Valve will attempt to combat review bombing on Steam by removing offtopic and DRM focused reviews

the_randomizer · Mar 18, 2019

BORTZ said:
Steam has become a garbage heap lately. Sure people review bombing something is bad for the game and could scare off devs but at the end of the day, DENUVO and the other garbage DRM programs can render games useless. To the point where a paying customer is the only one punished for playing by the rules. Screwing over legally playing customers is bad and if your game gets review bombed because of it, maybe its time to think about your players and not your bottom line.

I know Denuvo has been cracked for some games, but it's funny how devs tout it as some "unbeatable" DRM lol. Steam's DRM should be enough, and it's not the worst DRM I've used, is lightweight and for the most port noninvasive. But what really pisses me off, is when games on there either use uPlay, on top of Denuvo, why? There is no purpose other than to have Ubisoft being total dicks about it "but muh anti-piracy". We all know that DRM does little to nothing to impact piracy permanently. If anything, DRM only drives people to pirate more IMO.

It's funny how companies think that piracy will magically somehow cause their company to go away overnight, or that adding DRM will stop it forever.

FAST6191 · Mar 18, 2019

the_randomizer said:
I know Denuvo has been cracked for some games, but it's funny how devs tout it as some "unbeatable" DRM lol. Steam's DRM should be enough, and it's not the worst DRM I've used, is lightweight and for the most port noninvasive. But what really pisses me off, is when games on there either use uPlay, on top of Denuvo, why? There is no purpose other than to have Ubisoft being total dicks about it "but muh anti-piracy". We all know that DRM does little to nothing to impact piracy permanently. If anything, DRM only drives people to pirate more IMO.

It's funny how companies think that piracy will magically somehow cause their company to go away overnight, or that adding DRM will stop it forever.

For some then uplay is more than just another layer of DRM -- it acting as a store, server browser/game finder, chat program of sorts... all the same things that Steam bills itself as to make it more palatable. Also why does Valve/Steam get to be the provider of DRM? What makes them (a very private company run not by a friendly government or industry consortium, one with a lot of shady decisions in their past and to this day, one not really accountable to anybody) worthy?

Taleweaver · Mar 18, 2019

FAST6191 said:
I am not sure what to say other than I disagree with most of that, indeed only the uplay thing but that is more because it fails to distinguish between truly limiting DRM and just DRM (though possibly one that still carries more general downsides that I covered earlier as far as reselling games).

The analogy with a car I am at a complete loss for.

Why would we not want the guy with 100+ hours in on a game not making a comment? If someone has put the time in then it tends to speak to some credibility on the matter. Similarly I do have to mention that the game creates the community.

What is wrong with getting developers to change their policies with community action? How else are people supposed to do things? Firing anonymous support tickets into the wind? Firing actual bullets?

I am not sure what the puppy in the holocaust simulator is supposed to be about. Is it something the fans of such games might want to see? If I bought the ultimate car racing simulator and it turns out I was missing out on Ford, VW, Mazda, Toyota and Mercedes Benz then I would probably be a bit upset at such things being missing from the concept. Or do you mean like those joke reviews on places like Amazon where people would find £3000 professional graphics cards (as in cost that much because they were used by people that bill about that much a day, if not for a week of work and crashes represent real problems) and write things like solitaire ran slow and give it 1 star?

Let's see...I think we have a different view of what constitutes to being called a review. To me, a review is supposed to be an all-round description of the impression of a product or good. Per se, it shouldn't (always) be a complete listing of the features, but should at least attempt to give an indication of what the reviewer considered the product or good in terms of quality, and why the user considered it as such.

I make the analogy with a car to illustrate the point. Ask car owners why they consider a car a quality and you get many different responses. Some want comfy seats, large trunk, reliable motor, ease of maintenance, and so on, and so on. Nobody really DOESN'T want qualities, but people generally don't complain about things that are considered common or only happen occasionally. And it's that latter that is similar with DRM. DRM is one aspect of a game. One. And if it's implemented correctly, is a small inconvenience that comes with the package (like...how cars come with keys: they aren't needed if there are no thieves, but unfortunately we can't avoid it). Would it be considered fair to dish out a car that has comfy seats, large trunk, reliable motor and some other bunch of qualities that potential car owners find interesting ...solely because of one minor inconvenience? I think not.

