Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: Change publishers

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Distant Worlds Series >> RE: Change publishers Page: <<   < prev  3 4 5 [6] 7   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Change publishers - 2/22/2014 11:53:52 AM   
Kayoz


Posts: 1516
Joined: 12/20/2010
From: Timbuktu
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Gregorovitch55
...will not give up, no matter what, whist the the victim continues to stand up for themselves and their point of view


You mean... like concepts such as "none of your business"? How about "no locus standi"? Would you prefer "busybody sticking one's nose into others' business"? I think we covered all versions of that point ad nauseum.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Gregorovitch55
Happy to detail precise examples of his techniques as they relate to my posts if anyone thinks it useful.


With the same level of precision and accuracy as your 10 games demonstrating DW's sales potential on Steam? Indeed it should be eminently amusing to see your "new" list. I sincerely hope it's as amusing as your last collection of so-called "facts".

_____________________________

“That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.” ― Christopher Hitchens

(in reply to Gregorovitch55)
Post #: 151
RE: Change publishers - 2/22/2014 11:57:11 AM   
Kayoz


Posts: 1516
Joined: 12/20/2010
From: Timbuktu
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Darkspire
This thread does not reflect well on the forum. Can we all agree to disagree and just ignore the thread?
Constantly picking points of contention does not do anyone any favors


I would - but Icy's new pet terrier seems to want to pick up the tattered remains of his position. I shot his argument down 6 days ago... and now he's back for a rematch.

*shrug* I'm happy to call it quits. It seems they aren't.

_____________________________

“That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.” ― Christopher Hitchens

(in reply to Darkspire)
Post #: 152
RE: Change publishers - 2/22/2014 12:18:37 PM   
Darkspire


Posts: 1989
Joined: 6/12/2003
From: My Own Private Hell
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kayoz


quote:

ORIGINAL: Darkspire
This thread does not reflect well on the forum. Can we all agree to disagree and just ignore the thread?
Constantly picking points of contention does not do anyone any favors


I would - but Icy's new pet terrier seems to want to pick up the tattered remains of his position. I shot his argument down 6 days ago... and now he's back for a rematch.

*shrug* I'm happy to call it quits. It seems they aren't.


Two wrongs do not make a right.

Darkspire

_____________________________


(in reply to Kayoz)
Post #: 153
RE: Change publishers - 2/22/2014 1:10:46 PM   
Icemania


Posts: 1843
Joined: 6/5/2013
From: Australia
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Darkspire

This thread does not reflect well on the forum. Can we all agree to disagree and just ignore the thread?
Constantly picking points of contention does not do anyone any favors

Darkspire

I fully agree it does not reflect well on the forum.

We cannot ignore this thread. It requires Moderator action against Kayoz. Anything less allows the bully to get away with all of this inappropriate language and behaviour.

I have made a decision here to stand up for myself without using any of the language Kayoz has used.

It's more than possible to have a dialog on contentious points without resorting to such behaviour.


(in reply to Darkspire)
Post #: 154
RE: Change publishers - 2/22/2014 1:58:11 PM   
DevildogFF


Posts: 93
Joined: 12/8/2012
Status: offline
/yet again, agree with Ice.

Please remove Kayoz. This forum would be a much better place without him.

Are there no moderators here anymore?

(in reply to Icemania)
Post #: 155
RE: Change publishers - 2/22/2014 2:01:51 PM   
hewwo

 

Posts: 276
Joined: 4/22/2010
Status: offline
whoooo so who's exited at the soonish release of universe? I know I am!

(in reply to DevildogFF)
Post #: 156
RE: Change publishers - 2/22/2014 2:43:21 PM   
Shark7


Posts: 7890
Joined: 7/24/2007
From: The Big Nowhere
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Icemania

quote:

ORIGINAL: Darkspire

This thread does not reflect well on the forum. Can we all agree to disagree and just ignore the thread?
Constantly picking points of contention does not do anyone any favors

Darkspire

I fully agree it does not reflect well on the forum.

