Sony’s P3 delays likely

20 Feb 2006 ~ 2:31pm reelbigfish I heard on CBS 880AM in NYC that it could be a Christmas 2006 release and that it could cost up to $900! Thats insane, might as well buy a computer.

20 Feb 2006 ~ 2:51pm primesuspect What? $900? That cannot possibly be true. There's no way they would get the millions of homes penetration that they want if the thing costs almost a grand. If it were to be priced that much out of the stratosphere, Nintendo and Microsoft would definitely have a major advantage in this round.

20 Feb 2006 ~ 2:55pm RWB I can't see a $900 console, ever. It would flop instantly.

20 Feb 2006 ~ 3:01pm primesuspect Anybody remember the Neo Geo?

20 Feb 2006 ~ 3:04pm reelbigfish I thought I heard wrong myself, but when I heard the news story a second time, yup, they said UP TO $900. It will hopefully be less.

20 Feb 2006 ~ 3:57pm kryyst I think that $900 figure was based on earlier estimates. That or they may have different levels and for $900 it may have some sort of built in media centre features DVR, for example.

Sony right now has been blowing a lot of smoke with the PS3 and haven't been backing much, if any of it up. About the only thing they've really solidified is Blue Ray and backwards compatible.

Personally for my gaming buck neither the xbox 360 or the PS3 are exciting. I'm looking forward to the Nintendo Revolution and I've never even owned a nintendo before until I picked up a DS. The Revolution, is actually going to potentially revolutionize the way you play the game. Not just beefing up the graphics. I could care less about Burnout 4 if it's the same game (essentially) as burnout 3 just better graphics. That's not an innovation and for me to drop another $350 on a console it's gotta be doing something significantly better/different then what the current gen are doing.

Nintendo is the only comapny so far that is making a new gaming system and not just a prettier one.

20 Feb 2006 ~ 4:04pm Enverex People still probably won't pick the Nintendo though due to the game selection, nintendo normally pick kiddy games, playstation for teenage games.

20 Feb 2006 ~ 7:07pm Garg One console doing badly isn't good news for consumers. If the P3 has bad sales, that's great news for the coffers of Microsoft and Nintendo. Is it good news for Nintendo or Microsoft fanboys? No. Our prices won't go down, and our game selection could only be worse.

Here's hoping that Sony can ramp up production. It's good for us all, no matter which club we're registered fanboys of.

20 Feb 2006 ~ 10:29pm danball1976 It will cost Sony $900 to produce the PS3, we'll be getting it for $399 w/o the hard drive and $499 with the hard drive. However, console launches always have the manufacturer selling them at a loss, and after a while they start making money. This was the same way with the PS2. We got it for $299 in the beginning, and I think it originally cost Sony $499.

Besides, most of the money will be made back in game sales.

20 Feb 2006 ~ 10:56pm entropy

Enverex wrote:

nintendo normally pick kiddy games, playstation for teenage games.

Hi. Please don't spread false information and/or lies. Thanks. :shakehead

With that out of the way, my brother and I will without a doubt be getting a Revolution. We'll be standing in line for as long as it takes. The PS3 is looking more and more promising, assuming it can live up to the hype.

That's the sad part - it's all hype right now. In my opinion, the 360 fell far, far short of its hype. Hopefully the PS3 won't.

20 Feb 2006 ~ 11:00pm primesuspect Yeah count me as a "kiddie" then, because between the 3, nintendo will definitely be getting my money.

I'm glad I'm not the only one who sees that the Revolution is just that - nintendo said "F* the better graphics on tired old games. We're going to change things"... My kind of system.

21 Feb 2006 ~ 12:30am drasnor Excuse me? Nintendo has a long and proud history of censorship to keep it's family-friendly image. Some of that changed to keep up with the times but many developers, particularly ones I'm interested in, won't touch them. Nintendo's strength has historically been their first-party games (Mario and Zelda). In keeping with their family image neither of these IPs contain games receiving ratings more stringent than ESRB "E". Hence, kiddie games.

That's not saying that kiddie games are bad games because that's not the case. I thoroughly enjoyed Mario 64 in all of it's "E" glory though I acknowledge the likelihood of me seeing a thought-provoking RPG tailored to the older gamer demographic being slim to none. Likewise, the majority of companies developing games rated ESRB "M" won't be developing them on a Nintendo console.

