• Log InLog In
  • Register
Liquid`
Team Liquid Liquipedia
EDT 12:11
CEST 18:11
KST 01:11
  • Home
  • Forum
  • Calendar
  • Streams
  • Liquipedia
  • Features
  • Store
  • EPT
  • TL+
  • StarCraft 2
  • Brood War
  • Smash
  • Heroes
  • Counter-Strike
  • Overwatch
  • Liquibet
  • Fantasy StarCraft
  • TLPD
  • StarCraft 2
  • Brood War
  • Blogs
Forum Sidebar
Events/Features
News
Featured News
Code S RO4 & Finals Preview: herO, Rogue, Classic, GuMiho0TL Team Map Contest #5: Presented by Monster Energy4Code S RO8 Preview: herO, Zoun, Bunny, Classic7Code S RO8 Preview: Rogue, GuMiho, Solar, Maru3BGE Stara Zagora 2025: Info & Preview27
Community News
Firefly suspended by EWC, replaced by Lancer2Classic & herO RO8 Interviews: "I think it’s time to teach [Rogue] a lesson."2Rogue & GuMiho RO8 interviews: "Lifting that trophy would be a testament to all I’ve had to overcome over the years and how far I’ve come on this journey.8Code S RO8 Results + RO4 Bracket (2025 Season 2)14BGE Stara Zagora 2025 - Replay Pack2
StarCraft 2
General
Rain's Behind the Scenes Storytime Firefly suspended by EWC, replaced by Lancer Jim claims he and Firefly were involved in match-fixing How herO can make history in the Code S S2 finals Rogue & GuMiho RO8 interviews: "Lifting that trophy would be a testament to all I’ve had to overcome over the years and how far I’ve come on this journey.
Tourneys
RSL: Revival, a new crowdfunded tournament series [GSL 2025] Code S: Season 2 - Semi Finals & Finals WardiTV Mondays Sparkling Tuna Cup - Weekly Open Tournament $3,500 WardiTV European League 2025
Strategy
Simple Questions Simple Answers [G] Darkgrid Layout
Custom Maps
[UMS] Zillion Zerglings
External Content
Mutation # 478 Instant Karma Mutation # 477 Slow and Steady Mutation # 476 Charnel House Mutation # 475 Hard Target
Brood War
General
ASL20 Preliminary Maps BW General Discussion BGH Auto Balance -> http://bghmmr.eu/ Recent recommended BW games FlaSh Witnesses SCV Pull Off the Impossible vs Shu
Tourneys
[Megathread] Daily Proleagues [BSL 2v2] ProLeague Season 3 - Friday 21:00 CET Small VOD Thread 2.0 [BSL20] ProLeague Bracket Stage - Day 4
Strategy
I am doing this better than progamers do. [G] How to get started on ladder as a new Z player
Other Games
General Games
Nintendo Switch Thread Stormgate/Frost Giant Megathread Path of Exile Beyond All Reason What do you want from future RTS games?
Dota 2
Official 'what is Dota anymore' discussion
League of Legends
Which UAE App Developers Are Leading the Innovatio
Heroes of the Storm
Simple Questions, Simple Answers Heroes of the Storm 2.0
Hearthstone
Heroes of StarCraft mini-set
TL Mafia
Vanilla Mini Mafia TL Mafia Community Thread
Community
General
US Politics Mega-thread Things Aren’t Peaceful in Palestine UK Politics Mega-thread Russo-Ukrainian War Thread Vape Nation Thread
Fan Clubs
SKT1 Classic Fan Club! Maru Fan Club
Media & Entertainment
Korean Music Discussion [Manga] One Piece
Sports
2024 - 2025 Football Thread Formula 1 Discussion NHL Playoffs 2024 TeamLiquid Health and Fitness Initiative For 2023
World Cup 2022
Tech Support
Computer Build, Upgrade & Buying Resource Thread
TL Community
The Automated Ban List
Blogs
A Better Routine For Progame…
TrAiDoS
StarCraft improvement
iopq
Heero Yuy & the Tax…
KrillinFromwales
I was completely wrong ab…
jameswatts
Need Your Help/Advice
Glider
Trip to the Zoo
micronesia
Customize Sidebar...

