In Part 1, I discussed the model in which game companies produce new DLC. A model that is effective, efficient, but easy to misunderstand by the consumer who is already more than wary about DLC and being exploited.
This has been a big issue for Capcom in the last two years. When Marvel VS. Capcom 3 was released, one of the first things people were clamoring for was more of their favorite characters via DLC. Capcom even went as far as to state that future characters would be available (Jill from RE5 and Shuma Gorath from Marvel being available to anyone who bought the collector's edition right off the bat) and even held a giant poll to find out who the people wanted the most.
Then... silence. Capcom went quiet for nearly half a year and no one heard much of anything in terms of future content for the game. People expected, though, that the longer they waited the closer they were getting to new characters being made available.
To everyone's surprise (and anger) Capcom would forgo downloadable content altogether for the game and produce an upgraded edition: Ultimate Marvel VS. Capcom 3.
It should be of note that this was not the first time the company had done something similar. Months before, Street Fighter IV had it's own expansion, Super Street Fighter IV. One of the reasons that most people were more accepting of this release was due to it's sizable increase in characters, re-balancing of all of the original characters, new endings animations, and the length of time between the game's release. Not that there weren't people who were still frustrated by this, but the level of vitriol was nothing compared to the volume received over UMvC3's release.
"The company promised us DLC!" "We're paying 40 bucks for the same game with only a few new characters!" These are legitimate concerns, at face value. Capcom had indeed gone back on their word to release these characters as DLC and the $40 price tag for what essentially felt like a shameless cash-in most likely hurt their sales and fan-relations in the long-run.
However, I personally believe there are some legitimate defenses to be made for their decision.
First off, let's take a look at the expanded character roster. Twelve new characters, on top of the original 36, unlocked at the very beginning. Let's look at that in terms of DLC, shall we? How much do you think each character would have been sold for? I honestly wouldn't consider anything less than $2 a piece, $4 dollars maximum. So let's go ahead and average it out at $3. 12 x 3 = 36. $36 for twelve new character. Can you imagine if it were $4 a character? Or, even worse, the original $5 a character people without the collector's edition had to pay for Shuma Gorath and Jill Valentine?
Secondly, every single character in the game was tweaked and rebalanced. Some to lesser extents, some to greater. There wasn't a single character who wasn't modified to account for the new roster or to fix some issue people had commonly complained about. These alterations would be necessary and ultimately would have also cost money to implement. Not to mention all the new modes and features that were added.
Not to mention consistency between people playing online. Let's consider that all these characters had been DLC. You bought Rocket Raccoon, Iron Fist, and Virgil, but the person you want to fight has a team made up entirely of Frank West, Phoenix Wright, and Strider Hiryu... characters you did -not- download. Or, consider that they have all their characters with the updated tweaks and adjustments and you do not. Exactly how is Capcom supposed to account for this?
That's where things start to get really messy, bringing us to today.
Capcom recently made yet another controversial move with their latest release, Street Fighter X Tekken. Not only were there several DLC characters announced before the game's release, these characters were also already on the disc, locked. They would required a downloaded code, which the customer would have to pay for, to gain access to these new characters.
Capcom said the main reason these characters would be available on the disc was for two reasons: To provide compatibility with those who had unlocked the characters and who hadn't, to cut down on hard-drive space the player, and to negate the necessity of a Super edition down the line.
This did not sit well at all.
"We paid $60 for the game! We deserve what's on the disc!" "Those characters were already completed, why aren't they part of the game!?" "This is a slippery slope! Soon, you'll pay $60 for single player, $10 for multiplayer, then $5 for extra characters!" I should note that last one there is a terrible fallacy.
With the way this model works, you are paying $60 for the complete game. The complete game being everything that is NOT DLC. The DLC content, as stated in part 1, was developed post production of the initial game, during it's testing and certification. Thus, again, the original budget and project scope did not account for them.
If the characters WERE included in the original game, the production budget would have been higher, development time longer, and we'd be looking at a 70-80 dollar game. The costs must be recouped somehow and people need to stop automatically assuming that companies are trying to swindle you out of your money.
Remember, you were ultimately going to have to pay for these characters sometime down the road if they'd just held off on them. Again, this is the EXACT SAME SITUATION, just at a different TIME. Earlier instead of later and done in a way that, ultimately, costs Capcom LESS money and you the exact same amount.
If you have a dissenting opinion, questions, comments or just want to bang your head against the keyboard and click "Post" then please! I'd love to talk about this with people!
Thursday, March 8, 2012
Downloadable Contempt (Part 1)
Downloadable content has become a huge part of gaming culture over the last ten years. With every major console having full access to the internet and Steam opening up the market for anyone with a PC, the way we acquire and play games has change dramatically. Multiplayer has become bigger, better, and easy to enjoy with thousands, even millions worldwide. The purchasing of games has steadily begun to eliminate the need for brick and mortar stores.
The most controversial change to come from the advent of online gaming, however, seems to be the way expansion packs have changed their form, becoming what we today know as "Downloadable Content."
Downloadable content, for those unsure of it's nature and premise, is widely considered as extra content for the game, sold at a small price. The exchange of money for these goods is commonly referred to as a "micro-transaction". The content is meant as a post-production manner of extending the life of a game and, let's face it, to continue marketing off of a game's success.
However, the reason this has become so controversial over the last few years is the way some companies have been approaching the concept. While the core concept of expanding upon a game has always been the cornerstone of DLC development, a few companies which I will refrain from naming have been, as some say, "nickle and diming" people by actually cutting core content and forcing them to pay to incorporate it back into the game.
I will go on record to say: Yes, there have been several companies which have done exactly that. I certainly do not approve of the practice and I find myself increasingly frustrated with companies who think it's OK to extort money out of their consumers. I try to give the benefit of the doubt, but sometimes it's just a transparent money-grab which customers should not put up with.
However, I'm not going to necessarily talk about those practices and, instead, go out of my way to speak my piece on two companies which, of late, have come under heavy fire for their attempts to streamline their DLC distribution.
(Due to the length of these, I'll be discussing only Bioware in this first part, covering the second company in the second.)
Mass Effect 3, the third installment in the epic sci-fi action RPG series Mass Effect, recently launched. With it, a day-one DLC called "From Ashes" was released it as DLC for $10 or as part of the $80 Collector's Edition. This DLC contained a new squad member, along with a character-specific mission. It should be noted that this DLC features elements which are also relevant to the games mythos, expanding upon significant details within the games universe.
