Support NeoGAF

kc44135 · Oct 17, 2017

ShemhazaiX said:
Well Evil Within 2 is a niche game with zero marketing (at least from what I've seen), brings nothing "new" to gaming and is a follow up to another niche game.
Shadow of War is a game in a very popular genre, had some great marketing for several months leading up to launch, has an expanded nemesis system which is a fantastic gaming mechanic that brings both increased immersion and emergent gameplay, is based off of the incredibly popular lord of the rings IP and is the follow up to the other popular game Shadow of Mordor.

I hope that helps. You seemed confused.

No, I'm not "confused". I know full well that TEW2 is niche. I'm lamenting the fact that a game that doesn't try to rob it's consumers blind is bombing while a piece of shit like SOW rakes in the cash.

FF Seraphim said:
Bro you even said EW2 is bombing whilr SoW seems to be selling... I mean that right there shows the difference in appeal.

"Nah" is meant to imply TEW appeals more to me than "slaughtering Orcs". I understand the difference in mass appeal.

StereoVsn · Oct 17, 2017

TheSpoiler said:
All the people saying "DONT BUY IT BECUZ LOT BOXZ" don't realize that if the game didn't sell, companies aren't going to draw the conclusion that loot boxes were truly the cause. They aren't going to parse NeoGAF or a few Kotaku articles for a singular correlation of sales data. People don't buy games for a whole host of reasons, loot box fuckery possibly included. But there's no way for them to be like, yeah, the cause was definitely loot boxes if the game failed. All the crying about the end on a video game message board is the minority, whether you like it or not.

If you really want to show them how much you don't like loot boxes, buy the game if you enjoy it, and don't spend real cash. That's it. That's the secret. That's where they can draw correct data from and say, hmm, these dudes don't even like interacting with the money side of things. Doesn't help with the loot box problem as a whole, because unless you use a PC trainer it'll probably come into view at some point, but not spending cash is a good line to draw in the sand.

This is naive. All the approach above would do is lead the publisher in pushing for more egregarious lootboxes/MTs, increasing the grind, slowing down progression and so on.

The above can easily be seen in 2K's games now and you can bet that WB will make things worse in their next set of games since it's profitable and nobody seems to care.

Edit:

kc44135 said:
No, I'm not "confused". I know full well that TEW2 is niche. I'm lamenting the fact that a game that doesn't try to rob it's consumers blind is bombing while a piece of shit like SOM rakes in the cash.

"Nah" is meant to imply TEW appeals more to me than "slaughtering Orcs". I understand the difference in mass appeal.

it's not only a niche game but one that was not marketed at all, had review embargo, is a sequel to a game that was not greatly received, was released into a busy Fall market AND to top it off has performance issues when it's predecessor also has performance issues.

If it sold well with all the above problems it would be a huge surprise. You can blame Bethesda for vast majority of the problems above.

tuna_love · Oct 17, 2017

nynt9 said:
Actually by most accounts Ive seen its pretty good? PC performance review sites have also given it good marks. It has a ton of options and support for stuff like 21:9, capping frame rate, additional 4K texture packs etc. as well. I dont know where this is coming from.

mordor runs insanely good, evil within 2 doesnt

The à¹ÛBronx · Oct 17, 2017

kc44135 said:
Yeah, this game being successful isn't a good thing for the industry, or us as gamers. I wish everyone would take a stand and vote with their wallets, but apparently slaughtering Orcs is too much fun... :/
������

kc44135 said:
Nah.
Nah.

kc44135 said:
Dat Endgame tho...

kc44135 said:
Now this we can agree on.

kc44135 said:
No, I'm not "confused". I know full well that TEW2 is niche. I'm lamenting the fact that a game that doesn't try to rob it's consumers blind is bombing while a piece of shit like SOW rakes in the cash.

GamePlay Johnny · Oct 17, 2017

TheSpoiler said:
All the people saying "DONT BUY IT BECUZ LOT BOXZ" don't realize that if the game didn't sell, companies aren't going to draw the conclusion that loot boxes were truly the cause. They aren't going to parse NeoGAF or a few Kotaku articles for a singular correlation of sales data. People don't buy games for a whole host of reasons, loot box fuckery possibly included. But there's no way for them to be like, yeah, the cause was definitely loot boxes if the game failed. All the crying about the end on a video game message board is the minority, whether you like it or not.