Why would we not want the guy with 100+ hours in on a game not making a comment?

If you think that's what I want, you misunderstood me completely. I DO want the guy with 100+ hours in a game to make a comment. Absolutely. More so: I value his opinion much more than the guys with 0.1 hours of play time.
But here's the thing: a few esport athletes aside, gaming is still a hobby. Every hour, every minute spent on a game is one that is voluntary put into it. So the guy that spends hundreds of hours on a game and then decides to thumb it down on steam "because of DRM" simply isn't being fair. Perhaps you believe that he hates every hour with the game but pushes on because of some masochistic reasons, but I don't. I say that that guy likes the game but is using politis to get a part to change.

Similarly I do have to mention that the game creates the community.

Interesting view point. It might be true, but I personally believe somewhat the opposite: the community creates the community. Kind of how a toxic OP and the first few posts sets the tone for the dialogue in a forum thread, I think that the first ones to adopt a game will determine most of how the community will look like.

What is wrong with getting developers to change their policies with community action? How else are people supposed to do things?

Hmm...I'll concede that these are indeed very valid questions. But I'm not sure if "community action" is what valve is trying to stop here. There have been bad games on steam before, and AFAIK, these never somehow got good grades. And from what I can see, they weren't censored either. This situation is more like the inverse: developers should still be free to make the games how they see fit. they shouldn't be bullied into removing DRM or implementing changes.
That "puppy in the holocaust simulator" refers to the latter, by the way (sorry that that was unclear

). No matter what you change, some people will dislike it. I'd almost even dare you to look up reviews from sequels that took a franchise in a different reaction. Some go either all out "get <previous version of game> instead!!!" or passive-agressive "I guess it's nice but <previous version> was just much better>" without giving the change proper thought. Of course my example was a hyperbole (perhaps "there should've been more color in Limbo!" would've been a better one), but the thing is that some changes that are being pushed for fail to realise that adding something won't always make the overall end result better.

FAST6191 · Mar 18, 2019

Taleweaver said:
Let's see...I think we have a different view of what constitutes to being called a review. To me, a review is supposed to be an all-round description of the impression of a product or good. Per se, it shouldn't (always) be a complete listing of the features, but should at least attempt to give an indication of what the reviewer considered the product or good in terms of quality, and why the user considered it as such.

I make the analogy with a car to illustrate the point. Ask car owners why they consider a car a quality and you get many different responses. Some want comfy seats, large trunk, reliable motor, ease of maintenance, and so on, and so on. Nobody really DOESN'T want qualities, but people generally don't complain about things that are considered common or only happen occasionally. And it's that latter that is similar with DRM. DRM is one aspect of a game. One. And if it's implemented correctly, is a small inconvenience that comes with the package (like...how cars come with keys: they aren't needed if there are no thieves, but unfortunately we can't avoid it). Would it be considered fair to dish out a car that has comfy seats, large trunk, reliable motor and some other bunch of qualities that potential car owners find interesting ...solely because of one minor inconvenience? I think not.

Why would we not want the guy with 100+ hours in on a game not making a comment?

If you think that's what I want, you misunderstood me completely. I DO want the guy with 100+ hours in a game to make a comment. Absolutely. More so: I value his opinion much more than the guys with 0.1 hours of play time.
But here's the thing: a few esport athletes aside, gaming is still a hobby. Every hour, every minute spent on a game is one that is voluntary put into it. So the guy that spends hundreds of hours on a game and then decides to thumb it down on steam "because of DRM" simply isn't being fair. Perhaps you believe that he hates every hour with the game but pushes on because of some masochistic reasons, but I don't. I say that that guy likes the game but is using politis to get a part to change.

Similarly I do have to mention that the game creates the community.

Interesting view point. It might be true, but I personally believe somewhat the opposite: the community creates the community. Kind of how a toxic OP and the first few posts sets the tone for the dialogue in a forum thread, I think that the first ones to adopt a game will determine most of how the community will look like.

What is wrong with getting developers to change their policies with community action? How else are people supposed to do things?

