Jump to content

Photo

Hypothetical "what if" - Quest Sponsorship


  • Please log in to reply
60 replies to this topic

#16 Shane

Shane

  • Members
  • Real Name:Shane
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Australia

Posted 13 January 2019 - 11:28 PM

I'll accept getting paid a small amount for my finished work, but getting donated and barely living off ZC work seems a bit unrealistic. You might just want to get an actual job and put yourself in a much more stable situation in life. Relying on others in such a obscure way is bad and can go pear-shaped regardless of your track record, it's frankly bound to happen. And what's worse is that said donations will pretty much crush any sort of creativity because in this supposed hypothetical situation, your donors feel more entitled to control your vision which is a terrible idea. Doesn't sound like a good investment to me at all, because then quest makers might be forced to go outside their strengths. Even a set of predetermined goals would be a much better idea.

 

I feel a lot of the "real life" stuff, are complex reasons. The userbase is young, so there are probably plenty of students putting their education first. Putting their work first. Putting their family and friends in need first. Money isn't some magic wand that will bring back everyone and increase the flow of quests, this community is too small to make a living, people outside the community will probably outright laugh at this idea. But I am all for making a quick buck if your quest is worth paying for in the far future, but that's yet to be seen... That will be fairly surreal to see, and ZC quests will need to put in a bit more effort to get there.


  • adsfndsajgfkhdjgkejf likes this

#17 Chris

Chris

    The Sun Is in Your Hand!

  • Members
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Germany

Posted 13 January 2019 - 11:31 PM

For a small quest like we've seen recently from Avataro and Jamian, these are negligible enough that they don't become an issue and can be reasonably paid for the quest author.

Jamian's Promised Lands and Forbidden City are both awesome quest and if you want a flagship quest, they both are very well capable to be one. Some of his older ones I like less, but they are huge and from critics I can tell that some prefer them over the newer ones, so they also have value!

Avataro goes rather for short quests, but he added many and often highly interesting ones like Puzzle Robots. Not to mention RotS being the highest rated quest in the database with a longer sequel in the making.

Honestly, both these questmakers (and not only them) put a lot of effort and time into their quests and bring a lot of fun into the community, so taking them as example to be negligible makes me rather pissed.

It's actually quite simple. Make an example, an demo. One of these "small quest" that "don't become an issue". One that is far better than anything we have seen so far in ZC.

If one can manage that, he might actually have a chance to get financial support for making this infamous "flagship"-quest. And if one can't even manage that, than he certainly doesn't have what is needed.
  • Shane likes this

#18 Anthus

Anthus

    the wild-eyed boy from freecloud

  • Forum Moderators
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Ohio

Posted 13 January 2019 - 11:59 PM

(edit: This post refers to ZC in its current state, and assumes the quest is pretty much a mechanically unaltered Classic quest)

 

To answer the original question, no, I would not support, or donate to a quest author. I also would not accept donations either for anything fan game related, personally. I don't like the idea of taking money for "living expenses" while working on a game that more than likely won't be seen by more than a couple hundred, or a thousand people. There's also the legality of it. I know we are talking hypothetically here, so I'll entertain the idea that Nintendo won't be getting involved if you somehow amass thousands of dollars, and thousands of players/ downloads. In that case... I still wouldn't donate. At the end of the day, ZC has always been a hobby for me. I also don't think it is dying at all. We've had five new quests added, or updated within the last two to three weeks.

 

This is unrelated, but there are a few people I've seen in the OoT modding scene set up patreons, and stuff. I can't help but feel like it is disingenuous cause you aren't creating your own game, mechanics, or engine. You are using something that other programmers and artists made, and you are asking for money to support working on it. Even if you make custom levels, graphics, asm, and all that, you are still using Nintendo's engine. At least with ZC, it's a clone so it is in its own weird space (New code and engine, but simulates a copyrighted game?). Even if you don't sell the final work, I feel like it is not cool to take money for fan games. That's just my take on it though, do whatever you want people, it's the internet.

 

The final thing I'd say, which I think someone else said, is why pay one person to make a ZC quest? What's the draw when there are dozens of other people making quests for free? Why spend money on something when hundreds of free alternatives of equal or varying quality exist? If I wanted to spend money on a game, I'd pay for something that ZC can't give me cause I view ZC as a free fan game hobbiest program.


