• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Phil Spencer: Parity is a hell of a Clause

M

Mahonay

Banned
U

Ushay

Member
Neuromancer said:
You believe, 'this clause is dead, but it also never existed; here are all the things we make developers do so they can self publish on our platform?' When you have the head of id@xbox admitting the clause exists two months ago?


http://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/2015-04-29-chris-charla

And you also don't believe the devs who post here on GAF who says this clause exists and that their business is negatively affected by it?
Click to expand...

Sorry Neuro, I'm uninformed. I'm thinking of 'parity' as in games being downgraded etc to be equal in performance. Not the parity you actually mean. Gotcha.

That being said, Phil seems to be speaking plainly here. There are deals and exclusive arrangements, nothing we don't really know about already.
 
N

Nightengale

Member
Banjo-Kazooie said:
Well yes I agree with you :). But some do believe that, I've seen it around here and in other topics in the past
Click to expand...

I ignore people who say stuff like that in the context of being absolutely serious about it.

But at the same time, there are people who say it in jest, or in comparison to Sony, and are pretty much being hyperbolic in general just because XB1 has less indie support because of said policies.

Tldr; for the crazies, I ignore them. For the non-crazies, I treat them as jest or hyperbole, because the internet is full of hyperbolic statements.
 
T

tuxfool

Banned
Banjo-Kazooie said:
Just a guy that's holding a physical box of 1000 ID@Xbox cards in it with games coming to Xbox One over the next couple of years and thinking how it's odd that people think indie support is or will be lacking.
Click to expand...

It is lacking in comparison to the competition, for whatever reason. I'm fairly sure that policies such as the one under discussion certainly don't help close that gap.
 
T

Three

Member
Bergerac said:
Phil putting the 'I' in 'party'.
Click to expand...

28188-Thats-good-Thats-damn-good-gif-YXOa_zpsa03aabaa.gif
 
R

RiverKwai

Member
Banjo-Kazooie said:
Just a guy that's holding a physical box of 1000 ID@Xbox cards in it with games coming to Xbox One over the next couple of years and thinking how it's odd that people think indie support is or will be lacking.
Click to expand...

"lacking" is a loaded word. The fact is, there are an unknown quantity of devs greater than zero RIGHT NOW who don't want to jump through the hoops MS has in place to publish on the XBO.

The secondary fact is, and this may be partially or wholly unrelated (but my actual point); There's currently a pretty big gap in the amount of indie game exclusives to PS. Whether or not that has anything to do with the parity clause is unknown, what is KNOWN is that MS is behind and are not getting all the games that they probably could be getting if they made it more attractive to publish with them.

Just to be perfectly honest, I have a PS4, I owned a 360 at the beginning of last gen. I'm trying to not come across as a fanboy or concern troll - but I keep hearing devs talking about XBO policy in negative ways and it seems like there's a problem. Maybe it's just a communication problem, but it seems circumstantially, at least, to be having a tangible effect on games.
 
X

xinek

Member
hydrophilic attack said:
I don't quite get why this clause gets so much hate on a GAF. It's like he said before. Owners of The One should feel like they are First Class. If you are going on a flight, living the life with a first class ticket, like a boss, how would you feel if those second-class losers got to board the plane before you did? Then you wouldn't be first class, and that's not how you should feel like a The One owner.
[stuff]
Click to expand...
You're my new favorite gaffer.
 
T

twobear

sputum-flecked apoplexy
Another thing is, I think that MS built up a significant amount of ill will with indie developers in the last generation. So there's probably that which is also dissuading them from going to MS.
 
S

seventynine

Member
If nothing else this thread has demonstrated that Phil has the shiniest, most well groomed nutsack in all of corporate America right about now.
 
P

Primethius

Banned
hydrophilic attack said:
I don't quite get why this clause gets so much hate on a GAF. It's like he said before. Owners of The One should feel like they are First Class. If you are going on a flight, living the life with a first class ticket, like a boss, how would you feel if those second-class losers got to board the plane before you did? Then you wouldn't be first class, and that's not how you should feel like a The One owner.

Another way to say first class is Tier One. If you are Tier One, you should get your stuff first. If you are a Tier One country, like the USA, of course you should get the The One before second tier countries like Japan or Europe. Similarly, if you are a The One owner, you shouldn't wait to get your games until after those Tier Two PS4 gamers.