Bioware has come under heavy fire for this decision, unfortunately. It's not hard to put two and two together and realize that this content was being worked on before the release of the game. A significant amount of people felt like they were/are being exploited by this, being forced to pay for content that could have been packaged with the game or even content that WAS meant to be packaged with the game but was cut and repackaged as DLC.
Of course, Bioware was slow to act and respond and, even then, a lot of people took it as covering their asses. They essentially told everyone that "the content in “From Ashes” was developed by a separate team (after the core game was finished) and not completed until well after the main game went into certification."
As I said, many people did not respond well. "It should still be part of the game!" "You didn't charge us for Zaeed!" "It's an integral part of the game's mythos!" People were still furious that they would be forced to spend an extra $10 the same day as the game's release when the content was finished beforehand.
My personal opinion is that this is a somewhat unreasonable demand. The way a lot of companies actually work on a game consists of pre-production, actual development time, then testing and bug fixes. During the last stages of development and into the testing period, many game developers will either focus their main studio or have a separate production team focus on DLC to be released when finished.
Something VERY IMPORTANT to note here: DLC is, under this model, not considered as part of the initial budget. The content does effect the actual game, but it is produced separately FROM it. Thus, the costs are NOT covered by the $60 you are spending for the game itself, but instead covered by micro-transactions. To demand that it be included in the game at $60 is basically saying that no one should be paid for the time and work that went into the development of that extra content.
Also, consider the following: If the content had been released two months later, would you have been so upset? If you'd heard that the content had been under development after the release of the game, would you have been more understanding? If you would, then consider that both scenarios are *exactly the same*. The same amount of time, money, and resources were spent on the DLC and someone needs to be paid for it.
If, instead, you're one of the people frustrated that Bioware made such an important part of the game's story DLC, consider this: Would you rather mediocre DLC that does NOT tie into the universe at all? Or would you rather captivating, relevant content that you actually WANT TO PAY FOR?
Ultimately, Bioware is being accused of money gouging when really, anyone who understands the way that the content is produced and distributed should know better. That's the unfortunate consequence, though, of having a business that not everyone DOES understand and is usually not actively transparent.
Part 2 will follow soon!
The most controversial change to come from the advent of online gaming, however, seems to be the way expansion packs have changed their form, becoming what we today know as "Downloadable Content."
Downloadable content, for those unsure of it's nature and premise, is widely considered as extra content for the game, sold at a small price. The exchange of money for these goods is commonly referred to as a "micro-transaction". The content is meant as a post-production manner of extending the life of a game and, let's face it, to continue marketing off of a game's success.
However, the reason this has become so controversial over the last few years is the way some companies have been approaching the concept. While the core concept of expanding upon a game has always been the cornerstone of DLC development, a few companies which I will refrain from naming have been, as some say, "nickle and diming" people by actually cutting core content and forcing them to pay to incorporate it back into the game.
I will go on record to say: Yes, there have been several companies which have done exactly that. I certainly do not approve of the practice and I find myself increasingly frustrated with companies who think it's OK to extort money out of their consumers. I try to give the benefit of the doubt, but sometimes it's just a transparent money-grab which customers should not put up with.
However, I'm not going to necessarily talk about those practices and, instead, go out of my way to speak my piece on two companies which, of late, have come under heavy fire for their attempts to streamline their DLC distribution.
(Due to the length of these, I'll be discussing only Bioware in this first part, covering the second company in the second.)
Mass Effect 3, the third installment in the epic sci-fi action RPG series Mass Effect, recently launched. With it, a day-one DLC called "From Ashes" was released it as DLC for $10 or as part of the $80 Collector's Edition. This DLC contained a new squad member, along with a character-specific mission. It should be noted that this DLC features elements which are also relevant to the games mythos, expanding upon significant details within the games universe.
Bioware has come under heavy fire for this decision, unfortunately. It's not hard to put two and two together and realize that this content was being worked on before the release of the game. A significant amount of people felt like they were/are being exploited by this, being forced to pay for content that could have been packaged with the game or even content that WAS meant to be packaged with the game but was cut and repackaged as DLC.
Of course, Bioware was slow to act and respond and, even then, a lot of people took it as covering their asses. They essentially told everyone that "the content in “From Ashes” was developed by a separate team (after the core game was finished) and not completed until well after the main game went into certification."
As I said, many people did not respond well. "It should still be part of the game!" "You didn't charge us for Zaeed!" "It's an integral part of the game's mythos!" People were still furious that they would be forced to spend an extra $10 the same day as the game's release when the content was finished beforehand.
My personal opinion is that this is a somewhat unreasonable demand. The way a lot of companies actually work on a game consists of pre-production, actual development time, then testing and bug fixes. During the last stages of development and into the testing period, many game developers will either focus their main studio or have a separate production team focus on DLC to be released when finished.
Something VERY IMPORTANT to note here: DLC is, under this model, not considered as part of the initial budget. The content does effect the actual game, but it is produced separately FROM it. Thus, the costs are NOT covered by the $60 you are spending for the game itself, but instead covered by micro-transactions. To demand that it be included in the game at $60 is basically saying that no one should be paid for the time and work that went into the development of that extra content.
Also, consider the following: If the content had been released two months later, would you have been so upset? If you'd heard that the content had been under development after the release of the game, would you have been more understanding? If you would, then consider that both scenarios are *exactly the same*. The same amount of time, money, and resources were spent on the DLC and someone needs to be paid for it.
If, instead, you're one of the people frustrated that Bioware made such an important part of the game's story DLC, consider this: Would you rather mediocre DLC that does NOT tie into the universe at all? Or would you rather captivating, relevant content that you actually WANT TO PAY FOR?
Ultimately, Bioware is being accused of money gouging when really, anyone who understands the way that the content is produced and distributed should know better. That's the unfortunate consequence, though, of having a business that not everyone DOES understand and is usually not actively transparent.
Part 2 will follow soon!
Thursday, February 9, 2012
Morals and Reality: The Consequences of "Mercy"
Do you read DC Comics? Do you read a lot of Justice League? Do you know who Maxwell Lord is?
Then you probably remember a little comic called Infinite Crisis, in which Max Lord, criminal mastermind and expert manipulator, took control of Superman's mind. After coercing Superman into brutalizing Batman, he sets the kryptonian's sights on Wonder Woman, leaving her in a battle for her life against a friend and ally. There is no question that this very well could be the death of her and she's only left with one choice: Stopping whatever is controlling Superman.