I was not hoping for this game to fail, but I don't agree with what you're saying.

Companies can figure out why their games fail. It's not a perfect process, but it's something that they do. If there was a big drop in sales, you would have seen stories about how loot boxes scared off gamers, and WB management would have noticed it, because they would be actively seeking what went wrong. I'm not saying that's a guarantee, but it's something that could realistically happen.

Buying the game and not paying for MT's is one choice a player can make, but it's definitely not panelizing the publisher in any way for including loot boxes. Even if 1% of players engage with it, and games sales remain the same, it's still better to have them than to not have them. It's a problem in economics: Pushing lootboxes more aggressively into games will increase MT spending, but will deter some players from buying the game. It all comes down to this equation.

As long as the increased revenue from a more aggressive implementation is bigger than the lost revenue from players sitting out because of it, publishers will push them more aggressively. Whether you like it or not, your decision to buy the game (even if you don't pay a cent for lootboxes) is going to be entered into the equation. You're not going to effect it as much as someone who's participating in MT's, but you are both pushing it in the same direction.

I'm not saying that SOW should have failed and I actually don't know enough about the loot boxes implementation in the game. I'm just offering my view on how this economy works.

Familienoberhauptvogel · Oct 17, 2017

I'm happy this game is doing well the previous title was my absolute favourite of this generation and the follow up is pretty good, lootboxes be damned.

Haven't even gone online with the game yet.

ArkhamFantasy · Oct 17, 2017

TheSpoiler said:
All the people saying "DONT BUY IT BECUZ LOT BOXZ" don't realize that if the game didn't sell, companies aren't going to draw the conclusion that loot boxes were truly the cause. They aren't going to parse NeoGAF or a few Kotaku articles for a singular correlation of sales data. People don't buy games for a whole host of reasons, loot box fuckery possibly included. But there's no way for them to be like, yeah, the cause was definitely loot boxes if the game failed. All the crying about the end on a video game message board is the minority, whether you like it or not.

If you really want to show them how much you don't like loot boxes, buy the game if you enjoy it, and don't spend real cash. That's it. That's the secret. That's where they can draw correct data from and say, hmm, these dudes don't even like interacting with the money side of things. Doesn't help with the loot box problem as a whole, because unless you use a PC trainer it'll probably come into view at some point, but not spending cash is a good line to draw in the sand.

Lootboxes in your scenario are still a no risk/high reward, if publishers knew people were still going to give them $60 and didnt have to worry about fan backlash at all, they'd just push the lootboxes harder and build the game in a way where you are more likely to buy them.

I'm not going to tell anyone what to do, im just going to point out that if you do want the lootboxes to go away, the only way for that to happen is to turn them into a bigger risk than they're worth for publishers, meaning games with lootboxes would have to bomb.

fanboi · Oct 17, 2017

kc44135 said:
No, I'm not "confused". I know full well that TEW2 is niche. I'm lamenting the fact that a game that doesn't try to rob it's consumers blind is bombing while a piece of shit like SOW rakes in the cash.

"Nah" is meant to imply TEW appeals more to me than "slaughtering Orcs". I understand the difference in mass appeal.

Going by reviews, SoW is a better game then EW2, so not sure why you call one game pos and not the other, because if we are gonna have a objective discussion we have to lean towards what other (reviewers) say about it.

Carlius · Oct 17, 2017

ya it was pretty obvious going by steam numbers it was going to sell well. I tried it, refunded. Didnt enjoy it, but hey man, at least its a competent port from WB, so lets hope they stop treating us like 2nd class citizens.

osnameless · Oct 17, 2017

So, I know that this questions comes way way too late...

but for those who are still considering getting this game, or waiting for the inevitable Game of the Year edition, and want to know this:

Do you need to buy or even interact with loot boxes or any online features in order to 100% the game?

Duxxy3 · Oct 17, 2017

I'm starting to wonder if the mass market actually likes lootboxes and dlc.

wesleyshark · Oct 17, 2017

That's awesome and well deserved.

It's a fantastic game so far.

FWIW the lootboxes are not intrusive and are not necessary in any way. I'm still plucking around before my first siege and I'm having no issues finding legendary orcs, either by random spawns or ones I've upgraded.

PhantomThief · Oct 17, 2017

osnameless said:
So, I know that this questions comes way way too late...

but for those who are still considering getting this game, or waiting for the inevitable Game of the Year edition, and want to know this:

Do you need to buy or even interact with loot boxes or any online features in order to 100% the game?

