During the latter stages of his tenure at PlayStation, former executive Shawn Layden oversaw some of the biggest first-party projects in his organisation’s history, including Horizon Zero Dawn and God of War. But the suit’s history in the gaming industry, as he’s eager to point out frequently, stretches back decades, to the days of Vib-Ribbon. He’s seen budgets balloon, then, and it’s a concern.
Speaking with Bloomberg, he noted that costs “seem to double” each generation, with some of Sony’s major first-party titles costing up to $100 million on the PlayStation 4. “If we can't stop the cost curve from going up, all we can do is try to de-risk it,” he explained. “That puts you in a place where you're incentivised toward sequels.”
PlayStation’s always mixed sequels with new intellectual property, but as Layden points out, it’s going to get harder to justify those kind of decisions. “What happens is you end up with 3-4 silos of games or game types that continue to exist, and variety is squeezed out,” he explained, also pointing to how publishers are chasing the next billion dollar phenomenon, like Minecraft and Fortnite.
But didn’t Layden, certainly in his latter days, play a part in this trend towards bigger, more expensive games? After all, he would have been involved in signing off on projects like Ghost of Tsushima and The Last of Us: Part II. “I think I contributed a part into showing the world what amazing gameplay can look like,” he said.
Hermen Hulst, the current PlayStation Studios boss, said recently that Sony has 25 PS5 exclusives in development, and pointed out that “nearly half” are new franchises. He also was eager to stress that “there’s an incredible amount of variety” spanning “big, small, [and] different genres”. So it sounds like there’ll be a good mixture of stuff coming out for the foreseeable future, which is reassuring to know.
[source bloomberg.com]
Comments 67
I’d be more concerned about the practises Sony is currently involved in for PS4/PS5 upgrades.
I think this is inevitable, especially as PlayStation gets closer to photo realism with some of their biggest games.
I just hope that they can find success in smaller titles again this gen, starting with some reveals at the showcase on the 9th.
I’ll always support PlayStation, but critique where necessary. But more importantly, continue to play and support the developers making great games.
Damn it. Sony Terminator also supported a free upgrade.
Shawn was all about big blockbusters over anything else, but somehow people choose to forget that.
I really feel that Sony have messed up by not supporting lower budget AA and lower games (especially from Japan where they develop them due to a large mobile market). These were always my mainstay and now I’d have to play them on Switch. Not everything has to be a AAA blockbuster.
@Jacko11 if they show smaller games, fans will ***** on them.
Surely with all of the infastructure in place (which Sony has), the main cost is employment and electricity!? Maybe they need to change provider and sort their wage structure out, top to bottom.
There go the reason for the $10 price increase which is y I have no problem with it.
I feel like the real solution is expanding the console market.
I remember reading recently in another interview with Layden, he says that more or less the same amount of people play consoles now as played them 20 years ago. We're just spending more money.
Maybe then, if the console market isn't growing fast enough, expanding the IPs in to other mediums is the solution?
I'd love to see a God of War anime. A series of movies based on the games.
Get the costs back that way.
That thing he says about variety being squeezed out. I used to be worried about that too, but over the last few years so many copycat games have come and gone trying to cash in on what Fortnite or DOTA or Overwatch are doing. But those games take dedication to master, and people only have so much time. Who has the time to play 3 or 4 Fortnites at once?
And my PS5 and my external drive are both loaded with single player games, big and small, from various genres.
I think these experiences are safe. For now at least.
@Steel76 They did say a year or two back that they want to start making smaller €40.00 games to release between the bigger budget titles. I think it was Jim Ryan who said that. I might be wrong on that part though.
Gaming industry is in a weird spot where, by and large, I observe dissatisfaction across the board:
It feels like you really can't win with the most vocal consumers on sites like this.
@amenohi I’d love to see games push physics engines more. It would be nice to have different series focus on different things such as one which focuses on physics, one that focuses on facial animations and graphics, one which focuses on AI routines and such. There are more ways to push hardware than just resolution and texture fidelity.
@get2sammyb spot on there! It’s very frustrating as a gamer who loves single player games with some originality. I find most triple A games disappointing these days, you can have the best graphics in the world but if the gameplay isn’t fun what’s the point? I don’t want to watch a movie, I have Netflix for that.
@get2sammyb All those points are valid though.