When she discovers Maxwell Lord is behind the mind control, she quickly finds him, lassos him with her Lasso of Truth (which, if you are unfamiliar with Wonder Woman's powers, forces anyone lassoed to speak the truth), and asks him how to end the manipulation of Superman. Without the ability to lie, he frankly gives her the only way to to stop him: She'll have to kill him.
It is worth stressing a point here that Maxwell Lord, at this point, has taken control of what would, without any argument, be called the world's most powerful super weapon. He has gone on a destructive and violent rampage with Superman, violently attacking Batman and has turned him against Wonder Woman. He even says, "And the next time he’ll kill Batman… or Lois… or you. You think I’ve lied to you, but I haven’t. I can’t. He’s mine. I’ll never let him go.” The only way to fix this? The only way to win back Superman's mind and end Maxwell Lord's control? Killing him.
This is exactly what Diana does. She snaps his neck without much of a second thought. Why? Because as long as Maxwell Lord has Superman under his control, no one can or ever will be safe. Especially not herself. She made a judgement call that would save her life and the lives of countless others. How do Batman and Superman react to this?
By chastising her choice and basically abandoning her.
DC Comics has a history of writing characters as role models, ideals for men and women. They write them with strict codes of ethics; including never killing a villain. In theory, this makes them strong and benevolent. In practice, it proves not only counter-productive, but moronic at it's very core.
Two primary examples I'd like to use are the Joker and Darkseid. The Joker has had a long history of murder, destruction, torture, manipulation, theft, etc. This man has caused more misery in Gotham and worldwide than any of Batman's rogue gallery to date. Darkseid is, without a doubt, an even worse creature. His galaxy-wide path of destruction and domination is unmatched in the DC Universe.
On several occasions, both Batman and Superman refrained from taking the necessary steps to kill them both.
In the defense of Superman, killing Darkseid is not an easy task. In further defense of Batman, he's the one who finally pulled the trigger (quite literally) to stop him in Final Crisis where he was ultimately laid to rest. However, it still remains that Superman has always shown a certain amount of restraint, even with Darkseid, in eliminating threats that would, without a doubt, return to not only seek revenge, but take countless lives in the process.
With Batman, however, there is hardly such an excuse or defense. This man has gone out of his way to save villains who have more deaths to their name than most of history's maniacal dictators. The Joker is easily the worst offender here, and again, Batman hasn't only refrained from putting the psychopath out of the world's misery: He's saved him in cases of certain death.
Why? Because apparently, if either of these two men went "down that road", they would never come back. They would be tainted and, furthermore, no longer be the heroes they present themselves as. This rings especially true with Bruce Wayne, a man who had lost his parents to murder.
I call bullshit.
These are men that have spent their lives tempering themselves and devoting every second they can to saving people and making the world a better place. A single re-evaluation of their principles could help them saves hundreds upon thousands more lives. If they really have such a problem with killing villains, then why do they allow the death penalty? What, it's only alright to kill someone when a jury decides? But the Joker kills hundreds of people and--
OH! He's INSANE! So it's ethically unsound to kill him!
I'm sorry, but the lack in logic here is too profound for me. I cannot sit back and ignore this backwards line of reasoning. Killing the Joker (or at the very least letting him die) would have saved Barbara Gordon from a lifetime in a wheel chair and countless other lives torn to shreds. Putting down Darkseid would have saved planets, civilizations, and so on.
You cannot say you are willing to spare one person's life at the expense of a hundred more if you are going to outright say you are opposed to ending one life to save a hundred more.
Then you probably remember a little comic called Infinite Crisis, in which Max Lord, criminal mastermind and expert manipulator, took control of Superman's mind. After coercing Superman into brutalizing Batman, he sets the kryptonian's sights on Wonder Woman, leaving her in a battle for her life against a friend and ally. There is no question that this very well could be the death of her and she's only left with one choice: Stopping whatever is controlling Superman.
When she discovers Maxwell Lord is behind the mind control, she quickly finds him, lassos him with her Lasso of Truth (which, if you are unfamiliar with Wonder Woman's powers, forces anyone lassoed to speak the truth), and asks him how to end the manipulation of Superman. Without the ability to lie, he frankly gives her the only way to to stop him: She'll have to kill him.
It is worth stressing a point here that Maxwell Lord, at this point, has taken control of what would, without any argument, be called the world's most powerful super weapon. He has gone on a destructive and violent rampage with Superman, violently attacking Batman and has turned him against Wonder Woman. He even says, "And the next time he’ll kill Batman… or Lois… or you. You think I’ve lied to you, but I haven’t. I can’t. He’s mine. I’ll never let him go.” The only way to fix this? The only way to win back Superman's mind and end Maxwell Lord's control? Killing him.
This is exactly what Diana does. She snaps his neck without much of a second thought. Why? Because as long as Maxwell Lord has Superman under his control, no one can or ever will be safe. Especially not herself. She made a judgement call that would save her life and the lives of countless others. How do Batman and Superman react to this?
By chastising her choice and basically abandoning her.
DC Comics has a history of writing characters as role models, ideals for men and women. They write them with strict codes of ethics; including never killing a villain. In theory, this makes them strong and benevolent. In practice, it proves not only counter-productive, but moronic at it's very core.
Two primary examples I'd like to use are the Joker and Darkseid. The Joker has had a long history of murder, destruction, torture, manipulation, theft, etc. This man has caused more misery in Gotham and worldwide than any of Batman's rogue gallery to date. Darkseid is, without a doubt, an even worse creature. His galaxy-wide path of destruction and domination is unmatched in the DC Universe.
On several occasions, both Batman and Superman refrained from taking the necessary steps to kill them both.
In the defense of Superman, killing Darkseid is not an easy task. In further defense of Batman, he's the one who finally pulled the trigger (quite literally) to stop him in Final Crisis where he was ultimately laid to rest. However, it still remains that Superman has always shown a certain amount of restraint, even with Darkseid, in eliminating threats that would, without a doubt, return to not only seek revenge, but take countless lives in the process.
With Batman, however, there is hardly such an excuse or defense. This man has gone out of his way to save villains who have more deaths to their name than most of history's maniacal dictators. The Joker is easily the worst offender here, and again, Batman hasn't only refrained from putting the psychopath out of the world's misery: He's saved him in cases of certain death.
