• Akira Toriyama passed away

    Let's all commemorate together his legendary work and his impact here

The reasons and consequences of the decline of Playstation in Japan [UPDATE: New Guidelines]

So they’re throwing hail-marys in the faint hope regulators will quash the ABK acquisition outright using negative sentiment around big tech (which, given how Sony themselves entered the games industry, is pretty fucking rich, but that’s neither here nor there).
Well.... I have been hearing some rumors on that front and that the FTC might act on the deal to kill it. They might not be the only ones on that front, UK and EU regulators don't seem to be at ease with this merger.
Still, Mircosoft has noticed a week spot and they are driving for it hard. How much Sony takes stock of that (assuming that the regulators move to kill the deal) and act accordingly.... is anyone guess.
 
Yeah lol. Also close to nude Bayo pics as well.
They should have had a pic of Ghondor's potty mouth too lol.

The issue with 3rd parties now is that AAAAA games costs have ballooned so out of proportion they either have to rely on mtx or accept deals from console manufacturers and I am sure Sony wouldn't be able to keep up with MS on that. Nintendo barely cares outside of MH I think (DQ is 100% going to release on Switch, seeing how BAD DQ sales have been on PS4/5 lately, they'll receive ports though).

MS' Gamepass and Nintendo's Drake (coming early next year apparently) also put Sony in a though spot. On one hand, GP deals are very attractive to publishers, on the other hand, having a capable Nintendo console that can receive ports from the Series S or outright PS4 games (mostly from the Japanese side, as many of their games still release on PS4) means the defacto position of Sony as the best place to play 3rd party games is compromised. This is because of the benefits of GP and the portability of a hybrid system are both perks many gamers are attracted to, even if the best graphics were on the PS5.

As of now, I doubt Sony would try to buy any Japanese 3rd party publisher and poke at Nintendo with the move, so I fully expect them to just keep buying western studios (not publishers) for the time being.
 
SE* opening up its individual studios to external investors pretty much signifies that this will happen sooner or later. Sony and tencent seem to be the target audience
Considering most of SQEX stuff comes to Switch and soon Drake, I wouldn't say their main audience is exclusively on Sony's consoles. I'd even go as far as to believe they'd see higher sales on some of their AAA games if they also released on Switch (or Drake after it launches) day and date, so things aren't as clear cut as they appear.
 
SE* opening up its individual studios to external investors pretty much signifies that this will happen sooner or later. Sony and tencent seem to be the target audience
Nintendo is a target too I'd bet, given their continued investment specifically in DQ and Asano projects over the years. I'm pretty sure we'll see them infusing some cash into CBU2. And honestly, Nintendo even has a history of this sort of 3rd party investment (Mobile21, Flagship, Monegi, GDS, etc). Actually PlayStation does too a little (Cellius) and even Xbox soft of (Feelplus).
 
Unless that AAA is PS5 exclusive, it should, as it will release on the Series S and that'll mean it will be more than very possible to port it to Drake. That leaves only the games Sony pays to keep from others, like FF.

Then again, as the gen gets more taxing and current-gen only games increase the Series S specs will likely become a liability. Unless the next Switch is stronger than the Series S which I'm not sure of.
 
Then again, as the gen gets more taxing and current-gen only games increase the Series S specs will likely become a liability. Unless the next Switch is stronger than the Series S which I'm not sure of.
It'll be comparable in some aspects, it'll have better RT performance too and should get better IQ just from games being rendered in 1080p and DLSS'd to 4K, though in other aspects it'll be weaker, which is expected. I don't believe MS will stop mandating Series S development anytime soon, otherwise they'd burn badly their Series S costumers, which are millions.
 
the Resistance series sold in the 1-2 million range per entry.

Not really.

Resistance and Killzone are similar with data, one game that sold a bit above 2 million and the rest of the series all being flops. Exception being Killzone 2 which sold over 1 million. Sony had stalled on reporting on series numbers for both of them after either the first week/month or if they managed to reach a milestone.

I wouldn't be surprised all the Resistance games combined plus the two portable games sold less than 3.5 million combined.

Killzone may be the same but it's hard to guess given Sony stopped reporting Shadowfall numbers and we didn't get any milestone numbers for Killzone 3.

Those were the two most successful FPS games Sony ever associated with (third/3nd party). Socom started out strong but the series lit itself on fire, and MAG didn't take off so that was the end of Zipper.

