Crytek's Star Citizen Lawsuit Follow-up

A legal memorandum from Crytek asks the courts for a voluntary dismissal of the lawsuit against Cloud Imperium Games they filed two years ago (thanks RiSC1911 on Reddit via Eurogamer). Their complaint was based on CIG's plans to create two games, Star Citizen and Squadron 42, after licensing the CryENGINE for only one game. Now they are seeking to shelve the matter until Squadron 42 is officially released, whenever that might be. Word is:
Crytek seeks to voluntarily dismiss its claims without prejudice to re-filing those claims upon the actual release of Squadron 42. No efforts taken to date will be lost, and no legally cognizable prejudice will occur. Crytek’s requested relief will promote judicial economy by allowing all claims to proceed as a unit once the Squadron 42 claims become fully ripe upon CIG’s release of that game.

This case has been marked by a pattern of CIG saying one thing in its public statements and another in this litigation. For example, at the outset of this case, CIG had publicly claimed it had switched to using the Lumberyard Engine for both Star Citizen and Squadron 42, but was forced to confirm during this litigation that no such switch had taken place. See Crytek’s Response to CIG’s Motion for Bond, Dkt. 74 at 1; CIG’s Reply in support of Motion for Bond, Dkt. 74, at 8 (“Crytek makes much of the fact that the code is the same . . .”). The fact that CIG denied Crytek the credits to which it was due under the parties GLA without actually switching game engines is the basis for Crytek’s “credits claim” in this case.
View : : :
115 Replies. 6 pages. Viewing page 1.
Newer [  1  2  3  4  5  6  ] Older
115.
 
Re: Crytek's Star Citizen Lawsuit Follow-up
Jan 12, 2020, 18:39
Re: Crytek's Star Citizen Lawsuit Follow-up Jan 12, 2020, 18:39
Jan 12, 2020, 18:39
 
RedEye9 wrote on Jan 9, 2020, 17:12:
JohnnyRotten wrote on Jan 9, 2020, 17:05:
RedEye9 wrote on Jan 8, 2020, 04:45:
Sepharo wrote on Jan 8, 2020, 02:54:
Weirdest cult.
follow the shoe (CIG worshippers)
Vs
follow the gourd (CIG denier's)
Life of Brian reference?
Best religion movie ever. And historical dramatized documentary
Life Of Brian- 1979 Debate (1/4)
Life Of Brian- 1979 Debate (2/4)
Life Of Brian- 1979 Debate (3/4)
Life Of Brian- 1979 Debate (4/4)
- I refer to it as BC, Before Corona, and AD, After Disaster. -
Avatar 58135
114.
 
Re: Crytek's Star Citizen Lawsuit Follow-up
Jan 11, 2020, 17:16
Re: Crytek's Star Citizen Lawsuit Follow-up Jan 11, 2020, 17:16
Jan 11, 2020, 17:16
 
RedEye9 wrote on Jan 11, 2020, 11:12:
theyarecomingforyou wrote on Jan 11, 2020, 09:53:
RedEye9 wrote on Jan 4, 2020, 14:13:
Refresher
theyarecomingforyou wrote on Jan 31, 2018, 16:27:
Oh, and here's a further legal analysis of CIG's position by a technology attorney. SPOILER: Crytek's claims don't stands up to scrutiny.
Y mas
This is why I find it funny when people accuse me of being a Star Citizen fanboy, yet refuse to consider the opinions of legal experts on this lawsuit. Every legal analysis of this lawsuit showed it to be frivilous and now here we are, with Crytek attempting to dismiss its own lawsuit to avoid paying CIG's legal fees.

People can hate this game all they want - and there are plenty of legitimate reasons to do so - but they have to separate that from the legal merits of a lawsuit like this. Crytek is trying to save face by attacking CIG through demonstrably false statements when its real strategy is to never refile, letting it off the hook for the $500,000 in legal fees that CIG is seeking costs on.

I called this two years ago and yet half the comments here are still from Star Citizen trolls who are so disconnected from reality they're somewhere in the multiverse of madness.

PS - I only posted on this topic because I didn't want to disappointment all my fans. Thank you for summoning me. Toff
Summoning has changed since the good ol’days when the name had to be repeated thrice. Wink
Come, mister tally man, tally me banana. Lipsrsealed
"The price of freedom is eternal vigilance."
Avatar 22891
113.
 