Why? Because apparently, if either of these two men went "down that road", they would never come back. They would be tainted and, furthermore, no longer be the heroes they present themselves as. This rings especially true with Bruce Wayne, a man who had lost his parents to murder.
I call bullshit.
These are men that have spent their lives tempering themselves and devoting every second they can to saving people and making the world a better place. A single re-evaluation of their principles could help them saves hundreds upon thousands more lives. If they really have such a problem with killing villains, then why do they allow the death penalty? What, it's only alright to kill someone when a jury decides? But the Joker kills hundreds of people and--
OH! He's INSANE! So it's ethically unsound to kill him!
I'm sorry, but the lack in logic here is too profound for me. I cannot sit back and ignore this backwards line of reasoning. Killing the Joker (or at the very least letting him die) would have saved Barbara Gordon from a lifetime in a wheel chair and countless other lives torn to shreds. Putting down Darkseid would have saved planets, civilizations, and so on.
You cannot say you are willing to spare one person's life at the expense of a hundred more if you are going to outright say you are opposed to ending one life to save a hundred more.
Monday, January 16, 2012
Burden of Choice (Part 2)
What, exactly, is "oversaturation?" Well, Timmy/Kelly, I'm glad you asked!
Oversaturation is described as "saturation to excess". Excess. That will be a key word here. In business, companies know that it is within their best interest to keep a steady supply of product coming to the market. Supply and demand! The consumer demands and the companies supply! It's as tried and true a way to make money as any business professional will tell you.
Sometimes, however, companies will supply too much. A very simple example is, say... producing too many DVDs of a property than the consumer base was willing to purchase. 15,000 copies produced, 10,000 copies sold. That company has now produced 5,000 more copies than it will actually move, forcing retailers to put them on sale or just move them to clearance. Depending on how they'll sell on sale or clearance, both the company and the retailers could end up at a loss.
This happens all the time in business, of course. An overestimation can occur in any company. Some companies even safeguard themselves by pricing their product at a point where, even if they do overproduce, the sale price will still gain them a profit. They even bank on the product going on sale a certain amount of time post release; catch the more eager customer base right at the beginning, those most willing to spend their money, then clean up with the more frugal base waiting for the prices to come down.
Let's explore and look at a more complicated "example".
During the 90s, there were a handful of licensing companies in the US all releasing different properties. For the sake of simplifying it, let's say there were four. These four companies weren't huge operations, either. They were small companies often outsourcing the ADR to groups such as Ocean Productions, though sometimes using in-house actors as well. These companies also focused on properties that had either seen significant success overseas or they believed would have an outstanding appeal to western audiences, carefully marketing properties they knew would sell well. As anime really started to catch on in the states in part thanks to an ever growing exposure on television and the internet informing more and more curious newbies, these companies would have to grow!
With that growth, these companies would find more diverse markets as well. While the action genre and more male oriented properties had once dominated the scene (with differing genres sprinkled throughout), more women were watching than ever before! Demand for more obscure properties were on the rise, as well, with the world wide web supplying examples of the variety just waiting for audiences to explore... and companies to exploit.
Exploit them they would, of course, providing audiences with a wider selection of genres and themes than ever before! Not only that, but genres already big with US anime fans would be expanded upon as more obscure and less high-profile properties were licensed and released in the states. Any taste could be satiated and then some as the selection grew to staggering levels.
This would prove to be a double edged sword, however.
Sturgeon's revelation, commonly referred to as Sturgeon's law, dictates that "90 percent of everything is crap." This is by no means to be held as a true statistic, but as an adage, it rings with a sharp note of truth. In any medium, the likelihood of a majority of productions even being decent is shoddy at best. So one is left to assume that choice properties are few and far between, as is with most of life's pleasures, and that a sea of varying quality surrounds it.
Unfortunately, many of these companies had become expectant of their properties to succeed regardless of quality or even the size of a certain properties target audience. After half a decade of successful business, they'd grown comfortable and unassuming. This would leave them unprepared for a very harsh shift in the market, one almost all of these companies would end up stumbling on for years to come.
It's worth noting here that, during this period, other companies would also arise. More competition, more money, more properties. One of these companies, of course, was FUNimation. A company once known for a soul property that need not be named, they found themselves dominating the market in merely a few years, outpacing any other company by far. I'll go into further details in a bit, but for now, let's really focus on that adage from earlier.
"90 percent of everything is crap." Whether or not you consider this to be realistic or just flat out pessimistic, the truth of the matter is that fans were very quickly beginning to believe it. Remember in Part 1, when I talked about the passionate newbie, hungry for new titles? The newbie who would, sooner or later, taste bitter disappointment and, from then on out, reassess not only their buying habits, but tastes in general? Just consider the kind of environment companies were providing, presenting them everything, with no readily available manner of dictating the good from the bad, besides (at the time) the rare review online.
Of course, this wouldn't be quite as bad of an issue if their business model hadn't been... well, as some would say, exploitative of their consumer base. Without going into too much detail, the actual price of anime at the time was considerably more expensive than what most companies price their properties at now. This would prove to be doubly damaging as the recession began, making excess spending lower and lower priority. 4 episodes for $26.99 wasn't going to fly anymore.
These companies were left sitting on an excess of titles... and no one wanting to buy them. Between the economy, the varying quality of the products themselves, and a lack of a proper way to sample these products, combined with an aging consumer base and, unfortunately, a growth in online piracy, they would find themselves with more properties and product than they would know what to do with.
To cut to the chase, fat needed to be cut and the entire industry's business model completely revamped. As mentioned before, some companies would not survive, some would cut back heavily, and others would be absorbed. Probably the biggest example of success in this climate would be...
FUNimation.
Of course you saw that coming. They're the biggest, most successful anime licensing company in the country, employing hundreds of actors, holding hundreds of properties, and still managing to grow in a climate where others are barely holding water. In a market where consumers have become as shrewd as they've ever been, where the Internet can provide many of these properties free of charge, they've managed to revamp and evolve.
This isn't necessarily because FUNimation knew all the right moves to make. It also required a lot of money, which certain properties of theirs left them with quite the abundance. Furthermore, their outreach to the US anime community was so forthright and sincere, they grew an unbelievably strong, supportive, and fierce consumer base that they've managed to, for the most part, treat well and continue to support in turn.
