It seems that everyone wants a piece of the pie, when it's already stale and what's left are basically left overs. World of Warcraft was massively successful, and then came Rift, The Old Republic, DC Universe Online, and so on. League of Legends led the MOBA free to play market. The FPS boom, RTS era, indie platformers of recent times; games of the same genre tend to follow after a particularly successful game.
This method of jumping on their bandwagon might have worked in the past with the traditional purchase-once-and-play payment model. This is especially true with single player games with fans looking for similar experience on completing a game. Unfortunately, this doesn't work with free-to-play games and MMO due to their persistent nature. Gamers can't possibly carry their character or progress to a totally new game, can they? And if they have pumped money into their game, then it's even less likely for them to switch. Even competitive FPS titles of this generation have a levelling system so gamers are encouraged to stick to a single game, or risk losing all the progress they have made.
Why are companies willing to spend money developing something that is already on the market, and, more often than not, already holds most of the market share? What ends up being released, tends not to differ enough as not to be considered a clone of the first game, fighting for the very people who are invested in the first game. Try as I might, I can't think of a reason. What we've seen in the case of MOBAs is companies like Blizzard trying to differentiate themselves by catering to casual players; other games like Smite and Awesomenauts mixed things up by changing the perspective or even 3D to 2D. Considering the hype behind Blizzard's Heroes of the Storm, perhaps targeting a different audience is the key?
What we gamers get, though, is games with different twists, and possibly, merging of genres resulting in new and innovative game play while outright clones are most likely just going to die out. Competition is always good, as been said on this blog multiple times, so if companies are willing to throw their money away, I guess I'm not going to complain. Well, not too much.
Monday, April 28, 2014
Monday, April 21, 2014
The Oculus Rage
The Oculus Rift was bought over by Facebook, and people are livid. What started as a Kickstarter gaming project grew in popularity and interest, eventually attracting even the social network giant. But people, whom I have to assume are mostly gamers, are upset with the turn of events. I wondered what the matter was, and why would people care who owns Oculus as long as the backers get their set at their end of their day? But this article at Gamespot helped me understand why this was so.
And the issue is with the nature of Kickstarter. I have no idea how the makers of the Oculus Rift made their pitch to their backers, but most people would feel a sense of ownership of the product, having been part of the startup project, even if all being a backer entitled you to was the game or item, plus any bonuses for giving more money. Many feel that using Kickstarter was an alternative to funding a project without having to submit to a larger corporation, and is the desire of the developers to keep the product 'untainted', and indeed, we do see some game developers pitching their Kickstarter that way, like Project Goddus. However, I was not involved in the Oculus Kickstarter project as a backer, so I'm not sure if this was their pitch and if it wasn't, then it is not reasonable for backers to be against the acquisition.
Not that it matters of course. Because being a backer does not make us a shareholder in spite of the sense of ownership. When we look at the backing tiers in a project, nowhere does it say we are purchasing shares, and usually, it's just the product with bonuses the higher we go.
And this might be an issue, considering how Kickstarter projects are pitched - 'help us make this', 'work with us to create this'. Perhaps just saying 'buy this' might be better, but since there's no product, they can't say that either. As backers, we should learn to accept the fact that we are just paying for the possibility of playing or owning and nothing else. If we get to give input in the design, great, but otherwise, it might just as well be a pre-order.
And the issue is with the nature of Kickstarter. I have no idea how the makers of the Oculus Rift made their pitch to their backers, but most people would feel a sense of ownership of the product, having been part of the startup project, even if all being a backer entitled you to was the game or item, plus any bonuses for giving more money. Many feel that using Kickstarter was an alternative to funding a project without having to submit to a larger corporation, and is the desire of the developers to keep the product 'untainted', and indeed, we do see some game developers pitching their Kickstarter that way, like Project Goddus. However, I was not involved in the Oculus Kickstarter project as a backer, so I'm not sure if this was their pitch and if it wasn't, then it is not reasonable for backers to be against the acquisition.
Not that it matters of course. Because being a backer does not make us a shareholder in spite of the sense of ownership. When we look at the backing tiers in a project, nowhere does it say we are purchasing shares, and usually, it's just the product with bonuses the higher we go.