We cannot ignore this thread. It requires Moderator action against Kayoz. Anything less allows the bully to get away with all of this inappropriate language and behaviour.

I have made a decision here to stand up for myself without using any of the language Kayoz has used.

It's more than possible to have a dialog on contentious points without resorting to such behaviour.




You do know that the green button at the bottom of every post allows you to put that poster on ignore, right? I do it so I don't end up feeding any trolls. Saves a lot of heartburn too.

Some people feed off negativity, so no amount of standing your ground will work...when no one pays attention to them, it is far more effective. If they are ignored, it takes all the fun out of it for them.

And I'm joining the crowd that thinks this thread has long since lost any relevancy, and its time to put it to rest.

In closing, I will say there can be a happy medium. I want to continue purchasing from Matrix where I don't have the hassle of spyware on my PC just to play a game. So long as they continue to offer that service, I don't care if they offer it in other formats...it can only bring in more players.

_____________________________

Distant Worlds Fan

'When in doubt...attack!'

(in reply to Icemania)
Post #: 157
RE: Change publishers - 2/22/2014 3:35:11 PM   
Int3

 

Posts: 1
Joined: 2/22/2014
Status: offline
Usually I don't post on boards, however, sometimes I have an.. Urge?.. to tell my opinion. I have been monitoring this thread cautiously, and, I have to say, what there is completely nothing wrong about points Kayoz made. His opponents' behavior seems to be rather childish (you know, like when teenager gets proven otherwise and then he freaks out), let alone what they simply can't stand their own ground at all (at least because it is hard to do so when your point is completely false). Kayoz's offensive (is it really? The way Icemania screams everywhere about need of immediate moderator intervention seems much more offensive to me) behavior is quiet understandable - some people just can't stand an ignorance. An unbelievable ignorance. If there is anyone who actually deserves a good ban, it is definitely not Kayoz.
Sorry for interrupting.

< Message edited by Int3 -- 2/22/2014 4:38:54 PM >

(in reply to Shark7)
Post #: 158
RE: Change publishers - 2/22/2014 3:59:29 PM   
Gregorovitch55

 

Posts: 191
Joined: 2/11/2014
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kayoz

With the same level of precision and accuracy as your 10 games demonstrating DW's sales potential on Steam? Indeed it should be eminently amusing to see your "new" list. I sincerely hope it's as amusing as your last collection of so-called "facts".


Right, that is clear evidence of deliberate rather than accidental use on your part of a "Straw Man Argument" in an attempt to ridicule an opponent's position or view, and then use this as justification to insult, intimidate and belittle the opponent personally. Let's do a little forensics here to demonstrate to folks here how you go about it:

Firstly, the idea behind a Straw Man is to selectively edit or fabricate alterations to your opponents argument in such a way as to make it easy to refute or ridicule the fabricated version of it (the "Straw Man") in the hope people don't notice the refutation is invalid against the original argument and are swayed towards your position by your ruse. Wikipedia has a good example:

Straw man arguments often arise in public debates such as a (hypothetical) prohibition debate:

A: We should liberalize the laws on beer.
B: No, any society with unrestricted access to intoxicants loses its work ethic and goes only for immediate gratification.

The proposal was to relax laws on beer. Person B has exaggerated this to a position harder to defend, i.e., "unrestricted access to intoxicants". It is a logical fallacy because Person A never made that claim.


So let's look at how Kayoz uses the technique:

G: The reason Matrix is probably right not to use Steam to distribute it's core war game catalog is that it is itself the primary hub for serious war games and people who want to play serious war games will find their way here anyway. .... This is *not* true for space 4X games

K: And as you stated previously, Matrix has a firm foothold in the strategic gaming market.

G: Where you are very mistaken is that "Matrix has a firm foothold in the strategic gaming market"

K: It was YOUR statement, not mine. If you want to refute your OWN statement, then go right ahead. Go ahead and argue with yourself. I'll have no part in it. I don't do schizophrenia.