Re: Crytek's Star Citizen Lawsuit Follow-up
Jan 11, 2020, 11:12
Re: Crytek's Star Citizen Lawsuit Follow-up Jan 11, 2020, 11:12
Jan 11, 2020, 11:12
 
theyarecomingforyou wrote on Jan 11, 2020, 09:53:
RedEye9 wrote on Jan 4, 2020, 14:13:
Refresher
theyarecomingforyou wrote on Jan 31, 2018, 16:27:
Oh, and here's a further legal analysis of CIG's position by a technology attorney. SPOILER: Crytek's claims don't stands up to scrutiny.
Y mas
This is why I find it funny when people accuse me of being a Star Citizen fanboy, yet refuse to consider the opinions of legal experts on this lawsuit. Every legal analysis of this lawsuit showed it to be frivilous and now here we are, with Crytek attempting to dismiss its own lawsuit to avoid paying CIG's legal fees.

People can hate this game all they want - and there are plenty of legitimate reasons to do so - but they have to separate that from the legal merits of a lawsuit like this. Crytek is trying to save face by attacking CIG through demonstrably false statements when its real strategy is to never refile, letting it off the hook for the $500,000 in legal fees that CIG is seeking costs on.

I called this two years ago and yet half the comments here are still from Star Citizen trolls who are so disconnected from reality they're somewhere in the multiverse of madness.

PS - I only posted on this topic because I didn't want to disappointment all my fans. Thank you for summoning me. Toff
Summoning has changed since the good ol’days when the name had to be repeated thrice. Wink
- I refer to it as BC, Before Corona, and AD, After Disaster. -
Avatar 58135
112.
 
Re: Crytek's Star Citizen Lawsuit Follow-up
Jan 11, 2020, 09:53
Re: Crytek's Star Citizen Lawsuit Follow-up Jan 11, 2020, 09:53
Jan 11, 2020, 09:53
 
RedEye9 wrote on Jan 4, 2020, 14:13:
Refresher
theyarecomingforyou wrote on Jan 31, 2018, 16:27:
Oh, and here's a further legal analysis of CIG's position by a technology attorney. SPOILER: Crytek's claims don't stand up to scrutiny.
Y mas
This is why I find it funny when people accuse me of being a Star Citizen fanboy, yet refuse to consider the opinions of legal experts on this lawsuit. Every legal analysis of this lawsuit showed it to be frivilous and now here we are, with Crytek attempting to dismiss its own lawsuit to avoid paying CIG's legal fees.

People can hate this game all they want - and there are plenty of legitimate reasons to do so - but they have to separate that from the legal merits of a lawsuit like this. Crytek is trying to save face by attacking CIG through demonstrably false statements when its real strategy is to never refile, letting it off the hook for the $500,000 in legal fees that CIG is seeking costs on.

I called this two years ago and yet half the comments here are still from Star Citizen trolls who are so disconnected from reality they're somewhere in the multiverse of madness.

PS - I only posted on this topic because I didn't want to disappointment all my fans. Thank you for summoning me. Toff
"The price of freedom is eternal vigilance."
Avatar 22891
111.
 
Re: Crytek's Star Citizen Lawsuit Follow-up
Jan 9, 2020, 17:17
Re: Crytek's Star Citizen Lawsuit Follow-up Jan 9, 2020, 17:17
Jan 9, 2020, 17:17
 
RedEye9 wrote on Jan 9, 2020, 17:12:
JohnnyRotten wrote on Jan 9, 2020, 17:05:
RedEye9 wrote on Jan 8, 2020, 04:45:
Sepharo wrote on Jan 8, 2020, 02:54:
Weirdest cult.
follow the shoe (CIG worshippers)
Vs
follow the gourd (CIG denier's)

Life of Brian reference?
Best religion movie ever.

Top 5 scifi, as well.
110.
 
Re: Crytek's Star Citizen Lawsuit Follow-up
Jan 9, 2020, 17:12
Re: Crytek's Star Citizen Lawsuit Follow-up Jan 9, 2020, 17:12
Jan 9, 2020, 17:12
 
JohnnyRotten wrote on Jan 9, 2020, 17:05:
RedEye9 wrote on Jan 8, 2020, 04:45:
Sepharo wrote on Jan 8, 2020, 02:54:
Weirdest cult.
follow the shoe (CIG worshippers)
Vs
follow the gourd (CIG denier's)

Life of Brian reference?
Best religion movie ever. And historical dramatized documentary
- I refer to it as BC, Before Corona, and AD, After Disaster. -
Avatar 58135
109.
 
