Close
Are you sure? Are you sure you want to report this comment? I understand, report it. Cancel

Budget inflation threatens AAA

Budget inflation threatens AAA

Fri 09 May 2014 6:53am GMT / 2:53am EDT / 11:53pm PDT
PublishingFinancial

Solid results from EA and Activision is good news for the industry, but the size of Destiny's budget is a black cloud on the horizon

It became apparent many years ago that much of the games industry's future growth was going to come from new markets; new platforms, new demographics and new business models. Right from the outset, that undeniable reality has been hanging over the industry's formerly dominant companies like Edgar Allan Poe's slowly descending pendulum blade. Most senior people in any business like this know, or at least think they know, how this part of the innovator's dilemma works; it means that the companies most successful in the old paradigm hang on for too long, too afraid of damaging their doomed old businesses to really push forward with new ideas, eventually being rendered obsolete by new, hungry firms with no stake in the old order of things to hold them back.

Lots of commentators see that happening to Nintendo right now. The company that effectively invented the modern console is so tied to the old model (which served it superbly with the Wii and DS, and continues to serve well on the 3DS) that it can't let go, and will be outpaced by innovative new companies with no console fiefdom to defend. I don't entirely agree; Nintendo is certainly conservative, but I don't think it's bound so much by the innovator's dilemma as by a sense of long-termism that makes it deeply suspicious of possibly faddish trends. That suspicion could sink the company, or keep it swimming for a very long time; anyone claiming to know for sure how this plays out is welcome to email me next week's lottery numbers while they're at it.

"For all the dextrous footwork in their business planning, both companies can equally put their success at present down to a much more straightforward factor: fantastic core games"

After all, it's not so long since plenty of other games companies were posited as dinosaurs who were about to be rendered extinct by the impact of new business models and technologies. Certainly, a fair few publishers have foundered in recent years, largely crushed by the implosion of the sub-AAA console space, but this week saw a twist to the narrative for the industry's two largest publishers. Electronic Arts and Activision Blizzard announced their financial results in quick succession; both firms significantly exceeded market expectations. You wouldn't call either set of figures amazing, but there were few holes to be picked; they were solid figures, reflecting good, sustainable and growing businesses.

Part of that is down to flexibility. The two firms have leapt over the industry's long and tortuous transition period in very different ways. EA embarked upon a long-term restructuring program under former boss John Riccitiello, ensuring that it would have a strong presence in new mobile and social gaming markets while retaining its powerful core franchises. Activision, on the other hand, doubled down on core gaming before branching out into the social and mobile spaces from that stronghold. You could reasonably posit that Activision is now stronger in the core space, and EA stronger in the new markets, but the reality is that both companies have ended up in broadly the same place, albeit through different routes, and both look very different to how they looked five years ago.

All the same, for all the dextrous footwork in their business planning, both companies can equally put their success at present down to a much more straightforward factor: fantastic core games. EA's revenue was driven strongly by Titanfall, and positive forecasts for the coming year are thought to be largely based on forthcoming updates to the Battlefield franchise. Activision's strong financial backbone is Blizzard, which continues to generate mountains of money from World of Warcraft (slowly declining, but still bigger than any MMO in history) and Diablo. Call of Duty and Skylanders are its other cash cows; its big hope for next year is Destiny, the new title from Halo creators Bungie.

These core franchises are not immune from the lure of new business models, and nor should they be. Activision, for instance, has high hopes for free-to-play mechanisms in its new Blizzard title, Hearthstone, and its forthcoming version of Call of Duty for the Chinese market. Yet most of the money coming from these games and services is in the form of up-front purchases or subscriptions. The introduction of new business models hasn't killed off the old ones, it seems; plenty of consumers still prefer the traditional way of doing things, and are happy to pour money into it. EA and Activision have both made errors of judgment regarding which business model best suits which product in the past, and will do so again in the future, no doubt, but both firms recognise that the new models are additional options, not straight-up replacements, for the old way of doing things.

In that regard, although it's just a single quarter's data points, the positive results for these two leading publishers (and the stock market rally which followed) are good news for the industry overall. It's been my thesis for some time that the market for core games is not in any kind of decline at all, but merely seems thus because of a combination of rapid growth elsewhere (which overshadows the now slow-but-steady growth of the much more mature core sector) and the obfuscation of revenues due to the digital transition. I suggest that EA and Activision's results are further confirmation of that hypothesis; at the very least, even if they're far from being "proof", they're good news for those whose businesses or careers are still pinned to the core sector and its traditional (but evolving!) business models.