And this might be an issue, considering how Kickstarter projects are pitched - 'help us make this', 'work with us to create this'. Perhaps just saying 'buy this' might be better, but since there's no product, they can't say that either. As backers, we should learn to accept the fact that we are just paying for the possibility of playing or owning and nothing else. If we get to give input in the design, great, but otherwise, it might just as well be a pre-order.
Saturday, April 12, 2014
Pay to Beta Test?
Once upon a time, the purpose of beta tests was to detect and iron out bugs before games were released. Betas were free and sometimes, testers were even paid specially to search for bugs that normally wouldn't be detected in a casual play through.
Now, a 'beta' is more like a demo for the masses to try out a game. Sometimes, they were an incentive to pre-order a title. But mostly, they are hype builders and advertisements, and as such, betas are open only if the developers know the game is any good, or is it?
Betas can get away with a lot of issues; after all, a game that is still a work in progress can be excused right? Well, currently, people can purchase games that are still incomplete in the form of early access games. Some of these games are like this because of kickstarter backer rewards in the form of alpha and beta access. However, there are games that have been in 'beta' for a long time, raking in sales while being excused of their brokenness. And what is the incentive of coming out of beta? Will people still be interested in a game that has been on the market for so long? Can a game get away with bugs and incompleteness by being perpetually in beta or alpha?
Free to play games have gotten in the 'beta' fever as well. In closed the alphas and betas of many games, we are given the option of buying into the game. These 'founder packs' are a way to make impatient people pay for an otherwise free title. Should the game be officially 'released' and open to everyone, will these people actually pay any amount of money? It's hard to tell, but certainly there will be some who won't. Is there an issue to this? Probably not, but it's important to note that for most of these games, you can buy stuff with real money even in alpha or beta, and there are cases where the game gets shut down, never to be 'released'. What happens to the money spent on buying in and on items in the cash shop?
I have a few games on early access because I helped kickstart the games, and in the initial phases, they were pretty unplayable, which, funnily enough, meant it was a real beta. However, I realized this would spoil the game for me on official release if I spent too much time, not story-wise, but in the sense that the game might start to bore me. Probably this won't be an issue for most people and most games, but for multi player games, losing people before official release is not a good thing.
Yes, I know you feel like a beta tester playing Battlefield 3, but at least they were brave enough to put it out for critique, so that might be another post. I am not too keen on paying to beta test, but if playing broken games is your thing, feel free. But beware of games that never get released, or you might just end up like a kickstarter backer who gave money for a game that ends up in the void, never to see the light of day.
Now, a 'beta' is more like a demo for the masses to try out a game. Sometimes, they were an incentive to pre-order a title. But mostly, they are hype builders and advertisements, and as such, betas are open only if the developers know the game is any good, or is it?
Betas can get away with a lot of issues; after all, a game that is still a work in progress can be excused right? Well, currently, people can purchase games that are still incomplete in the form of early access games. Some of these games are like this because of kickstarter backer rewards in the form of alpha and beta access. However, there are games that have been in 'beta' for a long time, raking in sales while being excused of their brokenness. And what is the incentive of coming out of beta? Will people still be interested in a game that has been on the market for so long? Can a game get away with bugs and incompleteness by being perpetually in beta or alpha?
Free to play games have gotten in the 'beta' fever as well. In closed the alphas and betas of many games, we are given the option of buying into the game. These 'founder packs' are a way to make impatient people pay for an otherwise free title. Should the game be officially 'released' and open to everyone, will these people actually pay any amount of money? It's hard to tell, but certainly there will be some who won't. Is there an issue to this? Probably not, but it's important to note that for most of these games, you can buy stuff with real money even in alpha or beta, and there are cases where the game gets shut down, never to be 'released'. What happens to the money spent on buying in and on items in the cash shop?
I have a few games on early access because I helped kickstart the games, and in the initial phases, they were pretty unplayable, which, funnily enough, meant it was a real beta. However, I realized this would spoil the game for me on official release if I spent too much time, not story-wise, but in the sense that the game might start to bore me. Probably this won't be an issue for most people and most games, but for multi player games, losing people before official release is not a good thing.
Yes, I know you feel like a beta tester playing Battlefield 3, but at least they were brave enough to put it out for critique, so that might be another post. I am not too keen on paying to beta test, but if playing broken games is your thing, feel free. But beware of games that never get released, or you might just end up like a kickstarter backer who gave money for a game that ends up in the void, never to see the light of day.