As we see what he has done is to change "serious war games" into "strategic gaming market" (the Straw Man) and then use that in his kicker about schizophrenia. Let's look at another example (sorry it's a bit TL;DR)

K: And more importantly, those "logged in" users mean little and less without demographic data. If they're millions of teenagers who's favourite game is Counter Strike (or whatever), that is irrelevant to Matrix sales.

G: The other misconception you have is that Steam is populated by teenagers playing multi-player FPS games. Sure there are a lot of those, but a glance at the top 100 games currently being played (which is actually playing now)shows a lot of people playing games of comparable complexity and depth to DW, for example: [list of games and nos of players etc]

K: I'm bored, so let's look at YOUR numbers in a little detail:
Given that DW is a 4x grand strategy game, I think we can safely eliminate the items in red. If it's not even a strategy game in the loosest definition, it can't be considered.
Total: 186,739
Genre eliminates: 97,108
6 down, 4 left.
You've lost over half of your numbers just on cursory elimination of games not even within DW's genre. Of the remaining, I think only Civ is close to DW - it's a real 4x game, while I'd debate that of the remaining, two are the same tedious spreadsheet game (EU and CK are just the same engine with different skins) and a click-fest C&C clone (AoE).
So, you're left with about 1/3 the numbers that you started with. That's ONE example of the TEN you started with.
Well done. A more illustrative example of Mark Twain's quote is hard to come by.
1 left standing out of 10. If this were bowling, I'd say I'm having a good night.


Again we see the Straw Man erected: Kayoz originally argues there is no evidence Steam users would affect Matrix game sales because "they're millions of teenagers who's favourite game is Counter Strike (or whatever)". I refute that with evidence of how many people on Steam are playing games of comparable depth and complexity to DW. Now Kayoz could have countered that with the simple ripost that why would someone who likes playing football manager be interested in playing DW, which is is a valid question, but instead he erects a Straw Man around "If it's not even a strategy game in the loosest definition, it can't be considered." and "Of the remaining, I think only Civ is close to DW". This is a Straw Man because I quoted figures for games (I consider) of "comparable depth and complexity" to DW as evidence against his original assertion that Steam users are "irrelevant to Matrix sales" and never suggested they were strategy games or 4X games.

The question arises as to whether Kayoz uses the straw man technique deliberately to intimidate and bully people, or whether he does so unknowingly perhaps because he does not read what people say properly and makes incorrect assumptions or perhaps for some other reason. If we consider the wikipedia example about alcohol deregulation then if a politician used the straw man we would assume it was a deliberate ploy to sway public opinion towards his or her view (politicians use straw men all the time). If on the other hand an person in the street was canvassed about it they might unknowingly use it simply because they imagine streets full of drunken louts running riot and react emotionally to it.

In my view the balance of probabilities suggests Kayoz does this deliberately. Firstly, he has used straw men 100% of the time against the issues I raised with him. Secondly he always ends his straw men with abusive and derogatory personal attacks. Thirdly, he starts the final post with "I'm bored" and ends with "If this were bowling, I'd say I'm having a good night". I suggest this implies he had plenty of time to consider carefully how he was going to approach his arguement in that post (not acting or reacting in the heat of the moment or emotionally) and that he considers his activities on the forum as some sort of game he is out to "win".

If so I submit his behaviour intolerable and I certainly cannot see how members here can have a constructive and open debate about the future of game they love, or new interested people like me join in, in the presence of someone like this.



(in reply to Kayoz)
Post #: 159
RE: Change publishers - 2/22/2014 6:33:06 PM   
Kayoz


Posts: 1516
Joined: 12/20/2010
From: Timbuktu
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Darkspire
Two wrongs do not make a right.


Nod to the voice of reason.

I'm done with this thread.

_____________________________

“That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.” ― Christopher Hitchens

(in reply to Darkspire)
Post #: 160
RE: Change publishers - 2/22/2014 6:37:09 PM   
Cauldyth

 

Posts: 685
Joined: 6/27/2010
Status: offline
Yay!

(in reply to Kayoz)
Post #: 161
RE: Change publishers - 2/22/2014 9:19:12 PM   
Ralzakark


Posts: 225
Joined: 4/24/2012
Status: offline
Goodbye.

