It will come at some point, but it will probably take some time, also, the way laws are being made is very "reactive", it's easier for companies to start doing whatever they want, and then adapt to the laws when they do pass.
That sounds like an absolute nightmare. Could you imagine Intrepid having to dramatically change or even shut down Ashes to comply with new laws because they decided to implement NFTs to attract a tiny number of players interested in a technological novelty? That would be insane.
One hundred percent, it would be a terrible idea. But it doesn't change the fact that laws usually lag behind. See GDPR, the internet has been around for a while, and this regulation only took effect in 2018, and it took even longer for companies to comply, if they didn't just stop dealing with EU customers to save the trouble. GDPR in particular is preventing a lot of very bad stuff that companies would do without batting an eye otherwise. We'll get actual regulations regarding the blockchain eventually, but any company that is actually interested in working around the blockchain would have to wait quite a lot if they want everything to be regulated first, at the risk of falling behind. As you said, in the case of AoC, it doesn't make any sense because it's just a tiny fraction of the population that is overhyped about it and is trying to get all the game companies to integrate it.
I've seen a few threads around this topic, but were specific to play-to-win, and cryptocurrencies. Blockchain can be leveraged without either, so I am just curious to find out if the devs are going to incorporate the technology at all.
I've immersed myself in blockchain for the past year, and especially on the gaming side, it is exploding....but mostly with crap. Notable exception is Gala (gala.games). I tend to live at the cutting edge of gaming (for the last 40 years), and while AoC has some new wrinkles on the MMORPG trope, it's not groundbreaking. Doesn't mean it won't be fun, which is the core attribute all games should have.
For me personally, now that I understand where our hobby is heading, it is REALLY hard to invest time and effort in a game where no matter what I accomplish in the game world, no matter how much wealth I obtain, or unique items I own, those assets will NEVER leave that world. And you can't glue blockchain on after the fact.
This is why I am asking the question of whether it will be included as part of its core.
Thanks,
Taylors
Stop shilling for blockchain bs, stop running with the false narrative of "this is where it's heading " as if it's not simply companies like ubisoft and square enix repeating this garbage until people believe it.
An open system would allow us to take our special items we've earned in these games, and separate them from the game itself, to store however we choose, wherever we choose, even to potentially reuse them in other games.
I find this incredibly appealing.
Taylors
So, reading this I recalled "Sword Art Online" anime. I dunno if you are an anime enthusiast or not but do watch it as it has much of what you want, I think.
So, there in later seasons when relevant technology is release to the masses it results in multiple MMOs being launched by various companies but if you have made a character in one game and you want to jump into another you carry over some aspects of what you have already grinded earlier.
Although it can be argued that there were pay to win aspects in what was shown in SAO, but at the end of the day what is stopping someone from selling their account in any game and breaking no p2w policy that way?
So while I agree with what OP is suggesting and it sounds beautiful in an ideal world, implementing it without compromising the game and the ideals behind them is not possible at the moment.
I've seen a few threads around this topic, but were specific to play-to-win, and cryptocurrencies. Blockchain can be leveraged without either, so I am just curious to find out if the devs are going to incorporate the technology at all.
I've immersed myself in blockchain for the past year, and especially on the gaming side, it is exploding....but mostly with crap. Notable exception is Gala (gala.games). I tend to live at the cutting edge of gaming (for the last 40 years), and while AoC has some new wrinkles on the MMORPG trope, it's not groundbreaking. Doesn't mean it won't be fun, which is the core attribute all games should have.
For me personally, now that I understand where our hobby is heading, it is REALLY hard to invest time and effort in a game where no matter what I accomplish in the game world, no matter how much wealth I obtain, or unique items I own, those assets will NEVER leave that world. And you can't glue blockchain on after the fact.
This is why I am asking the question of whether it will be included as part of its core.
Thanks,
Taylors
Stop shilling for blockchain bs, stop running with the false narrative of "this is where it's heading " as if it's not simply companies like ubisoft and square enix repeating this garbage until people believe it.
No. I hope none of this come to Ashes at any point. And i'll explain why:
I play games because i want to play games. Not to make money. I have a job to make money, games are for fun.
I am not interested in making money from games or gain real life assets from the games i play.
Adding any sort of play-2-earn mechanic to the game (which is what i imagine you are talking about, be it crypto or JPGs {NFT}) changes the reason to play. You no longer play to have fun or play to progress or play experience the game, now you play to earn money.
