Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

PS3/360, they both match my hi-fi now, which do I buy?

15678911»

Posts

  • EclecticGrooveEclecticGroove Registered User regular
    edited September 2007

    Happened with the Xbox, yeah? Vastly oversold by the PS2, but still found a decent stable of games, even with the sustained higher price.

    And this, my friend, is pretty much where many people (not just 360 fanboys) feel the PS3 will be this generation.

    Still a viable console, still one with good games, but if you were to answer a generic inquiry as to where are the best games between the PS2/Xbox/Gamecube, the answer would be the PS2.

    individual tastes can alter that for sure, but that still doesn't change the overall answer that would be true in most cases.

    Right now, the 360 is in that position, it's still early sure, but it doesn't look to be letting up any time soon. The Wii was the unknown quantity this time around, and it's anyones guess as to how it will affect the other two consoles in terms of games, but we can already see that it is #1 in total sales and still going strong. Maybe it will start to drop off sales wise, maybe it wont. Maybe it will lure devs away from the other 2 consoles, or maybe they will just put differing games on it, who knows? We will see.

    But for right now the 360 is the console with the most games to recommend in a general sense, that cannot be argued. You can of course argue for individual tastes, the merits of one game vs another, but it still doesn't change the 360's current place in the market.

  • devoirdevoir Registered User
    edited September 2007
    apotheos wrote: »
    You are extrapolating past facts into what you feel is a probable future totally neglecting the change in circumstances: that this time Sony is having its arse handed to them in the marketplace.

    That's a pretty insightful quote, and I think it's the source of a lot of the raw fanboyism seen here for the PS3 brand and around the internet.

    A lot of the people I see advocating the Xbox 360 evaluated the options, bought a 360 and really like it based on what it has actually delivered. This is the same for my friends IRL and on most messageboards. Let's be honest, the original Xbox isn't a huge pedigree to base your dedication to a platform on, and Microsoft has the whole "lolM$" stigmata going on.

    On the other hand we have the Sony Playstation brand coming off the unprecedented success of the PS2 (in terms of raw numbers and domination against cohesive opposition from Nintendo, Microsoft and Sega). Yes, the PS2 was/is fantastic value for money. I think a lot of people arguing for Sony are basing their defense of the PS3 on legacy and hope rather than tangible, "hands on".

    Of course, I'm not saying that what the PS3 has now is crap. I'm just saying that on the whole it hasn't provided the range and depth that the 360 has, simply by virtue of the fact it hasn't been out as long and it is in the unenviable position of being late out of the gate as compared to the 360.

    I don't think that the PS3 will do badly, or that it's the bad product. Personally I don't think it's the right one for me, but it's far too earlier to tell how things are going to play out in the next 2-4 years. I do think that arguing that the PS3 will do better/worse/equal to the 360 in the future is pure conjecture and close to pointless, especially when it descends into namecalling and ridiculous statements like we've seen in this thread.

  • Blake TBlake T Registered User regular
    edited September 2007
    I am really curious what people think the tripple A titles are for the PS3. I mean everyone was going on about lair which by the sounds of it is entertaining but is far too flawed to really make a great game. I mean there was nothing wrong with that, one of my favourite games of last generation was Spider-man too which was flawed up the arse but still had enough funness in it for me to play it through multiple times. Gears and other AAA really don't have any flaws, you either dig them or you don't.

  • Wonder_HippieWonder_Hippie __BANNED USERS
    edited September 2007
    What do the numbers actually look like? I've seen something like 11 mil for the Wii, 10 mil for the 360, and either 6 mil or 3 mil for the PS3. I'm not sure which to believe.

    Spoiler:
  • CouscousCouscous Registered User regular
    edited September 2007
    What do the numbers actually look like? I've seen something like 11 mil for the Wii, 10 mil for the 360, and either 6 mil or 3 mil for the PS3. I'm not sure which to believe.

    Wikipedia is usually accurate if slightly behind. The PS3 is at 4.28 million as of June 30, 2007, the 360 has shipped 11.6 million worldwide and has sold 5.4 million in NA, and the Wii has sold 10.2 million worldwide if you add the latest numbers for all the regions. In the Americas, it has sold 4.2 million consoles as of July 29.