Yes

Glass Shark · Oct 17, 2017

Nheco · Oct 17, 2017

I'm having a blast with it. Not a single dime spent besides the entry price. You see, people complaining about the "lootboxgate" hadn't played the game, basically the current world in a nutshell: everyone has an opinion about everything.

CecilRousso · Oct 17, 2017

Zoz said:
I'm having a blast with it. Not a single dime spent besides the entry price. You see, people complaining about the "lootboxgate" hadn't played the game, basically the current world in a nutshell: everyone has an opinion about everything.

It kinda sounds that you're trying to make it a bad thing, that people dare to have opinions about a subject like this.

bugulu · Oct 17, 2017

osnameless said:
So, I know that this questions comes way way too late...

but for those who are still considering getting this game, or waiting for the inevitable Game of the Year edition, and want to know this:

Do you need to buy or even interact with loot boxes or any online features in order to 100% the game?

Buy loot boxes? No. Interact with them? Yes.
Buying gold is not the only source for getting them as there are challenges you can complete to purchase them without paying a dime for it.
Regarding online connectivity, I'm not sure. There's an achievement for reaching "Captain" rank in online mode, but unless I'm wrong, that's do-able with just putting in high-level Orcs in both your assault and defense team across all regions.

There's also Online Vendetta achievement. I'm not sure whether that'll pop up if you don't have any internet connection.

wesleyshark · Oct 17, 2017

osnameless said:
So, I know that this questions comes way way too late...

but for those who are still considering getting this game, or waiting for the inevitable Game of the Year edition, and want to know this:

Do you need to buy or even interact with loot boxes or any online features in order to 100% the game?

You don't have to buy a single lootbox with real world money to 100% the game. You'll see them in the same menu with other lootboxes that you buy with in-game currencies, or that you get from doing online vendettas, but you don't need the real world money lootboxes whatsoever.

The game throws orc after orc at you as it is.

PhantomThief · Oct 17, 2017

Zoz said:
I'm having a blast with it. Not a single dime spent besides the entry price. You see, people complaining about the "lootboxgate" hadn't played the game, basically the current world in a nutshell: everyone has an opinion about everything.

Get off your high horse and stop living in that ivory tower. You are not better than anyone because you decide to ignore it's faults. In fact I'd say that makes you gullible and naive.

You can still have a blast and have criticism about its MT's or online only features.

sixteen-bit · Oct 17, 2017

cool to see a good WB pc port rewarded

wesleyshark · Oct 17, 2017

PhantomThief said:
Yes

Do you see them? Yes.

Do you need to buy them? Not at all.

bugulu · Oct 17, 2017

CecilRousso said:
It kinda sounds that you're trying to make it a bad thing, that people dare to have opinions about a subject like this.

When the opinion is based on seeing red when being notified there are microtransactions in this game, the opinion is quite flawed. People should at the very least give it a try before being quick to pass judgment about it.
I understand that people are upset about microtransactions, but as someone who has yet to pay for a single loot box, I think the whole debacle is blown out of proportion.

zelas · Oct 17, 2017

Zap Rowsdower said:
And microtransactions are just going to keep getting worse because publishers know they can get away with it.

At least the indie and AA scene will still be making great stuff.

The market has pushed back on practices that were actually problematic before. Turning to baseless, slippery slope fear mongering is going to result in another failed crusade.

Ahasverus · Oct 17, 2017

We're so fucked

wesleyshark · Oct 17, 2017

Ahasverus said:
We're so fucked

We are. There's so many orcs, and they are angry!

killatopak · Oct 17, 2017

cheating the lootboxes on pc makes MT non-issue.

Nheco · Oct 17, 2017

PhantomThief said:
Get off your high horse and stop living in that ivory tower. You are not better than anyone because you decide to ignore it's faults. In fact I'd say that makes you gullible and naive.

You can still have a blast and have criticism about its MT's or online only features.

You don't agree with my opinion, so I'm naive and gullible. Good reasoning.

Most of people who had bought the game is positive about it. Ffs, even Jim Sterling has praised the game. Yes, loot boxes are a shit idea in a paid game. Does it hurt Shadow of War? Nowhere as close than people (who hadn't played) are complaining.

