Jump to content

New Pay Model


New Pay Model  

884 members have voted

  1. 1. New Pay Model

    • Yes
      147
    • No
      713
    • Only if it doesn't slow down the rate that new modules are being released
      24


Recommended Posts

I want:

 

Free as it is now for everyone. Helps to build and keep a user base, including the occasional players.

ONE TIME payment for additional content of whatever kind.

 

Subscription and I'd say goodbye. As a working man there are times I can't spend time with DCS (can be weeks) and no way that I have to pay regardless.

 

Precisely the same here.

HANGAR

JETS : FlamingCliffs 3 | MiG-21bis | Mirage 2000C | F-14A/B | F-16C | F/A-18C

HELIS : Mi-8MTV2

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 582
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I've played games on a subscription model, and came to resent them. With that monthly bill (even if it was paid in advance, quarterly or annually) I felt an almost obligation to play because that's what I was paying for to the point where I started neglecting other games or interests of mine. Gradually they became almost an albatross hung from my neck

 

I don't need that. If I need to step away from DCS for weeks, then so be it. Ive made a substantial financial contribution already, as have most of us, to the point where I've purchased modules I have little interest in simply to support devs. I want to be able to focus on other interests or obligations in life without worrying about getting my use out of a subscription, or whether it's worth renewing, or whatever

 

The system, as it currently exists, isn't in need of an overhaul. It works fine

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] DCS: The most expensive free game you'll ever play

 

 

 

Modules: All of them

System:

 

I9-9900k, ROG Maximus , 32gb ram, RTX2070 Founder's Edition, t16000,hotas, pedals & cougar MFD, HP Reverb 1.2, HTC VIVE

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 - No subscription … DCS Modules cost are very expensives. We are ready pay in full the modules.

 

2 - We need a final and full operational modules... not have beta modules for years …

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thats a big NO from me. With the current model, the onus is on the developers to work hard and fast to get out new modules to keep the $$ rolling in. With $$ rolling in without having to necessarily 'earn' it (not being facetious - I know devs earn $$ for what they do), there is potentially a lack of urgency there.

Then you ask yourself, at what point do you know you're getting value for money? I'm in Aust. Our exch rates are crap. Everything that comes out is USD which is almost double for us. So if its say US$40 that could be potentially AUD$70/month. What happens if I can't pay for that month? Do I suddenly lose access to all my modules? to online play?

 

No thanks.

AMD AM4 Ryzen7 3700X 3.6ghz/MSI AM4 ATX MAG X570 Tomahawk DDR4/32GB DDR4 G.Skill 3600mhz/1TB 970 Evo SSD/ASUS RTX2070 8gb Super

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...

Come on guys, thats stupid.

 

Nobody is talking about 40 Dollars. Those subscriptions range from 5 to 10 Dollars, witch is basically nothing.

 

The point is: every company needs a more or less stable cashflow in order to hire, plan and develop. And unless ED has the most amazing crystal ball on the planet, they have no chance of forecasting their monthy income. How on gods green earth are you supposed to plan on that basis?

 

There is a reason why the big shots are moving away from a "pay once/use forever" model towards a subscription. It's simply the more stable way of making money and therefor to run a business. Because let's be honest - even the guys at ED need a salary at the end of the month. Thoses sales have to cover the cost of development, future support and maintaining the core of the game. And all of that on a base where you do not know how much money you make on a module?

 

Besides - I'm shure that they would be able to drop the prices for new stuff pretty much, because they do not have to calculate a "panic fee" in case it does not sell like they anticipated.

 

From a business point of view: Free2Play with DLC's may work for games like pubg or apex, but not for a niche simulation like DCS. Period.

System: MSI MEG Z390 Godlike / I9-9900K @5.0 with full custom Watercooling / Gigabyte Geforce 2080Ti Waterforce / 4x 16 GB DDR 4@3200MHZ / Oculus Rift S / Thrustmaster Warthog / Thrustmaster Cougar MFD

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Support your local Getränkemarkt

Link to post
Share on other sites
Would be in favor of a subscription service, ONLY if it meant hiring additional developers to work steadily on core game mechanics that are outdated, and in keeping existing products current and it good working order. Think this idea has merit tbh.