One of the most revolutionary steps the company took was pushing for online streaming. Where Hulu and other online video sites had already begun dipping their toes, FUNimation knew that their biggest bet would be supporting themselves with online ad revenue, combined with the exposure that it would provide their properties that would finally allow gunshy, unsure anime fans a chance to sample and experience a show before putting their money down on it.
Another step was nearly killing off single DVD releases and switching solely to boxsets at reasonable prices. Gone were the days of spending upwards of $120 on a 26 episode series; you could now own it for $60 at the most, likely on sale on many online retailers. Combined with dirt cheap re-releases of properties from defunct or absorbed companies and a prime cable station, their releases have had nearly no trouble moving.
Other companies have followed suit in kind, trying to work their way back up and out of the quagmire. Crunchyroll is providing it's services to companies both domestic and overseas, while Shounen Jump, on the Manga front, has gone totally digital, providing it's manga two weeks after their print in Japan.
However, the problem isn't quite conquered yet. US companies continue to license indiscriminately in hopes of capitalizing on whatever sales or ad revenue they can get from these properties and in hopes to beat online pirates to the punch. Furthermore, they want to make sure they're serving their customer base; no company wants to hear, "WHY HASN'T THIS BEEN LICENSED!?" That often seems like money just asking to be given.
Personally? I'd rather see these companies only putting out physical releases of properties that showed particular success in previews/screenings online. Focusing on properties that are critically and financial successful rather than trying to please every single niche audience with full physical releases. A more focused market, releasing quality properties. For other, less popular properties, stream them online, most likely subtitled. In this, you would cut down on excess production costs and, simultaneously, build bigger and more supportive consumer bases for major properties.
I probably have some more in me, but it's 4:30 in the morning again and I feel like I'm about to pass out. I hope this was at least an interesting read, even if it wasn't quite as tight as Part 1!
Oversaturation is described as "saturation to excess". Excess. That will be a key word here. In business, companies know that it is within their best interest to keep a steady supply of product coming to the market. Supply and demand! The consumer demands and the companies supply! It's as tried and true a way to make money as any business professional will tell you.
Sometimes, however, companies will supply too much. A very simple example is, say... producing too many DVDs of a property than the consumer base was willing to purchase. 15,000 copies produced, 10,000 copies sold. That company has now produced 5,000 more copies than it will actually move, forcing retailers to put them on sale or just move them to clearance. Depending on how they'll sell on sale or clearance, both the company and the retailers could end up at a loss.
This happens all the time in business, of course. An overestimation can occur in any company. Some companies even safeguard themselves by pricing their product at a point where, even if they do overproduce, the sale price will still gain them a profit. They even bank on the product going on sale a certain amount of time post release; catch the more eager customer base right at the beginning, those most willing to spend their money, then clean up with the more frugal base waiting for the prices to come down.
Let's explore and look at a more complicated "example".
During the 90s, there were a handful of licensing companies in the US all releasing different properties. For the sake of simplifying it, let's say there were four. These four companies weren't huge operations, either. They were small companies often outsourcing the ADR to groups such as Ocean Productions, though sometimes using in-house actors as well. These companies also focused on properties that had either seen significant success overseas or they believed would have an outstanding appeal to western audiences, carefully marketing properties they knew would sell well. As anime really started to catch on in the states in part thanks to an ever growing exposure on television and the internet informing more and more curious newbies, these companies would have to grow!
With that growth, these companies would find more diverse markets as well. While the action genre and more male oriented properties had once dominated the scene (with differing genres sprinkled throughout), more women were watching than ever before! Demand for more obscure properties were on the rise, as well, with the world wide web supplying examples of the variety just waiting for audiences to explore... and companies to exploit.
Exploit them they would, of course, providing audiences with a wider selection of genres and themes than ever before! Not only that, but genres already big with US anime fans would be expanded upon as more obscure and less high-profile properties were licensed and released in the states. Any taste could be satiated and then some as the selection grew to staggering levels.
This would prove to be a double edged sword, however.
Sturgeon's revelation, commonly referred to as Sturgeon's law, dictates that "90 percent of everything is crap." This is by no means to be held as a true statistic, but as an adage, it rings with a sharp note of truth. In any medium, the likelihood of a majority of productions even being decent is shoddy at best. So one is left to assume that choice properties are few and far between, as is with most of life's pleasures, and that a sea of varying quality surrounds it.
Unfortunately, many of these companies had become expectant of their properties to succeed regardless of quality or even the size of a certain properties target audience. After half a decade of successful business, they'd grown comfortable and unassuming. This would leave them unprepared for a very harsh shift in the market, one almost all of these companies would end up stumbling on for years to come.
It's worth noting here that, during this period, other companies would also arise. More competition, more money, more properties. One of these companies, of course, was FUNimation. A company once known for a soul property that need not be named, they found themselves dominating the market in merely a few years, outpacing any other company by far. I'll go into further details in a bit, but for now, let's really focus on that adage from earlier.
"90 percent of everything is crap." Whether or not you consider this to be realistic or just flat out pessimistic, the truth of the matter is that fans were very quickly beginning to believe it. Remember in Part 1, when I talked about the passionate newbie, hungry for new titles? The newbie who would, sooner or later, taste bitter disappointment and, from then on out, reassess not only their buying habits, but tastes in general? Just consider the kind of environment companies were providing, presenting them everything, with no readily available manner of dictating the good from the bad, besides (at the time) the rare review online.
Of course, this wouldn't be quite as bad of an issue if their business model hadn't been... well, as some would say, exploitative of their consumer base. Without going into too much detail, the actual price of anime at the time was considerably more expensive than what most companies price their properties at now. This would prove to be doubly damaging as the recession began, making excess spending lower and lower priority. 4 episodes for $26.99 wasn't going to fly anymore.
These companies were left sitting on an excess of titles... and no one wanting to buy them. Between the economy, the varying quality of the products themselves, and a lack of a proper way to sample these products, combined with an aging consumer base and, unfortunately, a growth in online piracy, they would find themselves with more properties and product than they would know what to do with.
To cut to the chase, fat needed to be cut and the entire industry's business model completely revamped. As mentioned before, some companies would not survive, some would cut back heavily, and others would be absorbed. Probably the biggest example of success in this climate would be...
FUNimation.
Of course you saw that coming. They're the biggest, most successful anime licensing company in the country, employing hundreds of actors, holding hundreds of properties, and still managing to grow in a climate where others are barely holding water. In a market where consumers have become as shrewd as they've ever been, where the Internet can provide many of these properties free of charge, they've managed to revamp and evolve.
