Support NeoGAF

BlastProcessing · Apr 8, 2013

Does anyone remember DIVX? Not the codec but Circuit City's DIVX player?

It was a Disc based movie system developed by the studios as an attempt to curtail rentals and reselling. They sold Discs for $4.50 that only worked for 48 hours. Then you had to pay again to watch more. The player required a phone line connection.

Wikipedia said:
Each DIVX disc was marked with a unique barcode in the Burst cutting area that could be read by the player, and used to track the discs. The status of the discs were monitored through an account over a phone line. DIVX player owners had to set up an account with DIVX to which additional viewing fees could be charged. The player would call an account server over the phone line to charge for viewing fees similar to the way DirecTV and Dish Network satellite systems handle pay-per-view.

It was a massive failure. It had no chance compared to DVD which offered all of the digital benefits of without any of the bullshit. Divx completely dissolved in 6 months. Once the servers went down, all DIVX discs became unplayable.

DIVX FAQ said:
Q: Is there some way I can play Divx discs indefinitely after the billing system shuts down?
A: Not that I am aware of.

Q: Is Divx dead?
A: Yes--all Divx accounts expired on July 7, 2001, after which registered players were directed to to dial in to the billing system for final decommissioning.

Q: What do I need to play Divx discs?
A: You need a registered Divx-compatible DVD player, and apart from a few players that were "unlocked" prior to the Divx shutdown, these no longer exist, making playback of Divx discs impossible

All the talk of an Always-Online Xbox made me remember think about it again for the first time in years. Online DRM for games solves the same problems that Disney et all where trying to solve in the 90's. After all, it is every publishers wet dream to find a way to sell you the same content multiple times.

This totally awesome training video shows how Circuit City tried to pitch this shit sandwich. If the Durango rumors are true I bet their pitch will be hilariously similar. My favorite part of that training video is how they instruct employees to answer questions about what would happen if DIVX went under.

I bring all of this up because I see a lot of people assuming that Always-Online DRM will succeed by the sheer will of Microsoft and Publishers. But DIVX had the full force of Hollywood behind it and went over like a fart in church.

AgentP · Apr 8, 2013

I remember that disaster, it was fun to watch.

Edit: Sorry, first post not funny or clever...

Wario64 · Apr 8, 2013

DIVX was ahead of its time. It's basically just iTunes movie renting or any other digital rental service in a physical format. Comparing it to Durango is apples and oranges imo.

Avallon · Apr 8, 2013

first post wins, etc.

I hate when people say this

outunderthestars · Apr 8, 2013

I remember people standing in front of Circuit City stores with pamphlets explaining how terrible divx was, and that they shouldn't buy one.

First time I have ever seen the public actively rebel against a format or product.

Azure J · Apr 8, 2013

This is the first I'm hearing of this and it's a goddamned fascinating piece of history. How anyone could tread close to this concept is beyond me.

jooey · Apr 8, 2013

Wario64 said:
DIVX was ahead of its time. It's basically just iTunes movie renting or any other digital rental service in a physical format. Comparing it to Durango is apples and oranges imo.

Maybe "ahead of its time" in that now, there won't be as many people giving such a public shit about 720.

stuminus3 · Apr 8, 2013

I think the problem with the DivX player stuff was that it was before it's time. People are generally used to some of the concepts of what was being attempted back then, though things are obviously much more straightforward now.

On the other hand, you bring up a good point about Disney etc trying to solve a problem... other entertainment industries have already largely learned their lesson about this kind of DRM. That's why I can play Netflix on like 10 different devices in my house at once. That's why I can click a button and have all my iTunes songs I bought at home beamed to my laptop at work. It may not be the solutions these industries wanted, but there's for sure a shift towards 'killing with kindness' over old fashioned DRM. But Microsoft may or may not want to tie me to a gaming console that will stop functioning completely in the event it can no longer 'call home' even if my games are installed on it? No way. The concept is so stupid that I still have a hard time believing it's actually true... until it's confirmed, I'm convinced it's not. Remember the stink that EA caused when it seemed like they were going to flick a kill switch for that Rock Band iOS game?

Guevara · Apr 8, 2013

No one wants this.

Espada · Apr 8, 2013

Wario64 said:
DIVX was ahead of its time. It's basically just iTunes movie renting or any other digital rental service in a physical format. Comparing it to Durango is apples and oranges imo.