"If budgets do soar in this direction and consumers decide that this level of investment is what "AAA games" ought to be, then AAA games will contract to an even smaller subset of what they already are"

Which is not to say that there was no shadow cast by this week's financial announcements. If you didn't raise your eyebrows at Activision's admission that Destiny's development and launch is going to cost around $500 million, then you're either a lot wealthier than most people, or a lot worse at processing very large numbers than most people. For all the talk and worry among core gamers and the developers who serve them about the rise of mobile, social and F2P, I can't help but feel that the only real threat to AAA gaming right now is not external at all. It's in this kind of madness, half-billion dollar gambles on single AAA titles, that the seeds of AAA's own destruction may lie.

Sure, Destiny isn't going to cost half a billion to develop; much of that money will go to the marketing budget and the expensive infrastructure required for the game, no doubt. Yet such specifics barely matter. Activision is making a half-billion-dollar punt on the game, and that in itself is inherently destructive. Imagine being a manager or creative at almost any level within such a project. Creative projects are inherently risky; nobody truly, honestly knows whether the public will love or hate (or worst of all, simply feel indifferent about) a new game, movie, song or book when it appears on the market. A $500 million creative project, therefore, must compensate for such inherent risk by trying to cut down risk in every other way possible; or to be more precise, everyone involved in such a project, aware of the enormous dollar-sign floating above, will reduce the risk of their own specific part of the project as much as possible, such that in the event of failure, nobody will blame them.

I'm not saying that Bungie, or any part of Activision itself, is necessarily pursuing such a strategy; merely that such a strategy naturally emerges from the awareness of such an enormous level of investment and the potential for such a damaging failure. People cover their own backsides; they do things that are solid and proven rather than things that are new and interesting, because new and interesting things are risky. It's my firm hope and desire that Destiny ends up being a fantastic game, but I never really expected it to be a surprising game, and the $500 million price tag all but guarantees that I'm right about that. Surprises are risky. You can surprise people at low cost and hope for the best, but for $500 million, you don't dare surprise anyone, least of all the fickle consumer.

I said previously that EA and Activision have ended up in the same place by walking different paths; I wonder, worriedly, if Destiny might be a part of the journey Activision has yet to complete, but which EA experienced rather painfully with the also hugely expensive Star Wars: The Old Republic. Once executives start talking about such huge amounts of money, seemingly oblivious to the inherent, essential riskiness of any new creative endeavour, it's hard not to see shades of previous vainglorious failures. If budgets do soar in this direction and consumers decide that this level of investment is what "AAA games" ought to be, then AAA games will contract to an even smaller subset of what they already are. $500 million may be an impressive boast for Activision, but it's not good news for the industry at large.

29 Comments

Andrew Ihegbu
Studying Bsc Commercial Music

438 146 0.3
I think this needs to be said, because it's completely missed in the article. Bungie say they have a 10 year roadmap for the game. A game that is already more anticipated than GTA5 was, and that made 2 billion. The way that I saw it, Bungie was planning to carry on adding content to the core game over that 10 years, or do something along those lines, which would probably be a very small amount of the budget seeing as most of that will be marketing anyway.

Anyway what I am trying to get at is that with the successes of Halo, and the high levels of anticipation already, half a billion isn't even an unsafe bet. It's quite the opposite actually.

Edited 1 times. Last edit by Andrew Ihegbu on 9th May 2014 11:23am

Posted:2 months ago

#1

Rupert Loman
Founder & CEO

138 45 0.3
Popular Comment
"[Destiny]... A game that is already more anticipated than GTA5 was." - really?

Posted:2 months ago

#2

Nathan Richardsson
Executive Producer

2 1 0.5
Destiny isn't a game, it's a platform that is extensible and scalable.

It can contain multiple types of games, settings, game modes, environment sizes (ie from "a map" to "an open world"). The concept of the Traveler allows this, being able to bend time and space, instantly allowing you, within context of the universe, to ... well, travel to any form of game, within the game, without breaking immersion.

You know, if I were to deduce something based on little information and apply some pragmatism.