This isn't necessarily because FUNimation knew all the right moves to make. It also required a lot of money, which certain properties of theirs left them with quite the abundance. Furthermore, their outreach to the US anime community was so forthright and sincere, they grew an unbelievably strong, supportive, and fierce consumer base that they've managed to, for the most part, treat well and continue to support in turn.
One of the most revolutionary steps the company took was pushing for online streaming. Where Hulu and other online video sites had already begun dipping their toes, FUNimation knew that their biggest bet would be supporting themselves with online ad revenue, combined with the exposure that it would provide their properties that would finally allow gunshy, unsure anime fans a chance to sample and experience a show before putting their money down on it.
Another step was nearly killing off single DVD releases and switching solely to boxsets at reasonable prices. Gone were the days of spending upwards of $120 on a 26 episode series; you could now own it for $60 at the most, likely on sale on many online retailers. Combined with dirt cheap re-releases of properties from defunct or absorbed companies and a prime cable station, their releases have had nearly no trouble moving.
Other companies have followed suit in kind, trying to work their way back up and out of the quagmire. Crunchyroll is providing it's services to companies both domestic and overseas, while Shounen Jump, on the Manga front, has gone totally digital, providing it's manga two weeks after their print in Japan.
However, the problem isn't quite conquered yet. US companies continue to license indiscriminately in hopes of capitalizing on whatever sales or ad revenue they can get from these properties and in hopes to beat online pirates to the punch. Furthermore, they want to make sure they're serving their customer base; no company wants to hear, "WHY HASN'T THIS BEEN LICENSED!?" That often seems like money just asking to be given.
Personally? I'd rather see these companies only putting out physical releases of properties that showed particular success in previews/screenings online. Focusing on properties that are critically and financial successful rather than trying to please every single niche audience with full physical releases. A more focused market, releasing quality properties. For other, less popular properties, stream them online, most likely subtitled. In this, you would cut down on excess production costs and, simultaneously, build bigger and more supportive consumer bases for major properties.
I probably have some more in me, but it's 4:30 in the morning again and I feel like I'm about to pass out. I hope this was at least an interesting read, even if it wasn't quite as tight as Part 1!
Friday, January 13, 2012
Burden of Choice (Part 1)
It's 4 in the morning and I, for the life of me, cannot sleep. So, I decided to do what I often do when my body denies me the sweet embrace of slumber and put all those persistent apparitions within my head to writing. I believe people call them, "opinions."
Burden of Choice (Part 1)
Over the last couple of years, I find myself more and more reluctant to watch newer shows that come out. Often, my reasoning varies from total lack of interest in a certain genres that have become increasingly popular as of late (I.E. moe) and an overall sense of ennui that has arisen from being a part of one of the greatest booms that Anime had ever, and possibly will ever, seen.
But a dictator for me, as I sit back and study my buying habits, the industry as a whole, and a series of Astrological calculations, is the absolute abundance of shows I have to choose from. I find myself sifting through an ocean of possibilities, searching frantically for a decent show to latch onto knowing that my time, my precious, ever waning time, is to be sacrificed to whatever I so invest it.
In this, I waver. For as interesting as a series can look at first glance, as much as the synopsis can guarantee something intriguing, as much as the studio behind it was responsible for [enter favorite show here], there are 5 more series waiting just behind it, 26 episodes long at the very least, all beckoning me, offering to satiate my need for complex, animated storytelling.
This, my friends, is the "Burden of Choice": Where one measures the risks and benefits of their investment and finds themselves at odds due to the amount of selection before them, fretting and hesitating to focus their energy onto a single choice. For the casual consumer, this is a monster not easily overcome, as the backlog merely grows and saturates as time goes by. They find themselves uneasy not only in selecting a newer property, but even investing their time in classics!
Newbies often find that one show that brings them into the fold, that one show that introduces them to a universe of new worlds, deep characters, and complex storylines. Often, the next selection will be as simple as following the suggestion of a friend. This can continue to be the case, provided the material this person subjects themselves to is satisfactory. However, it can take only a single purchase, a single investment of time, that does not pay off. That single show that promised you all those things you wanted, all those things that made the $40 purchase of the boxset worthwhile, all those elements that made the hours of time that could have been better spent elsewhere... and then failed to deliver. At the very best? Lacking. Whether or not the material itself was bad or just not to the consumers taste, they will find themselves gun shy; afraid to take that risk again, whether it be by a miniscule amount or to a degree that could very well end their interest in the medium entirely.
How does this effect Anime as a whole? Well, to understand that, it's important to look at how it effects both the foreign market as well as the domestic market. For the domestic market (A.K.A Japan) they often have the benefit of television. Most shows out there are actually produced for television broadcast and thus far more available to the casual consumer. Thus, the consumer has the chance to sample the work they may have an interest in before investing both time and money. While this is not always the case, such as with movies, OVAs, etc., their advertisement structure for anime is much more robust. As such, it's easier to learn about the product without having to hear it from friends or having to do research online.
In the US, however, we find ourselves in a predicament.
During the 1990s, the selection of Anime available in US was much slimmer, with licensing companies often focusing on subjects that would be more suitable for western tastes and usually only acquiring properties that had, had evident success overseas. Furthermore, the appeal of animation with serial storytelling, mature subject matter, and an undeniable ethnic flare helped start a boom among geek culture. Shows geared toward adolescents such as Sailor Moon and DragonBall secured a younger market while Akira, Ninja Scroll, Evangelion and Slayers targeted older audiences. When Pokemon and Cowboy Bebop came around, a new high was hit and companies like Pioneer, Media Blasters, Bandai, ADV and Viz were hitting it big.
However, this would not plateau. No, this would prove to be an arch and the industry is still weathering the downward slope. Some companies have not survived, or have been absorbed by bigger companies, I.E. ADV with FUNimation or Pioneer/Geneon with FUNimation. Really, any failing anime company and FUNimation. Anime sales have scaled back to the point where brick and mortar retailers have cut their selections by halves and licensing companies have had to severely reassess their business models.
What brought upon this contraction? What so effectively cut down what was once a booming industry? Piracy? Considerable and it's effects are not to be denied. Loss of interest in the medium? People -are- always looking for something new. The economy? Well, let's just say that plays well into my point.
I don't think it's any one factor that has harmed the industry, but I do find myself returning to an issue that has still yet been effectively dealt with, though not entirely due to lack of trying:
Over-saturation.