 

Exactly… I'm not a fan of subscription model, but with the actual model they're goin' on the wall…

Link to post
Share on other sites

No one likes subscriptions. I dont either. I refuse to pay the 3 euro or whatever for my ring doorbell. I refuse to pay in app subscription fees for my smart thermostat. It doesnt matter how low the amount, I bought the hardware, I dont want a service I could easily do myself if only ring allowed me to store my own videos or tado let me decide if Im home or not instead of charging me a fee to determine that based on my GPS coordinates (yes, really).

 

But I do think the idea has merit for something like DCS as it aligns our and EDs incentives so much better. ED is a company, it has staff to pay, it has shareholders to please. The current model gives them only incentives to be focused more on new paying modules, release those modules (way too) early, and doing things that bring in dough but hurt us overall like fragmenting the community with paying map modules or carriers.

 

It also provides them with much less incentive to improve or fix the base layers. Why focus on VR performance when no is paying for a "VR module", why have people work on unpaid under the hood stuff like new weather models when you can instead assign your expensive salaried developers to work on a new module that will actually provide revenue? How can they afford to keep working on DCS world platform when they dont regularly release new paying modules?

 

They should absolutely keep the free version to onboard new players, but once people are hooked, I think its fine to have a subscription based model. Maybe even just for online play or to get access to all the modules. But the a model where you pay 60 euro once, and then expect the game to continue to evolve and expand and improve for the next 10 years is simply not sustainable.


Edited by Vertigo72
Link to post
Share on other sites
Exactly… I'm not a fan of subscription model, but with the actual model they're goin' on the wall…

 

 

Exactly that. It's not pleasent if you have to commit to something in a financial way, but the way they'r on right know is not going to work. Simply because as Vertigo72 also stated their only income is the early release of new stuff. And the more incomplete the new modules are going to get, the more people will not buy them in the beginning, reducing the cashflow even more. The wheels of the bus go round & round...

System: MSI MEG Z390 Godlike / I9-9900K @5.0 with full custom Watercooling / Gigabyte Geforce 2080Ti Waterforce / 4x 16 GB DDR 4@3200MHZ / Oculus Rift S / Thrustmaster Warthog / Thrustmaster Cougar MFD

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Support your local Getränkemarkt

Link to post
Share on other sites

The point here is, most people don't want to commit to pay while they use the content, but they expect ED to get some money once and commit to maintain support and keep up to date forever.

 

I also hate subscriptions but +1 for ED implementing it in some form ONLY if this will mean better and polished overall product with resolved, maintained and timely updated content with equal quality.

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Link to post
Share on other sites

5$ per month isn't a great deal for us, and I believe it will maintain ED. I'd go for that

| A-10C | MiG-21bis | Hawk T1.A | L-39 Albatros | F-5E | Ka-50 | Mi-8 | NTTR | CA | SU27 | M2000C | F-86F | AV-8B | F/A-18C | Mig 15 | Mig 19|

Specs

 

Intel i7-9700k

msi GTX 2060 Gaming Z

msi Z390 Gaming PLUS

16gb RAM

Hotas Warthog

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

No. I am against a subscription. I want to buy a game and then enjoy it for as long as I want like if it was a book or a record. If ED wants to release paid versions every two years like MSFS and other franchises, that is better than a subscription because then I can continue playing the older version and choose whether and when to upgrade.

 

Paid upgrades would give an opportunity to ED to fix the stuff that is not yet satisfactory (track recording, AI) without losing money. A module such as a new map or the supercarrier (or a future improved ATC) could each be/have been part of a paid upgrade, as an incentive for existing customers to upgrade, and an incentive for ED to release them only when finished.

 

It could reduce the temptation for ED to release plane modules too early (unfinished).


Edited by Pyker
More details
Link to post
Share on other sites
Come on guys, thats stupid.

 

Nobody is talking about 40 Dollars. Those subscriptions range from 5 to 10 Dollars, witch is basically nothing.

 

Okay, except this could net them less money than the current model, especially when 80% of people want to keep the current model, and are strongly against subscriptions.

