|
I still think that people are missing Half's main point which he's been spamming over and over.
Nerd-raging at Blizzard is pointless. They want to make money, OK, we get it. Do you honestly think that they wouldn't have charged $10000000 for SC1 if they could have? Times change. Pricing changes, based on basic supply and demand.
If you don't want to pay for cross-server play, don't pay for it. Raging righteously will do nothing, you'll still buy the game while crying about it and Blizzard knows it.
People seem to like thinking that Blizzard is full of stupid people; I'm not sure why. It seems like a backhanded insult against all the game developers who would like to work there but can't. In any case, their goal is not to make some short-term money off this, their goal is to make customers who will buy the next Starcraft, and the next one after that. If they think that they would gain more from trying to please the customers, that's what they'll do.
I'm just not sure why people are demonizing Blizzard over this. If you're going to pay them, why shouldn't they take your money? This isn't medical care, this is a video game. Vote with your wallet.
|
On June 17 2010 12:16 Half wrote:Show nested quote +On June 17 2010 12:13 Takkara wrote:
Half, just to be clear, what type of microtransaction are you fearing here? Based on your proposed "free" solution, I don't think it matches what other people think it is.
Are you believing:
1) Say you have a NA account. If you want to play EU, you pay $X and get your acct flagged to EU. Then to go back to NA you pay another $X and go back to NA?
2) You pay $X and your account is unlocked for unlimited travel from your home region and one additional region. $X again for every other region you want to xfer to.
3) You pay $X dollars and your acct can freely travel to any region.
Because the only form of microtransaction that I'd be "ok" with on this top is #3. Anything else would be blatantly unacceptable. I think it's ok for them to charge for #3, as long as it's not prohibitive. Sure, I'd love for it to be a free service, and I hope for that, but I'd also like SC2 to be free as well, but that's not happening. I'd probably still play SC2 if it cost $10 more, so I'd probably be willing to pay that for Xregion also.
If you think the model is like #1 or #2 though I see where you're so violently afraid of it. Three and Two. One is unlikely. Why the hell are you "ok" with paying for a function that has been in every single Blizzard game at its core for almost 15 years? Especially when nothing has been implemented yet, so all you're "ok" is doing is allowing them to charge you more money. Hilarious.
Assuming the price is like $10... why are you not "ok" with it? No one WANTS to pay that money, but why would you not pay it if this is a functionality you honestly need badly? That's the disconnect here. It's the same argument we had prior to xregion and chat channels: most of us are "ok" with paying for SC2 without those features. We wanted them, but we're ok with that. Getting the features you want for a nominal fee isn't the end of the world. It really isn't.
It would be hard to see them charging more than $10 for it anyways. And that's not bad because a real service is being given. This is database work being done to allow these accounts to do something they aren't designed to do. It's an elective, optional service that won't be used by large large groups of the population. It's clearly possible to see Blizzard wanting to recoup some of the cost of that.
I don't know if that's what will happen. There's no clear sign they're going to charge. But what's the big deal, really? Are you that hard up for money? Do you not think you'll get your money's worth in enjoyment from the feature?
DLC isn't all bad, guys.
|
Sweden33719 Posts
This is ridiculous, why are they making people go scavenger hunting for answers -- What's wrong with a comprehensive address =/
@ Takkara, it's like buying bottled water - I'm already paying for tap water so why the hell would I buy the same bloody water all over again? (note: if you live in an area where tap water isn't drinkable, disregard this).
International play isn't optional in an RTS, it's mandatory and has been in every Blizz game since battle.net was first created.
|
On June 17 2010 12:34 FrozenArbiter wrote:This is ridiculous, why are they making people go scavenger hunting for answers -- What's wrong with a comprehensive address =/
Blizzard likes promoting discussions because they generate a lot more valuable feedback then actual "Hey blizzard do this" threads. Its as much for us as it is for them.
A lot of the current problems with B-net 2.0 is a lack of understanding on what and more importantly why the community wants what it does.
Show nested quote +On June 17 2010 12:29 Takkara wrote:
Half, just to be clear, what type of microtransaction are you fearing here? Based on your proposed "free" solution, I don't think it matches what other people think it is.
Are you believing:
1) Say you have a NA account. If you want to play EU, you pay $X and get your acct flagged to EU. Then to go back to NA you pay another $X and go back to NA?