I'm interested to see who all is going to write games for their console. I mean, Microsoft bought Rare so who does that leave besides they themselves? Sega may have the right idea: concentrate on writing good software for your flagship IPs and release on the most popular hardware. Except that they're running said IPs into the ground...

Between the three I'm leaning towards PS3 the most but I'm not touching any hardware until I see at least three killer apps.

-drasnor

21 Feb 2006 ~ 6:31am Linc I don't understand why not being able to kill people in a pool of gore is considered a kiddie game. That's like calling someone who's non-violent immature.

21 Feb 2006 ~ 6:48am Enverex I was more refering to the ratings, hence no, I wasn't spreading "false information/lies" thank you very much.

21 Feb 2006 ~ 7:44am drasnor

General Keebler wrote:

I don't understand why not being able to kill people in a pool of gore is considered a kiddie game. That's like calling someone who's non-violent immature.

That's not what I meant. Take Xenosaga for PS2 for example (ESRB "T"). It's an RPG in which people die. Not just random bad guys either, these are people that the game spends a fairly solid amount of time letting you get to know. And there's a lot of them. They do this so that the player understands how brutal and callous the universe is and how nasty people can be. You don't feel good when they die; you feel a combination of shock and that heart-wrench you get when going to a family member's funeral. There are other parts of the game that make you feel the polar opposite. I have never felt these extremes of emotion while playing a game for any Nintendo console newer than the SNES. Likewise, I would not want any children that weren't well-adjusted emotionally speaking to play games like that. We're talking about games that can mess you up if you've never "thought" before.

-drasnor

21 Feb 2006 ~ 7:53am kryyst I do love the argument that Nintendo makes 'kiddie' games. Nintendo 1st party games are more oriented towards family ratings. I'll give you that. But that doesn't make them any less fun. Nintendo makes fun games and they still make new games. Not just the newest FPS or newest take on GTA. I'm actually glad to see that Nintendo is sticking with creating games in the sense that games should always be new and offer you something different. They don't just reskin the same old game over and over again.

That being said just because Nintendo makes family games doesn't mean they aren't releasing 3rd party games that give you the violence and blood people crave, hell GUN, Def Jam, Spawn, True Crime... are out for nintendo. Maybe it's just that GTA isn't on nintendo that people keep this arguement alive...

Perhaps there is an irony that for all the blood, simulated violence and mindless repetetiveness that you need to put into a Mature rated game. It's generally the prepubescent crowd that wants them the most.

21 Feb 2006 ~ 8:25am drasnor Well, as long as we're being selectively perceptive let's discuss this shall we?

kryyst wrote:

I do love the argument that Nintendo makes 'kiddie' games. Nintendo 1st party games are more oriented towards family ratings. I'll give you that. But that doesn't make them any less fun.

This is quite true, I believe I said as much earlier. No one has said any differently.

kryyst wrote:

Nintendo makes fun games and they still make new games. Not just the newest FPS or newest take on GTA. I'm actually glad to see that Nintendo is sticking with creating games in the sense that games should always be new and offer you something different. They don't just reskin the same old game over and over again.

Two points. New games and innovation? Here's some for you: Super Mario DS, Super Mario Advance, Advance 2, Advance 3, and Advance 4. Pokemon. Need I go on? The innovation you speak of is in a limited sense, their consoles are well-padded with ports and re-releases. GTA does not a console make. A person on Short-Media bought my old PlayStation2 for the sole purpose of playing Metal Gear games. If you've never played Metal Gear then you wouldn't know that killing someone usually means that you die. Tactical espionage at its finest.

That being said just because Nintendo makes family games doesn't mean they aren't releasing 3rd party games that give you the violence and blood people crave, hell GUN, Def Jam, Spawn, True Crime... are out for nintendo. Maybe it's just that GTA isn't on nintendo that people keep this arguement alive...

I've never played any of those games besides GTA so I really can't comment. GTA is the whipping boy for a lot of anti-violent gaming movements and rightly so. That out of the way, I've played GTA III and it actually has *gasp* plot and a *omg* reason for the things you do as part of missions. When you're off the clock though there's nothing requiring you to pick up hookers and kill them, it's merely something that the game will allow you to do. Doing this in the game doesn't necessarily make you a bad person in the real world because the people that the game companies want playing this are well-adjusted teens and adults. Another game that can screw you up.

