Jump to content
  • Sign Up

[merged] I want to keep using Arc Build Templates... :/


Recommended Posts

@RaidsAreEasyAF.8652 said:Like it doesnt make any sense. Apparently the dedicated community isnt big enough to warrant proper development for their respective modes (Raids, PvP, WvW and Fractals) but are big enough to actually make a considerable amount of money that has to be worth more than the backlash over buildtemplates?Even before those fail templates, it felt like they didn't care about all their niche communities (raids, fractals, PvP, WvW) anymore. In the long run, I'm still curious whether the sum of these niches will turn out to be a quite large chunk of their player base who are leaving.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 396
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

@"ZDragon.3046" said:From a business perspective in my personal opinion i think its better to try and draw the majority over the few big players. Yes its nice to keep some big ticket players around but almost any thing can upset someone who plays by those standards.From a business perspective it doesn't make any sense to spend 2 years to develop a game system, and yet design it so it ignores needs of people most likely to use it. It makes even less sense to design a heavily monetized system and design it that it is nice only for people that will not feel the need to spend abything on it.

I might not own legendary armor but being some one who has played for 7 years and who plays at least a few hours per day almost on the daily i like to consider myself as a pretty dedicated. All be it casual.. but still dedicated (thats a pretty flexible word). I also think this free update will work wonders for what I play and that coming from someone who dips into a bit of all 3 game modes.Yet at the same time you already mentioned that the "free" part is completely satisfactory for you and that you won't be buying anything.

Basically, if anet wants to earn money off this system, why they designed it for people that won't pay? And if they designed it for majority they won't earn anything from, why even introduce a heavy monetization if the only group of people that might potentially pay are the people that will find this system unsatisfactory? Not only they won't earn much from it, but they will have to deal with bad PR.

In either case, it doesn't have any sense from business perspective.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Astralporing.1957 said:

@"ZDragon.3046" said:From a business perspective in my personal opinion i think its better to try and draw the majority over the few big players. Yes its nice to keep some big ticket players around but almost any thing can upset someone who plays by those standards.From a business perspective it doesn't make any sense to spend 2 years to develop a game system, and yet design it so it ignores needs of people
most likely to use it
. It makes even less sense to design a
heavily monetized
system and design it that it is nice only for people that
will not feel the need to spend abything on it
.

well lets look at the 2 years you are pointing at.

  • Path of fire was released or just previously released,
  • living world updates were being released (which were free with PoF),
  • we found out anet was also working on a lot of other side projects (which is arguably the only bad business practice you can really call out because they pulled resouces from gw2 to do it which lead to content coming to gw2 slower and slower.)
  • anet was forced to close side projects and lay off a great number of people
  • time to restructure before finishing up season 4
  • preparation for season 5

You know cause we can just throw build templets into all this mindlessly (which is not how anything works in a business setting.) To implement new features or products takes time. Yes, decisions can be made to implement them on the fly and from one day to the next. How ever actually implementing those products or features can take weeks, months, or in some cases years depending whats already on the plate.

Do not be upset that it took anet a long time to implement something that was originally not going to be included in the game anyways. Thats being a bit ignorant.I dont know what your job is but if you have not worked under a semi important role for a bigger company before you will get to experience the frustration of how often things change from a day to day or week to week bases which can delay new products or features for months / years. In most cases there is too much on the current plate or the time of year is not fitting to start implementing that new product or feature. This is even more so of a case when its something that was initially decided against months/ years ago that that said "thing" will not be or ever be a product or feature to start with but then comes up after a 1 hour meeting 5 years later.

I might not own legendary armor but being some one who has played for 7 years and who plays at least a few hours per day almost on the daily i like to consider myself as a pretty dedicated. All be it casual.. but still dedicated (thats a pretty flexible word). I also think this free update will work wonders for what I play and that coming from someone who dips into a bit of all 3 game modes.Yet at the same time you already mentioned that the "free" part is completely satisfactory for you and that you won't be buying anything.

Basically, if anet wants to earn money off this system, why they designed it for people that won't pay? And if they designed it for majority they won't earn anything from, why even introduce a heavy monetization if the only group of people that might potentially pay are the people that will find this system unsatisfactory? Not only they won't earn much from it, but they will have to deal with bad PR.