Website Feedback

Closed Threads



Active: 28919 users

Bnet 2.0 Explained: The Logic Behind Blizzard's BS

Blogs > McCain
Post a Reply
McCain
Profile Blog Joined February 2010
United States187 Posts
July 07 2010 04:16 GMT
#1
First off this is basically going to be a summary of
http://www.the-ghetto.org/content/battle-net-2-0-the-antithesis-of-consumer-confidence

I'm only posting this because it seems like a lot of people don't know why Blizzard is acting strange. If you're like most people here you probably can't explain Blizzard's decisions behind Battle.net 2.0. You may remember back when the no LAN issue was a big deal, and a Blizzard employee responded by saying something along the lines of "we're going to make BNet 2.0 so good you won't need LAN." They used more fancy words, though.

The reason Blizzard doesn't make any sense anymore is because Activision is making the decisions behind Bnet 2.0. In the same way that Infinity Ward wasn't given full creative freedom behind Modern Warfare 2, Blizzard is being restrained from adding necessary features to Bnet 2.0. The exact same thing that is happening to SC2 happened to MW2.

MW2 had no dedicated servers, along with several other features that were present in MW1 but not its sequel. When one of the lead designers had a developer chat before the game's release, he spouted what amounted to illogical bullshit, the most famous being:


zach426: What was your guy's logic behind removing the lean feature for PC, a feature that was a mainstay from all of your previous call of duty titles?

Mackey-IW: The game is not balanced for lean.


Despite clearly knowing enough about a PC game to create the first Modern Warfare, the same developers apparently forgot how to do exactly those things. This is identical to SC2 having no LAN and no cross-server play. Remember that the merger was Activision-Vivendi, not Activision Blizzard; the name was used due to brand familiarity.

As for the aftermath, over half of Infinity Ward quit when Activision sent in a private security force, an incident you should be well familiar with. Will that happen with Blizzard? It's actually quite possible. There have been a couple unconfirmed reports of lower-tier employees posting on low-profile forum/message board sites saying there's a lot of tension between Blizzard and Activision, and that a wave of staff resigning may come soon. The upper-tier staff will stay (unless forced out) because they've put a lot of work into their franchises, and leaving the company would put those franchises completely into the hands of Activision.

In any case, just take away that Blizzard (as much as I want to say it) isn't as dumb as the choices they've made with Bnet 2.0. The decisions are being made by people who probably haven't played a video game in their life, who think profits will be maximized by removing these features.

***
Kennigit *
Profile Blog Joined October 2006
Canada19447 Posts
Last Edited: 2010-07-07 04:23:09
July 07 2010 04:19 GMT
#2
On July 07 2010 13:16 McCain wrote:
The reason Blizzard doesn't make any sense anymore is because Activision is making the decisions behind Bnet 2.0. In the same way that Infinity Ward wasn't given full creative freedom behind Modern Warfare 2, Blizzard is being restrained from adding necessary features to Bnet 2.0. The exact same thing that is happening to SC2 happened to MW2.

Do you have anything to back this up with? You realize one of the core components of the merger was that Blizzard keeps creative discretion over all their products right? I think the real issue is that Blizzard has become so much more open with their changes....remember when know one knew shit until something was released? Basically thats pure conjecture and neither you nor the writer can back it up.

I'm 100% positive theres were thousands of atrocious iterations that we've never even heard of. Imagine if they had mentioned that SC2 cover system (where units take cover behind rock walls) at Blizzcon? Minds would have exploded. I think its just that they are being way too vocal about design decisions.
rockon1215
Profile Joined May 2009
United States612 Posts
July 07 2010 04:29 GMT
#3
On July 07 2010 13:19 Kennigit wrote:
Show nested quote +
On July 07 2010 13:16 McCain wrote:
The reason Blizzard doesn't make any sense anymore is because Activision is making the decisions behind Bnet 2.0. In the same way that Infinity Ward wasn't given full creative freedom behind Modern Warfare 2, Blizzard is being restrained from adding necessary features to Bnet 2.0. The exact same thing that is happening to SC2 happened to MW2.

Do you have anything to back this up with? You realize one of the core components of the merger was that Blizzard keeps creative discretion over all their products right? I think the real issue is that Blizzard has become so much more open with their changes....remember when know one knew shit until something was released? Basically thats pure conjecture and neither you nor the writer can back it up.

