If it's for charity I wouldn't be surprised if both the GM's and players at the table were totally fine with you donating $100 to start at level 20 with a vorpal sword or something.
I feel that the 'best' monitization would be creating a series. Like I said earlier, turn the modules into an animated series. Think about how awesome that would be. Watching your favorite heroes battle through something then being able to do it yourself in a module with your friends. It's basically the exact same thing Pokemon and Yugioh do with their anime. When you get down to it they're glorified ads to try and get you to play the games with your friends.
I agree that something along these lines would probably be a good direction to pursue. However, I think there are a lot of issues that could be problematic for this combination. I don't know much about Pokemon or Yugioh, or even DnD modules, but it seems the latter are far more dependent upon some sort of mystery or surprise. Something like Curse of Strahd seems like it would lose a lot if everyone (or just one or two players) has seen the adventure ahead of time and knows the secrets and tricks of the adventure. I'm sure there would be ways to get around this, but it seems like it would be a challenge, at least to the extent that I have properly understood what you are suggesting.
While that may be true for Yu Gi Oh it's not true for Pokemon as the main 'product' is not the cards but the video games. I also don't feel it would be that much of an issue as people do tend to replay modules with different groups and the like and not every module is linear or would have the same outcome. Not to mention that it doesn't have to be a 1:1 conversion and GM's and your party will result in different outcomes. Heck, a botched persuade roll could result in an entirely different adventure. Plus, even if all of that wasn't true, there's only so much adventure you can HAVE in one series. You're not going to have a series focused on Princes of the Apocolypse running at the exact same time as Storm Kings Thunder. My bigger concern is that people might avoid one of the show or the book because the series was being played due to the stigma of spoilers.
This is why I am inclined to think that a series or movie might introduce a world or a location and present an adventure, but modules would be an offshoot, adopting the setting, lore, and history and building upon it or exploring an offshoot from it. I don't really play video games, but have watched my son and stepson play games related to the Lord of the Rings that seemed to explore adventures tangential to the storyline in the books. Something like this might be the best approach.
Exactly. Kind of like releasing a movie about a heist right around the same time as they release a hardcover with heist adventures in it? Since that what’s happening early next year. That’s how you drive sales across different media. Maybe you can’t re-create the movie exactly, but here’s something similar you can do at your home table. I know right after my friends and I watched the first lord of the rings movie, we went home and had a D&D session immediately.
If they monetize more but the game doesn't suffer, perfect. There is no problem with that. That they sell more t-shirts, dolls, VTT material (this is where they could adopt a closer approach to videogames), etc...
But if they make the game more uncomfortable to play, increasing the power creep to constantly sell you new "add-ons", etc... What they are going to find is a huge flight of players to 5e clones.
This monetization is a thorny issue, which should be handled carefully. I guess they will have experts who know what they are doing.
I seriously doubt power creep is going to force people away from the edition. 3e was notorious for that, and yet it didn't drive lots of people away. Hells, I can't think of a single game where power creep didn't happen.
Honestly, power creep isn't a deliberate decision by writers and designers, its just a natural progression of, well, making more content. The more you make, the better the writers get and the more the developers understand the system and how people play, and the more time new, imaginative ideas have to come to the fore.
Its just an inevitability of play. The only way to get rid of power creep is to lock the game in stasis, and that'd just kill the game.
And power creep, along with many of the feared micro transactions that could boost a character, really only matter if there’s a PvP element to the game. If Bobs character hits the goblin by rolling a 12, while I need a 13, all that happens is, on average, the goblin Bob is fighting dies a tiny bit quicker. It’s not even something most people would notice.
Well, maybe I didn't explain myself well. By power creep I mean the deliberate design of increasingly powerful options with the intention of selling new material. That has ruined a lot of games in RPG history. What is more debatable is that this causes people to leave the game. Actually, what usually happens is that the designers realize it, and release a new version from scratch. Basically because the power creep ruins any game.
There has been talk of 3.5 And that is exactly what happened. The problem is that the reboot was done badly, and people sought refuge in a game that emerged from 3.5, but that didn't carry that backpack (at that time. Later Pathfinder's power creep was even worse).
In the long run, power creep is unavoidable. But if you force it to squeeze the cow, it's terrible for the meta. Do you remember what happened with Vampire: The Masquerade?