  • adsfndsajgfkhdjgkejf, Shane and Dark Ice Dragon like this

#19 klop422

klop422

    Evil Crazy Mastermind

  • Members
  • Real Name:Not George
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Planet Earth

Posted 14 January 2019 - 03:04 AM

I mean, ZQuest is mostly a passion project for most (if not all) of us here.
That said, once Zoria (and the rest of the team) make an official - copyright-friendly - release, then it becomes a legitimate game-making tool, and so it'd be perfectly fair to try and get funding. You could try and get funding anyway, but I doubt you could get it for fan games.
In the hypothetical you pose in the OP, copyright's not an issue, so we might as well just be discussing funding actual games. I don't think my opinion changes, tbh (I'm not one to crowdfund games anyway), but maybe others' does.

#20 ZoriaRPG

ZoriaRPG

    The Timelord

  • ZC Developers
  • Gender:Unspecified
  • Location:Prydon Academy

Posted 14 January 2019 - 07:14 AM

Just so we're 100% clear on this.  I didn't say that money was going to be the sole driving force behind motiviating quest makers and generating new and brilliant ideas.  No absolutely not - I don't think money does that.  What money does is provide a support network so that the quest author is free to focus their time and energy thinking of new ideas.  Its like watering a growing tree - its clearly necessary otherwise the plant will have to rely on rain only and that's very dangerous.  But it doesn't guarantee survival against other things like lack of sunlight, humans chopping it down etc...
 
What the money is intended to do is pay for living expenses - rent, food, computers, clothes, transport...you know?  What everyone has to pay for to survive.  I don't think its unreasonable that this cost be picked up by those who enjoy the game.  We're talking SURVIVAL here - not profit.  For a small quest like we've seen recently from Avataro and Jamian, these are negligible enough that they don't become an issue and can be reasonably paid for the quest author.  But for a flagship quest it DOES become an issue and one that deserves rigorous debate.


Blieve me, I know. If I calculate the hours that Ive spent on this and apply my normal rates, it'd be enough to pay for a house and a half.

That's time that I could, in theory, apply to other things, but there are also expenses involved that I've covered out-of-pocket (three computers, and other material costs, as a start), that are pure donation on my part.

@Zoria - You might want to hold off on doing that until you see how this debate pans out.  If paying for quests just won't go down well with the ZC community then you might have put in those features for nothing.


I don't particularly care to allow one thread to determine the future of the software.

ZC as a free resource on Steam would potentially create an entirely new, fresh userbase; or cause old users to return.

The potential of making a commercial game with it, could do the same.

Nothing out there would stop people from continuing to produce completely free games. Personally, I tend to prefer open content, but if I was in some way compensated for it, I could then devote more ti e and energy to it, as I wouldn't effectively be simultaneously working three full-time jobs.

I know several users who have stopped using ZC because there ius absolutely no chance of commercialising their end-result, and that's a shame, as they had very high-quality output. They want to use ZQuest, but they also want mainstream notice, and the chanc of paying their rent from their time; and I think that it's fair to allow both, as long as neither compromise the license of the basecode; nor jeopardise the longevity of the software through premature overexposure of infringing content that we have yet to remove from the engine.

#21 adsfndsajgfkhdjgkejf

adsfndsajgfkhdjgkejf

    ‚Äč~

  • Banned
  • Gender:Unspecified

Posted 14 January 2019 - 11:16 PM

ZC as a free resource on Steam would potentially create an entirely new, fresh userbase; or cause old users to return.

The potential of making a commercial game with it, could do the same.


yeah sounds like a good way to get us dmca'd to hell

ZC as a free resource on Steam would potentially create an entirely new, fresh userbase; or cause old users to return.

The potential of making a commercial game with it, could do the same.

Nothing out there would stop people from continuing to produce completely free games. Personally, I tend to prefer open content, but if I was in some way compensated for it, I could then devote more ti e and energy to it, as I wouldn't effectively be simultaneously working three full-time jobs.