Exactly. The public has had a decade or two to warm up to this idea due to companies pushing it more and more. Ultimately this is what most of the digital economy will look like. Constantly requiring permission from the content provider to use, share, etc... whatever content you've bought (read: leased) from them. It wouldn't surprise me if we eventually saw tiered online based on services provided.

Great for corporations, dreadful for consumers.

BlastProcessing · Apr 8, 2013

Wario64 said:
DIVX was ahead of its time. It's basically just iTunes movie renting or any other digital rental service in a physical format. Comparing it to Durango is apples and oranges imo.

The comparison is the idea that you take an experience that people where accustomed to, and strap on some server based DRM to exert control over the second hand market. It is not a perfect analogy sure, but I think it is closer to comparing apples to grapples.

ShinobiFist · Apr 8, 2013

OMG at the ten minute mark, LMAO! Damn....

Zophar · Apr 8, 2013

Consumer: "What happens if the Durango stops selling?"
MS: "That's a fair question, but the bottom line is it's almost impossible to believe that the Durango will go under!"

androvsky · Apr 8, 2013

Wario64 said:
DIVX was ahead of its time. It's basically just iTunes movie renting or any other digital rental service in a physical format. Comparing it to Durango is apples and oranges imo.

I think the simple fact that it was a physical format was a big part of the problem. People have a strange tendency to feel like they own something when they spend money on a physical thing they can bring home and keep for as long as they like. Some DIVX movies could not be unlocked for unlimited viewing, most notoriously Disney movies. You had to shell out money every time you (or your kids) wanted to watch it for a 48-hour window, and the studios reserved the right to put even that privilege on moratorium. And yet the disc would still be there, purchased with real money (if maybe not a lot of it), sitting on your shelf.

The ephemeral nature of digital downloads makes that disconnect a lot easier to stomach. Many people don't feel like they own digital copies of certain things, even in cases where they really do (such as DRM-free games from GoG). It's not a physical thing; it's just a faint magnetic pattern on a disc so it's less frustrating to merely rent it, and there's less of a feeling of loss when it can no longer be viewed.

Also, there's currently great options for people who want to feel like they really own a copy of a movie. DVDs and Blu-rays still sell pretty well; back in the DIVX days it looked like the movie studios could go all in on DIVX and leave us with no other options for newer movies. I think that was the real fear; as long as there's high-quality ownership options the rental ones aren't very scary.

Consumer: "What happens if the Durango stops selling?"
MS: "That's a fair question, but the bottom line is it's almost impossible to believe that the Durango will go under!"

"It's supported by major, financially stable game publishers such as Activision... and... yeah, we're all screwed."

eastmen · Apr 8, 2013

Allways on already won. Just thank apple and google for it.

Yiu can also blame netflix and hulu and the likes too

we.are.the.armada · Apr 8, 2013

Dat training video.

Yeah, I hope that MS tries this. I hope that they release an online-only system that will not allow you to do anything without logging into the durgano servers first and verifying your face/body with the kinect 2. At least we'll get an idea if the issue (online-only) is as doom and gloom as some of the internet foresees.

BlastProcessing · Apr 8, 2013

ShinobiFist said:
OMG at the ten minute mark, LMAO! Damn....

I Know. "We have Zenith and ProScan onboard! What could possibly go wrong!"

androvsky said:
I think the simple fact that it was a physical format was a big part of the problem. People have a strange tendency to feel like they own something when they spend money on a physical thing they can bring home and keep for as long as they like. Some DIVX movies could not be unlocked for unlimited viewing, most notoriously Disney movies. You had to shell out money every time you (or your kids) wanted to watch it for a 48-hour window, and the studios reserved the right to put even that privilege on moratorium. And yet the disc would still be there, purchased with real money (if maybe not a lot of it), sitting on your shelf.

The ephemeral nature of digital downloads makes that disconnect a lot easier to stomach. Many people don't feel like they own digital copies of certain things, even in cases where they really do (such as DRM-free games from GoG). It's not a physical thing; it's just a faint magnetic pattern on a disc so it's less frustrating to merely rent it, and there's less of a feeling of loss when it can no longer be viewed.

Also, there's currently great options for people who want to feel like they really own a copy of a movie. DVDs and Blu-rays still sell pretty well; back in the DIVX days it looked like the movie studios could go all in on DIVX and leave us with no other options for newer movies. I think that was the real fear; as long as there's high-quality ownership options the rental ones aren't very scary.

