XBox 360 Will Beat PS3...

rickyroma said:
Some very interesting reading here !! In my opinion I reckon MS will just about be ok as far as storage media goes. Think about it , most games would fit on one DVD9 , I could only see massive RPGS needing more & I dont think it would be too mad for an RPG to come on two DVD9s , if anything its oldskool (Final Fantasy 7 anyone!)

MS should have used hard drive as standard though , would have been a big help to developers !

Resident Evil 4 came on two discs for the gamecube. I agree with you, if developers need more storage, they simply put the game across a few discs. Remember FFVII on the ps1? It was on 4 discs!
 
i've never hidden the fact that i hate Sony - arrogant and bombastic sods that they are. Launching consoles late in europe, still charging 20 quid for a memory card :rotfl: arrogantly stating that they will take the hand held market from ninty and therefore spending far too much time devolping the PSP and having no serious time scale for the PS3 launch. Still not accepting that online gaming is the future of gaming for many people (i've only played 1 single player game in 6 months - after calming that Live wouldn't be that great - made some great friends and feel odd playing on my own - weird)

Let Sony fall and dont look back - its all they deserve. The PS2 is still the worst console ever built - cheap, filmsy and unreliable. to keep the price of the PS3 down it will be just as cheap - while the 360 is looking like a very solid machine.

The combination of Blu Ray and Ps3 will kill them off - both technologies need the other to succeed - i can only see 1 way out for Sony now - licensing! License it out and let others make the PS3 - tosh, denon, JVC, panasonic - now that could be a beast of a product.

And i'd have to disagree about the parallels drawn with 360/ps3 and dreamcast/ps2. Sega screwed up the marketing and had no money anyway, and sony were on a crest of a wave. M$ have marketed well and have VERY deep pockets.


Gary
 
Gary D said:
Still not accepting that online gaming is the future of gaming for many people (i've only played 1 single player game in 6 months - after calming that Live wouldn't be that great - made some great friends and feel odd playing on my own - weird)Gary

great point! couldnt agree more :thumbsup:
 
I must say that first and fore most that I agree with Games Guru in that a monopoly for any company would be very bad for the industry. The hold that Sony has at the moment is not good and thankfully I can see that changing. I personally hope that it doesn't alter too much though as the best thing we can hope for as gamers is two or even 3 very competetive companies.

I do think that the addition of a Blu Ray drive to the PS3 is a gamble as if it pushes the cost up too high then it simply will not sell. People buy a console for games and other bits are just a bonus. Why would someone pay £400 for a console with an unproven HD optical storage format built in when they could pay £200 for a similarly speced console with a proven SD optical drive in it. People just won't go for the machine that is twice the price of the other, especially when the format it is pushing is unproven. The only way that I can see Sony shifting consoles is if they sell them for a huge loss with the long term goal being that Blu Ray becomes the winning format (as everyone has it built into their PS3). IMO the PS3 needs to sell sat £300 to compete against a premium 360 which will probably be around the £200 mark when PS3 launches and that would mean a huge initial loss for Sony. Whether they could withstand such a loss is debatable and whilst I think that maybe MS could, I don't think that Sony could.

Both Sony & MS are companies that have diversified into gaming fairly recently (obviously Sony have been around a generation longer but that's nothing really - just an extra 5 years in an industry that is now around 30 years old!) and they both have alteria motives in the industry where as say Sega & Nintendo were/are purely games orientated. Sony want the integrated AV unit which will help sell it's latest media formats and MS wants a machine that it can integrate with its windows platforms to enhance the ways that we can interact with our PC's & networks and the media on them. Neither company is just in it for the games and both are kind of using a gaming platform to strengthen & build the other sides of their business. MS has always seen the X-Box as almost an extension of your PC and Sony have always used their consoles to push new formats that they have an interest in - Sony really pioneered CD's and DVD's in consoles (infact they initially were going to just make a CD drive for Nintendo!) and now they are looking to bring Blu Ray to the masses. No doubt if they had released a console in the 80's it would have used VHS as a storage device :smashin: .
 
