cap. However, a game that supports 500 players per zone, but that zone is layered with each layer having a player cap of 50, is also not massively multiplayer. A player cap of 50 is definitely, 100%, an average multiplayer number, and is not massively multiplayer. This is why I said that server capacity has no bearing on whether a game is an MMO or not, because if you have 10,000 players per server, but a maximum of 75 players can actually play together at any given time (swtor....), then its still not massively mulitplayer.

    EQ1 and EQ2 both had quite a few loading screens.  I think both were the standard definition of Massively Multiplayer.  You may want to rethink your definition of MMO a bit, it doesn't include all first generation games.  Unless you want to make the statement that EQ1 and EQ2 weren't MMOs?  But I don't think that's what you intended.

    Also CoH used layered instancing to allow more than 50 people in an area.  CoH isn't quite 1st gen, but it would still be not counted as an MMO under your scheme.




    I didn't play EQ1 or EQ2 so can't comment on what they did or didn't allow. Neither did I play CoX, so no idea what their caps are like. Loading screens by themselves aren't an issue, they simply define the boundaries of a virtual environment. Every game has loading screens.

    But, if those 3 games supported less than 250 players in the same virtual environment, then sure, I wouldn't call them MMOs because they wouldn't be massively multiplayer.



    Not sure if that answers your question or not.


    Google has also let me down, can't seem to find out the player cap for any of those three games. Thats always been a weird aspect of the large multiplayer genre. Other games are legally required to publish their player caps, those numbers go onto official boxes and stuff. But, for some reason, a lot of online multiplayer games, especially MMORPGs, seem to get away without publishing those numbers.
    GdemamiMendelAlBQuirkyfrancis_baud
  • MendelMendel Member EpicPosts: 4,480
    Mendel said:
    Torval said:
    This is purely about the number of players per virtual environment. That is how you quantify the size of multiplayer in a game. Things like instances, persistence, or any other features or mechanics have absolutely no bearing on whether it's massively multiplayer or not.
    What does "virtual environment" mean to you? Because to me, things like instancing, layers, phases, channels, and culling has a dramatic effect on concurrency.

    To me it doesn't even matter if a game can have 250 players in a zone if I can only see 50 at a time no matter what; or if I go to a location to meet someone and they're not there because their character exists in another layer or phase.

    Then again I don't really care if some people call or feel their game an MMO or not. It just doesn't matter to me because I know it isn't going to be like first gen MMO concurrency and setting. There aren't enough well defined types of MMOs to characterize them all. Thus I lump them into the mmo-alikes.

    Is a game like FO76 with thousands of players across many servers any less massively multiplayer than games that have 500 people in a zone except I never see more than 50? I can server hop in FO76 all I want and see tons of different people just like changing phases or channels in another game. In fact I can more easily join my friends in FO76 than I can in some other games more traditionally labeled MMO.

    My point being that MMO doesn't mean any one thing and hasn't since they started introducing many zones and instances. How it works depends on the game and they all do it differently. MMO is different for every game, even those most would consider legit.

    Virtual environment means any virtual space which the player can traverse right now, without loading screens, and interact with the other players in that environment. If you cannot interact, i.e. play, with another player without going through a loading screen of some sort, they you cannot both be counted towards the multiplayer cap.


    So, in the case of instancing and layers, if you are in a different instance or layer, then you are not in the same virtual environment because there is no possibility of you being able to interact with those other players and that point in time. You'd have to leave your layer and join theirs. 




    In your example, FO76 is not Massively Multiplayer, as it has a low player cap. However, a game that supports 500 players per zone, but that zone is layered with each layer having a player cap of 50, is also not massively multiplayer. A player cap of 50 is definitely, 100%, an average multiplayer number, and is not massively multiplayer. This is why I said that server capacity has no bearing on whether a game is an MMO or not, because if you have 10,000 players per server, but a maximum of 75 players can actually play together at any given time (swtor....), then its still not massively mulitplayer.