  • Wonder_HippieWonder_Hippie __BANNED USERS
    edited September 2007
    Titmouse wrote: »
    What do the numbers actually look like? I've seen something like 11 mil for the Wii, 10 mil for the 360, and either 6 mil or 3 mil for the PS3. I'm not sure which to believe.

    Wikipedia is usually accurate if slightly behind. The PS3 is at 4.28 million as of June 30, 2007, the 360 has shipped 11.6 million worldwide and has sold 5.4 million in NA, and the Wii has sold 10.2 million worldwide if you add the latest numbers for all the regions. In the Americas, it has sold 4.2 million consoles as of July 29.

    That's not a terrible market share, considering the price disparity. Yeah, it's not want Sony wanted, and it's underperformed considering the PS2, but it's not nearly as dire as a lot of people would have you believe.

    Spoiler:
  • CouscousCouscous Registered User regular
    edited September 2007
    Titmouse wrote: »
    What do the numbers actually look like? I've seen something like 11 mil for the Wii, 10 mil for the 360, and either 6 mil or 3 mil for the PS3. I'm not sure which to believe.

    Wikipedia is usually accurate if slightly behind. The PS3 is at 4.28 million as of June 30, 2007, the 360 has shipped 11.6 million worldwide and has sold 5.4 million in NA, and the Wii has sold 10.2 million worldwide if you add the latest numbers for all the regions. In the Americas, it has sold 4.2 million consoles as of July 29.

    That's not a terrible market share, considering the price disparity. Yeah, it's not want Sony wanted, and it's underperformed considering the PS2, but it's not nearly as dire as a lot of people would have you believe.

    It is terrible. The 360 has sold more in one market than the PS3 has in all the three main markets. Same with the Wii.

  • syndalissyndalis Getting Classy On the WallRegistered User, Loves Apple Products regular
    edited September 2007
    Titmouse wrote: »
    Titmouse wrote: »
    What do the numbers actually look like? I've seen something like 11 mil for the Wii, 10 mil for the 360, and either 6 mil or 3 mil for the PS3. I'm not sure which to believe.

    Wikipedia is usually accurate if slightly behind. The PS3 is at 4.28 million as of June 30, 2007, the 360 has shipped 11.6 million worldwide and has sold 5.4 million in NA, and the Wii has sold 10.2 million worldwide if you add the latest numbers for all the regions. In the Americas, it has sold 4.2 million consoles as of July 29.

    That's not a terrible market share, considering the price disparity. Yeah, it's not want Sony wanted, and it's underperformed considering the PS2, but it's not nearly as dire as a lot of people would have you believe.

    It is terrible. The 360 has sold more in one market than the PS3 has in all the three main markets. Same with the Wii.
    And unless I am mistaken, the 360 is keeping pace with the PS3 in monthly sales internationally, and beating it outright in America, which means that unless they can gain a ton of momentum, they still have to deal with a significant lead that isn't eroding from their competitors.

  • Wonder_HippieWonder_Hippie __BANNED USERS
    edited September 2007
    If the $400 price drop is indeed real, that'll probably happen.

    Spoiler:
  • syndalissyndalis Getting Classy On the WallRegistered User, Loves Apple Products regular
    edited September 2007
    If the $400 price drop is indeed real, that'll probably happen.
    If that is real, Microsoft will cut the price on the 360 another 50ish bucks (depending on box... the core will probably hit 249, while the rest go to 299 and 379), within a week of the announcement.

    Just a hunch, but Microsoft will NOT lose the price advantage to Sony.

  • robcat09robcat09 Registered User
    edited September 2007
    apotheos wrote: »
    robcat09 wrote: »
    Titmouse wrote: »
    You know, 10 months have gone by between the release of Gears of War and Bioshock, the two best rated 360 games so far. PS3 has been out for 10 months total in the US (less in other areas of the world). Read into that what you will.
    That makes no sense. Great games other than OMGFUCKINGGODTHISISAWESOME games exist.

    Yes but apparently those games are only valid when they are on the 360. Do you see the double standard?
    One of my very first posts in this thread was stating the fact that not every game needs to be AAA in order to be fun.

    But a console has to have AAA titles to be worth the price Sony is asking.

    Are you deliberately overlooking that point?