Another way to say First Class is Alpha, because Alpha was the first letter of the Egyptian alphabet. If you're Alpha, and you're out partying with some Beta friend, of course the girls would choose to go with you before your friend. Sure, if your friend manages to convince her to do a threesome with both you and him (multi-platform game), then sure that's ok. Let him get in on some action. He doesn't get a lot of chances, so of course you are going to be a good friend and let him join. (But cross-platform multiplayer is out of the question because dicks touching each other is not how you roll.)

Now if this chick would go with your friend first, of course you won't chase after her to be with you later. First, you are Alpha, you don't do sloppy seconds, and second calling her to be with you, just because she was with your friend makes you look pathetic. But still, you are a nice guy. You know that the world gets better the more people get to be with you. So you are willing to make some exceptions. You may be able to forgive this stupid broad for going with your friend if she does something nice to make up for it. So you say: "Come talk to me. If you really want to be with me, give me a call and we will find a way to make that happen. We can get together and you can work something out to make it special in some way." And then maybe she will cook you a meal, or do some freaky shit with you that she would never do with your Beta friend. In this situation you can be with her without losing face.

I hope you all understand their position now. I realize that the last example may be a bit difficult to understand for PS4 owners, as they don't get to have much sex, but I did my best to explain.
Click to expand...

mj-laughing.gif
 
A

Abdiel

Member
I really love GAF as a place with huge ranges in the tastes and perspectives of those that post and participate here. It's a tremendously diverse group.

But each time this subject comes up, I'm always so disappointed with some of the willing ignorance, shameless fandom, or general disrespect this topic seems to bring out in some of the forum.

Practices like this, no matter who is the one enabling/directing it, are toxic to our industry. The larger devs and publishers, they are completely unaffected by things like this. They make decisions purely for their bottom line and what makes the most sense to them, in terms of exclusivity deals, etc.

These policies, this sort of specific thing, impacts the smaller devs. Amir0x has put together more eloquently stated statements about this in the past, but the devs that most need to have freedom and flexibility in this industry, are those small devs. When they are told that they have to jump through hoops to be able to get their games to new audiences, it can be very destructive to them, and very discouraging. It creates an atmosphere that those devs should have to be dictated to by a platform, which isn't right.

As platform holders, Sony and MS should be doing everything they can to make their platform as appealing as possible to those devs, as it helps to expand their library, and further make their platform attractive to consumers.

No one is saying MS isn't getting indie games. Obviously they're coming to the platform. The issue is that by making exceptions for the big successes and popular games, it casts a bad light on their platform as though they don't care about smaller games that haven't proven themselves yet... And by broadcasting messages that are less than clear, as has been the problem for so long, mixed messages and misunderstandings spread rampant in those listening.

That includes crap like what we've seen in this thread, with people wiling to lap up more BS or speak out *against* those smaller devs, as though they can speak to the reasons that they do things the way they do with some kind of authority. Or those who act like MS is somehow curating the content, which has been repeatedly shown to be false by devs speaking with actual awareness of the situation.

Policies like this are bad. They're not helping anyone. I don't care what system you game on, I just hate seeing the most vulnerable people in this awesome industry I love so much getting treated like they're jockeyed as some kind of bargaining chip due to platform holders. Sony has dropped all those barriers, Nintendo has done a lot to do the same, and now it is just MS that refuses to become genuinely transparent and welcoming.

If you feel like you're owed something by a dev that hasn't released a game on a platform until now, then that's solely your own bias, and you're selfishness isn't going to help that dev do anything. Don't you think devs like making their games the best they can, and sharing that with the world? It's not like they deliberately give the finger to other systems, and then finally resign themselves to porting something over.

Anyway. TL;DR - GAF is awesome, but these threads show how our industry needs to keep getting better.
 
M

Memorabilia

Member
hydrophilic attack said:
I don't quite get why this clause gets so much hate on a GAF. It's like he said before. Owners of The One should feel like they are First Class. If you are going on a flight, living the life with a first class ticket, like a boss, how would you feel if those second-class losers got to board the plane before you did? Then you wouldn't be first class, and that's not how you should feel like a The One owner.