As for why people whip Nintendo for being "family friendly", well, I can answer that one. http://www.filibustercartoons.com/Nintendo.php has a fairly detailed line-by-line of the things Nintendo does to remain "family friendly". Worth a read.

Perhaps there is an irony that for all the blood, simulated violence and mindless repetetiveness that you need to put into a Mature rated game. It's generally the prepubescent crowd that wants them the most.

And shouldn't have for a good reason. To be honest though, the only games I've come across that are truly mindless are PC shooters and Nintendo platformers. They're mindless in different ways, but mindless the same "Run. Jump. Stomp; Shoot. Load. Dodge"

-drasnor

21 Feb 2006 ~ 10:46am kryyst

drasnor wrote:

Two points. New games and innovation? Here's some for you: Super Mario DS, Super Mario Advance, Advance 2, Advance 3, and Advance 4. Pokemon. Need I go on?

That of course is where you miss the point. The inovation within a series is a rehash - that's the whole point of being a series. But Mario DS is a very different playing game then Super Mario. Same characters totally different game play. Actually the DS is a perfect example of innovation. They have made a new method to interact with the games. Advanced Wars is totally different from Pokemon. Hell nintendogs is pretty much a one in a kind game. You are always going to have repeating series and ports. Crossover is important. But if you look at the new games that come out on Nintendo and there is a far greater variety then PS2 or Xbox offer. Just less blood.

The innovation you speak of is in a limited sense, their consoles are well-padded with ports and re-releases. GTA does not a console make. A person on Short-Media bought my old PlayStation2 for the sole purpose of playing Metal Gear games. If you've never played Metal Gear then you wouldn't know that killing someone usually means that you die. Tactical espionage at its finest.

I agree that GTA isn't a console maker, but I do remember when Xbox first came out people were chomping at the bit because GTA wasn't being released for it. That however is meaningless. If you look at PS2 or Xbox as of late all you have is repeated rehash. Nintendo is doing different things. They are actually pushing the envolope on how you play the game not just competing for graphics, which is a pointless battle. A console is a toy, nintendo gets this. I love my xbox and between it PS2 and Gamecube it's the best system IMO. However as we are now going into a gen of consoles Nintendo is the only company that is making a new console.

That's what's exciting about the Revolution. They aren't going to just have mario with better graphics. They'll have a mario that you play differently. Nintendo is no longer even competing with PS3 or Xbox in the battle. They are in a new market that they have created. Xbox and PS3 have to battle it out with each other. They have to fight for killer graphics or the next big title. They have put themselves in a market where they can't take chances. So that means that they'll stick to formulaes and series that have worked in the past. Just look at the current release titles for Xbox 360 not a single new game in it. Same old stuff we currently have, some with only marginally better graphics and even that is more a function of HDTV then the game itself.

OH and for tactical espionage I'll take Splinter Cell over Metal Gear solid in a heart beat.

I've never played any of those games besides GTA so I really can't comment. GTA is the whipping boy for a lot of anti-violent gaming movements and rightly so. That out of the way, I've played GTA III and it actually has *gasp* plot and a *omg* reason for the things you do as part of missions. When you're off the clock though there's nothing requiring you to pick up hookers and kill them, it's merely something that the game will allow you to do. Doing this in the game doesn't necessarily make you a bad person in the real world because the people that the game companies want playing this are well-adjusted teens and adults. Another game that can screw you up.

Never disagreed with any of that. But adding mature content doesn't make a game good. It's just a gimmick like any other. GTA at it's heart is a game where you are either racing around on a generally poor racing engine or run around fighting/shooting, with a generally average engine for that. I'm not saying the game isn't fun. It is amuzing but it's a novelty at best. However if you look at all the games that followed like True Crime, 50' cents game and a handful of other games none of them are pushing the game play almost all are just pushing the violence and all of them are forgetable.

As for why people whip Nintendo for being "family friendly", well, I can answer that one. http://www.filibustercartoons.com/Nintendo.php has a fairly detailed line-by-line of the things Nintendo does to remain "family friendly". Worth a read.

So Nintendo releases family friendly games. I'm not arguing that they don't. But they do have 3rd party games that aren't. They have also loosened their policy as they new rating system has come into play. Not sure if you've played Gun at all (great game if you haven't). But you are a cowboy you go around shooting people and scalping them. Basically the exact opposite of a 'family friendly' game. It's out on all platforms.