In 5e the power creep has been controlled quite well. Obviously in 9 years there are options that have been left far behind. But still there are options in the PHB that have held up surprisingly well. Perfectly at hand, or even superior, to recent material.
If they opted for the power creep option to monetize the game more, which, on the other hand, doesn't make sense today, it would be a disaster. On the other hand, if they opt for cosmetic options both for the VTT (especially theirs), and in physique, it would not affect the game.
But of course, they have to do it well. If they sell you a briefcase full of stickers whose life is more than questionable (cat hair, your clumsy friend who picks it up with dirty hands, the wear and tear of use, etc...), they are not doing it right. If they sell you some "surprise" boxes in which there are random miniatures, and you don't have a choice, they are not doing it right. If they try to do things like that with VTTs (surprise content packs, for example), they will be wrong. On the other hand, if WoTC notices what Paizo is doing on the opposite sidewalk with his Pawns, and they copy the idea, they will be right. and if they transfer that to the VTT, they will be right too. That is the correct way to monetize the game.
Well, maybe I didn't explain myself well. By power creep I mean the deliberate design of increasingly powerful options with the intention of selling new material. That has ruined a lot of games in RPG history. What is more debatable is that this causes people to leave the game. Actually, what usually happens is that the designers realize it, and release a new version from scratch. Basically because the power creep ruins any game.
Oh, you explained yourself well. Its just that I fundamentally disagree with you on the how and why of power creep's existence, and the reasons for new editions to come about.
I cannot think of a single company that sits down and tells their writers specifically to make more powerful things. I've been friends with a writer for the World of Darkness gameline, and they're all geeks that want to make cool, fun and interesting things for the game, just like the rest of us, I'm sure. They're generally making a product people want, not because its powerful, but because its cool, fun, interesting and people want to use the new toys because they're shiny and new, not powerful. Sometimes, they become more comfortable with the system and realize that a particular spell or ability won't break the game, so they make it. Or new material isn't stress tested enough and slips through the cracks.
New editions happen for a variety of reasons. Sometimes, its rules and lore bloat - the comic book industry is notorious for doing just that, consolidating things after they've gone off the rails. Sometimes, its just a new company bought the IP and want to make their own version rather than someone else's, or the big bosses want to move the product in a new direction. 1D&D is happening because the writers and devs have learned a lot over the past 10 years and think they can make a better, more streamlined product now with their experience with the system and feedback.
None of this has to deliberately creating more powerful things to generate sales. The more powerful things are generally an accident or side effect of just... geeks having fun.
I don't know, the power creep in World of darkness is clear that it was on purpose. They even acknowledged on various sites that the publication of supplements had gotten out of hand. Especially with clan books. The next one had to be more powerful than the last, or it didn't sell well. And then they had to start drawing up rules to play with centuries-old vampires, the black hand, the (true) black hand, the Inconnu, extinct bloodlines, and increasingly powerful barbarities. That is also the fault of the consumer, of course, who demanded that material, or didn't buy the new book.
I want to think that we have learned since the late 90's, early 2000. And that the designers have learned too.
I don't know, the power creep in World of darkness is clear that it was on purpose. They even acknowledged on various sites that the publication of supplements had gotten out of hand. Especially with clan books. The next one had to be more powerful than the last, or it didn't sell well. And then they had to start drawing up rules to play with centuries-old vampires, the black hand, the (true) black hand, the Inconnu, extinct bloodlines, and increasingly powerful barbarities. That is also the fault of the consumer, of course, who demanded that material, or didn't buy the new book.
I want to think that we have learned since the late 90's, early 2000. And that the designers have learned too.
They have not, but that is only because consumer behavior demands increasing power to buy books. If each book release only consisted of 'Hey guys, new spell! It's exactly like fireball, but cold.' Then next book 'Hey guys, new spell! It's exactly like fireball, but thunder. And we have a new ranger subclass, the skelemaster. It's exactly like beastmaster, but your pets are skeletons.' etc.... players wouldn't buy the books. They demand new features and more power so over time you find yourself adding in features that you previously ruled out because of balance issues, or features you never balanced your monsters/adventure books for because they didn't exist previously because that's all that is left to add.
I don't know, the power creep in World of darkness is clear that it was on purpose. They even acknowledged on various sites that the publication of supplements had gotten out of hand. Especially with clan books. The next one had to be more powerful than the last, or it didn't sell well. And then they had to start drawing up rules to play with centuries-old vampires, the black hand, the (true) black hand, the Inconnu, extinct bloodlines, and increasingly powerful barbarities. That is also the fault of the consumer, of course, who demanded that material, or didn't buy the new book.