Another way to say first class is Tier One. If you are Tier One, you should get your stuff first. If you are a Tier One country, like the USA, of course you should get the The One before second tier countries like Japan or Europe. Similarly, if you are a The One owner, you shouldn't wait to get your games until after those Tier Two PS4 gamers.

Another way to say First Class is Alpha, because Alpha was the first letter of the Egyptian alphabet. If you're Alpha, and you're out partying with some Beta friend, of course the girls would choose to go with you before your friend. Sure, if your friend manages to convince her to do a threesome with both you and him (multi-platform game), then sure that's ok. Let him get in on some action. He doesn't get a lot of chances, so of course you are going to be a good friend and let him join. (But cross-platform multiplayer is out of the question because dicks touching each other is not how you roll.)

Now if this chick would go with your friend first, of course you won't chase after her to be with you later. First, you are Alpha, you don't do sloppy seconds, and second calling her to be with you, just because she was with your friend makes you look pathetic. But still, you are a nice guy. You know that the world gets better the more people get to be with you. So you are willing to make some exceptions. You may be able to forgive this stupid broad for going with your friend if she does something nice to make up for it. So you say: "Come talk to me. If you really want to be with me, give me a call and we will find a way to make that happen. We can get together and you can work something out to make it special in some way." And then maybe she will cook you a meal, or do some freaky shit with you that she would never do with your Beta friend. In this situation you can be with her without losing face.

I hope you all understand their position now. I realize that the last example may be a bit difficult to understand for PS4 owners, as they don't get to have much sex, but I did my best to explain.
Click to expand...

LOL This is why I love GAF.
 
J

jelly

Member
I wonder what the positive is for Microsoft and what they fear. It's very confusing.

Do they think if there is no rules, all devs will avoid Xbox on release. Are they hoping to build bridges, get insight into new games, snag exclusives by forcing direct contact with devs. It's hard to think of reasons why they are setting out their stall that way. If a person hasn't played the game, what does it matter as long as it's available to play on the platform they're using at that time.
 
N

Ninja Scooter

Member
jelly said:
I wonder what the positive is for Microsoft and what they fear. It's very confusing.

Do they think if there is no rules, all devs will avoid Xbox on release. Are they hoping to build bridges, get insight into new games, snag exclusives by forcing direct contact with devs. It's hard to think of reasons why they are setting out their stall that way. If a person hasn't played the game, what does it matter as long as it's available to play on the platform they're using at that time.
Click to expand...

The only thing I can think of is that they are hoping to bully smaller devs/pubs out of signing any kind of exclusivity deal with Sony, but unfortunately it's probably not as effective when you aren't the market leader anymore.
 
N

Neuromancer

Member
jelly said:
I wonder what the positive is for Microsoft and what they fear. It's very confusing.

Do they think if there is no rules, all devs will avoid Xbox on release. Are they hoping to build bridges, get insight into new games, snag exclusives by forcing direct contact with devs. It's hard to think of reasons why they are setting out their stall that way. If a person hasn't played the game, what does it matter as long as it's available to play on the platform they're using at that time.
Click to expand...
Why use a carrot to incentivize developers to come to your platform, when you can act like a bully and swing a big stick instead. I guess. The stick doesn't cost them anything but the carrot does.
 
M

motorised mallard

Member
Neuromancer said:
Why use a carrot to incentivize developers to come to your platform, when you can act like a bully and swing a big stick instead. I guess. The stick doesn't cost them anything but the carrot does.
Click to expand...

The stick doesn't cost them anything/very little. Maybe not now/yet but how about a year or two forwards or when the next generation of consoles come around?
If there will be one.
Most likely there will be.
 
K

krypt0nian

Banned
Banjo-Kazooie said:
Just a guy that's holding a physical box of 1000 ID@Xbox cards in it with games coming to Xbox One over the next couple of years and thinking how it's odd that people think indie support is or will be lacking.
Click to expand...

The fact is it already is. But what a weird post to discredit that.


The fun part is that everyone who defends this is only hurting themselves....for a company that doesn't know who they are.
 
