Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Games Entertainment

Gaming on a Universal Platform? 99

Posted by Zonk from the all-together-now dept.
Riffing off of David Jaffe's earlier comments, an article up on the Next Generation site theorizes about a single unified gaming platform, ala the music and movie businesses. He proposes a 'videogame standards commission', which could look out for the future of the industry as a whole. They might, he says, not even agree with his conclusion that a global platform would be a good idea. The point, he says, would be to maintain "a detailed yet flexible long-term plan for progressive development of the medium. The board would assay in accordance with a constitution of irrefutable primary standards and ideals ... From what I can see the only way such a body could conceivably be formed is by appealing to the idealism of visionary designers and executives across the spectrum - your Satoru Iwatas and Ken Kutaragis, and Will Wrights and David Jaffes. The Game Developers Conference and other gatherings already embody some of the spirit of this proposal." Curmudgeon Gamer has extensive commentary on Eric-Jon Rossel Waugh's piece.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Gaming on a Universal Platform? More

Gaming on a Universal Platform?

Comments Filter:

  • Already there! (Score:2, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward
    It's called "3DO".

    • Exactly (Score:2)

      by LKM ( 227954 )

      That's exactly what I thought. It's already been done. It's the 3DO. It doesn't work.

      Nintendo wants its quirky features like a novel controller, backwards compatibility back to the NES, a way to play GBA games on it, a way to plug GC controllers in and a shopping channel. Sony wants Bluray and backwards compatibility back to the PS and proprietary memory sticks and compatibility with its proprietary Sony media sharing tech, and anyway, only 3D games without nudity are allowed, and the thing needs a huge di

    • Both of these had the problem that there was a bunch of implementers who fought over a limited market, thus generating little profit for any of them. Especially the expensive ($700 in 1994 = at least $900 in today's money) 3DO was a dodgy proposition.

      Having USPs (unique seeling points) lets the consumer choose based on other factors than just price. MSX vendors used this to add their variants on the platform, e.g. Sony's was more geared toward music etc. This is why people like me choose the PS3 instead of

  • Bad idea. (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Pojut ( 1027544 ) on Friday February 16, 2007 @03:58PM (#18044018) Homepage
    For a variety of reasons...competition is a GOOD thing...in addition, while having different hardware might make cross-platform games tough, it makes proprietary games more interesting because the hardware in each console is different...each is capable of different things in different ways, thus lending to a uniqueness to certain games.

    Case in point: SNES and Genesis. You knew which one was in use simply by looking at the screen.

    Same goes for Xbox and PS2. And Dreamcast. And Gamecube.

    And every other system (with the possible exception of modern PC games) Every system has it's own very unique look, and even many cross platform games look quite different. I find this uniqueness refreshing, and enjoy having a choice of gaming platforms. Each has their own strengths and weaknesses.

    As a former auto-tech, one of my favorite mottos: The right tool for the right job.

    (Another favorite is "the guy with the biggest hammer fixes the most stuff", but that's another conversation...)
    • "For a variety of reasons...competition is a GOOD thing...in addition"

      I think your argument is deeply flawed. Different gaming platforms is not done in the name of competition it is very much anti-competitive, a method the various companies use to exhibit total control over their platform.

      The only way your argument would make sense is if the designs were opened up so anyone could create an XBox or Playstation. While this could be a revolutionary event (in the same way that the cloning of IBM PCs is seen as
      • I think your argument is deeply flawed. Different gaming platforms is not done in the name of competition it is very much anti-competitive, a method the various companies use to exhibit total control over their platform.

        I don't think you understand what GP means by competition. Console developers want to control their platform perhaps, but they have to be competitive to lure somebody over to them. That's why they have exclusives, different controllers, different price points, etc.
        • I understand what you are saying, but its the same arguement that was used by the UNIX developers of old. My point is in reality, there is a lot more opportunity for competition now in the PC industry then there was back in the 1970's when purchasing a UNIX system meant just using that developer's products for everything.

