Op Ed

Cliffski's Blog - Why valve should give jobs to journalists.
"I think if you want to keep reviews you have to accept that the only real way to fix 1) 2) and 3) is to have at least some paid reviews. If I owned steam (I’ll get this on a t-shirt one day), I think I’d take a chunk of the sales profits (steamspy suggest roughly $200 million this sale, so say 30% is $60 million, lets spend 2% of that, $1,200,000) and hire a bunch of reviewers, full-time. I’m sure the world of games journalism has a bunch of unemployed writers that would love the job. Lets pay them $60k each, with admin & health insurance and all that, we get 12x$100k reviewers. So that’s 12 full time games reviewers working for valve. Not a lot, but not insignificant. They don’t have to review all the shovelware, just the games selling thousands of copies.

Suddenly we have a bunch of ‘pro’ reviews mixed in with the wider range of existing ones. Now a big part of the problem is solved, but I’d go further and do some weighting based on another metric."

View : : :
59 Replies. 3 pages. Viewing page 1.
Newer [  1  2  3  ] Older
59.
 
Re: Op Ed
Jul 24, 2016, 14:04
59.
Re: Op Ed Jul 24, 2016, 14:04
Jul 24, 2016, 14:04
 
Suppa7 wrote on Jul 23, 2016, 06:21:
Sepharo wrote on Jul 12, 2016, 19:53:
Suppa7 wrote on Jul 11, 2016, 21:31:
[Gabe's] a total dick that pushed the move behind the removal of dedicated servers.

Haha what? Valve is one of the very few developers who still support private dedicated servers.

You're a fucking moron if you believe that... remember steam drm was forced into half life and cs, no one wanted it. Steam lead the charge against game confiscation and adding layers of encryption to steam game files, etc.

No it's fact, Valve is one of the few developers who still support dedicated private servers. L4D2, CSGO, DOTA2, Portal 2... all their recent games support dedicated servers. Most developers don't include those anymore Valve does.

The things you mention in your reply aren't dedicated servers and are a non-sequitur. I was specifically replying to correct your statement about their support for dedicated servers which was wildly wrong. Watch it with the name calling, it works better when you're not totally wrong.
Avatar 17249
58.
 
Re: Op Ed
Jul 23, 2016, 06:21
58.
Re: Op Ed Jul 23, 2016, 06:21
Jul 23, 2016, 06:21
 
Sepharo wrote on Jul 12, 2016, 19:53:
Suppa7 wrote on Jul 11, 2016, 21:31:
[Gabe's] a total dick that pushed the move behind the removal of dedicated servers.

Haha what? Valve is one of the very few developers who still support private dedicated servers.

You're a fucking moron if you believe that... remember steam drm was forced into half life and cs, no one wanted it. Steam lead the charge against game confiscation and adding layers of encryption to steam game files, etc.
57.
 
Re: Op Ed
Jul 12, 2016, 19:53
57.
Re: Op Ed Jul 12, 2016, 19:53
Jul 12, 2016, 19:53
 
Suppa7 wrote on Jul 11, 2016, 21:31:
[Gabe's] a total dick that pushed the move behind the removal of dedicated servers.

Haha what? Valve is one of the very few developers who still support private dedicated servers.
Avatar 17249
56.
 
Re: Op Ed
Jul 12, 2016, 19:44
56.
Re: Op Ed Jul 12, 2016, 19:44
Jul 12, 2016, 19:44
 
HorrorScope wrote on Jul 10, 2016, 13:40:
I think it has happened again, almost certain and it is one of my fav's here at Blues and probably is the reason why Blue's post Cliffski blogs. For commenter's to mistaken him for Cliffy B.

What?! No, you were the first one to do it in these comments. Dammit the whole thing is tainted now.
Avatar 17249
55.
 
Re: Op Ed
Jul 12, 2016, 13:29
Beamer
 
55.
Re: Op Ed Jul 12, 2016, 13:29
Jul 12, 2016, 13:29
 Beamer
 
It's ok, guys. The sky is falling, and it's Gabe's fault.

Time to start collecting stamps. Gaming is over. Curse you, Gabe, for... something!
54.
 
Re: Op Ed
Jul 12, 2016, 10:37
54.
Re: Op Ed Jul 12, 2016, 10:37
Jul 12, 2016, 10:37
 
Warskull wrote on Jul 11, 2016, 23:11:
If you are a veteran PC gamer like you claim you will also remember that he basically saved PC gaming.