Posted:2 months ago

#3

James Ingrams
Writer

215 84 0.4
With budgets forAAA games still $50 million plus, and indie games moving from Minecraft to Mars: War Logs, the only future I see for PC gaming is indie.With console game RRP's going over $70, with allthat entails!

Posted:2 months ago

#4

Greg Wilcox
Creator, Destroy All Fanboys!

2,134 1,039 0.5
Destiny isn't a game, it's a platform that is extensible and scalable.
Be that as it may, explaining that to the average Joe Gamer who buys these games just to shoot other live and AI players in the face and teabag some digital corpses for hours on end is a dead end because all they'll want to see for the most part is THAT end of the platform. Which is a diving board these days if as a shooter, it fails to excite that rather large core buyer.

Granted, I'd LOVE to see a role-playing game pop up in this universe that doesn't need a multiplayer component or has that component as an option rather as a rule. But yeah, I tend to over pipe dream on games I see as having a wider audience should they wish to cast a net in that direction.

Edited 1 times. Last edit by Greg Wilcox on 9th May 2014 7:58pm

Posted:2 months ago

#5

Tim Carter
Designer - Writer - Producer

551 269 0.5
"The concept of the Traveler allows this, being able to bend time and space, instantly allowing you, within context of the universe, to ... well, travel to any form of game, within the game, without breaking immersion."

What a joke.

Writers and filmmakers have been doing that shit for years. It's called "Cut to the chase!"

D'uh....

More proof that the game industry is full of inward-looking idiots who are constantly trying to reinvent the wheel.

Edited 3 times. Last edit by Tim Carter on 9th May 2014 8:26pm

Posted:2 months ago

#6

Justin Shuard
J - E translator

40 144 3.6
On the flipside, it's refreshing to see some AAA publishers like Ubisoft reach out to release smaller games like Child of Light and Valiant Hearts. Hopefully releasing a mixture of big budget and small budget games is also established as a viable way for AAA pubs to move forward, rather than just throwing in everything behind a single franchise like Activision is doing with Destiny.

Posted:2 months ago

#7

Jean-François Boismenu
Software Developer

3 3 1.0
What if Destiny sells "only" 1.5 million units? Would the sales explode for the sequel enough to warrant other sequels? Or if the first game sells 3 million but the sequel bombs, you might have a 10 year plan but fumble at year 3.

That's the huge risk they are taking.

Posted:2 months ago

#8

Andrew Wilson
3D Artist

27 1 0.0
I think at this point in the development cycle they're probably not "taking a risk" given they will know how good a game they've got. They certainly won't have said to Bungie up front "here, have half a billion dollars for your next game"!

But then the writer also says Nintendo is " deeply suspicious of possibly faddish trends", presumably not referring to motion control, touchscreens or stereoscopic 3D.

Big budgets have been a threat for a while, but the reality is that the actual threat comes not from the budget, but from developers and publishers who spend those big budgets on games people aren't going to buy, even when it's often pretty obvious there's no market for it (think Bizarre Creations)

Posted:2 months ago

#9

Axel Cushing
Writer / Blogger

102 128 1.3
Assuming an initial street price of $60 USD (and not counting "collector's edition" versions in the $100 - $150 range), Activision Blizzard is looking at having to sell roughly 8.3 million copies give or take to break even on development and marketing costs. That's not quite 3 million copies for PC, PS4, and Xbox One, and I can't quite see people buying multiple copies as a "double dip" so that they can play with friends on different platforms just so the marketing wonks aren't in the red.

Even assuming that Bungie is stating this cost as part of some grand decade-long plan, that they're playing this out in $50M installments over the next ten years, they're looking at either pushing just under a million copies a year every year, or pushing enough DLC totaling an equivalent monetary value to the fanbase who may or may not get tired of it, or popping out annual sequels AND associated DLC that they've already put down in the ledger and hope the fanbase doesn't get tired of it.

I know Bungie has made great games in the past, and the preview of Destiny I saw last year at E3 was cool, but somebody says they're dropping half a billion on a project, the first words that pop into my mind are "Heaven's Gate."

Posted:2 months ago

#10

Paul Jace
Merchandiser

870 1,278 1.5
What if Destiny sells "only" 1.5 million units? Would the sales explode for the sequel enough to warrant other sequels? Or if the first game sells 3 million but the sequel bombs, you might have a 10 year plan but fumble at year 3.