Hmm...I'll concede that these are indeed very valid questions. But I'm not sure if "community action" is what valve is trying to stop here. There have been bad games on steam before, and AFAIK, these never somehow got good grades. And from what I can see, they weren't censored either. This situation is more like the inverse: developers should still be free to make the games how they see fit. they shouldn't be bullied into removing DRM or implementing changes.
That "puppy in the holocaust simulator" refers to the latter, by the way (sorry that that was unclear ). No matter what you change, some people will dislike it. I'd almost even dare you to look up reviews from sequels that took a franchise in a different reaction. Some go either all out "get <previous version of game> instead!!!" or passive-agressive "I guess it's nice but <previous version> was just much better>" without giving the change proper thought. Of course my example was a hyperbole (perhaps "there should've been more color in Limbo!" would've been a better one), but the thing is that some changes that are being pushed for fail to realise that adding something won't always make the overall end result better.

"That guy that has 100+ hours on GTA V and downvotes it because the online community is bad is one to ignore."
If someone with the time in downvotes something because an aspect, which would well be a substantial part of the game or reason to own it on that platform (maybe not for you or I but more on that sort of thing in a moment), is left wanting seems like something maybe worth investigating.
Unless that was a typo/skipped word and you meant "is not necessarily one to ignore", which could well be the case going by the later comment then OK.

It is possible to tell whether an online aspect will have a good community. The classic example is something like DOTA/MOBA. With all the stupid and non obvious mechanics (last hitting your own stuff to deny experience, bunching and what have you), as well win-loss of teams (said teams being 4 on 4 so one "bad" playing really tanking things) being the only stats available means you are going to shun noobs and bad players. On the other hand if in a shooting game kills don't matter, servers are 64v64 then you are going to try to make it work even with Johnny can barely fumble a controller as they will draw the tiniest bit of fire and thus are valuable and you will make it work.

"Nobody really DOESN'T want qualities"
If qualities I don't need are going to hit me in my wallet then I do care, and nothing happens for free. How many times now have we heard devs were forced to add a multiplayer mode despite it not making all that much sense. If they had not (and given the quality of many of them then they probably did not get much in the way of extra sales because of it) and instead either invested that in the main game, or reduced the budget so they got better returns/profit and we got a nice sequel.

"a review is supposed to be an all-round description of the impression of a product or good"
I would not go that far. Aspects of it could be reviewed, or it could be reviewed with a particular market in mind -- I am not going to recommend a professional drill to my mate that just needs to put the occasional shelf up, on the other hand the one that uses it all day in a job probably won't appreciate one that will burn out within a few weeks of their heavy use. In games we would probably see it as people skipping the single player token training missions and looking at multiplayer (though there is a case to be made for just doing one when the other is substantial), and at the same time the "find a reviewer with the same likes and dislikes as you" thing we try to encourage. At least you did not say it needs a score to be a review.

As far as bullied I fail to see how such things count as bullying. Do a thing which troubles your customers with little tangible benefit and expect to get some grumbling. They can plough on all they like, and indeed many games have already been DRMed into oblivion and can not be played any longer. Why a supposedly game player focused/caring company should prevent such warnings from being issued I do not know.
I also see little issue with the guy having played and thumbing down because DRM. It could be that it made the experience far more of a chore than it had to be, that there was the kernel of a good idea there... if DRM is part of the game it stands to reason it could be reflected in the review. Now if there was no DRM in the game then that is a different matter.
At the same time I would agree that a lot of community actions are dubious in nature -- going back to DOTA/MOBA stuff then when devs were moving it away from a mod into a standalone gameplay style they asked what people would want. Many of the responses included all those nonsense mechanics. One might also look at the fate of the later Tribes games (once legendary shooting games)... inmates running the asylum springs to mind there.

Valve did censor a few games. The history of Hatred being a fun one ( https://gbatemp.net/threads/valve-to-stop-policing-content-on-the-steam-store.506639/ ), as would be their "not welcome" of various things involving nudity ( https://gbatemp.net/threads/update-...ir-content-or-face-removal-from-steam.504265/ ). They have since gone back on a lot of it and allowed something of a free for all ( https://gbatemp.net/threads/valve-to-stop-policing-content-on-the-steam-store.506639/ ) but I don't want to be too quick to forget.