I want to think that we have learned since the late 90's, early 2000. And that the designers have learned too.
Things got out of hand, but not because the company sat down and decided power creep was the way to go to sell books, but because they kinda sneer at the idea of game balance with its heavy social-political themes. In my experience, the majority of people who game aren't buying new books because the material is stronger, they're doing it because its a new, interesting ability or take on something that inspires ideas.
Well, we're probably not going to convince the other, so I'm done on this subject. I made my point - power creep isn't a marketing strategy, and I doubt that its why most people are buying new material.
I just want to say that I understand your point of view, and that you have explained it well. You are probably right, and my view of the market for power creep is not correct. What happens is that it is really very difficult to change anyone's opinion when we are dealing with an issue that is difficult to prove, and everything is based on speculation and personal bias.
I think that there is a lot of apocalyptic cries of monetization that I think are overblown. OneD&D and its connection to DnDBeyond and the addition of a VTT about positioning themselves as a single marketplace and I hope a single web interface for the game.
Many folks play dnd virtually, in person with digital elements, or with a VTT. As such someone maybe a couple people in the group have bought books on DnDBeyond and subscribe so they can share them. For the VTT they have Fantasy Grounds or Roll20 another subscription if you want the best features, they also likely buy assets for the game in VTT market place so that it they don't have to spend hours building them in the VTT. Sometimes that same person or people in that one group own the same books in both the VTT marketplace and DndBeyond and likely have some books they pull off the shelf for physical copies. The are buying token packs, virtual minis and all sorts of things that make that experience faster and better. Add to that many DMs like to have campaign websites so you find those that are also subscribing to Obsidian Portal, or World Builder. They have a Hero Forge account for minis or for pictures of minis.
I think that OneD&D is way more about turning DndBeyond into a competitor for the VTT Marketplace and consolidating itself as the place were content is purchased. That is the same reason they are talking about digital physical bundles. They aren't rushing out microtransaction inspiration tokens. They see that customers that are spending money on their product in many cases are already paying for features for the game. They are transitioning to be a single marketplace.
I was blessed with a group and situation that led to us getting the full legendary bundle a couple years ago for DnDBeyond. Because we want to use that bundle among my group. I subscribe. When Covid forced a lot more VTT playing we started using Roll20. If it came down to it. I would buy adventures and monster books on Roll20 long before I would on DnDBeyond simply because on Roll20 it brings assets to the game that work with my macros, I don't have to spend hours configuring monster tokens, and maps.
I am sure new features on DndBeyond might mean changes in price and subscription models but I would much prefer one cohesive marketplace to several marketplaces that require time and configuration for them to work together smoothly.
Now throw in the fact that some people use VTTs in person and they like to throw physical minis on the TV screen for a 3d effect. So physical products are also heavily involved.
As for microtransactions most of us already pay them. We just don't think of them as microtransactions because they aren't small we subscribe to several webservices, buy content on them, buy books, buy minis, buy spell cards, virtual tokens, map packs, and so on and so on.
Wizards just wants to you to get all those services from them. If they can build a solid option that does all that in one place for a price that beats 2 subscriptions and multiple versions of the same content. I know I would be really happy.
I'm curious. While I know WotC likely won't do this how would you feel if they rolled out, I dunno, '1DD Advanced'? When they moved from 3.5 to 4e they lost a lot of players due to the simplification. Enough players to spawn Pathfinder. So what if they introduced a side-product of D&D specifically marketed towards the more... detail focused?... Technical? Classic? I don't know what you'd want to call it beyond the sort of players that D&D lost and Pathfinder attracted. Like I said, I know this won't happen (if they actually interested in this demographic seriously 1DD would be completely different); but how would you feel if they did?
I'm curious. While I know WotC likely won't do this how would you feel if they rolled out, I dunno, '1DD Advanced'? When they moved from 3.5 to 4e they lost a lot of players due to the simplification. Enough players to spawn Pathfinder. So what if they introduced a side-product of D&D specifically marketed towards the more... detail focused?... Technical? Classic? I don't know what you'd want to call it beyond the sort of players that D&D lost and Pathfinder attracted. Like I said, I know this won't happen (if they actually interested in this demographic seriously 1DD would be completely different); but how would you feel if they did?