That's the huge risk they are taking.
The closest example to this I could think of was Silicon Knights "Too Human" and Majesco's "Advent Rising", both planned as the first in a trilogy series but both did so poorly that they ended after the first one. Of course Bungie is on another planet compared to both Silicon Knights and Majesco so their series should fare far better.

Posted:2 months ago

#11

Nathan Richardsson
Executive Producer

2 1 0.5
Yes, Greg and Tim, I agree. I'm sorry I didn't elaborate enough on my points, but you seem to have spotted pretty easily the holes in the deduction. On a more personal note, I hope to be pleasantly surprised. I do have faith in mankind.

Posted:2 months ago

#12

Morville O'Driscoll
Games Blogger & Journalist

1,492 1,259 0.8
@ Axel
That's not quite 3 million copies for PC, PS4, and Xbox One,
There's no PC version of Destiny (it's bizarre, I know), but there are 360/PS3 versions. Which imparts a new meaning on the rest of your sentence:
and I can't quite see people buying multiple copies as a "double dip" so that they can play with friends on different platforms just so the marketing wonks aren't in the red.
I, too, can't see people double-dipping, at least in the traditional sense. What I can see happening is lots of sales on 360 (where Bungie is a big name), which are eventually sold-back to Gamestop etc., either because the game isn't that good, or because people are following their friends in upgrading to a next-gen console.

It's risky business spending so much money on a game that straddles both generations, and with no PC version.

Posted:2 months ago

#13

Christian Keichel
Journalist

577 790 1.4
@ Axel
Assuming an initial street price of $60 USD (and not counting "collector's edition" versions in the $100 - $150 range), Activision Blizzard is looking at having to sell roughly 8.3 million copies give or take to break even on development and marketing costs.
This would be true, if Activision would sell the game themself to customers, but retailers won't pay Activision $60 for a copy of Destiny. From every Destiny sold Activision will receive roughly 50% of the retail price (+/- 10% depending on who they sell their game to and how many units he takes, Amazon and Gamestop will pay less for a copy of Destiny then your small local games dealer). This means they need more something like 15 million copies of the game to break even and at this point, Destiny will have made no money for Activision. In order to make a decent ammount of profit, the game has to sell like the best selling CoD games. That's possible, no doubt about it, but it's not something I am sure of, as the game competes amongst other games with CoD and a lot of games, we don't know about yet, because the holiday lineup of the big companies won't be revealed until e3.

Edited 1 times. Last edit by Christian Keichel on 10th May 2014 9:51am

Posted:2 months ago

#14

Nick Parker
Consultant

279 143 0.5
I remember the industry was sceptical about the introduction of Call of Duty in 2003 when Medal of Honor and Battlefield were recognised brands in the FPS battle arena genre. We may balk at the sums but Activision has experience and deep pockets (last 10k revealed $4.4bn in cash) in launching ambitious franchises so let's not line up to write this off prematurely.

Posted:2 months ago

#15

Jakub Mikyska
CEO

198 1,068 5.4
The way I read the article is that Activision managed to stay among the top gaming companies during the transition period, they show healthy growth and they sit on a lot of money... I would say they know what they are doing.

They have one of the best game studios, they obviously believe they have a great game, they already have a huge hype behind the game and they have a plan how to turn Destiny into another yearly money cow. What else are they supposed to do than to pump in as much money as the project needs? If I had $500 million, I would invest it in Destiny too. Every invested dollar will return tenfold.

Posted:2 months ago

#16

Klaus Preisinger
Freelance Writing

1,036 916 0.9
Destiny, is a shooter from Bungie, so in a way, we know what to expect. We know they have nailed the gameplay of shooters, so here is another one.

What is new though, is the whole ten year plan and that we do not know which type of business model will be put in place going forward. $500 million and ten years worth of annual $60 Destiny sequels? Sure, we can imagine that such a plan will work on consoles. But this is not how new consoles, the Xbox One in particular, launched.

It is when we look towards microtransactions schemes, loot game mechanics and regular updates that we raise an eyebrow. because all of that is new territory for Bungie. Even the best shooter in the world can be derailed in its master plan, when the psychological minutia of reward schemes involving loot and soft pressure to get people int the microtransaction store isn't right.

