Paid content in videogames (DLC, season passes, micro transactions, loot boxes, "surprise mechanics")

Anything to do with games at all.
User avatar
The Watching Artist
Scrub
Joined in 2008

PostRe: Paid content in videogames (DLC, season passes, micro transactions, loot boxes, "surprise mechanics")
by The Watching Artist » Sun Jul 26, 2020 2:57 pm

Hime wrote:
The Watching Artist wrote:
Hime wrote:The only thing I'd say is that it's not even close to being all games going this way (the Battlefront 2 saga was definitely a turning point) and the vast majority of micro transactions outside of sports games are for entirely optional, cosmetic items that don't affect gameplay.

Have you ever customised the look of a character to appeal to you? Or thought "I like the look of that" when you are given a reward in game? Because if so then cosmetic items certainly do affect gameplay even if its not changing the numbers that pop up.

Also while I'm posting in here Rocket League should have been free to play aaaaaaages ago and the price for the extras in Sea of Thieves is strawberry floating obscene.

Not really, I just put the stuff on that has the biggest numbers.

Liking the cosmetics doesn't mean it affects gameplay. Don't get me wrong, I'm not going to defend the price of these things, you don't have to convince me that £20 for a digital costume is bull gooseberry fool but if it doesn't affect the game then I'm not that bothered.

Given that I know you've played Animal Crossing I know this to be untrue. Personally I think they affect the gameplay in one of the worse ways they possibly could, by telling the player they cant play the game to get the items.

Image
User avatar
Karl_
Dr. Nyaaa~!
Dr. Nyaaa~!
Joined in 2008
Contact:

PostRe: Paid content in videogames (DLC, season passes, micro transactions, loot boxes, "surprise mechanics")
by Karl_ » Sun Jul 26, 2020 3:00 pm

Hime wrote:Where does this logic end though? Everything cosmetic is designed and marketed to make you think you need it and it will improve your life.

While loot boxes are particularly obnoxious (see Trelliz's reply), you are right that all different kinds of marketing are economically incentivised to be manipulative - this is an argument against capitalism and the profit motive.

User avatar
Hime
Member
Joined in 2008

PostRe: Paid content in videogames (DLC, season passes, micro transactions, loot boxes, "surprise mechanics")
by Hime » Sun Jul 26, 2020 3:02 pm

Trelliz wrote:
Hime wrote:Where does this logic end though? Everything cosmetic is designed and marketed to make you think you need it and it will improve your life.


It sure it, however even with things like Pokémon cards and other blind-bag purchases, as well as other cosmetic things like clothes etc they physically exist, you can exchange/give them to others or resell them, in some cases repurpose/change them to do something else; altering clothes, up/recycling furniture, etc. With the exception of things like the steam marketplace (where valve sell lootboxes and take a cut every time people sell the contents to each other, which is equally villainous) All these skins etc are locked into a one way system that rapidly invalidates previous "efforts" to try and take more and more. All the FIFA cards that become irrelevant every year, all the fortnite skins that because they aren't the new hotness may as well not exist.

All while simultaneously pleading poverty, paying their executives monstrous bonuses, routinely laying off employees and paying no tax on any of it.

We're not talking about blind bag purchases here, just cosmetics. Since you'd brought it up I'd still argue the actual value of all bit the most rare items in that scenario are actually worth anything worthwhile.

Of course people could do all the things you stated but more often than not they end up in the bin. The point is though that these items are still entirely optional and don't affect the game. Isn't it better that a kid is bullied for their digital clothes in the game rather than not being able to play the game at all?

Image
User avatar
Knoyleo
Member
Joined in 2008

PostRe: Paid content in videogames (DLC, season passes, micro transactions, loot boxes, "surprise mechanics")
by Knoyleo » Sun Jul 26, 2020 3:04 pm

Hime wrote:
The Watching Artist wrote:
Hime wrote:The only thing I'd say is that it's not even close to being all games going this way (the Battlefront 2 saga was definitely a turning point) and the vast majority of micro transactions outside of sports games are for entirely optional, cosmetic items that don't affect gameplay.

Have you ever customised the look of a character to appeal to you? Or thought "I like the look of that" when you are given a reward in game? Because if so then cosmetic items certainly do affect gameplay even if its not changing the numbers that pop up.

