Sony: Keeping PSN Free on PS4 Would Have Been Too "Hard"

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 NEXT
 

Sorry Sony, ever since the lie about the slim PS3 not being able to handle PS2 backwards compatibility I don't give you the benefit of the doubt anymore.

JarinArenos:
My breaking point: requiring PSPlus for services that already charge a monthly fee. MMOs, Netflix, Hulu, etc, should not require a charge (PSPlus) on top of charge (game) on top of charge (ISP). They want to charge for other services? Fine.

"F2P" MMO's will be as it is Free-2-play, You don't need PS+ for netflix/hulu and other already free services from the Ps3 era. The only thing that they changed was you need to pay to play online games.

While normally I'd be angry, in this case I'm not really. As long as I can still shop the PSN store, download games, and play offline then there is no reason for me to get PS+. Not to mention that I didn't even play multiplayer games on my PS3 and I generally play single player games more often.
Now I'll probably get PS+ in the future, but since really the only thing that's really locked out from me is online multiplayer than I won't be raising hell over it. Same would be the case if Nintendo were to ever do it. Mainly because unlike the Xbox line there are more single player games that tickle my fancy on Sony and Nintendo consoles, and I don't think that's gonna change for a while.

Yeah, I disagree with it being hard. Especially when you consider quite a few multiplayer titles in the past have used peer to peer connections, instead of proper servers to host games.

Deshin:
Sorry Sony, ever since the lie about the slim PS3 not being able to handle PS2 backwards compatibility I don't give you the benefit of the doubt anymore.

Do you know what backwards compatibility with PS2's proprietary disk readers requires? It would prevent the slim from being a slim. It wasn't so much a processing problem as a size constraint.

Lightknight:

Deshin:
Sorry Sony, ever since the lie about the slim PS3 not being able to handle PS2 backwards compatibility I don't give you the benefit of the doubt anymore.

Do you know what backwards compatibility with PS2's proprietary disk readers requires? It would prevent the slim from being a slim. It wasn't so much a processing problem as a size constraint.

Well, PS2 titles can be converted to a "Classics" format, much like the PSP could play converted PS1 titles. But, you need custom firmware to do so. Totally playable on a slim if you know how.

Why people are bitching about Playstation+ boggles my mind.

You're paying to get free games every month. You get at least 2+ decent or even great crictally acclaimed games every month, and it easily pays for itself within the first two months of having it.

Heck, you don't even HAVE to pay on PS4! You could just play the F2P games, Like Blacklight and Warframe. Planetside 2 is going to be F2P, too. Netflix and the other streaming services don't require PS+, so what's the big deal?

Jees gais, don't knock it 'till you try it. It's well worth the price of admission.

superline51:
Seriously people, it's like $4 a month. Plus you actually get GOOD free games (like Saint's Row 3) not only on the PS3/4 but also for the Vita. Quit bitching.

Ah, but they're not transferable between 3>4 (as far as I know).

Don't get me wrong; I have fallen in love with PS+, but it's love specifically on terms of my PS3 and Vita, where my Plus library resides. The shitty fact that online is now cost-barriered (while it wouldn't have been a huge issue for me isolated), coupled with the fact that even digital games from previous generations are incompatible (the rub) have me counting the PS4 out. Sony chooses to completely swipe legacy value under the rug, and that's a huge problem for me (especially with 2 fucking original launch titles).

Lightknight:
Or, Sony dumped a tremendous amount of investment in the network infrastructure

Or....source for that?

and believes those using that service should pay for it.

It is a service they're providing and the costs just don't make it easy to give away when the network was shitty.

Please forgive me if I'm not convinced by both a lack of official statement on the matter AND the trend of precedence.

I know it's not entirely solid to rely on anecdotal evidence, but I have NOT experienced much of a difference in server quality between the Xbox 360 and the PS3. Both were shitty for quite a few games, but guess which console cost me more to find this out with?

Rather, it's the games themselves, that is, the quality of their netcode, that play the main role in how multiplayer will handle.

Dead Century:
Well, PS2 titles can be converted to a "Classics" format, much like the PSP could play converted PS1 titles. But, you need custom firmware to do so. Totally playable on a slim if you know how.