(End of Part 1)
Burden of Choice (Part 1)
Over the last couple of years, I find myself more and more reluctant to watch newer shows that come out. Often, my reasoning varies from total lack of interest in a certain genres that have become increasingly popular as of late (I.E. moe) and an overall sense of ennui that has arisen from being a part of one of the greatest booms that Anime had ever, and possibly will ever, seen.
But a dictator for me, as I sit back and study my buying habits, the industry as a whole, and a series of Astrological calculations, is the absolute abundance of shows I have to choose from. I find myself sifting through an ocean of possibilities, searching frantically for a decent show to latch onto knowing that my time, my precious, ever waning time, is to be sacrificed to whatever I so invest it.
In this, I waver. For as interesting as a series can look at first glance, as much as the synopsis can guarantee something intriguing, as much as the studio behind it was responsible for [enter favorite show here], there are 5 more series waiting just behind it, 26 episodes long at the very least, all beckoning me, offering to satiate my need for complex, animated storytelling.
This, my friends, is the "Burden of Choice": Where one measures the risks and benefits of their investment and finds themselves at odds due to the amount of selection before them, fretting and hesitating to focus their energy onto a single choice. For the casual consumer, this is a monster not easily overcome, as the backlog merely grows and saturates as time goes by. They find themselves uneasy not only in selecting a newer property, but even investing their time in classics!
Newbies often find that one show that brings them into the fold, that one show that introduces them to a universe of new worlds, deep characters, and complex storylines. Often, the next selection will be as simple as following the suggestion of a friend. This can continue to be the case, provided the material this person subjects themselves to is satisfactory. However, it can take only a single purchase, a single investment of time, that does not pay off. That single show that promised you all those things you wanted, all those things that made the $40 purchase of the boxset worthwhile, all those elements that made the hours of time that could have been better spent elsewhere... and then failed to deliver. At the very best? Lacking. Whether or not the material itself was bad or just not to the consumers taste, they will find themselves gun shy; afraid to take that risk again, whether it be by a miniscule amount or to a degree that could very well end their interest in the medium entirely.
How does this effect Anime as a whole? Well, to understand that, it's important to look at how it effects both the foreign market as well as the domestic market. For the domestic market (A.K.A Japan) they often have the benefit of television. Most shows out there are actually produced for television broadcast and thus far more available to the casual consumer. Thus, the consumer has the chance to sample the work they may have an interest in before investing both time and money. While this is not always the case, such as with movies, OVAs, etc., their advertisement structure for anime is much more robust. As such, it's easier to learn about the product without having to hear it from friends or having to do research online.
In the US, however, we find ourselves in a predicament.
During the 1990s, the selection of Anime available in US was much slimmer, with licensing companies often focusing on subjects that would be more suitable for western tastes and usually only acquiring properties that had, had evident success overseas. Furthermore, the appeal of animation with serial storytelling, mature subject matter, and an undeniable ethnic flare helped start a boom among geek culture. Shows geared toward adolescents such as Sailor Moon and DragonBall secured a younger market while Akira, Ninja Scroll, Evangelion and Slayers targeted older audiences. When Pokemon and Cowboy Bebop came around, a new high was hit and companies like Pioneer, Media Blasters, Bandai, ADV and Viz were hitting it big.
However, this would not plateau. No, this would prove to be an arch and the industry is still weathering the downward slope. Some companies have not survived, or have been absorbed by bigger companies, I.E. ADV with FUNimation or Pioneer/Geneon with FUNimation. Really, any failing anime company and FUNimation. Anime sales have scaled back to the point where brick and mortar retailers have cut their selections by halves and licensing companies have had to severely reassess their business models.
What brought upon this contraction? What so effectively cut down what was once a booming industry? Piracy? Considerable and it's effects are not to be denied. Loss of interest in the medium? People -are- always looking for something new. The economy? Well, let's just say that plays well into my point.
I don't think it's any one factor that has harmed the industry, but I do find myself returning to an issue that has still yet been effectively dealt with, though not entirely due to lack of trying:
Over-saturation.
(End of Part 1)
Wednesday, December 28, 2011
Gifts and You
(NOTE: All "gifts" referred to in this blogpost refer to practical gifts, such as appliances, clothes, etc. Gifts that are tokens of friendship, trust, affection, and such fall under a different category entirely.)
So very recently, I had a back and forth with this friend of mine about the morality of returning a gift to a store. Their argument was that, "Returning a gift is greedy. That person spent time, thought, and money to get that gift for you! To turn around and trade it for some gift card or store credit is wrong. Maybe trading in an article of clothing that doesn't fit right for a proper size, but otherwise, it's just wrong!"
This argument, of course, is understandable. This person is trying to take the feelings of the gift giver into consideration while chastising the behavior of the gifted for being dismissive and greedy.
They also said, "If you really have no use for the gift, give it to charity! Give it to someone less fortunate than yourself!" This is, again, an understandable approach. If we don't need it, give it to someone who does. It's definitely a moral high ground and by all means, it's a course of action I support.
To myself, however, this is merely an option. Perhaps the most morally applicable, but by no means the only means of which one should handle their unwanted gifts. Being morally upstanding at all times is admirable, but grey areas develop in situations such as these.
Often, people forget the meaning of a gift. Gifts are given with the sole purpose of improving the lives of those we give to. To me, suggesting otherwise is selfish. Why would we give a gift to someone, only to feel offended when the gift we gave does not suit their needs? What purpose, then, does our gift serve? Should we demand they keep it as a sign of appreciation? Is the only reason we gift people in the first place just to indept them?
To me, I'd rather that person return any gift at all that I purchase for them of which they have no use. Hell, even if they HAD a use for it, if returning it will get them something that they would enjoy MORE? Then I definitely approve. All I want is for that person's life to be improved by my gift, even if it's so indirectly.
Of course, all this could be avoided if everyone had an Amazon wishlist! :D
So very recently, I had a back and forth with this friend of mine about the morality of returning a gift to a store. Their argument was that, "Returning a gift is greedy. That person spent time, thought, and money to get that gift for you! To turn around and trade it for some gift card or store credit is wrong. Maybe trading in an article of clothing that doesn't fit right for a proper size, but otherwise, it's just wrong!"
This argument, of course, is understandable. This person is trying to take the feelings of the gift giver into consideration while chastising the behavior of the gifted for being dismissive and greedy.