Also while I'm posting in here Rocket League should have been free to play aaaaaaages ago and the price for the extras in Sea of Thieves is strawberry floating obscene.

Not really, I just put the stuff on that has the biggest numbers.

Liking the cosmetics doesn't mean it affects gameplay. Don't get me wrong, I'm not going to defend the price of these things, you don't have to convince me that £20 for a digital costume is bull gooseberry fool but if it doesn't affect the game then I'm not that bothered.

Plenty of games have used cosmetics as rewards for progress, and if they're the incentive for play, then that's still part of the gameplay.

User avatar
Trelliz
Doctor ♥
Joined in 2008
Contact:

PostRe: Paid content in videogames (DLC, season passes, micro transactions, loot boxes, "surprise mechanics")
by Trelliz » Sun Jul 26, 2020 3:41 pm

Hime wrote:Of course people could do all the things you stated but more often than not they end up in the bin.


I completely agree, and that's another ecological debate about recycling altogether totally unconnected to this but the point is that with all those things you have the ability to do that. There is another discussion about value of something based on manufacturing and materials vs digital things which can be replicated over and over. People spend thousands on FIFA UT every year and have nothing to show for it when the next one comes out; all those "cards" are irrelevant and will eventually disappear when the servers are switched off - same for Fortnite and everything else.

Hime wrote:The point is though that these items are still entirely optional and don't affect the game.


That is technically true, but the way the lootboxes are pushed is done to make them seem as un-optional as possible; a whole raft of artificial scarcity techniques - sales, limited-time battlepasses that force you to play as much as possible in a short space of time to unlock the best shiny things, all of which play on ingrained psychological flaws in how we perceive value and scarcity. A lot of the stories about addiction to gaming spending talk about not enjoying draining their bank accounts or getting into debt but feeling compelled to carry on, to keep going, to unlock the things because it would invalidate their "investment".

Hime wrote:Isn't it better that a kid is bullied for their digital clothes in the game rather than not being able to play the game at all?


No, it really isn't. Children are horrific enough to each other at school as it is without a global megacorporation encouraging them spending their way to social acceptance and out of misery.

Tragic Magic wrote:I'm giving esteem a name of crafty Fu mining pinitz strawberry float me I live roasted ponuts

Never pre-order or pre-purchase a console, game or season pass.
User avatar
Zilnad
Member
Joined in 2019

PostRe: Paid content in videogames (DLC, season passes, micro transactions, loot boxes, "surprise mechanics")
by Zilnad » Sun Jul 26, 2020 4:06 pm



Hime, please watch this.

User avatar
OrangeRKN
SONM & Cake Sec.
SONM & Cake Sec.
Joined in 2015
Location: Reading, UK
Contact:

PostRe: Paid content in videogames (DLC, season passes, micro transactions, loot boxes, "surprise mechanics")
by OrangeRKN » Sun Jul 26, 2020 5:36 pm

Re: cosmetics not affecting gameplaying, this is a point usually applied to competitive multiplayer games where cosmetics have no mechanical impact. The competitive balance is therefore unaffected. Contrast with paying for weapons that do more damage, where the game then has a pay-to-win element.

So yes, I think "cosmetics do not affect gameplay" is a valid point to make in the context of competitive multiplayer.

That doesn't mean they can't be exploitative for other reasons, but if your concern is fairness of competition then it's an important difference.

Image
Image
orkn.uk - SW-6533-2461-3235 - @OrangeRakoon - ACNH Howdyfern
User avatar
Hime
Member
Joined in 2008

PostRe: Paid content in videogames (DLC, season passes, micro transactions, loot boxes, "surprise mechanics")
by Hime » Mon Jul 27, 2020 5:47 am

Trelliz wrote:
Hime wrote:Of course people could do all the things you stated but more often than not they end up in the bin.


I completely agree, and that's another ecological debate about recycling altogether totally unconnected to this but the point is that with all those things you have the ability to do that. There is another discussion about value of something based on manufacturing and materials vs digital things which can be replicated over and over. People spend thousands on FIFA UT every year and have nothing to show for it when the next one comes out; all those "cards" are irrelevant and will eventually disappear when the servers are switched off - same for Fortnite and everything else.

Hime wrote:The point is though that these items are still entirely optional and don't affect the game.