As far as saying get the prequel then there are many seconds where the second verse is much worse than the first. Whether such people will eventually come to love the changes could be a thing but I don't see why I would want to nuke such comments, or where I might draw a line, if I even can (is simplification always a bad thing? Likewise is it always good?). Beyond that would fans of an earlier entry not be justified in expecting more refined play compared to earlier entries? If you spend possibly hundreds of hours learning one style then having the proverbial rug pulled out from under you can be jarring. Even if the game stands alone by itself.
One of my favourite ever review scores was for a later entry of the megaman battle network series. It ran take one point off for every game you have played before this. The idea being that while the game was good if you came in completely cold to the series if you had played all the others it would be much of the same.

the_randomizer · Mar 18, 2019

FAST6191 said:
For some then uplay is more than just another layer of DRM -- it acting as a store, server browser/game finder, chat program of sorts... all the same things that Steam bills itself as to make it more palatable. Also why does Valve/Steam get to be the provider of DRM? What makes them (a very private company run not by a friendly government or industry consortium, one with a lot of shady decisions in their past and to this day, one not really accountable to anybody) worthy?

uPlay actually locked up Windows 10 a few weeks ago, it was loading Splinter Cell Conviction and the screen just turned blank, I couldn't close it out or enter the task manager. So I uninstalled it, I shouldn't have to use Steam to install uPlay just to play a game I bought on Steam. It's bullshit, either let me use one or the other.

I'd rather let Steam dictate what DRM a game uses than Ubisoft or Sega.

FAST6191 · Mar 18, 2019

the_randomizer said:
uPlay actually locked up Windows 10 a few weeks ago, it was loading Splinter Cell Conviction and the screen just turned blank, I couldn't close it out or enter the task manager. So I uninstalled it, I shouldn't have to use Steam to install uPlay just to play a game I bought on Steam. It's bullshit, either let me use one or the other.

I'd rather let Steam dictate what DRM a game uses than Ubisoft or Sega.

If indeed uplay acts as a server finder, chat provider, store and such then I am not sure on what basis you might want to claim that. If it was purely redundant DRM then maybe a moral case could be made, though I am sure that is partly why such things were made into "more than DRM".

the_randomizer · Mar 18, 2019

FAST6191 said:
If indeed uplay acts as a server finder, chat provider, store and such then I am not sure on what basis you might want to claim that. If it was purely redundant DRM then maybe a moral case could be made, though I am sure that is partly why such things were made into "more than DRM".

I mean, why use Steam just to use it on top of uPlay? Why can't one just use one or the other? I fail to see the reason why uPlay has to be used when I buy a game via Steam? It's like there's no point in it being on Steam if I have to use it Ubisoft's servers. I'd rather just install the game once via uPlay then crack the game so I don't have to use it, TOS be damned.

FAST6191 · Mar 18, 2019

the_randomizer said:
I mean, why use Steam just to use it on top of uPlay? Why can't one just use one or the other? I fail to see the reason why uPlay has to be used when I buy a game via Steam? It's like there's no point in it being on Steam if I have to use it Ubisoft's servers. I'd rather just install the game once via uPlay then crack the game so I don't have to use it, TOS be damned.

I imagine they stuck it on Steam to get a wider potential customer base (pick your fights and all that) but kicked their server finding code, own in house DLC store (which they presumably get a better cut from), chat and whatever else to a single program which is probably easier to update and theoretically more secure, one they called uplay.

I don't know what Steam's regs are as far as launching things outside their program, or if people get better deals if they wind their code in with Steam's (does it appear on active players if so?). It might have been that Valve forced them to launch Steam. I am not a fan of redundancy in this instance but and don't know the hard reasons for why things may play out the way they do, however there could well be many plausible reasons.

the_randomizer · Mar 18, 2019

FAST6191 said:
I imagine they stuck it on Steam to get a wider potential customer base (pick your fights and all that) but kicked their server finding code, own in house DLC store (which they presumably get a better cut from), chat and whatever else to a single program which is probably easier to update and theoretically more secure, one they called uplay.

I don't know what Steam's regs are as far as launching things outside their program, or if people get better deals if they wind their code in with Steam's (does it appear on active players if so?). It might have been that Valve forced them to launch Steam. I am not a fan of redundancy in this instance but and don't know the hard reasons for why things may play out the way they do, however there could well be many plausible reasons.

It's reasons like that I can't stand Ubisoft. ugh.

FAST6191 · Mar 18, 2019

the_randomizer said:
It's reasons like that I can't stand Ubisoft. ugh.

Not sure what things discussed in my post make Ubisoft the arsehole, or leave Valve smelling like roses.