2) You pay $X and your account is unlocked for unlimited travel from your home region and one additional region. $X again for every other region you want to xfer to.
3) You pay $X dollars and your acct can freely travel to any region.
Because the only form of microtransaction that I'd be "ok" with on this top is #3. Anything else would be blatantly unacceptable. I think it's ok for them to charge for #3, as long as it's not prohibitive. Sure, I'd love for it to be a free service, and I hope for that, but I'd also like SC2 to be free as well, but that's not happening. I'd probably still play SC2 if it cost $10 more, so I'd probably be willing to pay that for Xregion also.
If you think the model is like #1 or #2 though I see where you're so violently afraid of it. Three and Two. One is unlikely. Why the hell are you "ok" with paying for a function that has been in every single Blizzard game at its core for almost 15 years? Especially when nothing has been implemented yet, so all you're "ok" is doing is allowing them to charge you more money. Hilarious. Assuming the price is like $10... why are you not "ok" with it? No one WANTS to pay that money, but why would you not pay it if this is a functionality you honestly need badly? That's the disconnect here. It's the same argument we had prior to xregion and chat channels: most of us are "ok" with paying for SC2 without those features. We wanted them, but we're ok with that. Getting the features you want for a nominal fee isn't the end of the world. It really isn't. It would be hard to see them charging more than $10 for it anyways. And that's not bad because a real service is being given. This is database work being done to allow these accounts to do something they aren't designed to do. It's an elective, optional service that won't be used by large large groups of the population. It's clearly possible to see Blizzard wanting to recoup some of the cost of that. I don't know if that's what will happen. There's no clear sign they're going to charge. But what's the big deal, really? Are you that hard up for money? Do you not think you'll get your money's worth in enjoyment from the feature? DLC isn't all bad, guys.
Jesus Christ you're dense. This is something EVERY SINGLE BLIZZARD GAME HAS HAD ON RELEASE.
This isn't omg ther selling me stuff I don't want or omg ther selling me wierd gimmicks I kind of do. This is there selling me core functionality that is necessary for any level of advanced play, and has been included in every multiplayer game since B-net original incarnation on Diablo 1.
|
Sweden33719 Posts
If Blizzard doesn't know what and why the community wants what it wants, after all this time, I'd be shocked. I honestly don't buy that they are living in some ivory tower and are just completely baffled at our reactions.
I feel like that's giving them too little credit, I think they have a pretty good feel for what people are saying across the community.
On June 17 2010 11:22 Jollyburner wrote:
i can easily outline their problem if noone has managed to do so accurately in this 6 pages of degen. (no offense intended)
from what ive read, the game will be free to play for NAmerica region after you purchase the title, everywhere else is going to have to pay to play, most likely monthy fee.
therefore, it is impossible for blizzivision to implement free cross-realm play for NA customers, because if they did everyone from the other regions would simply bypass the pay-to-play system by purchasing NA titles, then cross-realming to their local realm.
so you can expect the bare minimum cost for cross realm support to roughly equal whatever it costs to play the game monthly in the region you are wanting to play in, if you are from NA. as for those who are elsewhere, you can expect to pay, at a minimum, the difference, if any, between your monthly pay-to-play and the target realm's monthly. as for pay-to-play regions cross-realming to NA servers, im pretty sure theyll charge you something for this, just because they have to handle the transaction, and the increased server load/complexity of the service.
so in short, expect to pay for cross-realm, expect it to be a recurring payment, not a one-time deal.
Wrong for a few reasons:
1) The only regions with pay-to-play models announced are Russia and South America.
2) These pay-to-play versions of the game are in addition to the full featured game, which is identical to what you would buy in NA or Europe.
On June 17 2010 09:35 Half wrote:
Heres my idea on how a free version could work, originally posted on b-net. Free for people who buy full edition of the game.
Basically, on your SC2 license page, it says "Region: [current region]". You can click on that region and it brings you to another page where it displays a generic disclaimer about lag, and then below it are a bunch of shiny web 2.0 boxes that say U.S, EU, Asia, etc, etc. A full priced version of the game has all the regions lighted up. To change, you click, confirmation window -processing-, then you got it. Maybe limit changes to like 5 times per week to limit abuse, w/e.