I'm gullible? I really don't care what most of people thinks if I'm ok with something.

kc44135 · Oct 17, 2017

fanboi said:
Going by reviews, SoW is a better game then EW2, so not sure why you call one game pos and not the other, because if we are gonna have a objective discussion we have to lean towards what other (reviewers) say about it.

I was referring to the Lootcrates and Microtransactions in SOW, not the quality of the game. It's quality doesn't matter when it's core is so rotten.

MUnited83 · Oct 17, 2017

PhantomThief said:
Get off your high horse and stop living in that ivory tower. You are not better than anyone because you decide to ignore it's faults. In fact I'd say that makes you gullible and naive.

You can still have a blast and have criticism about its MT's or online only features.

"Get off your high horse and stop living in that ivory tower"

*proceeds to call poster "gullible and naive"

LMAO

osnameless · Oct 17, 2017

PhantomThief said:
Yes

bugulu said:
Buy loot boxes? No. Interact with them? Yes.
Buying gold is not the only source for getting them as there are challenges you can complete to purchase them without paying a dime for it.
Regarding online connectivity, I'm not sure. There's an achievement for reaching "Captain" rank in online mode, but unless I'm wrong, that's do-able with just putting in high-level Orcs in both your assault and defense team across all regions.

wesleyshark said:
You don't have to buy a single lootbox with real world money to 100% the game. You'll see them in the same menu with other lootboxes that you buy with in-game currencies, or that you get from doing online vendettas, but you don't need the real world money lootboxes whatsoever.

The game throws orc after orc at you as it is.

Thank you guys, the phrasing of my own question got me confused, haha

So, just to make things clear, I don't think I'd have a problem with putting extra hours in the game to get loot boxes with in-game currency, but I don't think I would buy the ones that require real-life money.

Other thing,, and this is my fault, when I said "100%" I was referring to a claim that you'd need gold loot boxes to see the true ending, and, if that is true, I'd rather stay away from this game.

So, basically my question is this: is paying real-life money the only way to reach the true ending of the game?

It is a shame that this game came to this, seeing that Shadow of Mordor was an amazing game, despite its repetitiveness

Greatest Ever · Oct 17, 2017

Stygr said:
If you don't want to be called kid, you should respect other people and not typing the "tales from your butt".

Really? C'mon man.

PhantomThief · Oct 17, 2017

In that case no, but the grind is supposedly very long if you just want to get legendary orcs with silver boxes.

kc44135 · Oct 17, 2017

Ahasverus said:
We're so fucked

Yup.

Nheco · Oct 17, 2017

CecilRousso said:
It kinda sounds that you're trying to make it a bad thing, that people dare to have opinions about a subject like this.

Absolutely not. It's great to have opinions, but you don't NEED to have an opinion about everything.

The most vocal people in matters like that usually don't come even close to the game itself, they are just replicating something they listened from a youtuber who gets money from views replicated in a thousand channels.

It's ok to not have an opinion in everything, specially when you don't tried it.

shanafan · Oct 17, 2017

sKiTz said:
Of course it didnt, the new generation of gamers are growing up on Microtransactions and loot box offerings.

Ill pick it up next year, not giving them launch cash.

I'm 36, and accepted lootboxes and microtransactions a long time ago. It's not a "new generation" thing, at least not for me anyways.

oti · Oct 17, 2017

killatopak said:
cheating the lootboxes on pc makes MT non-issue.

It turned out to be a non-issue regardless.

wesleyshark · Oct 17, 2017

kc44135 said:
I was referring to the Lootcrates and Microtransactions in SOW, not the quality of the game. It's quality doesn't matter when it's core is so rotten.

What's rotten exactly? A tacked on part of the game that can be ignored?

The game is awesome, it's fun to play, and the market seems to be responding positively to it.

PhantomThief · Oct 17, 2017

Zoz said:
You don't agree with my opinion, so I'm naive and gullible. Good reasoning.

Most of people who had bought the game is positive about it. Ffs, even Jim Sterling has praised the game. Yes, loot boxes are a shit idea in a paid game. Does it hurt Shadow of War? Nowhere as close than people (who hadn't played) are complaining.

I'm gullible? I really don't care what most of people thinks if I'm ok with something.

You are acting naive and gullible for proclaiming "lootboxgate" ( where did u even come up with this lol ) is just a few people screaming, when some people are trying to have a discussion about it.

Handwaving people who have legitimate complaints about the use of MT and locking features behind an online wall, is naive and gullible.