I think Sony could make a well-selling FPS game. They have Bungie now but even before they did they had third-person shooter mechanics in their games they improved upon over time, they could make a good stand-alone FPS and TPS to compete with stuff like Gears etc, but they seem to be wanting to play it safe after their many attempts failed on their consoles and portables, not to mention marketing deals with games like Haze and such.

Considering Uncharted was close to a TPS in many areas they have a good foundation for a TPS too. The Order 1886 was a missed ooportunity.
 
It'll be comparable in some aspects, it'll have better RT performance too and should get better IQ just from games being rendered in 1080p and DLSS'd to 4K, though in other aspects it'll be weaker, which is expected. I don't believe MS will stop mandating Series S development anytime soon, otherwise they'd burn badly their Series S costumers, which are millions.

No, I'm not saying they will end the mandate, but it's clear that it will have issue with more demanding games, and if the Switch 2 is weak in the wrong areas, which is likely given how Nintendo likes to cut corners in parts of their hardware, the games that do suffer most on Series S will suffer as much or worse on their machine, and that would put it in a different situation than what the Switch 1 went through. As the Switch one was stronger than the Wii U, and Xbox One and PS4 games were downgraded but still got a good or playable experience without too much compromise. This gen we have seen cracks with the Switch and Series S. Once the Xbox One and PS4 are dropped for games going all-in next gen I think that's when we are going to start seeing problems.

Especially with all the new engines that are going to come out that specialize in working with the new home consoles that we haven't really seen much of yet. A lot of developers were doing cross-gen until those were ready, or where in the case of some like Unreal 5 for example, have already been working on games for it.
 
Then again, as the gen gets more taxing and current-gen only games increase the Series S specs will likely become a liability. Unless the next Switch is stronger than the Series S which I'm not sure of.
How would the Series S be more of a "liability" than at present? Would the Series S affect the fun level of any video games any more or less in a few years than at present? I get that it might affect pixels and FPS but does it affect fun? I'm playing Nier Automata on the Switch and have looked at side by side comparisons with the PS4 version. If a graphics enthusiast points out draw distances, FPS, etc. I would see the differences. Still doesn't affect that I'm having as much fun on my Switch as a PS4 player did because at the end of the day Nier Automata is a fun video game.

From the business side, will it be more expensive to develop software that can be scaled to a Series S from a Series X later in the generation compared to the present? Are all modern 3D engines scalable to some extent? It seems like it's more of a business question since it's about time and money rather than technical feasibility.
 
No, I'm not saying they will end the mandate, but it's clear that it will have issue with more demanding games, and if the Switch 2 is weak in the wrong areas, which is likely given how Nintendo likes to cut corners in parts of their hardware, the games that do suffer most on Series S will suffer as much or worse on their machine, and that would put it in a different situation than what the Switch 1 went through. As the Switch one was stronger than the Wii U, and Xbox One and PS4 games were downgraded but still got a good or playable experience without too much compromise. This gen we have seen cracks with the Switch and Series S. Once the Xbox One and PS4 are dropped for games going all-in next gen I think that's when we are going to start seeing problems.

Especially with all the new engines that are going to come out that specialize in working with the new home consoles that we haven't really seen much of yet. A lot of developers were doing cross-gen until those were ready, or where in the case of some like Unreal 5 for example, have already been working on games for it.
Since the specs of the SoC have been already leaked, it doesn't seem like it'll be weak at all, it'll be comparable to the Series S. As for the engines, they are built for scalability nowadays, so it's not like they'll be locked to PS5 and Series X. Devs have a much easier time porting games now than before. This is also something to consider, in the past (PS2/PS3 era and before) games had to be made specifically for any given hardware and porting them was very hard work, even porting them to stronger hardware had devs dealing with much different architectures and caused them all sort of problems they don't have to deal with now (the PS3 was a particularly hellish machine to work with because of the Cell). That meant that many times it was better to keep a game exclusive than to port it to another console, it just wasn't worth the effort and money spent. Nowadays, with the flexibility of engines, specially their scalability, it's much, much easier to port games and cheaper too. That's also why we can see those "impossible ports" on Switch and why we will see a lot of ports on Drake, as well as devs keeping games being made on the Series S.