I thought that there was a bit more hardware required to read those non-DVD ps2 disks? Please correct me if I'm wrong. I thought it requires something regarding the disk reader and something more regarding power consumption for emulation.

Either way, the slim came out at a time where the ps3 had been around for three years. Sony outright claimed that they wanted to encourage the transition. So I'm not sure where the lie was either now that I'm looking into it.

Ipsen:

Lightknight:
Or, Sony dumped a tremendous amount of investment in the network infrastructure

Or....source for that?

The article that we are currently posting under. The part where the VP of SOE is quoted as saying: "We've built up the network over the years and made a significant investment... and it's quite honestly hard to keep everything [free]"

It's a legitimate desire for a company to be compensated for their investment. Our remaining question should be around the actual amount. What constitutes a "significant" investment and what happens after they've been compensated for it? Do they return to a free plan (unlikely)?

I do not doubt that they've invested millions of dollars into the network and the testing of it to compete with Microsoft's robust network. The only question is how much.

Please forgive me if I'm not convinced by both a lack of official statement on the matter AND the trend of precedence.

I cannot help it if you didn't read the article we're discussing. The direct quotes should have been a given in the preceding discussion.

Lightknight:
Do you know what backwards compatibility with PS2's proprietary disk readers requires? It would prevent the slim from being a slim. It wasn't so much a processing problem as a size constraint.

What exactly does it require then?

Dead Century:
Well, PS2 titles can be converted to a "Classics" format, much like the PSP could play converted PS1 titles. But, you need custom firmware to do so. Totally playable on a slim if you know how.

This guy knows exactly what I'm talking about. The issue I have is Sony said they had to drop backwards compatibility when they stopped making the first wave of PS3s.

Lightknight:

Dead Century:
Well, PS2 titles can be converted to a "Classics" format, much like the PSP could play converted PS1 titles. But, you need custom firmware to do so. Totally playable on a slim if you know how.

I thought that there was a bit more hardware required to read those non-DVD ps2 disks?

No, because it's a digital conversion. Not every game works, and it's not perfect. Somewhat similar to emulation on PC. It runs on software, not hardware.

Dead Century:

Lightknight:

Dead Century:
Well, PS2 titles can be converted to a "Classics" format, much like the PSP could play converted PS1 titles. But, you need custom firmware to do so. Totally playable on a slim if you know how.

I thought that there was a bit more hardware required to read those non-DVD ps2 disks?

No, because it's a digital conversion. Not every game works, and it's not perfect. Somewhat similar to emulation on PC. It runs on software, not hardware.

FFXII works with an incredibly minor audio lag on menu screens, right? That itself is a pretty big testament to the emulation capabilities. Spaghetti code notwithstanding it has the sheer metaphysical balls to handle anything the PS2 could churn out. In that regard it's no worse off than the Xbox 360 was for emulating Xbox games, some worked some didn't but at least the option is still there.

Deshin:

Lightknight:
Do you know what backwards compatibility with PS2's proprietary disk readers requires? It would prevent the slim from being a slim. It wasn't so much a processing problem as a size constraint.

What exactly does it require then?

I was actually asking moreso than debating. I was under the impression that it required additional hardware to read the non-DVD proprietary disks of the ps2.

For example:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PlayStation_3_technical_specifications#Configurations

That link tells us that the original 60GB and 20GB have hardware backwards compatibility.

The second generation has partial software compatibility.

What does that hardware vs software mean if full compatibility doesn't require hardware?

EDIT: Found it: http://www.edepot.com/playstation3.html#Blu-ray_DVD_PS3_PS2_PS1_Compatibility

"For PS2 mode compatibility, PS3 models having the Graphics Synthesizer (GS) chip is required, and models having an extra Emotion Engine (EE) chip have even better compatibility with PS2 games. PS3 models having the extra EE chip uses PS2 hardware emulation, while those without uses PS2 software emulation. Later PS3 models that don't even have the Graphics Synthesizer chip meant no PS2 compatibility at all (hardware or software)."

It required expensive hardware.

Deshin:

This guy knows exactly what I'm talking about. The issue I have is Sony said they had to drop backwards compatibility when they stopped making the first wave of PS3s.