I've personally hated Sony with a vengeance ever since they destroyed Sega's hardware days which were, I'm sure many will agree, the golden days of gaming. Dreamcast should have trounced the PS2 if it were about quality of games. We're talking about a console that was released 6 years ago and had better graphics than most current-gen PS2 games. Not only that but classic games were being released on an almost weekly basis during the years 2000 and 2001. We had ChuChu Rocket, Soul Calibur, Virtua Tennis, F355 Challenge, Daytona USA, Jet Set Radio, Space Channel 5, Rez, Crazy Taxi, Phantasy Star Online, Sonic Adventure, Metropolis Street Racer, Skies of Arcadia and Shenmue to name but a few. What the hell did Sony have? Yet another Metal Gear Solid/Gran Turismo.

The PS2 only won because it was monstrously over-hyped on the back of the PS1's success over the under-rated Saturn. I mean, who remembers the graphics demos Sony were releasing? Has anyone seen anything on the PS2 that looked anything like that because I haven't? At the end of the day though, gaming is about gameplay and Dreamcast had it all. I've never anticipated a games console as much as I did the Dreamcast and probably never will again.

Having said that, I bought the Xbox and the GameCube because I felt they would compensate for the loss of a Sega console which, to an extent, they did. I will buy Xbox 360 and Revolution because they're clearly trying to bring innovation to the market but I will never touch an over-hyped Sony console. I know that in this dog-eat-dog market it's supposed to be a game of the "better man winning" but that simply isn't the case in this easily manipulated society we live in. It's all about hype and 'fashion' and to quote George Bernard Shaw, "Fashion is nothing but an induced epidemic".
 
i think if microsoft want to steal a march on sony they should make enough of them for everyone who wants to buy one.
i can see the headlines now '360 A SUCCESS , ALL STOCK SELLS OUT ON DAY ONE!'
but they only had half dozen to sell.........
 
Just a couple of points to add.

1). The Dreamcast was actually quite successful in terms of sales. It sold a lot better than most people give it credit, and I think a lot make the assumption that because it went tits up it can't have sold. Unfortunately the DC was incredibly easy to hack games for and there was a huge market in copied games that even a 10 year old could download and make himself! The developers soon jumped ship and things went into a huge perpetuating spiral of doom for SEGA. On top of this you had the impending hype machine of Sony and it's PS2, which was wholey underwhelming, but knocked SEGA out of the market.

2). I think people are overestimating the amount of space needed for general game code. There's absolutely no reason that next gen games can't fit on a single DVD9 other than prerendered movies........I'll put money on the fact that developers will just fill up those BR discs with bloody movies and we'll all end up playing rubbish like the MGS series, where you have very little interaction between movie sequences and be duped into thinking it's great by virtue of errant marketing hyperbole and good advertising.
 
The thing is, the PS3 is a gamble on two fronts, the first is with the gaming market. The 360 is getting a big jump start on Sony, who I think have decided to both refine their PS3 package and to streamline the production costs. The second front is that theyre using the PS3 to launch the BluRay format. The majority of movie makers have used the PS3 as one of the reasons they are supporting BR-DVD. Sony want to make the console as desirable to be able to suck people into BluRay.

So I think Sony know that they have a lot to lose, but they have even more to gain. The scope of what they could do with the Cell CPU is high, and the profitiblity factor of being the ones behind the next generation of hi definition DVD is an absolute goldmine. Im certain they are pushing for the PS3 to have a shelf life of ten years, with the 360 being short term in comparison (id say five years).

Nintendo have far more to lose than Sony. They are still resisting the change that Microsoft and Sony have adopted in terms of genre of gaming and hi def, and they seem to think that their vision of being family oreintated, what helped them with their growth of a games giant since the days of the NES still applies. They are still treading the trail that they built the Gamecube on, something which I think is a mistake. The GC never became the giant it should have been, and it was released after the Xbox and PS2... I worry for their future if they get trampled upon by Sony and Microsoft like last time..

As regards to Sega, they suffered because they made big mistakes to release failed console units such as the Mega CD and the 32X. That is what lead to the downfall of them as a console maker. The Saturn was a good console with some excellent games, but the consumer confidence in them didnt exist after the flops that were the post Megadrive hardware..
 