"It's supported by major, financially stable game publishers such as Activision... and... yeah, we're all screwed."

It really was the purest form of The Disney Vault.

methane47 · Apr 8, 2013

DIVX allows you to trade it with a friend.

LOL

CrashPrime · Apr 8, 2013

lol @ 10min's in.

out of business? almost impossible! + lies about being able to play post-collapse.

M3d10n · Apr 8, 2013

I want to believe the "online-required all the time" is false, because even purely DD services like the App Store don't require a constant internet connection after licenses are downloaded.

Even the 360 only requires a permanent connection if you want to temporarily bring your digital games over to a different unit, like a friend's 360, and allows you to permanently transfer offline licenses to a different unit.

Thorgal · Apr 8, 2013

i have a great idea .

if Durango goes belly up because of always online BS i want someone to edit the word durango every time they say DIVX.

A Black Falcon · Apr 8, 2013

androvsky said:
I think the simple fact that it was a physical format was a big part of the problem. People have a strange tendency to feel like they own something when they spend money on a physical thing they can bring home and keep for as long as they like. Some DIVX movies could not be unlocked for unlimited viewing, most notoriously Disney movies. You had to shell out money every time you (or your kids) wanted to watch it for a 48-hour window, and the studios reserved the right to put even that privilege on moratorium. And yet the disc would still be there, purchased with real money (if maybe not a lot of it), sitting on your shelf.

The ephemeral nature of digital downloads makes that disconnect a lot easier to stomach. Many people don't feel like they own digital copies of certain things, even in cases where they really do (such as DRM-free games from GoG). It's not a physical thing; it's just a faint magnetic pattern on a disc so it's less frustrating to merely rent it, and there's less of a feeling of loss when it can no longer be viewed.

Also, there's currently great options for people who want to feel like they really own a copy of a movie. DVDs and Blu-rays still sell pretty well; back in the DIVX days it looked like the movie studios could go all in on DIVX and leave us with no other options for newer movies. I think that was the real fear; as long as there's high-quality ownership options the rental ones aren't very scary.

You make a lot of good points here, but do I really own my GOG games? Can I legally sell one of them to someone else, as I could with a disc-based game, without selling the whole account? As far as I know that is not possible, and those games are attached to that account forever. That is definitely not the same thing as actually owning them on a disc. ("Disc" games that have one time use CD keys you must register online in order to use the game excepted, of course.) GOG has no DRM on the games, but it's still worse rights-wise than owning physical products.

Other than that though I agree -- the biggest problem that Divx player thing had was that those were physical discs that you didn't really own. Here it's just downloads, and people just don't think about them the same way that they do physical products. That is probably unfortunate, but is true.

M-PG71C · Apr 8, 2013

I remember my parents having a DIVIX/DVD player when I was young. I also remember them not buying too many of those DIVIX disks after a while too. I can see why.

enzo_gt · Apr 8, 2013

I didn't know anything like this existed, WTF. How could someone even propose something that dumb at that time? That's a hundred times worse than rumoured always-online for Durango.

Fuck that. But very informative OP, I feel enlightened now.

Azure J said:
This is the first I'm hearing of this and it's a goddamned fascinating piece of history. How anyone could tread close to this concept is beyond me.

Also, this.

ptuck874 · Apr 8, 2013

Azure J said:
This is the first I'm hearing of this and it's a goddamned fascinating piece of history. How anyone could tread close to this concept is beyond me.

living here in Richmond near the Circuit City headquarters, I remember when this all happened, I didn't buy into it for a second, and it helped put them out of business (not the main thing to do it, but a good piece). MS should look at this and make sure it is something they really want to go for...

Ridley327 · Apr 8, 2013

That DIVX training video is incredible.

I looooooooooooooooooooooooove all the stock non-answers.

androvsky · Apr 8, 2013

A Black Falcon said:
You make a lot of good points here, but do I really own my GOG games? Can I legally sell one of them to someone else, as I could with a disc-based game, without selling the whole account? As far as I know that is not possible, and those games are attached to that account forever. That is definitely not the same thing as actually owning them on a disc. ("Disc" games that have one time use CD keys you must register online in order to use the game excepted, of course.) GOG has no DRM on the games, but it's still worse rights-wise than owning physical products.