Once again you are a minority if a few people who need 30 builds per character dont pay its not a big loss.There will be likely a majority of middle ground of people who will pay for this feature. Even if they dont max out their slots.Anet is not banking on the idea that every player who uses this system will max our their slots. They likely intend for there to be a majority of people who buys a few slots and thats about it. A few hundred /thousand people doing this alone is good enough more than likely.

As far as the bad PR is concerned people with a good mind set looking from both sides will see anet as a bad choice for allowing arc from the start and players putting out the bad PR as entitled considering you asked for something and are now up set that you are getting something that just so happens to not be a clone of arc templates.

In either case, it doesn't have any sense from business perspective.

Even if we assume this ^The idea of allowing Arc still also does not make any sense from a business perspective. Simply saying anets choices makes no sense does not make the idea of allowing arc to make sense. People need to stop looking at it this way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Patty.3268 said:

@Asum.4960 said:..., according to the pricing mentioned on stream, will cost you nearly 500€, while still not providing you with sufficient slots to house the build diversity which that level of engagement with the game demands, by a long shot.

Do you remember at what point in the stream they said something about the actual price? This is the first time I see someone mentioning an actual number and as far as I remember, they just said they're still unsure about the prices. Just wondering, cause 500€ for 4 equipment slots and 3 build slots sounds way too high, even if the account build slots would be included in it.

What you skipped over there is

buying all slots for just one character of each profession

Not for one character. For one character of each profession it would be 18 Account wide slots, 36 gear slots and 27 build slots.

I don't have a time stamp, but what they mentioned was, that while undecided (basically waiting for how big the outrage is going to be before finalizing the price they could just so get away with), they where thinking about bank/inventory slot pricing for the template slots. So 5-8€ per slot/ 10-24€ per build.

@ZDragon.3046 said:The idea of allowing Arc still also does not make any sense from a business perspective.

It did though. It kept hardcore players, who need templates, engaged with the game as paying customers for years. Allowing Arc wasn't a charity Anet graciously allowed it's player's. It was a graciously player developed crutch for the game that benefited Anet by retaining players in need of that feature, until they potentially one day could provide that service themselves.

@ZDragon.3046 said:As far as the bad PR is concerned people with a good mind set looking from both sides will see anet as a bad choice for allowing arc from the start and players putting out the bad PR as entitled considering you asked for something and are now up set that you are getting something that just so happens to not be a clone of arc templates.

No one has to "put out bad PR". If I want to get invested in a game, and I read or see myself that if I want to get into the endgame content down the line, and want to be able to contribute and be able to cover multiple roles in it, I will have to pay hundreds of euros just to save a handful of builds across all my characters, I would look for another game.

@ZDragon.3046 said:Once again you are a minority if a few people who need 30 builds per character dont pay its not a big loss.There will be likely a majority of middle ground of people who will pay for this feature. Even if they dont max out their slots.Anet is not banking on the idea that every player who uses this system will max our their slots. They likely intend for there to be a majority of people who buys a few slots and thats about it. A few hundred /thousand people doing this alone is good enough more than likely.

While that is true, alienating your hardcore player base isn't the best move, and I disagree on it not being a big loss.Basically they are trading in easy and quick cash for the heart and soul of the player base.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Asum.4960 said:What you skipped over there is

buying all slots for just one character of each profession

Not for one character. For one character
of each profession
it would be 18 Account wide slots, 36 gear slots and 27 build slots.

Yeah, I indeed misread that. If it's for 9 characters, the numbers make much more sense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@ZDragon.3046

I don't know if you are mostly an open world player, or with what type on content you are engaged with to have so little use for different builds, but I do wonder with how you are defending this monetisation, especially with your focus on it being a mistake to allow the free tool with Arc in the past, if you would bring the same arguments to the table if it had been LW that was getting so heavily monetised (or whatever else you are engaged with).