I'm fine if those games exist but I want big AAA single player games. Playing the same game (as long as it's good) for weeks if not months on end doesn't bother me, indeed it's why I game in the first place.
I think that overall there is enough variety out there to cater for all tastes but people got to moan about something I guess.
@Amppari thats because PlayStation fans are entitled, fickle cry babies and i’ve been saying it on this site for months.
Despite games like Journey, Rocket League and Hellblade being among the best on the platform (all indie).
@Amppari and you know this how exactly? Has there been some kind of poll with fan statistics to back this up? Again another singular voice thinking he/she speaks for the rest of us..
Been hearing this “out of control budget” since the PS3. And everyone still making tons of cash.
And studios that want to focus on AAA games is no different than studios that want to just make Indies. Studios do not need to make both.
There are tons of Indies and AA titles on PlayStation to pick from if you do not care about AAA games.
This is like someone complaining about "chicken" being on a 10 page menu, Turn the page!!!
@get2sammyb i agree with you..i buy games that appeal to me regardless of how good the graphics are or the length of the game..sometimes games just take too much dedication time wise to see through to completion and a lot of games seem to get it bob on...horses for courses..👊
The current state of the Modern AAA games will collapse as it cannot cope with the rising cost of game development.
Whoever says 8 hour games are not worth it clearly didnt start gaming till the early years of the ps3/360 era.
All the best games of all time list you see on every gaming site . 99% of games were 15 hours or less long in game length .
The problem with Modern AAA games is that they are overly long , boring games with so much padding that over stay their welcome. Every Modern AAA game is a carbon copy of a ubisoft game that copys and paste the same gaming ideas from assassin creed and far cry .
Thankfully we will have the indie game scene thats keeping things fresh and exciting .
Yes if games get too big and take too long to make, to have the same amount of games you can either have more studios or sequals. Nintendo seem to be all about sequals with some new ip thrown in a few times a generation, however I'm starting to see the intelligence in their model as this prevents the super reliance on let's say 10 aaa games per generation.
Let's see where we end up, but I'm starting to wonder exactly how many games we will see this generation, maybe less because games are now too big!
Impossibru!
Internet people told me video games actually cost less to make now than they used to. Someone inform this random Shawn guy.
I just buy second hand and then resell. Stonks.
@Blofse it's not a matter of intelligence, but what their audience wants. Sony and MS could try to imitate them and they would fail miserably.
The average Sony fan doesn't want Uncharted 356. To my knowledge Ninty is the only company that gets away with it. Same with not offering any price cuts to their first party games.
@naruball he is hardly a random guy..was pretty important at sony for a fair while..
@Northern_munkey that was the joke
@Blofse because nintendo's focus is on making entertaining games for all ages, but sony focuses on making M rated games. So, nintendo can sell more copies of their games.
@naruball aahh i see now..hard to tell whats a joke with typed wording..my bad..
@ArcadeHeroes
Right, because tons of Indie games are not "carbon copy" of games from the 80s or each other.
Lets pretend the sea of "metroidvania" and "rogue-like" games are all "fresh and exciting"
It is no different... you need to dig to find the good ones.
I believe we will start to see more variety from Sony in the coming years. It was actually Shawn Layden that wanted Sony to make fewer but bigger games, lol
I mean fewer games in general but AAA, I can't remember where but I heard him say that in a few interviews
@Agramonte
With every rogue-like and Metroidvania game that is made there is dozens and dozens more different type of games that are made each year . I cant exactly say the same thing when it comes to AAA games .
Ain’t got time to wade through the indie cindy niche stuff no more. This is next gen baby; untimate horsepower you want retro side scrollers or cartoons go play switch or something
@Shepherd_Tallon That can't be true, the population has expanded and there are far more female gamers than like 10 years ago. Twitch and all that have blown up. I guess if you don't count all of those that only buy 1 or 2 games with their console but they, to some degree existed before.
If they make less demanding (and therefor costly) indies as well they could at least cover both ends of tue spectrum. I do miss double As, though. Vampyr and Sinking City were brilliant games IMO. Will try Greedfall soon, too.
@Jayofmaya Honestly I was surprised when I read it too, but I didn't look up the numbers for myself afterwards either.
Edit: Well I can't find anything useful, but it was Layden who said it. His logic was that no console has gotten near PS2 numbers, the consumer base for consoles hasn't grown significantly but gamers are spending far more money, and that this isn't sustainable with regards to AAA production.