Doing this adds the stress of a job to a game that is supposed to be the break from the job.
I'll give an example:
A castle in Ashes.
Currently, a castle give the controlling guild control over the taxes of the subservient nodes, give the leader a flying mount and prestige -> We are a top 5 guild on this server. People will fight over this castle for those bonuses. But if they lose a castle siege, nothing is actually lost.
Now, what if the taxes actually were crypto (INSANE concept, but let's go with that). Now, losing a castle means lost money for the players. Maybe enough money that it has real life repercussions.
Now on the "But its the future!!"
No, its not. Blockchain adds nothing to the games it is attached except the idea that you can make money from the game. I haven't seen anything else that blockchain adds. And that system already exists in some games: CSGO skins. CSGO skins are basically a form of NFTs that actually some value (compared to the actual NFTs). You get a skin, you put it up for sale, someone buys it, Valve takes a cut, and you get money.
That is play to earn. It exists already in some games. And it didn't spread to other games because not every game needs to have this.
Blockchain is new tech, so everyone is trying to figure out where it fits and depending on the reception, it will be added to different parts of the internet.
To burst your bubble, the vast majority of gamers DO NOT want ANY blockchain in their games. Look at the response Ubisoft and the STALKER team got when they said they want to add NFTs. STALKER's devs backtracked and Ubisoft is in denial.
Also, as a final note. @Taylors Expansion, don't want you to take this the wrong way, but why are you signing every post you make? It's weird. Your name already appears next to every post, no need to do that man.
NFTs, and Tokens, are just two examples of using blockchain. They could have an internal blockchain, for instance, to manage all transactions. In the future, that could be leveraged for those other two.
Using a blockchain for their own internal use would defeat the purpose of having a blockchain in the first place. The reason why all NFT/blockchain games today are garbage is because nobody stops to ask "What is it you're trying to achieve with a blockchain"? Blockchains are all the rage, but in 99% of cases they are a solution in search of a problem.
@Taylors Expansion "play-to-earn, merely playing the game itself, earns you either NFTs or crypto, which you might use to give yourself an advantage, but only if the game is a play-to-win mechanic." If i own an asset out of game that i can sell for money what will happen is i will grind in game to earn said asset then sell it to some dude offering a high price... The definition of a P2W game with an extremely toxic environment setup to boot.
The only game to come close to developing a functioning economy is EVE, because they hired actual economists. Every other mmo has a trashfire economy, expect the same from Ashes.
God forbid.
Every single blockchain game is a scam or a ponzi scheme (yes i have seen a ton of them and used a lot of time on researching). I want to play games to have fun, not earn or use a ton of money. Let games be fun for the sake of fun. Il rater pay 50$ a month to keep that crap away. Games are my free time from money (except the cost for the game) and real life.
That is the point. WHY does an MMO have to be a closed system? Why is that better than an open system?
Taylors
We are fast approaching a time when you WILL be able to play games, and earn a living. Don't tell that to my kids, please. But, just because a game's assets are all owned by the players, does not mean the game is not immersive or fun, which is the argument you are making.
Taylors
A bit off-topic, out of curiosity
Tell me how you are going to compete with china, india and other big countrys with a low minimum wage. Take a look at WoW gold or other game system where digital assets acquired through gameplay are sold. The only one's who care to sell are these countrys. These people dont play for fun for a second, this is their work, and they are damn good at it.
The minimum wage in these countrys are 2$ a hour and below. A lot of people cant get work, so any income is better than non.
Anyone coming from a country with slightly better fortune will without a doubt work 1 hour and pay for 10 hours of in game work.
So sure, if you live in a very low minimum wage country, and you chose to put your kids into what i would call child slave labour, yes, you can allready start with that today. The consept of selling gold as we see today is no different then NFT's, both are in game assets sold for money. It's just rebranded with some fancyer name and connected with a technology that make's you "own" the item. But i have always traded what i want to trade in any game. No one has stolen what i own or claimed ownership over my "Mace of the whale".
And you cant compare with skins in games like CSGO etc, that is a lootbox system, a lottery ticket, it is not play2earn.
Disdain for Blockchain and crypto is the only thing the gaming community seems to agree upon. Put it in the game regardless of how well it is done and the majority of players will be gone. Myself included.