I'm 100% positive theres were thousands of atrocious iterations that we've never even heard of. Imagine if they had mentioned that SC2 cover system (where units take cover behind rock walls) at Blizzcon? Minds would have exploded. I think its just that they are being way too vocal about design decisions.
agreed. Angry speculation is just that: angry speculation
Flash v Jaedong The finals that is ALWAYS meant to be
McCain
Profile Blog Joined February 2010
United States187 Posts
July 07 2010 04:40 GMT
#4
On July 07 2010 13:19 Kennigit wrote:
Show nested quote +
On July 07 2010 13:16 McCain wrote:
The reason Blizzard doesn't make any sense anymore is because Activision is making the decisions behind Bnet 2.0. In the same way that Infinity Ward wasn't given full creative freedom behind Modern Warfare 2, Blizzard is being restrained from adding necessary features to Bnet 2.0. The exact same thing that is happening to SC2 happened to MW2.

Do you have anything to back this up with? You realize one of the core components of the merger was that Blizzard keeps creative discretion over all their products right? I think the real issue is that Blizzard has become so much more open with their changes....remember when know one knew shit until something was released? Basically thats pure conjecture and neither you nor the writer can back it up.

I'm 100% positive theres were thousands of atrocious iterations that we've never even heard of. Imagine if they had mentioned that SC2 cover system (where units take cover behind rock walls) at Blizzcon? Minds would have exploded. I think its just that they are being way too vocal about design decisions.

But the game didn't have a crazy issue such as a cover system. In fact, everything about the actual game is fine. Even at the Blizzcon alphas and the beginning of the beta, the game was in pretty damn good shape, and that's basically the consensus of this site. Your explanation would imply that Blizzard is smart enough to make such a good game, and smart enough to make great online interfaces in the past before the merger, but dumb enough to ruin everything about the great online interfaces that they themselves made, while giving explanations for their choices that make less sense than FIFA's stance on instant replay.

As for your first paragraph, it's true there isn't concrete proof, which is why this is a blog. If there were you can bet we'd be shitstorming about it by now. The only proof is that each of the controversial decisions Blizzard has made follow the philosophy of sacrificing player experience for monetary gain, something that the company was reputably against in the past (along with the other points made in the blog). I also unfortunately am not knowledgeable enough about Infinity Ward to know their creative freedom policy with Activision when they were acquired by the company in 2003. If it did exist, it's clear that Activision found a way around it.
sluggaslamoo
Profile Blog Joined November 2009
Australia4494 Posts
July 07 2010 04:48 GMT
#5
Actually SC2 did have a cover system at one stage, they didn't tell anyone until after it was removed.
Come play Android Netrunner - http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=409008
Rekrul
Profile Blog Joined November 2002
Korea (South)17174 Posts
July 07 2010 04:53 GMT
#6
I think Paramount should just start uploading every movie directly to the internet for high definition blueray download, making us go all the way to the theater and then pay for a ticket is ridiculous.
why so 진지해?
semantics
Profile Blog Joined November 2009
10040 Posts
July 07 2010 04:58 GMT
#7
On July 07 2010 13:53 Rekrul wrote:
I think Paramount should just start uploading every movie directly to the internet for high definition blueray download, making us go all the way to the theater and then pay for a ticket is ridiculous.

obviously! they just need to increase product placement and have an intermission with commercials in the middle.
InToTheWannaB
Profile Joined September 2002
United States4770 Posts
July 07 2010 04:59 GMT
#8
Did Rekrul just make a post in a thread that somehow did not make the thread about himself? Whats the world coming to?
When the spirit is not altogether slain, great loss teaches men and women to desire greatly, both for themselves and for others.
fabiano
Profile Blog Joined August 2009
Brazil4644 Posts
July 07 2010 04:59 GMT
#9
and people get fatter and fatter
"When the geyser died, a probe came out" - SirJolt
CharlieMurphy
Profile Blog Joined March 2006
United States22895 Posts
Last Edited: 2010-07-07 05:21:24
July 07 2010 05:19 GMT
#10
did op ever read that Bobby Kotick activion/blizzard thread?
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=128252

Why the hell did blizzard merge with activision anyways?
..and then I would, ya know, check em'. (Aka SpoR)
Rekrul
Profile Blog Joined November 2002
Korea (South)17174 Posts
July 07 2010 05:21 GMT
#11
On July 07 2010 13:59 InToTheWannaB wrote:
Did Rekrul just make a post in a thread that somehow did not make the thread about himself? Whats the world coming to?