They dropped it because the hardware that was being used to emulate drive the console's price through the roof. The PSX2 emulator has only just more recently become more reliable and actually functional. Hell, at the launch of the PS3 the PSX emulator was still running into problems.
Now I wish that the PS3 still had the PS2 backwards compatibility, but I can understand why it was dropped. Plus the 360's past Pro models started to drop nackwards compatibility as well. Hell Nintendo dropped the GameCube's backwards compatibility for the Wii with the Wii Mini and 2011 redesign.

Lightknight:

Deshin:

Lightknight:
Do you know what backwards compatibility with PS2's proprietary disk readers requires? It would prevent the slim from being a slim. It wasn't so much a processing problem as a size constraint.

What exactly does it require then?

I was actually asking moreso than debating. I was under the impression that it required additional hardware to read the non-DVD proprietary disks of the ps2.

For example:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PlayStation_3_technical_specifications#Configurations

That link tells us that the original 60GB and 20GB have hardware backwards compatibility.

The second generation has partial software compatibility.

What does that hardware vs software mean if full compatibility doesn't require hardware?

What it means is the 60GB and 20GB models had an extra chip ripped right out of a PS2 and slapped into a PS3 so that, functionality wise, it WAS a PS2. Emulation means a device can interpret data not intended for it. To give an example a PS1 emulator on a PC. A PS1 game cannot natively run on a PC, a PC CPU uses a different architecture entirely than the cell processors of the PS1. However multiple emulators exist that transform the data from a PS1 disc into something the PC's CPU can understand and process.

As for the PS3, ALL PS3s CAN play PS2 games (not all of them but a lot of them) by using software emulation. The "PS2 Classics" on the PSN store aren't remastered or recoded, they're just CD images with a Sony-made emulator. Hackers have reverse engineered the emulator off the games and found out LOADS of games work with the emulation from completely-ripped-off-the-disc PS2 cd images.

Sony didn't remove backwards compatibility from the PS3, they just started charging for it. Anyone who has bought a PS2 Classics off the PSN for a game they already owned for the PS2 pretty much paid for the same game twice.

Deshin:

Lightknight:

Deshin:

What exactly does it require then?

I was actually asking moreso than debating. I was under the impression that it required additional hardware to read the non-DVD proprietary disks of the ps2.

For example:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PlayStation_3_technical_specifications#Configurations

That link tells us that the original 60GB and 20GB have hardware backwards compatibility.

The second generation has partial software compatibility.

What does that hardware vs software mean if full compatibility doesn't require hardware?

What it means is the 60GB and 20GB models had an extra chip ripped right out of a PS2 and slapped into a PS3 so that, functionality wise, it WAS a PS2. Emulation means a device can interpret data not intended for it. To give an example a PS1 emulator on a PC. A PS1 game cannot natively run on a PC, a PC CPU uses a different architecture entirely than the cell processors of the PS1. However multiple emulators exist that transform the data from a PS1 disc into something the PC's CPU can understand and process.

As for the PS3, ALL PS3s CAN play PS2 games (not all of them but a lot of them) by using software emulation. The "PS2 Classics" on the PSN store aren't remastered or recoded, they're just CD images with a Sony-made emulator. Hackers have reverse engineered the emulator off the games and found out LOADS of games work with the emulation from completely-ripped-off-the-disc PS2 cd images.

Sony didn't remove backwards compatibility from the PS3, they just started charging for it. Anyone who has bought a PS2 Classics off the PSN for a game they already owned for the PS2 pretty much paid for the same game twice.

"For PS2 mode compatibility, PS3 models having the Graphics Synthesizer (GS) chip is required, and models having an extra Emotion Engine (EE) chip have even better compatibility with PS2 games. PS3 models having the extra EE chip uses PS2 hardware emulation, while those without uses PS2 software emulation. Later PS3 models that don't even have the Graphics Synthesizer chip meant no PS2 compatibility at all (hardware or software)."

How much did this chip cost?

Deshin:

Dead Century:

Lightknight:
I thought that there was a bit more hardware required to read those non-DVD ps2 disks?

No, because it's a digital conversion. Not every game works, and it's not perfect. Somewhat similar to emulation on PC. It runs on software, not hardware.

FFXII works with an incredibly minor audio lag on menu screens, right? That itself is a pretty big testament to the emulation capabilities. Spaghetti code notwithstanding it has the sheer metaphysical balls to handle anything the PS2 could churn out. In that regard it's no worse off than the Xbox 360 was for emulating Xbox games, some worked some didn't but at least the option is still there.

