XOOM

Review of 2018

29 posts in this topic

Today is the last day of the year 2018, and I wanted for all of us to take a moment and reflect on what we have accomplished. There have been some major milestones, several roadmap deliveries, increased productivity and understanding of systems and code, and new roads paved for us to make 2019 another year of tremendous progress. Please join me in this review and let us not forget how much ground has been gained. Do note, a Roadmap outlining 2019’s objectives will be a separate article, but I’ll quickly cover what we are working on at this moment. May you have a very Happy New Year, S!

CLICK HERE: https://www.wwiionline.com/company-news/general-announcement/wwiiol-2018-review

49323220_10156136710111275_4246158707827

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Been a great year and happy to be on board supporting the game! S! 

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I shall always be here, supporting the game and the RATS!  (even without my damn wreath!  :lol:S!)   A great 16th year for me and the rest of the community!!  Thank you so much for you and your team's dedication and perseverance.  

Win with class, Lose with Dignity, Fight with Honor!  

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Glad to be back after the break from game caused by non-game real world stuff... lol  

 

Am glad CRS didn't throw in the towel, and I'm enthused by all that seems to be going on development-wise.  Thanks much!

 

May 2019 be a great year for everyone in the wwiionline community, even the germans. ;)

 

S!

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some really great progress. If we could do 2018 again, what would we do differently?

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, augetout said:

Glad to be back after the break from game caused by non-game real world stuff... lol  

Am glad CRS didn't throw in the towel, and I'm enthused by all that seems to be going on development-wise.  Thanks much!

May 2019 be a great year for everyone in the wwiionline community, even the germans. ;)

We need you guys to help us make sure that you're not throwing in the towel either. This is the worst time to do that when we are making such progress. You and others who have been active here in the forums are doing great - but please, we need to help maintain the positive atmosphere by extending the good news and messages to community members who are not here, or who may be reserved about coming back.

I don't know how to say this without being blunt about it, so here goes...

If we had twice as many subscribers, we could totally rock the house. We could get so much stuff done you guys would have an endless stream of goodies coming in. But we really need the community's help to get folks back, and bring new folks in. We need Squads working to build their numbers up, and keeping them active / well lead (entertained / motivated) in the game world.

From your perspective, Augetout (and others), what can CRS do to help mobilize the community in such a manner? We all want the game to succeed, regardless of side, or having a particular gripe about something. So if that is true (which it is, or why would anyone be here), what can we do to get some movement on this?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, poker said:

Some really great progress. If we could do 2018 again, what would we do differently?

I would personally say we need folks to stay subscribed, upgrade their subscriptions if they can, and we need to mobilize the community to develop the core health of our community / grow subscriber base. That is the basis of our momentum going forward. I know it sounds all-businessy, but it's important.

Our team has a lot of knowledge, way more mature this year many of our newer guys are, and if we could afford to get them on a more full-time basis... you'd see a hell of a lot more being done.

So the onus of our ability to do more and growth is dependent on the player base backing us up. What can we do to help that equation?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, XOOM said:

If we had twice as many subscribers, we could totally rock the house. We could get so much stuff done you guys would have an endless stream of goodies coming in. But we really need the community's help to get folks back, and bring new folks in. We need Squads working to build their numbers up, and keeping them active / well lead (entertained / motivated) in the game world.

Only twice as many huh? Sorry but the community can't help you with player count right now. If you open the gate to more people , you'll have a bigger pool of likely customers.

So say there'e 200 or so average player and half of those are subscribers. Bring in 400 more people and you'll get 200 more subscribers/dlc buyers/supporters. There's only one way to gain population, and that's utilize the market that's been laid out. If you're really going to offer only infantry to for the raw f2p, you better give those players a hell of a lot of things to do. If not people will lose interest quickly and your appeal for them to jump right into a subscription is not going to sway anyone. 