thats what people like you are for
why so 진지해?
InToTheWannaB
Profile Joined September 2002
United States4770 Posts
July 07 2010 05:31 GMT
#12
Someone has got to keep the heavens aligned. ^^
When the spirit is not altogether slain, great loss teaches men and women to desire greatly, both for themselves and for others.
Deleted User 3420
Profile Blog Joined May 2003
24492 Posts
Last Edited: 2010-07-07 05:41:36
July 07 2010 05:37 GMT
#13
On July 07 2010 13:19 Kennigit wrote:
Show nested quote +
On July 07 2010 13:16 McCain wrote:
The reason Blizzard doesn't make any sense anymore is because Activision is making the decisions behind Bnet 2.0. In the same way that Infinity Ward wasn't given full creative freedom behind Modern Warfare 2, Blizzard is being restrained from adding necessary features to Bnet 2.0. The exact same thing that is happening to SC2 happened to MW2.

Do you have anything to back this up with? You realize one of the core components of the merger was that Blizzard keeps creative discretion over all their products right? I think the real issue is that Blizzard has become so much more open with their changes....remember when know one knew shit until something was released? Basically thats pure conjecture and neither you nor the writer can back it up.


eh but this is talking about policy type changes not changes to the game

I'd be willing to wager all my riches it's activision's doing
Freaky[x]
Profile Blog Joined August 2005
Canada995 Posts
Last Edited: 2010-07-07 05:45:08
July 07 2010 05:43 GMT
#14
My problem with this topic is the overall design changes from battle.net 2.0 compared to battle.net 1.0.

+ Show Spoiler +

Chat channels vs group chat/party chat/clan chat/getting laid chat (call it w/e you want)

Let's think of what was their thinking, how it affects the game and players as a whole and how we can relay it back to the micro transactions.

First of all, with the old battle.net, one would enter battle.net and get spammed for the first 1 minute about bots/hacks/sex and so on and then would move on to a private channel or an official blizzard channel.

In battle 2.0, one enters and there is no bots/hacks/sex ( yay) and has access to his real / pseudo name friends list. People can make parties and groups and can join games together. cool.

So when the user gets in battle 2.0 initially vs battle net 1.0, the spam is gone. Nicely done blizzard (although i didn't care about that in the first place).

Now let's move on something more serious concerning chat channels. In bnet1, you can easily meet new people just by going to popular channels and just playing random games vs people without having to be a ladder game, which was honestly really fun after playing ladder games.

In bnet2, after joining a game, you can add all the people in the party and eventually be able to play with them. The main difference between the two is that the first one is much more convenient.

Now let's talk about tournaments and use of these 2 chat systems. In bnet 1, you tell people to join a channel at a certain time and as long as you have the channel name username, you can easily reinforce banning and take control of the situation. (we already know all of this)

In bnet 2, you need to get everybody's emails. contact them, get them to add you, add them then you can sort of monitor the gamers, but it's hard to do that since as a tournament organizer, you do not have the POWER to control these things. But wait, bnet 2 tell us that they are going to implement a way to actually host a tournament really easily... cool So that might actually help out and make life easier. HOWEVER, you must pay them Blizzard, also if certain maps are made "premium" players will have to pay for them. As such, organizers must choose non premium maps, which is fine. I don't think(hope) they will make melee maps premium.

Now let's go back to what I said earlier, micro transactions. By not giving the customer an easy way of communicating with one another, blizzard has essentially forced organizers to USE their new "tournament organization system" and forced a microtransaction. Which means that blizzard in a certain way, created an artificial way of making money through this means. Moreover, if they really wanted to be underhanded, they can probably force players to paying a certain fee to make a tournament and for the maps ( doubt it - but why not... go micro transactions!)

More about chat, I can find other ways that blizzard can make money off chat 2.0 like charging for something like awards when clans want to be official clans on bnet 2.0 and have their name on the website or something (sounds ridiculous? It's possible).

Now let's move on to the map system, by having premium maps paid for, blizzard can essentially play the role as middle man and make money off maps made by the public with a fraction of the money going to the map makers. I don't even know if this is legal but essentially they are creating artificial employment and can essentially start EXPLOITING kids and teenagers for their time while giving them 20-30$ a month (This might sound crazy, but I wouldn't be surprised if it happened)

As you can see, in a certain way, blizzard is justifying the micro transactions by having the customer involved and promising customers some money for making maps.