It's been awhile since I've played XII. It has some audio lag. I prefer to run the Zodiac version on a PC. Beyond that, yeah, you got it, 360 emulating original Xbox games is very comparable.

Neronium:

Deshin:

This guy knows exactly what I'm talking about. The issue I have is Sony said they had to drop backwards compatibility when they stopped making the first wave of PS3s.

They dropped it because the hardware that was being used to emulate drive the console's price through the roof. The PSX2 emulator has only just more recently become more reliable and actually functional. Hell, at the launch of the PS3 the PSX emulator was still running into problems.
Now I wish that the PS3 still had the PS2 backwards compatibility, but I can understand why it was dropped. Plus the 360's past Pro models started to drop nackwards compatibility as well. Hell Nintendo dropped the GameCube's backwards compatibility for the Wii with the Wii Mini and 2011 redesign.

No hardware was being used to emulate. There was no emulation, it was literally a PS2 chip stapled onto the PS3 motherboard.
EDIT: "Hardware emulation" is a fancy term, when people refer to emulators they typically mean software emulation to, for example, get cell processor data to run on 32/64 but processing units. "Hardware emulation" is a chip that can run it, it's like saying a 64 bit PC CPU is emulating a 32 bit OS. Kind of but not really.

That was then and this is now. Instead of Sony coming forward and releasing their own emulator in a software update and saying "everyone rejoice, we managed to bring emulation to the PS3, now your PS2 games will work on it" they instead put it on single games and charge you for it, even though you may have already bought it before.

Bottom line: The PS3 DOES still have PS2 backwards compatibilty. People are hacking their slim PS3s and playing PS2 games on them, something Sony said was impossible. Anyone can go out to the shop RIGHT NOW, buy a PS3 "without backwards compatibility", and be playing PS2 games on it after a couple of hours. Not even using some magical program some hacker put together but by using software Sony THEMSELVES have made and charge people for every time someone buys a PS2 Classics on the PSN.

Lightknight:
I cannot help it if you didn't read the article we're discussing. The direct quotes should have been a given in the preceding discussion.

Guess that makes both of us terrible helpers, for I can't help you to read my response. Thank you for pointing out the post; I'll admit I care less for the statement, but my problem still stands.

As a matter of fact, your apologetics brings up ANOTHER problem, if it's to be believed. Of course compensation is desired for investment, but that compensation should be coming through the main avenue of interest to the consumer, which is the games. This situation looks like an itemization of all the 'services' the PS4 will provide; paying for games, paying for servers, paying for entertainment, etc. And that's fine, if that's the way you want to express the value you think you need. I would say just include it all in a lump sum (say, in the price of the games themselves) instead of this 'death by 1000 cuts' (gashes, really) scenario. At least I'd know how much I'd need to save for this high-brow system that Sony wishes I'd think of it as.

Then again, this is all in terms of someone who WANTS to support Sony. People can have whatever vendettas they wish against this company, but what does it say about them when one of their proponents has to back down?

Kaimax:

JarinArenos:
My breaking point: requiring PSPlus for services that already charge a monthly fee. MMOs, Netflix, Hulu, etc, should not require a charge (PSPlus) on top of charge (game) on top of charge (ISP). They want to charge for other services? Fine.

"F2P" MMO's will be as it is Free-2-play, You don't need PS+ for netflix/hulu and other already free services from the Ps3 era. The only thing that they changed was you need to pay to play online games.

Sorry, should have been clearer. I know that they're (mostly) not charging for the things I listed YET. Just a commentary of where I think the "do not cross" line should be on the topic.

Honestly though, it should really be limited to the free games service and games where they themselves provide the servers for multiplayer. Charging for any online service that doesn't rely directly on their servers is just price-gouging.

Lightknight:
Or, Sony dumped a tremendous amount of investment in the network infrastructure and believes those using that service should pay for it.

It is a service they're providing and the costs just don't make it easy to give away when the network was shitty.

Sorry, but quite frankly that's B.S.

