The success of King.com really bothers me. Sure their games are not cheap and made very well, but it seems the whole "game" and all mechanics are just designed to slowly get you hooked and extract money at the most susceptible time. And it's executed almost to the point of perfection.
It's a shame it's working so well, because they are eating the cake in front of a very low confidence game industry. Smartphones are powerful now, yet games that manage to match the quality and depth of an SNES-era game are basically non-existent. After seeing the success of Rovio, Zynga and King, I don't think they will be made sadly. Let's just hope this doesn't affect other platforms as well.
Smartphones are powerful now, yet games that manage to match the quality and depth of an SNES-era game are basically non-existent. After seeing the success of Rovio, Zynga and King, I don't think they will be made sadly.
It's important to realize that our tastes aren't necessarily representative of people's tastes in general. Most people probably wouldn't enjoy Chrono Trigger or FF3 compared to Candy Crush. The evidence is that Final Fantasy games have been available for smartphones for a long time now, but they just aren't selling. The storytelling experience is the same, but people aren't as into them.
It's easy to label the industry as "low confidence" but reality is more along the lines of "acts on hard data." It's wise to be cautious when it only takes one or two mistakes to kill your company.
The last mobile game I worked on at a (now defunct) company, started out as an innovative open-world exploration / action game (See http://www.slantsixgames.com/games/strata-scavenger). I can honestly say, having had first-hand gameplay experience with it, that this game could have been a standout in the mobile game crowd.
Unfortunately, the day came when our CMF (Canadian Media Fund) money ran out, and the company had to look for external funding. Needless to say, publishers are not interested in this kind of game. They expect simple gameplay, in-app purchases, social features, etc. It it very hard, in the current mobile game climate, to come up with truly deep and innovative games. I applaud each and every indie dev trying to do so.
EDIT: edited link above to point directly to the company's website
> but it seems the whole "game" and all mechanics are just designed to slowly get you hooked and extract money at the most susceptible time
Welcome to the games industry of today. It's all about this everywhere you look; in fact, if you are an indie doing games today and you don't build around monetization you'll pretty much be laughed at (not by the players evidently, but you get the point).
> Smartphones are powerful now, yet games that manage to match the quality and depth of an SNES-era game are basically non-existent
Well, people generally tend to have much shorter sessions with their smartphone than with a console. Stupid and simple works because that's where the demand is, so folks build more of it.
I've got the exact same concerns. But on the other hand, I think what we're seeing is a bubble.
A few powerful companies are exploiting the current casual/F2P gold rush, but I doubt humanity as a whole will be into casual scam games forever. Games are evidently growing up. And legislators might eventually tackle games that focus on addicting and deceiving.
All this will take time of course, but I still don't think we're in for a cultural wasteland in the near-term. Indies are already filling the gap, and it actually leads to success for some of them. Most in my circles don't focus on making money first and foremost, neither do I.
There are a lot of great indie titles out there. It takes some work though searching through them and trying to find the good ones. But ps4, nintendo, xbox are all starting to show support for indie titles and it is not hard to get a game onto those systems if you are an indie dev on the latest consoles.
Games on iOS/Android which match or exceed SNES-era games are plentiful.[1] I'm not sure why this opinion persists. Mobile games have trash like Candy Crush, but SNES wasn't crap-free either. I don't have a lot of time for games these days, but my iPad has games like Plants vs. Zombies, Final Fantasy Tactics, an Infocom / Inform interpreter, King of Dragon Pass, Waking Mars, SpaceChem, Minecraft, Brogue, Skulls of the Samurai, XCOM, Pacific Skies, OOTP Baseball, etc. There's also some great board / card game conversions like Small World 2, Warhammer Quest, and Ascension on there. And this only scratches the surface of what's out there.
[1] Pocket Tactics - http://www.pockettactics.com - is a very good site, in the style of Rock Paper Shotgun, for discovering the more interesting mobile games.
I don't know. I would never buy a smartphone game at this point because they look so low quality. Square Enix has offerings in the play store that I know are going to be good, so I can pay a few dollars more for that game instead of spending 0.99 on DRAGON DUNGEON CASTLE LOLICON SAGA.