Let's say they had announced with Icebrood, that going forward you had to unlock the LW episodes account wide for 500 gems each, to then buy access to the new map, per character, for 600 Gems each, to then unlock the story steps within that map for 400 Gems each, per character. (Which in a way would still me much more tame than the current idea for templates)

Would you have had the same reaction to complains about that? That Anet's biggest mistake up until that point was to give away Living World for free, and that everybody who is complaining now is simply entitled and doesn't understand that Anet needs to make some money?Even though if most complains would not be about monetisation itself, but simply the amount of it, saying it would be fine if it just cost 400-600 Gems per episode account wide for the whole thing?

I really struggle to see if this is just a complete lack of empathy with those who require templates to enjoy the game, since you are not personally affected in this case, or if you are really fine with just whatever kind of monetisation, no matter how bad, even if it affects yourself.I'm also not sure which case would be worse tbh, but I'm genuinely curious.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Only arcdps users who frequently load more than 2-6 builds on a single character will lose out with the new system.

For everyone else, this is a double improvement : templates and inventory storage.

What's really interesting though is how they implemented the system. No one asked for free storage or even thought that it'd come with build templates.

From the stream, we know that they didn't dare touch the inventory code. So it's as if they had no choice but to go with this weird, cumbersome 3-panels Ux/UI : account bound build library, character build, character gear.

I think this "Do not touch the inventory code " constraint is what caused the delay in implementation, prompted the monetization and led to that odd free storage gift.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Patty.3268 said:

@Asum.4960 said:..., according to the pricing mentioned on stream, will cost you nearly 500€, while still not providing you with sufficient slots to house the build diversity which that level of engagement with the game demands, by a long shot.

Do you remember at what point in the stream they said something about the actual price? This is the first time I see someone mentioning an actual number and as far as I remember, they just said they're still unsure about the prices.Yes, they said they're still unsure about prices, and they didn;t mention any numbers, but they
did
say that template slots are worth as much as bag slots and bank tabs. And we do know the price for those - 400 and 600 gems respectively.

@Asum.4960 said:I really struggle to see if this is just a complete lack of empathy with those who require templates to enjoy the game, since you are not personally affected in this case, or if you are really fine with just whatever kind of monetisation, no matter how bad, even if it affects yourself.I'm also not sure which case would be worse tbh, but I'm genuinely curious.You might want to see his stance in the thread about monetizing especs. It is enlightening.(hint: to answer your question, it's definitely
not
the latter).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@"Killthehealersffs.8940" said:Reduce the price from 400-600 gems to 200 , but reduce the gold gained from Fractal + Raids , but give more skins to grid fore replyability .Low price achived :P

I don't think ~150-250 €/$ instead of ~500 €/$ can be considered a "low price", especially when the functionality will still be worse than what's currently free (i.e. Arc).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@CptAurellian.9537 said:

@"Killthehealersffs.8940" said:Reduce the price from 400-600 gems to 200 , but reduce the gold gained from Fractal + Raids , but give more skins to grid fore replyability .Low price achived :P

I don't think ~150-250 €/$ instead of ~500 €/$ can be considered a "low price", especially when the functionality will still be worse than what's currently free (i.e. Arc).

Where the heck are you buying gems from?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Killthehealersffs.8940 said:Reduce the price from 400-600 gems to 200 , but reduce the gold gained from Fractal + Raids , but give more skins to grid fore replyability .Low price achived :P

You want to gut raid rewards to 0? I mean those are already way worse than open-world farming on several different maps in comparison, not only compare to SW. For fractals it is similar because they are daily and afterwards you most likely head back to SW to farm gold.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Yargesh.4965 said:

@"Killthehealersffs.8940" said:Reduce the price from 400-600 gems to 200 , but reduce the gold gained from Fractal + Raids , but give more skins to grid fore replyability .Low price achived :P

I don't think ~150-250 €/$ instead of ~500 €/$ can be considered a "low price", especially when the functionality will still be worse than what's currently free (i.e. Arc).

Where the heck are you buying gems from?