Sony is not providing a service, they are fulfilling an obligation to their customers that every reputable business should fulfill. That obligation is to ensure that the products purchased from them work properly and with the full functionality that those customers purchased the product for, this includes multiplayer, and any costs that may be incurred on their end as a result of doing so on their end should be covered by the initial purchase price. Charging to allow multiplayer, as well as any other necessary function of their games is like someone selling you a bike and then charging you every month for one of the wheels or you'll take it away and the bike will stop working. However, with this case and Sony, it's more like that someone selling you a bike, letting you ride it for free for years and then suddenly showing up at your doorstep and demanding money to allow you to continue riding it from that point on. What would you do if either happened? More than call them out on it in a forum I'd bet.

Besides, for an entire console generation Sony has managed to provide multiplayer for nothing, and there's plenty of MMOs, free to play online games, and so forth that have been free for everything from day 1, that at most live off of advertising dollars. If they can do it then, they can do it now, they just think that their customers are too gullible to know when they're being ripped off. They're also undercutting Microsoft's prices which serves the double purpose of making Sony's move not look so bad while simultaneously making Microsoft look bad because if Sony can charge less, why can't Microsoft? The former is a rather pathetic attempt while the latter is actually pretty insidious.

immortalfrieza:
To put this article simply, Sony wants to charge for a once free feature solely out of greed but they don't want to admit it to everybody because it would show what Sony really thinks of their customers: as nothing more than gullible walking wallets.

Be fair here. Companies charging for services is not greed. Most firms exist to make a profit for their stockholders, which aren't just greedy evil millionaires but any John Smith with investments or a pension. Sony isn't also making a huge amount of profit right now after years of losses. If there is a service they can reasonably charge for they should - despite being a huge firm they don't have billions to throw away on nice gestures.

Deshin:

Bottom line: The PS3 DOES still have PS2 backwards compatibilty. People are hacking their slim PS3s and playing PS2 games on them, something Sony said was impossible.

Ah, I see. Guess I was wrong. Although Nintendo is also doing the same thing because it's been proven that the Wii U actually can play Nintendo GameCube discs since it's just a modified Wii Optical Drive. However, the only reason why we can't is because Nintendo didn't put a GameCube Controller slot on the Wii U and locked the ability for the drive to detect the GameCube discs. So I'm guess that Nintendo is gonna do something similar to how Sony has this gen then.

Neyon:

Be fair here. Companies charging for services is not greed. Most firms exist to make a profit for their stockholders, which aren't just greedy evil millionaires but any John Smith with investments or a pension. Sony isn't also making a huge amount of profit right now after years of losses. If there is a service they can reasonably charge for they should - despite being a huge firm they don't have billions to throw away on nice gestures.

No, companies charging for services is not greed, companies charging for what's necessary for their product just to function the way it was designed and marketed to their customers after they've already bought it is, which is what Sony is doing. Sony as the provider of the content has a responsibility to their customers to ensure that everything in that content including multiplayer is available to them, and they are shirking this responsibility to make a quick buck.

This is entirely about fairness, or rather the lack thereof on Sony's part, the fact that even Sony itself not to mention others have provided this "service" for free for years or even decades only hammers the nail deeper.

immortalfrieza:

Neyon:

Be fair here. Companies charging for services is not greed. Most firms exist to make a profit for their stockholders, which aren't just greedy evil millionaires but any John Smith with investments or a pension. Sony isn't also making a huge amount of profit right now after years of losses. If there is a service they can reasonably charge for they should - despite being a huge firm they don't have billions to throw away on nice gestures.

No, companies charging for services is not greed, companies charging for what's necessary for their product just to function the way it was designed and marketed to their customers after they've already bought it is, which is what Sony is doing. Sony as the provider of the content has a responsibility to their customers to ensure that everything in that content including multiplayer is available to them, and they are shirking this responsibility to make a quick buck.

This is entirely about fairness, or rather the lack thereof on Sony's part.

OK, then get ready for more expensive games

Never play online multiplayer myself but I've got PSN+, the free games and the extra functions make it worth it for me. Just so long as they keep adding games to the instant game collection then I'd say it would almost definitely pay off over time. And they've probably been doing the poorest financially out of the big three, so if an extra $70 goes towards keeping my favorite boat afloat then I'm fine with it.

But then I have money and I hate online multiplayer, so I'm not the market they need to worry about.