As far as I am concerned both are generally anti consumer bastards and would not care if either went up in flames tomorrow, the world likely being a better place in the fairly near term (I am assuming there would be a couple of teething issues at first) if they did.

deSSy2724 · Mar 18, 2019

I can understand anything but not be allowed to complain about DRMs? what the hell?

the_randomizer · Mar 18, 2019

FAST6191 said:
Not sure what things discussed in my post make Ubisoft the arsehole, or leave Valve smelling like roses.

As far as I am concerned both are generally anti consumer bastards and would not care if either went up in flames tomorrow, the world likely being a better place in the fairly near term (I am assuming there would be a couple of teething issues at first) if they did.

If either of them goes under, you can be damn sure I'll be stripping all my games of their DRM. The Steam API is supposedly easy to bypass.

deSSy2724 said:
I can understand anything but not be allowed to complain about DRMs? what the hell?

It's typical dev sycophancy

kuwanger · Mar 18, 2019

Taleweaver said:
Nobody really DOESN'T want qualities, but people generally don't complain about things that are considered common or only happen occasionally. And it's that latter that is similar with DRM. DRM is one aspect of a game. One. And if it's implemented correctly, is a small inconvenience that comes with the package (like...how cars come with keys: they aren't needed if there are no thieves, but unfortunately we can't avoid it). Would it be considered fair to dish out a car that has comfy seats, large trunk, reliable motor and some other bunch of qualities that potential car owners find interesting ...solely because of one minor inconvenience? I think not.

People absolutely avoid leasing cars precisely because they don't like the idea of renting a car long term. If you present something as being "sold" but legally it's in limbo because of DRM, then it may well not be a minor inconvenience and making it patently clear to people in a review and down voting because of it can be reasonable. Add to that that certain DRM schemes are online only, may require separate registration, or even have entirely become unplayable. There's a reason I recommend people don't buy R4i Dual Core flash carts. At least they can be legally hacked around to be used. Then there's the actual day-to-day crashes or issues which may be DRM related--although one could just complain about the crashes and issues.

Taleweaver said:
No matter what you change, some people will dislike it. I'd almost even dare you to look up reviews from sequels that took a franchise in a different reaction. Some go either all out "get <previous version of game> instead!!!" or passive-agressive "I guess it's nice but <previous version> was just much better>" without giving the change proper thought. Of course my example was a hyperbole (perhaps "there should've been more color in Limbo!" would've been a better one), but the thing is that some changes that are being pushed for fail to realise that adding something won't always make the overall end result better.

Funny you bring that up because that's exactly how a lot of the Saints Row community split at Saints Row 4. If you don't know, the game moved from what could be argued to be a somewhat GTA parody to a GTA parody with super powers. It's totally understandable for people to warn off other fans of the series--their base--that it might not be what they desire. Compare that to GTA where there really hasn't been a massive shift in what the game is.

Now, if the core of your complaint is a lack of context for why people think the sequel is inferior, that's a legitimate reason to dismiss near any review. There's plenty of reasons, though, to take well thought out criticism of why "super powers ruin the game" as legitimate, even if it has the opposite effect. Hence, negative reviews are positive reviews depending on who reads them. The real core of it all is reading them. If Steam wants to offer better user-controlled filtering features that's one thing. In the end, though, it should be up the consumer what their own standards should be.

Axido · Mar 19, 2019

FAST6191 said:
Not sure what things discussed in my post make Ubisoft the arsehole, or leave Valve smelling like roses.

As far as I am concerned both are generally anti consumer bastards and would not care if either went up in flames tomorrow, the world likely being a better place in the fairly near term (I am assuming there would be a couple of teething issues at first) if they did.

I guess Ubisoft make themselves seem the way they are seen by gamers. Nobody ever asked for Uplay... or Origin... or the Epic Games Store. Yeah, sure they all provide more than just a layer of DRM, but in fact they provide absolutely nothing else than their competitors apart from some games. The same features over and over again. It's unnecessary to have four or more stores that do exactly the same, while some of them just do it worse than others. And the second one of them needs to be started in order to play a game bought at another one of those stores, it gets ridiculous.
So, yeah, for once I totally see the_rantomizers (sorry, I just had to) point.