That is technically true, but the way the lootboxes are pushed is done to make them seem as un-optional as possible; a whole raft of artificial scarcity techniques - sales, limited-time battlepasses that force you to play as much as possible in a short space of time to unlock the best shiny things, all of which play on ingrained psychological flaws in how we perceive value and scarcity. A lot of the stories about addiction to gaming spending talk about not enjoying draining their bank accounts or getting into debt but feeling compelled to carry on, to keep going, to unlock the things because it would invalidate their "investment".

Hime wrote:Isn't it better that a kid is bullied for their digital clothes in the game rather than not being able to play the game at all?


No, it really isn't. Children are horrific enough to each other at school as it is without a global megacorporation encouraging them spending their way to social acceptance and out of misery.

The last point was that we might not think much of F2P games but if it allows all children to be able to play together then that is a good thing. I would imagine the cases of bullying over Fortnite costumes are very much the exception. Similarly, those addicted to buying cosmetic items (strictly cosmetic here, not blind boxes) are the outliers and not representative of most who play games with optional items for purchase.

I get your point about having the option to do something with physical items but I believe most of what we're discussing are seen as disposable, so by their nature they become worthless. You could argue that certain videogames have been the same for some time now, how much is a copy of FIFA/NBA 2K, Pro Evo, etc worth two years after release? Yes they technically can be sold or traded but their worth is essentially nothing.

It might not be ideal but I don't think you can expect games to be supported for months and years after release based solely on one off sales. It's just a shame devs can't stop being so greedy and charge such outrageous amounts for digital items, there are certainly times I've thought about buying something and just thought "actually, strawberry float you" when I've seen the prices.

Image
User avatar
Trelliz
Doctor ♥
Joined in 2008
Contact:

PostRe: Paid content in videogames (DLC, season passes, micro transactions, loot boxes, "surprise mechanics")
by Trelliz » Mon Jul 27, 2020 6:42 am

Hime wrote:The last point was that we might not think much of F2P games but if it allows all children to be able to play together then that is a good thing. I would imagine the cases of bullying over Fortnite costumes are very much the exception. Similarly, those addicted to buying cosmetic items (strictly cosmetic here, not blind boxes) are the outliers and not representative of most who play games with optional items for purchase.


I imagine that's the case too for overt "lol look at this povvo they don't have the latest skins" pressure, but these kinds of games are built on more subtle internal FOMO pressure, getting you to bully yourself into buying the latest shiny shiny to keep up with everyone else who is having more fun as a result etc. I know this is basic marketing 101 but combine that with the lootboxes (which is where a lot of the cosmetics reside in many games, not just Fortnite here) and you get unregulated promotion of gambling-like mechanisms to children, which is perhaps the insidious core of this whole torrid business.

Hime wrote:I get your point about having the option to do something with physical items but I believe most of what we're discussing are seen as disposable, so by their nature they become worthless. You could argue that certain videogames have been the same for some time now, how much is a copy of FIFA/NBA 2K, Pro Evo, etc worth two years after release? Yes they technically can be sold or traded but their worth is essentially nothing.


I suppose the point I was trying to make was that in these closed one-way systems it is very easy to take things further - the idea of getting "duplicates" in your lootboxes. Surely it would be easy to quickly check what people have when one is opened and remove them from the loot table on the fly, but then eventually people would get enough from a particular box to stop buying keys, which is the exact opposite of what they want to happen. This a deliberately created problem framed as some universal inevitability.

Hime wrote:It might not be ideal but I don't think you can expect games to be supported for months and years after release based solely on one off sales. It's just a shame devs can't stop being so greedy and charge such outrageous amounts for digital items, there are certainly times I've thought about buying something and just thought "actually, strawberry float you" when I've seen the prices.


Not all games have to be; another example of reframing expectations is the decline of community/player run servers for games. As long as you had enough players to fill a server then a game could live forever (CSS/TF2 :cry: ) but, linking in to your point about the value of yearly sports games, that is no longer relevant or important. The mainstream games industry will gladly burn down anything from its past to make a quick buck now, making games that are just artificially fun enough (i.e. your brain feels good from all the numbers going up, not missing out on time-limited items/events etc) to keep people "engaged" and spending more money.