People are cheering that mapmakers are getting the credit they deserve and getting paid for it I'm not a mapmaker but I highly doubt that doing this is good, I think mapmakers would prefer it if they can just make a map and possibly associate it to their account (a link or just a mention of the maps the person created) and possibly also on the official sc2 map website ( i think it's still sclegacy or something).

I have a couple of ideas on how they can make even more money, but I won't mention it because to be honest, fuck their "great" innovative ideas. The game is great sure, but I honestly miss the flying shots or w/e you call them, they brought something to the game that sc2 will never bring and that is honestly very sad

I'm not talking about lan because it seems they got fucked before and are trying to work around this whole piracy thing, but I bet they have never done any business in china before lol. I'm sure everybody will pirate the game and lan play will be created... sad but true
QibingZero
Profile Blog Joined June 2007
2611 Posts
July 07 2010 05:56 GMT
#15
On July 07 2010 13:19 Kennigit wrote:
Show nested quote +
On July 07 2010 13:16 McCain wrote:
The reason Blizzard doesn't make any sense anymore is because Activision is making the decisions behind Bnet 2.0. In the same way that Infinity Ward wasn't given full creative freedom behind Modern Warfare 2, Blizzard is being restrained from adding necessary features to Bnet 2.0. The exact same thing that is happening to SC2 happened to MW2.

Do you have anything to back this up with? You realize one of the core components of the merger was that Blizzard keeps creative discretion over all their products right? I think the real issue is that Blizzard has become so much more open with their changes....remember when know one knew shit until something was released? Basically thats pure conjecture and neither you nor the writer can back it up.

I'm 100% positive theres were thousands of atrocious iterations that we've never even heard of. Imagine if they had mentioned that SC2 cover system (where units take cover behind rock walls) at Blizzcon? Minds would have exploded. I think its just that they are being way too vocal about design decisions.


I'm not really following this. If they've been actively planning on telling us more and more about what things are going to be like, you'd think they would now be showcasing features we actually want. Instead, not only are we disappointed, we're told that there are no plans to change anything. Only later have we received any idea that they might actually work toward wanted features in the future. In fact, it's as if Blizzard has only been willing to concede the few things they have as a result of the overwhelmingly negative response they've received from the fanbase.

Now, I'm sure there were plenty of weird things in past Blizzard productions we never heard about, but I sincerely doubt they were on the scale of 'no LAN', 'no chat channels', 'regional based play only', and 'you're going to love our Real ID forums!'. These kind of decisions are mind-boggling to even consider.

I mean, I don't buy the 'Activision is controlling Blizzard' thing, myself. It seems much more likely that Blizzard has just, in these post-WoW times, begun to focus more on it's corporate duties and future profits than it has on making games that stand the test of time.
Oh, my eSports
Zelniq
Profile Blog Joined August 2005
United States7166 Posts
July 07 2010 06:01 GMT
#16
On July 07 2010 13:16 McCain wrote:
First off this is basically going to be a summary of
http://www.the-ghetto.org/content/battle-net-2-0-the-antithesis-of-consumer-confidence


no it wasnt a summary of that article at all. I advise people to read that instead of this blog
ModeratorBlame yourself or God
McCain
Profile Blog Joined February 2010
United States187 Posts
July 07 2010 06:01 GMT
#17
On July 07 2010 14:56 QibingZero wrote:
I mean, I don't buy the 'Activision is controlling Blizzard' thing, myself. It seems much more likely that Blizzard has just, in these post-WoW times, begun to focus more on it's corporate duties and future profits than it has on making games that stand the test of time.