    No, I am deliberately disagreeing with that point. Is that ok with you? I do NOT think a console needs a AAA title within it's first 10 months of its existence. The fact that it costs $600 does not make it any easier for a developer to um, develop for it. In fact, all that cutting edge technology would make it MORE difficult! (TEH CELLZ) ;-)

  • Blake TBlake T Registered User regular
    edited September 2007
    syndalis wrote: »
    If the $400 price drop is indeed real, that'll probably happen.
    If that is real, Microsoft will cut the price on the 360 another 50ish bucks (depending on box... the core will probably hit 249, while the rest go to 299 and 379), within a week of the announcement.

    Just a hunch, but Microsoft will NOT lose the price advantage to Sony.

    Microsoft keep in mind are currently making a profit on it's console, and with the introduction of the falcon chipsets the price will drop further.

    Of course that is somewhat offset by the massive RROD problem that they have but theoretically this will stop somewhat soon.

  • Blake TBlake T Registered User regular
    edited September 2007
    robcat09 wrote: »
    apotheos wrote: »
    robcat09 wrote: »
    Titmouse wrote: »
    You know, 10 months have gone by between the release of Gears of War and Bioshock, the two best rated 360 games so far. PS3 has been out for 10 months total in the US (less in other areas of the world). Read into that what you will.
    That makes no sense. Great games other than OMGFUCKINGGODTHISISAWESOME games exist.

    Yes but apparently those games are only valid when they are on the 360. Do you see the double standard?
    One of my very first posts in this thread was stating the fact that not every game needs to be AAA in order to be fun.

    But a console has to have AAA titles to be worth the price Sony is asking.

    Are you deliberately overlooking that point?

    No, I am deliberately disagreeing with that point. Is that ok with you? I do NOT think a console needs a AAA title within it's first 10 months of its existence. The fact that it costs $600 does not make it any easier for a developer to um, develop for it. In fact, all that cutting edge technology would make it MORE difficult! (TEH CELLZ) ;-)

    So if it has no good games for the for 10 months (which to be honest haven't we used up yet, wasn't it released in america in November?) Why buy it? You can wait 10 months buy a game that is AAA and get it for a cheaper price.

  • CouscousCouscous Registered User regular
    edited September 2007
    robcat09 wrote: »
    apotheos wrote: »
    robcat09 wrote: »
    Titmouse wrote: »
    You know, 10 months have gone by between the release of Gears of War and Bioshock, the two best rated 360 games so far. PS3 has been out for 10 months total in the US (less in other areas of the world). Read into that what you will.
    That makes no sense. Great games other than OMGFUCKINGGODTHISISAWESOME games exist.

    Yes but apparently those games are only valid when they are on the 360. Do you see the double standard?
    One of my very first posts in this thread was stating the fact that not every game needs to be AAA in order to be fun.

    But a console has to have AAA titles to be worth the price Sony is asking.

    Are you deliberately overlooking that point?

    No, I am deliberately disagreeing with that point. Is that ok with you? I do NOT think a console needs a AAA title within it's first 10 months of its existence. The fact that it costs $600 does not make it any easier for a developer to um, develop for it. In fact, all that cutting edge technology would make it MORE difficult! (TEH CELLZ) ;-)

    It really doesn't matter what you or I think about the worth of the console. What matters is what the majority of the people think. Looking at the lukewarm at best sales of the PS3, it looks like the majority of people don't think a console without many AAA titles is worth it for 600 dollars or even 500 dollars. If the majority of the consumers don't think it is worth it, it probably won't get that many AAA titles.

  • robcat09robcat09 Registered User
    edited September 2007
    Titmouse wrote: »
    Let's fast-forward a few years into the future and PS3 game development is in full swing (as is the 360's game development). All of those games that came out during the first year or so of the 360's life doesn't really amount to much of a competitive edge any more. Both systems would have reached a saturation point where the 'amount' of games no longer matters. Each system will have a shit-load of games to choose from.
    I don't understand why you think this will happen. The only time I can think of when something even close to this happened is during the SNES/Genesis era and that mostly just had to do with Nintendo being a prick to developers. What does Sony have that will cause it to convince developers to develop games for the PS3 as much as they do the 360? The only thing would be the Japanese companies that don't sell many games outside of Japan.