Other than that though I agree -- the biggest problem that Divx player thing had was that those were physical discs that you didn't really own. Here it's just downloads, and people just don't think about them the same way that they do physical products. That is probably unfortunate, but is true.

As far as I know, if you're in Europe, you can sell your GoG games, or any other digital product you purchase for unlimited use.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/gamesblog/2012/jul/05/eu-used-digital-games-market

test_account · Apr 8, 2013

androvsky said:
As far as I know, if you're in Europe, you can sell your GoG games, or any other digital product you purchase for unlimited use.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/gamesblog/2012/jul/05/eu-used-digital-games-market

From what i gather from that ruling, there are still unanswered questions to exactly how the sales have to happen. It doesnt specifically say how the sales process have to work for it to be legal. If some takes a copy of a digital purchased game and sell it, there is no telling if the seller deletes the original copy/version or not after he/she has sold the copy. I'm not sure if this process would be concidered as legal unless that the seller could actually somehow prove that he/she has deleted the original copy.

Speaking about this subject, there were another ruling in the US court about selling used MP3s recently:

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20...-sale-doesnt-apply-to-digital-transfers.shtml

Bobby Roberts · Apr 8, 2013

I was working warehouse/delivery at Circuit City when this shit launched. Completely DOA. I remember a store meeting where our GM tried his damndest to make it seem like it was a legitimate product, and that his salespeople were slacking by not getting those numbers up. It was mindboggling to witness the complete disconnect with reality.

No, DIVX wasn't really ahead of its time. They stumbled upon an idea that COULD have made sense, had they not tied that idea to physical media, and charged as much as they did for it. People are fine paying for one-time use when it's a downloadable thing, but if you go into a store, and purchase something that comes in a plastic case, containing a plastic disc, with artwork and blurbs and all the stuff that goes along with the experience of OWNING something, they're going to reject the idea of essentially renting something they have to take off their shelf, put in a disc, and pay to watch.

Especially when the customer can do a 180 in the aisle, look smack dead at a rack of DVDs that even then were being priced down to the 10-15 dollar range, and walk out with a movie they know they can watch whenever they want, and they don't HAVE to have the internet on in order to watch it.

I remember a lot of those DIVX machines - which were perfectly fine DVD players - collecting dust even after DIVX died because consumers flat out didn't trust that port in the back.

BlastProcessing · Apr 9, 2013

FatboyRoberts said:
I was working warehouse/delivery at Circuit City when this shit launched. Completely DOA. I remember a store meeting where our GM tried his damndest to make it seem like it was a legitimate product, and that his salespeople were slacking by not getting those numbers up. It was mindboggling to witness the complete disconnect with reality.

No, DIVX wasn't really ahead of its time. They stumbled upon an idea that COULD have made sense, had they not tied that idea to physical media, and charged as much as they did for it. People are fine paying for one-time use when it's a downloadable thing, but if you go into a store, and purchase something that comes in a plastic case, containing a plastic disc, with artwork and blurbs and all the stuff that goes along with the experience of OWNING something, they're going to reject the idea of essentially renting something they have to take off their shelf, put in a disc, and pay to watch.

Especially when the customer can do a 180 in the aisle, look smack dead at a rack of DVDs that even then were being priced down to the 10-15 dollar range, and walk out with a movie they know they can watch whenever they want, and they don't HAVE to have the internet on in order to watch it.

I remember a lot of those DIVX machines - which were perfectly fine DVD players - collecting dust even after DIVX died because consumers flat out didn't trust that port in the back.

For my family, the simple idea of having a phone line run to the tv was a total no go.

DragonSworne · May 23, 2013

I find this thread even more interesting now considering how similar Xbox One implementation to piracy is to the divx player.

Do you think the general public will have the same apathy and public awareness campaign that occurred years ago when divx came out?

I'm very interested in how the public will react and if it will be any way similar to the way they reacted to divx.

BlastProcessing · May 24, 2013

DragonSworne said:
I find this thread even more interesting now considering how similar Xbox One implementation to piracy is to the divx player.

Do you think the general public will have the same apathy and public awareness campaign that occurred years ago when divx came out?

I'm very interested in how the public will react and if it will be any way similar to the way they reacted to divx.

Good question, Divx died because DVD was such a strong alternative. So PS4/Wii U really need to position themselves as strong options for consumers.