Nearly every successful f2p game I've played does a few things. 1. Offers subscription for TOP level supporters. 2. Microtransaction/DLC for supporters 3 for medium level support (more expensive in the long run) 3. and a solid f2p experience.
There's nothing wrong with offering light equipment if your confident that using this equipment will make people want to use better equipment. Games like E.V.E give you access to 50% of the game as a F2P because they're confident once you hit that 50%, you'll be so invested in the game you'll pay to access the last 50% Offering say 5%, people get through that 5% quickly, have no more progress to gain and lose interest.

The worse place you could probably go wrong is number 2 believe it or not. Treating people who prefer to 1 time buy items as if their support is worth less is straight up bad. Put it to a survey and I guarantee you 75%+ people will tell you outright that they will never pay monthly for a video game. F2P games now a days offer subscription but it's secondary to micro transactions in most cases, people see it as a cost v value problem. Spending 120 dollars a year for base access of a game is financially irresponsible. Pay as you go, keep what you buy is what people vastly prefer.

Number 3....you guys don't have cosmetics, premium currency or currency that is. All you have to offer is units so your subscription will probably have to stay pretty substantial. But you have to come to terms with what is considered "premium worthy". An early war medium tank is not a top premium, It's a medium, almost base item. A tiger or churchhill, now those are premium! Those will sell the subscription as the top level support earning the top level equipment.

A 37 MM AT gun? Not top level support item, nor is it a medium level support item (DLC). It's a low level base item, and it doesn't sell either premiums. So make it f2p. Everyone starts as F2P so you're that much more likely to keep people engaged. Potential customers, build you base, sell your premiums and people will buy.

I know you hate to hear it, but I'm telling you lol people expect this sort of model. It's the model that has been used for years now and people don't want a journey back into the manditory subscription service for their video games, you just won't compete with games offering many times more content for a 1 time price (even MMO's). f2p titles offer more in their free section than what's offered in the starter subscription here.  Not some, not most, ALL of them do because that's been deemed the best way to do it.

One thing is sure, no one jumps right into the subscription. Everyone starts as a f2p so make it good, make it wow people and don't be pushy with the money business, that's the last thing a player wants to see from a dev. Let them come around on their own. A game with 1000 active players and half subscribers makes more money, and is more successful than a game with 200 active players, and 200 subscribers. Just depends how much you're willing to invest into your player count, and how confident your are, because you certainly can give away too much and give people less reason to pay, but you can also give away too little and not hold enough playerbase to pool support from. It's a balance, start low and slowly go up and when people are no longer rioting on your reviews about pay2win and paywalls, then you're good to stop.

Edited by knucks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We had an in depth discussion in the other thread, but to not get too off topic and stay focused for 2019 I'll bite. I agree that F2P/Demo/Starter Account is something to have to let players try the game. But if you look at revenue trends F2P games generate revenue via microtransactions that let you buy skins/cons stick upgrades, or in F2P models like Planetside 2 experience points turning it into effectively a P2W (and even then the best weapons are behind paywalls/subscriptions).

WWIIOL as a simulation can't do the experience grinding model, which is a massive revenue source for many games. Yes in theory PS2 lets you "play with everything" for free, but the experience caps are so comically high it would take hundreds of hours to get that. So players end up buying experience packs. Same thing with Eve. However in WWIIOL experience is based on player skill alone so that model doesn't work.

Another option is cosmetic upgrades like skin/camo/decals/noseart which is necessary for F2P to be a sustainable model. This is certainly something that should be looked into but you can't just do F2P without having all the other stuff in place.

And regarding P2W some players are going to demand everything for free no matter what and for them every game will be P2W (not to mention many are trolls with an ax to grind). Giving everyone access to Tigers isn't the answer. Whether doing something like keep F2P but allowing players to buy their rank is something the community would support is questionable. In the end when you look at MMO revenue trends most of it is generated by microtransactions by players who never switch to a subscription and actually do t continue playing the game. For them it's a onetime upfront cost and that's it. Whether $49.99 upfront+12 months included premium sub after which it reverts to options if limited F2P/DLC/Premium is something I think is worth exploring.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, aismov said:

We had an in depth discussion in the other thread, but to not get too off topic and stay focused for 2019 I'll bite. I agree that F2P/Demo/Starter Account is something to have to let players try the game. But if you look at revenue trends F2P games generate revenue via microtransactions that let you buy skins/cons stick upgrades, or in F2P models like Planetside 2 experience points turning it into effectively a P2W (and even then the best weapons are behind paywalls/subscriptions).

