Jump to content


Photo

Microtransactions?


  • Please log in to reply
56 replies to this topic

#1 Ryoma

Ryoma

    There's something weird in Gravity Falls.

  • Nova Member
  • 4,365 posts

Posted 03 June 2016 - 06:55 AM

Can I even start a topic to talk about this? I thought about posting it in the Overwatch topic, but I'd rather get a wide variety of discussion on this topic, rather than limit it to just those of us playing Overwatch.

 

So, let's talk about microtransactions. Necessary evil? Evil? Good thing?

 

This came up today while I was listening to the Co-Optional Podcast on my way to work. They were talking about Overwatch, and how there is rage against the microtransaction system in place in the game. If you don't know, you can buy Overwatch for $40 on PC, and $60 on console (with some skin bonuses). Buying the 40 dollar box gets you everything from a gameplay perspective. All the heroes, all the stages, all the game modes. Let's not argue about whether that's worth it or not--let's just say for argument that you get everything gameplay-wise. Now, there is a progression system in which you gain experience points after every match. Every time you get an arbitrary number of experience points, you get a loot box. These loot boxes contain cosmetic things only--things like skins, in-game currency to buy things, voice lines, etc. 

 

You can also pay real money to get more of these loot boxes, at about a dollar a pop. Pay more, get loot boxes for "Free." These do not guarantee you certain items, and you are able to get repeat unlocks. Repeats turn into in-game currency at a fairly low amount that you can eventually use to "buy" the things you actually want.

 

As of right now, Blizzard says that they won't be charging gamers who buy Overwatch for additional maps, characters, etc that come out down the line. That will be free updates. While I can't say for the future, this is their plan for now.

 

At first, my knee-jerk reaction to this is "MICROTRANSACTIONS ARE ALWAYS BAD FOREVER." Especially in games that have an upfront cost. If I pay 60 dollars, I want every magic item in the box. I don't want to be nickel and dimed for additional content.

 

However. The fact of the matter is that supporting a game like Overwatch requires money. Yes, Blizzard made BANK on this game at launch. But. New characters and stages do cost money. Keeping the servers up and running maintenance does cost money. A not-small amount of money either. If you imagine a single Blizzard employee making 60,000 a year, and multiply that by how many employees work on Overwatch, you need to make a good chunk of change. And you need to do that over time, simply because Overwatch is meant to be played over time.

 

Now, they could have made the game "Free" to play and have you unlock heroes with real money, allowing you to pick only the ones you want. But, in Overwatch's case, that could wreck the game balance, as the game is designed around switching heroes for different situations. If your team needed a sniper and none of the players have unlocked the sniper, you're screwed.

 

So, Blizzard's solution was to charge up front for the game and add cosmetic microtransactions to support the game long term. In this case, I am okay with the microtransactions. They are effectively optional content that does not affect the main game in any way. They are fun unlocks that I technically can get (with much work) through gameplay anyway, because there needed to be some kind of progression system these days or no one would bother.

 

I dislike microtransactions that affect gameplay. Buying a gun that is 1.x times better than a different gun is BS in a shooter. Buying story content at launch for a single player game is BS. Buying cheat codes is BS.

 

But, buying cosmetics to support a long-term game updates is okay, I think. I'm not thrilled about it, but I think it's one of those necessary evils.

 

Thoughts? I'd love to hear them.



256d2e8.gif1znoity.gifzkpr3q.gif

 

If I'm not the smart guy, who am I?

 

 


#2 Maverick-Werewolf

Maverick-Werewolf

    Alpha Leader

  • Forums Administrator
  • 12,175 posts

Posted 03 June 2016 - 07:30 AM

So, Blizzard's solution was to charge up front for the game and add cosmetic microtransactions to support the game long term. In this case, I am okay with the microtransactions. They are effectively optional content that does not affect the main game in any way. They are fun unlocks that I technically can get (with much work) through gameplay anyway, because there needed to be some kind of progression system these days or no one would bother.

It wasn't exactly Blizzard's idea, for the record (and frankly it's about time they did anything remotely generous). Plenty of games before them have done this, such as Guild Wars 2 (you buy the game, you get all future content free, no subscription fees, all you have to pay for extra is optional cosmetic items), which has been using that method for many years now, although I think they recently released a huge expansion pack that adds another map and they might've asked some bucks for that.