          • I think you're looking at it the wrong way. OP's argument was more akin to the competition between Mac and Windows. Two separate platforms breed competition
    • Agreed. Competition in video gaming is necessary to ensure quality and innovation. When Madden got the exclusive NFL license (thereby eliminating 2K Sports's competition), the franchise went to crap.
    • I'm perfectly willing to let the market make those decisions for us. At the moment, it seems willing to support multiple competing platforms, which is the absolute best thing for consumers.

      And ultimately, where does some monolithic "standard" leave the possibility of innovation in hardware? Would Nintendo have been able to produce a small, inexpensive, and innovative console like the Wii by adhering to some standard? I sort of doubt it. It's fine to have standards for CD or DVD playback. But for games,
      • Yes, we would. The console portion of the Wii is anything but innovative, it's the controller that makes the difference. Obviously Nintendo could have just simply released the "wii-mote" as an optional peripheral, and have their games require you to have it. If the Wii-mote style controller proved itself over time to be the new benchmark in controllers, then the next itteration of the standard could have it become the default. An open standard would not stifle innovation at all, and it's complete FUD for an
    • Doesn't competition exist between DEVELOPERS whether there are 1 or a 100 platforms? I think this competition is good, since it means better games for us.

      But having PLATFORM competition actually screws over the customer more than benefiting him, due to exclusive titles - meaning we need to purchase multiple platforms or play a restricted set of games - with no real increase in game quality. So a universal platform is beneficial to us, but not to platform sellers.

      • Exactly. The movie and television industries have all stated that they think having multiple formats for video discs is bad for everyone, so why can't the game industry see the same goes for them? The big three all talk about expanding the game industry to a wider audience, but requiring new gamers to buy 3 different systems to be able to play all the games they want puts far too large an overhead for those not already into gaming.

  • well... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by President_Camacho ( 1063384 ) on Friday February 16, 2007 @03:59PM (#18044032) Homepage
    They might, he says, not even agree with his conclusion that a global platform would be a good idea.

    You think?

    Seriously though, there's already a near-universal gaming platform. It's called the PC.

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Clever7Devil ( 985356 )
      What is your definition of PC?
      As someone who likes video games AND Linux I'd say even within the "PC" market there is no universal platform.

      • Re: (Score:1)

        by 3on3 ( 1007539 )
        As someone who likes video games AND Linux I'd say even within the "PC" market there is no universal platform. Its not perfect,but Wine solves that problem.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Sciros ( 986030 )
      Yeah I can't wait until they port Smash Bros to the PC so I can get to wavedashing and edge-hogging all my buddies with keyboard+mouse precision :-P

      The PC's library of games (genre-wise, not size-wise naturally) isn't more complete than that of consoles... and PCs compete with consoles for gamers' entertainment dollars just the same, so I think the PC is really on the same level as, say, any given console.

      I can only really see having a "universal" gaming platform when there are no meaningful (yeah, possibly

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by 2008 ( 900939 )
        "Yeah I can't wait until they port Smash Bros to the PC..."

        I've played Smash Bros on a PC. It's called an emulator. Console games do eventually end up on PC, it's just that it takes years and isn't always legal - although some services like Gametap do let you play emulated console games legally. The PC is an open, universal (in the universal Turing machine sense, at least) platform so these kinds of things exist, unlike consoles.

        And, of course, the lines between console and PC aren't exactly clear. You can

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by Sciros ( 986030 )
          Hehe well my point wasn't about porting the game per se. It was about playing a Smash Bros Melee port on a PC at all given the controls. Dash-dancing with mouse/keyboard... I don't think so ^_^

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by 2008 ( 900939 )
            Oh, for the love of Miyamoto aren't we over this yet? I've have a gamepad of some sort plugged into my PC for over a decade. Remember serial ports? You could get gamepads for them. Right now I have a a gamecube controller plugged into my PC, a force-feedback flightstick and a dancemat to go with that, and I've used a wheel before too. Since USB came along supporting 4 controllers simultaneously hasn't been difficult, and you can play 4-player Smash Bros with controllers on PC with no trouble.

            USB controller [dabs.com].

    • I think you've missed the point of "universal" and the comparison with DVDs and CDs.

      Right now I have to now my processor type and speed; the amount of memory I have; the type of graphics card and its memory; how much spare hard-drive space I have; my sound setup; my controllers... my PC is not a universal platform.