If planetside 2 was pay2win people wouldn't be playing it, and the reviews wouldn't be so positive. If there's one thing players hate more than it's a pay2win game, sure ever f2p game has a bit of pay2win, that's how you sell. But it's not noticeable in ps2, everything is very balanced there's actually nothing you can buy with real money that gives you advantage over other players in combat except maybe camo's which can work pretty well. Weapons are all varients of each other, there is no best weapon, they all have the roughly same TTK at their desired ranges. Vehicles are unlocked from the get-go, all equipment is earned through play.

Not trying to push every discussion on the forum to this topic, but it's a very serious one in my eyes, it's only recently that you guys updated your pay model from 21 years ago. It's still pretty obscure for most people. 80% of items are unlockable by playing in planetside 2,. Nothing in PS is actually locked behind a sub, the sub is there for XP boost and a discount on store items. On the other hand wwiiol 95% of items are locked behind manditory paywalls. So really, what are you trying to compare here?

It's a no brainer which model bring more numbers. You'll be surprised just how well it works on both ends for players and developer. Just takes some trust and confidence, a bit of a leap of faith but it's a proven method if you do it wisely. Really all people are waiting for is a true f2p of this game like planetside or E.V.E or runescape or DOTA or APB or War Thunder or War Frame or Smite or Crossout or Everquest or Mech Warrior. In fact the worse offender of P2W is Hero's and Generals and jeez they still pull thousands of players on a [censored] game by virtue of being somewhat free (like 50% free). There's so much market potential for a good large scale WWII game and this game is it, but you're not competing because you haven't yet to take the plung into a market outside of sub-based which is all but dead now except for the long-standing MMO's that will likely not die out for decades.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, aismov said:

 In the end when you look at MMO revenue trends most of it is generated by microtransactions by players who never switch to a subscription and actually do t continue playing the game. For them it's a onetime upfront cost and that's it. Whether $49.99 upfront+12 months included premium sub after which it reverts to options if limited F2P/DLC/Premium is something I think is worth exploring.

Exactly mate, Imagine how many people out there who want to play, willing to play but you aren't reaching them because you're subscription only and you DLC doesn't offer everything you need. We call that leaving money on the table, you could definitely be raking in a thousand players easy on a tried and true f2p model. More players=more money. Developers only recently discovered 1000 players with only half supporting of pay is more money, more players, a better investment that having a playerbase of 200, except everyone pays.

Where you guys get it wrong is you think Subscription is the end all be all, when the subscription service based game has been dead for like 7 years now, and all the but the largest games who had it before intelligently carried over into the F2P market where they made more money while keeping their game's population high. Of course they keep the subscription, people prefer options. But it's no longer the prefered option, not even close.

Edited by knucks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, knucks said:

80% of items are unlockable by playing in planetside 2,. Nothing in PS is actually locked behind a sub, the sub is there for XP boost and a discount on store items. On the other hand wwiiol 95% of items are locked behind manditory paywalls.

Thats the key there... you need to purchase XP boost to be able to play any F2P game, thats how they get you. PS2 experience levels needed to unlock weapons are silly high essentially forcing players to purchase XP packs. The same can be said for Eve, or most other games out there.

Without generating revenue by have swappable skins on unit (not coded into the game), custom decals (not coded even though we do have decals), nose art (not coded) and a whole host of other things in place it is hard to make the transition. I don't disagree with you that there are valid ways to get more players in the game and make more money, but the backend stuff needs to be there before it is done. Whether that is CRS selling the equivalent of experience packs and selling 1,000 rank points for $10 or whatever the final number to allow F2P to quickly rank up and use better units, or doing the above with custom skins, but all of that needs to be coded first.