They also said, "If you really have no use for the gift, give it to charity! Give it to someone less fortunate than yourself!" This is, again, an understandable approach. If we don't need it, give it to someone who does. It's definitely a moral high ground and by all means, it's a course of action I support.
To myself, however, this is merely an option. Perhaps the most morally applicable, but by no means the only means of which one should handle their unwanted gifts. Being morally upstanding at all times is admirable, but grey areas develop in situations such as these.
Often, people forget the meaning of a gift. Gifts are given with the sole purpose of improving the lives of those we give to. To me, suggesting otherwise is selfish. Why would we give a gift to someone, only to feel offended when the gift we gave does not suit their needs? What purpose, then, does our gift serve? Should we demand they keep it as a sign of appreciation? Is the only reason we gift people in the first place just to indept them?
To me, I'd rather that person return any gift at all that I purchase for them of which they have no use. Hell, even if they HAD a use for it, if returning it will get them something that they would enjoy MORE? Then I definitely approve. All I want is for that person's life to be improved by my gift, even if it's so indirectly.
Of course, all this could be avoided if everyone had an Amazon wishlist! :D
Tuesday, December 13, 2011
PDA and BBQ
My sexuality isn't something I make a big deal out of publicly. Sure, I'll post about something pro-Gay rights or make mention of it here or there. But for the most part, I try to just live my life as any other person.
Tonight, though, an issue came to a head which I had to raise with my boyfriend. See, there's this little BBQ place near here called Dan's BBQ. It's a fantastic little place with good BBQ and a DELICIOUS sauce that's always fast and friendly.
It's also very, very conservative.
I'm talking, pro-gun signs, pro-God signs, an absolute atmosphere of conservative (and traditional right-wing) expression. It's also the best BBQ place in town, so Chris and I have been eating from there for the last two years. We enjoy the food, the service, and the atmosphere is even a little charming in ways.
However, a single caveat was always present: We did not act like a couple in the restaurant. We dressed conservatively, we didn't have any physical contact, we wouldn't even call each "hon" or "sweety" or any of our stock pet-names. On an occasion I had, he quickly reminded me that I should be wary, as so not to offend the clientele or the actual staff.
Now, this staff had been known to speak their minds. Telling parents to quiet their children, asking people to leave for inappropriate behavior. We knew it was in our best interest, if we wished to continue our patronage of this establishment, to refrain from projecting any semblance of affection.
Over time, though, something grabbed me on the inside. It tugged at a nerve in my brain, but like a passing itch, I would either just idly touch on it or let it go. However, over the course of the last few months... it came to my attention that it in fact was not a passing itch. It was an issue to be thought out and discussed.
I realized that there was a succinct moral issue that I couldn't any longer abide, and that was acting like something I'm not for the sake of someone else' approval. Now, don't get me wrong. I don't make our with Chris in public. Sometimes we'll hold hands, but usually, it's just a common shoulder bump, maybe a quick peck. But we would always refer to ourselves with the aforementioned pet names, like most couples. We're not showy, but we ARE a couple, and after a while it all sank in that it was not worth acting like we weren't for decent Louisianan BBQ.
Chris, on the other hand, feels that it's not so much of an issue for him. He also thinks that, instead of patronizing the restaurant further but allowing ourselves to act naturally (thus risking the ire and subsequential retaliation from the establishment), we should just stop eating there. This is understandable and, while I don't necessarily agree, I don't hold it against him nor do I think a modicum less of him for it. I would rather we try and be proven right or wrong, one way or the other. I don't necessarily want to TEST it, but I do want to at least give it a chance.
It should also be noted that, while we do live in Lake Charles, Louisiana, this is honest-to-God the only establishment we've gone to where this has been a concern. Every other restaurant or store, it's not an issue. Just this one, considering it's atmosphere.
I mostly make this post because... I am legitimately curious what people will think. It's a curious situation that I'm not sure how to handle 100%.
Tonight, though, an issue came to a head which I had to raise with my boyfriend. See, there's this little BBQ place near here called Dan's BBQ. It's a fantastic little place with good BBQ and a DELICIOUS sauce that's always fast and friendly.
It's also very, very conservative.
I'm talking, pro-gun signs, pro-God signs, an absolute atmosphere of conservative (and traditional right-wing) expression. It's also the best BBQ place in town, so Chris and I have been eating from there for the last two years. We enjoy the food, the service, and the atmosphere is even a little charming in ways.
However, a single caveat was always present: We did not act like a couple in the restaurant. We dressed conservatively, we didn't have any physical contact, we wouldn't even call each "hon" or "sweety" or any of our stock pet-names. On an occasion I had, he quickly reminded me that I should be wary, as so not to offend the clientele or the actual staff.
Now, this staff had been known to speak their minds. Telling parents to quiet their children, asking people to leave for inappropriate behavior. We knew it was in our best interest, if we wished to continue our patronage of this establishment, to refrain from projecting any semblance of affection.
Over time, though, something grabbed me on the inside. It tugged at a nerve in my brain, but like a passing itch, I would either just idly touch on it or let it go. However, over the course of the last few months... it came to my attention that it in fact was not a passing itch. It was an issue to be thought out and discussed.
I realized that there was a succinct moral issue that I couldn't any longer abide, and that was acting like something I'm not for the sake of someone else' approval. Now, don't get me wrong. I don't make our with Chris in public. Sometimes we'll hold hands, but usually, it's just a common shoulder bump, maybe a quick peck. But we would always refer to ourselves with the aforementioned pet names, like most couples. We're not showy, but we ARE a couple, and after a while it all sank in that it was not worth acting like we weren't for decent Louisianan BBQ.
Chris, on the other hand, feels that it's not so much of an issue for him. He also thinks that, instead of patronizing the restaurant further but allowing ourselves to act naturally (thus risking the ire and subsequential retaliation from the establishment), we should just stop eating there. This is understandable and, while I don't necessarily agree, I don't hold it against him nor do I think a modicum less of him for it. I would rather we try and be proven right or wrong, one way or the other. I don't necessarily want to TEST it, but I do want to at least give it a chance.
It should also be noted that, while we do live in Lake Charles, Louisiana, this is honest-to-God the only establishment we've gone to where this has been a concern. Every other restaurant or store, it's not an issue. Just this one, considering it's atmosphere.
I mostly make this post because... I am legitimately curious what people will think. It's a curious situation that I'm not sure how to handle 100%.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)