      What they want is a commodity platform. As a CD is a CD is a CD, they want a game to be a game to be a game which can just go in any "game machine".

      It's an admiral goal, shame it's such an unfe

    • Seriously though, there's already a near-universal gaming platform. It's called the PC.
      Where are the single screen multiplayer games for a set-top PC? Why hasn't the PC version of Bomberman been updated in more than a decade?

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Sigma 7 ( 266129 )

        Where are the single screen multiplayer games for a set-top PC?


        Serious Sam and Shadowgrounds?

      • Re: (Score:1)

        by KDR_11k ( 778916 )
        Why hasn't the PC version of Bomberman been updated in more than a decade?

        Because it still works just fine (as opposed to older console Bomberman titles which wouldn't work on the newer consoles new BM titles get released for) and Bomberman isn't exactly the kind of game that needs much updating?

        • My point is the following: Why do so few publishers consider releasing titles with a 4-player mode designed for set-top PCs or for PCs with 24" monitors? Smart-asses who reply to this question like to claim that "Atomic Bomberman from a decade ago and M-rated Serious Sam should be enough for anyone."

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by cgenman ( 325138 )
      They might, he says, not even agree with his conclusion that a global platform would be a good idea.

      You think?

      Clearly there needs to be a standards body pushing forth the advancement of video game hardware, as over the past 10 years we've seen little more than....

      Oh. Nevermind.

    • Obviously you know nothing about the real differences between PC and console development. When game developers code their games for PCs, they have to code it so that it will run on thousands of different hardware configurations and multiple operating systems. That kind of generic coding may be great for applications, but for real-time games that need every last ounce of power they can get, it makes it orders of magnitude harder.

      You also can't optimize your game nearly as much for PCs as you can with a pa

  • Universal? (Score:2, Interesting)

    by bradsenff ( 1047338 )
    I don't know how much more Universal it can get.

    There are *very few* games coming out now that aren't ported to all three systems + PC.

    I wish they'd decide on one platform so I don't have to get pissed when I find out Guitar Hero comes out a few months later on the other platform with MORE content.

    Either pick a platform and marry it, or just release it to ALL of them.

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by 7Prime ( 871679 )
      What are you talking about? Maybe EA and a number of smaller companies are doing this, but most of the biggies are exclusive. Think about all Microsoft's first/second party games (Bungie, Rare, etc), all the Nintendo first/second party games, now add the fact that Square-Enix, though not exclusive as a company, is exclusive on a game by game basis. That's 3 out of 4 of the largest game developers in the world (excluding EA). Sony's no small developer either, Blizzard and ID primarilly stick with PC, with an
      • Great. Now think back since the XBOX 360 has come out, and give me that same list.

        I know in the *past* there have been MANY exclusive releases. But this "next-generation" group has more crossovers than exclusives. Wii is somewhat unique, mainly due to the interface differences, but I still see stuff coming to it (not so many games leaving that platform however).

        It just feels to me that the exclusivity has gone towards zero recently while in the past it was the norm. (sliding scale style). On *average* it is

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by bogjobber ( 880402 )

        You're forgetting the actual large companies. Other than EA companies like Activision, Ubisoft, Sega, THQ, SCi/Eidos, LucasArts, Atari, Midway, and Vivendi Universal (not just Blizzard) all produce a majority of their stuff cross-platform. So yes, the majority of large gaming companies do make games that are cross platform. Huge blockbuster titles with exclusivity are usually ported around a year later anyway (Metal Gear Solid, Resident Evil, GTA).

        Think about all Microsoft's first/second party games

        • Re: (Score:1)

          by tepples ( 727027 )

          Other than EA companies like Activision, Ubisoft, Sega, THQ, SCi/Eidos, LucasArts, Atari, Midway, and Vivendi Universal (not just Blizzard) all produce a majority of their stuff cross-platform

          Then why don't the single-screen multiplayer features make it into the PC versions? If I have a set-top PC and four USB controllers, I want to make full use of them, not have to buy three more PCs and three more monitors in game designs that don't require a separate view for each player. Why hasn't PC Bomberman been updated in more than a decade?

    • There are *very few* games coming out now that aren't ported to all three systems + PC.