Re: Crytek's Star Citizen Lawsuit Follow-up
Jan 9, 2020, 17:05
Re: Crytek's Star Citizen Lawsuit Follow-up Jan 9, 2020, 17:05
Jan 9, 2020, 17:05
 
RedEye9 wrote on Jan 8, 2020, 04:45:
Sepharo wrote on Jan 8, 2020, 02:54:
Weirdest cult.
follow the shoe (CIG worshippers)
Vs
follow the gourd (CIG denier's)

Life of Brian reference?
108.
 
Re: Crytek's Star Citizen Lawsuit Follow-up
Jan 8, 2020, 16:48
Re: Crytek's Star Citizen Lawsuit Follow-up Jan 8, 2020, 16:48
Jan 8, 2020, 16:48
 

whatever you want

/thread
- I refer to it as BC, Before Corona, and AD, After Disaster. -
Avatar 58135
107.
 
Re: Crytek's Star Citizen Lawsuit Follow-up
Jan 8, 2020, 16:45
Re: Crytek's Star Citizen Lawsuit Follow-up Jan 8, 2020, 16:45
Jan 8, 2020, 16:45
 
Dacron wrote on Jan 8, 2020, 16:32:
Korrd wrote on Jan 8, 2020, 16:03:
I suggest we let this go. There's clearly no middle ground to be reached as our positions are logically incompatible and we're already going in circles trying to establish a common perspective of reality. I appreciate that you took the time to participate even if it was ultimately fruitless. Maybe we'll have better luck next time.
You suggest I do something you don't can't do yourself? Sorry but no. If you're going to call out people like this I'll gladly call you on that.
I literally said we and our. I... I used those words. Like... mutual. Both.

But I'll give you the last word if that's what you're looking for? Say whatever you want and I promise it'll go unchallenged.
Avatar 57257
106.
 
Re: Crytek's Star Citizen Lawsuit Follow-up
Jan 8, 2020, 16:32
Re: Crytek's Star Citizen Lawsuit Follow-up Jan 8, 2020, 16:32
Jan 8, 2020, 16:32
 
Korrd wrote on Jan 8, 2020, 16:03:
Dacron wrote on Jan 8, 2020, 15:13:
Okay then we are both in agreement you said Blue did not care enough about the truth then (as was said,). Why you so emotional over it and dancing like you did not day that ?
We're not in agreement because I didn't say that. And now you're being childish. You keep fabricating claims and insisting I made them while accusing me of being emotional. Remember that word projection?

Please note that this is exactly the kind of dishonesty I was taking Crytek to task for.

Again, semantics. You said he did not care about the SUBJECT, aka the TRUTH behind it and was willing to post things you thought were wrong (aka not provided in the source.).

Again, talk in circle ALL you want. You made the claim.

Korrd wrote on Jan 8, 2020, 16:03:
Dacron wrote on Jan 8, 2020, 15:13:
Your account (and how it acts like other pro SC accounts...) is here for that though. Defense of SC/CiG.
It's more defense of reason, but I understand now that you're not willing or able to assess this subject objectively.

You're welcome to defend however you like. Your post history says other wise.

Korrd wrote on Jan 8, 2020, 16:03:
Dacron wrote on Jan 8, 2020, 15:13:
saying someone doesn't care about the truth as they aren't emotionally invested in this video game like you are.
Again, that's not what I said. I suggested he might not be invested in the subject. Please work on your reading comprehension because having your own argument misstated repeatedly is honestly a bit frustrating.


No of course. Complaining about responsible reporting, directed at Blue, claiming what he was reporting was clearly a lie then complaining "alternate facts" right after wasn't direct towards him either, but the unnamed who you name now.

Again you TRY to appear impartial. But it appears as though you have an agenda. Proof is in the pudding dear.

Korrd wrote on Jan 8, 2020, 16:03:
I suggest we let this go. There's clearly no middle ground to be reached as our positions are logically incompatible and we're already going in circles trying to establish a common perspective of reality. I appreciate that you took the time to participate even if it was ultimately fruitless. Maybe we'll have better luck next time.