Friday, April 4, 2014
Why Can't I Buy the Game I Want to Play?
I spoke up a lot on this blog with regards to why I don't want to support certain games. It could be a certain form of DRM, or some monetization issue, or a piece of pre-order bonus. Why is this an issue to us gamers? Shouldn't we be thankful to the developers for making such great games for us? Shouldn't we cut them some slack and give them the money they deserve?
Actually, it is understandable when companies choose to use DRM like always-online requirements to fight piracy. Piracy is a problem, and it does eat into sales, and in truth, having a game connect to a server and having parts of the game run server side is a very powerful form of DRM that can be almost impossible to crack, unless the pirates manage to duplicate the server's role somehow. Whether or not having DRM will get people, who would otherwise download the game to actually pay for the game is another matter (there's no reason to believe they would still want the game if it's not free), but we can understand where game developers are coming from. The problem with always-online is obvious, server issues, internet provider issues, companies closing down, or shutting down servers; the fact is, technology is just not good enough yet, whether it's the game company or internet providers. And in many countries, internet is limited by data caps, and subscription is not cheap. Perhaps one day, when speeds can finally be fast and internet, reliable, and accessible anywhere and anytime without latency issues and wiring requirement, perhaps then, can we accept always-online. Now, however, it is just not acceptable, though we tend to be more forgiving if it's free-to-play.
Other issues like pre-order bonus and DLCs are just there to encourage sales, which technically isn't wrong. But it opens up abuse. Pre-order bonuses are content created before the game is released, meaning potentially, it could be something originally in the game, something purposely removed from the game just before release to, 1) encourage people to buy before reviews are out, i.e. trick people into buying a bad game, and 2) get people who didn't order the game to fork out more money for content that should be in there originally, effectively increase the price of the game by $5 to $15. Not a bad deal for the company at all.
These are things gamers don't want, and yet, we still buy games that have all these issues. The message we are sending to companies is that we don't mind their exploitation, as long as we get good games. They can inconvenience us however they want with DRM; they can sell us five minutes of content at a time for $15 dollars each; they can make crappy games full of bugs, log in issues and with server issues and we'll pay for them without waiting for reviews. They can do all these, and we won't mind. If we keep sending out these signals, companies will keep testing the waters, keep exploiting us more and more, trying to see how far they can go before we react, and they will do it with games that people really want to play.
I'm not sure if it's worth fighting anymore. Perhaps gamers don't really care, and people who are complaining are just the vocal minority. Or people are really just stupid fan boys, complaining about every little misstep EA makes but worshipping at the feet of Blizzard that does no wrong. You know, both Sim City and Diablo 3 use server processing always-online DRM but only one of the companies finally made their game playable offline.
Actually, it is understandable when companies choose to use DRM like always-online requirements to fight piracy. Piracy is a problem, and it does eat into sales, and in truth, having a game connect to a server and having parts of the game run server side is a very powerful form of DRM that can be almost impossible to crack, unless the pirates manage to duplicate the server's role somehow. Whether or not having DRM will get people, who would otherwise download the game to actually pay for the game is another matter (there's no reason to believe they would still want the game if it's not free), but we can understand where game developers are coming from. The problem with always-online is obvious, server issues, internet provider issues, companies closing down, or shutting down servers; the fact is, technology is just not good enough yet, whether it's the game company or internet providers. And in many countries, internet is limited by data caps, and subscription is not cheap. Perhaps one day, when speeds can finally be fast and internet, reliable, and accessible anywhere and anytime without latency issues and wiring requirement, perhaps then, can we accept always-online. Now, however, it is just not acceptable, though we tend to be more forgiving if it's free-to-play.
Other issues like pre-order bonus and DLCs are just there to encourage sales, which technically isn't wrong. But it opens up abuse. Pre-order bonuses are content created before the game is released, meaning potentially, it could be something originally in the game, something purposely removed from the game just before release to, 1) encourage people to buy before reviews are out, i.e. trick people into buying a bad game, and 2) get people who didn't order the game to fork out more money for content that should be in there originally, effectively increase the price of the game by $5 to $15. Not a bad deal for the company at all.
