Gamifying Guns

 Pages 1 2 NEXT
 

Gamifying Guns

Marketing real-life guns to gamers.

Read Full Article

If you're hunting animals with a rifle, you're already cheating. The animal isn't wearing a protective vest.

If you want 'man vs. nature', take a week off from work and wander naked into the woods someplace and survive for a week. But if you drive to some park in your air conditioned SUV, deck yourself out in modern hunting gear with scopes and GPS and all the fixings, and take down some animal with a brain the size of a box of staples from 200 yards away with a high-powered rifle, you ain't giving nature a chance.

Fashion a bow and arrow out of resources scrounged from the wilderness and I'll hail you as a god walking among men. But I'm just not impressed by something a man can teach his 12 year old son to do between Saturday morning cartoons and lunch at Taco Bell.

That said the computer-assisted rifle is one step closer to a fully automated human-less battlefield and I for one welcome it. The sooner we have robots populating the battlefields instead of humans, the better off we'll all be.

itsthesheppy:
If you're hunting animals with a rifle, you're already cheating. The animal isn't wearing a protective vest.

If you want 'man vs. nature', take a week off from work and wander naked into the woods someplace and survive for a week. But if you drive to some park in your air conditioned SUV, deck yourself out in modern hunting gear with scopes and GPS and all the fixings, and take down some animal with a brain the size of a box of staples from 200 yards away with a high-powered rifle, you ain't giving nature a chance.

Fashion a bow and arrow out of resources scrounged from the wilderness and I'll hail you as a god walking among men. But I'm just not impressed by something a man can teach his 12 year old son to do between Saturday morning cartoons and lunch at Taco Bell.

That said the computer-assisted rifle is one step closer to a fully automated human-less battlefield and I for one welcome it. The sooner we have robots populating the battlefields instead of humans, the better off we'll all be.

I can't say I disagree with the first point, the idea of killing as a sport, rather than for sustenance in any way shape or form strikes me as somewhat anachronistically barbaric in a world where we generally have such a great advantage over the local wildlife.
Yes though, if someone found themselves in a position where they HAD to Jason Brody it, I would deem that 100% cool and worthy of praise.

As for human-less battlefields? not going to happen, sure maybe our lovely first world militaries will be replaced with shiny metal gears and the like... that doesn't really do much for the civilians we are vapourising for being in the wrong place at the wrong time in "them terrorist countries".
Even if we could remove the human element entirely from war, I am reminded of the comment (I believe) by Robert E Lee: "It is good that war is so terrible, else we would grow too fond of it", making war more of a game than the CoD and Battlefield games try and sell it as, strikes me as uniquely foolish.

Regardless, the whole idea of the games industry having anything to do with weapon manafacturers I find uniquely terrifying

This is quite scary indeed. I am personally already against fire arms, but I understand why forbidding them now wouldn't work and respect most of the opinions in favor of them. I think we can agree though, that this is very troubling.

itsthesheppy:

That said the computer-assisted rifle is one step closer to a fully automated human-less battlefield and I for one welcome it. The sooner we have robots populating the battlefields instead of humans, the better off we'll all be.

Until the robots turn on their masters! Then we're fucked!

I think the only thing standing in the way of war-bots is ethics. No one wants a robot to accidentally kill someone we don't want killed. Even though we do that ourselves already so I don't see the difference. Hell, near the start of the latest war in Afghanistan, an American pilot rocketed the shit of 5 Canadian ground soldiers. Woops! Even though he was told not to shoot. A robot wouldn't have fucked up that bad.

Coming from an outside perspective, I doubt they understand the subtleties of how the gaming community views the relationship between digital guns and real guns - namely, that the two should cross over as little as possible. The reason most of us feel comfortable with digital violence is that it takes place separately from reality, safe within the confines of our flatscreens and computer monitors. When those two worlds merge, whether by simulating real gun optics on an iPhone or aiming a real hunting rifle downrange at mechs, it creates a palpable sense of disquiet.

What a horrible generalization.

All of my real life gamer buddies got a kick out of this thing, a few of us were actually considering pooling up some money to get the 22k version of the system and rifle.

And as we are such nerds we are actually working on custom sights for our other rifles that would integrate with a backpack laptop and the Oculus Rift once it comes out.