If you go through the steam reviews the major criticism of the game is:

1) dated graphics

2) high subscription cost

3) P2W perception since the only way to get the "best units" is to buy a premium subscription which gets you back to item #2

Really at the end of the day players would be able to overlook the graphics. But for many players the premium subscription is simply too high. Even for a player that would like to try out the game for say 3 months, you are looking at the cost of a AAA game. Now I am not privy to any CRS financials but I'm pretty sure one major issue is what you do in the gap between not having subscription based income while waiting for the F2P revenue kick in.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, aismov said:

Thats the key there... you need to purchase XP boost to be able to play any F2P game, thats how they get you. PS2 experience levels needed to unlock weapons are silly high essentially forcing players to purchase XP packs. The same can be said for Eve, or most other games out there.

Nah, you can just play and earn certs, you never have to pay for anything. Bro I can tell you've never played PS2, you don't unlock anything through level. You're trying to judge successful games for doing things right and it's not working. 

 

1 hour ago, aismov said:

Without generating revenue by have swappable skins on unit (not coded into the game), custom decals (not coded even though we do have decals), nose art (not coded) and a whole host of other things in place it is hard to make the transition. I don't disagree with you that there are valid ways to get more players in the game and make more money, but the backend stuff needs to be there before it is done. Whether that is CRS selling the equivalent of experience packs and selling 1,000 rank points for $10 or whatever the final number to allow F2P to quickly rank up and use better units, or doing the above with custom skins, but all of that needs to be coded first.

Then code it. Do you not see the success of CSGO and Fortnite cosmetic only systems? You don't need to sell anything but cosmetics nowadays and people LOVE it.

"Whether that is CRS selling the equivalent of experience packs and selling 1,000 rank points for $10 or whatever the final number to allow F2P to quickly rank up and use better units, or doing the above with custom skins, but all of that needs to be coded first."

Gosh man, you really have no idea how f2p works. Leveling is suppose to take a long time. You're always suppose to be progressing that's how you keep players in. You don't sell ranks ever.

1 hour ago, aismov said:

if you go through the steam reviews the major criticism of the game is:

1) dated graphics

2) high subscription cost

3) P2W perception since the only way to get the "best units" is to buy a premium subscription which gets you back to item #2

1.Dated graphics compounded by clunky infantry controls. Go play Squad, Red Orchestra or Insurgency and copy those movement systems. That's the creme of the crop.

2.It's not high subscription cost, it's subscription, period. You're still charging people like its 2001. Games and the way you pay for them has gotten a lot better since then.

3.This game for all intense and purposes is pay2win, heavy paywall hardlocked no progression ever unless you pay. You're actually actively misleading people calling it f2p and not subscription based, but of course no one would buy a game that's solely subscription based, hense the 150 or so players online while your competitor Hero's and Generals pulls 3,000 players every day. That's pretty sad, a great game held back by easily one the worse pay models on steam.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, aismov said:

Really at the end of the day players would be able to overlook the graphics. But for many players the premium subscription is simply too high. Even for a player that would like to try out the game for say 3 months, you are looking at the cost of a AAA game. Now I am not privy to any CRS financials but I'm pretty sure one major issue is what you do in the gap between not having subscription based income while waiting for the F2P revenue kick in.

The people who subscribe now will always subscribe. They're the core fanbase, the die hard fans, the fanatics who will defend the game to it's grave. No one subscribes to use light AT guns. It's dead weight, throw it to the f2p and watch you get out what you put in.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, knucks said:

The people who subscribe now will always subscribe. They're the core fanbase, the die hard fans, the fanatics who will defend the game to it's grave. No one subscribes to use light AT guns. It's dead weight, throw it to the f2p and watch you get out what you put in.

So you come here to call us, the customers who keep the game  that we like, "die hard fans" and "the fanatics". If you come frequently to the forum and not every 6 months when you get tired of whatever you are playing, you would know that there are many "fanatics" very critical with CRS, they are not exactly "die hard fans".  Personally, I'm not interested in your opinions on the videogame technical market and you bore me a lot, but when I read your opinion and with an apparently lack of respect about people who keeps the game running, I felt the need to answer you. Another good post reviewing the 2018 goals achieved hijacked.....

 

5 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, knucks said:

No one subscribes to use light AT guns. It's dead weight, throw it to the f2p and watch you get out what you put in.