These are things gamers don't want, and yet, we still buy games that have all these issues. The message we are sending to companies is that we don't mind their exploitation, as long as we get good games. They can inconvenience us however they want with DRM; they can sell us five minutes of content at a time for $15 dollars each; they can make crappy games full of bugs, log in issues and with server issues and we'll pay for them without waiting for reviews. They can do all these, and we won't mind. If we keep sending out these signals, companies will keep testing the waters, keep exploiting us more and more, trying to see how far they can go before we react, and they will do it with games that people really want to play.
I'm not sure if it's worth fighting anymore. Perhaps gamers don't really care, and people who are complaining are just the vocal minority. Or people are really just stupid fan boys, complaining about every little misstep EA makes but worshipping at the feet of Blizzard that does no wrong. You know, both Sim City and Diablo 3 use server processing always-online DRM but only one of the companies finally made their game playable offline.
Tuesday, March 25, 2014
Blizzard's Shift into Anti-Consumer Policies
Reaper of Souls has pre-order bonuses. And always-online DRM. And it almost has micro-transactions and pay-to-win elements. Almost.
How long will it be before we get into expensive, overpriced DLCs? And in-game content purposely removed from the finished product as pre-order bonuses or DLC? Or pay-to-enter betas?
I ranted about pre-order bonuses before. They encourage people to buy games before knowing if it will be any good. Granted, Blizzard is only giving out cosmetic items as pre-order incentives, but with regards to the Demon Hunter, not enough is known about Heroes of the Storm so it leaves to be seen if it will be an issue.
I guess I'm just sore because I've made it a point not to pre-order, and to not buy anything that has always-online at full price, and because I'm a collector, since I won't be getting the full package when I don't pre-order, it means I won't buy it in future even if there is a sale. (Yes, there are sales on the Blizzard store - Christmas and Black Friday.) AND because it crosses over to other Blizzard games, and I won't be able to complete my 'collection', I'll be giving up on collector's editions, digital deluxe editions or what not. Yes, I know I'm dumb for collecting games, but thanks to Blizzard, I won't have any IP that I'm devoted to anymore, so I can save my money.
The Aliens: Colonial Marines incident should have been a wake up call against pre-ordering games, and really, since it's on the online store, there is no need for Blizzard to get the numbers so they can stock up on copies. What reason is there but to bait people into making rash purchases? What annoys me is that because it is Blizzard, they can get away with absolute anything. If it were EA, the internet would have exploded in a rage equivalent to the detonation of a million nuclear warheads.
Edit: My bad. Turns out Blizzard actually announced that the 'pre-order loot' will be available till 31st March, i.e. after the launch so people can actually wait for reviews before purchasing, instead of buying blind. But then again, people thought Diablo 3 was good for the first few hours...
How long will it be before we get into expensive, overpriced DLCs? And in-game content purposely removed from the finished product as pre-order bonuses or DLC? Or pay-to-enter betas?
I ranted about pre-order bonuses before. They encourage people to buy games before knowing if it will be any good. Granted, Blizzard is only giving out cosmetic items as pre-order incentives, but with regards to the Demon Hunter, not enough is known about Heroes of the Storm so it leaves to be seen if it will be an issue.
I guess I'm just sore because I've made it a point not to pre-order, and to not buy anything that has always-online at full price, and because I'm a collector, since I won't be getting the full package when I don't pre-order, it means I won't buy it in future even if there is a sale. (Yes, there are sales on the Blizzard store - Christmas and Black Friday.) AND because it crosses over to other Blizzard games, and I won't be able to complete my 'collection', I'll be giving up on collector's editions, digital deluxe editions or what not. Yes, I know I'm dumb for collecting games, but thanks to Blizzard, I won't have any IP that I'm devoted to anymore, so I can save my money.
The Aliens: Colonial Marines incident should have been a wake up call against pre-ordering games, and really, since it's on the online store, there is no need for Blizzard to get the numbers so they can stock up on copies. What reason is there but to bait people into making rash purchases? What annoys me is that because it is Blizzard, they can get away with absolute anything. If it were EA, the internet would have exploded in a rage equivalent to the detonation of a million nuclear warheads.
Edit: My bad. Turns out Blizzard actually announced that the 'pre-order loot' will be available till 31st March, i.e. after the launch so people can actually wait for reviews before purchasing, instead of buying blind. But then again, people thought Diablo 3 was good for the first few hours...
Friday, March 21, 2014
All YouR Videos Are Belong to Us!