I expect E3 to leverage boatloads of "Destiny is the new shooter from the makers of Halo" and precious little concerning features which are new to a Bungie game.

Posted:2 months ago

#17

Christian Keichel
Journalist

577 790 1.4
Destiny, is a shooter from Bungie, so in a way, we know what to expect. We know they have nailed the gameplay of shooters, so here is another one.
With the exception, that Destiny is a Multiplayer Shooter unlike Halo, everybody who bought the Halo games for their campaign and not for the multiplayer part might be skipping this game in favor of the next Halo.

Posted:2 months ago

#18

Klaus Preisinger
Freelance Writing

1,036 916 0.9
What I meant is that there will not be anything wrong with the shooting mechanically, the snappiness of controls and the general feel of Destiny as a game in which you shoot.

What we have seen so far is basically a single player mission with a Co-Op player dropping in. It did not appear as if this was something which automatically breaks the way Bungie traditionally employs storytelling. Did a four player Co-Op option really detract from Halo's ability to pull off a campaign in the past? To the point that players only interested in single player experiences stopped buying the game? I do not believe so.

From what I have seen, Destiny seems to take its gameplay cues from Borderlands, which is very much a game which is able to support single player and friends playing together. Destiny will certainly not try do scare off fans of single player campaigns by making this an openworld shooter version of some MMO. Because of that it is all the more interesting to see how Bungie and Activision will handle the things we have never seen them do, which are character progress, loot, microtransactions.

Posted:2 months ago

#19

Christian Keichel
Journalist

577 790 1.4
Let's wait and see, I guess we all will see much clearer after e3. On a side note, I just read the preview in germany's biggest video game magazine Computer Bild Spiele, not known for being a magazine for core gamers, but nonetheless very influential. The preview wasn't extremely stellar, they used the word "soulless" countless times.

Edited 1 times. Last edit by Christian Keichel on 11th May 2014 2:26pm

Posted:2 months ago

#20

Nick Wofford
Hobbyist

152 158 1.0
Yeah, I occasionally read about Destiny's supposed hype, but I fail to see it. For every Destiny article, there are a dozen more about other games. The buzz is just not there for a half of a billion dollar investment. It won't be a uDraw fiasco, for sure, but I don't see how Activision can make money on this.

I feel like Bungie should have known better. It's one thing for Activision to offer them that budget, but it's another level of bad decision to accept it, knowing you'll never make it back. Bungie has pretty much guaranteed that their game will be unprofitable, and thus guaranteed that they won't be making more Destiny games. That's just not a great 10 year plan, in my opinion.

Posted:2 months ago

#21

Alfonso Sexto
Lead Tester

768 575 0.7
I'm looking forward for this game and I hope it will succeed. Or my predictions, when I was younger, that Activision would be the ruin of the AAA market may become true after all. Really hope I'm wrong here.

Posted:2 months ago

#22

Rick Lopez
Illustrator, Graphic Designer

1,269 941 0.7
As long as those 500million are reflected in the end product, Im ok with this. because if its "that good" then it should have no problem making its money back. Its also 500million for a 10 year development plan. Its a huge risk. Only the developers truely know what they are cooking up. If they believe in their product that much to warrent investing 500million in it, than I guess, Ill reserve any comments I have towards the game when its released. Because nobody other than the developers know the true nature of the project. In the meantime, Ive already put in my preorder :).

AAA has other worse problems to deal with now. Companies cant seem to get a game though the door fast enough, huge games tend to be buggy. I think there are bigger problems in the design department and development methods. This stuff of having to rebuild everything everytime a new sequel comes out should be a thing of the past.

However this is the area, story and characterization has the edge in single player games. An example would be In a game you are introduced to a world, a planet for example and the story and events take place their. In a sequel, You may be introduced to another planet and completely differant story, mixing old and new characters, and it may for example take place mostly in new locations, like a new planet or a moon of the planet of the first game. But the introduction of that new location does not mean you got to get rid of the location from the first game.

You can keep it and open up new bars and shops, introduce new NPC's and access to places that were not accesible in the first game. Then you can introduce new stuff, like wether conditions, seasons, new animals and things to do, like hunting and more sidequests.

Then with the "VIRTUAL INFRASTRUCTURE" in place you can choose to tell any story you want and not have to build everything from scratch. I think the CITY made for GTAV can be used for more than one game. There is an awful lot of buildings and stores you cant enter and empty spaces. that can be made accesible in future games.