So maybe YOU think they should be crossed over as little as possible, but there are a lot of people who enjoy both activities who dont mind the cross over.

rasputin0009:
Hell, near the start of the latest war in Afghanistan, an American pilot rocketed the shit of 5 Canadian ground soldiers. Woops! Even though he was told not to shoot. A robot wouldn't have fucked up that bad.

Robots wouldn't have been ordered to take an arseload of amphetamines to keep up with the heavy mission load they were saddled with.

RhombusHatesYou:

rasputin0009:
Hell, near the start of the latest war in Afghanistan, an American pilot rocketed the shit of 5 Canadian ground soldiers. Woops! Even though he was told not to shoot. A robot wouldn't have fucked up that bad.

Robots wouldn't have been ordered to take an arseload of amphetamines to keep up with the heavy mission load they were saddled with.

Amphetamines are meant to keep you alert, not make you retarded.

Oh great someone built a real life aimbot. However I don't see the point if the machine dose all the work for you where is the challenge? I'm not a firearms fan but I can see and understand the point of rifle shooting. I live in the UK and despite what Americans think rifles and shotguns are common and I have used them both. The lack of natural predators means humans have to actively keep down wildlife populations and that involves guns, but you don't $17000 rifle to shoot rabbits and pigeons.

I really do hope that company that makes the rifle has setup up the code so it does not lock on to human shaped targets. You could make that a selling point, reduction of hunting accidents would be a good safety feature.

I must admit, though, if lightweight camera tech was available in the late 80s and early 90s I'd probably have taped a camera to my boarspear for when I was out hunting with my mates.

albino boo:
you don't $17000 rifle to shoot rabbits

You don't need anything except a highpowered flashlight to hunt rabbits.

That is terrifying. Simultaneously the best and worst thing about technology is that it makes everything easier to do.

I'm with you, Robert; I think it's only a matter of time before someone is killed with this, and then the legal hammer will descend.

rasputin0009:
Amphetamines are meant to keep you alert, not make you retarded.

But regardless of the intended purpose, they do both.

In the end people don't spend thousands of dollars tricking out their cars because they NEED to get to work as fast as possible every morning or even really to outrun police, even though that was the original reason people wanted to trick out their cars.

Guns aren't much different, they're just expensive and "manly" toys for "manly" men who want to feel manly. So if it's all tricked out like this, people will buy it, regardless of what kind of activities they do with it. Chances are they will just do long-range target shooting with it once in a while. Some may actually hunt with it, but hunting is little more than a game grown men can play with their manly man toys, not really a necessity (although as someone who has had venison, I don't have that much of a problem with it).

It does present and issue of giving anyone a higher capability of making long-range shots that would take years of training and experience to hit before, which is a bit troubling.

Thunderous Cacophony:
I'm with you, Robert; I think it's only a matter of time before someone is killed with this, and then the legal hammer will descend.

It won't, even if someone uses this system to spread twenty police officers thinly over the street their connection to the infrastructure behind it will ensure no consequences end up at the feet of 'the industry' whether it was games or guns that got the blame.

There's a veritable army of lobbyist fighting to ensure the status quo remains intact!

However, I can see these things turning up in Mexico and killing large numbers of people, anyone can be an assassin, just give him an embedded position and one of these, you never have to show your face...

1. Free enterprise so market your product to the people who will buy em.
2. As a former military member almost ALL of the people I worked with were gamers and military people love to buy guns...
3. If you want to say that something COULD be used for not so nice things, and we should not make them because of that. Well we all need to live in mud huts and get rid of EVERYTHING that could be pointy, or dangerous...
4. Before anyone says guns are made to kill people no they are not they are made to send a projectile at a target. The problem is the jackass pulling the trigger that we need to deal with.

How about we get some equally brilliant minds to develop affordable effective and comfortable bulletproofing, maybe like the Borderlands style shields?

I'm pretty sure once things like the PGF start dropping in price and become available to the world that can't afford $20k guns that I'd like to be bulletproofed 24-7

Is it out of line to say that I want that gun? Because I want that gun.

This is freaking scary and disturbing. It's gun fetish taken to very unnerving extremes. Gun training is not just about knowing how to shoot, it's also about knowing when and why to shoot. I doubt this company or their program does any of the latter, but it sure does the former. It won't be long before some gun-loving dude with surplus income with no restraint training will accidentally (or not) kill someone. Yay.

albino boo:
I really do hope that company that makes the rifle has setup up the code so it does not lock on to human shaped targets. You could make that a selling point, reduction of hunting accidents would be a good safety feature.