I find it interesting that you consider that more likely. (No offense meant)
One.two
Profile Joined April 2010
Canada116 Posts
July 08 2010 23:20 GMT
#18
Honestly we can't truly know what is going on. Oh well, hope something good comes out of this. Mike Morhaime pull some strings :D
SC2 Editor tutorials: http://www.youtube.com/onetwosc
Please log in or register to reply.
Live Events Refresh
Monday Night Weeklies
16:00
#18
RotterdaM350
IndyStarCraft 32
BRAT_OK 6
Liquipedia
[ Submit Event ]
Live Streams
Refresh
StarCraft 2
mouzHeroMarine 519
RotterdaM 350
Hui .272
ProTech87
Creator 34
IndyStarCraft 32
BRAT_OK 6
SteadfastSC 0
StarCraft: Brood War
Rain 4257
Horang2 2079
EffOrt 1471
Mini 1470
Stork 551
firebathero 375
Snow 287
actioN 198
Zeus 128
JYJ116
[ Show more ]
Mong 102
Sharp 90
sSak 78
Killer 47
Movie 37
Rock 26
Terrorterran 25
Rush 19
GoRush 16
Backho 16
scan(afreeca) 15
yabsab 14
soO 14
ajuk12(nOOB) 9
Sacsri 9
Shine 9
Noble 7
Dewaltoss 6
Stormgate
RushiSC18
Dota 2
Gorgc8224
qojqva2321
febbydoto11
League of Legends
Dendi1658
Counter-Strike
allub373
Other Games
tarik_tv27536
gofns10478
B2W.Neo1444
FrodaN951
Beastyqt570
C9.Mang0440
Lowko392
elazer184
ArmadaUGS162
Fuzer 161
Liquid`VortiX96
Trikslyr56
KnowMe55
Organizations
Dota 2
PGL Dota 2 - Main Stream17682
Other Games
gamesdonequick680
StarCraft: Brood War
Kim Chul Min (afreeca) 8
StarCraft 2
Blizzard YouTube
StarCraft: Brood War
BSLTrovo
sctven
[ Show 16 non-featured ]
StarCraft 2
• poizon28 59
• AfreecaTV YouTube
• intothetv
• Kozan
• IndyKCrew
• LaughNgamezSOOP
• Migwel
• sooper7s
StarCraft: Brood War
• BSLYoutube
• STPLYoutube
• ZZZeroYoutube
Dota 2
• WagamamaTV443
League of Legends
• Nemesis5196
• Jankos2859
• TFBlade1035
Other Games
• Shiphtur62
Upcoming Events
Replay Cast
7h 49m
Replay Cast
17h 49m
RSL Revival
17h 49m
Cure vs Percival
ByuN vs Spirit
PiGosaur Monday
1d 7h
RSL Revival
1d 17h
herO vs sOs
Zoun vs Clem
Replay Cast
2 days
The PondCast
2 days
RSL Revival
2 days
Serral vs SHIN
Solar vs Cham
RSL Revival
3 days
Reynor vs Scarlett
ShoWTimE vs Classic
uThermal 2v2 Circuit
3 days
[ Show More ]
SC Evo League
4 days
Circuito Brasileiro de…
5 days
Sparkling Tuna Cup
5 days
Liquipedia Results

Completed

Proleague 2025-06-11
2025 GSL S2
Heroes 10 EU

Ongoing

JPL Season 2
BSL 2v2 Season 3
BSL Season 20
KCM Race Survival 2025 Season 2
NPSL S3
Rose Open S1
CSL 17: 2025 SUMMER
Copa Latinoamericana 4
Murky Cup #2
BLAST.tv Austin Major 2025
ESL Impact League Season 7
IEM Dallas 2025
PGL Astana 2025
Asian Champions League '25
BLAST Rivals Spring 2025
MESA Nomadic Masters
CCT Season 2 Global Finals
IEM Melbourne 2025
YaLLa Compass Qatar 2025
PGL Bucharest 2025

Upcoming

CSLPRO Last Chance 2025
CSLPRO Chat StarLAN 3
K-Championship
SEL Season 2 Championship
Esports World Cup 2025
HSC XXVII
Championship of Russia 2025
RSL Revival: Season 1
BLAST Open Fall 2025
Esports World Cup 2025
BLAST Bounty Fall 2025
BLAST Bounty Fall Qual
IEM Cologne 2025
FISSURE Playground #1
TLPD

1. ByuN
2. TY
3. Dark
4. Solar
5. Stats
6. Nerchio
7. sOs
8. soO
9. INnoVation
10. Elazer
1. Rain
2. Flash
3. EffOrt
4. Last
5. Bisu
6. Soulkey
7. Mini
8. Sharp
Sidebar Settings...

Advertising | Privacy Policy | Terms Of Use | Contact Us

Original banner artwork: Jim Warren
The contents of this webpage are copyright © 2025 TLnet. All Rights Reserved.