You suggest I do something you don't can't do yourself? Sorry but no. If you're going to call out people like this I'll gladly call you on that.

I've been here a couple of years, I'm not going anywhere either. If you want some blatant attempt to smear the site operator to go unchecked do it on a sub you run. Maybe you could even provide relevant news articles.

Maybe next time you're unhappy with what you read, submit an alternative/updated one rather than crying people aren't researching what they post.
Currently setting a record for most edited posts, 1 reply at a time.
105.
 
Re: Crytek's Star Citizen Lawsuit Follow-up
Jan 8, 2020, 16:10
Re: Crytek's Star Citizen Lawsuit Follow-up Jan 8, 2020, 16:10
Jan 8, 2020, 16:10
 

"I invoked "alternative facts" in reference to Crytek's claims."

wow, tell me more about these alternative facts!
104.
 
Re: Crytek's Star Citizen Lawsuit Follow-up
Jan 8, 2020, 16:03
Re: Crytek's Star Citizen Lawsuit Follow-up Jan 8, 2020, 16:03
Jan 8, 2020, 16:03
 
Dacron wrote on Jan 8, 2020, 15:13:
Okay then we are both in agreement you said Blue did not care enough about the truth then (as was said,). Why you so emotional over it and dancing like you did not day that ?
We're not in agreement because I didn't say that. And now you're being childish. You keep fabricating claims and insisting I made them while accusing me of being emotional. Remember that word projection?

Please note that this is exactly the kind of dishonesty I was taking Crytek to task for.

Dacron wrote on Jan 8, 2020, 15:13:
Your account (and how it acts like other pro SC accounts...) is here for that though. Defense of SC/CiG.
It's more defense of reason, but I understand now that you're not willing or able to assess this subject objectively.

Dacron wrote on Jan 8, 2020, 15:13:
You're the type to try and affiliate Blue with "alternative facts"
I invoked "alternative facts" in reference to Crytek's claims.

Dacron wrote on Jan 8, 2020, 15:13:
saying someone doesn't care about the truth as they aren't emotionally invested in this video game like you are.
Again, that's not what I said. I suggested he might not be invested in the subject. Please work on your reading comprehension because having your own argument misstated repeatedly is honestly a bit frustrating.

I suggest we let this go. There's clearly no middle ground to be reached as our positions are logically incompatible and we're already going in circles trying to establish a common perspective of reality. I appreciate that you took the time to participate even if it was ultimately fruitless. Maybe we'll have better luck next time.
Avatar 57257
103.
 
Re: tell your friends to slake their thirst
Jan 8, 2020, 15:36
Re: tell your friends to slake their thirst Jan 8, 2020, 15:36
Jan 8, 2020, 15:36
 
RedEye9 wrote on Jan 8, 2020, 13:30:
jdreyer wrote on Jan 7, 2020, 19:49:
Still not 100 comments.
100
SC Quality Thread Assured. That’ll slake everyone’s thirst!

And the game is still so incomplete, buggy, and delayed for so many years there isn't any discussion on it in the 100.

The threads are evolving, why can't the game
Currently setting a record for most edited posts, 1 reply at a time.
102.
 
Re: Crytek's Star Citizen Lawsuit Follow-up
Jan 8, 2020, 15:13
Re: Crytek's Star Citizen Lawsuit Follow-up Jan 8, 2020, 15:13
Jan 8, 2020, 15:13
 
Korrd wrote on Jan 8, 2020, 13:51:
Dacron wrote on Jan 8, 2020, 13:17:
Oh my that's cute. You can argue the semantics of it all you like. They both say the same thing. That Blue did not care enough about the truth.
Dacron wrote on Jan 8, 2020, 13:17:
Ah yes, the actual facts. The fact that you literally said Blue did not care for the truth ISN'T in fact accusing him of not caring.
Korrd wrote on Jan 7, 2020, 14:54:
Maybe I'm wrong and Blue doesn't care enough about the subject to remember those earlier details, and that's understandable
I'm sorry you're having such a hard time with this. I truly am. But it's not semantics. You even quoted the sentence in question, where I clearly state my position. I'm just not sure how you can argue with how words work.

Okay then we are both in agreement you said Blue did not care enough about the truth then (as was said,). Why you so emotional over it and dancing like you did not day that ?


Korrd wrote on Jan 8, 2020, 13:51:
You maybe didn't notice, but it's not SC/CIG I've been defending all this time.