Part of me thinks this is what destiny is trying to do.

Edited 1 times. Last edit by Rick Lopez on 12th May 2014 1:05pm

Posted:2 months ago

#23

Morville O'Driscoll
Games Blogger & Journalist

1,492 1,259 0.8
In the meantime, Ive already put in my preorder :).
notsureifserious.jpg. :p

Honestly, it won't fail if people are pre-ordering it already. Reviews will almost certainly be embargoed until day of release (or day before, if they're confident), which means cancelling those pre-orders will be nigh-on impossible. The long-tail revenue will be affected if it's a bad game, which means longer-term plans will also be affected, but the pre-orders will off-set that a little.

Standard Operating Procedure for AAA.

Edited 1 times. Last edit by Morville O'Driscoll on 12th May 2014 12:54pm

Posted:2 months ago

#24
In the end, it's whether folks enjoy a FPS sci fantasy setting with a hub . Everyone has their own personal gaming taste

Posted:2 months ago

#25

Andrew Ihegbu
Studying Bsc Commercial Music

438 146 0.3
@Christian Kelchel

Of course you forget that Halo 2 practically grew the console online market all by it's lonesome, and was definitely the first successful online multiplayer shooter to b played en masse, and Halo 3 is the benchmark by which all games, Xbox 360 and PS3 set their online sights on prior to the arrival of modern warfare. So truth be told, especially where Halo 3 onward was concerned, there were a sizeable amount of players that didn't play Halo for SP and would only play through the story much later (usually on 4 player legendary co-op). Granted I was definitely part of the SP crowd.

And yes, I still stand by the fact that this game has more hype than GTA5 when you consider how far away the game actually is from release. Fever pitch never really arrived for GTA5 till two or three months before. This game has 7 months to go and hasn't really got to the mainstream marketing stage yet.

Also, I'm pretty sure there will be no skipping involved. Brands carry weight. Bungie is of such pedigree that the hardcore, and even the casual hardcore people will follow it. It's like Apple in that respect, even if Apple sold off the iPhone, many people would still buy Apple's successor phone. Waypoint and the dissonance that any avid Halo fan felt when playing Halo 4 will ensure that. (In a lot of ways the colors and tones of Destiny look more like Halo 3 than the colors and tones of Halo 4 did, with it's much more "gunmetal and USAF feel" approach to humanity).

This is of course all my opinion as a deep Halo fan, reader of nearly all the books, and general Halo nut from childhood, so maybe bias is what it is.

Posted:2 months ago

#26

Christian Keichel
Journalist

577 790 1.4
Of course you forget that Halo 2 practically grew the console online market all by it's lonesome, and was definitely the first successful online multiplayer shooter to b played en masse, and Halo 3 is the benchmark by which all games, Xbox 360 and PS3 set their online sights on prior to the arrival of modern warfare. So truth be told, especially where Halo 3 onward was concerned, there were a sizeable amount of players that didn't play Halo for SP and would only play through the story much later (usually on 4 player legendary co-op). Granted I was definitely part of the SP crowd.
Halo 2 sold 8 million copies, Halo 3 sold 14.5 million copies, making it the best selling game on the 360 besides Kinect Adventures which was bundled with the sensor. To break even, Activision has to sell as many copies of Destiny, as MS sold of Halo 3. to make a profit they will have to sell much more units.
I am not aware of any multiplayer only shooter, that even came close to these numbers, especially not, one that is console only, because these kind of games is especially big in the PC.

Edited 1 times. Last edit by Christian Keichel on 12th May 2014 9:46pm

Posted:2 months ago

#27

Morville O'Driscoll
Games Blogger & Journalist

1,492 1,259 0.8
Also, I'm pretty sure there will be no skipping involved. Brands carry weight. Bungie is of such pedigree that the hardcore, and even the casual hardcore people will follow it.
If it's like the marketing/hype for GTA, I'll skip it. I think GTA is grossly over-rated, and when the marketing budget is so vast (both for GTA and Destiny), there's the definite possibility that customer expectations will be, literally, impossible to meet.

(OT: I'm thinking of changing my name to Morville "Contrarian-Point-Of-View" O'Driscoll. :p )

Posted:2 months ago

#28

Login or register to post

Take part in the GamesIndustry community

Register now