One more thing... the media thing.. Fine, coding can fit on a DVD9 disk, but what about HD FMV? You have to remember that PS2 games started on CDR but ended up on DVD9.
 
danvitale said:
One more thing... the media thing.. Fine, coding can fit on a DVD9 disk, but what about HD FMV? You have to remember that PS2 games started on CDR but ended up on DVD9.
FMV takes up a lot of space, but can be avoided and besides which adds virtually nothing to the game. Afterall, do you want to watch a video or play a game? However, FMV is used a lot by Japanese developers and is popular with them........not so in the west, or at least not to the same extent. In the west game developers tend to use game content to do cut scene renders. This uses almost no additional content and is personally prefered as it tends to keep those sort of cutscenes to a minimum.
 
markwpage said:
I've personally hated Sony with a vengeance ever since they destroyed Sega's hardware days which were, I'm sure many will agree, the golden days of gaming. Dreamcast should have trounced the PS2 if it were about quality of games. We're talking about a console that was released 6 years ago and had better graphics than most current-gen PS2 games. Not only that but classic games were being released on an almost weekly basis during the years 2000 and 2001. We had ChuChu Rocket, Soul Calibur, Virtua Tennis, F355 Challenge, Daytona USA, Jet Set Radio, Space Channel 5, Rez, Crazy Taxi, Phantasy Star Online, Sonic Adventure, Metropolis Street Racer, Skies of Arcadia and Shenmue to name but a few. What the hell did Sony have? Yet another Metal Gear Solid/Gran Turismo.

The PS2 only won because it was monstrously over-hyped on the back of the PS1's success over the under-rated Saturn. I mean, who remembers the graphics demos Sony were releasing? Has anyone seen anything on the PS2 that looked anything like that because I haven't? At the end of the day though, gaming is about gameplay and Dreamcast had it all. I've never anticipated a games console as much as I did the Dreamcast and probably never will again.

Having said that, I bought the Xbox and the GameCube because I felt they would compensate for the loss of a Sega console which, to an extent, they did. I will buy Xbox 360 and Revolution because they're clearly trying to bring innovation to the market but I will never touch an over-hyped Sony console. I know that in this dog-eat-dog market it's supposed to be a game of the "better man winning" but that simply isn't the case in this easily manipulated society we live in. It's all about hype and 'fashion' and to quote George Bernard Shaw, "Fashion is nothing but an induced epidemic".

I don't think that it's fair to blame Sony for Sega for leaving the hardware market as such. Yes the PS2's success (a combination of hype surrounding the PS2 (of which it never really lived up to) and the sheer success of the PS1) was one of the reasons that the Dreamcast didn't do as well but there were many other factors such as :-

- The Saturn had sold badly in the west and was trounced by the PS1 sales wise.

- Sega's in ability to get and keep good 3rd party support. EA famously refused to not back the DC and instead produce games for the forthcoming PS2. Konami also followed this path meaning that we never saw ISS Pro Evo on the DC. As time went on more and more developers (especially the Western ones) had nothing to do with the DC and although we were treated to some great 1st party titles as well as some great Capcom & Namco games they weren't enough.

- Marketing & advertising for the DC were appauling meaning that most people hadn't heard of the machine and if they had they knew very little. The only real marketing campaign that I remember focused on the online side bragging that you could have something like 6,000,000 players with the online side! Sadly the Online side was delayed for ages (no pun intended) and as a lot of people had bought on the strength of this new online service, there were many disapointed people!

So yes the competition was strong as many people were already Playstation fans (as the PS1 had done so much better than the Saturn especially in the west) and regarded the Playstation brand as cool. Sega just threw the towel in though as their attempts to market and sell their console were just awful. The DC was a great product but it was never going to do any good against the competition with Sega's very lacklustre approach to selling it. Sony were simply handed the market at that time as their was no other competition (if you could even call Sega competition at the time). We have to be grateful to MS coming into the market as let's be honest Nintendo haven't done much better than Sega to date. Their marketing is slightly better but they suffer from the same problems as Sega did when it comes to getting and keeping 3rd party support.

I don't personally hate Sony at all but it would be good to see their market share reduced by MS in the next generation. Any company that wants to make great new AV entertainment products like games consoles is fine by me! :smashin: .

I was disapointed by Sega though as since the mid 80's I had been a huge Sega fan and they let us all down with the Dreamcast. I don't mean that they sold us a shoddy product, as the console itself is superb, but more in the awful effort that they put into selling the Dreamcast brand. It was a failed product before i'd even bought it but my faith in Sega meant that I was blind to all of pitfalls that lay ahead.
 