 

And SWTOR, which is completely free to download and free to play (not even an up-front purchase fee like Guild Wars 2 and Overwatch), with optional subscription fees for a few unnecessary perks and faster leveling, and otherwise all "real people money" (as I call it :P ) transactions can be done in-game using credits, like buying the Cartel items off the auction house instead. The only things you would have to pay for are some very high level expansion packs, and they've been making those free eventually, too, like the way Hutt Cartel is available for everyone now, and subscribers will get the new content free as part of their subscription fee.

 

As for Blizzard themselves, I wish they would try SWTOR's methods with WoW, but I suppose they're just making too much bloody money to bother with something like that.


gallery_3_16_497424.gif


#3 Mr. Skeli'n

Mr. Skeli'n

    kick me

  • Nova Member
  • 1,284 posts

Posted 03 June 2016 - 07:36 AM

I'm in support of microtransactions in cases like these. Shoot, I'm even okay with them in more cases than you might be. 

If it's a single player game and you can get mid-game content before you would be able to earn it, then fine. I won't, and a good deal of people probably won't, but there are some people that will. If someone wants to alter their own experience, than that is entirely up to them. A laughable alternative would be buying a gun in say a game like Borderlands, but the level requirement of the gun is still a mid-game level. So it's effectively beating the RNG system in games that have that. If it's a single-player focused game, I don't really mind.

 

Where microtransactions have no place to me are the "competitive" multiplayer games like your Halos, CoDs, etc. Now, Halo 5's req. system has proven to be a probably good management of microtransactions, but it could've turned out bad. I hope that their success isn't seen by other companies who don't have the ability or desire to figure out how and why it works. What I would not pick up, or quit a game (if I had purchased) over would be if the players who have the money or willingness to spend money on microtransactions get access to better equipment (guns/armour/etc.) from these transactions. If it's like Destiny where you just buy new dance moves, whatever (IIRC, you can't buy guns and armour with IRL money, but it's been almost a year since I quit).

 

So yeah, as long as it only affects the person who pays the money, then sure. I'm not saying that's a guarantee I'll support microtransactions in the future for any game that does it this way, but that's the only way to make me not NOPE the game to oblivion.



#4 Ryoma

Ryoma

    There's something weird in Gravity Falls.

  • Nova Member
  • 4,365 posts

Posted 03 June 2016 - 07:50 AM

In single player games, I get annoyed when they aren't cosmetic, because it oftentimes affects the design of the game. "Getting this item would be really annoying to do without money, but if you give us some, then we will make it much easier." It's effectively putting a concept into the game that deliberately isn't fun to encourage people to pay money to avoid doing it. That design really bugs me. You are effectively paying money to play a game LESS, which is just like...wrong. :P



256d2e8.gif1znoity.gifzkpr3q.gif

 

If I'm not the smart guy, who am I?

 

 


#5 Darkwoods

Darkwoods

    Wubalubadubdub!

  • Member
  • 2,085 posts

Posted 03 June 2016 - 08:37 AM

I probably fall along the same lines; paying for cosmetics is fine, because it doesn't affect game balance and if people want to spend money on pimping out their character then fair play (gaming puns, I know, I know). Once something becomes pay-to-win, though, it's taking the mick. The game becomes less about player skill and more about player wallet size, and that just defeats the whole point. 

 

As for paying for shortcuts... I dunno. It's not really giving the player any advantage, but I feel like they're losing out regardless :P 


giphy.gif


#6 assassinfred

assassinfred

    Gifting is better than lifting.

  • Nova Member
  • 3,611 posts

Posted 03 June 2016 - 11:35 AM

I agree with you, Ryoma. Microtransactions on purely cosmetic items that don't have an effect on gameplay is alright by me. It's when the games start getting pay to win (like all of the best weapons being available behind a pay wall) that I start to have a problem with it.

Let's look at games like Overwatch or Halo 5. They are two games that I believe got microtransactions right. Now, in Halo 5's case, the REQ packs do actually have weapons that can drop to be used in Warzone, but considering you can get these REQs without spending a dime and saving your REQ points instead, I don't really see it as an issue, especially since in game you select the REQ, spawn with it once, and if you die someone else can come and pick up that nifty gun.