That's an interesting question about AoC and blockchain. As far as I know, I haven't seen any news or updates from the developers regarding blockchain integration.
I posted this in January of 2022, and if anything, I am even MORE convinced that no game without blockchain stands to last more than a few years. Steam broke down, and is now going against its own ban on blockchain. Epic already has several blockchain games on their service, and are directly funding development of others.
Blockchain on mobile is about to explode.
It's not that I'm just a huge fan of blockchain in gaming, it's that as a gamer since the late 70s, I've always been able to see the next trend and go with it. I had the first sound card, the Adlib (and then the Pro Audio Spectrum 16 and in my garage, still have an original Soundblaster), I had the first 3D accelerator (the Rendition Verite), I 3D accelerated across three screens at once with the Matrox Parhelia-512 all the way back in 2002 until my latest rig, which finally has a screen that almost matches three-screen resolution. No offense to the rest of you, but I've never been wrong in predicting where gaming is going.
Blockchain is our future. Better get used to it.
And to the devs of Ashes? You still have a chance to incorporate blockchain into your product. I suggest partnering with Gala. If you need a reference, let me know.
We aren't going blockchain because you can't trade, buy, or sell items to each other with money. Rmt is banned and so is account sharing. What else is a blockchain game useful for? Absolutely nothing.
And to the devs of Ashes? You still have a chance to incorporate blockchain into your product. I suggest partnering with Gala. If you need a reference, let me know.
Taylors
You obviously haven't seen Steven's face when he talks about no p2w, or even e2w, in the game. And how hard they will come down on gold sellers.
Don't hold your breath on getting that phone call.
The girl watched the last of the creatures die and murmured a soft 'Thank you' to her rescuer.
The stranger's eyes lifted to the blood red cloud on the horizon.
And to the devs of Ashes? You still have a chance to incorporate blockchain into your product. I suggest partnering with Gala. If you need a reference, let me know.
Taylors
You obviously haven't seen Steven's face when he talks about no p2w, or even e2w, in the game. And how hard they will come down on gold sellers.
Don't hold your breath on getting that phone call.
For the record, I am AGAINST P2W or E2W. That is a narrow, and overly negative, view of blockchain tech.
I am for ownership of in-game assets that I earn. And not as a job. In fact, if it's a job, it's not a game. Games must be fun first. Always. This is about having something to show for thousands of hours of gameplay. It is about keeping the legacy of a game we've played alive, long after the game itself is gone. It is about connecting with other players by being able to demonstrate that we were there, when that game came out, by being able to showcase items that could only have come from it.
But I get it. I've met you all before. I've been in this a long time. I met you when you said Shareware would never take off. Met you when you said Freeware would never take off. Met you when you said dedicated Physics chips would never take off, when 3D accelerators would never take off. When wide screen gaming would never take off. We've had these conversations over and over, and people like you keep holding onto the present and past, when the core of our hobby is about embracing the future.
But if the devs wish for their game to be targeted at folks like you, then I wish you both the best of luck. I can no longer justify investing time in games that do not allow me ownership of my efforts. At release, if this game lasts for more than a few years, I will be pleasantly surprised.
I am for ownership of in-game assets that I earn. And not as a job. In fact, if it's a job, it's not a game. Games must be fun first. Always. This is about having something to show for thousands of hours of gameplay.
Blockchain offers you nothing at all in this regard.
When a game is gone, all you are ever going to have of it are memories. This is the same of any non-digital event. If you go tenpin bowling with some friends and have a great time, all you have left when it is done are memories.
Now, you could take photos if you are that way inclined, but you can take screenshots of games (or even videos, if you like). However, all this is doing is giving you a physical trigger for recalling those memories.
Some people have made the false assumption that with blockchain in games, if they achieve something in one game, they could transfer that to another game that they play later on. That is untrue as a general statement.
While some game developers may one day offer this, it will be limited to their games only. You would not be able to play L2 - as an example - achieve something there and take it on to Archeage, then on to Ashes.
But I get it. I've met you all before. I've been in this a long time. I met you when you said Shareware would never take off. Met you when you said Freeware would never take off. Met you when you said dedicated Physics chips would never take off, when 3D accelerators would never take off. When wide screen gaming would never take off. We've had these conversations over and over, and people like you keep holding onto the present and past, when the core of our hobby is about embracing the future.
See, I was around with these things as well.