YouTube, the place that made 'viewing' games popular. Just not too long ago, people checked out games before buying by reading a review or previews on magazines or online sites, or by looking for an ultra-accurate, totally unbiased and completely and utterly agreed upon game rating to determine if a game is any good. (No it isn't, stop getting mad just because someone rated a game you like lower than what you expected.) Just these few years, we get to watch how the game is in ever increasing resolution on YouTube through video reviews and Let's Plays. And YouTube personalities have made a name for themselves through playing games.
The recent YouTube claims debacle causes us to ask this question that has undoubtedly been on the minds of many a publisher and developer - is allowing Let's Plays helping or hurting game sales? Like piracy, this is difficult to answer because, for those who don't buy the games but choose to watch instead, will they actually buy if they don't get to view it online? Personally, I'd only watch games I don't intend to buy, and even then, I'd only watch certain players, like Jesse Cox if it's a game that I'm really interested in the lore. So an argument can be made that it's the person making the video as well. Obviously it's not the case for me since I only watch very few games, but it's most likely these people can get views no matter what they play. And if by any chance, you're wrong in saying that it hurts sales, then wouldn't these people be advertising your competitors' games instead? It might be just a coincidence, but Nintendo is doing very poorly now since it took monetization away from YouTubers in 2013, Blizzard didn't but in fact, encouraged YouTubers to showcase their games, and even though it used oppressive DRM like always online, it got away with it. There are many other factors like general view of the company in question of course, so this might not be indicative of the influence of YouTubers.
This is not the only issue. Is giving publishers and developers the power to take monetization rights from video creators and shutting down videos at any time good for us since they can easily take down negative reviews? (Don't get me wrong, it actually hurts the devs since word will get out, especially if it's a large channel and that can actually backfire in the form of a mass boycott. In fact, it's actually VERY stupid.) YouTube's pro-developer and publishers policies are not helping either. Don't get me wrong, I do agree that the original copyright holder should get a greater benefit of the doubt, but giving the copy right holder an automatic claim and full monetization rights for just a small fraction of the video is too much. At most, the system should send an alert to ask if they wish to claim it, and even then, they only get a fraction of the revenue based on how much content is used. Any money earned from the video during the dispute should also go to the rightful party after the dispute is settled, and not lost to the video creator.
Why would YouTube do this? It is an effective way to cover their asses; it puts the power in the hands of the copyright holders. In other words, it's sucking up to big corporations with little to no effort for them once the system is in place. But well, it's a good chance for other platforms like Twitch to shine, since the PS4 and Xbox One is no doubt strengthening their influence. Hopefully, YouTubers can find other more stable sources of income, and just like anything else, competition is always good!
The recent YouTube claims debacle causes us to ask this question that has undoubtedly been on the minds of many a publisher and developer - is allowing Let's Plays helping or hurting game sales? Like piracy, this is difficult to answer because, for those who don't buy the games but choose to watch instead, will they actually buy if they don't get to view it online? Personally, I'd only watch games I don't intend to buy, and even then, I'd only watch certain players, like Jesse Cox if it's a game that I'm really interested in the lore. So an argument can be made that it's the person making the video as well. Obviously it's not the case for me since I only watch very few games, but it's most likely these people can get views no matter what they play. And if by any chance, you're wrong in saying that it hurts sales, then wouldn't these people be advertising your competitors' games instead? It might be just a coincidence, but Nintendo is doing very poorly now since it took monetization away from YouTubers in 2013, Blizzard didn't but in fact, encouraged YouTubers to showcase their games, and even though it used oppressive DRM like always online, it got away with it. There are many other factors like general view of the company in question of course, so this might not be indicative of the influence of YouTubers.
This is not the only issue. Is giving publishers and developers the power to take monetization rights from video creators and shutting down videos at any time good for us since they can easily take down negative reviews? (Don't get me wrong, it actually hurts the devs since word will get out, especially if it's a large channel and that can actually backfire in the form of a mass boycott. In fact, it's actually VERY stupid.) YouTube's pro-developer and publishers policies are not helping either. Don't get me wrong, I do agree that the original copyright holder should get a greater benefit of the doubt, but giving the copy right holder an automatic claim and full monetization rights for just a small fraction of the video is too much. At most, the system should send an alert to ask if they wish to claim it, and even then, they only get a fraction of the revenue based on how much content is used. Any money earned from the video during the dispute should also go to the rightful party after the dispute is settled, and not lost to the video creator.