(in reply to Cauldyth)
Post #: 162
RE: Change publishers - 2/22/2014 11:14:19 PM   
Icemania


Posts: 1843
Joined: 6/5/2013
From: Australia
Status: offline
Great ... normal friendly forum discussion can resume.

Gregorovitch55, I've played 7 of the games you mentioned on Steam. Every 2 years or so, I play far too much Football Manager, when I have an urge to expand my team, explore the market and exterminate the opposition.

(in reply to Gregorovitch55)
Post #: 163
RE: Change publishers - 2/22/2014 11:42:54 PM   
Gregorovitch55

 

Posts: 191
Joined: 2/11/2014
Status: offline
Presumably by exploiting their weaknesses

(in reply to Icemania)
Post #: 164
RE: Change publishers - 2/22/2014 11:51:21 PM   
Icemania


Posts: 1843
Joined: 6/5/2013
From: Australia
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Shark7
In closing, I will say there can be a happy medium. I want to continue purchasing from Matrix where I don't have the hassle of spyware on my PC just to play a game. So long as they continue to offer that service, I don't care if they offer it in other formats...it can only bring in more players.

Agreed. Galactic Civilisations is a relevant example.

(in reply to Shark7)
Post #: 165
RE: Change publishers - 2/22/2014 11:52:12 PM   
Icemania


Posts: 1843
Joined: 6/5/2013
From: Australia
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Gregorovitch55
Presumably by exploiting their weaknesses



(in reply to Gregorovitch55)
Post #: 166
RE: Change publishers - 2/26/2014 10:41:29 AM   
Icemania


Posts: 1843
Joined: 6/5/2013
From: Australia
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Icemania

As many of you might be aware Horizon has recently been launched, and as always, Space Sector has a quality review.

What I find interesting is that IGN and GameSpot have reviews while Polygon has news and PC Gamer has a preview.

In contrast, I cannot find anything material regarding Distant Worlds (beyond basic information and user reviews), particularly for Shadows or Universe on gaming sites such as these, that provide exposure to the 4X gaming audience.

For those that consider Distant Worlds marketing to be reasonable or good ... on what basis do you make this assertion?

Note: I am not making any comments about the quality of these sites, this is not my point.



To provide a broader picture it's worth looking at a review aggregation site such as Game Rankings.

Galactic Civilisations 2: 47 reviews

Sins of a Solar Empire: 46 reviews

Endless Space: 23 reviews

Stardrive: 16 reviews

Sword of the Stars 2: 8 reviews

Armada 2526: 5 reviews

Horizon: 3 reviews (recently released)

and

Distant Worlds Legends: 0 reviews


(in reply to Icemania)
Post #: 167
RE: Change publishers - 2/26/2014 11:27:46 AM   
Kayoz


Posts: 1516
Joined: 12/20/2010
From: Timbuktu
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Icemania
To provide a broader picture it's worth looking at a review aggregation site such as Game Rankings.


You can't just drop it, can you?

OK, fine - let's cut through some of the BS here - what credibility does gamerankings really have?

If you're seriously giving credibility to a company that fires reviewers for negative game reviews - then by all means do so. Personally I give more credibility to Fox News than anything controlled by Gamespot.

Of note - the moderators are capable of locking threads and taking actions when necessary. They don't need your constant crying and moaning to tell them how to do their jobs.

_____________________________

“That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.” ― Christopher Hitchens

(in reply to Icemania)
Post #: 168
RE: Change publishers - 2/26/2014 11:33:26 AM   
Kayoz


Posts: 1516
Joined: 12/20/2010
From: Timbuktu
Status: offline
Since it seems that Gregor and Icemania won't let this thread quietly die, a quick note on Gregor's last (with the term used loosely) meaningful post:

quote:

ORIGINAL: Gregorovitch55
"Straw Man Argument"
<snip irrelevant drivel>


Look at the data.
Does it support your assertion?

Does the demographic of ARMA2 and 3 sales, as well as Football Manager really, in your mind, overlap significantly with DW? That is, after all, what you're saying.