 

For instance I've poured about $875 :surprise: into DCS over 5 years - or on average roughly $175 per year or about $15 per month. So a subscription would have to be at least that expensive just to attain parity with the current model. Of course taking me as a baseline, and I exclusively purchase stuff when it's discounted (often by a significant amount), of course not everyone owns as many modules as I do, but not everyone waits for sales either.

 

Comparing it to me personally, $5 - $10 is objectively worse for ED, in the case of $5 it's 67% worse! You guys proposing a subscription model really need to look at the maths of this.

 

The point is: every company needs a more or less stable cashflow in order to hire, plan and develop. And unless ED has the most amazing crystal ball on the planet, they have no chance of forecasting their monthy income. How on gods green earth are you supposed to plan on that basis?

 

Yes but you're assuming a stable income can only be achieved through a subscription and that the current model isn't working. How many flight simulators charge a subscription again?

 

There is a reason why the big shots are moving away from a "pay once/use forever" model towards a subscription. It's simply the more stable way of making money and therefor to run a business. Because let's be honest - even the guys at ED need a salary at the end of the month. Thoses sales have to cover the cost of development, future support and maintaining the core of the game. And all of that on a base where you do not know how much money you make on a module?

 

They move to a subscription because it nets them way more money at the expense of the users, often pricing people out of using their software - it's basically just greed.

 

Look at Autodesk and Adobe... Used to be able to pay a hefty price but it's yours forever, now you pay more than that hefty price (by a long way in some cases) every 4 years.

 

From a business point of view: Free2Play with DLC's may work for games like pubg or apex, but not for a niche simulation like DCS. Period.

 

Citation very much needed.

 

Pretty much every niche simulation I can think of uses either F2P + DLC, or has a paid base client + paid DLC from the get go, not a subscription.


Edited by Northstar98

Modules I own: F-14A/B, F/A-18C, Supercarrier, F-16CM, AJS-37, F-5E-3, MiG-21bis, Ka-50, A-10C (+ A-10C II), UH-1H, Mi-8MTV2, P-47D, P-51D, FC3, MiG-15bis, Yak-52, CA, C-101, Hawk

Terrains I own: Syria, The Channel, SoH

 

System (RIP my old PC): Dell XPS 15 9570 w/ Intel i7-8750H, NVIDIA GTX 1050Ti Max-Q, 16GB DDR4, 500GB Samsung PM871 SSD (upgraded with 1TB Samsung 970 EVO Plus SSD)

 

VKB Gunfighter Mk.II w. MCG Pro

 

Dreams: https://uk.pcpartpicker.com/list/mBG4dD

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah but ED are reliant on the OB in order to do mass testing and bug reporting, without having to pour tonnes of money and resources to do it in house. The current system is, in Nick Grey's (ED's founder) words it's the most efficient way, by miles.

 

 

From around 17:00 - 25:00

 

Personally this video from the times I've shown should be mandatory viewing for anyone downloading DCS.


Edited by Northstar98

Modules I own: F-14A/B, F/A-18C, Supercarrier, F-16CM, AJS-37, F-5E-3, MiG-21bis, Ka-50, A-10C (+ A-10C II), UH-1H, Mi-8MTV2, P-47D, P-51D, FC3, MiG-15bis, Yak-52, CA, C-101, Hawk

Terrains I own: Syria, The Channel, SoH

 

System (RIP my old PC): Dell XPS 15 9570 w/ Intel i7-8750H, NVIDIA GTX 1050Ti Max-Q, 16GB DDR4, 500GB Samsung PM871 SSD (upgraded with 1TB Samsung 970 EVO Plus SSD)

 

VKB Gunfighter Mk.II w. MCG Pro

 

Dreams: https://uk.pcpartpicker.com/list/mBG4dD

Link to post
Share on other sites
Okay, except this could net them less money than the current model, especially when 80% of people want to keep the current model, and are strongly against subscriptions.

 

For instance I've poured about $875 :surprise: into DCS over 5 years - or on average roughly $175 per year or about $15 per month. So a subscription would have to be at least that expensive just to attain parity with the current model. Of course taking me as a baseline, and I exclusively purchase stuff when it's discounted (often by a significant amount), of course not everyone owns as many modules as I do, but not everyone waits for sales either.