What bothers me, is that the addictive nature and spending is up 2 par with poker sites/ casino's. You can play for free with playmoney there, and sure if you have discipline and constraint you won't deposit on such a site. Then advertising comes in..
Isn't this what all of us are complaining about right now? Various business segments (video games, content, video aggregation) doing the bare minimum copying existing content and monitizing it with psychological usury? Clickbait-y headlines, overly gamified games, etc. All the same thing, but they only work because they work--people clicking, paying, etc... How do we as developers deal with these segments or agents we find intellectually dishonest?
To be fair, the video game industry has brought this upon themselves. They haven't innovated much since the SNES era. 90% of the profits went to Call of Duty and Madden sequels for a long time.
King and their ilk aren't cutting into that, they're innovating games for people who previously didn't play them. It's a positive thing.
It's the form factor. Sure, a mobile RPG might be fun on a train ride, but realistically, the quality game audience is well serviced on platforms that don't have to force their control scheme into a crude touch screen abomination.
Seems like Blizzard might be coming to mobile with their latest game, so those higher quality, richer games may eventually come to mobile as AAA studios get on board (with the actual games they are also pushing on other platforms).
How is this different than playing Street Fighter, Contra, or any other arcade game? I remember pulling a roll of quarters out of the bank just so I could go to the arcade prepared to slowly spend money years back.
As someone who grew up in the Golden Age of video games, this makes me sad. You are no longer the player and the thing in your hand is not the game. The player is the company the game is you.
Maybe it was always like so, and I was young and having too much fun to realize. It really does seem like the idea of painting rich immersive worlds with challenging skills to learn and master has been tossed aside, in favor of simplified Skinner boxes with the minimum required skinning of a game and pay to play. Even more sad is how successful these "games" are. A reflection of the times I suppose - no time for dawdling about reading story or exploring worlds, quick information and quick rewards please, because time is too important to waste.
I think its obvious that mobile is a ghetto. The touch based controls don't really lend themselves to anything complex gaming-wise and high-information gamers aren't ignoring their PCs and consoles for them. It just leaves low-information casuals who jump into whatever skinner box time-waster is popular today.
In the meantime, the PC master race is having a renaissance of sorts and the new batch of consoles look pretty good.
> Maybe it was always like so, and I was young and having too much fun to realize.
No, I don't think so. One way to look at it: previous generations of game companies were playing a cooperative, positive-sum game with their audience. By creating lots of fun and value, they could get high dollar-scores. Now, they are playing negative-sum games with the audience: by creating stress, compulsion, and addiction, they can extract money.
If you haven't read it, you might like the book "Finite and Infinite Games". It's not about games in the sense we're discussing here; it's more looking at social philosophy through the lens of games.
"... time is too important to waste" as we piss it away playing Candy Crush et al.
So much effort has been made to streamline our lives and make every task as efficient as possible (if not eliminate it all together). We then suddenly find ourselves so bored that we have to fill it with hours of brainless smartphone games and low-quality television. We'll call it entertainment!
It may not be a rule, but why does it seem like the companies who shamelessly steal from others are usually the ones to attack others for infringement when they turn into bigger companies? I remember Zynga being in a similar situation, ripping off other people's games early on, and then attacking others for copying "their" games.
It must be some kind of "organization insecurity", or some kind of "thieves knowing thieves" kind of thing. I actually don't mind seeing companies "being inspired", even more heavily, by other companies' products, but it pisses me off when they do it themselves, too, and then start attacking others for doing it to them.
it's a huge insecurity thing. That's all they know. That's all they have. They have no idea how to start on a new innovative game. They've never done it, and they don't have the people in place to take the initiative. They have no framework to launch a legitimate title. All the top people they hired were hired to clone games. They're not going to give up their jobs to some kid with an awesome idea. They then realize that ANY fool can come in and topple them. What they do is easy to replicate.
Is it that surprising to see someone plagiarize tons of games, and then later try to claim ownership of those ideas? That's just a straight-up criminal in disguise as a game developer. If they weren't making games, they would be robbing people on the street. That's just who those people are.