    You can't understand why I think developers will make games for the new Playstation? They are ALREADY making games for it, geez. Why would they stop? The Playstation brand is strong enough that if there are games available people will buy the system. If the PS3 remains higher priced than the 360 for many years (not likely) then yes, it is safe to say something that costs more will sell less.

    Those Japanese developers don't sell many games outside of Japan? have you looked at the PS2 library? Don't see many Japanese games there?

    Don't forget that Sony is a bigger company than just a 'games' company. They do other things. They have resources. I know the Playstation brand is a big part of the company, but it's not like SEGA. SEGA only made games, so when the games business faltered for them (Dreamcast) they had to back down altogether. Yes, I know Microsoft is a big company, also. ;-) I hope everyone succeeds and all consoles have a shit-ton of stellar games available for it.

  • CouscousCouscous Registered User regular
    edited September 2007
    robcat09 wrote: »
    Titmouse wrote: »
    Let's fast-forward a few years into the future and PS3 game development is in full swing (as is the 360's game development). All of those games that came out during the first year or so of the 360's life doesn't really amount to much of a competitive edge any more. Both systems would have reached a saturation point where the 'amount' of games no longer matters. Each system will have a shit-load of games to choose from.
    I don't understand why you think this will happen. The only time I can think of when something even close to this happened is during the SNES/Genesis era and that mostly just had to do with Nintendo being a prick to developers. What does Sony have that will cause it to convince developers to develop games for the PS3 as much as they do the 360? The only thing would be the Japanese companies that don't sell many games outside of Japan.

    You can't understand why I think developers will make games for the Saturn? They are ALREADY making games for it, geez. Why would they stop? The Sega brand is strong enough that if there are games available people will buy the system. If the Saturn remains higher priced than the Playstation for many years (not likely) then yes, it is safe to say something that costs more will sell less.

    Those Japanese developers don't sell many games outside of Japan? have you looked at the PS2 library? Don't see many Japanese games there?

    Don't forget that Sony is a bigger company than just a 'games' company. They do other things. They have resources. I know the Playstation brand is a big part of the company, but it's not like SEGA. SEGA only made games, so when the games business faltered for them (Dreamcast) they had to back down altogether. Yes, I know Microsoft is a big company, also. ;-) I hope everyone succeeds and all consoles have a shit-ton of stellar games available for it.

    I said Japanese developers that don't sell many games outside of Japan. I meant the few that rarely factor in how well the game will sell outside of Japan when making a game. For example, those weird dating sims.

    Having a lot of resources does not guarantee that a system will do well. It just means the company won't quickly drop out of the console business.

  • Inglorious CoyoteInglorious Coyote Registered User
    edited September 2007
    robcat09 wrote: »

    You can't understand why I think developers will make games for the new Playstation? They are ALREADY making games for it, geez. Why would they stop?
    Haven't some companies (SE among others) come out and said they're stopping PS3 development in favor of the Wii.

  • ZephyrZephyr Registered User
    edited September 2007
    robcat09 wrote: »

    You can't understand why I think developers will make games for the new Playstation? They are ALREADY making games for it, geez. Why would they stop?
    Haven't some companies (SE among others) come out and said they're stopping PS3 development in favor of the Wii.

    slowing down, not stopping

    16kakxt.jpg
  • Xenogears of BoreXenogears of Bore Registered User regular
    edited September 2007
    robcat09 wrote: »

    You can't understand why I think developers will make games for the new Playstation? They are ALREADY making games for it, geez. Why would they stop?
    Haven't some companies (SE among others) come out and said they're stopping PS3 development in favor of the Wii.

    No. It hasn't reached that stage yet.

    Unfortunately, The PS3 is just a fad.
    Spoiler:

    3DS CODE: 3093-7068-3576
  • PharezonPharezon Struggle is an illusion. Victory is in the Qun.Registered User regular
    edited September 2007
    robcat09 wrote: »

    You can't understand why I think developers will make games for the new Playstation? They are ALREADY making games for it, geez. Why would they stop?
    Haven't some companies (SE among others) come out and said they're stopping PS3 development in favor of the Wii.

    No. It hasn't reached that stage yet.