I know several users who have stopped using ZC because there ius absolutely no chance of commercialising their end-result, and that's a shame, as they had very high-quality output. They want to use ZQuest, but they also want mainstream notice, and the chanc of paying their rent from their time; and I think that it's fair to allow both, as long as neither compromise the license of the basecode; nor jeopardise the longevity of the software through premature overexposure of infringing content that we have yet to remove from the engine.

seriously you're the guy who became the self-appointed head of zc development? like honestly what

have you thought about the overarching consequences of what you're arguing for. how long have you even been here. do you even remember early ZC history, do you understand how it ended up where it is today
who are these anonymous users that can't make quests bc they need to pay rent. why are you so stuck on the idea that these people are somehow High Quality Questmakers

why is this a debate. you're trying to solve a non-issue. those people you're talking about probably just ended up having lives outside of fangaming and that's fine

you're so concerned with jeopardizing the longevity of ZC and everyone's panicking and flailing their arms around about the program dying. and now you're suggesting commercialization as if like. the engine is a good enough foundation on its own to produce commercial quality games (hint: it isn't. it will never be. it was never meant to be.) you're literally jeopardizing... what it is that made ZC so special in the first place, so that. uh. a couple of anonymous people can Pay Rent off of this thing that was always meant to be a communitarian labor of love (also, you're jeopardizing the existence of the program itself. seriously what)

seriously. if it's meant to live, then let it live. if it's not, then oh well. but don't just scramble to throw life support on it and do some weirdo frankenstein shit bc you're falling for the anti-hype misery train

(i hope nobody thinks this means i'm against people making money for their work. i'm just against putting it on steam and putting gofundme stuff as an Official Feature™ for zelda classic 2.7 or whatever. i'm against the idea of all the zelda stuff getting gutted bc that's just not going to work out well. ZC is too impenetrable, obscure, and niche to make things that aren't ultimately... zelda games. it's not gonna draw in flocks of people and if anything people are gonna piss on it if it gets compared to actual commercial shit like game maker)
 
like. how can you literally just take everyone who's telling you this is a bad idea and go "hmm yeah, well i'm not gonna let ONE THREAD FULL OF PEOPLE WHO ARE SAYING THIS IS A BAD IDEA make my decision for me" ZC is literally open source. it is meant to be collaborative, and as the leader of a collaborative project why on earth would you decide you get to unilaterally make decisions. why are you asserting some ultimate authority. it shows an arrogance, and it shows a complete lack of respect for the community that got you to where you are as project head. it is not the behavior of a leader.

Edited by Rambly, 14 January 2019 - 11:37 PM.

  • Jared likes this

#22 James24

James24

    Apprentice

  • Members
  • Real Name:James
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Australia

Posted 14 January 2019 - 11:45 PM

Hmm...it seems like the tribe has spoken on this one.  I was hoping that there would be a few people out there who would say "sure I'd love to help out a struggling quest-maker - especially one that has proven themselves".  But, in no way will the ZC public ever entertain the idea of sponsoring a brilliant, outstanding and highly-talented quest maker no matter how good their previous quests were and no matter how in need they are of survival money.  I made this thread simply to test the waters so that their name wouldn't be tarnished by asking the ZC public to sponsor their proposed new flagship quest.  If they are reading this thread then I hope they quietly appreciate the favour I've done for them.

 

But I would appeal to people that the next time a brilliant, outstanding and highly-talented quest maker cancels their flagship quest due to "real-life" issues then they should quietly understand how things are.   Don't be disappointed if the tree dies from thirst when you had the opportunity to water it.

 

@Zoria - yes I know that you must have spent many hours developing this game and I personally thank you for it.  This game is great for free.  And it should remain free - but I think supporting someone in a desperate financial situation is ok especially if they can do something really nice in return.  Its a grey area and debatable.  Perhaps you can accept LoH:IE as a token of my gratitude :) You might like the insane challenges.

 

I also think I know who you are referring to and we might be talking about the same people - so you and I know with 100% that this is a hot-button issue.  Very hard to solve issue as well given how everything is.


Edited by James24, 14 January 2019 - 11:47 PM.


#23 klop422

klop422

    Evil Crazy Mastermind

  • Members
  • Real Name:Not George
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Planet Earth

Posted 15 January 2019 - 07:32 AM

I'm not sure I've seen a thread arguing that the entire open assets ZC is a bad idea. That's certainly not what this thread is. Almost everyone here is arguing against the idea of monetising ZC quests, nothing to do with what Zoria and the rest of the ZC team are planning. Personally, I'm in favour of making ZC entirely free software. If nothing else, it means Nintendo can't come here and just shut it down.