I'm pretty sure it would take very little time before someone finds out how to crack and remove that restriction.

Coming soon to a rampage near you!

For good or ill, we're going to see more games in the future developed by corporations to feature their products, and some of these will conflict with how gaming culture sees itself, and will shape how the outside world sees us as well.

Not to turn this into another "the end is nigh" thread, but that was a big part of why the crash of '83 happened: companies in unrelated industries making games to flog their products. That's why there were games made by companies like Colgate and Quaker Oats on the Atari 2600.

OT: This is an... interesting development. The gun itself is scary enough, and I say this as someone who goes target shooting on a semi-regular basis. That thing does not sound like a civilian weapons system at all, if anything it sounds like something out of a piece of military sci fi. The app is disquieting in its own way too, although the more I think about it, the less I think about it, and the more I think of the gun it's meant to sell. The whole marketing to gamers thing is actually good news, if other industries start figuring it out. It means they're finally recognizing that there are adults out there gaming with their own money, rather than kids using their parents' money. That's a significant step towards finally getting the old farts to stop using videogames as a scapegoat, and start looking for a new boogeyman. I used to think that had already happened, but apparently all it takes is a panicked NRA to get it going again.

slash2x:
(4). Before anyone says guns are made to kill people no they are not they are made to send a projectile at a target. The problem is the jackass pulling the trigger that we need to deal with.

I would argue that guns are made to kill. Whether animals or humans, the whole idea behind a black powder propelled bullet is to cause to harm. Society may now frown upon the harm part and hope that firearms are merely used for entertainment and target shooting, but harm is the original purpose.

That being said, I will agree that majority of us or (somewhat) mature, responsible adults that know the difference between right and wrong, inappropriate behaviour, and rash action. However, not all humans are. There are immoral, psychopathic, insane beings out there. They use what tools and weapons they can to inflict as much harm, pain, and suffering as they can.

The fear here is that this sort of technology will make it even easier for the average person to shoot people from increasingly 'safe' distances.

The concern is that if/when this incident occurs, the scapegoat will be leveled at games because of how it was marketed, becuase of the training app. An unfair analysis, but there it is.

Again, I agree that problem lies with the person, but not everyone sees it that way.

In fact, from a certain point of view, the 'game' sounds amazingly benign. Anyone who thinks that the training app turned the nice person into a bloody thirsty killer would be completely bonkers.

Also throwing my hat into the, "This idea kind of freaks me out," ring.

two words that video games don't "teach" you about a rifle: "eye relief"

Good luck hitting anything past 100 meters if you don't know how to properly look down the sights of a rifle.

OT: since when does technology closing the gap on old technology instantly correlate with video games? Since when did children/young adults not fantasize about being a solder/warrior/knight/legionnaire?

Your worrying about a social issue that has been around for much longer than you or I. Until they can find out what gene that is and remove it, your fear of people blaming video games for something that has been around for a very long time will continue to march on or until they find something else to blame, I vote down with Twitter!

Trigger bots. Who would have expected cheats to find the way into the real life.

Did you know that if you play Terraria backwards you will become mind-controlled by Satan Himself?

The auto-targeting advancement (and note that we're at the beginning of this technological development) was inevitable. And we saw it coming.

But, you know, so were crossbows. And I'm sure some longbow veterans lamented that these newfangled (resurfacing) weapons were ruining the spirit of war (or of hunting or marksmanship) since training with one was little more than a week. And yes, new tech is scary. Pope Innocent II passed a bull proscribing using crossbows...against Christians. Yet, if a new weapon helps us kill more infidels Ottomans Huns heretics catholics Nazis Soviets terrorists, well then lock and load![1]

What's scary to me isn't that people will become more deadly with less training, but that this aiming system can be attacked to a drone or a BigDog and can become the next extra-judicial CIA assassination toy. Because our current administration likes extra-judicial CIA licenses to kill (currently at 50 civilian casualties per "high-value" neutralization, but that's a personal grievance)

Regarding madmen, what keeps us alive and safe from rampage killers is not the slow advance of technology (there will always be ways around that) it's that amok madness manifests rarely enough that their death toll is very low. (Also we're getting better at stopping amok killers from popping off.) By far, the most of us are really averse to killing people...or, really, any creatures, for reals. And we're remarkably averse to disobeying the law (even when the law is stupid or dangerous to follow).