Kind of making their own pathfinder? Or a new 3.5? 5e extra-crunchy?
I don't know. For me personally it probably wouldn't have much bearing on my games or purchases. I've played a lot of games over the years and one thing that's pretty consistent is that more detailed and complicated rules almost never translate to a better game experience. They can be fun to create characters in, but not much more.
WotC would have to do something drastically different in their approach to make it worth it. Worst cast scenario they split the market more, divide their attention between multiple rules, and split up the available gaming groups. Best case they come up with something even better than 5e. But more likely they just make a product I'll probably ignore.
Ya know... 4e didn't actually lose people because it wasn't complex or technical enough. 4e actually lost people because it was too complex and technical (and most of that complexity was in it being rules heavy and combat focussed), because the whole thing was built from a perspective of 'don't bother making the sequencing and math simple and uncomplicated, we'll have a VTT that can do it all automatically. In fact it's okay if it's a little more cumbersome than strictly necessary, so the VTT is more appealing!'
... Except then the VTT never materialised.
As for the appeal of Pathfinder, this may be unkind, but...
Part of why I don't like that 1D&D seems to be moving back to a focus on feats as character 'customisation' is that that same thing in 3.5e seemed to breed a type of players and DMs who think that if there isn't a specific Feat for it, it's not possible or allowed. Basically these people lose sight of the difference between the actual freedom of talking to your DM and the fake freedom of having a restrictive list of special options that you occasionally get to choose from.
Pathfinder appealed to 3.5e players mainly because it doubled down on the whole Feat thing and essentially attracted them by offering them a larger restrictive list of options to choose between.
I just want the game to evolve into epicness. I don't care I have to pay. They are working and really taking into account what people perceive about the game rules. I think they are serious.
I just want the game to evolve into epicness. I don't care I have to pay. They are working and really taking into account what people perceive about the game rules. I think they are serious.
Things must evolve.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Exactly. Kind of like releasing a movie about a heist right around the same time as they release a hardcover with heist adventures in it? Since that what’s happening early next year. That’s how you drive sales across different media. Maybe you can’t re-create the movie exactly, but here’s something similar you can do at your home table.
I know right after my friends and I watched the first lord of the rings movie, we went home and had a D&D session immediately.
If they monetize more but the game doesn't suffer, perfect. There is no problem with that. That they sell more t-shirts, dolls, VTT material (this is where they could adopt a closer approach to videogames), etc...
But if they make the game more uncomfortable to play, increasing the power creep to constantly sell you new "add-ons", etc... What they are going to find is a huge flight of players to 5e clones.
This monetization is a thorny issue, which should be handled carefully. I guess they will have experts who know what they are doing.
I seriously doubt power creep is going to force people away from the edition. 3e was notorious for that, and yet it didn't drive lots of people away. Hells, I can't think of a single game where power creep didn't happen.
Honestly, power creep isn't a deliberate decision by writers and designers, its just a natural progression of, well, making more content. The more you make, the better the writers get and the more the developers understand the system and how people play, and the more time new, imaginative ideas have to come to the fore.
Its just an inevitability of play. The only way to get rid of power creep is to lock the game in stasis, and that'd just kill the game.
And power creep, along with many of the feared micro transactions that could boost a character, really only matter if there’s a PvP element to the game. If Bobs character hits the goblin by rolling a 12, while I need a 13, all that happens is, on average, the goblin Bob is fighting dies a tiny bit quicker. It’s not even something most people would notice.
Well, maybe I didn't explain myself well. By power creep I mean the deliberate design of increasingly powerful options with the intention of selling new material. That has ruined a lot of games in RPG history. What is more debatable is that this causes people to leave the game. Actually, what usually happens is that the designers realize it, and release a new version from scratch. Basically because the power creep ruins any game.
There has been talk of 3.5 And that is exactly what happened. The problem is that the reboot was done badly, and people sought refuge in a game that emerged from 3.5, but that didn't carry that backpack (at that time. Later Pathfinder's power creep was even worse).
In the long run, power creep is unavoidable. But if you force it to squeeze the cow, it's terrible for the meta. Do you remember what happened with Vampire: The Masquerade?
In 5e the power creep has been controlled quite well. Obviously in 9 years there are options that have been left far behind. But still there are options in the PHB that have held up surprisingly well. Perfectly at hand, or even superior, to recent material.