      Sorry, you must mean "all three systems + Windows." As a Mac and Linux user, I can assure you that most games do not come out for the "PC!"

  • The Java 3d API? (Score:3, Funny)

    by gentimjs ( 930934 ) on Friday February 16, 2007 @04:01PM (#18044056) Journal
    ... so what about java?
  • Gotta love a game that's free and I can play on any computer with internet access and telnet. Specifically, batmud is a great way to waste time. www.bat.org / telnet: batmud.bat.org
  • I mean seriously who the hell will want a committee designed console? Either it'll be lowest common denominator and be too scabby to play - and you'll be fucked cos there's no alternative - or it'll be an over-engineered, one-size-fits-all beast coming in at the price of a car - and you'll be fucked cos there's no alternative. It's competition that drives innovation, and that's what this daft proposal wants to cripple. Just so the authors don't have to gear up their brain to make a choice. Pathetic.

    There's

    • I mean seriously who the hell will want a committee designed console? Either it'll be lowest common denominator and be too scabby to play - and you'll be fucked cos there's no alternative - or it'll be an over-engineered, one-size-fits-all beast coming in at the price of a car - and you'll be fucked cos there's no alternative. It's competition that drives innovation, and that's what this daft proposal wants to cripple. Just so the authors don't have to gear up their brain to make a choice. Pathetic.

      The actu

      • Faster processors don't make better games.

        I think you mean "By themselves, faster processors don't make better games". Is there really anyone here who believes that Pong is a better game than Quake? (If you're "that guy", just stay seated please. I don't need statistical aberrations raising their hands. You are insignificant.)

        • "By themselves, faster processors don't make better games". Is there really anyone here who believes that Pong is a better game than Quake?

          Pong didn't have a processor.

        • Is there really anyone here who believes that Pong is a better game than Quake?

          Of course not! However, one could argue that Tetris or (2D) Mario might be...

  • Let's see here... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by AKAImBatman ( 238306 ) * <`akaimbatman' `at' `gmail.com'> on Friday February 16, 2007 @04:13PM (#18044236) Homepage Journal
    * The "Greenbook specification" aka "Philips CD-i"
    * 3DO
    * Apple Pippin

    With successes like these, who could doubt the wisdom of a universal game platform?

    [...]

    (That was sarcasm for those who didn't catch it.)

    The idea itself is sound, but it completely ignores the technological advancements that keep the industry afloat. Consoles don't just sit still with the same graphics designs, the same media, the same processors, and the same controllers. They branch out from each other, each trying out new concepts to bring fresh new possibilities to gaming. You cannot standardize a thing like this.

    The closest thing the industry has ever had to a true standard was the PS1 and PS2. They provided a fairly generic but powerful platform upon which a variety of games could be developed. With the success of the PS2 as a DVD player, it almost became as standard in the home as DVD players themselves. But that may be over now. Technology is moving on again, with a new batch of multiprocessing, motion sensing, and graphically interesting game consoles. Leave the "standard" console concept in the grave where it belongs.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by seebs ( 15766 )
      The PS2 was not all that powerful; it was just better than the PS1 and N64. It was also astoundingly hard to get good results on, requiring a whole lot of developer time. Not a very good standard.

      • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

        by AKAImBatman ( 238306 ) *

        It was also astoundingly hard to get good results on, requiring a whole lot of developer time. Not a very good standard.

        In other words, it fit the bill of a standardized platform perfectly. :-P

    • Well, as a possible counter-argument, there was the MSX standard back in the 80s. But even then, different MSX manufacturers added their own twists to the machines in order to make them stand out. So, a game might have run on your low-end MSX2, but it wouldn't have had digital speech or 16-color sprites because it's not a Ronco SuperMSX2Deluxe.

      • Well, as a possible counter-argument, there was the MSX standard back in the 80s.

        There was also the Commodore 64, the Atari 8-bits, Amigas, the Spectrums, and a whole bunch of other systems that were "Standard" or semi-standard across models. The key is that these were computers, not game consoles. The need to look at the minimum specs of a game made these more specialized platforms than those of the console market. A specialization that the PC platform fills today.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by trdrstv ( 986999 )
      The closest thing the industry has ever had to a true standard was the PS1 and PS2. They provided a fairly generic but powerful platform upon which a variety of games could be developed.