I don't recall anyone saying shareware or freeware wouldn't work - but I do recall people complaining about the cost of some of the other aspects of those models (specifically freeware, and even more specifically Adobe). I also recall people arguing against these comments by blindly saying that the people making such comments were obviously anti-freeware and needed to "get with the times", despite that not being even close to what the argument was.
I recall people saying dedicated physics chips will be a short term thing, just as math co-processors were. Those people were correct, and dedicated physics chips were only ever a niche thing for a few years, and then were taken over by GPU compute. I absolutely recall people early on (before Nvidia took over Ageia) that physics calculations would be better suited to GPUs, they just need to be made more powerful. I also recall people saying that those claiming that physics calculations should be done on the GPU needed to get with the times, and we would all CLEARLY all be running PPU's along side our GPUs. Nvidia buying Ageia only solidified these comments - why else would they buy it if not to use their technology to sell more hardware?
I never once heard of someone saying 3D accelerator cards won't eventually take off, but I did hear many people say that they didn't really like how they were in their first few generations (essentially only able to generate wireframes). Once again, I also heard people say that those that didn't really like that wireframe result were just thinking in the past, and would be left behind, because obviously all gaming in the future would be 3D wireframe (seriously, people actually made the argument that the only 3D possible would be wireframe, but that this would be what we were all going to be using).
My take on you is that you participate in arguments without actually paying attention to what the opposing argument is. You seem to be doing that here. You are ignoring the fact that there is no reason to implement blockchain in to a game today other than pay to win, or play to earn - or to eventually scam your player base.
My take on you is that you participate in arguments without actually paying attention to what the opposing argument is. You seem to be doing that here. You are ignoring the fact that there is no reason to implement blockchain in to a game today other than pay to win, or play to earn - or to eventually scam your player base.
He's not ignoring anything, it just doesn't have anything to do with you. This is just marketing. Just let the thread die.
My take on you is that you participate in arguments without actually paying attention to what the opposing argument is. You seem to be doing that here. You are ignoring the fact that there is no reason to implement blockchain in to a game today other than pay to win, or play to earn - or to eventually scam your player base.
He's not ignoring anything, it just doesn't have anything to do with you. This is just marketing. Just let the thread die.
I mean, if people are making valid points against something he is arguing for and he is not addressing said points, that kind of is ignoring it.
My take on you is that you participate in arguments without actually paying attention to what the opposing argument is. You seem to be doing that here. You are ignoring the fact that there is no reason to implement blockchain in to a game today other than pay to win, or play to earn - or to eventually scam your player base.
He's not ignoring anything, it just doesn't have anything to do with you. This is just marketing. Just let the thread die.
I mean, if people are making valid points against something he is arguing for and he is not addressing said points, that kind of is ignoring it.
I know what you mean. You are right, but the point I'm making is it's not about your point or arguments. It's about keeping the thread on top. I'm actually being a hypocrite for responding to be honest, lol. Just realize that you won't convince anyone who likes this sort of stuff (aka wants money for nothing) and that keeping this sort of thread on top is really just about advertising.
At the very least force them to make a new thread. I assure you they will.
But I get it. I've met you all before. I've been in this a long time. I met you when you said Shareware would never take off. Met you when you said Freeware would never take off. Met you when you said dedicated Physics chips would never take off, when 3D accelerators would never take off. When wide screen gaming would never take off. We've had these conversations over and over, and people like you keep holding onto the present and past, when the core of our hobby is about embracing the future.
Taylors
You need to be older than the Beatles to have existed when I started gaming, but clearly you helped create the universe and have been a prescient leader among all gamers on Earth, so thank you for that. I would have been lost without you.
The girl watched the last of the creatures die and murmured a soft 'Thank you' to her rescuer.
The stranger's eyes lifted to the blood red cloud on the horizon.
Comments
Correct, I think @Noaani was trying to include this quote:
One hundred percent, it would be a terrible idea. But it doesn't change the fact that laws usually lag behind. See GDPR, the internet has been around for a while, and this regulation only took effect in 2018, and it took even longer for companies to comply, if they didn't just stop dealing with EU customers to save the trouble. GDPR in particular is preventing a lot of very bad stuff that companies would do without batting an eye otherwise. We'll get actual regulations regarding the blockchain eventually, but any company that is actually interested in working around the blockchain would have to wait quite a lot if they want everything to be regulated first, at the risk of falling behind. As you said, in the case of AoC, it doesn't make any sense because it's just a tiny fraction of the population that is overhyped about it and is trying to get all the game companies to integrate it.