Looking at the wider picture, that also means that Playstation suffers, because in the past, many games would stay on their consoles because it was too hard and costly to port them, thus they won by keeping the 3rd parties, sometimes without much effort, but now they leak all over their competitors, both having perks already mentioned (GP and portability flexibility), which weakens their position globally vs the competition and, particularly in Japan, if Drake can easily run games that run on the PS4 (which it will because it's CPU alone will be miles better and the GPU too), it'll make the Switch the defacto Japanese 3rd party platform, including for many AAA games (like the next MH most likely), not only in Japan, but globally too, as the PS4 market dies and the PS5 market never really takes off in Japan. AAA Japanese games will still be on the PS5 mind you, but the small and mid sized games will probably start to skip it, as many of their devs rely on their Japanese sales first and the west sales second to remain afloat. This will, in turn, weaken Sony's position vs it's competition globally even further. Maybe I shouldn't say weaken, as it implies they are not breaking sales records, but strenghten their competition, particularly Nintendo (MS buying publishers is another entire can of worms), and rob them of a niche.
 
How would the Series S be more of a "liability" than at present?

Because we haven't seen more graphically demanding games yet that push the front and backend as hard as they should. If the Series S is starting to struggle now with later cross-gen games than all-in next gen is going to be a problem. Resolution will be a minor issue because of similarities in architecture and at worse you likely won't see below 1080p unless devs try to push features that S can't handle.

But for everything else, it's not going to be pretty. But this was obviously early on when you think about it. In 2020 when the Series S was new and for the first many months there was a clear decision people had to make between the Xbox One X and the Series S. The One X is technically weaker hardware however, the One X ran some games better or just as well at the time due to being the console developers focused on the most, it's architecture in synch with many of the dev engines and tools used, and it had a disc drive. You didn't see much difference between the S and X early on and some people actually did choose the X over it. Wouldn't be until maybe summer of 2021 where I saw major titles showing a growing gap from what the One X could do to the S in larger numbers, and then a bit after that it was clear the One X had it's time. But at the same time this happened the S started to struggle more.

I understand based on the words from MS who the S was intended for and what their target audience was, but I think they could have added a bit more umph to the S's architecture.

I'm playing Nier Automata on the Switch and have looked at side by side comparisons with the PS4 version. If a graphics enthusiast points out draw distances, FPS, etc. I would see the differences.

The Switch and Series S when they launched aren't going to be in the same position when real game development comes to push next gen consoles. When Xbox One and PS4 were the focus the Switch wasn't that far behind, the Series S wasn't that far ahead, and the new consoles were receiving a lot of cross-gen stuff.

This is about to change drastically. I think 2023 will be the first year were you're going to see where we are heading.
 
As for the engines, they are built for scalability nowadays,

Only to a certain extent. We are already seeing on PC that scaling has a limit, and a decent cheaper rig is having more problems than before, and when games start taking advantage of more recent architecture and graphics cards I expect the minimums to increase. Right now the only sure thing about scalability is resolution, not so much everything else. Right now we are already seeing a FPS cut and we still aren't where we see a harder hardware push yet on PC or home console.

As for Japan specifically well, none of this matters there because it's been a rising portability country since the Wii/PS3, and Sony has made a lot of silly mistakes or let their hubris put them into a bad position. They still need to work on the software situation in the country and there are reports several of their units are not actually staying in Japan when sold. Once the demand lowers, sales will crater because of a lack of anticipated software, and low software sales overall may cause devs domestically to go to Switch or release on multiple consoles, where in the past they may have only released on the PS systems.
 
Because we haven't seen more graphically demanding games yet that push the front and backend as hard as they should. If the Series S is starting to struggle now with later cross-gen games than all-in next gen is going to be a problem. Resolution will be a minor issue because of similarities in architecture and at worse you likely won't see below 1080p unless devs try to push features that S can't handle.

But for everything else, it's not going to be pretty. But this was obviously early on when you think about it. In 2020 when the Series S was new and for the first many months there was a clear decision people had to make between the Xbox One X and the Series S. The One X is technically weaker hardware however, the One X ran some games better or just as well at the time due to being the console developers focused on the most, it's architecture in synch with many of the dev engines and tools used, and it had a disc drive. You didn't see much difference between the S and X early on and some people actually did choose the X over it. Wouldn't be until maybe summer of 2021 where I saw major titles showing a growing gap from what the One X could do to the S in larger numbers, and then a bit after that it was clear the One X had it's time. But at the same time this happened the S started to struggle more.