If you bought a cheaper edition of the game, then other regions with different pricepoints have a muted grey lock and are greyed out. Hovering your mouse on them it says "You're account is not authorized to play on this region, do you wish to upgrade?". Clicking on it brings you to a billing/payment page where you can upgrade.
Why would you limit the amount of times you can switch between servers? I'm not seeing the potential abuse so please elaborate.
|
On June 17 2010 12:38 FrozenArbiter wrote:
If Blizzard doesn't know what and why the community wants what it wants, after all this time, I'd be shocked. I honestly don't buy that they are living in some ivory tower and are just completely baffled at our reactions.
I feel like that's giving them too little credit, I think they have a pretty good feel for what people are saying across the community.
Its easy feel that way, but realize that Blizzard is incredibly large, yet operate on a unified, centralized design team. Blizzard has 500 primary game development employees working in Irvine. B-net team was said to be at a hundred people.
From the SClegacy article (The writer is a professional consultant for Video Game companies and a gamer)
the decision-makers inside Blizzard are too insulated. Blizzard's isolated stance in conjunction with the tightly controlled message exemplifies groupthink, and this brings us to the second issue regarding the phenomenon: Blizzard is perhaps a victim of its own success. In many regards, they looked on a very high-level at what they have produced in the past and used that as their basis to move forward. To some extent they must feel that they know what is best, and it is evident from some of the interviews that they are in fact "telling" us what we want. A certain amount of "we know what you want" is noticeable. Realistically, while Blizzard has its own vision and desires for Battle.net 2.0 they can't possibly tell what we want. Now, granted that they aren't catering Battle.net just to us, but our concerns should probably still be addressed. It's just good business.
When people have spent years of their lives working on something very specific, tunnel vision is inevitable. Sometimes that works; look at many of the other products Blizzard has created without outside consultation. However, for many of the things that Blizzard and the community want to accomplish with StarCraft II, an open dialogue is important. This is where Blizzard has missed the proverbial bus. Despite the fact that our feedback could be communicated more effectively, they haven't yet figured out how to best receive and evaluate it.
It isn't purely that none of the Producers realized fans might want cross region play and chat channels. But I believe its moreso just design oversights and production decisions rather then business ones.
Realize that Blizzards reputation is built around quality, and their production standards are incredibly high.
I've seen a lot of people say "oh I could make chat channels in a week", and thats a dramatic oversight on how things are done at a company of 500+. I'm talking about a company of passionate 500+ people who probably enjoy what they do, but its still 500+.
When a companys that big with such high standards, they can't just tell like three programmers to make Chat channels in a week. I'd imagine first they'd have to start off with several design meetings to sort of pinpoint a general direction for chat channels. Intersparsed between them the individual lead designers of each time would probably have to produce a lot of data and mock-ups of potential systems.
A lot of powerpoints. I mean, its just incredibly bureaucratic, and this design process can stretch on intermittently across weeks.
Even if they sought to replicate B-net 1.0 exactly, they'd still have a shitload of technical questions. Whats the UI layout? Admin privelages? Tons of decisions to be made. Then once those are done the final product has to be evaluated and reiterate, and various UI designed need to be finalized. As it becomes finalized the the programming leads need to design an architecture, conceptualize it, and finally implement it. Then the implementation need to be reevaluated and reiterated again, possibly more then once, the code needs to be checked for consistency. Then once you have an alpha, it needs preliminary testing. If problems arise, those needs to be fixed.
Then. The dreaded words.
Localization.
I honestly don't have a fucking clue what that constitutes.
I mean, you get the general idea. I don't care how passionate you are about game design or just games, you'r going to get a little bit detached working in that kind of system.
Why would you limit the amount of times you can switch between servers? I'm not seeing the potential abuse so please elaborate.
I don't see potential abuse either, but then again I don't work for Blizzard. I didn't really see a potential for abuse with a lot of the stuff they changed with b-net 2.0. It just sounds like something they'd do lol tbh. Was just making an example about the flexibility they could have in its design. Its very "web 2.0-ey", its very centralized, sounds like something they'd like, but at the same time still has the functionality we gamers want.
Its probably also why every knee jerker and troll is just crying over Bobby Kotick. Really, I doubt Blizzards any more Greedy or there core values have changed or they've all become a bunch of suits who don't play games anymore.