I am not against the concept of DLC itself, but I would rather pay £10-15 for a proper expansion of the type that existed throughout the 90s and early 2000s which were almost entire games in and of themselves (Yuri's Revenge for Red Alert 2, the various Civ expansions that get celebrated time and again, which The Witcher has done great too) than launder more money into EA fun bucks for some spins of the wheel. I try not to reference Jim Sterling much as some people get very riled up to the point of derailing a conversation, but i'm basically parroting most of his stuff, and one of the main points is that now the modern industry seems like the title of Mary Trump's book, 'Too much and never enough'. All of these systems are never implemented for our benefit, but because of FIFA/CoD pushing what is acceptable etc every game has to be a live service platform because that's where the money, not quality, is.

Tragic Magic wrote:I'm giving esteem a name of crafty Fu mining pinitz strawberry float me I live roasted ponuts

Never pre-order or pre-purchase a console, game or season pass.
User avatar
Hime
Member
Joined in 2008

PostRe: Paid content in videogames (DLC, season passes, micro transactions, loot boxes, "surprise mechanics")
by Hime » Mon Jul 27, 2020 8:39 am

Trelliz wrote:
Hime wrote:The last point was that we might not think much of F2P games but if it allows all children to be able to play together then that is a good thing. I would imagine the cases of bullying over Fortnite costumes are very much the exception. Similarly, those addicted to buying cosmetic items (strictly cosmetic here, not blind boxes) are the outliers and not representative of most who play games with optional items for purchase.


I imagine that's the case too for overt "lol look at this povvo they don't have the latest skins" pressure, but these kinds of games are built on more subtle internal FOMO pressure, getting you to bully yourself into buying the latest shiny shiny to keep up with everyone else who is having more fun as a result etc. I know this is basic marketing 101 but combine that with the lootboxes (which is where a lot of the cosmetics reside in many games, not just Fortnite here) and you get unregulated promotion of gambling-like mechanisms to children, which is perhaps the insidious core of this whole torrid business.

Hime wrote:I get your point about having the option to do something with physical items but I believe most of what we're discussing are seen as disposable, so by their nature they become worthless. You could argue that certain videogames have been the same for some time now, how much is a copy of FIFA/NBA 2K, Pro Evo, etc worth two years after release? Yes they technically can be sold or traded but their worth is essentially nothing.


I suppose the point I was trying to make was that in these closed one-way systems it is very easy to take things further - the idea of getting "duplicates" in your lootboxes. Surely it would be easy to quickly check what people have when one is opened and remove them from the loot table on the fly, but then eventually people would get enough from a particular box to stop buying keys, which is the exact opposite of what they want to happen. This a deliberately created problem framed as some universal inevitability.

Hime wrote:It might not be ideal but I don't think you can expect games to be supported for months and years after release based solely on one off sales. It's just a shame devs can't stop being so greedy and charge such outrageous amounts for digital items, there are certainly times I've thought about buying something and just thought "actually, strawberry float you" when I've seen the prices.


Not all games have to be; another example of reframing expectations is the decline of community/player run servers for games. As long as you had enough players to fill a server then a game could live forever (CSS/TF2 :cry: ) but, linking in to your point about the value of yearly sports games, that is no longer relevant or important. The mainstream games industry will gladly burn down anything from its past to make a quick buck now, making games that are just artificially fun enough (i.e. your brain feels good from all the numbers going up, not missing out on time-limited items/events etc) to keep people "engaged" and spending more money.

I am not against the concept of DLC itself, but I would rather pay £10-15 for a proper expansion of the type that existed throughout the 90s and early 2000s which were almost entire games in and of themselves (Yuri's Revenge for Red Alert 2, the various Civ expansions that get celebrated time and again, which The Witcher has done great too) than launder more money into EA fun bucks for some spins of the wheel. I try not to reference Jim Sterling much as some people get very riled up to the point of derailing a conversation, but i'm basically parroting most of his stuff, and one of the main points is that now the modern industry seems like the title of Mary Trump's book, 'Too much and never enough'. All of these systems are never implemented for our benefit, but because of FIFA/CoD pushing what is acceptable etc every game has to be a live service platform because that's where the money, not quality, is.
Trelliz wrote:
Hime wrote:The last point was that we might not think much of F2P games but if it allows all children to be able to play together then that is a good thing. I would imagine the cases of bullying over Fortnite costumes are very much the exception. Similarly, those addicted to buying cosmetic items (strictly cosmetic here, not blind boxes) are the outliers and not representative of most who play games with optional items for purchase.