 

Comparing it to me personally, $5 - $10 is objectively worse for ED, in the case of $5 it's 67% worse! You guys proposing a subscription model really need to look at the maths of this.

 

 

 

Yes but you're assuming a stable income can only be achieved through a subscription and that the current model isn't working. How many flight simulators charge a subscription again?

 

 

 

They move to a subscription because it nets them way more money at the expense of the users, often pricing people out of using their software - it's basically just greed.

 

Look at Autodesk and Adobe... Used to be able to pay a hefty price but it's yours forever, now you pay more than that hefty price (by a long way in some cases) every 4 years.

 

 

 

Citation very much needed.

 

Pretty much every niche simulation I can think of uses either F2P + DLC, or has a paid base client + paid DLC from the get go, not a subscription.

No one said the the modules should be in that fee. The fee would basically go into the Code of the Sim and would include the maps, since that is what makes the heart of the Sim.

 

Since there are a lot of third Partys involved, you can not include their work into that. So yes, you pay 5 bucks, i dont think thats gonna hurt anybody, you get the maps and pay maybe a little less for each module.

 

And 5 bucks times the amount of players minus taxes could improve a lot.

 

Gesendet von meinem SM-N975F mit Tapatalk

System: MSI MEG Z390 Godlike / I9-9900K @5.0 with full custom Watercooling / Gigabyte Geforce 2080Ti Waterforce / 4x 16 GB DDR 4@3200MHZ / Oculus Rift S / Thrustmaster Warthog / Thrustmaster Cougar MFD

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Support your local Getränkemarkt

Link to post
Share on other sites
No one said the the modules should be in that fee. The fee would basically go into the Code of the Sim and would include the maps, since that is what makes the heart of the Sim.

 

How is this supposed to work? So on top of modules I have to pay a flat rate that on average (for me) costs me 33% more. What would happen to the modules I already own, if I can't use the base client?

 

It would make more sense for ED to charge for the base client instead of being completely free, and offer upgrade packs - exactly the same thing as P3D/FSX.

 

Since there are a lot of third Partys involved, you can not include their work into that. So yes, you pay 5 bucks, i dont think thats gonna hurt anybody, you get the maps and pay maybe a little less for each module.
Okay, but if I'm paying extra, so I can save money on modules, where's the advantage either way? They cancel each other out.

 

And if you think nobody is gonna get hurt on $5 a month, you're simply not doing the maths.

 

Fact is, that with the current system, provided players buy modules, developers can make a lot more than $5 a month. Even so I don't think an extra $5 a month, per player is going to fix much of anything.


Edited by Northstar98

Modules I own: F-14A/B, F/A-18C, Supercarrier, F-16CM, AJS-37, F-5E-3, MiG-21bis, Ka-50, A-10C (+ A-10C II), UH-1H, Mi-8MTV2, P-47D, P-51D, FC3, MiG-15bis, Yak-52, CA, C-101, Hawk

Terrains I own: Syria, The Channel, SoH

 

System (RIP my old PC): Dell XPS 15 9570 w/ Intel i7-8750H, NVIDIA GTX 1050Ti Max-Q, 16GB DDR4, 500GB Samsung PM871 SSD (upgraded with 1TB Samsung 970 EVO Plus SSD)

 

VKB Gunfighter Mk.II w. MCG Pro

 

Dreams: https://uk.pcpartpicker.com/list/mBG4dD

Link to post
Share on other sites
No one said the the modules should be in that fee.

 

Actually, I am saying that.

 

The goal should not be to raise overall costs, the primary goal should be to align player interests with ED interest. Like many, I really want ED to spend more resources on fixing the game core and existing modules. But no one pays for that. The only way we financially support ED is by buying (new) modules and that achieves the exact opposite, as that gives them to signal and incentive to make even more new unfinished modules and rush new features that enable them, and force everyone on the open beta branch and do more early access releases that break the game for everyone.

 

A subscription fee aligns our interest. It removes pressure from ED to release new unfinished stuff that breaks the game and puts pressure on them to keep players happy by doing what they want them to do. Like not breaking the game.

 

But introducing a subscription fee on top of a module price is extremely unfair. Some people have already spent 500+ euro on modules, and no one ever warned them they would need to pay a monthly fee on top of that.

