Petition Demands Sony Reset PSN Console Activation Limit

 Pages PREV 1 2
 

BrotherRool:

Baresark:
snip

Ah yes, those millions of people who put a PS3 in each room of their house...

Anyone who does that can afford to buy each game multiple times, however I feel that Sony probably isn't aiming to make the £63 profit that is available in that niche product.

They're doing it because, I could have a PS3 here at Uni, a PS3 at home with my family, my friends PS3 in their house across the road, another PS3 for my other friend who does coursework and that guy I met once in a pub with a PS3, and we could all have one account so I get all the games I buy, and all the games that my four friends buy, and they all get the same.

Having two houses is rare but certainly possible, owning a PS3 in each house instead of taking the PS3 with you is much much rarer but still possible, not for students who spend significant amounts of time in each place, but maybe say, elite businessmen and politicians who spend half of every week in another place.

But they're fine, Sony account for them.

So what we're looking at is someone who spends a third of each week in 3 different houses and wants to use his playstation in all of them, after investing the £600 in buying not 1, not 2, but 3 PS3's, and he, I agree is burned by Sony in this

I see your point, but there is a much better way of doing this. Steam uses it. They email you an account activation every time you sign onto your Steam account from a different computer. Tt doesn't involved locking the system in any way that makes you unable to go online with it while it's legit. Is this a fool proof way of doing it? Not likely. At the same time, I don't presume, like you do, to know that financial capabilities of everyone who purchases a system. I do presume that there is less than pure intentions behind Sony since the previous security system was just fine from November 2006 to present. I appreciate your take on it, even if I don't appreciate the sarcasm nearly as much. :p

Edit: Also, I love your use of the conjunction fallacy in your argument.

Oh, dear. Petition. Might as well say "Petition to annoy large corporation even though they won't so much as give us a glance."

Baresark:

I see your point, but there is a much better way of doing this. Steam uses it. They email you an account activation every time you sign onto your Steam account from a different computer. Tt doesn't involved locking the system in any way that makes you unable to go online with it while it's legit. Is this a fool proof way of doing it? Not likely. At the same time, I don't presume, like you do, to know that financial capabilities of everyone who purchases a system. I do presume that there is less than pure intentions behind Sony since the previous security system was just fine from November 2006 to present. I appreciate your take on it, even if I don't appreciate the sarcasm nearly as much. :p

Edit: Also, I love your use of the conjunction fallacy in your argument.

Well in the argument as to who is a better person, you have beaten me soundly. I'm sorry for the sarcasm and thank you for not responding like for like.

I'm interested in this Steam thing, I'm afraid I don't quite understand how it works, is this just another step in the activation process? So instead of just typing in your username and password, you've got to do that and read an email? If so I don't think it would really help with this so much maybe, because if people are deliberately game sharing, they'll just forward the email. However you are definitely right, that just stopping someone from activating the next account is much much better than locking the console, however Sony don't lock consoles either. What they're talking about here is trying to play on three consoles and just not having content available on the third.

Another important fact is, that the 5 game limit is still a five game limit to all games that were bought before the switch, so no-one can even argue that had games available to them that they had before.

I found a good quote from Sony outlining exactly what they mean by having a sharing feature

You can activate your PlayStation Network account on up to 5 PS3 consoles. This allows you to play your downloaded content on each of those consoles, so long as your username is saved on each.

This feature has 2 functions. Primarily, it's a support feature. We want to be sure that, if for any reason your PS3 breaks, you can instantly start playing the content you have purchased on another console.

Its other function is to act as a replacement for taking a disc around to your mates' house. If you wanted to show your friend Warhawk for example, but had the Downloadable version - you wouldn't be able to take the disc around to your mates place to play. Instead, you can put your account on his console and download the content to play whilst your there.

But people, here is the important part: You must never, ever give your account details to anyone else. Not your closest friend, not your housemate, not your mum... no one. Do not do it. Even if you do go round to your mates house - delete your account before you leave and do not under any circumstance leave your password saved on his machine.

If we have reason to believe your account is comprimised, we have to ban it from the network. Don't risk it. Keep your password to yourself.