21 Feb 2006 ~ 1:27pm jradmin PC games are better!

There, now I put my 2 cents in.

:celebrate

21 Feb 2006 ~ 3:48pm drasnor My main point with the first section is that their entire Mario lineup for their handhelds are rereleases of their SNES, NES, and N64 titles. Nintendogs is neat but so is Katamari Damacy. I can get acceptable variety on any platform but to me variety is less important than quality. As an N64 owner my regard for the quality of 3rd-party titles on Nintendo systems is pretty low. The N64 killed my inner Nintendo fanboy with the Final Fantasy VII N64 release date that just kept on slipping from "indefinitely" to "never". I could, of course, go over to my friend's house and watch him play and enjoy it on his PlayStation.

I haven't played Splinter Cell but I'm given to understand it's one of several compelling reasons to own an Xbox, much like Halo, MechAssault, Knights of the Old Republic, and Steel Battalion are. Killer apps are what define the console. I just have more compelling reasons to go with Sony right now, most of which are developed by Namco, Square-Enix, and Nippon Icchi. Nintendo had many excellent developers in their pocket at one point but their asinine attitude toward developers and strict policies drove them away.

I think it's neat that the Revolution is going to be innovative in hardware but I can appreciate that without buying one. I'm fairly comfortable with the state of the RPG genre and where it's headed on the next generation of consoles (longer plots, better graphics). I wish you luck with your system.

-drasnor

21 Feb 2006 ~ 5:03pm kryyst If RPG's are your bread and butter your still far better off to play on a PC.

Innovation though is key to any development. If they want to push the envolope they have to take risks and try something new. PS3 and xbox can only continue to roll on as they are doing for a limited time. The production costs of developing better graphical games will quickly push the profitibility under. As it is now game companies go under because they nest all their budget in one title and if it flops they die. The more expensive it costs to produce a cutting edge graphical game the fewer companies will be able to create them. Which means that you loose variety and loose that next new game.

But by changing the way you interact with a game you don't have to worry about just souly praising the game based on graphics or the 100hrs of content that only a minority ever see. You can market the game play because after all it's the game play that people remember graphics are always just fluf. They'll make a great game better but they'll never save a poor game.

21 Feb 2006 ~ 5:11pm drasnor

kryyst wrote:

You can market the game play because after all it's the game play that people remember graphics are always just fluf. They'll make a great game better but they'll never save a poor game.

True that.

-drasnor

21 Feb 2006 ~ 5:20pm Garg

kryyst wrote:

If RPG's are your bread and butter your still far better off to play on a PC.

Innovation though is key to any development. If they want to push the envolope they have to take risks and try something new. PS3 and xbox can only continue to roll on as they are doing for a limited time. The production costs of developing better graphical games will quickly push the profitibility under. As it is now game companies go under because they nest all their budget in one title and if it flops they die. The more expensive it costs to produce a cutting edge graphical game the fewer companies will be able to create them. Which means that you loose variety and loose that next new game.

But by changing the way you interact with a game you don't have to worry about just souly praising the game based on graphics or the 100hrs of content that only a minority ever see. You can market the game play because after all it's the game play that people remember graphics are always just fluf. They'll make a great game better but they'll never save a poor game.

There aren't any traditional RPGs on the PC that I know of, although I'd love to see them heading to that platform.

But you're totally right about the way development is heading. Developers are under incredible pressure to make graphically gorgeous games, and few have been able to produce a game that looks good and plays well. Those few will the only developers we have left soon, and I know I'll miss the variety.

I still play SNES, N64, and PS1 RPGs (and many for the first time, not just out of nostalgia). Gameplay and plot are far more important than graphics to me. I wish budgets were used to develop a good game, and then make it pretty with whatever money is left over.

21 Feb 2006 ~ 5:25pm drasnor Ditto, the only traditional RPGs I've found for PC are ROMs and that doesn't count.

I'm working on Star Ocean (SNES) and the new Romancing SaGa (PS2). Gonna steal my brother-in-law's copy of Lunar when I get a chance. MMMM good.

-drasnor

21 Feb 2006 ~ 5:28pm madmat

drasnor wrote:

Well, as long as we're being selectively perceptive let's discuss this shall we?
This is quite true, I believe I said as much earlier. No one has said any differently.