    EQ1 and EQ2 both had quite a few loading screens.  I think both were the standard definition of Massively Multiplayer.  You may want to rethink your definition of MMO a bit, it doesn't include all first generation games.  Unless you want to make the statement that EQ1 and EQ2 weren't MMOs?  But I don't think that's what you intended.

    Also CoH used layered instancing to allow more than 50 people in an area.  CoH isn't quite 1st gen, but it would still be not counted as an MMO under your scheme.




    I didn't play EQ1 or EQ2 so can't comment on what they did or didn't allow. Neither did I play CoX, so no idea what their caps are like. Loading screens by themselves aren't an issue, they simply define the boundaries of a virtual environment. Every game has loading screens.

    But, if those 3 games supported less than 250 players in the same virtual environment, then sure, I wouldn't call them MMOs because they wouldn't be massively multiplayer.



    Not sure if that answers your question or not.


    Google has also let me down, can't seem to find out the player cap for any of those three games. Thats always been a weird aspect of the large multiplayer genre. Other games are legally required to publish their player caps, those numbers go onto official boxes and stuff. But, for some reason, a lot of online multiplayer games, especially MMORPGs, seem to get away without publishing those numbers.

    EQ1 allowed around 2,500 active on any given server.  Most zones were supposedly capable of 250 characters at time, but in practice (in the early days) 100-125 was pushing your luck -- lots of network issues and many (if not most) graphics cards were going to choke if there were that many in visual range.  It wasn't uncommon to have to look at the ground to avoid stressing your graphics card.  These days, after many networking improvements, graphics optimization, and superior graphics cards, it isn't uncommon to have 180-200 in popular zones (PoK, Lobby, Bazzar), most of whom are /afk in one form or another.

    I don't really know if there were upper limits on how many accounts could create characters on a single server; it wouldn't surprise me if there were in excess on 15,000 characters per server.  (All of which are still there, with minor exceptions).

    But every zone was 'surrounded' by loading screens from day 1.  So, your definition would definitely exclude EQ1 and EQ2 from the MMORPG category.

    As far as the maximum numbers go, most games tend to publish character counts, then allow multiple characters per account, multiple accounts per person, and even multiple instances of the game per computer.  It makes multi-boxing insanely simple, and further obfuscates the number of customers from interested observers.  Talking to a boxed character is immensely frustrating.



    AlBQuirkyfrancis_baud

    Logic, my dear, merely enables one to be wrong with great authority.

  • TorvalTorval Member LegendaryPosts: 21,277
    I think it comes down to sever tech and design. I think a MMORPG with 50 player limit to zones could feel more like a MMORPG with 5000 doing solo quest and phased to different content. 

    Is that the difference between normal multiplayer and massively multiplayer, or is that the difference between virtual world and generic online game?

    That's my point, they're all different. There isn't one standard objective definition of MMO. And to me it doesn't really matter if one game meets some arbitrary subjective manufactured requirement by one random gamer or another. It's pretty much why I see things that work for me but don't try and impose my perspective or definition of what that means on other people.
    AlBQuirkyfrancis_baudGdemami
    traveller, interloper, anomaly, iteration


  • TwistedSister77TwistedSister77 Member RarePosts: 805
    The definitive answer:


    TorvalAlBQuirkyfrancis_baudUngood
  • AlBQuirkyAlBQuirky Member EpicPosts: 6,742
    Mendel said:
    Interesting! Personally I'd go with 150 minimum per zone, 50% more than Battle Royale games (100-player map) which aren't considered MMO. I prefer when it's more crowded.

    What happens when you have 150 in a zone, but 120 are /afk for various reasons?  And are you counting *people* playing or *characters* in the game world?  How do you count 1 person operating 3 characters (i.e., boxing)?  In my experience, *people* have fun, *characters* don't.

    I'd qualify an MMO as unique individuals (people) actively playing (not-afk) in the same game-world (server) at the same time.  With that definition, I'd think that a minimum of 500 people would constitute an MMO game.  I don't know that we've seen many true MMORPGs in some while.  The various ways of being non-active tends to cause us to overestimate the actual population of the games we play.