They've simply grown in size ridiculously. Remember, Blizzard used to never work on more then ONE GAME AT A TIME. They weren't trying to "milk wow" from 04 to 10, they were just a small but enormously talented company.
Did you know that the SC1 manual, at the special thanks part, in the original prints had a dedication "to 420"? lol. I'd imagine the design meeting back in 98 were just a small group of people who knew each other well talking casually over a cup of coffee near a desk with some sketches.
We're in 2010 now, they've grown literally 10x in size in Irvine alone not to mention their like 5 other studios across the world. Thats the only thing thats really changed, but its pretty substantial.
|
Alright, I give up. It's a travesty. I'll be really really miffed with you guys if they end up charging us $10 for xregion and we all pay it.
That was my point the whole time. My only real point. I'm not happy with paying more money. I'm really not. But won't we all pay it anyways? If we were going to use the feature in the first place?
Honestly no use even getting in a fight over this until they release the details about the pricing scheme if any will even exist. It might be significantly worse or significantly better than any of us is rambling about.
|
On June 17 2010 12:47 Takkara wrote:
Alright, I give up. It's a travesty. I'll be really really miffed with you guys if they end up charging us $10 for xregion and we all pay it.
That was my point the whole time. My only real point. I'm not happy with paying more money. I'm really not. But won't we all pay it anyways? If we were going to use the feature in the first place?
Honestly no use even getting in a fight over this until they release the details about the pricing scheme if any will even exist. It might be significantly worse or significantly better than any of us is rambling about.
You can accept it once its implemented.
Until then shut up or criticize it unless you actually want to pay 10 more dollars.
|
On June 17 2010 12:53 Half wrote:Show nested quote +On June 17 2010 12:47 Takkara wrote:
Alright, I give up. It's a travesty. I'll be really really miffed with you guys if they end up charging us $10 for xregion and we all pay it.
That was my point the whole time. My only real point. I'm not happy with paying more money. I'm really not. But won't we all pay it anyways? If we were going to use the feature in the first place?
Honestly no use even getting in a fight over this until they release the details about the pricing scheme if any will even exist. It might be significantly worse or significantly better than any of us is rambling about. You can accept it once its implemented. Until then shut up or criticize it unless you actually want to pay 10 more dollars.
Who is honestly going to come here and say "Hey half, I'd love to donate $10 to Blizzard." Haha. Trust me. If you made a poll, "Do you want to spend more on Xregion" it would come out 100-0 in favor of not paying more.
Everyone is, will, and should criticize having to spend more money on SC2. But the question once they release the pricing scheme besides "did this address the problem fully" will be "is this worth whatever cost they ask of us."
The real question is if it's worth whatever it's cost is (or free!). Of course NOBODY wants to pay more. You have literally zero fight on that.
|
On June 17 2010 12:34 FrozenArbiter wrote:
International play isn't optional in an RTS, it's mandatory and has been in every Blizz game since battle.net was first created.
I guess the question is, if you had to, would you pay for cross region play? If the answer is yes, then Blizz is going to charge for it. I'm as much of a "get off my lawn" type as anyone, but unfortunately times have changed.
We've already seen them do this with WoW, even though the tech for it was in the game since the beginning (copying a caracter to a PTR is no different than copying to a diff server). But because I wanted to play with friends on a different server, I ponied up the $25 or whatever it was to do so. I expect the same to be the case here, and probably cost the same.
Game devs these days are all about monetizing their games after release in whatever way they can. The "back in my day" rebuttals don't work anymore, which is beyond sad, but just the reality of the situation.
|
Show nested quote +On June 17 2010 13:04 vesicular wrote:
International play isn't optional in an RTS, it's mandatory and has been in every Blizz game since battle.net was first created. I guess the question is, if you had to, would you pay for cross region play? If the answer is yes, then Blizz is going to charge for it. I'm as much of a "get off my lawn" type as anyone, but unfortunately times have changed.
This isn't really how decisions like this are made lol. A lot more thought and a much wider variety of factors are considered.
|
This is a basic business strategy where you can make the most money.
I am 99% sure that Blizzard already knew exactly what the community wanted to see from Bnet 2.0. But they purposely have not implemented them (... because they don't have the technology?) so they can charge us through microtransactions.
This way, they are able to profit from every customer.
Exaggerated example:
People like Takkara will buy the game (e.g. 50$) and then pay the 20$ on top of it for cross-realm play. They are willing to pay any price to play SC2.