In Overwatch's case, as Ryoma said, it is purely cosmetic. There isn't a single thing you could spend money on in that game that gives you an advantage gameplay-wise. If someone wants to spend the money to make their Reaper look like a deadly Mariachi band guy, then by all means, go for it. It doesn't affect how he's played or how much damage he does.

decidueye_fan_button_by_morshute-damoqcu


#7 Burger Warrior

Burger Warrior

    Hulloo! :3

  • Nova Member
  • 6,353 posts

Posted 03 June 2016 - 11:44 AM

I think paying for cosmetics is fine, especially in a free-to-play game so you can look snazzy and pay however much you think the game is worth (it's why and how I've poured so much money into Warframes to match my ridiculous playtime). However, I want to know what I'm buying or at least have the option to buy what I can see alongside the ability to buy a cheaper gambling item.

So when Overwatch solely offered an RNG crate to buy, I was disgusted, to say the least.

They have a system for money in the game, and that stuff drops rarely enough. Why didn't they just implement a system where you can or can only buy that currency with real money? Why only allow people to pay for crates? People like my younger brother actually want to throw their money at the game... but they want to know what they're going to get when they do.

(Also, Guild Wars 2 introduced a DLC you have to pay for, guys, even if you've bought the game. Just letting you know, since apparently nobody noticed. XP )

tumblr_llkqvk7B7F1qbyfy7o1_400.gif?w=480


#8 Spark

Spark

    "I think we're just getting started..."

  • Nova Member
  • 2,698 posts

Posted 03 June 2016 - 12:01 PM

I judge it on a case by case basis: And so far, only Halo 5 and Overwatch fit the bill of what I would call 'good' use.

 

Halo 5's restricts itself mainly to the social clusterfudge that is Warzone, while cosmetics and personal xp/REQ point boosts are freely useable, since all they do is allow you to rank up (nearly meaningless) and buy more REQ packs without using actual money more frequently (never a bad thing)

 

And like you guys have said, Overwatch's are purely cosmetic, so no issue at all there.

 

 

There is one more that I wouldn't classify totally as 'good', but it's turned out for the better. GTA Online, at least as far as XBL is concerned, is so much better than what it was at launch. And the thing is it wasn't supposed to go on this long. It's clear now that there was a dissonance between the devs and the fans as to what GTAO was going to be. Devs: GTA V's MP mode   Fans: The beginning of a persistent online GTA game.

 

And it's moved a lot closer to the latter in the 3 years its been around. Now back to why this concerns Microtrans:

 

GTA online uses some faux parody of credit cards called 'Shark Cards' that basically just give you money. It's pretty definitely P2W in combat scenarios.

 

But that's sorta the great thing about GTA is that its not just a combat game. It can be quite a lot of things, and many of them non-combat related. In which case the playing field is far more evened out. A tuned up supercar is only so much faster than the base rental provisions. But that's hardly an issue in most cases, because most races don't allow custom vehicles.

 

The Shark Cards have been pointed to as the only reason GTA O has been supported this long, and will continue to be supported for the foreseeable future.


Your Resident Halo Nerd

The New Halo Thread

Halo: The Master Chief Collection is likely coming to PC

Halo 5: Forge (and Custom Games) is FREE on PC

Halo: Bad Blood - June 26th (Book)     Halo Infinite  - TBA (Game, PC/Xbox One)

"Resignation is my virtue. Like water, I ebb and flow. Defeat is simply the addition of time to a sentence I never deserved...but you imposed."

-The Gravemind (Halo 3, 2007)
 


#9 Ryoma

Ryoma

    There's something weird in Gravity Falls.

  • Nova Member
  • 4,365 posts

Posted 03 June 2016 - 12:32 PM

So when Overwatch solely offered an RNG crate to buy, I was disgusted, to say the least.

That I agree with. If they gave me the option to purchase skins, maybe at a somewhat higher price than getting them through loot crates, I'd be more inclined to buy one or two of the ones I like and call it a day. The fact that it's all random turns me off from buying them, since there's no guarantee my fifty dollars will get me Hanzo's wolf outfit. 



256d2e8.gif1znoity.gifzkpr3q.gif

 

If I'm not the smart guy, who am I?

 

 


#10 assassinfred

assassinfred

    Gifting is better than lifting.