MB

Okay they next step, is maybe dealing with the point where your good grace was maybe pushed too far by my bad manners, you don't presume to know the financial situations of other people. Fair enough, but I do presume on several grounds.
1. Logic, it remains that anyone who feels the functionality of having £200 playstations in multiple rooms in their house, presumably is either financially unsound or has enough money that £200 means very very little to them, specifically not as much as the effort of either moving a console from room to room, or walking from one room to another room.
2. Anecdotal evidence (this is the weakest), I know one house with more than one PS3 and they have four PS3's because they're all students and all brought a PS3 with them, none of them share accounts so even for them this situation isn't relevant (and they wouldn't be allowed to share accounts either, that would be gamesharing). So at least in my social circle, multiple ps3's, definitely 3 PS3's is a non existent condition.
3. Statistics
According to Nielsen, 41% of US households have a this generation console, wikipedia suggests that there are 30 million Wii's, 18.6 million 360 and 12 million PS3's. There's 115 million households in the US, so that's 47.2 million with a console, vs 60.6 million consoles. That's
1.3 consoles per household. What's more there's a guaranteed overlap of the very minimum of 1.4 million households having both a 360 and a Wii. So where we've got overlap, it's far more likely that it's because someone has a Wii and a 360 or a Wii and a PS3, there just isn't much evidence of any substantial three PS3 buying.

Finally, and this is most important, type in gameshare PS3 into google. It obviously happens quite a bit and is in all probability much more common than multiple PS3 owning.

I'm quite interested as to where I used the conjuction fallacy though, that's a human reasoning flaw where people are more likely to believe that a more specific event happens more than that same event generalised properly, and as far as I'm aware was proponed as a non-thinking flaw. The guy who discovered it wrote a book about how we have two parts of our brain, a quick guessing part that we normally use and a slow thinking part that we bring in for some serious thinking. He was saying that most people who are presented with the fallacy are using their quick guessing part and it's leading them wrong.

I can't really see where I've done that, particularly since I was moving from specific to generalising, I wasn't saying 'it's more likely that someone is a businessman and has three PS3's than someone is a businessman' which would be a conjuction. Nor was I saying a student with multiple house is more likely to exist than a student. I was saying of all the people with multiple houses, they're are more likely to be a student, than some other profession, which is logically fine

BrotherRool:

Baresark:

snip

Well in the argument as to who is a better person, you have beaten me soundly. I'm sorry for the sarcasm and thank you for not responding like for like.

I'm interested in this Steam thing, I'm afraid I don't quite understand how it works, is this just another step in the activation process? So instead of just typing in your username and password, you've got to do that and read an email? If so I don't think it would really help with this so much maybe, because if people are deliberately game sharing, they'll just forward the email. However you are definitely right, that just stopping someone from activating the next account is much much better than locking the console, however Sony don't lock consoles either. What they're talking about here is trying to play on three consoles and just not having content available on the third.

Another important fact is, that the 5 game limit is still a five game limit to all games that were bought before the switch, so no-one can even argue that had games available to them that they had before.

I found a good quote from Sony outlining exactly what they mean by having a sharing feature

snip

Okay they next step, is maybe dealing with the point where your good grace was maybe pushed too far by my bad manners, you don't presume to know the financial situations of other people. Fair enough, but I do presume on several grounds.
1. Logic, it remains that anyone who feels the functionality of having £200 playstations in multiple rooms in their house, presumably is either financially unsound or has enough money that £200 means very very little to them, specifically not as much as the effort of either moving a console from room to room, or walking from one room to another room.
2. Anecdotal evidence (this is the weakest), I know one house with more than one PS3 and they have four PS3's because they're all students and all brought a PS3 with them, none of them share accounts so even for them this situation isn't relevant (and they wouldn't be allowed to share accounts either, that would be gamesharing). So at least in my social circle, multiple ps3's, definitely 3 PS3's is a non existent condition.
3. Statistics
According to Nielsen, 41% of US households have a this generation console, wikipedia suggests that there are 30 million Wii's, 18.6 million 360 and 12 million PS3's. There's 115 million households in the US, so that's 47.2 million with a console, vs 60.6 million consoles. That's
1.3 consoles per household. What's more there's a guaranteed overlap of the very minimum of 1.4 million households having both a 360 and a Wii. So where we've got overlap, it's far more likely that it's because someone has a Wii and a 360 or a Wii and a PS3, there just isn't much evidence of any substantial three PS3 buying.