Of course we do
All the light ATG's can be very deadly to a good number of things, they aren't dead weight unless you are using them that way

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your argument is flawed on how it can be applied here for two reasons, they have access to resources via developers and publishers that can carry the overhead and that helps pay for the overhead, then the platform itself is different, weapons are not modeled differently, the weapons classes are all the same cross teams. 

You bring up the point that this is not a true free to play game and you are correct in that case it's not. 

 

We are working to update our billing system to add more productive dlcs nit only to steam but organically as well. 

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, aismov said:

But if you look at revenue trends F2P games generate revenue via microtransactions that let you buy skins/cons stick upgrades

As already stated in the past.......this platform cannot support microtransactions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎1‎/‎1‎/‎2019 at 10:00 PM, XOOM said:

We need you guys to help us make sure that you're not throwing in the towel either. This is the worst time to do that when we are making such progress. You and others who have been active here in the forums are doing great - but please, we need to help maintain the positive atmosphere by extending the good news and messages to community members who are not here, or who may be reserved about coming back.

I don't know how to say this without being blunt about it, so here goes...

If we had twice as many subscribers, we could totally rock the house. We could get so much stuff done you guys would have an endless stream of goodies coming in. But we really need the community's help to get folks back, and bring new folks in. We need Squads working to build their numbers up, and keeping them active / well lead (entertained / motivated) in the game world.

From your perspective, Augetout (and others), what can CRS do to help mobilize the community in such a manner? We all want the game to succeed, regardless of side, or having a particular gripe about something. So if that is true (which it is, or why would anyone be here), what can we do to get some movement on this?

Roger that.  I have even taken to sharing some WWIIOnline content on social media, which for my age group, lol is probably greeted with raised eyebrows, but I'm ok with it...  The goal being to inspire a question or 2 here and there, which will grow things albeit in a slow way.  Some of the younger folks might even share it here and there.  No towel-throwing in here, and being positive without losing credibility by failing to seek (positive) change, is not difficult for me.

 

Twice as many subscribers----I would like to go offline with you, @XOOM to gain some insight on the numbers involved.  I may be able to help on some of the marketing stuff, on a volunteer basis.

 

Building/rebuilding Lafayette Federation has been slow-going thus far, but it is going in the right direction.

 

I am seeing (other posts) that this game cannot support microtransactions, and if accurate, some of my ideas will have to get thrown out immediately.  I believe CRS can help squads rebuild by enhancing our presence ingame, via indirect marketing techniques such as branding.  Without getting too wonky, a new player sees me ingame, and sees my ingame name, my rank, and my unit tag.  From there he/she sees my ingame chat characteristics, and if on voicecoms, can hear how I communicate (I'm not on voicecoms at the moment so this is for example-purposes only).  That is all we have for squad marketing outside of the forums, which I think we can all agree are far less trafficked than in the early days..  What I would propose is more things ingame that identify the squads, i.e. unit badges and such on tanks, planes, trucks, etc  If the game doesn't support microtransactions, perhaps creating models only accessible to spawn via DLC purchases would be a way around it? (I dunno).  In other words, there's a Laffly to spawn, and there's a Lafayette Federation Laffly to spawn if the squad has paid for it.

 

Fixing, for example, the squad-purchased ingame monuments, i.e. making them readable again, would be something I would like to see.  I want folks, (for example) who are in Charleville to know that town is/was basically the homebase of Lafayette Federation.  Thus, in this world of increased unit badges being seen ingame, new folks would see that the folks they have been hanging out with in battle are 31st Wrecking Crew members, or Lafayette Federation members, or Lancers, etc, pretty much wherever they looked, as opposed to (just) the ingame nametags.

 

As counter-intuitive as it may seem on the surface, I would favor marketing directly at those who are currently playing heroes and generals, post-scriptum, etc.  Only a fool believes everyone in those communities are completely satisfied and unwilling to look in another direction.