I understand based on the words from MS who the S was intended for and what their target audience was, but I think they could have added a bit more umph to the S's architecture.



The Switch and Series S when they launched aren't going to be in the same position when real game development comes to push next gen consoles. When Xbox One and PS4 were the focus the Switch wasn't that far behind, the Series S wasn't that far ahead, and the new consoles were receiving a lot of cross-gen stuff.

This is about to change drastically. I think 2023 will be the first year were you're going to see where we are heading.
I don't think Drake will be farther from the PS5/XSX than the Switch was from the PS4/XBO, so it'll be fine. Same with the Series S for obvious reasons. The funny thing is that even if some game that runs at 1080p on the Series S has to be at 720p on Drake, with DLSS, it'll be possible to render it at 1440p, giving it an edge in resolution. It should have better RT capabilities and maybe match the PS5 in that thanks to the RT cores, but we will have to wait and see for that. DLSS updates may even aid in the RT for Drake in the future, giving it an bigger advantage over other consoles too. So even if it has to render less geometry and have smaller draw distances than the Series S, it'll still have some other perks. Ah right, another one could be RAM, if it comes with 12GB it'll have more RAM than the Series S.

Only to a certain extent. We are already seeing on PC that scaling has a limit, and a decent cheaper rig is having more problems than before, and when games start taking advantage of more recent architecture and graphics cards I expect the minimums to increase. Right now the only sure thing about scalability is resolution, not so much everything else. Right now we are already seeing a FPS cut and we still aren't where we see a harder hardware push yet on PC or home console.

As for Japan specifically well, none of this matters there because it's been a rising portability country since the Wii/PS3, and Sony has made a lot of silly mistakes or let their hubris put them into a bad position. They still need to work on the software situation in the country and there are reports several of their units are not actually staying in Japan when sold. Once the demand lowers, sales will crater because of a lack of anticipated software, and low software sales overall may cause devs domestically to go to Switch or release on multiple consoles, where in the past they may have only released on the PS systems.
For porting purposes, sometimes a little more work than just scaling things back in the options menu is necessary, plus optimization for any given hardware, that's how The Witcher 3 was able to run on Switch.

As for Japan, let me remind you that after the Wii/PS3 era, the Vita didn't do so hot and the 3DS, while it did well, was a large step down from the DS. It was to the point many started to believe Japan would abandon consoles completely and dedicate itself to just mobile games, but they couldn't have been farther from the truth, as the Switch demonstrated, which has many games that are exclusively played on docked mode, like Ring Fit Adventure, sell several millions, showing that it isn't just selling because it has a portable mode. Heck, if being portable was the most importan thing, the Lite wouldn't be doing as poorly as it has done vs the other models.
 
From the recent Media Create thread, courtesy of @Oregano
A survey of 2000 elementary and junior high students conducted in Sept.-Oct. about what their gaming choices.

http://news.yahoo.co.jp/articles/699a9c6d6e22a9f9ce73fd553e8a12e473d55e02

76% of respondents play the Switch. Only 13% play either the PS4 or PS5.

Granted, this not PS's modern target audience, but I'm assuming that there was a strong interest in PS1 and PS2 from this audience given the sales numbers then.
 
From the recent Media Create thread, courtesy of @Oregano
A survey of 2000 elementary and junior high students conducted in Sept.-Oct. about what their gaming choices.

http://news.yahoo.co.jp/articles/699a9c6d6e22a9f9ce73fd553e8a12e473d55e02

76% of respondents play the Switch. Only 13% play either the PS4 or PS5.

Granted, this not PS's modern target audience, but I'm assuming that there was a strong interest in PS1 and PS2 from this audience given the sales numbers then.

Someone more knowledgeable than me can chime in here but the survey went through elementary and junior high which means it includes kids up to 15 years old. I would have assumed that junior high group(13-15yo) would have been a large part of the PS1,PS2 and PSP audience.
 
Someone more knowledgeable than me can chime in here but the survey went through elementary and junior high which means it includes kids up to 15 years old. I would have assumed that junior high group(13-15yo) would have been a large part of the PS1,PS2 and PSP audience.