 

An optional subscription fee that replaces or complements module sale solves that (and solves a ton of other problems too, like chicken and egg problems with new maps no server uses because no one has them or empty ww2 servers etc).


Edited by Vertigo72
Link to post
Share on other sites
How is this supposed to work? So on top of modules I have to pay a flat rate that on average (for me) costs me 33% more. What would happen to the modules I already own, if I can't use the base client?

 

It would make more sense for ED to charge for the base client instead of being completely free, and offer upgrade packs - exactly the same thing as P3D/FSX.

 

Okay, but if I'm paying extra, so I can save money on modules, where's the advantage either way? They cancel each other out.

 

And if you think nobody is gonna get hurt on $5 a month, you're simply not doing the maths.

 

Fact is, that with the current system, provided players buy modules, developers can make a lot more than $5 a month. Even so I don't think an extra $5 a month, per player is going to fix much of anything.

No they do not cancel each other out. You have to calculate a certain amount into the price of a module, in case it flops or does not get sold the way you calculated.. That amount is not needed, if you can get the income from some place else, in this case the fee for a subscribtion.

If you do not want to get the subscribtion, you get the world you already have for free, but of course without further Updates like for example the vulkan engine. That way you get exactly what you paid for. The module and a map without further updates. That could work from the mariana map onwards. The maps you already bought could be calculated into some sort of Voucher, like for example a free year on the new payment model.

 

Its actually not rocket sience once you think it through.

 

By the way... 5 bucks is just a shot in the dark. And what do you mean by "if you think 5 bucks aint gonna hurt anybody your simply not doing the math."

 

Well here you go: I take my monthly income, take 5 bucks of of it and I'm still fine. Math done. Happy?

 

 

Gesendet von meinem SM-N975F mit Tapatalk


Edited by OPEC

System: MSI MEG Z390 Godlike / I9-9900K @5.0 with full custom Watercooling / Gigabyte Geforce 2080Ti Waterforce / 4x 16 GB DDR 4@3200MHZ / Oculus Rift S / Thrustmaster Warthog / Thrustmaster Cougar MFD

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Support your local Getränkemarkt

Link to post
Share on other sites
Actually, I am saying that.

 

The goal should not be to raise overall costs, the primary goal should be to align player interests with ED interest. Like many, I really want ED to spend more resources on fixing the game core and existing modules. But no one pays for that. The only way we financially support ED is by buying (new) modules and that achieves the exact opposite, as that gives them to signal and incentive to make even more new unfinished modules and rush new features that enable them, and force everyone on the open beta branch and do more early access releases that break the game for everyone.

 

A subscription fee aligns our interest. It removes pressure from ED to release new unfinished stuff that breaks the game and puts pressure on them to keep players happy by doing what they want them to do. Like not breaking the game.

 

But introducing a subscription fee on top of a module price is extremely unfair. Some people have already spent 500+ euro on modules, and no one ever warned them they would need to pay a monthly fee on top of that.

 

An optional subscription fee that replaces or complements module sale solves that (and solves a ton of other problems too, like chicken and egg problems with new maps no server uses because no one has them or empty ww2 servers etc).

But you have to raise overall costs. Thats the hole point of the exercise. If there would be enough income to develop more, faster and better, they would shurly do it. And with the current payment model there is no way on earth you can align the players and ED's interest.

 

A monthly subscribtion can only decrease the price of new modules by the "fear factor", witch is basically the amount of money you have to calculate into the price of a module in case it does not sell well.

 

Gesendet von meinem SM-N975F mit Tapatalk

System: MSI MEG Z390 Godlike / I9-9900K @5.0 with full custom Watercooling / Gigabyte Geforce 2080Ti Waterforce / 4x 16 GB DDR 4@3200MHZ / Oculus Rift S / Thrustmaster Warthog / Thrustmaster Cougar MFD

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Support your local Getränkemarkt

Link to post
Share on other sites
But you have to raise overall costs. Thats the hole point of the exercise.

 

Thats certainly not my goal. And I cant judge if its a necessity or not, I dont have insights in to ED finances. Do you?

 

If there would be enough income to develop more, faster and better, they would shurly do it.