On the idea of whether ZC is "meant" to live or die, that's determined by what the ZC community do with it. Including the people developing it. It's also on them whether it will be. And if they mean it to be, then that's self-sufficient.

As I understand it, the whole module idea isn't about removing Zelda from the program, it's about separation. And in any case, it doesn't take away the ability to make Zelda-styled quests, just makes it a lot easier to make other kinds of quest in the program. And, while ZC is not Unreal Engine or Unity, it's a great free-software game engine for this kind of action RPG (that I know of, at least), and is the kind of thing that a lot of people would enjoy using. I wasn't here in the early years, but I've been here for seven years and a bit (with some intermissions :P), and, honestly, I don't see what the issue would be with some kind of community growth. I can say with certainty that this is not the same community as at the very beginning. This is a nice community and I wouldn't mind having some more nice members join. Sure, some might not be so nice, but we deal with that anyway.

Even if it doesn't end up being something to challenge the major proprietary engines, reaching a wider audience means that more aspiring game developers might come across it and get some early practice, as people have done historically with ZC. And the best of them will be able to make legitimate games with the engine, as people do with literally anything. And even if you can't do anything more that what is, in essence, Zelda, all that says is that the games made in the engine will be action adventure i.e. an entire genre of retro game. Secret of Mana plays fairly similarly (and could probably be made, with some concessions, in ZC). And with scripting, we've seen that it's possible to do a lot - proper sidescrolling sections and RPGs (the only real tool I know of for the latter is not only proprietary, it's ridiculously expensive, and ridiculed as far as I know). Even though that requires a lot of effort right now, with the right module, you would be able to make a fairly good - and probably much cheaper - RPG engine. And this kind of this could be sold, but I don't see how that might affect the ZC community very much,

I also don't understand how this jeopardises the existence of the program itself. Again, separating the Zelda assets makes it unlikely that Nintendo could just come along and take it down.

 

(In any case, 'open source' (or, more correctly 'free software') means that anyone can take it anywhere they choose, whether with others or not. If I didn't like how the current team was doing 2.55, then I would be completely within my (legal) rights to do it myself. (Of course, I have very little programming experience and have no clue how the ZC code works, so that would definitely not work in practice.) It doesn't specifically imply collaboration, at least not to me. That also ties in with the stuff above, and means that if someone doesn't like the way the engine works for the game they want to make, they can change it.)

 

Anyway, those are my thoughts.


  • Anthus likes this

#24 Avaro

Avaro

    Quest maker

  • Members
  • Real Name:Robin
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Germany

Posted 15 January 2019 - 12:00 PM

yeah sounds like a good way to get us dmca'd to hell

 
Just to make sure I get what you're arguing, you're aware that Zoria's plan is to get rid of anything related to Zelda IP in ZC? It's arguable that maybe quests could be taken down and not ZC itself, but I don't know if that's what we're talking about.
 

seriously you're the guy who became the self-appointed head of zc development? like honestly what

have you thought about the overarching consequences of what you're arguing for. how long have you even been here. do you even remember early ZC history, do you understand how it ended up where it is today
who are these anonymous users that can't make quests bc they need to pay rent. why are you so stuck on the idea that these people are somehow High Quality Questmakers

why is this a debate. you're trying to solve a non-issue. those people you're talking about probably just ended up having lives outside of fangaming and that's fine

you're so concerned with jeopardizing the longevity of ZC and everyone's panicking and flailing their arms around about the program dying. and now you're suggesting commercialization as if like. the engine is a good enough foundation on its own to produce commercial quality games (hint: it isn't. it will never be. it was never meant to be.) you're literally jeopardizing... what it is that made ZC so special in the first place, so that. uh. a couple of anonymous people can Pay Rent off of this thing that was always meant to be a communitarian labor of love (also, you're jeopardizing the existence of the program itself. seriously what)

seriously. if it's meant to live, then let it live. if it's not, then oh well. but don't just scramble to throw life support on it and do some weirdo frankenstein shit bc you're falling for the anti-hype misery train