I've just read a couple of articles which i found when i strayed in to the ps2/ps3 section saying how much more powerful the ps3 is than the 360...It reminded me of when the original xbox was due to launch, and i read somewhere that the xbox was so powerful it made the ps2 look like a 'fluffy puppy'. But even with all that extra 'power' it hardly made a dent in the ps2 market initially.

IMHO it comes down to who has the most fanboys.....and the playstation does. Peoples are blinded by how successful the ps1 was, so to them, that makes the ps2 'better' and thats will make the ps3 better.

I first had a ps2 a few years ago now, but traded it for an xbox cos i was fed up with reading 'the xbox handles this game better', 'looks better on xbox' and 'the xbox version is the one to go for', 'xbox version includes extra levels' etc in game reviews.
 
nick501 said:
I've just read a couple of articles which i found when i strayed in to the ps2/ps3 section saying how much more powerful the ps3 is than the 360...It reminded me of when the original xbox was due to launch, and i read somewhere that the xbox was so powerful it made the ps2 look like a 'fluffy puppy'. But even with all that extra 'power' it hardly made a dent in the ps2 market initially.

IMHO it comes down to who has the most fanboys.....and the playstation does. Peoples are blinded by how successful the ps1 was, so to them, that makes the ps2 'better' and thats will make the ps3 better.

I first had a ps2 a few years ago now, but traded it for an xbox cos i was fed up with reading 'the xbox handles this game better', 'looks better on xbox' and 'the xbox version is the one to go for', 'xbox version includes extra levels' etc in game reviews.

Nope, I disagree as games players are very fickle (and for good reason as having some strange undying loyalty to a console brand is rather stupid) and will play which ever machine offers the most popular games (note that I say most popular and not the best. Rubbish games like FIFA are popular with kids so end up being system sellers, rightly or wrongly). Games will always sell consoles and not the other way around and if there are enough decent games on the PS3 then i'll probably get one.

I agree that the power of the console has very little affect on whether people buy it or not as many casual gamers don't even really understand that one console is more powerful than another. Also the majority of games are 3rd party so that means that the game is developed to run on the lowest powered platform and that the other versions are generally just the same, ported across. To develop 2 or 3 different versions of the game is just too costly. OK there may be certain effects or slight differences added to the version on the more powerful console but generally it's nothing significant. Both consoles seem that they will be of a similar performance with the PS3 being slightly the more powerful machine.
 
A lot of people who add revenue to the console market arent gamers in the real sense of the word. The PS2 owner is a strange but predictable person. They are very loyal to the brand and will not deviate.
I know a lot of people who own ps2's only and all they know about the next generation of consoles is this, microsoft are releasing a console, the ps3 is comming out some time and thats the one I am buying. The fanboys will lap up the ps3 because they love their ps2.

The price will play a part but the gap in price is going to have to be pretty big to make the loyal ps2 owner change his mind. Also the 360 needs some seriously good tabloid press over the next year. It needs to become cool to own a 360. It needs to have lots of franchise games, lots of EA games, lots of run of the mill band name games that the ps2 owner can recognise. Then they might switch to the 360.
 
I agree with what you say there. But kinda sad isn't though. It's a shame that alot of people are unaware of how bad the ps2 is now but they still love it.

Personally i don't need or want the 360 to be the dominant force in the market. it's not like i'm buying a dead duck even if the ps3 outsells it by 3-1 or whatever, i'll be more than content to play PGR3 online on my 360 and not have to worry about joining a room full of prepubescant ps2 converted chav nobbing up my online experience. Thats what i can see happening if the 360 is too succesfull, the now great Live service could become overrun my idiots
 
PooonTang said:
I agree with what you say there. But kinda sad isn't though. It's a shame that alot of people are unaware of how bad the ps2 is now but they still love it.


It still has a great library of games though. Regret getting rid of mine , as for a while nothing special came out on xbox. Although it did much improve later on.
 
PioRow said:
A lot of people who add revenue to the console market arent gamers in the real sense of the word. The PS2 owner is a strange but predictable person. They are very loyal to the brand and will not deviate.
I know a lot of people who own ps2's only and all they know about the next generation of consoles is this, microsoft are releasing a console, the ps3 is comming out some time and thats the one I am buying. The fanboys will lap up the ps3 because they love their ps2.