If they opted for the power creep option to monetize the game more, which, on the other hand, doesn't make sense today, it would be a disaster. On the other hand, if they opt for cosmetic options both for the VTT (especially theirs), and in physique, it would not affect the game.
But of course, they have to do it well. If they sell you a briefcase full of stickers whose life is more than questionable (cat hair, your clumsy friend who picks it up with dirty hands, the wear and tear of use, etc...), they are not doing it right. If they sell you some "surprise" boxes in which there are random miniatures, and you don't have a choice, they are not doing it right. If they try to do things like that with VTTs (surprise content packs, for example), they will be wrong. On the other hand, if WoTC notices what Paizo is doing on the opposite sidewalk with his Pawns, and they copy the idea, they will be right. and if they transfer that to the VTT, they will be right too. That is the correct way to monetize the game.
Oh, you explained yourself well. Its just that I fundamentally disagree with you on the how and why of power creep's existence, and the reasons for new editions to come about.
I cannot think of a single company that sits down and tells their writers specifically to make more powerful things. I've been friends with a writer for the World of Darkness gameline, and they're all geeks that want to make cool, fun and interesting things for the game, just like the rest of us, I'm sure. They're generally making a product people want, not because its powerful, but because its cool, fun, interesting and people want to use the new toys because they're shiny and new, not powerful. Sometimes, they become more comfortable with the system and realize that a particular spell or ability won't break the game, so they make it. Or new material isn't stress tested enough and slips through the cracks.
New editions happen for a variety of reasons. Sometimes, its rules and lore bloat - the comic book industry is notorious for doing just that, consolidating things after they've gone off the rails. Sometimes, its just a new company bought the IP and want to make their own version rather than someone else's, or the big bosses want to move the product in a new direction. 1D&D is happening because the writers and devs have learned a lot over the past 10 years and think they can make a better, more streamlined product now with their experience with the system and feedback.
None of this has to deliberately creating more powerful things to generate sales. The more powerful things are generally an accident or side effect of just... geeks having fun.
I don't know, the power creep in World of darkness is clear that it was on purpose. They even acknowledged on various sites that the publication of supplements had gotten out of hand. Especially with clan books. The next one had to be more powerful than the last, or it didn't sell well. And then they had to start drawing up rules to play with centuries-old vampires, the black hand, the (true) black hand, the Inconnu, extinct bloodlines, and increasingly powerful barbarities. That is also the fault of the consumer, of course, who demanded that material, or didn't buy the new book.
I want to think that we have learned since the late 90's, early 2000. And that the designers have learned too.
They have not, but that is only because consumer behavior demands increasing power to buy books. If each book release only consisted of 'Hey guys, new spell! It's exactly like fireball, but cold.' Then next book 'Hey guys, new spell! It's exactly like fireball, but thunder. And we have a new ranger subclass, the skelemaster. It's exactly like beastmaster, but your pets are skeletons.' etc.... players wouldn't buy the books. They demand new features and more power so over time you find yourself adding in features that you previously ruled out because of balance issues, or features you never balanced your monsters/adventure books for because they didn't exist previously because that's all that is left to add.
Things got out of hand, but not because the company sat down and decided power creep was the way to go to sell books, but because they kinda sneer at the idea of game balance with its heavy social-political themes. In my experience, the majority of people who game aren't buying new books because the material is stronger, they're doing it because its a new, interesting ability or take on something that inspires ideas.
Well, we're probably not going to convince the other, so I'm done on this subject. I made my point - power creep isn't a marketing strategy, and I doubt that its why most people are buying new material.
I just want to say that I understand your point of view, and that you have explained it well. You are probably right, and my view of the market for power creep is not correct. What happens is that it is really very difficult to change anyone's opinion when we are dealing with an issue that is difficult to prove, and everything is based on speculation and personal bias.
I think that there is a lot of apocalyptic cries of monetization that I think are overblown. OneD&D and its connection to DnDBeyond and the addition of a VTT about positioning themselves as a single marketplace and I hope a single web interface for the game.