  • Nova Member
  • 3,611 posts

Posted 03 June 2016 - 12:59 PM

So when Overwatch solely offered an RNG crate to buy, I was disgusted, to say the least.
 

 

And that's a totally fair and valid criticism of Overwatch's current system. It wouldn't surprise me if somewhere down the line Blizzard made it so that you could buy skins this way (much akin to League of Legend's system, which is another one in the 'good' books by me), but as of right now they seem to have taken the CS:GO route of case unlocks, which can be either good or bad depending on how you look at it. To CS:GO's credit, a lot of the drops you get are incredibly rare and valuable, and can be sold on the Steam Market to other players, but I'm not sure I'm a fan of the system as a whole.


decidueye_fan_button_by_morshute-damoqcu


#11 Patriot 96

Patriot 96

    Lego fan

  • Nova Member
  • 220 posts

Posted 03 June 2016 - 01:15 PM

I dislike microtransactions that affect gameplay. Buying a gun that is 1.x times better than a different gun is BS in a shooter. Buying story content at launch for a single player game is BS. Buying cheat codes is BS.
 
But, buying cosmetics to support a long-term game updates is okay, I think. I'm not thrilled about it, but I think it's one of those necessary evils.
 
Thoughts? I'd love to hear them.

Cosmetic microtransactions don't hurt, but microtransactions that give a player an advantage in a paid game are flat-out annoying; especially when the game in question has paid or subscribed DLC. Take for example World of Elder-Scrolls-craft. (The Elder Scrolls Online) You have to pay 60 dollars for it, but there's a premium that allows you access to four DLC packs, each of which cost high amounts of money if you're not interested in a monthly subscription. You may also buy a wide variety of potions and mounts for the game. This gives rich gamers a huge advantage over those who have to watch their wallets.

#12 Goldy

Goldy

    Sergeant Major

  • Moderator
  • 3,093 posts

Posted 03 June 2016 - 01:38 PM

Two companies that get microtransactions wrong: Creative Assembly (Total War) and Relic (Company of Heroes). Both are owned by Sega so there is no coincidence that these are the worst offenders in my eyes.

 

Both companies charge for cosmetics, which going by this thread we've agreed that this is fair enough. I am fine with cosmetics generally but it does annoy me when you only have access to one boring skin and the others are expensive.

 

But the shoddy practise that really annoys me is the way they split up content to maximise purchases. For example, the recent British forces expansion to COH2 is split between an expansion that gives you the bulk of content and then three extra British armies that you have to pay for ON TOP of the expansion you already bought. All of this content is produced and released at the same time. It is infuriating to buy something and then find you need to buy something else on top of your purchase in order to complete your content. The trailer for British Forces shows ALL the content as if it is in the one expansion. Eg. Churchill crocodile tank feature prominently but is an optional extra! This isn't pay to win per se because there is nothing about this locked out content that makes it better than what you have already, but you are missing out on gameplay rather unfairly.

 

I would compare it to buying a book and then having to buy the missing pages.

 

They say that it's to give players more choice - they can buy an expansion but save some money by not including the extra toppings. That would be fine if the expansions were cheaper than normal expansions, which they are not. I presume that they do this to disguise the cost of what you are really paying.

 

The sad thing is, they never used to be like this.

 

Other examples from the mentioned companies:

  • Charging for a blood and gore mod in Total war (they've charged for this in two games now)
  • Charging for factions in total war that are in the game already (but not playable until you pay)
  • Mission packs for Germans in COH2 (which just use scripted multiplayer maps)
  • Released American army for COH2. Charged separately for an American campaign which utilised a US team (rangers) but you had to pay extra for them.

 

 

 

 

 

 



#13 Michaelangelo

Michaelangelo

    >mfw im judging your posts

  • Nova Member
  • 4,841 posts

Posted 03 June 2016 - 02:13 PM

Microtransactions:

 

be0.jpg

 

I hate microtransactions.

 

 

 


Violence & Silence: It's important for all of us.

Here's my Art Thread (it's German for Arthouse) and ArtStation.

tqtEf64.gif


#14 Spark

Spark

    "I think we're just getting started..."

  • Nova Member
  • 2,698 posts

Posted 03 June 2016 - 02:17 PM

This isn't an excuse, but blame rising development costs. You can't just create money out of nowhere, and tech doesn't stay the same for 20 years.