Regarding senators, some of us who've studied American history recognize that sometimes senators need shooting. I think we as a country miss the era in which senators were nervous about the dangers of revolution turning violent.[2] It might be nice to see our senators start behaving like they really don't want to be shot, and acknowledge that no-one has actually shot them on account of everyone choosing not to do so.[3]

Anyway, at some point this tech will be better, easier and commonplace, and wouldn't it be nice if the number of gun deaths of innocent bystanders from stray fire were drastically reduced?

TL: DR: Technology and progress goes on. This is not a surprise. This won't increase rampage deaths, but may make our senators more nervous (and I see that as a good thing).

238U

[1] The great exceptions always seem to be the tools too blunt for anything short of total war: Nukes, deadly chemicals, biological contagions. If we created a cloud of self-replicating nanobots that only killed those with specific genetic markers, then Boom goes London and boom Paree...
[2] Note how the peaceful OWS demonstration was cleaned up by law enforcement, discreetly at night at the behest of corporate influences on the state. When someone does shoot a senator, they can point at things like that and say "we said our piece and no-one listened."
[3] And yes, I know this resonates with typical pro-gun vitriol, but this is one of their points I agree with: People in high places who aren't afraid of us proletarians tend to lose touch with our tribulations until we bust out the guillotines. And then it's too late.

slash2x:
1. Free enterprise so market your product to the people who will buy em.
2. As a former military member almost ALL of the people I worked with were gamers and military people love to buy guns...
3. If you want to say that something COULD be used for not so nice things, and we should not make them because of that. Well we all need to live in mud huts and get rid of EVERYTHING that could be pointy, or dangerous...
4. Before anyone says guns are made to kill people no they are not they are made to send a projectile at a target. The problem is the jackass pulling the trigger that we need to deal with.

Semi automatic rifles only have one real use and that is to kill people. They are useless for hunting and target shooting. Yes you can kill someone with a car but you can drive to work in one, you can stab someone with a kitchen knife but you can cut the Sunday joint with it. There is no non human killing use of semi auto rifle that cant be done more effectively by a 303 bolt action rifle. However you can't walk into classroom and fire 156 bullets in 2 minutes with a 303 rifle. If you have no intent to kill a human you don't need those weapons.

As I have mentioned several times on this forum, I'm a hunter. I would not use this gun to hunt. I would not use this gun to target practice. I would not use this gun period. If I can't take it with a .308, 12 Gauge, or .22, I don't deserve it.

As for the dangers of the gun in a violent person's hands? Almost anyone with a Remington 700 .223, a good scope, and a couple weeks of dedicated practice can put your eye out at 1000yds for a tenth of the price. And I'd bet I can buy a dozen of them on E-Bay right now.

I'm not too worried what "The Public" thinks about my hobbies. (Gaming or Hunting) In the next 20-30 years the current leadership will die off, "The Next Big Moral Panic" will sweep the world, and nobody will give a damn about Video Games. In the mean time, I'll be sitting in a tree stand, playing with my tablet, and waiting for Bambie's Mom to wander by.

THIS worries you? Check out the 3D printing tech we have today; print your own gun. The materials aren't strong enough to survive more than a few rounds fired but surpassing that's only a matter of time. For now you can definitely print your own clips, whatever size your printer is capable off. There's also the murky legality of printing the actual firing mechanism which the companies are still lawyering out.

itsthesheppy:
If you're hunting animals with a rifle, you're already cheating. The animal isn't wearing a protective vest.

If you want 'man vs. nature', take a week off from work and wander naked into the woods someplace and survive for a week. But if you drive to some park in your air conditioned SUV, deck yourself out in modern hunting gear with scopes and GPS and all the fixings, and take down some animal with a brain the size of a box of staples from 200 yards away with a high-powered rifle, you ain't giving nature a chance.

Fashion a bow and arrow out of resources scrounged from the wilderness and I'll hail you as a god walking among men. But I'm just not impressed by something a man can teach his 12 year old son to do between Saturday morning cartoons and lunch at Taco Bell.