Only morons believe gabe saved gaming, the last 20 years games have gotten shorter and cut content, more locked down. Diablo 3 and starcraft 2 have full blown online drm in them. Hell league of legends is a couple of warcraft 3 levels for fuck sakes. The average gamer is fucking stupid.

Games are dumbed down to chimp factor five:

http://n4g.com/news/1070610/baldurs-gate-dev-games-are-often-dumbed-down-to-chimp-factor-five


(quote from gamer on elite dangerous from RPS)

Ah, the long awaited (and delayed) crafting update. Too bad it’s utter garbage.

Not only do you have to gather the materials, you also have to grind rep for a faction to get an invitation to meet those engineers and then rep up for them again with crafting unwanted things (!) unless you may have a go at the modules you actually want (not to forget you still can’t store equipment, so essentially you craft these directly for the garbage bin). And on top of that the outcome is random. Nice, isn’t it?

There was quite a heated debate in the beta forum, wondering why the engineer rep gain wasn’t tied to a more meaningful activity, for example… missions? Like this new mission system they have coincidentally worked on at the same time?

Then a dev chimed in, basically stating that this was the plan but they didn’t have the time for it (6 months since the last update) and that this placeholder system is going to stay for a while.

I had my fun with the game, sometimes even defended it a bit but now i’ve reached a point where my affection cooled down to a level that i just cannot care anymore. If they charge triple A prices i expect triple A quality. The last two years were very disappointing in that regard.

Will they ever get there? Maybe. But how many 60 € xpacs and years have to go by until that happens?

Good luck but count me out.

The ease at which gamers delude themselves as game devs run off with all that money and give nothing in return.

This comment was edited on Jul 12, 2016, 11:01.
53.
 
Re: Op Ed
Jul 12, 2016, 10:34
53.
Re: Op Ed Jul 12, 2016, 10:34
Jul 12, 2016, 10:34
 
Devinoch wrote on Jul 12, 2016, 01:06:
Steam was not the first centralized platform; it will not be the last.

You dont' seem to get the free market cannot work unless you are within walking distance of the business selling the product, do you think gaming would hae taken the nasty drm turn if those of us who were pissed off about drm were within the neigborhood of these companies?

You are one of the stupid moutbreathers that feed at the trough of corporate america and handing over our rights to own our own shit.

All game companies had to do was wait for a new generation of tech illiterate kids and the fact that most gamers aren't close enough to these companies to influence their bad behaviour. So corporations push bad policy and 90% of the population will buckle since people are short lived and no one is going to deny themselves entertainment.

There is no freedom on planet earth, our society isn't setup to be anything like a market. if you are not within asskicking distance of the person making and selling you shit, then they are going to be as sleazy and underhanded as possible because you can't reach them from 100 miles away.

In the next 20+ years when every AAA game is either server locked or sitting inside a sandbox encrypted exe's and game files prevent you from modding or editing your game, don't say I didn't tell you morons like you are why gaming is such shit.

Denuvo and spin offs like it are trying to turn your software into something you can't access without being harassed legally.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denuvo

Devinoch wrote on Jul 12, 2016, 01:06:
You clearly don't remember any of the previous DRM that included disc locks, serial numbers, or even getting key words out of an instruction manual. None of that killed gaming either.

You can't compare the two, those weren't drm they were copy protection. DRM is much more invasive, aka games locked to an account that requires server authentication. AKA no lan or dedicated server exe's are released, etc. Trying to compare modern drm to the 90's you are incapable of drawing distinctions. They are not the same at all.

Modern DRM infringes on your right to have the code run entirely on your computer and for you to own your game and not be spied upon. The whole of IP law is corrupt anyway but that's beyond your IQ level.

This comment was edited on Jul 12, 2016, 10:49.
52.
 
Re: Op Ed
Jul 12, 2016, 01:06
52.
Re: Op Ed Jul 12, 2016, 01:06
Jul 12, 2016, 01:06
 
Suppa7 wrote on Jul 11, 2016, 21:31:
Devinoch wrote on Jul 11, 2016, 14:44:
Speaking of missing the point completely... Because Valve wants to sell games doesn't mean it's beneficial to have as many positive reviews as possible.