However, there are going to be people who could not afford to buy a $70 game, but are willing to pay 50$ just for the campaign and basic features.
Throw in a couple of other features, and you can cover everyone from those willing to shell out 50$ for SC2 at its most basic form, all the way to someone who will pay a premium for the "collector's edition", which doesn't really cost Blizzard any more to produce. This way everyone will pay some amount depending on how much they were originally willing to pay anyway.
|
On June 17 2010 13:07 shurgen wrote:
This is a basic business strategy where you can make the most money.
I am 99% sure that Blizzard already knew exactly what the community wanted to see from Bnet 2.0. But they purposely have not implemented them (... because they don't have the technology?) so they can charge us through microtransactions.
This way, they are able to profit from every customer.
Exaggerated example:
People like Takkara will buy the game (e.g. 50$) and then pay the 20$ on top of it for cross-realm play. They are willing to pay any price to play SC2.
However, there are going to be people who could not afford to buy a $70 game, but are willing to pay 50$ just for the campaign and basic features.
Throw in a couple of other features, and you can cover everyone from those willing to shell out 50$ for SC2 at its most basic form, all the way to someone who will pay a premium for the "collector's edition", which doesn't really cost Blizzard any more to produce. This way everyone will pay some amount depending on how much they were originally willing to pay anyway.
I don't know how many times I've seen somethng like this suggested across countless amounts of gaming sites. 99% of the time it isn't the case, its just players being paranoid.
You find me one game wherein the producers deliberately ommited an expected feature and required the user to pay for it.
See MW2. Note the lack of a dedicated servers DLC.
It really is a "one time" kind of thing. People really do notice this kind of shit in the long term, and it might generate some initially higher profits, but if you keep it up, you're not going to have the same kind of fan support you did.
|
On June 17 2010 13:05 Half wrote:Show nested quote +On June 17 2010 13:04 vesicular wrote:
International play isn't optional in an RTS, it's mandatory and has been in every Blizz game since battle.net was first created. I guess the question is, if you had to, would you pay for cross region play? If the answer is yes, then Blizz is going to charge for it. I'm as much of a "get off my lawn" type as anyone, but unfortunately times have changed. This isn't really how decisions like this are made lol. A lot more thought and a much wider variety of factors are considered.
Of course, but this is the exact type of thing they have monetized in the past with their own games. The precedence is there for them to do the same with SC2.
|
On June 17 2010 13:10 vesicular wrote:Show nested quote +On June 17 2010 13:05 Half wrote:On June 17 2010 13:04 vesicular wrote:
International play isn't optional in an RTS, it's mandatory and has been in every Blizz game since battle.net was first created. I guess the question is, if you had to, would you pay for cross region play? If the answer is yes, then Blizz is going to charge for it. I'm as much of a "get off my lawn" type as anyone, but unfortunately times have changed. This isn't really how decisions like this are made lol. A lot more thought and a much wider variety of factors are considered. Of course, but this is the exact type of thing they have monetized in the past with their own games. The precedence is there for them to do the same with SC2.
No they havent? wtf are you talking about.
If you're referring to changing realms in WoW, its a really flawed analogy. Beyond the fact that it was never something you'd expect from a MMO, and WoW was the first company to do this (unlike cross region play which is a fifteen year old precedent).
Its also something that requires "scarcity". Its an idea that doesn't work unless there is scarcity. People just can't go around hopping servers randomly. Money is the best, most effective, and cheapest way (negative cost lol) to implement scarcity. Plus, it was something the fanbase wanted as an additional feature. It wasn't like "HEY WTF WHERE ARE OUR REAL CHANGES", and then Blizzard trolls them with realm changes for 15$, it was like a bunch of fans going "OMG I WANT REALM CHANGES ILL PAY U". So Blizzard accepted.
Absolutely none of those factors are present here.
|
On June 17 2010 12:47 Takkara wrote:
Alright, I give up. It's a travesty. I'll be really really miffed with you guys if they end up charging us $10 for xregion and we all pay it.
That was my point the whole time. My only real point. I'm not happy with paying more money. I'm really not. But won't we all pay it anyways? If we were going to use the feature in the first place?
Honestly no use even getting in a fight over this until they release the details about the pricing scheme if any will even exist. It might be significantly worse or significantly better than any of us is rambling about.