The evidence that you presented does not support your own assertions. If it says anything at all - it's that you don't know anything about market demographics.

_____________________________

“That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.” ― Christopher Hitchens

(in reply to Gregorovitch55)
Post #: 169
RE: Change publishers - 2/26/2014 11:43:37 AM   
DevildogFF


Posts: 93
Joined: 12/8/2012
Status: offline
GO AWAY, KAYOZ.


(in reply to Kayoz)
Post #: 170
RE: Change publishers - 2/26/2014 11:54:30 AM   
Icemania


Posts: 1843
Joined: 6/5/2013
From: Australia
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Kayoz

quote:

ORIGINAL: Icemania
To provide a broader picture it's worth looking at a review aggregation site such as Game Rankings.


You can't just drop it, can you?

OK, fine - let's cut through some of the BS here - what credibility does gamerankings really have?

If you're seriously giving credibility to a company that fires reviewers for negative game reviews - then by all means do so. Personally I give more credibility to Fox News than anything controlled by Gamespot.

Of note - the moderators are capable of locking threads and taking actions when necessary. They don't need your constant crying and moaning to tell them how to do their jobs.

This is a forum and I'm not going to let an illogical bully stop me posting.

Your response has zero relevance. It's an aggregation site. The point I am making is obvious. If you don't like it, check a similar site that you do trust, and counter-argue with evidence rather than insults for a change. I've checked another one and while the numbers differ the theme is exactly the same.

As I've pointed out before it's not like your change in position on marketing has ever had any evidence behind it.



(in reply to Kayoz)
Post #: 171
RE: Change publishers - 2/26/2014 11:54:48 AM   
Icemania


Posts: 1843
Joined: 6/5/2013
From: Australia
Status: offline
Well said DevildogFF

(in reply to DevildogFF)
Post #: 172
RE: Change publishers - 2/26/2014 12:08:14 PM   
Cauldyth

 

Posts: 685
Joined: 6/27/2010
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Kayoz
I'm done with this thread.


Liar.

(in reply to Kayoz)
Post #: 173
RE: Change publishers - 2/26/2014 12:12:15 PM   
Osito


Posts: 851
Joined: 5/9/2013
Status: offline
Icemania, I don't think there's any argument that DW has had much less exposure than the other games you listed, at least in terms of reviews, and probably in terms of forum discussions. If you measure 'well-marketed' in those terms, then almost by definition you come to the view that the game has been poorly marketed.

However, Kayoz must be right that we don't know the whole story, because it is (self evident) that we don't have all the facts and figures available to Matrix. For example, let's say Matrix has a business plan for DW and all the goals set out in that business plan have been achieved. In those circumstances, can you say the marketing is inadequate? I'd say that in those circumstances, the marketing has been adequate to meet the business goals, ergo the marketing was effective. Now we might have a debate about whether the business plan was ambitious enough, but that's a different question.

Osito

(in reply to Icemania)
Post #: 174
RE: Change publishers - 2/26/2014 12:41:39 PM   
Icemania


Posts: 1843
Joined: 6/5/2013
From: Australia
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Osito

Icemania, I don't think there's any argument that DW has had much less exposure than the other games you listed, at least in terms of reviews, and probably in terms of forum discussions. If you measure 'well-marketed' in those terms, then almost by definition you come to the view that the game has been poorly marketed.

However, Kayoz must be right that we don't know the whole story, because it is (self evident) that we don't have all the facts and figures available to Matrix. For example, let's say Matrix has a business plan for DW and all the goals set out in that business plan have been achieved. In those circumstances, can you say the marketing is inadequate? I'd say that in those circumstances, the marketing has been adequate to meet the business goals, ergo the marketing was effective. Now we might have a debate about whether the business plan was ambitious enough, but that's a different question.

Osito

Thanks for posting in a friendly manner.

As I've said before of course we don't know the whole story.

Consider a game where the base product is poor. Let's say the game was marketed really well. If the business goals are not met is it fair to blame the marketing?