You aren't old enough to know that those of us who watched PC gaming grow up, gabe is an enemy not a friend. Hes' a total dick that pushed the move behind the removal of dedicated servers. He hugely started the trend of confiscating game ownership and encouraging back end locked down games. Remember steam was shoved into half-life and counterstrike as drm which no one wanted.

Steam is still drm and gabe is still an asshole, more and more games will be increasingly impossible to preserve because game companies are producing games in underhanded ways that prevent gamer control of said game.

"Not old enough." You're hilarious, kid. I turn 40 this year. I played Duke Nukem 3D in my college dorms before the Quake demo hit, and we turned to that. I grew up on Zork. "Not old enough" my ENTIRE ass. You clearly don't remember any of the previous DRM that included disc locks, serial numbers, or even getting key words out of an instruction manual. None of that killed gaming either.

Steam was not the first centralized platform; it will not be the last. If you don't like Steam, you aren't forced into using it. And yet again, another person avoids the argument to make ad hominem attacks. It's awesome! It's like you people have never had to listen to anyone argue with you before. This is fun!
Cliff "Devinoch" Hicks
Host of the Starlight Society Podcast
http://tinyurl.com/starlightsociety/
51.
 
Re: Op Ed
Jul 11, 2016, 23:11
51.
Re: Op Ed Jul 11, 2016, 23:11
Jul 11, 2016, 23:11
 
Suppa7 wrote on Jul 11, 2016, 21:31:
Devinoch wrote on Jul 11, 2016, 14:44:
Speaking of missing the point completely... Because Valve wants to sell games doesn't mean it's beneficial to have as many positive reviews as possible.

You aren't old enough to know that those of us who watched PC gaming grow up, gabe is an enemy not a friend. Hes' a total dick that pushed the move behind the removal of dedicated servers. He hugely started the trend of confiscating game ownership and encouraging back end locked down games. Remember steam was shoved into half-life and counterstrike as drm which no one wanted.

Steam is still drm and gabe is still an asshole, more and more games will be increasingly impossible to preserve because game companies are producing games in underhanded ways that prevent gamer control of said game.

If you are a veteran PC gamer like you claim you will also remember that he basically saved PC gaming. Initially PC gaming had a whole wall at Babbage's or Eletronics Boutique. Around the time Half-Life 2 dropped PC games were relegated to a single cart in the middle of the store. Retail didn't want to carry PC games because console games were more profitable.

Without Steam we wouldn't have the strong indie ecosystem we have today and we wouldn't have developers respecting the PC as a platform. The money steam makes forces them to pay attention. Digital distribution has some downsides, but was healthy for PC gaming.
50.
 
Re: Op Ed
Jul 11, 2016, 21:31
50.
Re: Op Ed Jul 11, 2016, 21:31
Jul 11, 2016, 21:31
 
Devinoch wrote on Jul 11, 2016, 14:44:
Speaking of missing the point completely... Because Valve wants to sell games doesn't mean it's beneficial to have as many positive reviews as possible.

You aren't old enough to know that those of us who watched PC gaming grow up, gabe is an enemy not a friend. Hes' a total dick that pushed the move behind the removal of dedicated servers. He hugely started the trend of confiscating game ownership and encouraging back end locked down games. Remember steam was shoved into half-life and counterstrike as drm which no one wanted.

Steam is still drm and gabe is still an asshole, more and more games will be increasingly impossible to preserve because game companies are producing games in underhanded ways that prevent gamer control of said game.
49.
 
Re: Op Ed
Jul 11, 2016, 14:44
49.
Re: Op Ed Jul 11, 2016, 14:44
Jul 11, 2016, 14:44
 
Tachikoma wrote on Jul 11, 2016, 14:20:
Slick wrote on Jul 11, 2016, 11:41:
And come on, when has Valve actually made a game? They're a store. Making games is so back-burner for them it's a running joke. As if they'd have to worry about impartial reviews for their own products... HA! They don't exist!

You miss the point completely. It`s not about Valve`s games getting preferential reviews but the fact that it`s in their interest to sell as many games as possible, hence to have as many positive reviews as possible. Rather simple.

Current system is just fine: if you don`t like lil` Johnny`s "dis game suXXXORZ" review, then move along and read another one. It`s the same with Metacritic. Anybody who has been around videogameing for a bit and has acquired some basic reading comprehension skills shouldn`t really have problem with recognising genuine reviews. Read a few of them and make a judgement based on averages. Usually works rather well.