(i hope nobody thinks this means i'm against people making money for their work. i'm just against putting it on steam and putting gofundme stuff as an Official Feature™ for zelda classic 2.7 or whatever. i'm against the idea of all the zelda stuff getting gutted bc that's just not going to work out well. ZC is too impenetrable, obscure, and niche to make things that aren't ultimately... zelda games. it's not gonna draw in flocks of people and if anything people are gonna piss on it if it gets compared to actual commercial shit like game maker)
 
like. how can you literally just take everyone who's telling you this is a bad idea and go "hmm yeah, well i'm not gonna let ONE THREAD FULL OF PEOPLE WHO ARE SAYING THIS IS A BAD IDEA make my decision for me" ZC is literally open source. it is meant to be collaborative, and as the leader of a collaborative project why on earth would you decide you get to unilaterally make decisions. why are you asserting some ultimate authority. it shows an arrogance, and it shows a complete lack of respect for the community that got you to where you are as project head. it is not the behavior of a leader.

 

Overall this got pretty off-topic. Zoria believes ZC can work as a legitimate game making engine. I don't share that belief and am skeptical about this goal for sure. Like are people seriously gonna try to use ZC to make legit commercial games? It seems like a too clunky engine for it. And how much does this matter to the main userbase, who just wanna make quests like usual? If the answer is "it doesn't matter" then there would be no downside to Zoria's plan.

 

But Zoria as a dev is still doing a pretty awesome job. It's thanks to him we're getting new versions at all (him and like 1 or 2 other persons, like grayswandir). The additions and new features for 2.55 make ZC 1000 times better... potentially. When it's all polished. Zoria is not perfect but we should be thankful.

 

And nobody is saying the gofundme idea isn't bad. Interesting topic to bring up and think about briefly, but yeah. Let's not.


Edited by Avataro, 15 January 2019 - 12:10 PM.

  • Chris likes this

#25 Jamian

Jamian

    ZC enthusiast

  • Members
  • Gender:Unspecified

Posted 15 January 2019 - 01:41 PM

Jamian's Promised Lands and Forbidden City are both awesome quest and if you want a flagship quest, they both are very well capable to be one.

 

I think he was talking about the two miniquests I've released lately (Tabula Rasa and Red Rabbit). And by "negligible", I think he meant timewise. Those were indeed made quickly (in about 2 weeks) and it would have theoretically been possible to raise enough money from supporters to cover my bills while I was making them. But Promised Lands and Forbidden City took several months , IMO there's no way donations from a small fan community would have been able to cover my bills for those.



#26 Chris

Chris

    The Sun Is in Your Hand!

  • Members
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Germany

Posted 15 January 2019 - 03:18 PM

Oh, I know that. Maybe I didn't fully understand the OP, but to me it sounded a bit as if all the current questmakers aren't able to do flagship quests and only submit such small quests or similar negligible ones, denying all the great quests and all the hard work the makers put into it - be it a small or a big quest.

Furthermore the whole idea of a "highly talented" one... You (Jamian), Evan, Moosh, Russ, Aevin, Avataro, Dimentio, Mitsukara are all highly talented questmakers and from at least a few I already know that life isn't easy on them. I also love the stuff of Obderhode, Mudyavayne, Grayswandir (names might be written wrong), and that these didn't show much activity lately might be because of life not allowing it.

Beside the current remaining legal issues, the fact that most if not all members don't even have the money to make the needed donations or don't enjoy doing ZC for work, if we really would support a member to concentrate on making his quests, then whom are we to chose?

#27 Dimentio

Dimentio

    Beware false Gollabs, who inwardly are Moral Conflicts

  • Members
  • Real Name:Joshua
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:America's Hat.

Posted 15 January 2019 - 03:51 PM

It's worth noting that money is oftentime's the least important of my worries as a developer. It's the everything-else: the motivation, the inspiration, the resolve to see it through to the end, not getting distracted from the project, lack of faith in the project, etc. These are all things that plague a great deal of projects I'm involved in. Money isn't going to instantly make it so that I can just skip play rehearsal, or just not show up to work. I still need to do those things. If money were an issue, then yes, I probably wouldn't bother with ZC... but I wouldn't bother with it anyways even if I could monetize it, because if I were to make a commercial project, I want it to be able to stand on it's own and not be just another generic RPG-maker-clone-97.