D

Dreamgazer

Member
Most of the "are there any dev stories", "how many more indie games is the Ps4 getting", "Is this actually a thing" questions can be answered if people would just read the chubigans thread:

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=947986

chubigans said:
This generation has been amazing for game development. As a game dev working on two unannounced games, I'm thrilled that Steam, MS, Sony and Nintendo have revised their indie stances and have made game development easier and better than ever in making titles for their platforms. However, there is one remaining issue that is crippling game development on one specific platform: the Xbox One. I'd like to take a moment to explain what that issue is, how it has affected development, and what can be done about it.

What is the Indie Parity Clause?

The indie parity clause dates back to the Xbox 360, where MS mandated that you could not release a game on the 360 at a later date than any other version without having exclusive free content for Xbox owners.

Since the launch of the XB1, MS has revised that policy for the worse. Now that loophole is closed, and devs are not allowed to release an XB1 version of their game, period, if they have already released it on PS4. At the time of the indie parity announcement, MS allowed games that were already announced for PS4 to be released at a later date on XB1. Those games included Contrast, Warframe, and many other PS4 launch window titles. There are now no more titles that fall under this loophole.

There are three ways around this clause. The first is to release your game simultaneously on PS4 and XB1. The second is to launch first on XB1 and release a PS4 version later. Finally, the third is asking Phil Spencer for a free pass, which has NDA'd guidelines and specifics that I cannot get into, nor know the specifics of.


Why would this hurt developers?

Indie devs typically have small amounts of staff, and tend to "roll out" games gradually on a number of platforms. While the architecture of XB1 and PS4 may seem similar enough, it's incredibly difficult to simultaneously develop for both platforms at the same time. First off, each one has their own certification process and requirements. One build may pass on one platform, but fail on the other. You have to constantly revise release date estimates until both versions are in line with each other, and even then, you'll have platform specific bugs that you'll have to fix at the same time once both versions launch. It is a bit of a nightmare, to say the least. That's why many devs opt to focus on one platform, typically the biggest one (Steam), and then go from there.


Why not develop for XB1 first?

This is inherently why the parity program exists: to give XB1 exclusive games without the need for exclusive marketing or financial deals. But yes, that's a question that cannot be universally answered. Many devs have their own personal reasons. I can only share my own.

I applied to both the ID@Xbox program and the Sony developer program back in Feb. While both programs are fantastic and have great people behind them, I was able to get my Xbox One dev kit first by a few months. Theoretically this should have allowed me to get started on an XB1 port of my game except for one issue: the engine I use, GM Studio, would not be supporting XB1 until later this year. PS4/Vita support was already built into the engine. So, I started studying PS platform requirements, APIs, and GM Studio integration in preparation for my dev kits which I received last month. Through no fault of my own, I was developing first for Playstation because that's the engine that was available to me via GM Studio. My PS4 game will be ready much earlier than my XB1 version. And despite having an XB1 dev kit, MS doesn't want my game at a later date. They want me to delay my PS4 version until I can get the XB1 version out the door. And that's impossible for me to do from a scheduling and financial standpoint. And so, just like that, I'm unable to make XB1 games, even though I very much want to. Even though I'm an ID@Xbox dev. Even though I have a dev kit right here next to me.

I could talk to Phil and tell him my situation, and maybe, just maybe he'll grant me a pass. It is ludicrous that I have to plea with MS to slip me through the door. Hence why I'm creating this topic, so that MS will maybe revise the parity clause not just for me but for everyone wanting to make XB1 games.


Doesn't MS provide free dev kits and free engine licenses? Shouldn't they be able to call the shots in terms of releases?

Absolutely agreed. However, the option to purchase our own dev kits and have our own release schedule doesn't exist. There is no way around the parity clause. (Sony also offers a number of free engine licenses like MS, none of which tie into any sort of exclusivity or parity clause).


Is this really causing any issues? Won't indies come to MS at some point in the future?

At one point earlier this year, I too thought that indies would eventually have to do a multiplatform release or exclusive XB1 release. Many said that the games would balance themselves out by 2015 and we'd see an even number of games being announced for both PS4 and XB1.
Click to expand...
 
M

Miles Quaritch

Member
Dreamgazer said:
Most of the "are there any dev stories", "how many more indie games is the Ps4 getting", "Is this actually a thing" questions can be answered if people would just read the chubigans thread:

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=947986
Click to expand...