    We can't even take a bio-break now? Answer the door for our pizza and beer delivery? "Any AFK" is not counted?

    I get your point, to be sure. "AFK'ers" that fall asleep are a very different kind of critter. Isn't that a mighty fine line you're setting in the sand, don't you think?
    francis_baudUngood

    - Al

    Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse.
    - FARGIN_WAR


  • AlBQuirkyAlBQuirky Member EpicPosts: 6,742
    olepi said:
    I think the first M in MMO is the Roman numeral for 1,000.

    The server should be able to handle up to at least 1,000 at a time, and should be able to support all 1,000 in a single zone.

    If you only allow 50 or 100 in the same zone simultaneously, that's just a co-op game.

    I think the second "M" counts, too! 2000 players! :D
    francis_baudtzervoUngood

    - Al

    Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse.
    - FARGIN_WAR


  • madazzmadazz Member RarePosts: 2,057
    Kyleran said:
    Back in the early days when MMORPGS were single "worlds" the answers was more straight forward for me.

    Minimum of 500 per persistent world was all I considered, without regard to player population in a specific zone, region or battle.

    Since then I've seen 2000 plus players in a single solar system in EVE as a normal thing, with carefully staged battles being much higher.

    I've also played FO76, with roughly 35 players per world, but one can quickly flip between a near endless number of copies.

    ESO has mega servers, no telling how many are in each zone, (or how many copies each zone has active) seems like I can't swing a stick without running into other players just about everywhere, so much so that it's actually an annoyance more often than not. 

    So I'm really not sure what the correct answer is anymore.


    What? Thats such nonsense. Where in "Massively Multiplayer Online" does it state anything about persistence? It literally only stands for a massive quantity of players together concurrently in one single shared reality. That's it. Its three words. It can be 500 people together in a 30 minute FPS match. Its still an MMO. Persistence is only a standard part of mmoRPG. Then you bring up FO76 which relates even less to anything here. It doesn't have a massive quantity of people in any instance. Switching between 35  person instances doesn't do anything to make it an MMO. That makes no sense. If we were to take that logic and run with it there is an argument to call Chess an MMO as so many people can be playing it at the same time but not together.

    As for the topic at hand, I feel the "massively" portion is mostly subjective. It most certainly has to be a number that is far greater than the norm. I always used 500 players in a single shared world as my base line. Im sure I'd consider games with slightly lower MMO's too. 

    UngoodKyleranGdemami
  • madazzmadazz Member RarePosts: 2,057
    AlBQuirky said:

    At first, I agreed with Camel. Then I read Kyleran's and found my head nodding in agreement. Basing on my EQ 1 experience, I agree with you and Camel. MMOs are not made that way anymore.

    Now, I'm not sure where I think a "hard number" works anymore. I'm kind of with Iselin, too, thinking that it needs to "look busy" for me :)
    Kyleran doesn't even understand the basic part of MMO as he adds in "persistence". Then continues on and brings up a 35 player instanced game as an example of what could be an MMO.

    Thing is, mmo stands for massively multiplayer online. Its so simple. A massive quantity of people online together concurrently in one shared world. Its all the 3 words mean. It was created to distinguish these games from standard games that have a much more limited player count in a virtual world. To start merging normal multiplayer games with MMO's on the basis that there are instances completely and utterly renders "MMO" useless as a definition. Why have a definition that stands for a ton of people in world then make it stand for a ton of people in separate worlds? Wouldn't that technically make any FPS game with even 16 players an MMO? We already have a proper MMOFPS in Planetside 2. We don't need to branch out and call 64 player games MMO's as you can switch from match to match, server to server.

    And to clarify, persistence is a part of MMORPG's. MMO itself does not include persistence. 
    KyleranGdemami
  • ChampieChampie Member UncommonPosts: 14
    Scorchien said:
    Its not Zone ..