Finally, and this is most important, type in gameshare PS3 into google. It obviously happens quite a bit and is in all probability much more common than multiple PS3 owning.

I'm quite interested as to where I used the conjuction fallacy though, that's a human reasoning flaw where people are more likely to believe that a more specific event happens more than that same event generalised properly, and as far as I'm aware was proponed as a non-thinking flaw. The guy who discovered it wrote a book about how we have two parts of our brain, a quick guessing part that we normally use and a slow thinking part that we bring in for some serious thinking. He was saying that most people who are presented with the fallacy are using their quick guessing part and it's leading them wrong.

I can't really see where I've done that, particularly since I was moving from specific to generalising, I wasn't saying 'it's more likely that someone is a businessman and has three PS3's than someone is a businessman' which would be a conjuction. Nor was I saying a student with multiple house is more likely to exist than a student. I was saying of all the people with multiple houses, they're are more likely to be a student, than some other profession, which is logically fine

Haha, I would never argue that I'm a better person than anyone. That would be a logic fallacy as I cannot hope to know another person. And I don't care for the "you are other, therefore I am better" thing that happens all the time.

The way the Steam works is you sign onto your Steam account from a different IP than you normally have and it stops you, tells you it sent you an email with a code you need to enter. You check your email, get the code, enter the code, and it gives you access to your account. I know it's not 100% full proof, but it works well with the understanding that you don't give out your personal information to other people, even friends. So, if someone gets your Steam info, they would also have to have your email info. And it's not like that is the only use for it. Steam literally sends every piece of info to this account, game receipts, watched forum threads, etc. If someone else had this information they could literally know exactly what is going on with your Steam account. I do not think that most people would be comfortable sharing this level of information with a lot of people, but that could just be me.

I find that post from Sony interesting. The reasoning makes perfect sense but it doesn't give a reason that they went down to only 2 consoles attached to an account. Besides the speculative reasons (speculation is the most fun part of all these articles, isn't it?).

1.) This is the part where I may be hitting a wall or possibly not understanding this correctly. Your point 1 makes perfect sense, but the way the article is written makes it sound as though the first two systems signed into your account are hardware locked to the account. So, say you had a flood and you and your kids had a PSN account you shared on two separate console, then you would lose all that bought digital software if you had to a natural disaster. But, I could be completely wrong on this. As an aside to that, I know a guy who at one point had 6 360's. And while it was tantamount to reckless spending, it would not be right that he was not allowed to take 4 of 6 he bought online.

2.) Doesn't really apply since they aren't account sharing. Which is fine. Just because they live in the same household, why should they share accounts. You are correct that it seems like a more plausible reason as to why there would be more than 2 PS3's in a household.

3.) I love statistical data. We should be friends because I'm completely guilty of backing my arguments with this where it's appropriate. When people are talking about economics, I love doing this. Even if the statistics aren't that damning, they make a mental wall that is hard to surmount. That said, I do read those statistics the same way you do.

The book you are talking about with the Conjunction Fallacy is called Thinking, Fast and Slow, by Daniel Kahneman. If you ever get a chance, it's a superb read, though it can be dry at times. Him and Amos Tvesky did work that changed how both Neuroscience and Psychology see how the brain reacts with both decision making and statistics and intuitive statistics. The Conjunction Fallacy is when you put multiple pieces of data together and think it's more likely to happen. In this case: Business man, travels alot, owns 3 PS3's. Each one of those things is far more likely singly than in conjunction with one another. Same thing with 3 PS3's and 3 household. Those things are far more likely to happen individually than together. Kahneman explains that the set of circumstances you put together for a person to conceivably have a reason to have more than 2 PS3's actually make it far less probable to have happened. He also explains that when people see this kind of information, they are answering what is more plausible because there is a little homunculus in your brain telling you this is more likely. That is what he would call the flaw of your intuitive statistics. Check this out, it's the Linda Problem:

Linda is 31 years old, single, outspoken, and very bright. She majored in philosophy. As a student, she was deeply concerned with issues of discrimination and social justice, and also participated in anti-nuclear demonstrations.
Which is more probable?
Linda is a bank teller.
Linda is a bank teller and is active in the feminist movement.