Your account (and how it acts like other pro SC accounts...) is here for that though. Defense of SC/CiG. You can TRY to be seen as impartial, but any viewing of your post history shows other wise. Talk in circles all you like dear, the bias is obvious.

Korrd wrote on Jan 8, 2020, 13:51:
I'm the type who tries to have a dialogue with other readers when I feel the need. I admit I expected a more equitable one than I got, but the attempt was earnest.

You're the type to try and affiliate Blue with "alternative facts", without directly saying it (again, because you are TRYING to be viewed as impartial, but you aren't.) then saying someone doesn't care about the truth as they aren't emotionally invested in this video game like you are.

Dialogue ? No, that's an agenda.
Currently setting a record for most edited posts, 1 reply at a time.
101.
 
Re: Crytek's Star Citizen Lawsuit Follow-up
Jan 8, 2020, 13:51
Re: Crytek's Star Citizen Lawsuit Follow-up Jan 8, 2020, 13:51
Jan 8, 2020, 13:51
 
Dacron wrote on Jan 8, 2020, 13:17:
Oh my that's cute. You can argue the semantics of it all you like. They both say the same thing. That Blue did not care enough about the truth.
Dacron wrote on Jan 8, 2020, 13:17:
Ah yes, the actual facts. The fact that you literally said Blue did not care for the truth ISN'T in fact accusing him of not caring.
Korrd wrote on Jan 7, 2020, 14:54:
Maybe I'm wrong and Blue doesn't care enough about the subject to remember those earlier details, and that's understandable
I'm sorry you're having such a hard time with this. I truly am. But it's not semantics. You even quoted the sentence in question, where I clearly state my position. I'm just not sure how you can argue with how words work.

Dacron wrote on Jan 8, 2020, 13:17:
Continue in your stalwart defense of SC/CiG, it's enjoyable to watch the guys ONLY comment on this [...] then act/pretend if they aren't so biased they just lie to support it.
You maybe didn't notice, but it's not SC/CIG I've been defending all this time. Your failure to grasp even that tells me your ability to be objective and rational is inordinately compromised. And I explained why my post history is so SC/CIG-heavy and I make no apology for it. You can fabricate other explanations, but that says more about you than it does me.

Dacron wrote on Jan 8, 2020, 13:17:
Mind you, you're the type to cry to a site operator directly in a thread as opposed to provide the material to him to post so it seems an argument is all you were after.
I'm the type who tries to have a dialogue with other readers when I feel the need. I admit I expected a more equitable one than I got, but the attempt was earnest.
Avatar 57257
100.
 
tell your friends to slake their thirst
Jan 8, 2020, 13:30
tell your friends to slake their thirst Jan 8, 2020, 13:30
Jan 8, 2020, 13:30
 
jdreyer wrote on Jan 7, 2020, 19:49:
Still not 100 comments.
100
SC Quality Thread Assured. That’ll slake everyone’s thirst!
- I refer to it as BC, Before Corona, and AD, After Disaster. -
Avatar 58135
99.
 
Re: Crytek's Star Citizen Lawsuit Follow-up
Jan 8, 2020, 13:17
99.
Re: Crytek's Star Citizen Lawsuit Follow-up Jan 8, 2020, 13:17
Jan 8, 2020, 13:17
 
Korrd wrote on Jan 8, 2020, 11:54:
Dacron wrote on Jan 7, 2020, 22:25:
You can lie to yourself all you want. You're a SC/CiG fanatic. The proof is in the pudding dear.

You claimed the site owner did not care enough about SC to post the truth (which he did, as explained by himself in this thread.). You can try to white wash it any way you'd like. It doesn't change your fanatical denial of the truth. Talk in circles all you want.
No, dear, I'm afraid that's not logically sound.

I didn't accuse Blue of not caring about the truth; I said maybe he doesn't care enough about the story to remember the past details and use them to contradict new claims.

Oh my that's cute dear. You can argue the semantics of it all you like. They both say the same thing. That Blue did not care enough about the truth.


lol.

All over the fact the Blue posted a verbatim quote, and the SC fanboys were upset it wasn't from a news source they wanted, that wasn't submitted.


Korrd wrote on Jan 8, 2020, 11:54:
Dacron wrote on Jan 7, 2020, 22:25:
You can lie to yourself all you want. You're a SC/CiG fanatic. The proof is in the pudding dear.