I'm not happy Lamborghini charge so much for their cars. I'm really not.
I bought a car, I don't expect to have to pay for stupid crap like tires and petrol. They should just charge a one off fee for everyone that's the same price for everyone - all over the world.
For those who fail to see the analogy: Blizzard isn't an ISP. International traffic costs more. Internet traffic is differently priced in different countries (Here, for instance, if you buy a guaranteed bandwidth (i.e. not a datacap/commercial traffic), which is what businesses do, you are charged differently for national and international traffic).
So shit costs different amounts in different places, and the locals have different amounts of money to spend on things. Revelation of the century. What're ya gonna do about it, huh?
|
I don't really understand how involved with the company the blizzard mods actually are. They say 'we' to refer to blizzard and occasionally hint they've been handed inside info, but looking at the content of a lot of their posts they come off as no-knowledge flaks - basically, toadies getting off on the privilege of being on the inner outside of a game company.
|
On June 17 2010 12:53 Half wrote:Show nested quote +On June 17 2010 12:47 Takkara wrote:
Alright, I give up. It's a travesty. I'll be really really miffed with you guys if they end up charging us $10 for xregion and we all pay it.
That was my point the whole time. My only real point. I'm not happy with paying more money. I'm really not. But won't we all pay it anyways? If we were going to use the feature in the first place?
Honestly no use even getting in a fight over this until they release the details about the pricing scheme if any will even exist. It might be significantly worse or significantly better than any of us is rambling about. You can accept it once its implemented. Until then shut up or criticize it unless you actually want to pay 10 more dollars.
^this....
Blizzard has stated they will give us a "means" for cross realm play. As a community I feel its prudent to speculate on how they might go about making this feature available (honestly I don't think a microtransaction is far fetched in the least).
That being said we SHOULD give our feedback/thoughts on the matter. There is nothing wrong with criticizing a possible (likely at this point) feature of the game.
Posting on here is saying "while I'll just fork out the fee and so you will you" is not helpful!
Imo its people with this attitude that make it possible for blizz to charge us for this kind of crap in the first place!
Either jump on the bandwagon or STFU (and while your at it you can send Actiblizzard a blank check since you like pay to take it in the ass, *a small fee may be billed to your account for additional lube )
As for me I will keep my hard earned dollars in my wallet....
As far as an RTS goes there is NO reason (other than a greedy company) any of us should pay beyond the initial purchase price of a game for what is a standard feature...
my 2¢'s
|
On June 17 2010 13:13 USn wrote:
I don't really understand how involved with the company the blizzard mods actually are. They say 'we' to refer to blizzard and occasionally hint they've been handed inside info, but looking at the content of a lot of their posts they come off as no-knowledge flaks - basically, toadies getting off on the privilege of being on the inner outside of a game company.
Community Mods' job is just to shoot the breeze with the players. In addition, they are also responsible for compiling the voice of the forum goers and presenting it to the developers. When the developers or the company have canned PR information or development information to share they run it through their PR department, translate it to a bunch of different languages, and then post it to the forums.
When they post information, it's accurate. The rest of the time, they know not much more about what's going on than we do. They know a bit more than that because they get to hear some of the behind the scenes vision information that we don't get to, but they're not sitting in on developer meetings. They're like PR people and help-desk people rolled into one.
|
On June 17 2010 13:13 USn wrote:
I don't really understand how involved with the company the blizzard mods actually are. They say 'we' to refer to blizzard and occasionally hint they've been handed inside info, but looking at the content of a lot of their posts they come off as no-knowledge flaks - basically, toadies getting off on the privilege of being on the inner outside of a game company.
My guess is their job responsibilities include
a) Overseeing general moderation (stand there and answer phone/guy who walks up to you)
b) Coordinating with PR and Marketing (attend meetings, provide gathered info in powerpoints etc)
c) Coordinating with Developers (Give little paper typeouts with bullet-points of community responses and analysis, email links)
d) Get information about development (Attend meetings on a weekly or bi-weekly period, get phone calls, both concerning stuff they're doing)
e) Community Manage-(troll forums)
f) "Preparing for Blizzcon" (What they tell the community when their actually just sleeping....or mebbe help coordinate events)
g)Community Representation (Stand there all funny at blizzcon with a sword)
All and all sounds like kinda a fun job.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