The games goes on sale really fast.so i dont care about the prices of games really.especially PlayStation games.word up son
The Western AAA scene in general is doing this, which puts a major portion of the industry in a really unhealthy place, IMO. Exploding budgets are being used as an excuse for all sorts of undesirable monetization strategies and game design approaches from developers.
Sony has kind of trapped itself into persisting with this approach, though, because they've cultivated the mindset in their base that only million-dollar ($200 million now, I guess) blockbusters matter. That approach isn't going to be sustainable for much longer into the future without major sacrifices, as Layden insinuated..
@playstation1995 If everyone waits for sales, though, the pricing model they're going for will collapse.
Well, it’s up to these companies to control that. They can set the limits.
I think the critics are slightly to blame too for these warped expectations. AA games are generally not reviewed favourably or fairly. Like they’re being held to the same standards as AAA games or something.
A few examples of from Pushsquare archives alone (forgive me if they aren’t all technically ‘AA’ games - the definition is a little vague) :
Vampyr 6/10
A Plague Tale 6/10
Werewolf: The Apocalypse 5/10
Biomutant 4/10
Mad Max 6/10
Man of Medan 5/10
Special mention to IGN and their pitiful 5.9/10 score for Alien Isolation.
I know you shouldn’t judge a game based on one review (I don’t) but many people do. You see it all the time in the comments, ‘sheesh, 6/10 - I was on the fence but I’ll wait for a sale now’.
I enjoyed all of the above games a lot more than some AAA games, which probably scored higher because they’re prettier and bigger in scale. I would rate them all at least 2 points higher in my own mind.
Low scores damage sales. Which is fine if they deserve it but a lot of the time I don’t think they do based on their AA status.
If we're talking about 1st party titles variety, I think nintendo is the gold standard here. From my physical switch games collection I got: 2D topdown games (zelda link awakening), action games (astral chain), strategy rpg (fire emblem), kart racing games (mario kart 8 deluxe), and fighting games (super smash bros ultimate).
Digitally, I got 3rd person action adventure games (zelda botw) and platformer games (mario odyssey & mario 3D all-stars).
You need a mix in your portfolio of games. Astro shows what you can still do with a smaller budget, from reviews returnal as well. There are going to be marquee prestige titles that you only get a handful of in a generation and they will be expensive but they also push a whole bunch of people to your platform. The reason the ps4 outsold the xbox one so heavily was those games. If people want to think about models that help support aa and bigger indie games, there's a good chance that looks like a gamepass subscription model.
@get2sammyb part of that observed dissatisfaction is collection bias. Content people generally don’t write comments. They are too busy playing or living the rest of life.
Well the industry are the ones to blame. Sony especially have a major hand in this.
They have been pushing visuals and using those to sell games, requiring more work and more money to have the prettiest, jaw dropping game, to impress their audience, then having the audience expect more and more each time.
This is a problem of their own creation and the entire industry will have to reckon with it. While "AAA" publishers are releasing buggy or outright broken $100m games made by hundreds of people, you have indie devs out there delivering quality experiences for less than a 1% of that cost.
And if those too-big-to-fail games do fail, you have companies going bust and people being ejected from jobs. Coupled with the high expectation of work, long hours, and potential abuse (or just general poor atmosphere), and a general lack of individual creativity in a creative industry (because one person can not have much room to be creative when your work is tied to hundreds of others), you have an industry full of anxiety.
Oh, and shareholders who expect ever increasing profits.
And we've had major publishers go bust. Others (and smaller devs) are all being bought up. The real question will be: which is going to be the next major publisher that either crumbles under its own weight, or restructures to have smaller teams.
Note: if you want a case study, have a look at Irrational Games. After releasing Bioshock 1 and Infinite, the director, Ken Levine just couldn't take the personal strain of maintaining that level of development anymore, so restructures the studio to be smaller.
This is why streaming will be unsustainable without shifting costs and giving smaller games the shaft in place of the ones that will make people subscribe. The same games with MTs to make their own money.
@get2sammyb you forgot “open world colectaton/UBisoft syndrome” complaints.
But personally I think that is mostly noisy comment sections. I mean, look at Nintendo. When was the last time they made a graphic intensive game?
Look at Fortnite, cartoony and micro transactions.