The price will play a part but the gap in price is going to have to be pretty big to make the loyal ps2 owner change his mind. Also the 360 needs some seriously good tabloid press over the next year. It needs to become cool to own a 360. It needs to have lots of franchise games, lots of EA games, lots of run of the mill band name games that the ps2 owner can recognise. Then they might switch to the 360.

I agree to some extent but I am a PS2 owner and was a big fan of the console until I got an X-Box just over a year ago. The PS2 used to have the best range of games with the best driving sim (GT3), best footie sim (PES3), the best beat em up (VF4 Evo), along with other great games like Rez, Ico, Gradius V, MGS2, GTA & FFX and the X-Box was rather lacking in it's early days really relying on titles such as Halo, R63, PGR2 & KOTOR until 2004. Things have changed though with games like PES 4 & 5, Forza, Farcry Instints, Doom3, Ninja Gaiden, Halo 2 and all 3 GTA games coming out over the last 18 months or so. The X-Box has overtaken the PS2 in terms of the quality (not quantity) of it's games line up and along with the superb Live service that is the reason that my PS2 now sit's dormant and my X-box get's used almost every day.

I'm sure that there are some kids out there that have some bizarre loyalty to the PS2 but if they are that daft then I guess they deserve to miss out on what the X-Box can offer. I agree that the X-Box brand needs to become cool and they have gone some way towards that with the design of the 360 and also the fact that you can now get games like PES and GTA for the console. I also see the whole new version of Live as being a big factor in attracting PS2 users. As the community develops I can see this really taking off more with kids and in schools you will need to be on it to avoid being left out.

Price will be a huge factor though and as I stated earlier if the PS3 comes out with some silly £400 price tag vs a £200 price tag on the 360 then who's going to buy the PS3. I can't see the majority of it's "casual gamer" market shelling out that sort of money just because it's got a blu ray drive in it! I can maybe see Sony trying a high price tag and then having to drop it by £100 (as happened with the X-Box) just to compete with 360 sales. I also see the build quality of the PS3 being rather pants as they try to cut costs where ever possible.
 
PooonTang said:
I agree with what you say there. But kinda sad isn't though. It's a shame that alot of people are unaware of how bad the ps2 is now but they still love it.

Personally i don't need or want the 360 to be the dominant force in the market. it's not like i'm buying a dead duck even if the ps3 outsells it by 3-1 or whatever, i'll be more than content to play PGR3 online on my 360 and not have to worry about joining a room full of prepubescant ps2 converted chav nobbing up my online experience. Thats what i can see happening if the 360 is too succesfull, the now great Live service could become overrun my idiots

Hmmm, actually that's a great point!! Maybe we should be thankful that the PS2 keeps all the kids & Chavs occupied whilst we can all get some quality gaming on the Live service. Perhaps MS should sell the 360 only in a bundle with a bottle of JD so that only adults are legally allowed to buy it!
 
My PS3 Launch prediction: not a single launch game will come on a BD-ROM,all will be DVD-9. It will not launch in the US until Q3 2006, and will cost at least $450
 
What was the price of the PS1 when it was launched ? Yep £400 ! So it's irrelevant if the PS3 is more expensive than the Xbox 360... Sony will market it as "more powerful" and more "desirable" than Microsofts baby.. :eek:

It sounds like everyone has made up their minds before they have been launched. I can imaging those who are knocking either console, will still go out and buy both eventually :D

This "us" verses "them" attitude is quite laughable though. People are criticizing people for staying loyal to a certain brand ( Sony ), but are doing it themselves ( Microsoft ) ? :confused:

All this reminds me of the old Sega-Europe site, that was eventually close down a few years ago. All brand loyalty is a nonscence in my view. Ignorance is bliss huh :rotfl:

I'm waiting to see the merits of all of the machines :smashin:

I personally think the Nintendo Revolution console will be the surprise package in all of this.. Some are dismissing that console before anyone knows what it could :rolleyes: Which is a shame - It's rumoured that the console itself is a lot more powerful than people realize and will be considerably more cheaper than either the PS3 and Xbox 360..