I have already said the game itself looks cool. Some of you are acting like we hate the game instead of hating the microtransactions.

You make it sound like people just want to hate on this game because it has MT's. For me personally that's not the case at all.

CecilRousso · Oct 17, 2017

bugulu said:
When the opinion is based on seeing red when being notified there are microtransactions in this game, the opinion is quite flawed. People should at the very least give it a try before being quick to pass judgment about it.
I understand that people are upset about microtransactions, but as someone who has yet to pay for a single loot box, I think the whole debacle is blown out of proportion.

Sure, you can come to flawed conclusions about the subject. But I'm not sure that having a negative opinion about it from the start is a flaw, with the best case scenario for lootboxes is that it's an mechanic designed to exploit, that doesn't effect you if you have the will to stay away from it. That's the best case scenario for it, and I would say that it's inherently a bad thing to have it.

I try to not call it gambling, since we in Sweden make a difference between gambling and lottery, and that the comparison with trading cards (although with the distinct difference that the loot boxes content have no resell or trading value in many games). But you really have to twist and turn this thing to call the inclusion of it in a full priced single player game a positive thing (WB's economics is of no concern to us customers).

And even if we start of with negative impressions and opinions about it, and the thing discussed ends up being more positive, why the need to gloat about it? We customers need to stay on our toes against publishers trying to exploit us, and we really shouldn't be afraid to have the discussion here.

And it's worth remembering that there's really no further step the devs can take with this mechanic in a singleplayer game, that won't be an awful situation for us.

Zoz said:
Absolutely not. It's great to have opinions, but you don't NEED to have an opinion about everything.

The most vocal people in matters like that usually don't come even close to the game itself, they are just replicating something they listened from a youtuber who gets money from views replicated in a thousand channels.

It's ok to not have an opinion in everything, specially when you don't tried it.

I'm one of those who haven't tried it, have no plans to do it, but I reserve the right to have an opinion about it. This is about much more then this one game, it's about something that's becoming a trend, that I don't like at all.

wesleyshark · Oct 17, 2017

osnameless said:
Thank you guys, the phrasing of my own question got me confused, haha

So, just to make things clear, I don't think I'd have a problem with putting extra hours in the game to get loot boxes with in-game currency, but I don't think I would buy the ones that require real-life money.

Other thing,, and this is my fault, when I said "100%" I was referring to a claim that you'd need gold loot boxes to see the true ending, and, if that is true, I'd rather stay away from this game.

So, basically my question is this: is paying real-life money the only way to reach the true ending of the game?

It is a shame that this game came to this, seeing that Shadow of Mordor was an amazing game, despite its repetitiveness

You do not need to spend a penny over the $60 base game price to see everything the game has to offer, full stop.

Lootboxes are absolutely and entirely optional. The "true ending" is for folks who want to keep playing beyond the ending of Act III, and can be achieved by just playing the game.

shanafan · Oct 17, 2017

Why does it seem that most people who post "hot takes" on how rotten DLC is in these games really had no intention of playing the game in the first place?

MUnited83 · Oct 17, 2017

osnameless said:
Thank you guys, the phrasing of my own question got me confused, haha

So, just to make things clear, I don't think I'd have a problem with putting extra hours in the game to get loot boxes with in-game currency, but I don't think I would buy the ones that require real-life money.

Other thing,, and this is my fault, when I said "100%" I was referring to a claim that you'd need gold loot boxes to see the true ending, and, if that is true, I'd rather stay away from this game.

So, basically my question is this: is paying real-life money the only way to reach the true ending of the game?

It is a shame that this game came to this, seeing that Shadow of Mordor was an amazing game, despite its repetitiveness

You don't need to pay a single cent for anything to get to the true ending.

PhantomThief · Oct 17, 2017

shanafan said:
I'm 36, and accepted lootboxes and microtransactions a long time ago. It's not a "new generation" thing, at least not for me anyways.

When did lootboxes first pop up? A long time ago? What kind of timeframe are we talking about here? Mt's itself are a new thing of the past 10 years ( basically since the 360 era ).

Ofcourse that could be considered a long time. Why have you accepted then? Do you think the excuse of "games development has gone up so we need to recoup costs by making these microtransactions" or what exactly made you accept then? Generally interested in your opinion by the way, in no way trying to be an ass.