Stop shilling for blockchain bs, stop running with the false narrative of "this is where it's heading " as if it's not simply companies like ubisoft and square enix repeating this garbage until people believe it.
So, there in later seasons when relevant technology is release to the masses it results in multiple MMOs being launched by various companies but if you have made a character in one game and you want to jump into another you carry over some aspects of what you have already grinded earlier.
Although it can be argued that there were pay to win aspects in what was shown in SAO, but at the end of the day what is stopping someone from selling their account in any game and breaking no p2w policy that way?
So while I agree with what OP is suggesting and it sounds beautiful in an ideal world, implementing it without compromising the game and the ideals behind them is not possible at the moment.
Stop bringing up ignored topics.
I play games because i want to play games. Not to make money. I have a job to make money, games are for fun.
I am not interested in making money from games or gain real life assets from the games i play.
Adding any sort of play-2-earn mechanic to the game (which is what i imagine you are talking about, be it crypto or JPGs {NFT}) changes the reason to play. You no longer play to have fun or play to progress or play experience the game, now you play to earn money.
Doing this adds the stress of a job to a game that is supposed to be the break from the job.
I'll give an example:
A castle in Ashes.
Currently, a castle give the controlling guild control over the taxes of the subservient nodes, give the leader a flying mount and prestige -> We are a top 5 guild on this server. People will fight over this castle for those bonuses. But if they lose a castle siege, nothing is actually lost.
Now, what if the taxes actually were crypto (INSANE concept, but let's go with that). Now, losing a castle means lost money for the players. Maybe enough money that it has real life repercussions.
Now on the "But its the future!!"
No, its not. Blockchain adds nothing to the games it is attached except the idea that you can make money from the game. I haven't seen anything else that blockchain adds. And that system already exists in some games: CSGO skins. CSGO skins are basically a form of NFTs that actually some value (compared to the actual NFTs). You get a skin, you put it up for sale, someone buys it, Valve takes a cut, and you get money.
That is play to earn. It exists already in some games. And it didn't spread to other games because not every game needs to have this.
Blockchain is new tech, so everyone is trying to figure out where it fits and depending on the reception, it will be added to different parts of the internet.
To burst your bubble, the vast majority of gamers DO NOT want ANY blockchain in their games. Look at the response Ubisoft and the STALKER team got when they said they want to add NFTs. STALKER's devs backtracked and Ubisoft is in denial.
Also, as a final note. @Taylors Expansion, don't want you to take this the wrong way, but why are you signing every post you make? It's weird. Your name already appears next to every post, no need to do that man.
CNN "Hackers steal over $600 million from video game Axie Infinity's Ronin network"
https://www.cnn.com/2022/03/29/tech/axie-infinity-ronin-hack/index.html
yeah... I know it's a bump and kinda stale but the scale of these thefts are worth noting.
Every single blockchain game is a scam or a ponzi scheme (yes i have seen a ton of them and used a lot of time on researching). I want to play games to have fun, not earn or use a ton of money. Let games be fun for the sake of fun. Il rater pay 50$ a month to keep that crap away. Games are my free time from money (except the cost for the game) and real life.
I posted this in January of 2022, and if anything, I am even MORE convinced that no game without blockchain stands to last more than a few years. Steam broke down, and is now going against its own ban on blockchain. Epic already has several blockchain games on their service, and are directly funding development of others.
Blockchain on mobile is about to explode.
It's not that I'm just a huge fan of blockchain in gaming, it's that as a gamer since the late 70s, I've always been able to see the next trend and go with it. I had the first sound card, the Adlib (and then the Pro Audio Spectrum 16 and in my garage, still have an original Soundblaster), I had the first 3D accelerator (the Rendition Verite), I 3D accelerated across three screens at once with the Matrox Parhelia-512 all the way back in 2002 until my latest rig, which finally has a screen that almost matches three-screen resolution. No offense to the rest of you, but I've never been wrong in predicting where gaming is going.
Blockchain is our future. Better get used to it.
And to the devs of Ashes? You still have a chance to incorporate blockchain into your product. I suggest partnering with Gala. If you need a reference, let me know.
Taylors
"I'm just wondering, has anyone here ever heard of block chain technology and all of the incredible benefits it brings?"
thread each month, you can eventually talk every one into it.