FAST6191 · Mar 19, 2019

Axido said:
I guess Ubisoft make themselves seem the way they are seen by gamers. Nobody ever asked for Uplay... or Origin... or the Epic Games Store. Yeah, sure they all provide more than just a layer of DRM, but in fact they provide absolutely nothing else than their competitors apart from some games. The same features over and over again. It's unnecessary to have four or more stores that do exactly the same, while some of them just do it worse than others. And the second one of them needs to be started in order to play a game bought at another one of those stores, it gets ridiculous.
So, yeah, for once I totally see the_rantomizers (sorry, I just had to) point.

Nobody ever asked for Steam either.

If something as theoretically important as access to games is to be controlled by private companies I want competition.

As far as more than one program being launched then from a coding perspective if they were little more than ultra light frontends much akin to a library they probably load and unload a thousand times for a vaguely normal session I would be fine (how many people these days even close the browser down before launching a game, never mind go so old school as to remove everything they could from RAM that was not necessary for Windows, 3d and networking to run?). If they are going to be bloated behemoths that impart little extra functionality someone is actually going to care about then that is a different matter.

Jonna · Mar 19, 2019

FAST6191 said:
Depending upon where you are in the world you do have the legal ability, and have had for several years now
https://www.eurogamer.net/articles/...nnot-stop-you-reselling-your-downloaded-games

Prior to that there were all sorts of workarounds as well. Classic one used for expensive software was to spin off the company it belonged to (usually done when one was going bankrupt but not always) but leave the software under the "original" owner company. Company 2 then buys the original company with all its licenses and puts it as a subsidiary of company 2 and thus company 2 legally has access to the software.

There have been others over the years in other places
https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=701bc0f8-bda0-4526-8eb6-a09f6e73bbf1
https://www.ebay.co.uk/gds/How-to-buy-or-sell-used-Adobe-software-on-eBay-/10000000177069854/g.html
https://www.eff.org/cases/vernor-v-autodesk (though the later circuit court stuff might trouble things here).

In any case Valve don't make it easy (if they can do things like this then they can trivially add an "other sellers" tab or dropdown) so I mostly just deem it a glorified rental service and treat it accordingly.

While I appreciate your in-depth response, I was going with more the logistics of people buying them. I mean, I can definitely sell a PC game, but no one will buy them. If they're older games when the CD key was unlocked through the game's internal code, those are fine since you just need that key every time you install it. But now those keys are activated one time, online, tied to an account, so if you try to sell the game, the other recipient has a disc of the game but no way to play it, hence why no one will buy pc games anymore. That's why I was wondering if you had any luck selling them.

orangy57 · Mar 19, 2019

I feel like bad reviews about technical issues in a game are completely valid. If I'm going to have an awful time setting up a game like, for example, GTA IV because of its DRM that doesn't work properly, this means the game was made badly. Sure I enjoyed GTA IV itself, but the amount of hoops I had to jump through made the game not worth playing at all, so I just played it on the Xbox 360 instead. That's a perfectly valid complaint. If II'm trying to play a game and there's a process or feature that has to be running on my computer that detracts from the experience, then the game blows.

mario5555 · Mar 21, 2019

Well if you're playing on Steam it's DRM anyway, so..."kettle calling the pot black"

(I know the debate w/extra DRM like Denuvo, Star Force, etc.,)

Steam reviews for the most parts are jokes anyway, if you want the most biased, one sided reviews written, look no place else.

Ryccardo · Mar 21, 2019

mario5555 said:
if you want the most biased, one sided reviews written, look no place else.

And what are reviews supposed to be, if not someone's personal opinion?

Reviews in general started becoming really stupid once "they" started thinking individual opinion can be expressed on an arbitrary numeric scale (with no standardized meaning, and influenced by decades of bribed "professional reviews" and grade inflation), and worse comparing numbers given by different people at different times (and with game updates & dlc having sadly become the norm too, of possibly different things!)

The Temp's official fox whisperer

Techromancer

Storywriter

Techromancer

The Temp's official fox whisperer

Techromancer

The Temp's official fox whisperer

Techromancer

The Temp's official fox whisperer

Techromancer

Well-Known Member

The Temp's official fox whisperer

Well-Known Member

Maker of TRASLApp

Techromancer

Some sort of musician.

bruh

Well-Known Member

Penguin accelerator

Similar threads

Popular threads in this forum