      If by powerful you didn't mean technical power (Both the PS1, and PS2 had much more powerful consoles competing with them), but 'critical mass of adoption' then yes. The NES, Original Gameboy, and GBA would also be considered as the 'Defacto Standard' since they were market dominant in their respective eras.

      • If by powerful you didn't mean technical power (Both the PS1, and PS2 had much more powerful consoles competing with them)

        By "powerful" I mean "powerful enough to be useful for their time". Many of the early CD consoles were underpowered for the emerging 3D market. They simply couldn't keep up with even the simplest games. The 3DO wasn't bad, but it wasn't exactly great either. The Playstation was less powerful than the N64, but it was also launched a full year earlier. (The console was actually older, but

  • a single unified gaming platform, ala the music and movie businesses.
    These would be the same "unified" music and movie businesses that have been the cause of every audio and video format war in history, each of which left owners of the losing format with an expensive paperweight and a shelf full of table-leg-dewobblers?

  • But ... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by rlp ( 11898 ) on Friday February 16, 2007 @04:14PM (#18044256)
    I thought Microsoft already developed that! :-)

    Seriously, this is a great way to completely kill all innovation in gaming hardware. Standards are fine for industries that have matured to the point that the product is a commodity. At that point everyone can build to the standard and compete on price (or perhaps service). Fortunately, the game industry isn't close to that point. Do you want super-powered graphics, integration with high-def video content, internet based multi-player support, novel control schemes. You (the market) decides and the winners go onto to the next round.

  • This is Next Generation. (Score:3, Insightful)

    by SetupWeasel ( 54062 ) on Friday February 16, 2007 @04:14PM (#18044262) Homepage
    They don't say much of any value. Hell will freeze over before Nintendo allows itself to be bound by a "videogame standards commission." We wouldn't want such a commission to be formed anyway. Major publishers and developers would only come closer to absolute power in the industry.
  • The standard most companies want implemented tend to be the standard they themselves developed. Otherwise, they would just be shooting themselves in the foot (in their minds) because then they couldn't sell them proprietary connectors, adapters, special tools etc... This applies across most industries... it's the reason you can't put a five bolt Chevy wheel on a Ford.
  • A real unified platform would be awesome for game developers, but it would be iffy for consumers, and a waste of time for the console producers (Buy our console! It's just like everyone else's!). And a big industry consortium to steer the direction of the industry for its own benefit? Brilliant.

    Have you learned nothing from the MP/RIAA and their behavior? For heaven's sake, let the market take care of it.
  • I don't think it would happen. There are groups of people who like the stability of consoles while there are also people who like the cutting edge graphics of PCs. One thing that might change is the way games are written by 3rd party game producers to help cope with porting games across platforms, so maybe they could write it in one language and have special compilers specific to the platform where the code wouldn't have to be hardware-specific. Not really like Java since there could be any number number

  • Also: (Score:3, Informative)

    by Canthros ( 5769 ) on Friday February 16, 2007 @04:23PM (#18044366)
    You've mangled that linke to the Curmudgeon Gamer [curmudgeongamer.com] article.
  • And... we'll call it the 3DO....
  • "Here's your official platform"

    Three months later

    Sony, or MS, or Atari, or someone: Here's a better one, and a bunch of games?

    Now what?

    Comission: We legally put you out of business. Stop it or go to jail.

    Is this the world you want? Not me, pal.
  • Zonk, thanks for the link to Curmudgeon Gamer. Could you please fix it?

    Correct link [curmudgeongamer.com]
  • Yeah, baby, yeah! We'll compensate the 16+ ms timer errors in the next frame, who cares, blame it on the CPU and the GC...

    • We'll compensate the 16+ ms timer errors in the next frame

      If you're getting 16+ ms timing errors in your game, you're doing something horrendously wrong. Not that I'm surprised. Timing in Java has been solved for years, yet every other day some moron posts his code with the most ridiculous attempt at code timing that I've ever seen.

      Use the right tool for the right job. Which sometimes means replacing the tool behind the keyboard...

      (Sorry if I seem cross. Your post just rubs me the wrong way.)