Two points. New games and innovation? Here's some for you: Super Mario DS, Super Mario Advance, Advance 2, Advance 3, and Advance 4. Pokemon. Need I go on? The innovation you speak of is in a limited sense, their consoles are well-padded with ports and re-releases. GTA does not a console make. A person on Short-Media bought my old PlayStation2 for the sole purpose of playing Metal Gear games. If you've never played Metal Gear then you wouldn't know that killing someone usually means that you die. Tactical espionage at its finest.

I've never played any of those games besides GTA so I really can't comment. GTA is the whipping boy for a lot of anti-violent gaming movements and rightly so. That out of the way, I've played GTA III and it actually has *gasp* plot and a *omg* reason for the things you do as part of missions. When you're off the clock though there's nothing requiring you to pick up hookers and kill them, it's merely something that the game will allow you to do. Doing this in the game doesn't necessarily make you a bad person in the real world because the people that the game companies want playing this are well-adjusted teens and adults. Another game that can screw you up.

As for why people whip Nintendo for being "family friendly", well, I can answer that one. http://www.filibustercartoons.com/Nintendo.php has a fairly detailed line-by-line of the things Nintendo does to remain "family friendly". Worth a read.

And shouldn't have for a good reason. To be honest though, the only games I've come across that are truly mindless are PC shooters and Nintendo platformers. They're mindless in different ways, but mindless the same "Run. Jump. Stomp; Shoot. Load. Dodge"

-drasnor

And if you'd read the whole page that you linked to about Nintendo and censorship you'd likely have run across this tidbit:

Epilogue:

By the mid-90's, Nintendo's censorship practices were increasingly becoming both an embarrassment and a financial liability. Nintendo was earning a reputation as being a "kiddy" company that was both too patronizing and immature for older gamers.

A blessing of sorts came in 1994, when the Entertainment Software Rating Board was founded. From henceforth, all video games would be subject to an ESRB rating prior to their commercial release. A "K-A" rating would signify a game was appropriate for all ages, "T" would mean it was for kids over 13, and "M" would mean it was intended for adults. The ratings were given based on an independent panel's analysis of content such as violence, language, and adult situations. The ESRB ratings allowed Nintendo to gradually relax their censorship practices, for now they could legitimately argue that their games were being targeted to specific age groups, rather than "children" as a whole.

Today, Nintendo of America does not actively censor the games released on their systems, except in extreme circumstances. Games such as the infamous Conker's Bad Fur Day, which include swearing, blood, and sex are now openly published under the Nintendo banner, as long as they carry with them a "M for Mature Gamers" rating.

When censorship does occur today, it occurs mostly at the "first party" level; that is to say Nintendo censoring their own games, but not the games produced by other companies. The reason for this is because Nintendo of America still largely markets their titles towards a youth market, and in some cases in order to win an "E for everyone" rating from the ESRB the company must remove a few offensive articles from a Japanese edition before its US release.

Other Japanese companies may occasionally follow suit, and "soften" their games before releasing them in the United States, with the hopes that doing so will make them attractive for a larger consumer audience. Overall however, censorship of video game content is far less widespread today than ever before, and when it does occur it is almost universally a voluntary practice driven by economic/marketing concerns, and not the heavy-handed moralizing of Nintendo of America.

So calling the Nintendo system a "kiddy" system then flogging the old argument of Nintendo and censorship is just so much BS. Welcome to the 21st century where they don't do that any longer.

21 Feb 2006 ~ 6:12pm kryyst

Gargoyle wrote:

There aren't any traditional RPGs on the PC that I know of, although I'd love to see them heading to that platform.

What do you mean by traditional RPG? Rpg's have been out a lot longer on PC's before they ever made it to consoles.

21 Feb 2006 ~ 6:14pm Linc

madmat wrote:

So calling the Nintendo system a "kiddy" system then flogging the old argument of Nintendo and censorship is just so much BS. Welcome to the 21st century where they don't do that any longer.

:usflag:

21 Feb 2006 ~ 6:26pm drasnor

madmat wrote:

So calling the Nintendo system a "kiddy" system then flogging the old argument of Nintendo and censorship is just so much BS. Welcome to the 21st century where they don't do that any longer.