     Its how many active players in a Persistent World .. that number IMO is 5000

      So meaning it can support up to 5000 players in the same Persistent World .. ( That does not mean they all have to be online at same time )

       Maybe only 800 are on an any given time but the persistent world part is what escapses most people ..

      Im certain there will be window licking pushback and lack of understanding with this
    This is the key to the question. 

    An MMO, by the classic definition, is a single, openpersistent world which can accommodate at least hundreds (500-2000+) of players concurrently.

    I appreciate that some people think that there are many ways to define an MMO, but none of them are more accurate to the core than "SINGLE, OPEN, PERSISTENT WORLD". 

    Sometimes that world can be reset, like in Haven & Hearth, or WWIIOnline.
    Gdemami
  • WizardryWizardry Member LegendaryPosts: 18,934
    To me it is more important  that the game acts like a MMO and not a matter of how many people can login through a login server.
    I do not want ANY instances at all.
    I do not want FAKE structures like in Cyberpunk "using an example".If you make a building it better have a moving door and insides.

    I will use a simple example.
    Atlas a game i no longer play has a completely open world,everyone can see everyone else if they wanted to.Homes are OPEN world,you can again see the homes,see the boats,nothing is instanced.
    Even within the few dungeons you can enter them and see the other players.I used this game as an example bcause if a low budget two bit scummy develoepr can pull it off,ANYONE should be able to do the MMO world properly.
    Instances are for the CRAPPY employees who don't have a clue how to create a MMO world.I guess i could also point the finger at the leads and all the top execs because they SHOULD be paying attention to their game and how it is being developed.



    AlBQuirky

    Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.

  • MendelMendel Member EpicPosts: 4,480
    AlBQuirky said:
    Mendel said:
    Interesting! Personally I'd go with 150 minimum per zone, 50% more than Battle Royale games (100-player map) which aren't considered MMO. I prefer when it's more crowded.

    What happens when you have 150 in a zone, but 120 are /afk for various reasons?  And are you counting *people* playing or *characters* in the game world?  How do you count 1 person operating 3 characters (i.e., boxing)?  In my experience, *people* have fun, *characters* don't.

    I'd qualify an MMO as unique individuals (people) actively playing (not-afk) in the same game-world (server) at the same time.  With that definition, I'd think that a minimum of 500 people would constitute an MMO game.  I don't know that we've seen many true MMORPGs in some while.  The various ways of being non-active tends to cause us to overestimate the actual population of the games we play.

    We can't even take a bio-break now? Answer the door for our pizza and beer delivery? "Any AFK" is not counted?

    I get your point, to be sure. "AFK'ers" that fall asleep are a very different kind of critter. Isn't that a mighty fine line you're setting in the sand, don't you think?

    It's not the 'fall asleep' kind of AFKers that bother me.  It's the hoard of AFK characters parked in 'safe zones' (like the Guild Lobby or POK in EQ1).  These characters simply hang around with the hopes of getting free buffs (from MGBs) and not tick the timers on buffs until they wake up.  All they do is tie-up the limited chat channels (via Autojoin) and bump up the screen loading times when zoning into these zones.

    I've found the asleep-at-the-wheel types to be a very, very limited set of players.  Humorous, fun to make fun of, but rare.



    AlBQuirky

    Logic, my dear, merely enables one to be wrong with great authority.

  • UngoodUngood Member LegendaryPosts: 5,667
    In your opinion, how many players per zone* (cities excluded) does it take for a game to be considered a MMO?

    *An area of a map where players can interact with each others without loading screen


    Min: Zero.

    An MMO can have totally empty zones, and still be an MMO.

    The idea of an MMO, is that there are many people playing this game along with you, and while you might never see them, or interact with them directly, the idea is simply that they are there, and you could play and interact with them if you opted to.


    AlBQuirky
    Egotism is the anesthetic that dullens the pain of stupidity, this is why when I try to beat my head against the stupidity of other people, I only hurt myself.
  • SovrathSovrath Member LegendaryPosts: 29,689
    A lot of numbers being thrown around here.