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by DimGeo ( 694000 )
        I know. This problem happens only under NT. I've written a precise timer for Java myself. The trick is calling timeBeginPeriod(1) from native. The problem is a stupid design error in Windows (one of many), still unfixed, because my MaSters are sooo afraid of breaking something. I felt like being spiteful while I was writing the message.
    • That is sarcasm, right?

      If so, where can I find resources on this? I want to be convinced, one way or the other, about Java as a game development platform.
  • This is perhaps one of the dumbest things I've read in a long time.
    What would be the result of implementing a standardized games format but to slow development to a crawl?
    Movies and music CDs are standardized because their content isn't driven by the capabilities of their players - just the opposite. But game content is much more influenced by what your hardware is capable of. And since game content can either make or break your ROI, having to develop to some artificial committee-designed standard is a lo
  • It's called a Wii.

    I use it for everything now.

    Which makes it universal.
  • Someone just needs to develop a live distro for gaming.

    The user interface would be simple. Put CD/DVD in drive, reboot. The live distro would boot, install the game to a partition (on a first run), and start the game. Variations that enable the use of USB drives for game and client data as well as multi disc games could be engineered.

    This has many benefits. It enables gaming across a wide range of available hardware. Problems due to driver variations disappear. Hell, system performance suddenly goes t

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by grumbel ( 592662 )
      ### The user interface would be simple. Put CD/DVD in drive, reboot.

      Most stupid solution ever. Sorry, but I don't want to reboot to play a game, ever. The whole point of having a proper multitasking operating system is so that we *don't* have to reboot for each an every application. You know, I like to being able to have some chat software running, look-up a walkthrough and whatever while the game is running in the background, I also like to be able to install MODs and stuff and I also like to have games th
  • They want to have Nintendo games available for all, I guess. This is a bad idea. Competition makes it way thanks to platforms, not games.
  • This will eventually just happen on it's own. For some time now, graphics have been driving game systems. It sucks but John Q is a fucking philistine with regards to anything other than graphics. I've heard so much talk about physics being the new revolution in gaming -- as it, you know, actually affects the gameplay, kinda important wrt the fun factor of the game -- and I've been really loving the incorporation of ragdoll physics in everything I play now; but unfortunately people who don't know their head

  • What does he mean with unified? Music and movies? Oh right, ehm, how exactly do I fold my Star Wars laserdisc to fit in a VHS or a BETAMAX or a DVD or a BluRay or a HD-DVD or a UMD or a V2000 or a 8/16/35mm projector?

    Music? Oh fuck it I am to lazy to list the tape spool format, the minidisc, the 8track, the minitape, the digital tapes, music on video tape experiments, the cd, the enhanced cd's etc etc etc. Not even to mention the obvious incompatibilities of the various digitals formats.

    But that is pendan

  • If Microsoft gains control of the console market through the XBox 360, it will have control over development, the platform, and online services. Gamers everywhere should be wary to support Microsoft's XBox 360. Sony may be evil, but they're also pretty stupid - Microsoft, on the other hand, is evil and sneaky - they've established a system where gamers will be hesitant to leave the XBox platform (XBox Live) because all their friends are on it. They're trying to establish control of gaming development by tyi
  • I want go to the store, buy a game, and rip it to a .gp3 file so I don't need to carry the CD with my laptop.

    But then the GIAA will come after me.

  • I think it was called 3DO [wikipedia.org] - and as I recall, it was an utter bomb. Do we really need to repeat this silly bit of history to know why it's not a good idea?

    • I think it was called 3DO [wikipedia.org] - and as I recall, it was an utter bomb.
      I think its primary reason for failure was its high price...

      • I think its primary reason for failure was its high price...

        That was probably a big part of it, but why would a more modern version not fail for the same reasons?

        Standardizing the hardware segregates the hardware manufacturers from the game and accessory licensing. By doing this hardware manufacturers have NO CHOICE but to sell a the console at a profit. No other guaranteed source of income means they can't afford to sell the console at a loss. the Xbox 360 might have cost as much as a 3D0 when it came

Slashdot Top Deals

The sooner all the animals are extinct, the sooner we'll find their money. - Ed Bluestone

Close