I have my own preferences but they are my own. I don’t care for multiplayer, I do expect about 8 hours out of a campaign, and it starts feeling cheap. I love me some filler open world collectible garbage, so any game can pad with that and I’d be extremely happy. Also love me some grindy progression systems. Spider-Man was a perfect example. I spent countless hours playing that game. Then I did it again in new game plus in what felt like a flash because this time I was not grinding progression or collecting pigeons or what not. Its a surprisingly short campaign when that is taken out and we all love it, I think.
Honestly, I would much rather get yearly 8 hour entries in a favorite IP than 100 hour experiences every 5 years.
Anyways I don’t think a game needs to make the comment sections happy to be successful. 8 hour games will sell if marketed right. Open world collectatons will sell. Micro transaction ridden multiplayer will succeed (especially if they F2P.)
The industry is, IMO, overdoing it by investing increasingly ridiculously higher budgets into lost games.
Here's a thought: budget!
@Shepherd_Tallon Good point about the ps2. It's weird to think just how many of those consoles were in people's bed/living rooms, it feels like it's more common place now haha I actually spend about the same personally, but I get more games because of sales/ps plus. It does seem unsustainable when surely eventually that spending won't be as frivolous as things become a little harder for more of the population. I guess we're relying on the cost of living itself to stay low enough that people on lower wages can still afford games, so raising game prices is certainly a gamble in this economy.
@ArcadeHeroes
I could have played Signs of the Sojourner, Twelve Minutes and Boyfriend Dungeon on PC Game Pass.
In the end I payed extra to play Ghost of Tsushima: Iki Island and installed Psychonauts 2 in their place.
Both ended up having more creative and entertainment value by a mile. All indies are not good, just like all AAA are not bad.
The thing is, these companies spend more on budget because they can make more money. Profits are higher than ever if you make a decent game.
So...what all goes into game development? Hardware and software, the staff. Ideas, talent, voice overs (if applicable), etc. Licensing engines, coding and testing, ad infinitum. Just trying to see where the money goes and if techniques have changed dramatically enough. I mean developing madden can't be increasing tenfold, year over year, right?
@Boucho11 They could always do it the Ubisoft way. Make one game copy it with a different overlay. I would love to see how many Firstparty titles from have MT, gold editions, seasonpasses when they are full priced.
@PhhhCough Madden is a joke now I have seen the angryjoe review and its kinda shocking how bad it is.
@NEStalgia But if a game isnt 100 hour plus and doesnt look the perfect we all complain.
So you wanna say we should have less demands? Or the gameprice should increase or more copy and paste or less risk Halo, Gears of War, Uncharted 1 up part 100.
Or no more original games or maybe original games with a lower budget we cant have it all.
@Robinsad Well that totally depends is it succesfull, recurring monetization its all up there.
@Tharsman I totally get where you are coming from when you get older you have less time and i have way more fun playing through a few shorter games then a 100 hour collectables binge.
The problem is they all want to be that 100 plus engagement crap for recurring monetization..... 😐
I would love to see smaller shorter games with less risk and insane budgets. And i always love when people say there is nothing to play with 3 massive budget titles.
And as gamer we should stop wanting everything at low price and then still say yeah im waiting for a sale or stop complaining and see the 100 million plus games era die.
@Flaming_Kaiser This is kinda also where the backlash against episodic games, and eventual death thereof is annoying.
If a game has each episode be 4-8 hours long, and a season is 10-30 episodes, then people who are time-pressed can treat each episode as a game in a series, and have a satisfying experience with a well defined point at which it's satisfying to put the game down and play something else for a while. The 80 hour minimum gang can binge the whole season when it's out, and treat it as a full game.
Developers of episodic games bare some of responsibility for the backlash, as there were some games that were abandoned (cough, valve, cough, half life episode 3) and others which were overpriced or low quality, but gamers impatience and unrealistic expectations were a problem too.
Just look at Hitman 2016, which is a great example of a game released episodically which gave a good experience, and rendered a great finished product once all episodes were released. The backlash against that lead to publisher issues, cut corners in the sequels, and fundamentally I blame this for the comparatively weak offering they were able to put together for Hitman 3, which has much less content than the earlier entries, in large part because they were self publishing on a budget.
@theheadofabroom Then there is one other issue when you release the complete edition on a disk or digital why should it be discounted.