Probably, with portable devices more targeted at kids

Genius move to have an hybrid console from nintendo to get them all lol
 
Someone more knowledgeable than me can chime in here but the survey went through elementary and junior high which means it includes kids up to 15 years old. I would have assumed that junior high group(13-15yo) would have been a large part of the PS1,PS2 and PSP audience.
13-15 year-olds grew up with PSP/PS3/PS4, not so much PS1/PS2 (especially PS1).
 
I wonder if all the kids growing up playing Nintendo games will become a consistent playerbase for Nintendo consoles going forward. Seems like it was a strategy that would make sense, but it is not a given considering that Nintendo floundered on the late 90s-early 00s.

Though to be fair, even when nintendo was at its lowest on the home console market, the portables kept the company afloat. So now after the merger of the two markets I don't really see Nintendo as a whole struggling anymore. Maybe having less than stellar sales but there is no way a system with Animal Crossing, Pokemon, Splatoon, 3D Mario and 3D Zelda becomes another Wii U, especially now that there won't be any other alternative to play Nintendo games.
 
The reason Nintendo floundered in the 90's and 00's was because some mega conglomerate decided to enter the market and pulled some (virtually all) key developers/franchises that were exclusive to Nintendo's previous platforms over to theirs. This is unlikely to happen again because of decisions later made which changed the demographics of many of those once popular (still fairly popular) IPs to being of a much older demographic.
 
I grow up with Nintendo too, but people will jump ship immediatly for better offer like SFC > PS1 era.

That offer will be CERO Z FF16 trust me.
 
I grow up with Nintendo too, but people will jump ship immediatly for better offer like SFC > PS1 era.

That offer will be CERO Z FF16 trust me.
I think it is probably more accurate to say that people followed wherever Final Fantasy/Dragon Quest went and stayed for Biohazard and Gran Turismo. It's no coincidence that nearly all the best selling games early on with the PS/PS2 were sequels established well before.
 
Add CERO Z Dragon Quest to the pool then.

I bought PS1 because BIOHAZARD, so good.
 
I wonder if all the kids growing up playing Nintendo games will become a consistent playerbase for Nintendo consoles going forward. Seems like it was a strategy that would make sense, but it is not a given considering that Nintendo floundered on the late 90s-early 00s.
I don't think it's about keeping the player base totally locked down so much as it is keeping Nintendo as a prominent brand.

I'm a Nintendo consumer in my 40s, but anyone else in my age bracket likely bounced around to other hardware in our younger years and had clear favourites in every hardware cycle. You could not escape owning a PS1 or PS2 if you grew up with games starting in the early 80s to early 90s, and it was fairly likely that it was the only console you owned in that time, even if your first console was an NES or SNES.

But that brand awareness I mentioned from prior ownership means that there's less of a hill to climb to convince gamers who have owned Nintendo hardware in the past to buy a Switch, even if it's the first Nintendo device they've possessed since the 90s. So nabbing that first purchase is valuable, even if it doesn't result in a loyal consumer that will buy every subsequent product offering.

With PS4 selling behind PS3 and PS5 continuing that trend of progressively lower install bases with each hardware cycle, that's at least 15 years of Playstation being on a significant decline in Japan from a prior high with PS2. If Nintendo keeps up the hot streak there with their next hardware offering and keeps any interest in PS5 at bay, a full 2 decades will have passed with a weak PlayStation and constant diminishing brand awareness. That's tough to recover from without something changing.
 

Would love to see the supply issues finally sorted out so we can really see what the demand is in Japan and Asia.

If Nintendo keeps up the hot streak there with their next hardware offering and keeps any interest in PS5 at bay, a full 2 decades will have passed with a weak PlayStation and constant diminishing brand awareness
And adding to this: Steam and PC seem to be gaining ground in the Japanese market as well, with many JP third parties publishing their games on Steam. PS will have also lost their niche as the place to play higher-end games on.
 
Would love to see the supply issues finally sorted out so we can really see what the demand is in Japan and Asia.


And adding to this: Steam and PC seem to be gaining ground in the Japanese market as well, with many JP third parties publishing their games on Steam. PS will have also lost their niche as the place to play higher-end games on.

In SEA at least atm. Supply is not much problem anymore. The biggest problem is the price is too high for general market audience atm. The keep increasing dollar is also not helping at all.
 