From ANet's own shop, for this assumption. As @"Asum.4960" already stated, the benchmark is this:"For one character of each profession it would be 18 Account wide slots, 36 gear slots and 27 build slots."If each slot is valued at 200 gems (= 2.50 €), I get to a meagre 202.50 €. Paying that much for still massively reduced functionality is certainly a great deal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Astralporing.1957 said:

@flog.3485 said:And somehow you don’t think that the introduction of a new free big update doesn’t need a new kind of revenue stream?Why would it need a
new
revenue stream, if all previous LS seasons didn't need it? Are you suggesting they are so poor they need to heavily monetize stuff like the templates now just to keep afloat? If so, that doesn't bode well for th future, you know.

like didnt they just recently have a mass layoff?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Knighthonor.4061 said:

@flog.3485 said:And somehow you don’t think that the introduction of a new free big update doesn’t need a new kind of revenue stream?Why would it need a
new
revenue stream, if all previous LS seasons didn't need it? Are you suggesting they are so poor they need to heavily monetize stuff like the templates now just to keep afloat? If so, that doesn't bode well for th future, you know.

like didnt they just recently have a mass layoff?
  1. layoff reduced their costs, not increased it.
  2. there were times in their past when they had even less developers, and yet didn't need to fund each new LS with adding anything beyond new skins to gemshop - and even those were at a level that was a bit tamer than it is now (remember, single skins for 2k gems are something that only happened after PoF)

of course, if you're saying that layoffs are just a sign that situation in Anet is really bad, and they are indeed so desperate they needed to monetize templates so heavily just to get by, you may be right. But then it would be exactly as i said - it would be a very, very bad sign concerning the game's future. As in, a big question mark about whether this game even has a future.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Healix.5819 said:

@Hugs.1856 said:No one asked for free storage or even thought that it'd come with build templates.

It was actually one of the common suggestions in the form of people complaining about their multiple gear sets taking up half of their inventory.

Actually thinking about it, this was probably a barrier for many players to play different builds.

You almost need an extra storage bag per build currently, get bags that don't sort and go through multiple awkward clicks. No doubt it deterred a few people from playing different builds.

So build templates will probably entice more people to try out different builds. But this implementation almost leaves Anet with no choice but to monetize that extra storage space and sets that low starting point of 2 free gear templates.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Asum.4960 said:@"ZDragon.3046"

I don't know if you are mostly an open world player, or with what type on content you are engaged with to have so little use for different builds, but I do wonder with how you are defending this monetisation, especially with your focus on it being a mistake to allow the free tool with Arc in the past, if you would bring the same arguments to the table if it had been LW that was getting so heavily monetised (or whatever else you are engaged with).

Open wolrdFractals t4Raids(minimal WvW)and casual PvP

Let's say they had announced with Icebrood, that going forward you had to unlock the LW episodes account wide for 500 gems each, to then buy access to the new map, per character, for 600 Gems each, to then unlock the story steps within that map for 400 Gems each, per character. (Which in a way would still me much more tame than the current idea for templates)

Lol thats not even a real situation you made it considerably un reasonable.Would i pay 500 gems for a new living world episode? YesAccess to the new map (you are being unrealistic here but ill say no)And with story steps once again this is unrealistic by all means so ill say no

If you are going to make a price comparison be realistic about it in your example you paid for the same thing twice lol

To be honest we have been lucky so far that anet chose not to have us pay for LW episodes so long as you log in while they are the most current one. Most other games would charge you for this kind of content. So before you start going crazy with your scenarios keep that in mind.

Would you have had the same reaction to complains about that? That Anet's biggest mistake up until that point was to give away Living World for free, and that everybody who is complaining now is simply entitled and doesn't understand that Anet needs to make some money?Even though if most complains would not be about monetisation itself, but simply the amount of it, saying it would be fine if it just cost 400-600 Gems per episode account wide for the whole thing?

Anet did this because they wanted to do guild wars 2 differently to every other MMO thats out at the current time and they have done alot of things better. Have they done everything better? No, of course not but you cant get both sides of the coin every time.

There is a difference between understanding why something is happening and being entitled to saying how something should or should not be and that you dont care if they make money or not. Yes. in short its very easy to sound like an "A" hole (no offense to you) when trying to say why something should or should not be a certain way. Even more so if you go at it with the mentality of not caring or bashing the company based on things they couldnt possibly know.