The only REAL problem with these free-for-all reviews is astroturfing and hate/loved-in mass-spam campaigns. Quite easy to filter out though (my favourite template are the ones starting with "this is another dumbed down for console..."

Speaking of missing the point completely... Because Valve wants to sell games doesn't mean it's beneficial to have as many positive reviews as possible. It's beneficial for them to have as many positive reviews of products that deserve positive reviews as possible, because then people who purchase those products are satisfied with their purchases, rather than being pissed off that they bought a crappy game, thus making them less likely to buy games from Valve in the future.

I feel like I've had to explain the difference between platform holder and content maker so much in this thread that I should just have a cut'n'paste section.
Cliff "Devinoch" Hicks
Host of the Starlight Society Podcast
http://tinyurl.com/starlightsociety/
48.
 
Re: Op Ed
Jul 11, 2016, 14:20
48.
Re: Op Ed Jul 11, 2016, 14:20
Jul 11, 2016, 14:20
 
Slick wrote on Jul 11, 2016, 11:41:
And come on, when has Valve actually made a game? They're a store. Making games is so back-burner for them it's a running joke. As if they'd have to worry about impartial reviews for their own products... HA! They don't exist!

You miss the point completely. It`s not about Valve`s games getting preferential reviews but the fact that it`s in their interest to sell as many games as possible, hence to have as many positive reviews as possible. Rather simple.

Current system is just fine: if you don`t like lil` Johnny`s "dis game suXXXORZ" review, then move along and read another one. It`s the same with Metacritic. Anybody who has been around videogameing for a bit and has acquired some basic reading comprehension skills shouldn`t really have problem with recognising genuine reviews. Read a few of them and make a judgement based on averages. Usually works rather well.

The only REAL problem with these free-for-all reviews is astroturfing and hate/loved-in mass-spam campaigns. Quite easy to filter out though (my favourite template are the ones starting with "this is another dumbed down for console..."
47.
 
Re: Op Ed
Jul 11, 2016, 11:41
Slick
 
47.
Re: Op Ed Jul 11, 2016, 11:41
Jul 11, 2016, 11:41
 Slick
 
Devinoch wrote on Jul 11, 2016, 02:13:
eRe4s3r wrote on Jul 11, 2016, 00:55:
I feel like to end this weird exchange, let's make 1 thing clear. Cliffski talks about impartial reviews. A store recommendation isn't a review. It's literally the opposite of impartial as well, worst case, a paid-for, best case an selective advertisement. Same for the book snippets and the Album "sponsored" nonsense on iTunes. Those are not reviews, those are ads. And at least in German iTunes, clearly marked as such.

What cliffski wants is STEAM employees writing impartial reviews.. for steam games. The "party" these reviews are employed by is the one making a profit with every sale. That is the OPPOSITE of impartial. If you don't see how that is unethical and hopefully also illegal then I am bedazzled.. but surely at the very least you see that these reviews are never impartial?? Do you not understand what the word impartial means here? How can a steam employed reviewer be impartial when reviewing games on Steam? And if he only reviewed the "more popular" games, he would not be creating reviews, he would be creating advertisement.

And we get to the crux of the matter. You don't actually understand what the word "advertising" means, or the word "impartial."

Advertising is something done on the behalf of someone who makes something to raise awareness about it. If Valve was only running ads for Counter-Strike, Dota, Half-Life and Team Fortress, you would have a valid argument. Sadly, that's not what anyone's talking about. In fact, it would be explicit they would NOT review products made by Valve. And so Valve has a vested interest in protecting the platform, not any one individual title. They could easily write harsh reviews, and it's expected they probably would, because actual critics (you know, people who STUDIED journalism) know their only currency is how much trust a reader puts in them. If they are only seen writing positive reviews, the reader dismisses that critic and the critic becomes meaningless.

This gets us to your lack of understanding of the word "impartial." As pointed out previously, Valve has an interest in Steam, not in any one particular game. In fact, it is detrimental to that business to allow themselves to be "bought" to shove a product that is defective or of low quality. You bandy around "Steam games" like you expect Valve is making each and every title on sale on Steam. Valve does not care about each and every title. They understand scope and scale, and they have an actual business in which they take a cut of every title that sells, regardless of quality.