 

That is not the main problem. Most of us do no want "more" (modules) or "faster" (release of modules). Certainly not nearly as badly as we want the DCS world base layer fixed and improved and age old bugs in existing modules fixed. Why is ED not spending as many resources on that as on, say super carrier? Because no one pays for a better graphics engine, or VR fixes, or AI, or recording and playing back tracks, or <insert 1135 old problems here> where as super carrier, even when barely functional, even when breaking the game for people who are not interested in it (but forced on the OB servers that run them), does pay ED bills.

 

If you had run a poll last year which matters more to you; having more acceptable frame rates in VR, improved weather model or having a larger carrier with human models on the deck, what do you think would have gotten more votes? Im guessing not the carrier. But by having a module sale business model rather than a subscription one, doing what we want does not pay EDs bills. It often costs them money. While doing what many of us do NOT want, does pay the bills. We can not vote with our wallets. Every time we pay ED for something, it sends them the opposite signal, gives them incentive to produce more (unfinished, game breaking) modules rather then spend resources on fixing our problems. THAT is the problem.


Edited by Vertigo72
Link to post
Share on other sites
That is not the main problem. Most of us do no want "more" (modules) or "faster" (release of modules).

 

Every time we pay ED for something, it sends them the opposite signal, gives them incentive to produce more (unfinished, game breaking) modules rather then spend resources on fixing our problems. THAT is the problem.

 

I agree that it is the problem. "Perverse incentives" some people call that (I heard).

 

But I disagree with a solution forcing me to pay every month even if I have only one hour available to play that particular month.

 

I prefer to buy a new iteration every two years (ok, even every year) IF I decide, based on reviews, that it is a worthy upgrade, and that my PC can still run it. I prefer the possibility to skip the upgrades that I do not need or that I do not WANT (e.g. because an update becomes too much for my PC, which is more or less whart's happening to me now with 2.5.6). Same as for FS or xplane.

Link to post
Share on other sites

But I disagree with a solution forcing me to pay every month even if I have only one hour available to play that particular month.

 

Thats why I suggest to make the scheme optional. You can buy modules and own them in perpetuity like now, or you can sign up for a subscription model where you "pay as you go". And since the marginal cost of giving users access to more modules is zero to ED, such a scheme could allow users to have access to all modules, or at least all map modules, or they can make it tiered so that you can pick a certain number of modules depending how much you want to pay or whatever, you can make it as flexible as you want.

 

The two schemes arent even mutually exclusive. You could (and should) give people who already own modules credit towards the subscription based model, so if you already own 20 modules, instead of being angry you are asked to pay a subscription on top, you would get enjoy the new system for perhaps a few years free of charge, or heavily discounted, as you would have no incentive to pay for it anyhow - unless or until a lot new modules have arrived. And vice versa, once users have paid in to the subscription model for X months, you could award them with perpetual module licenses for their favorite planes, so even if they stop paying, that money isnt wasted.

 

There are countless ways of doing this, and Im not saying I know how to do it exactly, but in general, ED being more reliant on people being generally happy about their work and wanting to keep paying their sub, than being reliant solely on creating ever more new early access modules that break stuff that gets everyone angry, and that may never all get fixed properly, has got to be a good thing.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Thats why I suggest to make the scheme optional.

 

you can make it as flexible as you want.

 

The two schemes arent even mutually exclusive.

 

Please don't get mad but to me it sounds more to me like 'you can make it as complicated as you want.'

I admit I am not very smart but...

I don't understand why anybody would want to get into such an optional scheme. Or how that would create an incentive for ED to fix stuff in the core DCS world app (graphics, AI, etc).

 

But I admit I have problems with the complicated stuff in DCS in general (radar modes etc.) ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites

The answer to this is... it depends...

If I’m going to have to pay a subscription per module that I’ve already paid for... then no. I paid the money for those modules in good faith that ED would deliver them in working form at some point. If I’m now expected to pay a subscription for updates that rectify issues with the modules I’ve already paid for then no.

If they were to change their model to a subscription service on the basis of access to new content then I’d be open to it, but I’d want to see the Ts and Cs first. Particularly since I’m not a multiplayer dude, I play on my own (by choice).

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...