The reason Nintendo floundered in the 90's and 00's was because some mega conglomerate decided to enter the market and pulled some (virtually all) key developers/franchises that were exclusive to Nintendo's previous platforms over to theirs. This is unlikely to happen again because of decisions later made which changed the demographics of many of those once popular (still fairly popular) IPs to being of a much older demographic.
And Nintendo never loses portable side, even against sony
 
And Nintendo never loses portable side, even against sony
In their attempt to kill Nintendo, they really goofed by not taking a two front approach, which gave Nintendo a safe haven to grow their IPs at the low end handheld market. By the time they finally did decide to attack on that front, they had made bad decisions on the home front and couldn't dedicated enough resources, and had not accounted for Nintendo's creativity (and the appeal that creativity would have amongst some people) in hardware design.
 
In their attempt to kill Nintendo, they really goofed by not taking a two front approach, which gave Nintendo a safe haven to grow their IPs at the low end handheld market. By the time they finally did decide to attack on that front, they had made bad decisions on the home front and couldn't dedicated enough resources, and had not accounted for Nintendo's creativity (and the appeal that creativity would have amongst some people) in hardware design.
People forget but Nintendo refocused their R&D in part due to the threat of PlayStation in handhelds. Beforehand their home and portable hardware lines were largely segmented by dev groups (RD1 vs EAD) and even franchises. PSP opened the door to EAD (Super Mario, Zelda, Mario Kart, Animal Crossing, etc) really expanding directly to DS/3DS too.
 
In their attempt to kill Nintendo, they really goofed by not taking a two front approach, which gave Nintendo a safe haven to grow their IPs at the low end handheld market. By the time they finally did decide to attack on that front, they had made bad decisions on the home front and couldn't dedicated enough resources, and had not accounted for Nintendo's creativity (and the appeal that creativity would have amongst some people) in hardware design.
Disruptive strategy (ds) and Blue ocean
cripple Sony strategy, Nintendo burning sucefull GBA indo this front. Pokemon is a stronger ip and Sony low price proves wrong and amost brake SIE if ps4 goes wrong(look Sony profits in vg era before ps4).
 
You know, now that the FTC is suing to stop this... I have to take a step back and ask: If this suit is successful and this merger is stopped, what does Sony do then?
Because this leaves a rather huge hole in it's strategy, in that it is dependent on a title like Call of Duty that can be taken from the platform at any time. That doesn't change that if this merger is stopped. So, what now?
@Terrell I am curious of your thoughts on this.
 
You know, now that the FTC is suing to stop this... I have to take a step back and ask: If this suit is successful and this merger is stopped, what does Sony do then?
Because this leaves a rather huge hole in it's strategy, in that it is dependent on a title like Call of Duty that can be taken from the platform at any time. That doesn't change that if this merger is stopped. So, what now?
@Terrell I am curious of your thoughts on this.

If an IP/publisher output is deemed too big to be foreclosed, then it likely stops most platform companies and big tech companies from buying EA, T2, Epic, ATVI, maybe Ubisoft and foreclosing others.

Also the biggest competitor to Playstation is Xbox and so the damage of foreclosure is only high if MSFT buys said IP, which will not be possible if the ATVI deal is blocked.
 
If an IP/publisher output is deemed too big to be foreclosed, then it likely stops most platform companies and big tech companies from buying EA, T2, Epic, ATVI, maybe Ubisoft and foreclosing others.

Also the biggest competitor to Playstation is Xbox and so the damage of foreclosure is only high if MSFT buys said IP, which will not be possible if the ATVI deal is blocked.
Except it is also possible to be foreclosed by an independent company choosing not to make any new games in that franchise. If the risk is so high that Sony needs the IP, that’s still a broken business model. There are also ways to foreclose without buying a company such as exclusivity deals that last long enough to where recovery is impossible even if it later comes.
 
Because this leaves a rather huge hole in it's strategy, in that it is dependent on a title like Call of Duty that can be taken from the platform at any time
The simple truth is that Playstation is not dependent on Call of Duty to be successful. So they don’t really have to do anything.
 
Activision is more dependent on playstation, hence them selling to Microsoft in the first place.

If this deal falls through it’s business as usual as their primary bread is butter will continue to be playstation. The entire publisher relies on sales of one franchise to stay afloat.
 
Back
Top Bottom