And just as we were getting close to not having this argument anymore. As a result of those practices, a pretty good number of their developers jumped ship leaving essentially Rare and Nintendo. Rare is gone now, so who all is left?

-drasnor

21 Feb 2006 ~ 7:10pm Garg

kryyst wrote:

What do you mean by traditional RPG? Rpg's have been out a lot longer on PC's before they ever made it to consoles.

I'm thinking of something like Final Fantasy, Suikoden, or Xenosaga.

While games like Dungeon Siege, Morrowind, and the D&D games are certainly RPGs, they're not what I've considered traditional, since I first started playing console RPGs.

21 Feb 2006 ~ 7:41pm madmat

drasnor wrote:

And just as we were getting close to not having this argument anymore. As a result of those practices, a pretty good number of their developers jumped ship leaving essentially Rare and Nintendo. Rare is gone now, so who all is left?

-drasnor

Well...from this site

After browsing many Nintendo news sources, I have compiled a list of devlopers on board for Revolution software, and others that are likely to be.

Confirmed

Electronic Arts
GameFreak
Grass Hopper Interactive
HAL Laboratory
Intelligent Systems
Koei
Konami
Retro Studios
Square Enix
Ubisoft

Your point is?

21 Feb 2006 ~ 8:18pm drasnor None I suppose. I yield to your superior fanboyism.

You win. Here's a cookie.

Have a nice day. :celebrate:

-drasnor

21 Feb 2006 ~ 8:43pm madmat I'm not a fan of anything except putting the skids to blatant misinformation...I don't have any plans to buy a console in the near or distant future, I do own a 2nd gen PS one but the only reason I haven't thrown it away is because I hate wasting stuff. So far it's been in a bag in my closet for well over 2 years which is about 2 weeks less than I've owned it.

21 Feb 2006 ~ 9:38pm kryyst

Gargoyle wrote:

I'm thinking of something like Final Fantasy, Suikoden, or Xenosaga.

While games like Dungeon Siege, Morrowind, and the D&D games are certainly RPGs, they're not what I've considered traditional, since I first started playing console RPGs.

I don't know where to begin. But those games are around because of the classic PC rpg's like Wizardry, Bards Tale, Phantasm, Might and Magic, Dungeon Master, I could go on. Those are the true traditional RPG's. Final Fantasy, Suikoden, Xenosaga are a very different form of RPG. They are very far removed from the 'Role Playing' side of things and are far more just a collecting game. There is little choice in most of them and you are pretty much just along for the ride.

Dungeon Siege like Diablo are just a hack n' slash games, you really play no role. I don't know when or where it happened exactly. But games like that aren't Role Playing games they have much more in common with action games and fps's then they do RPG's. Bethesda's Arena series (Morrowind is the 3rd one) on the other hand is probably about the closest current thing we've had to an open ended RPG. A game where you can actually take on a role and explore.

21 Feb 2006 ~ 10:07pm Garg

kryyst wrote:

I don't know where to begin. But those games are around because of the classic PC rpg's like Wizardry, Bards Tale, Phantasm, Might and Magic, Dungeon Master, I could go on. Those are the true traditional RPG's.

I knew someone was going to bring up those games

. Which is fine, but remember I'm using the word traditional differently (and loosely), to indicate what I've been playing traditionally. Console style RPGs.

I know Wizardry and the like came first, but I just didn't like their style of gameplay at all. Morrowind harkens back to that style, and I don't like it either. Whatever sub-genre the games like Final Fantasy and Suikoden fit into, that's what I want to play. The paths of the characters may be mostly fixed, but the plot is often detailed and fleshed out to a degree that isn't practical for a true open-ended game. The only truely open-ended games that feel right to me are MMORPGs.

With critical acclaim Morrowind had for its detail and vastness, it still felt lonely and lifeless to me. It felt like playing an MMORPG all by myself. If that's the high watermark for PC RPGs, I'm going to need a PS3. Not slamming the PC RPGs, just saying I'd rather play something else.

Howdy, Stranger!

Quick Links

Categories

Sony’s P3 delays likely

Comments

Howdy, Stranger!

Talk to Us

The 5¢ Tour

Obligatory Blather

Howdy, Stranger!

Categories

Sony’s P3 delays likely

More Icrontic awesomesauce

Comments

Howdy, Stranger!

Talk to Us

The 5¢ Tour

Obligatory Blather