    Unfortunately, The PS3 is just a fad.
    Spoiler:

    Fortunately the main stream media shall propell the wii into dominance of the casual market. Hardcore gamers to die out within a year.

    jkZziGc.png
  • Xenogears of BoreXenogears of Bore Registered User regular
    edited September 2007
    Pharezon wrote: »
    robcat09 wrote: »

    You can't understand why I think developers will make games for the new Playstation? They are ALREADY making games for it, geez. Why would they stop?
    Haven't some companies (SE among others) come out and said they're stopping PS3 development in favor of the Wii.

    No. It hasn't reached that stage yet.

    Unfortunately, The PS3 is just a fad.
    Spoiler:

    Fortunately the main stream media shall propell the wii into dominance of the casual market. Hardcore gamers to die out within a year.

    Damn those waggle fiends! They took my Halo from me! How can I get into heaven with a Halo?

    3DS CODE: 3093-7068-3576
  • apotheosapotheos Super Moderator, Moderator, ClubPA mod
    edited September 2007
    robcat09 wrote: »
    apotheos wrote: »
    robcat09 wrote: »
    Titmouse wrote: »
    You know, 10 months have gone by between the release of Gears of War and Bioshock, the two best rated 360 games so far. PS3 has been out for 10 months total in the US (less in other areas of the world). Read into that what you will.
    That makes no sense. Great games other than OMGFUCKINGGODTHISISAWESOME games exist.

    Yes but apparently those games are only valid when they are on the 360. Do you see the double standard?
    One of my very first posts in this thread was stating the fact that not every game needs to be AAA in order to be fun.

    But a console has to have AAA titles to be worth the price Sony is asking.

    Are you deliberately overlooking that point?

    No, I am deliberately disagreeing with that point. Is that ok with you? I do NOT think a console needs a AAA title within it's first 10 months of its existence. The fact that it costs $600 does not make it any easier for a developer to um, develop for it. In fact, all that cutting edge technology would make it MORE difficult! (TEH CELLZ) ;-)

    Then you are a fool - and I for one can't think of any console ever that has not had a AAA title in the first 10 months. Most usually have one at launch. If there are no AAA titles, sales are slow. If sales are slow, people don't want to make AAA titles because if they deploy them on another platform they will make more money.

    Storage capacity issues to the side, this is what happened to the Nintendo 64. Only Nintendo was left making anything good for it because everyone else jumped ship because Sony would make them more money. Just as we saw today with Castlevania, anyone who wants to make money with their next generation title is going to make it for the Xbox 360. There may be a PS3 port, but that's it - aside from contractually obligated excusives or lunatic developers who are known for wierd wierd wierd decisions (Kojima). That makes the PS3 an also-ran in the very definition of the term.

    It is just about marketshare, it is about mindshare. And Sony is hemorrhaging that EXTREMELY badly right now.



    猿も木から落ちる
  • apotheosapotheos Super Moderator, Moderator, ClubPA mod
    edited September 2007
    Pharezon wrote: »
    Fortunately the main stream media shall propell the wii into dominance of the casual market. Hardcore gamers to die out within a year.

    This is the other reason I think Microsoft is going to kick ass over the next year: they are positioning themselves to compliment the Wii. Microsoft wants you to have a Wii. They love Nintendo. I have had some hilarious conversations with people inside Microsoft to this effect.

    Microsoft threw a absolute metric fuckton of cash at the gaming industry and it is starting to pay off.



    猿も木から落ちる
  • desperaterobotsdesperaterobots Registered User regular
    edited September 2007
    Very true Apo; I brought this up in the last retarded thread we had about MS losing money omg doomed PS34Life. Some people don't grasp that a monetary loss is often a deliberate and strategic expense with an objective in mind. Microsoft has been spending out the waazoo on this whole gaming caper and this generation has so far laid some excellent groundwork for ultimate domination.

    Not that I think that's a good thing, mind you. I'd rather competition and choice. But at this stage the PS3 doesn't compete, it hovers around the bed staring awkwardly while customers make out with their 360s and their Wiis.

  • Xenogears of BoreXenogears of Bore Registered User regular
    edited September 2007
    apotheos wrote: »
    robcat09 wrote: »
    apotheos wrote: »
    robcat09 wrote: »
    Titmouse wrote: »
    You know, 10 months have gone by between the release of Gears of War and Bioshock, the two best rated 360 games so far. PS3 has been out for 10 months total in the US (less in other areas of the world). Read into that what you will.
    That makes no sense. Great games other than OMGFUCKINGGODTHISISAWESOME games exist.