That said the computer-assisted rifle is one step closer to a fully automated human-less battlefield and I for one welcome it. The sooner we have robots populating the battlefields instead of humans, the better off we'll all be.

If a gun is cheating, so is a bow. Go kill a deer with your bare hands, teeth, and natural stalking skills. Until then, your argument just doesn't hold water. The rifle is the natural progression of technology from the bow. I am sure when the bow was invented there was some yahoo making a cave painting forum post about "go kill a deer with an atl-atl and I will respect your skills".

The idea that because your edible quarry didn't evolve higher brain function, killing it with some arbitrary level of technological achievement (developed because your species DID evolve that function) is somehow "unfair" is illogical at best.

EDIT:

Also, this is not a device intended for deer, or any other four legged game. They just can't tell you that it's intended purpose is to improve the effectiveness of a modern sniper and lessen the need for a spotter and old fashioned dope book, because it makes the liberals squeal, scream and wring their hands as if someone with $17,000 is going to spend it just to kill people "on our streets". (This, of course, applies to the U.S., if you are not an American, your mileage may vary)

itsthesheppy:
That said the computer-assisted rifle is one step closer to a fully automated human-less battlefield and I for one welcome it. The sooner we have robots populating the battlefields instead of humans, the better off we'll all be.

Said one guy at Skynet right before he hit the "on" switch.

itsthesheppy:
The sooner we have robots populating the battlefields instead of humans, the better off we'll all be.

That's working out so well for the US drone policy in the Middle East, isn't it? All having robots on the battlefield does is remove human responsibility, a war crime goes from having to look an innocent in the eyes and pull the trigger to pressing a button and watching a blip on a screen disappear.

slash2x:
1. Free enterprise so market your product to the people who will buy em.
2. As a former military member almost ALL of the people I worked with were gamers and military people love to buy guns...
3. If you want to say that something COULD be used for not so nice things, and we should not make them because of that. Well we all need to live in mud huts and get rid of EVERYTHING that could be pointy, or dangerous...
4. Before anyone says guns are made to kill people no they are not they are made to send a projectile at a target. The problem is the jackass pulling the trigger that we need to deal with.

Amen and thank you for your service.

I would like to add to this that even if they dropped these on the market and sold 100,000 units to private owners, you have a better chance of getting struck by lightning on the surface of the moon than being shot by one within the border of the United States. People with $17,000 to spend on a rifle are people who make enough money not to commit violent crime. It's the guy that sold enough crack to buy a low end $100 .45 pistol and a mid range steak knife that you need to worry about. He's the guy watching your house trying to time when you leave for work and when you come home every day.

The reason most of us feel comfortable with digital violence is that it takes place separately from reality, safe within the confines of our flatscreens and computer monitors. When those two worlds merge, whether by simulating real gun optics on an iPhone or aiming a real hunting rifle downrange at mechs, it creates a palpable sense of disquiet

Actually, games and guns are more linked in real life than you might think.

Eurogamer ran an article a while ago, an actual piece of honest to god investigative journalism, where they looked into the relationship between gun manufacturers and modern videogames.

It turns out that, much as car manufacturers allow developers to use their cars in return for license fees, gun manufacturers are allowing big name games like COD to license their gun models in return for a fee. Increasingly, with the blockbuster sales of things like COD and Battlefield, this has gone from an up-front licensing fee to an actual royalty on game sales. Gun manufacturers can now take a royalty payment from succesful games that feature their guns.

If you don't like the way videogames and real-life guns are becoming more intertwined, yet you bought the latest COD game, sorry to say, you're part of the problem. Is it really that much of an issue? Here's a quote from the Eurogamer article:

Today licensed weapons are commonplace in video games, but the deals between game makers and gun-manufacturer are shrouded. Not one of the publishers contacted for this article was willing to discuss the practice. (EA: "I'm afraid we can't progress this." Activision: "Not something we can assist with at present... My hands are tied." Codemasters: "We're focused on our racing titles these days." Crytek: "We can't help you with that request." Sega: "[This] doesn't sit comfortably." Sony: "I can't help with this I'm afraid.")

However, the gun makers are more forthcoming. "[It's] absolutely the same as with cars in games," says Barrett's Vaughn. "We must be paid a royalty fee - either a one-time payment or a percentage of sales, all negotiable. Typically, a licensee pays between 5 per cent to 10 per cent retail price for the agreement. But we could negotiate on that."