This is actually a shortened version of the original problem, the longer one was better. It's actually easier when you have a backround in statistic so pick up the problem, in this case. There was originally 7 instances and those two were not next to each other. It made it easier miss the statistical problem, even for statisticians. So the explanation is this: The bank teller choice includes all bank tellers + feminist bank tellers. But, he explains that there is a part of your brain, even in full view of the statistical fact that is screaming that it's far more likely that she is a feminist bank teller, even though there is a much worse probability than just being a bank teller.

In the case of your instance, it is far more likely that people own more than 2 PS3's than if they are an elite businessman or politician that travels a lot and owns 3 PS3's. That was your use of the conjunction fallacy. I fear as though I may have had some sort of mental diarrhea on this post... and I should have looked at the "less is more" aspect of his book. In the forum speak I have seen used so often, "come at me, bro". :)

Baresark:

Haha, I would never argue that I'm a better person than anyone. That would be a logic fallacy as I cannot hope to know another person. And I don't care for the "you are other, therefore I am better" thing that happens all the time.

The way the Steam works is you sign onto your Steam account from a different IP than you normally have and it stops you, tells you it sent you an email with a code you need to enter. You check your email, get the code, enter the code, and it gives you access to your account. I know it's not 100% full proof, but it works well with the understanding that you don't give out your personal information to other people, even friends. So, if someone gets your Steam info, they would also have to have your email info. And it's not like that is the only use for it. Steam literally sends every piece of info to this account, game receipts, watched forum threads, etc. If someone else had this information they could literally know exactly what is going on with your Steam account. I do not think that most people would be comfortable sharing this level of information with a lot of people, but that could just be me.

I find that post from Sony interesting. The reasoning makes perfect sense but it doesn't give a reason that they went down to only 2 consoles attached to an account. Besides the speculative reasons (speculation is the most fun part of all these articles, isn't it?).

1.) This is the part where I may be hitting a wall or possibly not understanding this correctly. Your point 1 makes perfect sense, but the way the article is written makes it sound as though the first two systems signed into your account are hardware locked to the account. So, say you had a flood and you and your kids had a PSN account you shared on two separate console, then you would lose all that bought digital software if you had to a natural disaster. But, I could be completely wrong on this. As an aside to that, I know a guy who at one point had 6 360's. And while it was tantamount to reckless spending, it would not be right that he was not allowed to take 4 of 6 he bought online.

2.) Doesn't really apply since they aren't account sharing. Which is fine. Just because they live in the same household, why should they share accounts. You are correct that it seems like a more plausible reason as to why there would be more than 2 PS3's in a household.

3.) I love statistical data. We should be friends because I'm completely guilty of backing my arguments with this where it's appropriate. When people are talking about economics, I love doing this. Even if the statistics aren't that damning, they make a mental wall that is hard to surmount. That said, I do read those statistics the same way you do.

The book you are talking about with the Conjunction Fallacy is called Thinking, Fast and Slow, by Daniel Kahneman. If you ever get a chance, it's a superb read, though it can be dry at times. Him and Amos Tvesky did work that changed how both Neuroscience and Psychology see how the brain reacts with both decision making and statistics and intuitive statistics. The Conjunction Fallacy is when you put multiple pieces of data together and think it's more likely to happen. In this case: Business man, travels alot, owns 3 PS3's. Each one of those things is far more likely singly than in conjunction with one another. Same thing with 3 PS3's and 3 household. Those things are far more likely to happen individually than together. Kahneman explains that the set of circumstances you put together for a person to conceivably have a reason to have more than 2 PS3's actually make it far less probable to have happened. He also explains that when people see this kind of information, they are answering what is more plausible because there is a little homunculus in your brain telling you this is more likely. That is what he would call the flaw of your intuitive statistics. Check this out, it's the Linda Problem:

Linda is 31 years old, single, outspoken, and very bright. She majored in philosophy. As a student, she was deeply concerned with issues of discrimination and social justice, and also participated in anti-nuclear demonstrations.
Which is more probable?
Linda is a bank teller.
Linda is a bank teller and is active in the feminist movement.

This is actually a shortened version of the original problem, the longer one was better. It's actually easier when you have a backround in statistic so pick up the problem, in this case. There was originally 7 instances and those two were not next to each other. It made it easier miss the statistical problem, even for statisticians. So the explanation is this: The bank teller choice includes all bank tellers + feminist bank tellers. But, he explains that there is a part of your brain, even in full view of the statistical fact that is screaming that it's far more likely that she is a feminist bank teller, even though there is a much worse probability than just being a bank teller.