No man, you can't quit your job and just play mmos all day.
You obviously haven't seen Steven's face when he talks about no p2w, or even e2w, in the game. And how hard they will come down on gold sellers.
Don't hold your breath on getting that phone call.
The stranger's eyes lifted to the blood red cloud on the horizon.
'We have to move. It's not safe here.'
For the record, I am AGAINST P2W or E2W. That is a narrow, and overly negative, view of blockchain tech.
I am for ownership of in-game assets that I earn. And not as a job. In fact, if it's a job, it's not a game. Games must be fun first. Always. This is about having something to show for thousands of hours of gameplay. It is about keeping the legacy of a game we've played alive, long after the game itself is gone. It is about connecting with other players by being able to demonstrate that we were there, when that game came out, by being able to showcase items that could only have come from it.
But I get it. I've met you all before. I've been in this a long time. I met you when you said Shareware would never take off. Met you when you said Freeware would never take off. Met you when you said dedicated Physics chips would never take off, when 3D accelerators would never take off. When wide screen gaming would never take off. We've had these conversations over and over, and people like you keep holding onto the present and past, when the core of our hobby is about embracing the future.
But if the devs wish for their game to be targeted at folks like you, then I wish you both the best of luck. I can no longer justify investing time in games that do not allow me ownership of my efforts. At release, if this game lasts for more than a few years, I will be pleasantly surprised.
Taylors
When a game is gone, all you are ever going to have of it are memories. This is the same of any non-digital event. If you go tenpin bowling with some friends and have a great time, all you have left when it is done are memories.
Now, you could take photos if you are that way inclined, but you can take screenshots of games (or even videos, if you like). However, all this is doing is giving you a physical trigger for recalling those memories.
Some people have made the false assumption that with blockchain in games, if they achieve something in one game, they could transfer that to another game that they play later on. That is untrue as a general statement.
While some game developers may one day offer this, it will be limited to their games only. You would not be able to play L2 - as an example - achieve something there and take it on to Archeage, then on to Ashes.
See, I was around with these things as well.
I don't recall anyone saying shareware or freeware wouldn't work - but I do recall people complaining about the cost of some of the other aspects of those models (specifically freeware, and even more specifically Adobe). I also recall people arguing against these comments by blindly saying that the people making such comments were obviously anti-freeware and needed to "get with the times", despite that not being even close to what the argument was.
I recall people saying dedicated physics chips will be a short term thing, just as math co-processors were. Those people were correct, and dedicated physics chips were only ever a niche thing for a few years, and then were taken over by GPU compute. I absolutely recall people early on (before Nvidia took over Ageia) that physics calculations would be better suited to GPUs, they just need to be made more powerful. I also recall people saying that those claiming that physics calculations should be done on the GPU needed to get with the times, and we would all CLEARLY all be running PPU's along side our GPUs. Nvidia buying Ageia only solidified these comments - why else would they buy it if not to use their technology to sell more hardware?
I never once heard of someone saying 3D accelerator cards won't eventually take off, but I did hear many people say that they didn't really like how they were in their first few generations (essentially only able to generate wireframes). Once again, I also heard people say that those that didn't really like that wireframe result were just thinking in the past, and would be left behind, because obviously all gaming in the future would be 3D wireframe (seriously, people actually made the argument that the only 3D possible would be wireframe, but that this would be what we were all going to be using).
My take on you is that you participate in arguments without actually paying attention to what the opposing argument is. You seem to be doing that here. You are ignoring the fact that there is no reason to implement blockchain in to a game today other than pay to win, or play to earn - or to eventually scam your player base.
He's not ignoring anything, it just doesn't have anything to do with you. This is just marketing. Just let the thread die.
I know what you mean. You are right, but the point I'm making is it's not about your point or arguments. It's about keeping the thread on top. I'm actually being a hypocrite for responding to be honest, lol. Just realize that you won't convince anyone who likes this sort of stuff (aka wants money for nothing) and that keeping this sort of thread on top is really just about advertising.
At the very least force them to make a new thread. I assure you they will.
You need to be older than the Beatles to have existed when I started gaming, but clearly you helped create the universe and have been a prescient leader among all gamers on Earth, so thank you for that. I would have been lost without you.
The stranger's eyes lifted to the blood red cloud on the horizon.
'We have to move. It's not safe here.'