Why would YouTube do this? It is an effective way to cover their asses; it puts the power in the hands of the copyright holders. In other words, it's sucking up to big corporations with little to no effort for them once the system is in place. But well, it's a good chance for other platforms like Twitch to shine, since the PS4 and Xbox One is no doubt strengthening their influence. Hopefully, YouTubers can find other more stable sources of income, and just like anything else, competition is always good!
Monday, January 27, 2014
iGaming, playDroid
Mobile phones and tablets are all the rage this generation, so it's no surprise that game publishers are putting more and more focus into making games that will reach the masses. EA, Square Enix and Capcom are just a few companies that have produced pretty decent games on the mobile platform. Because free-to-play is so popular on mobile, plus, you can pretty much get away with all sorts of horrible business practices there due to the large amount of horrible games which are pretty much cash-grabs already present, it's pretty attractive. Square Enix has some of the most expensive games on mobile, even if they are horrible ports; EA has free-to-play and one-off purchase games which are doing pretty well; Capcom already has some good games there, and recently, are investing profits from Monster Hunter into mobile gaming development.
Mobile devices are getting more powerful at an alarming rate, driven by competition between the major OS developers and mobile makers and there are increasingly more talented game developers taking more interest in the platform. It is undeniable that there is much money to be made from the large audience. Raising awareness for their games might be an issue for smaller, less well-known developers, but for already established companies, people will still support even if the are 'evil corporations'.
Is this good for gaming then? Well, more games is always good, or is it? The issue with mobile gaming is, well, that they are basically designed for mobile gaming, and not in the way that 3DS and Vita games are. They are meant for very shorts bursts of play, and tend to have 'energy' restrictions or paid boosts.
This is all well and good, because that's how gaming on the go is these days, but the tend to get ported, with all these restrictions carried over, and controls not optimized, plus chances are, suddenly, it's several times more costly. It's the same the other way round too. Games on PC or consoles are getting ported, and again, not optimized for touch controls. However, in this case, devices like controllers for phones and the Nvidia Shield are solving the problem. But do we really need to buy another device...?
Companies need to take more pride in their work and stop doing lazy ports just to make a quick buck. There are companies who do it pretty well within it's limitations like Capcom's Street Fighter. Ultimately, it's still difficult to find good stuff in the mobile space because too many 'non-gamers' will still pick up crap games, and it's practically impossible to review so many games out on the market. Worse, Apple and Google don't seem to mind people ripping off devs and creating clones or already popular games.
Will this ever change? I don't know, but the good thing is as a gaming community, gems do get found and the word is passed around. Also, more gamers is always a good thing, well probably, cause there'll be more pricks too...
Mobile devices are getting more powerful at an alarming rate, driven by competition between the major OS developers and mobile makers and there are increasingly more talented game developers taking more interest in the platform. It is undeniable that there is much money to be made from the large audience. Raising awareness for their games might be an issue for smaller, less well-known developers, but for already established companies, people will still support even if the are 'evil corporations'.
Is this good for gaming then? Well, more games is always good, or is it? The issue with mobile gaming is, well, that they are basically designed for mobile gaming, and not in the way that 3DS and Vita games are. They are meant for very shorts bursts of play, and tend to have 'energy' restrictions or paid boosts.
This is all well and good, because that's how gaming on the go is these days, but the tend to get ported, with all these restrictions carried over, and controls not optimized, plus chances are, suddenly, it's several times more costly. It's the same the other way round too. Games on PC or consoles are getting ported, and again, not optimized for touch controls. However, in this case, devices like controllers for phones and the Nvidia Shield are solving the problem. But do we really need to buy another device...?
Companies need to take more pride in their work and stop doing lazy ports just to make a quick buck. There are companies who do it pretty well within it's limitations like Capcom's Street Fighter. Ultimately, it's still difficult to find good stuff in the mobile space because too many 'non-gamers' will still pick up crap games, and it's practically impossible to review so many games out on the market. Worse, Apple and Google don't seem to mind people ripping off devs and creating clones or already popular games.
Will this ever change? I don't know, but the good thing is as a gaming community, gems do get found and the word is passed around. Also, more gamers is always a good thing, well probably, cause there'll be more pricks too...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)