If you get a fully completed package with everything on disc it should be the other way around you get a lot content, fully patched and finished.
Now they do the crappy move of releasing the game with a downloadcode that is game landfill in the end and if you release the game full priced atleast you see a good return from it.
As much as i understand the secondhand market i understand the hate towards it from the developers you see no i come from it. When i think about the onlinepass atleast a developer sees some money from secondhand market.
I hate episodic and liveservice games alike because of the quality. But liveservice is a bigger issue for me because yeah its like a full priced early access. And you better hope they fix the mess they made.
Look at AC the latest ones a lot of content but bloody hell there are even massive issues with the mainstory that people cant go on and it takes months to fix. I rather see a part 2 then with some other content so they have the time to finish the main game.
Syndicate was the perfect example for me that the game was stretched beyond believe and if you put all the story content in there you would have a great game without those crappy collectables and filler missions.
@Flaming_Kaiser I can see why second-hand games look like an issue, but generally the people buying second-hand never would have bought those games full-price, and the people selling them go on to spend the money on more games, so the amount of money being spent doesn't tend to go down, and many more people get to play games.
I do think that consoles need to look to PC, and notably Steam. When you look at the charts there, there is huge variety in the top 30, even though it's by total revenue which skews it to larger budget releases. There's also a much healthier range of prices, with publishers in control of sales and permanent drops (which for indie generally means the developers themselves). AAA games generally release anywhere from £40 to £100, depending on what they think the buyers will consider it to be worth. AA games fare much better too, and reviews are left by other players, aggregate scores affecting placement on the store, and being used to build up a personalised system for remembering l recommending games you may not have played.
Coming to PlayStation from that was a huge culture shock. It has given some great experiences, especially from first party releases, and it's great to be able to turn on the console and play within seconds, never worrying about hardware compatibility, but it's hard not to also see how much better it could be.
I believe that a higher price for AAA games is justified, because there is a huge work and the result is amazing for 90% of games. For me this rise it is ok and I will support by buying games as much as I can. 😉🙂
@Flaming_Kaiser budgets don't have to be so high to produce a quality game. Are "we" really demanding they spend what they spend in their Hollywood wannabe vanity projects? Would tlou2 have really sold less than 13M without realistic fruit physics animations, or is that a vanity project for creatives and technophiles they want us to subsidize no matter the cost. Is Hades a financial and critical failure on its shoestring budget? How about any big Nintendo game that we all know is made cheap as possible?
Look at the Japanese devs. Even if you're not a fan of the genre, look what they can do with a much smaller budget. Not Sony-affiliated FF bit the rest of the industry. In the A, and AA space they pull off 100 hour narrative opuses with highly regarded complex gameplay systems in a fraction if the budget if their western Hollywood counterparts. Why can't the western devs do that anymore?
They don't budget. They spend spend spend on every tiny detail the creative want to play with without reigning in what's needed to create the planned result. It doesn't have to be that way. But they've convinced enough players to subsidize it they keep doing it
I agree with much of what layden is saying and I like the guy. Miss him. But he's also being hypocritical. He helped push this broken idea, heavily. And in his own words he got the inspiration from the jrpgs. But he left the part where they budget well out of his plan.
I think the problem is today games have a lot of "content"that enhances the game without making it necessarily good. Make a 100 hours triple A game cost money, 100mi is a lot of money for make anything.
I think the big developers have the money to make big projects, and triple A games are ever a good news.
Games are being made better with each generation, and with that progress the costs increase. I also wanted more good quality double A games, but they are getting rarer every day.
@get2sammyb I dont have problem with shorts games, back in the day games are shorts, in my time a action adventure game are 7hours long and rpgs are 20-40 hours long. A good short is better than a game you never finish because its too long or full of boring content.
Multiplayer only games are greath too, many peaple love that so thats not a problem.
Low graphics idem, not a problem, undertale has low graphics and have a lot of history, and many good games are like that.
BUT, games as service? C'mon man, microtransations are the worst thing that happens in the industry in the lasts years.
The community are really hard to like but for the prices the games have now days the developers need to deliver good products. In xbox 360 a new release game cost in my country 20-30 dollars, today a new release game costs 50-60 dollars. For 60 dollars a game need to be really, really good dont you think?
@NEStalgia You say its not a big issue but if its not 4K with all the bells and whistles we do tend to complain. I hear people talk enough about if a game does not score a 8 or higher they wont buy it.