    Yes but apparently those games are only valid when they are on the 360. Do you see the double standard?
    One of my very first posts in this thread was stating the fact that not every game needs to be AAA in order to be fun.

    But a console has to have AAA titles to be worth the price Sony is asking.

    Are you deliberately overlooking that point?

    No, I am deliberately disagreeing with that point. Is that ok with you? I do NOT think a console needs a AAA title within it's first 10 months of its existence. The fact that it costs $600 does not make it any easier for a developer to um, develop for it. In fact, all that cutting edge technology would make it MORE difficult! (TEH CELLZ) ;-)

    Then you are a fool - and I for one can't think of any console ever that has not had a AAA title in the first 10 months. Most usually have one at launch. If there are no AAA titles, sales are slow. If sales are slow, people don't want to make AAA titles because if they deploy them on another platform they will make more money.

    Storage capacity issues to the side, this is what happened to the Nintendo 64. Only Nintendo was left making anything good for it because everyone else jumped ship because Sony would make them more money. Just as we saw today with Castlevania, anyone who wants to make money with their next generation title is going to make it for the Xbox 360. There may be a PS3 port, but that's it - aside from contractually obligated excusives or lunatic developers who are known for wierd wierd wierd decisions (Kojima). That makes the PS3 an also-ran in the very definition of the term.

    It is just about marketshare, it is about mindshare. And Sony is hemorrhaging that EXTREMELY badly right now.

    There is still a decent chance that the Wii just hits a critical mass and ends up becoming the go-to system for the majority of eastern developers. Oh sure, some may point to Capcom with Dead Rising and Lost Planet, not realizing that while they are selling decently, they spent a fuckton of money on advertisment and development. All the while RE 4 Wii edition is slowly creeping up to Million seller status, with virtually no advertising.

    I'm sick and tired of hearing the no third party excuse when it comes to the Wii. The best selling game on the 360 right now is a first party published effort. The best selling game on the PS3? First party effort. Hell, the Wii has more 3rd party million sellers than the PS3 does!

    Another thing of note; we know next to nothing about the various system offerings for 2008 when it comes to MS, Sony, and Nintendo. Alan Wake, Ninja Gaiden 2, GTA IV (will probably be a fall release) and Wii Fit and Mario Kart on the Wii. FF XIII and MGS 4 on the PS3. That can't be all of it. The games we don't know about could turn everything around, but somehow, I don't think so.

    3DS CODE: 3093-7068-3576
  • devoirdevoir Registered User
    edited September 2007
    Another thing of note; we know next to nothing about the various system offerings for 2008 when it comes to MS, Sony, and Nintendo. Alan Wake, Ninja Gaiden 2, GTA IV (will probably be a fall release) and Wii Fit and Mario Kart on the Wii. FF XIII and MGS 4 on the PS3. That can't be all of it. The games we don't know about could turn everything around, but somehow, I don't think so.

    Call me weird, but I prefer having the market and public focused on what's coming in the next 6-9 months rather than stuff that's coming out in late 2009. For example, at events like E3/PAX with the current industry focus on games coming out soon, you tend to have more hands on stuff, more complete demonstrations, footage and previews. The alternative is seeing stuff like "target renders" as really big hyped primary displays at such shows.

  • fragglefartfragglefart Registered User regular
    edited September 2007
    Not that I think that's a good thing, mind you. I'd rather competition and choice. But at this stage the PS3 doesn't compete, it hovers around the bed staring awkwardly while customers make out with their 360s and their Wiis.

    <img class=" title=":lol:" class="bbcode_smiley" />

    I chuckled.

    fragglefart.jpg
  • corin7corin7 Registered User regular
    edited September 2007
    Not that I think that's a good thing, mind you. I'd rather competition and choice. But at this stage the PS3 doesn't compete, it hovers around the bed staring awkwardly while customers make out with their 360s and their Wiis.

    <img class=" title=":lol:" class="bbcode_smiley" />

    I chuckled.

    Actually, yeah that is pretty funny.

    ninsig.jpg
15678911»
Sign In or Register to comment.