It's been almost a year since that thread, I feel we need a new one to bring more attention to how little the policies have changed, despite all the protests from MS saying otherwise.
 
cyberheater

cyberheater

PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 Xbone PS4 PS4
hydrophilic attack said:
I don't quite get why this clause gets so much hate on a GAF. It's like he said before. Owners of The One should feel like they are First Class. If you are going on a flight, living the life with a first class ticket, like a boss, how would you feel if those second-class losers got to board the plane before you did? Then you wouldn't be first class, and that's not how you should feel like a The One owner.

Another way to say first class is Tier One. If you are Tier One, you should get your stuff first. If you are a Tier One country, like the USA, of course you should get the The One before second tier countries like Japan or Europe. Similarly, if you are a The One owner, you shouldn't wait to get your games until after those Tier Two PS4 gamers.

Another way to say First Class is Alpha, because Alpha was the first letter of the Egyptian alphabet. If you're Alpha, and you're out partying with some Beta friend, of course the girls would choose to go with you before your friend. Sure, if your friend manages to convince her to do a threesome with both you and him (multi-platform game), then sure that's ok. Let him get in on some action. He doesn't get a lot of chances, so of course you are going to be a good friend and let him join. (But cross-platform multiplayer is out of the question because dicks touching each other is not how you roll.)

Now if this chick would go with your friend first, of course you won't chase after her to be with you later. First, you are Alpha, you don't do sloppy seconds, and second calling her to be with you, just because she was with your friend makes you look pathetic. But still, you are a nice guy. You know that the world gets better the more people get to be with you. So you are willing to make some exceptions. You may be able to forgive this stupid broad for going with your friend if she does something nice to make up for it. So you say: "Come talk to me. If you really want to be with me, give me a call and we will find a way to make that happen. We can get together and you can work something out to make it special in some way." And then maybe she will cook you a meal, or do some freaky shit with you that she would never do with your Beta friend. In this situation you can be with her without losing face.

I hope you all understand their position now. I realize that the last example may be a bit difficult to understand for PS4 owners, as they don't get to have much sex, but I did my best to explain.
Click to expand...

LOL LOL LOL. Funniest post I've read in a while. Thanks :)
 
S

Sword Of Doom

Member
M3z_ said:
So Rocket League ever gonna come to Xbox, because they need to court that game they are missing out.

edit: probably not...
Click to expand...

The thing is they can waive the clause on the successful games. That's the most fucked up part. The ones that get hurt are the small developers who don't have breakout hits. They're the ones who are bullied
 
D

Dreamgazer

Member
Three said:
In all fairness that thread is old now and a few of them were later announced. Still, to put it into perspective last month we had I think 35 PS4 games and 19 XB1 games.
Click to expand...

Miles Quaritch said:
It's been almost a year since that thread, I feel we need a new one to bring more attention to how little the policies have changed, despite all the protests from MS saying otherwise.
Click to expand...

The problem with this thread is that posts from non-developers are either various interpretations of whatever this "thing" is or variants on "I don't care."

It's really not going to go anywhere.

*summons Chubigans*
 
A

Abdiel

Member
Dreamgazer said:
The problem with this thread is that posts from non-developers are either various interpretations of whatever this "thing" is or variants on "I don't care."

It's really not going to go anywhere.

*summons Chubigans*
Click to expand...

He posted in this thread a few pages back. He got very little commentary from the people looking to defend it or speculate on it as though it is irrelevant.

I do appreciate you posting that quote from his thread though. It was an incredibly informative thing. Him and Amir0x both made comprehensive commentary on it.
 
pixelation

pixelation

Member
Abdiel said:
But each time this subject comes up, I'm always so disappointed with some of the willing ignorance, shameless fandom, or general disrespect this topic seems to bring out in some of the forum.

Practices like this, no matter who is the one enabling/directing it, are toxic to our industry.
Click to expand...

Agreed.
 
K

Kayant

Member
jelly said:
I wonder what the positive is for Microsoft and what they fear. It's very confusing.

Do they think if there is no rules, all devs will avoid Xbox on release. Are they hoping to build bridges, get insight into new games, snag exclusives by forcing direct contact with devs. It's hard to think of reasons why they are setting out their stall that way. If a person hasn't played the game, what does it matter as long as it's available to play on the platform they're using at that time.
Click to expand...