Of course it's all bolstered by investors who have never played a single game in their life and believe that these are good investments and will write tons and tons of articles about it. They're not. Any real gamer would have told you Zynga wasn't a good investment at IPO.
Firms don't aggressively protect their IP out of some sense of global justice, they do it to make money. These firms understand the value of IP and the legal mechanisms that exist to protect/acquire/monetize it better than the average. Why would they hesitate to use this knowledge offensively?
If you're a game developer (or just want to make a game) then we're hosting a game jam in protest of their "candy" trademark. Make a game about candy. Check it out: http://thecandyjam.com
I always thought for the 10 minutes I installed Candy Crush before deleting it, that was a clone of Bejeweled from Pop Cap (and I'm sure that's a clone from somewhere else).
I hate king.com for the many hours of potential productivity that I have paid them for the privilege of losing. Whenever I talk about how I was stupid for playing Candy Crush I feel like I'm victim blaming.
Anyway, horrible company culture; I don't think they can reasonably expect great success from behaving in this manner.
Really? C'mon man have some self control for god sakes. It's a video game on a phone.
I'm not particularly fond of micro-transactions, I cannot stand the way intellectual property is handled in this country (US), and I dislike rip-off artists such as Zynga/King.
However, all King is doing here is playing ball with current IP legislation, protecting whatever trademarks they can. There's hundreds of games that are exactly the same in every category of gaming, just because King has the capability to create a high-quality successful series of mobile games (which are based off of extremely common gaming concepts) does not mean they are horrible people.
People get up in arms when these large corporations sue eachother over intellectual property. Why does the HN community have this double standard whenever a "little guy" can be made out to have been harmed? Just because you're the first person to think of a popular idea doesn't mean you own it forever.
Patent/Trademark/Copyright legislation is very clearly all bunk in the age of the internet. Get mad at the stupid laws, not at the people taking advantage of them.
This is ridiculous! The provisional trademark "Candy" should be refused under Section 2(e)(1) Refusal – Merely Descriptive. Simple as that!
"...A mark is merely descriptive if it describes an ingredient, quality, characteristic, function, feature, purpose, or use of an applicant’s goods and/or services. TMEP §1209.01(b); see, e.g., DuoProSS Meditech Corp. v. Inviro Med. Devices, Ltd., ___ F.3d ___, 103 USPQ2d 1753, 1755 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (quoting In re Oppedahl & Larson LLP, 373 F.3d 1171, 1173, 71 USPQ2d 1370, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2004)); In re Steelbuilding.com, 415 F.3d 1293, 1297, 75 USPQ2d 1420, 1421 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (citing Estate of P.D. Beckwith, Inc. v. Comm’r of Patents, 252 U.S. 538, 543 (1920))."
King.com must've bribed the trademark officials. Disgusting!
The main problem here is not that King copies games. Lots of games, few ideas, this has always been the situation. The main problem here is that a company is allowed to trademark a word like "Candy" or "Saga".
Evil company, maybe, retarded laws, very obviously.
Really? I'd much rather they acted stupidly over names than went out and blatantly copied people's games. The former is an annoyance which can be worked around, the latter destroys peoples livelihoods.
A Double Standard if I ever saw one. Who could have guessed that a company that develops a 'human skinner box' and brands it Candy crush would be evil.
"Pssst.. want some candy? Just give this game a try, there's no reason for fear, we're not evil. Look at the sparkling colors!"
Clearly King.com don't end up looking like the good guys here - although as the article does freely admit, "Scamperghost isn't the most original game in the world. It's obviously inspired by Pac-Man" ...
Which rather does bring to mind the supposed conversation between Bill Gates and Steve Jobs, where Jobs suggests that Windows has copied the Macintosh, but Gates responds that "I think it's more like we both had this rich neighbour named Xerox..."
No kudos to king.com either way. In cases like these I'm almost inclined to wish that someone would just come up with a really really good "inspired by..." game and release it for free just for the hell of it. (Not terribly good business, admittedly, but you have to admit it would be pretty satisfying. I don't see a "Sugar Crash" in the app store yet...) :)
I hate to be such a cynic here, but isn't this pretty much standard practice in the mobile gaming space? It seems to be the wild wild west as far as copyright goes.