Because of that, they have a vested interest in connecting people with quality titles, but they are NOT incentivized to remove all the chaff, because if someone wants to pay $20 for a piece of garbage, they are entitled to do so. Valve ensures things work, not that they're good or fun, which are wholly subjective things, which it is impossible to be "impartial" to. You can achieve a common consensus, but that isn't a "fact."

If you think it's unethical and illegal for someone to have an opinion, then you cannot understand the core tenets of this discussion, and you're welcome to have your opinion, one which you are completely unable to defend.

Good job!

Hear, Hear!

The product is Steam, which is no stranger to unfinished sketchy games being published on it's storefront. It would be in Steam's best interest to have access to reviewers who could make sense of the mess in an authoritative way.

So if you follow their incentive (which means follow the money), then it's in Steam's best interest to have access to truly impartial reviews. I for one don't think that having these reviewers in-house is necessary or even advisable, but finding an avenue for sourcing the reviews would be to their benefit.

Perhaps they could take their top 100 curators, and give them Steam credits for true comprehensive, literate, well-researched, impartial reviews in genres that they actually enjoy. Which would play to the strength of the steam user reviews, as finding a curator that actually lives and breathes 2D platforming games is a better resource than the IGN staffer who can't stand the genre, but gets tasked with reviewing a 2D platformer game anyways.

And come on, when has Valve actually made a game? They're a store. Making games is so back-burner for them it's a running joke. As if they'd have to worry about impartial reviews for their own products... HA! They don't exist!
For your transgressions you shall be labeled a shill, called an idiot and anytime you mention facts or disagree with a tribe member you will henceforth be known as a troll. The best you can hope for is that the labels won't haunt your offspring. -RedEye9
Avatar 57545
46.
 
Re: Op Ed
Jul 11, 2016, 10:55
46.
Re: Op Ed Jul 11, 2016, 10:55
Jul 11, 2016, 10:55
 
jdreyer wrote on Jul 11, 2016, 06:14:
Didn't there used to be a section called "Curators say" or something? I feel like this was a Steam "paid for" review. I can't find it now though. It may have been removed when they did the reviews update a month back.

Steam Curators are individuals or organizations that make recommendations to help others discover interesting games in the Steam catalog. You can follow one or more curators to see their recommendations appear on your Steam home page and in your community activity feed. http://store.steampowered.com/curators/
The third rule of "Fight Club"—wear a mask.
Avatar 58135
45.
 
Re: Op Ed
Jul 11, 2016, 07:53
45.
Re: Op Ed Jul 11, 2016, 07:53
Jul 11, 2016, 07:53
 
jdreyer wrote on Jul 11, 2016, 06:14:
Didn't there used to be a section called "Curators say" or something? I feel like this was a Steam "paid for" review. I can't find it now though. It may have been removed when they did the reviews update a month back.

Curators aren't Valve employees. They are normal Steam groups that are recommending games.
44.
 
Re: Op Ed
Jul 11, 2016, 07:25
Beamer
 
44.
Re: Op Ed Jul 11, 2016, 07:25
Jul 11, 2016, 07:25
 Beamer
 
Warskull wrote on Jul 10, 2016, 20:37:
Gamers have no confidence in game journalists and their reviews anymore. They have proven time and time again that they are wildly out of touch with gamer's tastes.

Steam reviews are amazing. Yes, people write stupid stuff in the text. They aren't about the text though. They are about the general trend. It is the one of the best sources of it a game is good or bad we have right now. Ignore the reviews at the bottom, you are concerned with the postive vs negative trend. They even improved it and added recent reviews and all time reviews. Bad games tend to get obliterated, good games tend to get mostly good reviews.

Of course Steam reviews make developers sweat a little. If you make a bad game you are going to get called out on it very quickly.

Some recent examples:
Doom - 88% recent 90% all time
Battleborn - 52% recent, 65% all time
Metal Gear Solid V - 87% recent, 87% all time
Fallout 4 - 71% recent, 79% all time
Day Z Standalone - 52% recent, 70% all time
Mark of the Ninja - 94% recent, 97% all time

That all seems pretty accurate to me. Way more accurate than the game press who gave fallout 4 and 84% on PC while glazing over its flaws. It even caught the fact that Day-Z has stagnated and probably isn't a good buy anymore.