Many folks play dnd virtually, in person with digital elements, or with a VTT. As such someone maybe a couple people in the group have bought books on DnDBeyond and subscribe so they can share them. For the VTT they have Fantasy Grounds or Roll20 another subscription if you want the best features, they also likely buy assets for the game in VTT market place so that it they don't have to spend hours building them in the VTT. Sometimes that same person or people in that one group own the same books in both the VTT marketplace and DndBeyond and likely have some books they pull off the shelf for physical copies. The are buying token packs, virtual minis and all sorts of things that make that experience faster and better. Add to that many DMs like to have campaign websites so you find those that are also subscribing to Obsidian Portal, or World Builder. They have a Hero Forge account for minis or for pictures of minis.
I think that OneD&D is way more about turning DndBeyond into a competitor for the VTT Marketplace and consolidating itself as the place were content is purchased. That is the same reason they are talking about digital physical bundles. They aren't rushing out microtransaction inspiration tokens. They see that customers that are spending money on their product in many cases are already paying for features for the game. They are transitioning to be a single marketplace.
I was blessed with a group and situation that led to us getting the full legendary bundle a couple years ago for DnDBeyond. Because we want to use that bundle among my group. I subscribe. When Covid forced a lot more VTT playing we started using Roll20. If it came down to it. I would buy adventures and monster books on Roll20 long before I would on DnDBeyond simply because on Roll20 it brings assets to the game that work with my macros, I don't have to spend hours configuring monster tokens, and maps.
I am sure new features on DndBeyond might mean changes in price and subscription models but I would much prefer one cohesive marketplace to several marketplaces that require time and configuration for them to work together smoothly.
Now throw in the fact that some people use VTTs in person and they like to throw physical minis on the TV screen for a 3d effect. So physical products are also heavily involved.
As for microtransactions most of us already pay them. We just don't think of them as microtransactions because they aren't small we subscribe to several webservices, buy content on them, buy books, buy minis, buy spell cards, virtual tokens, map packs, and so on and so on.
Wizards just wants to you to get all those services from them. If they can build a solid option that does all that in one place for a price that beats 2 subscriptions and multiple versions of the same content. I know I would be really happy.
I'm curious. While I know WotC likely won't do this how would you feel if they rolled out, I dunno, '1DD Advanced'? When they moved from 3.5 to 4e they lost a lot of players due to the simplification. Enough players to spawn Pathfinder. So what if they introduced a side-product of D&D specifically marketed towards the more... detail focused?... Technical? Classic? I don't know what you'd want to call it beyond the sort of players that D&D lost and Pathfinder attracted. Like I said, I know this won't happen (if they actually interested in this demographic seriously 1DD would be completely different); but how would you feel if they did?
Kind of making their own pathfinder? Or a new 3.5? 5e extra-crunchy?
I don't know. For me personally it probably wouldn't have much bearing on my games or purchases. I've played a lot of games over the years and one thing that's pretty consistent is that more detailed and complicated rules almost never translate to a better game experience. They can be fun to create characters in, but not much more.
WotC would have to do something drastically different in their approach to make it worth it. Worst cast scenario they split the market more, divide their attention between multiple rules, and split up the available gaming groups. Best case they come up with something even better than 5e. But more likely they just make a product I'll probably ignore.
Ya know... 4e didn't actually lose people because it wasn't complex or technical enough. 4e actually lost people because it was too complex and technical (and most of that complexity was in it being rules heavy and combat focussed), because the whole thing was built from a perspective of 'don't bother making the sequencing and math simple and uncomplicated, we'll have a VTT that can do it all automatically. In fact it's okay if it's a little more cumbersome than strictly necessary, so the VTT is more appealing!'
... Except then the VTT never materialised.
As for the appeal of Pathfinder, this may be unkind, but...
Part of why I don't like that 1D&D seems to be moving back to a focus on feats as character 'customisation' is that that same thing in 3.5e seemed to breed a type of players and DMs who think that if there isn't a specific Feat for it, it's not possible or allowed. Basically these people lose sight of the difference between the actual freedom of talking to your DM and the fake freedom of having a restrictive list of special options that you occasionally get to choose from.
Pathfinder appealed to 3.5e players mainly because it doubled down on the whole Feat thing and essentially attracted them by offering them a larger restrictive list of options to choose between.
I just want the game to evolve into epicness. I don't care I have to pay. They are working and really taking into account what people perceive about the game rules. I think they are serious.
Things must evolve.
I just want the game to evolve into epicness. I don't care I have to pay. They are working and really taking into account what people perceive about the game rules. I think they are serious.
Things must evolve.