You claimed the site owner did not care enough about SC to post the truth (which he did, as explained by himself in this thread.). You can try to white wash it any way you'd like. It doesn't change your fanatical denial of the truth. Talk in circles all you want.
You either care about the truth all the time... or you don't actually care about the truth. One doesn't need to be a zealot for a particular cause or entity (or biased against their counterpart) to care that details about those things be proliferated accurately and fairly. That seems like a clear logical fallacy to me.


Ah yes, the actual facts. The fact that you literally said Blue did not care for the truth ISN'T in fact accusing him of not caring.

It's unreal. I'm sorry Blue isn't a SC/CiG fanatic that he's read every bit about them and engages with everyone about it. The fact you think that's reasonable compared to what he does shows how deep you are into this cult like mentality.

I mean shit you could've submitted an updated article, but instead accused him of not caring enough about 1 topic in a myriad of others to devout his time to something YOU'RE interested in.


Korrd wrote on Jan 7, 2020, 14:54:
... Maybe I'm wrong and Blue doesn't care enough about the subject to remember those earlier details...


Continue in your stalwart defense of SC/CiG, it's enjoyable to watch the guys ONLY comment on this (and the 1 or 2 other posts they have so they can claim they are here for everything!) then act/pretend if they aren't so biased they just lie to support it. Mind you, you're the type to cry to a site operator directly in a thread as opposed to provide the material to him to post so it seems an argument is all you were after.

This comment was edited on Jan 8, 2020, 13:28.
Currently setting a record for most edited posts, 1 reply at a time.
98.
 
Re: Crytek's Star Citizen Lawsuit Follow-up
Jan 8, 2020, 11:54
98.
Re: Crytek's Star Citizen Lawsuit Follow-up Jan 8, 2020, 11:54
Jan 8, 2020, 11:54
 
Dacron wrote on Jan 7, 2020, 22:25:
You can lie to yourself all you want. You're a SC/CiG fanatic. The proof is in the pudding dear.

You claimed the site owner did not care enough about SC to post the truth (which he did, as explained by himself in this thread.). You can try to white wash it any way you'd like. It doesn't change your fanatical denial of the truth. Talk in circles all you want.
No, dear, I'm afraid that's not logically sound.

I didn't accuse Blue of not caring about the truth; I said maybe he doesn't care enough about the story to remember the past details and use them to contradict new claims. There's kind of a big difference and I don't believe for a second that you actually missed it. Hey, I listened to someone speak the other day about something I wasn't interested in and now don't recall the details, but it's not an insult to me to point that out nor an insult to Blue just to propose that a similar thing might have happened. Being perpetually offended about imagined slights serves no purpose and I suggest you get over it and move on.

As for my defense of actual facts in the face of falsehoods, it doesn't suggest fanaticism toward SC or CIG, nor even a bias against Crytek (interesting that you've never once proposed that); I've argued about accurate representation of facts on a diverse range of subjects, many of which I wasn't deeply invested in. You either care about the truth all the time... or you don't actually care about the truth. One doesn't need to be a zealot for a particular cause or entity (or biased against their counterpart) to care that details about those things be proliferated accurately and fairly. That seems like a clear logical fallacy to me.

Voodoo's mention of projection is looking more and more likely in this case...

This comment was edited on Jan 8, 2020, 13:07.
Avatar 57257
97.
 
Re: Crytek's Star Citizen Lawsuit Follow-up
Jan 8, 2020, 04:45
97.
Re: Crytek's Star Citizen Lawsuit Follow-up Jan 8, 2020, 04:45
Jan 8, 2020, 04:45
 
Sepharo wrote on Jan 8, 2020, 02:54:
Weirdest cult.
follow the shoe (CIG worshippers)
Vs
follow the gourd (CIG denier's)
- I refer to it as BC, Before Corona, and AD, After Disaster. -
Avatar 58135
96.
 
Re: Crytek's Star Citizen Lawsuit Follow-up
Jan 8, 2020, 02:54
96.
Re: Crytek's Star Citizen Lawsuit Follow-up Jan 8, 2020, 02:54
Jan 8, 2020, 02:54
 
Weirdest cult.
Avatar 17249
115 Replies. 6 pages. Viewing page 1.
Newer [  1  2  3  4  5  6  ] Older