Xbox360 does look pretty awesome though, i am certainly looking forward to getting my hands on one... :thumbsup: :D
 
Thekop said:
What was the price of the PS1 when it was launched ? Yep £400 ! So it's irrelevant if the PS3 is more expensive than the Xbox 360... Sony will market it as "more powerful" and more "desirable" than Microsofts baby.. :eek:

It sounds like everyone has made up their minds before they have been launched. I can imaging those who are knocking either console, will still go out and buy both eventually :D

This "us" verses "them" attitude is quite laughable though. People are criticizing people for staying loyal to a certain brand ( Sony ), but are doing it themselves ( Microsoft ) ? :confused:

All this reminds me of the old Sega-Europe site, that was eventually close down a few years ago. All brand loyalty is a nonscence in my view. Ignorance is bliss huh :rotfl:

I'm waiting to see the merits of all of the machines :smashin:

I personally think the Nintendo Revolution console will be the surprise package in all of this.. Some are dismissing that console before anyone knows what it could :rolleyes: Which is a shame - It's rumoured that the console itself is a lot more powerful than people realize and will be considerably more cheaper than either the PS3 and Xbox 360..

Xbox360 does look pretty awesome though, i am certainly looking forward to getting my hands on one... :thumbsup: :D

Exactly but as posted earlier some PS fanboys do seem to have this strange loyalty towards the PS brand. As posted earlier, I will just buy what ever has the best games on it. If the PS3 has some games on it that I want then i'll buy it. The PS2 launched at £279 so for the PS3 to launch at £400+ would definately have a huge effect on the mass market buying in, especially if the 360 is around the £200 mark.

EDIT: Actually the PS1 launched at £299 in the UK and $299 in the US :smashin: See here
 
CAS FAN said:
Exactly but as posted earlier some PS fanboys do seem to have this strange loyalty towards the PS brand. As posted earlier, I will just buy what ever has the best games on it. If the PS3 has some games on it that I want then i'll buy it. The PS2 launched at £279 so for the PS3 to launch at £400+ would definately have a huge effect on the mass market buying in, especially if the 360 is around the £200 mark.

EDIT: Actually the PS1 launched at £299 in the UK and $299 in the US :smashin:

I'm sure the PS1 was nearer £400 if memory serves me right.. But then you could be right.. :D The early adopters are the least significant ones to the major players.. They would buy no matter what.. It's the longer term plan that both Sony, Nintendo and Microsoft will focus on and are trying to achieve. Sony fanboys tend to be the ones that buys Westlfe music and hooded tops :rotfl:
 
:suicide: My mistake, the initial projected price of the PS1 was £400 but was eventually dropped to £299 :D
 
Lets be honest guys. The Ps franchise never got where they have got today through brilliance in software. Sure there have been great games, outstanding games as it goes. When the giants once ruled ie sega and nintendo, i remember playing a game and enjoying the innovation and creativity these 2 great companies included in there software. Back then anyone that appreciated a good game on its merits of graphics , gameplay, creativity was called a geek. When the Ps franchise came they diluted the market to pea sized brain gamers who look forward to gran turismo 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9 same **** everyday of the week. Games mostly have no substance, and the ones that do, involve 3rd party publishers, which in turn other consoles most likely had a conversion of the same game. BAsically, what i am trying to say is, WHAT THE **** DOES THE PS HAVE TO OFFER!!! APART FROM METAL GEAR, GRAN TURISMO................WHAT ELSE?? Fairplay to Sony for having great business sense and diluting the market with there bull ****. I thoughti was becoming a better gamer over the years, truth is im not, its just these pea brain sized mutants ps fans who think they can take me on a driving sim cause the got Shrek world racing.
 
Thekop said:
Sony fanboys tend to be the ones that buys Westlfe music and hooded tops :rotfl:

Some pathetic stereotyping going on on this thread, there is definitely a horrid whiff of snobbery and pretentiousness in the air. *also see post directly above me from latinoman231982 and numerous others*

At the end of the day, the reason that the PS2 did ok despite being the worst machine technically, is because as a gaming platform it is certainly not a bad machine, and to the layman the graphical/audio/technical quality of the games is not significantly worse than the X-Box or Gamecube. If there was a huge difference between any of those machines in terms of graphical output the punters WOULD notice.

The reason I have a ps2? Because at the time it had all the games (bar Halo), and because the controller is suberb, and the big massive X-Box controller I simply couldn't use. :rolleyes:
 

The latest video from AVForums

Is 4K Blu-ray Worth It?
Subscribe to our YouTube channel
Back
Top Bottom