The way that the Divx box phoned home is hilariously similar to the Way the Xbox One checks in though.

spookyfish · May 24, 2013

The concern is that PS4 will do the same. I don't see the public as being informed enough to all of a sudden refuse the games they have come to know and love.

I'm not really optimistic at this point.

And movies are next. Get ready for an Xbox LIVE-like subscription service to watch movies that you "own." DIVX was the first attempt; if the PS4One successfully pull this off, studios will insist on it in all new players. A new format will make it even easier.

jmdajr · May 24, 2013

JoeTheBlow said:
Microsoft's recent history of "big projects" have a habit of failing horribly.

Kin
Win CE
Vista
Zune
Win phone 7. & 8
Windows RT tablets
Bing
etc

Billions pissed away in pursuit of markets that didn't need them.
This will end up the same way.

Zune never took off, but it was a great product

Still is

jmdajr · May 24, 2013

spookyfish said:
The concern is that PS4 will do the same. I don't see the public as being informed enough to all of a sudden refuse the games they have come to know and love.

I'm not really optimistic at this point.

And movies are next. Get ready for an Xbox LIVE-like subscription service to watch movies that you "own." DIVX was the first attempt; if the PS4One successfully pull this off, studios will insist on it in all new players. A new format will make it even easier.

BluRay was almost this. For real. They just changed their mind.

Neuromancer · May 24, 2013

Wario64 said:
DIVX was ahead of its time. It's basically just iTunes movie renting or any other digital rental service in a physical format. Comparing it to Durango is apples and oranges imo.

It's roughly analogous as they're both physical media and require checking in with the service to prove you're licensed to view/play the content you've already paid for. If Xbox One was a strictly DD only box I'd agree with you, but its not. MS wants to have it both ways.

Eusis · May 24, 2013

Wario64 said:
DIVX was ahead of its time. It's basically just iTunes movie renting or any other digital rental service in a physical format. Comparing it to Durango is apples and oranges imo.

I dunno, I think it indicates the inane hybrid system of theirs is possibly doomed. Nevermind that you could not only argue it's essentially the same as renting as is, but you CAN buy the movies straight up on iTunes.

Beer Monkey · May 24, 2013

spookyfish said:
The concern is that PS4 will do the same. I don't see the public as being informed enough to all of a sudden refuse the games they have come to know and love.

The best hope is that Sony feels they sell too many consoles to consumers that don't have the infrastructure to make this work yet. Microsoft can get away with this better because their core is in the US and UK.

Maybe what we will see from the Sony side is increased content being locked behind an 'online' pass.

Neuromancer · May 24, 2013

eastmen said:
Allways on already won. Just thank apple and google for it.

Yiu can also blame netflix and hulu and the likes too

What's always on about my iPhone? Or my iPad? Or my MacBook? I don't get it. I can listen to music/play games/watch movies on those for more than 24 hours without checking in.

richiek · May 24, 2013

The fact that major studios like Fox and Paramount initially supported DIVX over DVD was frightening. Hopefully, consumers will rise up again against the XBone's anti-consumerist policies.

spookyfish · May 24, 2013

jmdajr said:
BluRay was almost this. For real. They just changed their mind.

I bet they don't stop when 4K starts becoming more of a reality.

10 years from now, old people like me are going to wonder "what happened?" We're not going to own anything entertainment-wise.

fredrancour · May 24, 2013

eastmen said:
Allways on already won. Just thank apple and google for it.

Yiu can also blame netflix and hulu and the likes too

Nothing about those existing products makes always-on inevitable.

Itunes sells drm free music. It increases consumer freedom because you don't have to buy an entire album to get one track you want. Movies at least have a buy option and a rent option. Although the purchased movies have some drm, they aren't checking the internet and shutting themselves down if it's been too long.

Netflix and hulu very clearly sell services that are like watching television but more malleable. The customer gets those benefits from subscribing to a service. It doesn't stop us from going out and buying digital downloads, dvds and blurays of our favorite crap if we want a copy that exists outside the bounds of a subscription.

I don't know much about google play so IDK how it deals with DRM but I imagine it's similar to itunes.

None of this shit is comparable to selling me a physical product and then restricting personal use of it. Sure, restrictions against, say, running a movie theatre for profit out of my living room make sense. Restrictions against burning and selling copies make sense. You don't have the right to run a business profiting off someone's content without their permission.