In the case of your instance, it is far more likely that people own more than 2 PS3's than if they are an elite businessman or politician that travels a lot and owns 3 PS3's. That was your use of the conjunction fallacy. I fear as though I may have had some sort of mental diarrhea on this post... and I should have looked at the "less is more" aspect of his book. In the forum speak I have seen used so often, "come at me, bro". :)

Darn we're getting into mega quote territory, I feel it spoils argument flow but I haven't stumbled upon a way of solving it. I also love the come at me, bro line :D
Finally I believe that you can 'judge a person by his fruits' or as the bible equates it, that in the end someones actions are intimately tied into who they are and it's not a seperable thing, so screw your beliefs, I'm going to judge you as the better person for taking the more loving ground in this conversation, whether you like it or not :D

The Steam system isn't that related. The PSN system is identical, but a little quicker and not only involves sharing passwords, but potentially opening your credit card to abuse. But people do it anyone and there are sites on the internet listing how you can create a new account specifically for the purpose of gamesharing and get around some of those difficulties.

As far as I understand, the Sony quote was about their attitude to their game redownloading service and gamesharing in general which is why it doesn't mention the change. General speculation is that they should never have gone to 5 and only realised quite a bit later that 5 was too much for what they were offering.

To clear up the PSN thing, as far as I understand it, you can have infinite PSN accounts on infinite consoles, count limitation has no effect on your ability to go online, only your ability to redownload games attached to your account. So the guy with the 360's good go online all he liked. What he would not be able to do is play the same downloadable game on all 6 360's whilst having his account activated on all of them. He could deactivate an account and reactivate at will which would solve his problem though. It's an easy process and non-destructive
http://uk.playstation.com/psn/support/ps3/detail/linked236637/item308379/Activate-Deactivate-your-PS3/
As Sony said, part of the point of this was that you could go round a friends house and play your game

If your PS3's get destroyed, part of what Sony changed is there is now a website available where you can deactivate them. Before, you could only phone Sony and ask for it to be changed. My old PS3 broke and so I never deactivated my account on that, however because Sony have a 2 activation policy (well 5 for all the games I bought) I could sign onto the PSN on my new console without bothering with that process. If I had two in my house during the flood, I'd have to bother with that process
http://us.playstation.com/support/answer/index.htm?a_id=2616

I guess I've really made my case for why I think this is a reasonable process now, so I leave the facts where they are and if you still feel that the new activation limit is too tight, then I guess that's cool.

Back onto fun stuff, I really wanted that book for Christmas, but couldn't track it down. I'm glad to hear it'll be as good as was hoping :D, I guess you can't say that I have a background in statistics, but I'm studying degree level Maths at the moment and currently second year Stats and Prob modules, so I can at least do the conditional probability required quite easily.

I'm trying to re-examine what I said because I have to admit, I hadn't thought there was much fallacy to the conjuction fallacy. I got the answer wrong the first time and when it was pointed out I was wrong, it wasn't a 'hmm how does that work' moment, but a 'darn look how silly I am' moment and I was assuming that that was the point. We think irrational things when we're not looking at a problem, but glancing at it. Incidentally in brackets are two small gripes I have with the question

(there's also a small problem with the question as the short version stands that I know doesn't help. In speech, if someone said something like that, there's often an implied exclusive or in the sentence. If I said 'Do you think it will rain tomorrow or rain tomorrow _and_ the day after' there is a strong implication that the first option is where there is a non-rainy day after. Similarly if someone asked you whether Linda was a banker, or a banker and feminist, in ordinary conversation, then the implication in the question is that the first option is actually 'a banker and not a feminist'. This was definitely a little involved in my answer, and is a non-logical flaw to choose the second option. If 60% of female 30 year old, empowered bankers are feminists, then under the natural conversation interpretation, b) is the correct option)

(the second problem is that the presentation of the question, triggers people's narrative reactions to being tested. That in a test, no information is irrelevant. If this monday, during my number theory examination, I was given a question and in that same question reminded of the existence of classification theory of abelian groups, I would expect that theory to be fundamental to solving the question. Purely logically, if that question was abstract, there is no reason why the existence of the classification theory should be any more relevant to the question than any other theory, but the question isn't in abstract and I expect the examiner to have made logical decisions when forming the question, which he almost certainly did. This is why it felt like a trick question at first because it's actively using deception :D )