I imagine that's the case too for overt "lol look at this povvo they don't have the latest skins" pressure, but these kinds of games are built on more subtle internal FOMO pressure, getting you to bully yourself into buying the latest shiny shiny to keep up with everyone else who is having more fun as a result etc. I know this is basic marketing 101 but combine that with the lootboxes (which is where a lot of the cosmetics reside in many games, not just Fortnite here) and you get unregulated promotion of gambling-like mechanisms to children, which is perhaps the insidious core of this whole torrid business.

Hime wrote:I get your point about having the option to do something with physical items but I believe most of what we're discussing are seen as disposable, so by their nature they become worthless. You could argue that certain videogames have been the same for some time now, how much is a copy of FIFA/NBA 2K, Pro Evo, etc worth two years after release? Yes they technically can be sold or traded but their worth is essentially nothing.


I suppose the point I was trying to make was that in these closed one-way systems it is very easy to take things further - the idea of getting "duplicates" in your lootboxes. Surely it would be easy to quickly check what people have when one is opened and remove them from the loot table on the fly, but then eventually people would get enough from a particular box to stop buying keys, which is the exact opposite of what they want to happen. This a deliberately created problem framed as some universal inevitability.

Hime wrote:It might not be ideal but I don't think you can expect games to be supported for months and years after release based solely on one off sales. It's just a shame devs can't stop being so greedy and charge such outrageous amounts for digital items, there are certainly times I've thought about buying something and just thought "actually, strawberry float you" when I've seen the prices.


Not all games have to be; another example of reframing expectations is the decline of community/player run servers for games. As long as you had enough players to fill a server then a game could live forever (CSS/TF2 :cry: ) but, linking in to your point about the value of yearly sports games, that is no longer relevant or important. The mainstream games industry will gladly burn down anything from its past to make a quick buck now, making games that are just artificially fun enough (i.e. your brain feels good from all the numbers going up, not missing out on time-limited items/events etc) to keep people "engaged" and spending more money.

I am not against the concept of DLC itself, but I would rather pay £10-15 for a proper expansion of the type that existed throughout the 90s and early 2000s which were almost entire games in and of themselves (Yuri's Revenge for Red Alert 2, the various Civ expansions that get celebrated time and again, which The Witcher has done great too) than launder more money into EA fun bucks for some spins of the wheel. I try not to reference Jim Sterling much as some people get very riled up to the point of derailing a conversation, but i'm basically parroting most of his stuff, and one of the main points is that now the modern industry seems like the title of Mary Trump's book, 'Too much and never enough'. All of these systems are never implemented for our benefit, but because of FIFA/CoD pushing what is acceptable etc every game has to be a live service platform because that's where the money, not quality, is.

We're in agreement as far as loot boxes are concerned.

I agree as far as single player games go but traditional DLC for multiplayer games has been map packs which splintered the playerbase. Maybe this is why I'm less against cosmetics when it means developers will keep the game updated with new maps, playlists, etc at no additional cost. I do appreciate the issues you have with these systems but there is an interesting flip side that some players will have gotten hundreds of hours out of games without spending any money whatsoever.

Image
User avatar
Trelliz
Doctor ♥
Joined in 2008
Contact:

PostRe: Paid content in videogames (DLC, season passes, micro transactions, loot boxes, "surprise mechanics")
by Trelliz » Mon Jul 27, 2020 10:16 am

Hime wrote:I agree as far as single player games go but traditional DLC for multiplayer games has been map packs which splintered the playerbase. Maybe this is why I'm less against cosmetics when it means developers will keep the game updated with new maps, playlists, etc at no additional cost. I do appreciate the issues you have with these systems but there is an interesting flip side that some players will have gotten hundreds of hours out of games without spending any money whatsoever.


There has been a lot written about chasing the whales, the relatively small portion of people who spend hard on these kinds of games, and while yes, loads of people have played these games for a long time and not spent a thing, I feel that they are a tolerated burden in terms of server/development costs who may not spend anything or very much themselves, but are essentially the population mass needed to keep "whales" invested by giving them opponents/allies/a community to interact with and stop them jumping ship. I don't particularly like the feeling that I am an NPC for the paying few, but am paying with time and inconvenience instead of money.