I really struggle to see if this is just a complete lack of empathy with those who require templates to enjoy the game, since you are not personally affected in this case, or if you are really fine with just whatever kind of monetisation, no matter how bad, even if it affects yourself.I'm also not sure which case would be worse tbh, but I'm genuinely curious.

The reason i dont have much empathy for people on this subject is because arc has spoiled them its a simple fact of truth. This is however is not the only reason a large part of why i lack a lot of empathy is because of how people speak the subject.. Its going at the issue in completely the wrong way and no matter what you say they are right and you are wrong. IT does not matter how much logic is put into your statement because its truth and truth is not so favorable to what they might need.

Ideally it helps to not pretend like you dont know what the other person is talking about, not cherry pick, insert irrelevant statements, and put words in the persons mouth with assumptions. For the record Im not ok with just any kind of monetization (you said that not me). Speak with clarity and have some common since and have some base form of understanding how speak properly to get your point across.

Now if you are talking about anet lacking empathy for people who required more lest consider a few things

  • Anet did not design this with the idea that the majority of players are using arc (as they would never tell you or support the idea of using 3rd party addons even if arc is technically allowed im sure if i write a support ticket asking should I use it they wouldnt say "sure! go for it." )
  • Ant does not know how many people use arc or how many builds per character they have set up on arc
  • There is absolutely no data intel for people using arc vs people who are not

Can you really blame them that the design does not fit the minorities needs? Can you really call that lack of empathy... I say no.

IF you think anets design is bad then thats fine but dont jut say "BAD DESIGN! ARC WAS FREE WE SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO USE IT, IT SHOULD BE FREE!"Speak clearly and point with great detail on why you think its bad while doing it think critically that your situation is probably not the same as a majority of other people. Dont assume every choice is simply for monetization if anet really just wanted to make money off people the game would have had a sub fee from the start in which people would have paid and continued to pay to this day. They could have allowed massive advantages like increased stats or effects for gem items. its called "pay to win."

There are many ways to make money off people without mercy that anet could have easily applied by now if they wanted too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Astralporing.1957 said:

@flog.3485 said:And somehow you don’t think that the introduction of a new free big update doesn’t need a new kind of revenue stream?Why would it need a
new
revenue stream, if all previous LS seasons didn't need it? Are you suggesting they are so poor they need to heavily monetize stuff like the templates now just to keep afloat? If so, that doesn't bode well for th future, you know.

like didnt they just recently have a mass layoff?
  1. layoff reduced their costs, not increased it.
  2. there were times in their past when they had even less developers, and yet didn't need to fund each new LS with adding anything beyond new skins to gemshop - and even those were at a level that was a bit tamer than it is now (remember, single skins for 2k gems are something that only happened after PoF)

of course, if you're saying that layoffs are just a sign that situation in Anet is really bad, and they are indeed so desperate they
needed
to monetize templates so heavily just to get by, you may be right. But then it would be exactly as i said - it would be a very, very bad sign concerning the game's future. As in, a big question mark about whether this game even
has
a future.

Both of you should know the layoffs were not just something to reduce cost it was also to force anet to focus on guild wars 2 which was starting to die. They had less and less people working on gw2 and were pulling people from gw2 to work on other unannounced projects.

Your information here is so incorrect its mind blowing

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@MokahTGS.7850 said:Has Anet said that ARC Templates will not be usable after the patch or are people just making assumptions?

Yes. More specifically, the developer of arc templates had said that when he got permission to add build templates it was on the express condition that he would disable his build templates once ArenaNet added their own, official build templates.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Pifil.5193 said:

@"MokahTGS.7850" said:Has Anet said that ARC Templates will not be usable after the patch or are people just making assumptions?