Now consider a game where the base product is good. Let's say the game was poorly marketed. Is it reasonable to assume that just because the business goals were met that the marketing was "reasonable" or "good"?

Achieving potential is and must be part of the equation for any evaluation of performance. As someone who has enjoyed this game immensely, and hopes we will see a big and bold DW2 and a larger community, not to mention potential in a product vastly improved from the original, it is certainly very much part of the way I look at this.

Also I'd suggested reading Tcby's earlier post again.



< Message edited by Icemania -- 2/26/2014 1:47:12 PM >

(in reply to Osito)
Post #: 175
RE: Change publishers - 2/26/2014 1:02:39 PM   
Osito


Posts: 851
Joined: 5/9/2013
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Icemania

Now consider a game where the base product is good. Let's say the game was poorly marketed. Is it reasonable to assume that just because the business goals were met that the marketing was "reasonable" or "good"?



Yes, I think it is. The point I'm getting at is that the marketing may have been designed specifically to meet the business objectives. If it succeeded in doing that, I don't think it was poor.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Icemania

As someone who has enjoyed this game immensely, and hopes we will see a big and bold DW2 and a larger community, not to mention potential in a product vastly improved from the original, it is certainly very much part of the way I look at this.



No question that I'd like to see a big and bold DW2 with a larger community.

Osito

(in reply to Icemania)
Post #: 176
RE: Change publishers - 2/26/2014 1:04:21 PM   
Icemania


Posts: 1843
Joined: 6/5/2013
From: Australia
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Osito
Icemania, I don't think there's any argument that DW has had much less exposure than the other games you listed, at least in terms of reviews, and probably in terms of forum discussions. If you measure 'well-marketed' in those terms, then almost by definition you come to the view that the game has been poorly marketed.

Just to supplement this is where marketing effectiveness comes in as another component of marketing performance. It's all good and well to raise awareness/exposure but that then needs to lead to sales. However, you have to create the awareness first ...



(in reply to Osito)
Post #: 177
RE: Change publishers - 2/26/2014 1:06:07 PM   
Icemania


Posts: 1843
Joined: 6/5/2013
From: Australia
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Osito

quote:

ORIGINAL: Icemania

Now consider a game where the base product is good. Let's say the game was poorly marketed. Is it reasonable to assume that just because the business goals were met that the marketing was "reasonable" or "good"?



Yes, I think it is. The point I'm getting at is that the marketing may have been designed specifically to meet the business objectives. If it succeeded in doing that, I don't think it was poor.



And then the question is ... is a minimal marketing design now appropriate? I would say no, Distant Worlds is a marketing outlier against similar products, and the product is vastly improved.

Edit: It is also quite normal to re-evaluate the suitability of a design at key milestones.


< Message edited by Icemania -- 2/26/2014 2:38:00 PM >

(in reply to Osito)
Post #: 178
RE: Change publishers - 2/26/2014 1:11:22 PM   
Kayoz


Posts: 1516
Joined: 12/20/2010
From: Timbuktu
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Icemania
... your change in position on marketing has ever had any evidence behind it.


You still don't understand "burden of proof", do you? You've raised the negative allegations against Matrix marketing; it's for you to provide proof.

Thus far, you haven't provided one iota of proof. Your allegations can be safely ignored.


_____________________________

“That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.” ― Christopher Hitchens

(in reply to Icemania)
Post #: 179
RE: Change publishers - 2/26/2014 1:14:04 PM   
Kayoz


Posts: 1516
Joined: 12/20/2010
From: Timbuktu
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Icemania
Achieving potential is and must be part of the equation for any evaluation of performance.


You don't have any figures to put into your equation. You lack the most basic element of any equation - FACTS.

You have none. All you have is supposition and ignorant, uneducated, uninformed guesses.

Now will you give it a rest, or go and find some FACTS?


_____________________________

“That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.” ― Christopher Hitchens

(in reply to Icemania)
Post #: 180
Page:   <<   < prev  3 4 5 [6] 7   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Distant Worlds Series >> RE: Change publishers Page: <<   < prev  3 4 5 [6] 7   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.164