I remember reading a piece on Zynga maybe a year or two ago that detailed the games that were ripped off (apart from the obvious scramble = boggle, words = scrabble) almost exactly from other existing but much less popular games in the app store.
To anyone who have played arcade games and flash games decade(s) ago knows that so many games today are pure retries of older games. Just take a look on the games of Rovio and others. One thing that pops in mind is "I've played this game before". Great thing is that they make the good, original idea of the game more enjoyable with better ramification and execution.
Mobile games have pivoted from being short, fun to play vignettes into honey traps that lure you in and get you hooked to consume your time and/or money.
Every major studio out there makes formulaic bull that basically copies some other schmuck's idea and adds their own "StudioCoin" on top to monetize the game.
Temple Run spawned hundreds of clones, then Candy Crush clones came out and now apparently it's Clash of Clans clones.
Everyone from EA to Mobage does this cloning instead of focusing on bringing new ideas to the table.
If only they tried to innovate, the crappy studios like King would go out of business.
Indie developers try hard, but it takes a team to make a well rounded game with large scale mass appeal... :/
tl;dr Today's mobile games are time consuming black holes, and once done credible competition comes forth, they're sure sink.
1) I wouldn't say "from being short...", I think it's more accurate to say "from JUST short...". My reasoning here is that we have deeper long games, heck Knights of the Old Republic comes to mind, and short fun games like Cut The Rope.
2) Couldn't you say basically the same thing about the movie industry, regarding the lack of new ideas and abundant cloning? When games and movies take so much investment, it's not always easy to convince barely imaginative accountants to spend the money.
[+] [-] zyb09|12 years ago|reply
It's a shame it's working so well, because they are eating the cake in front of a very low confidence game industry. Smartphones are powerful now, yet games that manage to match the quality and depth of an SNES-era game are basically non-existent. After seeing the success of Rovio, Zynga and King, I don't think they will be made sadly. Let's just hope this doesn't affect other platforms as well.
[+] [-] sillysaurus2|12 years ago|reply
It's important to realize that our tastes aren't necessarily representative of people's tastes in general. Most people probably wouldn't enjoy Chrono Trigger or FF3 compared to Candy Crush. The evidence is that Final Fantasy games have been available for smartphones for a long time now, but they just aren't selling. The storytelling experience is the same, but people aren't as into them.
It's easy to label the industry as "low confidence" but reality is more along the lines of "acts on hard data." It's wise to be cautious when it only takes one or two mistakes to kill your company.
[+] [-] aaronetz|12 years ago|reply
The last mobile game I worked on at a (now defunct) company, started out as an innovative open-world exploration / action game (See http://www.slantsixgames.com/games/strata-scavenger). I can honestly say, having had first-hand gameplay experience with it, that this game could have been a standout in the mobile game crowd.
Unfortunately, the day came when our CMF (Canadian Media Fund) money ran out, and the company had to look for external funding. Needless to say, publishers are not interested in this kind of game. They expect simple gameplay, in-app purchases, social features, etc. It it very hard, in the current mobile game climate, to come up with truly deep and innovative games. I applaud each and every indie dev trying to do so.
EDIT: edited link above to point directly to the company's website
[+] [-] Mahn|12 years ago|reply
Welcome to the games industry of today. It's all about this everywhere you look; in fact, if you are an indie doing games today and you don't build around monetization you'll pretty much be laughed at (not by the players evidently, but you get the point).
> Smartphones are powerful now, yet games that manage to match the quality and depth of an SNES-era game are basically non-existent
Well, people generally tend to have much shorter sessions with their smartphone than with a console. Stupid and simple works because that's where the demand is, so folks build more of it.
[+] [-] fhd2|12 years ago|reply
A few powerful companies are exploiting the current casual/F2P gold rush, but I doubt humanity as a whole will be into casual scam games forever. Games are evidently growing up. And legislators might eventually tackle games that focus on addicting and deceiving.