And yes the how long does a game need to be you can go the filler way which i absolutely hate and dont get me started on lifeservice. Ubisoft can be nice but im sorry its nothing like the triple A Sony titles they dont even come close.
But i agree the Japanese have great games and love the but the lack of budget shows a lot sometimes. Look at Dragon Quest Heroes how many pallet swaps can you do and call it day and i love these games. Fairy Tail in town 6 NPC's repeated through everywhere it made me quit the game.
I agree i dont care about the testicals of a horse when its hot or cold with RDR2 or the fruit physics of the Last of Us 2 .
But i loved the Last of Us so much these actors made the character come alive to me. Ghost of Thushima what is there not to like. Yeah ill gladly pay that tenner if i can keep playing them.
Hades looks fantastic but its not the game ill buy a console for call it personal preference. But i agree to that they tone back some nonsense but im certain the game will still be expensive to make and again ill pay that tenner to keep them coming.
@Onigumo I have never seen these prices myself for new games myself maybe the budget games. But i agree i hate liveservice and MT it didnt make gaming any better.
pure GREED. 70 quid a game yea il just keep playing on pc thanks.
@Flaming_Kaiser "we'll" complain about everything, though . The bigger question is would or impact sales or critical reception? Fruit physics, horse balls, the classic "how realistic is the water" from the old days. So much like 4k, better animations, etc doesn't necessarily raise the budget much as the tools advance and automate more with middleware and the platform tools. But then they just find new "because we can and because they'll give us the budget" things to do. We didn't necessarily ask for it, they push it on its and tell us it's what we want. I hate using tlou as an example too much beyond sales because being zombie/horror I have a bias against it's genre from the start, and then add that it's naughty dog, which to me represents everything wrong in the industry and always has, even when it's a game I kinda like... I'll always the the most cynical view of it. But if we back up to GoW,a game I have a much more favorable take on, and really look at it. WTF did that cost what it cost to make. It a good game, but if you take away the cinematic cutscenes and celebrity acting, the reboot isa reboot in tone only. It's still GoW under the hood. It plays like GoW, the level design is the same straight corridor funnel it's been for 3 generations. It's still very much a GoW game through and through. Did it need that budget to take essentially the same game and just add that much graphics? It doesn't add much to physics (it has none) or AI (it's the same standard horde battles and pattern bosses as always).... All they did was add excessively detailed graphics.
Now, I like the game, but the question is, was the budget necessary? If Cory went in and said "ok guys were going to do this on half that budget, so think of what we can cut without harming the game" would the game have been different? Would the narrative have been different? No, the walls might hhave less individually rendered pebbles, the water may be less shiny. Wet may appreciate these details when present, but would we not buy the games without them? Would we enjoy them less without them?
Heck look at psychonauts2. That's the kind of game I buy PlayStations for, yet Sony hasn't been making them. There's a game with great 4k graphics (art style is subjective, and no it's not "realistic"which is the bane obsession of gaming) and it's even packed with top shelf Hollywood actors (they don't even use that for marketing, it's just there), and they did that on a Kickstarter indie budget with a small publisher (though it was finished with boss battles with MS money after the buyout, they didn't even have a budget for localizations.... It's a true A-AA modest budget game. Critically it's exceeding R&C, Sony's excessive budget equivalent (I love that series too. Just making a point about budgets.)
Bottom line is I don't think these excessive budgets are justified, are actually what we want, or actually affect sales. And do affect profitability, diversity, and variety. I think it's mostly what creatives want to play with so long as someone else pays for it, and what marketing believes they can sell, but dug their own hole of expectations in doing so. Not just Sony, but they are the one that keeps whining about the inflated budgets hamstringing them.... They're the one inflating the budgets and passing the cost to us. Only in the film and now game business can out of control budgets not be considered a business failure.
@get2sammyb said "
Gaming industry is in a weird spot where, by and large, I observe dissatisfaction across the board:
8-hour single player game: Not worth the money.
Multiplayer focused game: Why not single player?
Game as a Service: Ewww, microtransactions.
Low-budget graphics: Looks crap.
It feels like you really can't win with the most vocal consumers on sites like this."
Couldn't agree more. Spot on.
Tap here to load 67 comments
Leave A Comment
Hold on there, you need to login to post a comment...