 

You want your games to looks nigh-photorealistic, have as much content as GTA, as many levels as old Doom, last as long as Witcher 3, and as infinitely re-playable as Halo MP.

 

Be honest, did any of you expect to get something like this without these things we have nowadays?

 

 

As counter-arguments. You have Witcher 3 and Doom(2016). These games are exceptional in today's market, but would've been expected a decade ago.

 

The reason why is they were given the support they needed, the time to craft it in finesse, and in response the nightmares we've seen come out of the industry lately. And Doom was still pretty actively sabotaged by execs. It had no right to release as good as it did.

 

There is no one overall blame, but it all goes back to money. It's just how the money is used between the executive level, development level, and marketing level.

 

So in short: To have the masterpieces, you need the money-makers.

 


Your Resident Halo Nerd

The New Halo Thread

Halo: The Master Chief Collection is likely coming to PC

Halo 5: Forge (and Custom Games) is FREE on PC

Halo: Bad Blood - June 26th (Book)     Halo Infinite  - TBA (Game, PC/Xbox One)

"Resignation is my virtue. Like water, I ebb and flow. Defeat is simply the addition of time to a sentence I never deserved...but you imposed."

-The Gravemind (Halo 3, 2007)
 


#15 Mr. Skeli'n

Mr. Skeli'n

    kick me

  • Nova Member
  • 1,284 posts

Posted 03 June 2016 - 02:56 PM

Personally, I blame the "necessity" of microtransactions on the industry as a whole. If you'd seen more games charging what they're actually worth, i.e. games like Witcher 3 and such might be $75 or $80 console games, whereas rehashed stuff and small games costing what they should (I'm sorry EA, but next-to-NONE of your games should cost $60 [esp. the sports ones]), than things would probably be alright without microtrans.

 

Let's take EA's Sports Games for example. They don't need to have the huge staffs that they do, because they're rehashing out the same games. You take the retired people away, you add in the rookies, and you change graphics. The marketing budget for those kinds of games has got to be ASTRONOMICALLY huge and wayyyyy bigger than it needs to be. The people who are going to buy FIFA 26 aren't going to purchase if they don't see a commercial.

 

But let's say games start charging what they really cost and microtransactions are gone. These rehash-yet-big-budget games by all the AAA companies, the CoD's, the EA Sports games, the yearly games that come out with little-to-no-difference aren't $60 anymore. They're $80 because they have huge teams that work on them. BUT, there's no microtransactions anymore. Because theoretically, the same amount of people buy the game so they make up all the money they'd make with microtransactions over the initial purchase of the game.

But $80 is a lot for a game- so developers were left with options- the most notable and obvious of the two are to implement microtransactions while lowering the cost of the initial purchase from what it should be OR cut the staff to an efficient amount of people.

 

Or, you know there's things like cutting advertising budgets, or not pulling a Bungie and selling your rights to a publisher who are greedy-money-whoring-scum. When you demand a certain level of quality from the industry as a whole, and you expect prices to remain relatively constant, this is what happens.

CONSUMERS, YOU (WE) SUCK.



#16 Spark

Spark

    "I think we're just getting started..."

  • Nova Member
  • 2,698 posts

Posted 03 June 2016 - 03:46 PM

For your consideration: Above, a 2-piece, 2-person argument about why this is (mainly) your own fault. You want it big, you want it pretty, and you want it fast. PICK TWO.


Your Resident Halo Nerd

The New Halo Thread

Halo: The Master Chief Collection is likely coming to PC

Halo 5: Forge (and Custom Games) is FREE on PC

Halo: Bad Blood - June 26th (Book)     Halo Infinite  - TBA (Game, PC/Xbox One)

"Resignation is my virtue. Like water, I ebb and flow. Defeat is simply the addition of time to a sentence I never deserved...but you imposed."

-The Gravemind (Halo 3, 2007)
 


#17 Mr. Skeli'n

Mr. Skeli'n

    kick me

  • Nova Member
  • 1,284 posts

Posted 03 June 2016 - 03:54 PM

Microtransactions:

 

be0.jpg

 

I hate microtransactions.

 

 

 

I hate bad arguments.

This argument is awful. First of all, the Mona Lisa should be WAY up-res'd by the time it gets to Nex-Gen, and it's not. But for real illustrative purposes, let's compare Halo CE (Which came out in 2001) and Halo 5.