Tragic Magic wrote:I'm giving esteem a name of crafty Fu mining pinitz strawberry float me I live roasted ponuts

Never pre-order or pre-purchase a console, game or season pass.
User avatar
JT986M2
Member
Joined in 2020

PostRe: Paid content in videogames (DLC, season passes, micro transactions, loot boxes, "surprise mechanics")
by JT986M2 » Mon Jul 27, 2020 4:04 pm

So after being a naysayer for a long, long time (and having my only DLC experiences thus-far be in GoTY editions of games) I bought my first standalone DLC last week in the form of the ultimate edition upgrade for Forza Horizons 4. I'm really pleasantly surprised and it reminds me of ye olde expansion packs rather than tacked-on content. Each DLC is pretty meaty and well worth the price. I've got just as much time out of the DLC than I did the main game and I've still not finished it all.

I'm sure there are some bad eggs out there, but I'll be more open-minded going forward. Honest.

User avatar
OrangeRKN
SONM & Cake Sec.
SONM & Cake Sec.
Joined in 2015
Location: Reading, UK
Contact:

PostRe: Paid content in videogames (DLC, season passes, micro transactions, loot boxes, "surprise mechanics")
by OrangeRKN » Mon Jul 27, 2020 4:38 pm

Plenty of games still get the more "traditional" (lol) style DLC/expansions. The Outer Worlds DLC that just got announced has me excited for example.

Image
Image
orkn.uk - SW-6533-2461-3235 - @OrangeRakoon - ACNH Howdyfern
User avatar
kazanova_Frankenstein
Member
Joined in 2008

PostRe: Paid content in videogames (DLC, season passes, micro transactions, loot boxes, "surprise mechanics")
by kazanova_Frankenstein » Thu Jul 30, 2020 3:57 pm

The only DLC i have ever bought was earlier this year - Witcher 3 - Hearts of Stone and Blood & Wine expansions. I cant see me ever getting equivalent value again, but to be honest it would have to be a franchise i love equally to inspire me to part with real money for an expansion again. Most games are so long nowadays that i'm kind of glad to move on. That being said, returning to TW3 after about 3 years since finishing The Wild Hunt was one of the best decisions i have made. It just reinforced it as my GOTG.

I also almost bought a pet cat with a suit for Sea Of Thieves last night, so i'm nothing if not fickle.

Image
Image
User avatar
Monkey Man
Member
Joined in 2008

PostRe: Paid content in videogames (DLC, season passes, micro transactions, loot boxes, "surprise mechanics")
by Monkey Man » Tue Aug 04, 2020 9:57 pm



That’s a lot of money.

Image
User avatar
Mafro
Moderator
Joined in 2008
AKA: DAT MAF
Contact:

PostRe: Paid content in videogames (DLC, season passes, micro transactions, loot boxes, "surprise mechanics")
by Mafro » Tue Aug 04, 2020 10:08 pm

Wonder if those "added more players outside of launch" includes downloads of f2p Warzone.

HSH28 wrote:Assmung you ever get one that is.

Blog | Twitter
User avatar
OrangeRKN
SONM & Cake Sec.
SONM & Cake Sec.
Joined in 2015
Location: Reading, UK
Contact:

PostRe: Paid content in videogames (DLC, season passes, micro transactions, loot boxes, "surprise mechanics")
by OrangeRKN » Tue Aug 04, 2020 11:03 pm

Mafro wrote:Wonder if those "added more players outside of launch" includes downloads of f2p Warzone.


Yeah sounds like number massaging to me

Image
Image
orkn.uk - SW-6533-2461-3235 - @OrangeRakoon - ACNH Howdyfern
User avatar
Mafro
Moderator
Joined in 2008
AKA: DAT MAF
Contact:

PostRe: Paid content in videogames (DLC, season passes, micro transactions, loot boxes, "surprise mechanics")
by Mafro » Tue Aug 04, 2020 11:07 pm

OrangeRKN wrote:
Mafro wrote:Wonder if those "added more players outside of launch" includes downloads of f2p Warzone.


Yeah sounds like number massaging to me

iirc when you download Warzone it's literally just the MW client but with the campaign and multiplayer portions inaccessible, so it wouldn't surprise me if that's what they're doing.

HSH28 wrote:Assmung you ever get one that is.

Blog | Twitter

Return to “Games”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: chanticleer, Edd, Finish.Last, gamerforever, kazanova_Frankenstein, Saint of Killers, Skarjo, Yoshimi and 241 guests