  • Anthus and jerome like this

#28 Dark Ice Dragon

Dark Ice Dragon

    Wizard

  • Members
  • Gender:Male

Posted 15 January 2019 - 03:55 PM

Don't be disappointed if the tree dies from thirst when you had the opportunity to water it.

 

 

that a bit melodramatic,  i think this  already happend in past,  someone had to delay or cancel a project due "real life", is normall, i mean..is sad but is the life !

Actually i liked your question and this discussion, i don't think  a good idea ask or give money for a quest...

This is a hypotetical question too : if i decide  to make a quest and ask money for it, since i'm using a tileset and MIDIs made by another author, i must divide  give him a %  of the money, i guess ? I'm afraid a similar situation would give rise to some too much dispute


Edited by Dark Ice Dragon, 15 January 2019 - 03:57 PM.

  • Anthus likes this

#29 Nathaniel

Nathaniel

    Deified

  • Forum Moderators
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Anywhere, USA

Posted 15 January 2019 - 05:15 PM

For most, money wouldn't be an issue here, for the simple fact that probably all of you are doing this as a hobby rather than as a career.  So because of that, as Dimentio pointed out, time and motivation are much more likely factors.  Most of us are either financially supporting ourselves through a job, or are being supported by somebody (or something) else.  Now if you really think you could make a career out of it, you would likely be spending at least 40 hours a week building quests and possibly materials for quests, at the high risk of it not paying you enough to support yourself, at least as a primary means.  I don't think that's a risk that any of us would like to take, unless one is desperate enough and can't (or is unwilling to) find other means of financial support.  I could see it being used as a means of extra support though, even if very small.  Makes me think of the additional tutoring job I did for about a year, just for a little extra cash on top of my normal income.



#30 ZoriaRPG

ZoriaRPG

    The Timelord

  • ZC Developers
  • Gender:Unspecified
  • Location:Prydon Academy

Posted 16 January 2019 - 05:49 AM

yeah sounds like a good way to get us dmca'd to hell


If the Zelda Classic module, or traditional quests were sold commercially, absolutely.

Simply putting ZC on Steam, once it only contains open assets by default: How so?

Now, on the subject of pure arrogance...

seriously you're the guy who became the self-appointed head of zc development? like honestly what


What makes you think that I'm self-appointed? The mantle of Lead Developer is an earned position. It passed from Jer/WL/DN to DarkDragon to Gleeok, and from him, to me. I was in fact, appointed to this position by the former lead.
 

have you thought about the overarching consequences of what you're arguing for. how long have you even been here.


do you even remember early ZC history, do you understand how it ended up where it is today


I've been an active member on AGN for thirteen years, and I started casually reading the forum, a few years earlier.
I joined PZC, when after I returned to AGN following a prolonged hiatus--waiting for 2.50--I saw that the forum was pretty much dead, and popped in here to migrate to 2.50 Gamma 1.

[...]
 

why is this a debate.


Obviously, because, as always, once three users have spoken out against any concept, they consider thair opinions to be law.
 

if it's meant to live, then let it live. if it's not, then oh well. but don't just scramble to throw life support on it and do some weirdo frankenstein shit bc you're falling for the anti-hype misery train


That's honestly none of your concern then, if you actively don't care. I've invested enough time, and resources into this, that I plan to allow it to grow in whatever direction makes that meaningful. I can't please everyone. Obviously, you dislike the model of 2.55, and you'd dislike the models proposed by both DD and by WL--one of which was to make the library of quests rentable by subscription, that I was strongly against.

Not that you can't do everything with the modern versions that the old builds do; but obviously, you're of the mindset that software should have a vey narrow, and focused feature set, so, you want 1.84. Honestly, if you have an attitude of 'it is destined to die', then we have nothing further to discuss.

I much prefer 'Never say die!.

Anyway, putting ZQuest on Steam --not likely to happen anytime soon--doesn't automatically commercialise anything. I want to do it to expand the userbase, not to profit from it.

If I gave two pins personally, about money, I wouldn't be devoting my time to working on multiple open-source projects. I do however, care that my time and effort go into something that will continue to thrive. Like it, or not, the majority of what I'm doing for the game engine, is by necessity, to further that goal.
  • Nathaniel, jerome, Russ and 2 others like this


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users