All this will take time of course, but I still don't think we're in for a cultural wasteland in the near-term. Indies are already filling the gap, and it actually leads to success for some of them. Most in my circles don't focus on making money first and foremost, neither do I.
[+] [-] gadders|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jrs99|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] honestcoyote|12 years ago|reply
[1] Pocket Tactics - http://www.pockettactics.com - is a very good site, in the style of Rock Paper Shotgun, for discovering the more interesting mobile games.
Their best of 2013 list is a good place to get started if you have no idea of what's available - http://www.pockettactics.com/pocket-tactics-best-2013-awards...
[+] [-] debacle|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] easy_rider|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] brokentone|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mattmaroon|12 years ago|reply
King and their ilk aren't cutting into that, they're innovating games for people who previously didn't play them. It's a positive thing.
[+] [-] ThomPete|12 years ago|reply
And so we are left with the old card & puzzle games.
There is also room for some great RTS but we have to wait til the tablet market becomes a little bit bigger.
[+] [-] vectorpush|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] krallin|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jackgavigan|12 years ago|reply
'Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic' for iOS being a notable exception, of course.
[+] [-] noinput|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] schenecstasy|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] EvilLook|12 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] pirateking|12 years ago|reply
Maybe it was always like so, and I was young and having too much fun to realize. It really does seem like the idea of painting rich immersive worlds with challenging skills to learn and master has been tossed aside, in favor of simplified Skinner boxes with the minimum required skinning of a game and pay to play. Even more sad is how successful these "games" are. A reflection of the times I suppose - no time for dawdling about reading story or exploring worlds, quick information and quick rewards please, because time is too important to waste.
[+] [-] drzaiusapelord|12 years ago|reply
In the meantime, the PC master race is having a renaissance of sorts and the new batch of consoles look pretty good.
[+] [-] wpietri|12 years ago|reply
This is great.
> Maybe it was always like so, and I was young and having too much fun to realize.
No, I don't think so. One way to look at it: previous generations of game companies were playing a cooperative, positive-sum game with their audience. By creating lots of fun and value, they could get high dollar-scores. Now, they are playing negative-sum games with the audience: by creating stress, compulsion, and addiction, they can extract money.
If you haven't read it, you might like the book "Finite and Infinite Games". It's not about games in the sense we're discussing here; it's more looking at social philosophy through the lens of games.
[+] [-] jbranchaud|12 years ago|reply
So much effort has been made to streamline our lives and make every task as efficient as possible (if not eliminate it all together). We then suddenly find ourselves so bored that we have to fill it with hours of brainless smartphone games and low-quality television. We'll call it entertainment!
[+] [-] Argorak|12 years ago|reply
http://www.polygon.com/2014/1/22/5335766/stoic-king-is-hinde...
This is especially weird, as "saga" is quite common:
http://www.metacritic.com/search/game/saga/results
[+] [-] higherpurpose|12 years ago|reply
It must be some kind of "organization insecurity", or some kind of "thieves knowing thieves" kind of thing. I actually don't mind seeing companies "being inspired", even more heavily, by other companies' products, but it pisses me off when they do it themselves, too, and then start attacking others for doing it to them.
[+] [-] jrs99|12 years ago|reply
Is it that surprising to see someone plagiarize tons of games, and then later try to claim ownership of those ideas? That's just a straight-up criminal in disguise as a game developer. If they weren't making games, they would be robbing people on the street. That's just who those people are.
Of course it's all bolstered by investors who have never played a single game in their life and believe that these are good investments and will write tons and tons of articles about it. They're not. Any real gamer would have told you Zynga wasn't a good investment at IPO.
[+] [-] edraferi|12 years ago|reply
Firms don't aggressively protect their IP out of some sense of global justice, they do it to make money. These firms understand the value of IP and the legal mechanisms that exist to protect/acquire/monetize it better than the average. Why would they hesitate to use this knowledge offensively?
[+] [-] dimman|12 years ago|reply
BlockBreaker is a game by a friend of mine: https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/block-breaker/id412901690?mt...