MaximusPayne · Oct 17, 2017

lol...even after the lootbox uproar

RichiRamjag · Oct 17, 2017

Good for them. Both games are probably two of my top ones this gen. I adore the nemesis system so much. The lootboxes shit was overblown and its funny to see how much misinfo is still being spread from it. Ive never at any point felt like I needed to buy lootboxes.

Missions are flawed, but I dont play for those.

PhantomThief · Oct 17, 2017

shanafan said:
Why does it seem that most people who post "hot takes" on how rotten DLC is in these games really had no intention of playing the game in the first place?

So now you need to have an intention to play a game before you can criticize one of its aspects?

Do I need to get a Samsung tablet before I can judge its ability to explode in your pocket as well?

Do I need to have an Apple iPhone before I can say that no 3.5mm jack is a dumb and customer unfriendly decision?

Nah, I dont. So your argument is bs.

Duxxy3 · Oct 17, 2017

Ahasverus said:
We're so fucked

If you're anti lootbox and anti microtransactions, yes.

I'm on that side and I have to admit it. We've lost. The way is over. Consumers have made their choice.

bugulu · Oct 17, 2017

osnameless said:
Thank you guys, the phrasing of my own question got me confused, haha

So, just to make things clear, I don't think I'd have a problem with putting extra hours in the game to get loot boxes with in-game currency, but I don't think I would buy the ones that require real-life money.

Another thing, and this is my fault when I said "100%" I was referring to a claim that you'd need gold loot boxes to see the true ending, and, if that is true, I'd rather stay away from this game.

So, basically my question is this: is paying real-life money the only way to reach the true ending of the game?

It is a shame that this game came to this, seeing that Shadow of Mordor was an amazing game, despite its repetitiveness

As I understood it, and kindly correct me if someone else reading this is more knowledgeable.

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2...-how-to-get-true-ending-complete-endgame-4823

You need high-level orcs to defeat the enemy in Shadow Wars. In the article above, the preferred way is to have level 55+ orcs in your army to defend your forts. I don't see any need to buy loot boxes for this, as I'm not even into act 3 yet and am level 55 at the moment. It's not a huge grind to level up your orcs as there's a gem that increases their levels by five when you dominate them. And shunning and dominating them again gives them a level increase.
Lootboxes does have an advantage in this though which shouldn't come as a surprise. There's a loot box which you can buy for four legendaries, and I suppose they'll be your level too. But it's absolutely not necessary and something you can do in-game.
Upgrading your fortress shouldn't be too troublesome. The highest level walls cost quite a bit, but if you make a habit of killing every silver orc, you're bound to be flowing in both gems and the in-game currency.

shanafan · Oct 17, 2017

PhantomThief said:
When did lootboxes first pop up? A long time ago? What kind of timeframe are we talking about here? Mt's itself are a new thing of the past 10 years ( basically since the 360 era ).

Ofcourse that could be considered a long time. Why have you accepted then? Do you think the excuse of "games development has gone up so we need to recoup costs by making these microtransactions" or what exactly made you accept then? Generally interested in your opinion by the way, in no way trying to be an ass.

I first experienced microtransactions in COD2 on Xbox 360 when they released the first map packs. I loved COD2 multiplayer, and didn't see an issue spending money on buying new maps to play. Developers took the time to add content in the game, so I felt it was worth spending the money to support them.

Of course, you could argue "those maps were already done during the original production" but I loved the game so much that forking out $10-$15 more to support the developer was fine with me.

The à¹ÛBronx · Oct 17, 2017

shanafan said:
Why does it seem that most people who post "hot takes" on how rotten DLC is in these games really had no intention of playing the game in the first place?

They hate that a game is successful despite featuring something they dislike, so they position it so that it's the end of the industry so they can point at whoever doesn't mind it, or can ignore it, and call them out as being part of the problem. It gives them a sense of moral superiority.

Support NeoGAF

Shadow of War sold ~ 400.000 copies on Steam in 7 days.

Member

Member

Banned

Member

Member

Banned

Member

Banned

Banned

Member

Member

Banned

Banned

Banned

Member

Member

Member

Banned

Banned

Member

Banned

Member

Member

Member

Banned

Gold Member

Member

Member

For you.

Member

Member

Banned

Member

Member

Member

Banned

Banned

Banned

Member

Banned

Member

For you.

Banned

Member

Member

Banned

Member

Member

Member

Member

Similar threads