Considering PS+ is a great service... it kind of pays for itself, between all the free games and discounts and stuff.

I almost never play online, but if I could afford it I would still get PS+ just because it's really fuckin' good.

And at least it's only multiplayer locked behind a paywall. On Xbox just about every online service is locked into Live, including things you might already be paying for. And I believe free-to-play games won't require PS+ either.

So... could be worse.

But of course the resident mustard race has to smug it up as usual.

irishda:

OK, then get ready for more expensive games

No, I'm going to get ready for games that cost the same as they always have and for Sony to drop this B.S. online fee. If that doesn't happen, then screw those guys.

I don't even PLAY multiplayer, I'm pissed about this solely on principle. They really think that their customers are too stupid to know when they're being scammed, the sad thing is that there's probably going to be plenty of blind fans that prove them right, judging by a number of the comments here that say something akin to "what's the big deal?" This kind of "I don't give a crap no matter how much they screw me" attitude is the reason why the industry has been going down the toilet the last few years.

immortalfrieza:
To put this article simply, Sony wants to charge for a once free feature solely out of greed but they don't want to admit it to everybody because it would show what Sony really thinks of their customers: as nothing more than gullible walking wallets.

To be fair, gamers have demonstrated they'd pay for online and even a paywall on the PS4 has been no significant deterrent to the console's sales.

Maybe they will start treating us like something other than walking wallets when we stop acting like something other than walking wallets.

I mean, surprise! A corporation wants more money. We're supposed to guard against such things as consumers.

Zachary Amaranth:

To be fair, gamers have demonstrated they'd pay for online and even a paywall on the PS4 has been no significant deterrent to the console's sales.

Maybe they will start treating us like something other than walking wallets when we stop acting like something other than walking wallets.

I mean, surprise! A corporation wants more money. We're supposed to guard against such things as consumers.

Exactly, but most of what I've been getting here is "stop your griping" or "they're justified" or "so what?" for being one of the few who's not willing to put up with this blatantly exploitative crap.

superline51:
Seriously people, it's like $4 a month. Plus you actually get GOOD free games (like Saint's Row 3) not only on the PS3/4 but also for the Vita. Quit bitching.

$4 a month so $48 dollars a year, so $240 every five years. $240 every five years can buy me a graphics card to play PC games with that DON'T charge for multiplayer and already cost less.

Just because its $4 makes it okay to charge for features that are given for free elsewhere? (Steam, WiiU) Just because your okay with being nickel and dimed to death does not make it okay.

So unless the PSN gets a complete overhaul to make it on par with Live (gold) Sony is full of shit. If they leave the PSN as is then all they wanted was to tap into a previously untapped money source. How do you do that when free games aren't convincing everyone to make the jump? Why you put multiplayer behind a pay wall of course. If the standard of service increases however, then it is an acceptable cost.

The Xbox Live Service is $80 annually - and that's the inflated AUD price. It amounts to almost nothing in the long run. But what it does is create an incentive to keep the service running, and running well. The PSN could be the most hideously designed online service on the planet, and they wouldn't have any obligation to amend it because no one paid for it. It creates accountability.

As well as this, it makes people less likely to create ~ten accounts, which is more than a little annoying.

It doesn't cost that much, so get over it.

immortalfrieza:

Exactly, but most of what I've been getting here is "stop your griping" or "they're justified" or "so what?" for being one of the few who's not willing to put up with this blatantly exploitative crap.

Unfortunately, that's par for the course with bad consumerism. People try and justify making bad choices by yelling at others for thinking they're bad choices.

clippen05:
Just because your okay with being nickel and dimed to death does not make it okay.

Well, your leaving out a part of his vary post. His okay with it in part because they are deal gives him a bunch of games, a feature added before it was mandatory. Plus does offer some suite deals, including decent free games. This presents a positive argument in favour of PS Plus. Does it warrant or justify the mandatory nature? Know, but you are response seems to leave out the primary advantage being offered. Granted, the 'quit you're bitching' was holy uncalled four, but that doesn't seem to be the part you took issue with.

For the record, I'm a subscriber to Plus because the game lineup is worth the 4 bucks a month. I still object to the compulsory portion for the Playstation For.I think it wood be better to make it optional and let the pros speak for themselves.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 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
Register for a free account here