Yes. More specifically, the developer of arc templates had said that when he got permission to add build templates it was on the express condition that he would disable his build templates once ArenaNet added their own, official build templates.We're one step farther now.

changes
build templates will be disabled starting oct 15 2019

I'm even more pissed than before (and not at deltaconnected). Not only will we be getting trash templates two weeks from now, we'll have to go two weeks without any templates at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@ZDragon.3046 said:

@flog.3485 said:And somehow you don’t think that the introduction of a new free big update doesn’t need a new kind of revenue stream?Why would it need a
new
revenue stream, if all previous LS seasons didn't need it? Are you suggesting they are so poor they need to heavily monetize stuff like the templates now just to keep afloat? If so, that doesn't bode well for th future, you know.

like didnt they just recently have a mass layoff?
  1. layoff reduced their costs, not increased it.
  2. there were times in their past when they had even less developers, and yet didn't need to fund each new LS with adding anything beyond new skins to gemshop - and even those were at a level that was a bit tamer than it is now (remember, single skins for 2k gems are something that only happened after PoF)

of course, if you're saying that layoffs are just a sign that situation in Anet is really bad, and they are indeed so desperate they
needed
to monetize templates so heavily just to get by, you may be right. But then it would be exactly as i said - it would be a very, very bad sign concerning the game's future. As in, a big question mark about whether this game even
has
a future.

Both of you should know the layoffs were not just something to reduce cost it was also to force anet to focus on guild wars 2 which was starting to die. They had less and less people working on gw2 and were pulling people from gw2 to work on other unannounced projects.

Your information here is so incorrect its mind blowingHow is it incorrect? Again, if the situation at Anet is so bad they
needed
to monetize templates so heavily just to get by, then it's
really
bad. And if it's not so bad, then we're back to the previous question: Why would new LS release need a
new
revenue stream, if all previous LS seasons didn't need it?

In the end, there are only two possibilities here.

  1. They didn't need a new revenue stream, and heavily monetizing templates was just a cheap cash grab,or
  2. They did need to monetize templates, at the cost to their usefulness. In that case, the situation at Anet is really bad, and we can worry about the future.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Astralporing.1957 said:

@Astralporing.1957 said:Why would it need a
new
revenue stream, if all previous LS seasons didn't need it? Are you suggesting they are so poor they need to heavily monetize stuff like the templates now just to keep afloat? If so, that doesn't bode well for th future, you know.
  1. layoff reduced their costs, not increased it.
  2. there were times in their past when they had even less developers, and yet didn't need to fund each new LS with adding anything beyond new skins to gemshop - and even those were at a level that was a bit tamer than it is now (remember, single skins for 2k gems are something that only happened after PoF)

of course, if you're saying that layoffs are just a sign that situation in Anet is really bad, and they are indeed so desperate they
needed
to monetize templates so heavily just to get by, you may be right. But then it would be exactly as i said - it would be a very, very bad sign concerning the game's future. As in, a big question mark about whether this game even
has
a future.

There are possibilities that could explain why ANet wants a new revenue stream, and why that revenue is needed to ensure a revenue status quo rather than drive windfall profits.

  • In general, MMO's lose players over time. This might have no effect on revenue if the players leaving the game are those who don't spend money in the store. The likelihood that that is true is, however, is very low. So, that's one area where revenue has shrunk. If fact, if you look at the history of NCSoft reports, that reduction is evident outside of the XPac spikes, though the higher-priced packages slowed the decrease after PoF compared to the decrease after HoT.
  • The store depends on a combination of cosmetics and utility items. Cosmetics are a hit-or-miss thing. Utility items are considered essential by some players and not by others. Utility items are also limited (bag slots per character; bank slots per account, shared slots, even character slots). After 7 years plus, what are the odds that the long-term players who want stuff like that are not already flush with those things?
  • Expenses tend to go up over time. Rent can increase, power rates go up, taxes go up, peoples' wages or salaries increase, etc.

When I look at these factors, I can readily believe that ANet needs new revenue streams to keep revenue where it can support the same level of development.

Does that mean that the need for new revenue items is a sign of the game's imminent demise? We don't need to assume that. All we need to assume is that ANet is looking to replace a declining revenue stream from utility items with a new utility item. Like other newer revenue-generating items in the store in the past few years, this replacement is aimed at a specific demographic. Look at mount skins and package deals, which are aimed more at high-rollers than the average player. ANet has been producing store items targeted at specific groups for a long time. It's possible that the target market for templates is aimed at a group which will get their templates with gold rather than cash, in which case expect new items in-game which require a lot of gold so that there is a need for more gold.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...