According to Vaughn, the cost of the license fee depends on the reputation and achievements of the developer in question. "It could be a few thousand dollars or many thousands, based on past projects and projected sales," he explains. The way in which the weapon is presented in the game is important too. "We must give prior approval to the image or logo in order to protect the brand's integrity."

What's worse is that gun makers are allowing their guns to be used in games specifically because they want to use games as a way to advertise to potential new customers.

This gun-show at GDC isn't anything new at all. It's simply the latest development in an increasingly gun-centric industry, and therefore it shouldn't be a surprise to anyone. If you don't like it, then your only option is to not buy games with guns in. Anything else, and you're sending the message that this sort of marriage between gamer culture and gun culture is alright.

Keneth:
As I have mentioned several times on this forum, I'm a hunter. I would not use this gun to hunt. I would not use this gun to target practice. I would not use this gun period. If I can't take it with a .308, 12 Gauge, or .22, I don't deserve it.

As for the dangers of the gun in a violent person's hands? Almost anyone with a Remington 700 .223, a good scope, and a couple weeks of dedicated practice can put your eye out at 1000yds for a tenth of the price. And I'd bet I can buy a dozen of them on E-Bay right now.

I'm not too worried what "The Public" thinks about my hobbies. (Gaming or Hunting) In the next 20-30 years the current leadership will die off, "The Next Big Moral Panic" will sweep the world, and nobody will give a damn about Video Games. In the mean time, I'll be sitting in a tree stand, playing with my tablet, and waiting for Bambie's Mom to wander by.

Fellow hunter here, and I totally agree. I use a Remington 700 .308 for hunting and that is more than enough for anything in the lower 48. This gun in the OP is useless to me. To add also, semi-autos are perfect for target practice and can be used hunting no problem, I just don't personally use on. I own a Remington Woodsmaster but that behemoth weighs a ton and don't want to lug it around. I want to get an M1A to try to hunt with that sucker, though. Gotta comment on the bows, bow hunting is a blast and improves your skills as a hunter dramatically.

rasputin0009:

itsthesheppy:

That said the computer-assisted rifle is one step closer to a fully automated human-less battlefield and I for one welcome it. The sooner we have robots populating the battlefields instead of humans, the better off we'll all be.

Until the robots turn on their masters! Then we're fucked!

I think the only thing standing in the way of war-bots is ethics. No one wants a robot to accidentally kill someone we don't want killed. Even though we do that ourselves already so I don't see the difference. Hell, near the start of the latest war in Afghanistan, an American pilot rocketed the shit of 5 Canadian ground soldiers. Woops! Even though he was told not to shoot. A robot wouldn't have fucked up that bad.

Someone might have said this but we already use robots.

They are called drones and are responsible for countless civilian deaths. Nobody really cares because it all happens so far away and terrorism is not terrorism if it is Britain or America doing it. I mean, they are living in a village with a suspected terrorist in it, they shouldn't have gathered publicly by going to a wedding or, increasingly, a funeral. Or by gathering together to help the wounded and move the dead from the last drone strike.

Finally, the idea of leaving everything down to robots is terrifying. Someone needs to be held accountable when 30 civilians are turned into a cloud of red mist or a famous journalist is almost blown up by air support (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/2921807.stm I was young but I remember WATCHING THAT LIVE. The microphones all blew out and the camera man wiped someones blood off the screen. The footage was never aired again.). You cannot hold a robot properly accountable, even a drone being controlled by someone else is difficult enough to pin the blame on. If your AI buggers up and it accidentally confuses "School" and "Terrorist Training Camp", you have noone to blame.

Not that there is a particularly good track record on blaming people when people make those mistakes...

OT:

This terrifies me. Just sounds like a way of making sure a nutjob that wants to kill a politician can actually make the shot. I mean, sure, it is going to be one of the most easily traced rifles around, what with being so unique. But what if someone steals it? And then takes a pop or two at a senator or politician? Or hell, random citizens? Remember the American Sniper(s, wasnt there a copycat?), imagine how much worse they would have been with far more accurate weapons.

I know this thing will not hit all the time. But this just sounds like a recipe for disaster. Someone is going to die by this weapon.

 Pages 1 2 NEXT

Reply to Thread

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