I'm not sure I committed the fallacy even so, because my reasoning was
If someone has legitimately more than 2 PS3's they must have a reason for it
=> If we show that the only reasons are ridiculously unlikely, the chances are not many people own more than 2 PS3's

Now I guess some of the unseen logic was, 1. If multiple people groups are playing games from the same account it's gamesharing, so it must be a unit group, like a family or a single person. 2. I can't see any reason for having so many playstations with the same account in one household, so I presume by my reasoning that humans have a reason that very few people have multiple PS3's in one household => We're talking about a situation with multiple households => Someone has three households (small flaw here, but my argument for more than one household was that if someone wants to play a particular game, they can just get up and walk to the correct playstation) => Applying the 'humans have reasons for things' logic again, a person has a reason for having multiple households, also there's an assumption he must be rich

Now here comes the part where I don't think I'm breaking logic. If I said 'he has multiple households => he must be a businessman' then that's wrong because not all people with multiple households are businessmen.

However I was trying to demonstrate that there are only a very small amount of innocent people to be affected by this problem, so what I was doing was showing that what I felt to be one of the most likely reasons to be in this state, was still pretty rare.

Saying the most likely sort of person to have multiple households is a businessman (whilst factually unsupported :D) isn't a logical error, because in this case, the likelihood of the probability of someone with multiple households being anything is P(That a person is something and has multiple households)/P(That a person has multiple households), so I can make a statement about the businessman, because all probabilities at this level are divided through by the probability of having a household. What's more it's true that if the businessman with multiple households is the most likely and yet rare compared to most people, then all the other options will be even rarer.

The equivalent in terms of the Linda problem would be if I were asked, what's the probability that Linda is a banker and I said, well since she's a young empowered women she's more likely to be a feminist banker than a straight banker because the majority of women like that are feiminist. Since the number of feminist bankers is extremely rare, and yet more common than straight bankers, then the total number of women bankers must be very low.

Which isn't conjuction fallacy (i think :D)

Baresark:

I don't think game sharing has much to do with it, since getting caught doing so could forfeit your entire PSN account. It's against the rules to give out your information which can also lose you your PSN account. I still think it's a money grab... That said, I don't think many people own multiple systems, let alone 5. It's a strange policy, either way.

It's the getting caught part that's the issue. Somehow, despite all this, there are a lot of account sharing threads on certain websites. I'm leaving out specifics because that's probably against rules here.

Or rather, there were many of these threads.

Obviously, a lot of people were doing it.

Atmos Duality:

Anyone who can actually afford more than two PS3s, and use them, well, is probably better off than I am.

Doesn't the limit include PSPs, though? I was under the impression it did. PSPs were significantly less expensive than Ps3s (And probably still are).

Zachary Amaranth:

Doesn't the limit include PSPs, though? I was under the impression it did. PSPs were significantly less expensive than Ps3s (And probably still are).

That would make a great deal more sense to me, but I am unsure.
I have a PSP, but not a PS3, and I haven't used my PSP in a LOOOOONG time so I didn't even know about this account limitation.

I believe you can dis-activate your ps3 account and reactivate on a different ps3. They did this to tone down on the gamesharing that was going on and there was a lot.

Atmos Duality:

That would make a great deal more sense to me, but I am unsure.
I have a PSP, but not a PS3, and I haven't used my PSP in a LOOOOONG time so I didn't even know about this account limitation.

Mine was killed in a fire (Hey, that die in a fire thing works this time), so I haven't had a PSP for ages. Otherwise, I'd test it, but I think my PSP needed to be registered to my PSN account when I tried to transfer stuff off my PS3.

I could be wrong, so it's not like I'm the definitive authority here, but I think I'm right.

Hello All! I am the person who started the petition that the OP has posted about. I'm thrilled that this petition is actually gaining some ground. I now have 127 signatures (seems to slow down on the weekend). To answer the OP's question regarding what number "many" refers too.. I don't know. I know there are quite a lot of angry posts that echoed my stand on the recent activations policy changes. But I haven't been able to quantify that into a number.

Thanks for posting about my petition and I hope we might be able to make a difference. :) Feel free to ask me any questions, I'll do my best to answer them.

 Pages PREV 1 2

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here