If you gave me a choice between just the Steam review numbers and just the metacritic numbers I would go for the steam reviews.

Sure there is some noise in the reviews, but it smooths out as quantity increases. Why would Valve ever pay some game writers to do what Steams users are already doing, better, for free? Nobody wants a bunch of former Kotaku or Polygon hacks replacing Steam's users. Plus they wouldn't even make a dent in all the games on Steam.

Some gamers have no confidence in game journalists. It's a very specific segment that's vocal about it, though frankly, I question when people on this board ever were. Back around when I was 19 I realized how limited they were. I'd wager nearly every single member of Blues had a similar revelation around a similar time in their lives.

However, I think I'm going to take some issue with your "recent examples." Aside from how often moronic gamers bomb something over "principle" rather than quality and give games they haven't played a 0 or a 10, here are the scores on Metacritic (which I dislike):

Doom: 84
Battleborn: 70
Metal Gear Solid: 91
Fallout 4: 84
Day Z: No reviews?
Mark of the Ninja: 91


None of these feel particularly far off. I do enjoy your argument that a 79% for Fallout 4 feels way more accurate than an 84% (also, if it's so low of recent, around the time those professional reviews came out, Steam was probably also near an 84%.) And you're right, they glaze over the PC flaws because they typically don't really review the PC version. They just give it a quick install. Which makes some sense, this is a 100 hour game - how much do you think reviewers get paid? How much income does a review make? Economically, they can't review 2 100 hour versions of the same game accurately, so they focus their resources on the version that gets played the most.

I haven't had much faith in video game reviewers for nearly 2 decades, and I'll still trust them more than they random idiots on Steam. In general, I know what I like and I haven't purchased a bad game in years. Years. Or, rather, I haven't been surprised by a game in a negative way. I've purchased some games I didn't like, but that tends to be because I trust the people here, and when they're all about Terraria, or whatever, I feel like it's worth the $4.99 to see if I hate it as much as I think I will (and I did.)
43.
 
Re: Op Ed
Jul 11, 2016, 06:14
43.
Re: Op Ed Jul 11, 2016, 06:14
Jul 11, 2016, 06:14
 
Didn't there used to be a section called "Curators say" or something? I feel like this was a Steam "paid for" review. I can't find it now though. It may have been removed when they did the reviews update a month back.
To prevent CV-19, avoid the Serious Seven: weddings, funerals, faith-based activities, bars, gyms, house gatherings and other small events.
Avatar 22024
42.
 
Re: Cliff Makes Sense
Jul 11, 2016, 05:40
42.
Re: Cliff Makes Sense Jul 11, 2016, 05:40
Jul 11, 2016, 05:40
 
RedEye9 wrote on Jul 10, 2016, 16:27:

He says nothing about doing away with user reviews, because little johnny who played the game for 10 minutes on his mothers celeron laptop really writes great in-depth reviews and his voice deserves equal ranking. NOT

It's less that, and more these types of reviews:

"This game suxxxx! It's so boring!!!11"

Hours played: 552

This comment was edited on Jul 11, 2016, 06:15.
To prevent CV-19, avoid the Serious Seven: weddings, funerals, faith-based activities, bars, gyms, house gatherings and other small events.
Avatar 22024
41.
 
Re: Op Ed
Jul 11, 2016, 05:37
41.
Re: Op Ed Jul 11, 2016, 05:37
Jul 11, 2016, 05:37
 
loomy wrote on Jul 11, 2016, 03:47:
valve could just list professional reviews on steam the same way metacritic does. what's the problem

They already have licensing/publishing agreements with a handful of sites to republish game news - shouldn't be that difficult to get opinion content in under a similar system (technically, you'll see some "Wot I Think" columns from Rock Paper Shotgun that show up in the game news, but you have to look for those at present).
40.
 
Re: Op Ed
Jul 11, 2016, 05:02
40.
Re: Op Ed Jul 11, 2016, 05:02
Jul 11, 2016, 05:02
 
Devinoch wrote on Jul 11, 2016, 02:13:
If you think it's unethical and illegal for someone to have an opinion

No...
I think it would be unethical for steam to pay for opinions
Avatar 54727
59 Replies. 3 pages. Viewing page 1.
Newer [  1  2  3  ] Older