We all know what Halo CE had. Single Player campaign and Couch based MP. 16 people through System Link if you knew 15 people and at least three of them had an Xbox and Halo CE.

 

Now, let's look at what Halo 5 has over that. A longer campaign. There's more multiplayer maps in the base game, oh and now you can customize your armour now too. OH, and the armour has at least 4-digits' worth of polygons. Let's see, what else do we have. OH, OH! ONLINE MULTIPLAYER. That's a pretty big improvement. All that server space though, how do we pay for that? All the map packs that are free, and the weapons that come free, and the new armours, and the new paint jobs, and the new emblems, and the new multitude of other things.

 

You paid the same amount of money (aside from pre-orders) for these two games, if you bought both on release. H5 is obviously the superior game (in terms of content offered), and it's not like it has the best of anything really when you look at the rest of the market. The industry has come a long way, and you still pay $60 for games.


Now, are the companies that lock that last level behind a paywall terrible? Yes, but you almost NEVER see them anymore.

 

 

TO MAKE IT EXPLICITLY CLEAR, MY ARGUMENT IS THUS:

 

YOU'RE STILL PAYING $60 AND GETTING WAY MORE GAME THAN YOU USED TO. DOES NOT MATTER TO THE ARGUMENT WHETHER YOU PREFER THE OLD GAME WITH LESS STUFF TO THE NEW GAME WITH MORE STUFF. THERE IS STILL MORE STUFF IN THE NEW GAME.



#18 Goldy

Goldy

    Sergeant Major

  • Moderator
  • 3,093 posts

Posted 03 June 2016 - 04:28 PM

 

 

Now, let's look at what Halo 5 has over that. A longer campaign. There's more multiplayer maps in the base game, oh and now you can customize your armour now too. OH, and the armour has at least 4-digits' worth of polygons. Let's see, what else do we have. OH, OH! ONLINE MULTIPLAYER. That's a pretty big improvement. All that server space though, how do we pay for that? All the map packs that are free, and the weapons that come free, and the new armours, and the new paint jobs, and the new emblems, and the new multitude of other things.

 

 

Halo CE came out before the xbox went online. 

 

Aside from that... for all that effort that went into Halo V, Halo CE is the better game. (IMO)



#19 Mr. Skeli'n

Mr. Skeli'n

    kick me

  • Nova Member
  • 1,284 posts

Posted 03 June 2016 - 04:36 PM

While it may play better, look at how much more is in games nowa'days. Games are expected to have online MP. H5 has FORGE. A FREAKING MAP MAKING BEHEMOTH. There's no way even H3's forge could've fit in CE. It would've come on multiple discs and it would've been way more than $60 if CE came with everything that H5 has. Because that's how far the industry's come. There is so much more in the average game today than there was in the average game in 1998 or 2001. And yet, we still pay the same amount of money for them.



#20 Spark

Spark

    "I think we're just getting started..."

  • Nova Member
  • 2,698 posts

Posted 03 June 2016 - 04:44 PM

While it may play better, look at how much more is in games nowa'days. Games are expected to have online MP. H5 has FORGE. A FREAKING MAP MAKING BEHEMOTH. There's no way even H3's forge could've fit in CE. It would've come on multiple discs and it would've been way more than $60 if CE came with everything that H5 has. Because that's how far the industry's come. There is so much more in the average game today than there was in the average game in 1998 or 2001. And yet, we still pay the same amount of money for them.

 

To piggyback, I think Mik's argument was misunderstood. It's not about which game is 'better'.

Halo 5 has more content than Halo CE or Halo 2 (to use a closer model to counter Goldy's statement). This is FACT. Nothing will change that. Yet, we paid the same amount of money for Halo 5, that we did for Halo or Halo 2. Those numbers were/are unsustainable with all the factors considered.


Your Resident Halo Nerd

The New Halo Thread

Halo: The Master Chief Collection is likely coming to PC

Halo 5: Forge (and Custom Games) is FREE on PC

Halo: Bad Blood - June 26th (Book)     Halo Infinite  - TBA (Game, PC/Xbox One)

"Resignation is my virtue. Like water, I ebb and flow. Defeat is simply the addition of time to a sentence I never deserved...but you imposed."

-The Gravemind (Halo 3, 2007)
 





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

,