 

Other than that, my humble advice would be to keep on doing what you've been doing in the year-ish since I returned to the game (it may have been going on longer than that, but as I wasn't here I cannot speak to that period of time).  CRS is more responsive than I remember (I had no problems with their level of responsiveness back in the day, but in the end I have observed and appreciated the increased levels).  CRS is more transparent than I remember, (that lack of transparency did annoy me a bit back in the 'old days').  CRS always seemed to have a decent level of inclusiveness, but certainly even that has increased in the year since I returned.  All good things that show me the new crew 'gets it' better than the original group did.  That does not presume nor require perfection on CRS' part, and it does require patience of a customer-base that was unfairly (in the early days) asked to show patience without results.  All in all, it didn't take a day, or month, to chase a ton of players away from the game, thus it will probably take more than a day, or month, to get more players to subscribe.

 

S!

Edited by augetout
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, augetout said:

As counter-intuitive as it may seem on the surface, I would favor marketing directly at those who are currently playing heroes and generals, post-scriptum, etc.  Only a fool believes everyone in those communities are completely satisfied and unwilling to look in another direction.

Something we can agree on! These aren't you typical hype-beast gamer crowd. These are people who enjoy milsim for their teamwork-oriented approach, which takes maturity and patience. Market to this crowd, they will not give you any of the problems you're concerned of. They will work with you to improve your game and make it approachable for other people who are interested in military simulators, being this is the only true ww2 sim, they will be just as much willing to help preserve this game and make it grow as you are.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would take it one step further @Augetout... Have more than monuments and bring in some RPG elements and get custom skins/monuments, he'll I've always said let squads purchase their own headquarters in the respective nations capital. Who in Lafayette wouldn't want to have a place in the game works that is "theirs" with a flag and the squad emblem hanging over a unique building on the Champs Elysees.

Players in the 31st would certainly go for that. We pooled resources for two Builder Monuments, both in Haybes.

We would love to have a headquarters building to call our own. Naturally we would have it in Paris as well since we will be capturing the city within 24 hours anyway :D

 

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, augetout said:

As counter-intuitive as it may seem on the surface, I would favor marketing directly at those who are currently playing heroes and generals, post-scriptum, etc.  Only a fool believes everyone in those communities are completely satisfied and unwilling to look in another direction.

I have a feeling those people have already looked at this game and went the other direction.  They’re playing those other games instead of this one for a reason.  Read the Steam reviews. And I doubt they’ll come back unless there’s a substantial change in what this game has to offer.  And when the next generation “post scriptum” comes out they’ll be playing that instead of this, if this doesn’t change.  

All the social media pushes in the world won’t increase the population in the state the game is in now.  The Steam release proves that, despite the reddit push, the live streams, and all the Facebook and forum posts.

Edited by rendus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, aismov said:

I would take it one step further @Augetout... Have more than monuments and bring in some RPG elements and get custom skins/monuments, he'll I've always said let squads purchase their own headquarters in the respective nations capital. Who in Lafayette wouldn't want to have a place in the game works that is "theirs" with a flag and the squad emblem hanging over a unique building on the Champs Elysees.

Players in the 31st would certainly go for that. We pooled resources for two Builder Monuments, both in Haybes.

We would love to have a headquarters building to call our own. Naturally we would have it in Paris as well since we will be capturing the city within 24 hours anyway :D

 

Lol I remember that line from the early days.  I recall (one time) on voicecoms a new member mentioned that, and I bluntly said 'not a chance if they attempt to do so through our AO', right as 10+ PzIIIs, and 10+ 88s appeared on the hill overlooking whatever town we were in at that moment, causing me to say 'well maybe, if we continue to let 25+ heavy guns show up on our doorstep without knowing about it ahead of time' (via air recon, etc.). lol

 

If the game can handle the additions without detracting from their normal upgrades, audit work, etc., I would be all for it.  Allowing german monuments in Allied towns, though, is a no go. ;)

 

S!

Edited by augetout

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, aismov said:

Who in Lafayette wouldn't want to have a place in the game works that is "theirs" with a flag and the squad emblem hanging over a unique building on the Champs Elysees.

 

23 minutes ago, aismov said:

Players in the 31st would certainly go for that.

LoL, i am sure they would.
Literally :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.