However, there is never a situation in which shit like daily drm checks on a dvd or restrictions on selling/loaning the disk is fair or reasonable. It's not gonna make progress on piracy prevention. The goal is to just squeeze more money out of customers while offering, at best, the exact same stuff as before.

BlastProcessing · May 24, 2013

fredrancour said:
Nothing about those existing products makes always-on inevitable.

Itunes sells drm free music. It increases consumer freedom because you don't have to buy an entire album to get one track you want. Movies at least have a buy option and a rent option. Although the purchased movies have some drm, they aren't checking the internet and shutting themselves down if it's been too long.

Netflix and hulu very clearly sell services that are like watching television but more malleable. The customer gets those benefits from subscribing to a service. It doesn't stop us from going out and buying digital downloads, dvds and blurays of our favorite crap if we want a copy that exists outside the bounds of a subscription.

I don't know much about google play so IDK how it deals with DRM but I imagine it's similar to itunes.

None of this shit is comparable to selling me a physical product and then restricting personal use of it. Sure, restrictions against, say, running a movie theatre for profit out of my living room make sense. Restrictions against burning and selling copies make sense. You don't have the right to run a business profiting off someone's content without their permission.

However, there is never a situation in which shit like daily drm checks on a dvd or restrictions on selling/loaning the disk is fair or reasonable. It's not gonna make progress on piracy prevention. The goal is to just squeeze more money out of customers while offering, at best, the exact same stuff as before.

Well said.

Neuromancer · May 24, 2013

I was trying to get 'DIVXbox' to catch on as a funny and degrading nickname for the Xbox One but was unsuccessful. Regrettably I think most people really only do know the term because of the codec now.

Ravage · May 24, 2013

Holy crap, how did I miss out on this?

Grampa Simpson · May 24, 2013

I had all but forgotten DIVX. I like the analogy a lot though.

The shit companies do in the name of profit.

Kainazzo · May 24, 2013

In this same vein, I remember news stories about discs that also only worked for 48 hours, but it was because they would destroy themselves after that time. Stores would sell them in sealed bags, then the countdown timer started as soon as they were opened and exposed to oxygen.

Was this also DIVX? I don't remember then name, but I also don't think it was as long ago.

Edit: It was Flexplay!

radios shipping overview · May 24, 2013

And here we are again. It took a while for the idea to be accepted, but now we're pretty well-conditioned to not owning any of our entertainment.

So are game discs just a formality that exists because of the remaining game retailers? Right now, they have about the same relation to the games you play as a debit card has with your bank account.

TAJ · May 24, 2013

I was rabidly anti-Divx.
I even picked up some death-themed titles for pennies to celebrate its demise. (Sudden Death, Dying Young, Meet Joe Black, etc.)
And now the same sort of thing has cured me of being an Xbot. Seeing a pattern here.

Wario64 said:
DIVX was ahead of its time. It's basically just iTunes movie renting or any other digital rental service in a physical format. Comparing it to Durango is apples and oranges imo.

That's what they wanted people to think. Looks like it worked on you.

aeolist · May 24, 2013

i think the point is that when the x1 servers inevitably are taken down all the games immediately become useless, unless MS patches the console FW beforehand to remove the authentication step (lol)

this means that publishers might be able to disable activation for old games to incentivize buying newer versions, publishers or devs that go under might have games that suddenly can't be played anymore, and when the console is obsolete MS will probably shut down the service entirely like they probably will with the 360 (eventually)

none of these are definitely going to happen, but they might and it should be enough to give anyone pause

and yes, while this sort of thing could happen to my preferred platform (steam) there are mitigating factors, like the relative immutability of the underlying platform ensuring that games will probably continue to function on a new PC and valve's relative non-evilness

Support NeoGAF

Durango, DIVX, and the decades long effort to turn media into a service.

Member

Thinks mods influence posters politics. Promoted to QAnon Editor.

works for Gamestop (lol)

Member

Banned

Member

The Motorcycle That Wouldn't Slow Down

Member

Member

Member

Member

Banned

Member

Member

Banned

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

tagged by Blackace

Member

Member

Member

XP-39C²

Banned

Member

Banned

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

steals Justin Bieber DVDs

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Banned

Member

Member

Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.

Banned

Similar threads