They can go after games they choose and ones they failed to get or Sony/Nintendo got they don't miss out because they get "exclusive content". It's the reason why it evolved from them making exemptions when you had a deal elsewhere on a case by case basis to I guess any dev being able to be part of exemption by providing "exclusive content" to be on their platform.

It only matters how long it's been available elsewhere because that's their way of justifying the demand of new content for their platform because you made a deal elsewhere even though they make those deals but their competitors won't block a game from launching on their platform if they wanted. Only they are the "special" snowflake of the industry that must of something special when you do a deal elsewhere. And as Three pointed out earlier it doesn't matter that they are pushing things like BC.
 
S

slavesnyder

Member
This rule was created with the sure expectation to become market leader from the start on.
Like that, they would have had a position to keep content away from the competition simply by this clause, putting small indies under pressure.
This would have been quite dirty and very effective.

Now that they are in second place they do not eliminate this monster and I don't know why.
Hope there are many cases where they miss out on good stuff because of the clause.
 
I

IzzyF3

Member
Sword Of Doom said:
The thing is they can waive the clause on the successful games. That's the most fucked up part. The ones that get hurt are the small developers who don't have breakout hits. They're the ones who are bullied
Click to expand...

This was my first thought when I heard they make exceptions. It's a load of bull.
 
J

Jomjom

Banned
danwarb said:
Seems like a sensible idea. Help make a late port more interesting.
Click to expand...

Or helps the port never exist at all. If you like that, then cool.

jelly said:
I wonder what the positive is for Microsoft and what they fear. It's very confusing.

Do they think if there is no rules, all devs will avoid Xbox on release. Are they hoping to build bridges, get insight into new games, snag exclusives by forcing direct contact with devs. It's hard to think of reasons why they are setting out their stall that way. If a person hasn't played the game, what does it matter as long as it's available to play on the platform they're using at that time.
Click to expand...

I think a lot of people theorize that MS stubbornly won't let this clause go because they still hope they'll be back in the number 1 position like with the 360.

You can see how this clause would be extremely powerful if the Xbone was the number 1 home console. Basically it would strongarm most of the indies to never release for PS4 first again.
 
F

Freiya

Member
Abdiel said:
Is this pointing out that it was pseudo shelved, or that they actually had a studio working on it? I'm not sure what you're going for.
Click to expand...



The fact that it's not happening anymore after Spencer ran his mouth and played with the fans and most importantly MY feelings! lol
 
H

hawk2025

Member
Jomjom said:
Or helps the port never exist at all. If you like that, then cool.



I think a lot of people theorize that MS stubbornly won't let this clause go because they still hope they'll be back in the number 1 position like with the 360.

You can see how this clause would be extremely powerful if the Xbone was the number 1 home console. Basically it would strongarm most of the indies to never release for PS4 first again.
Click to expand...


Which brings up the question:

Since they are not market leaders this time, aren't they playing with fire if Sony decides to reciprocate and establish the exact same clause?

Stuff like The Escapists and Goat Simulator could suffer...
 
A

Abdiel

Member
Freiya said:
The fact that it's not happening anymore after Spencer ran his mouth and played with the fans and most importantly MY feelings! lol
Click to expand...

Sorry, mate. I know a few folks likewise disappointed by that. I wonder when we'll hear anything else about it. Maybe it will be the next last guardian.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Phil Spencer addresses the rumored Xbox handheld
2
97
5K
Deerock71 replied
Xbox Boss Phil Spencer Addresses Studio Closures: "I have to run a bussiness"
Game Dev 2 3 4
151
7K
simpatico replied
VGC: "Phil Spencer, for so long cast as Xbox’s saviour, may ultimately be remembered as the man who killed it.”
Opinion Business 2 3
142
11K
March Climber replied
Phil Spencer on what the hell is happening in the games industry and why exclusives have become a risky business
Business Game Dev 3 4 5 6 7
301
22K
ProtoByte replied
  • Locked
Phillip W. Spencer III”Phil Spencer on Helldivers 2 Not Being on Xbox: 'I'm Not Exactly Sure Who It Helps'”
News
0
6K
gokurho replied
Top Bottom