    My thought is whatever amount of people the original "mmorpg" servers could accommodate WHEN the initialism was coined is probably the barometer to be used.

    And then how much less until mmorpg doesn't apply "if" you are using the original definition.

    But as we know (though some can't accept - or won't) language changes and evolves so the original "mmorpg" might no longer apply.


    ChampieAlBQuirky
  • achesomaachesoma Member RarePosts: 1,434
    42
    SovrathUngoodAlBQuirky

  • KyleranKyleran Member LegendaryPosts: 37,702
    madazz said:
    Kyleran said:
    Back in the early days when MMORPGS were single "worlds" the answers was more straight forward for me.

    Minimum of 500 per persistent world was all I considered, without regard to player population in a specific zone, region or battle.

    Since then I've seen 2000 plus players in a single solar system in EVE as a normal thing, with carefully staged battles being much higher.

    I've also played FO76, with roughly 35 players per world, but one can quickly flip between a near endless number of copies.

    ESO has mega servers, no telling how many are in each zone, (or how many copies each zone has active) seems like I can't swing a stick without running into other players just about everywhere, so much so that it's actually an annoyance more often than not. 

    So I'm really not sure what the correct answer is anymore.


    What? Thats such nonsense. Where in "Massively Multiplayer Online" does it state anything about persistence? It literally only stands for a massive quantity of players together concurrently in one single shared reality. That's it. Its three words. It can be 500 people together in a 30 minute FPS match. Its still an MMO. Persistence is only a standard part of mmoRPG. Then you bring up FO76 which relates even less to anything here. It doesn't have a massive quantity of people in any instance. Switching between 35  person instances doesn't do anything to make it an MMO. That makes no sense. If we were to take that logic and run with it there is an argument to call Chess an MMO as so many people can be playing it at the same time but not together.

    As for the topic at hand, I feel the "massively" portion is mostly subjective. It most certainly has to be a number that is far greater than the norm. I always used 500 players in a single shared world as my base line. Im sure I'd consider games with slightly lower MMO's too. 

    Err, relevant text from my post.

    "Back in the early days when MMORPGS were single "worlds" the answers was more straight forward for me.

    Minimum of 500 per persistent world was all I considered, without regard to player population in a specific zone, region or battle."

    Not sure why you went off on your "MMO" rant, most here know the proper definition of such terms is a hill I'm always willing to die on.



    AlBQuirky

    "See normal people, I'm not one of them" | G-Easy & Big Sean

    "I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant

    Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing FO76 at the moment.

    Fools find no pleasure in understanding, but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV

    Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™

    "This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon






  • Sid_ViciousSid_Vicious Member RarePosts: 2,173
    I would say that a game is not dead so long as another player is seen every time that it is played... but of course that is nothing compared to the rush of release that people jump from game to game enjoying. Honestly though I think that it depends on the game... as many of them do not really matter whether there are many players in there or not. Just as long as you can get others to play with, that is all that really matters... unless its a pvp game and if that is the case, its likely obtainable if the game still exists but will never be as good as it was during launch. 

    It wouldn't bother me to play a game that is mostly dead honestly... not really anymore... because I am more just simply thankful that any given game is simply available to play for some nostalgia factor.
    UngoodAlBQuirky

    NEWS FLASH! "A bank was robbed the other day and a man opened fire on the customers being held hostage. One customer zig-zag sprinted until he found cover. When questioned later he explained that he was a hardcore gamer and knew just what to do!" Download my music for free! I release several albums per month as part of project "Thee Untitled" . .. some video game music remixes and cover songs done with instruments in there as well! http://theeuntitled.bandcamp.com/ Check out my roleplaying blog, collection of fictional short stories, and fantasy series... updated on a blog for now until I am finished! https://childrenfromtheheavensbelow.blogspot.com/ Watch me game on occasion or make music... https://www.twitch.tv/spoontheeuntitled and subscribe! https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCUvqULn678VrF3OasgnbsyA

Sign In or Register to comment.