It won a best game award 2011 and King offered him a job after that competition. He turned it down though.
King then came out with: Pet Rescue Saga (quick google will give you images of how that one looks)
[+] [-] andrewingram|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] leafo|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] res0nat0r|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] maaarghk|12 years ago|reply
Anyway, horrible company culture; I don't think they can reasonably expect great success from behaving in this manner.
[+] [-] emitstop|12 years ago|reply
I'm not particularly fond of micro-transactions, I cannot stand the way intellectual property is handled in this country (US), and I dislike rip-off artists such as Zynga/King.
However, all King is doing here is playing ball with current IP legislation, protecting whatever trademarks they can. There's hundreds of games that are exactly the same in every category of gaming, just because King has the capability to create a high-quality successful series of mobile games (which are based off of extremely common gaming concepts) does not mean they are horrible people.
People get up in arms when these large corporations sue eachother over intellectual property. Why does the HN community have this double standard whenever a "little guy" can be made out to have been harmed? Just because you're the first person to think of a popular idea doesn't mean you own it forever.
Patent/Trademark/Copyright legislation is very clearly all bunk in the age of the internet. Get mad at the stupid laws, not at the people taking advantage of them.
[+] [-] timje1|12 years ago|reply
Zinga made a lot of money for its owners and investors before imploding.
[+] [-] chenster|12 years ago|reply
"...A mark is merely descriptive if it describes an ingredient, quality, characteristic, function, feature, purpose, or use of an applicant’s goods and/or services. TMEP §1209.01(b); see, e.g., DuoProSS Meditech Corp. v. Inviro Med. Devices, Ltd., ___ F.3d ___, 103 USPQ2d 1753, 1755 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (quoting In re Oppedahl & Larson LLP, 373 F.3d 1171, 1173, 71 USPQ2d 1370, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2004)); In re Steelbuilding.com, 415 F.3d 1293, 1297, 75 USPQ2d 1420, 1421 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (citing Estate of P.D. Beckwith, Inc. v. Comm’r of Patents, 252 U.S. 538, 543 (1920))."
King.com must've bribed the trademark officials. Disgusting!
[+] [-] ozh|12 years ago|reply
Evil company, maybe, retarded laws, very obviously.
[+] [-] oneeyedpigeon|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] aaargh|12 years ago|reply
"Pssst.. want some candy? Just give this game a try, there's no reason for fear, we're not evil. Look at the sparkling colors!"
[+] [-] meerita|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jamesbrownuhh|12 years ago|reply
Which rather does bring to mind the supposed conversation between Bill Gates and Steve Jobs, where Jobs suggests that Windows has copied the Macintosh, but Gates responds that "I think it's more like we both had this rich neighbour named Xerox..."
No kudos to king.com either way. In cases like these I'm almost inclined to wish that someone would just come up with a really really good "inspired by..." game and release it for free just for the hell of it. (Not terribly good business, admittedly, but you have to admit it would be pretty satisfying. I don't see a "Sugar Crash" in the app store yet...) :)
[+] [-] TeeWEE|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] oneeyedpigeon|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] waylandsmithers|12 years ago|reply
I remember reading a piece on Zynga maybe a year or two ago that detailed the games that were ripped off (apart from the obvious scramble = boggle, words = scrabble) almost exactly from other existing but much less popular games in the app store.
[+] [-] TomiHiltunen|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sleepyK|12 years ago|reply
Every major studio out there makes formulaic bull that basically copies some other schmuck's idea and adds their own "StudioCoin" on top to monetize the game.
Temple Run spawned hundreds of clones, then Candy Crush clones came out and now apparently it's Clash of Clans clones. Everyone from EA to Mobage does this cloning instead of focusing on bringing new ideas to the table. If only they tried to innovate, the crappy studios like King would go out of business.
Indie developers try hard, but it takes a team to make a well rounded game with large scale mass appeal... :/
tl;dr Today's mobile games are time consuming black holes, and once done credible competition comes forth, they're sure sink.
[+] [-] Macsenour|12 years ago|reply
1) I wouldn't say "from being short...", I think it's more accurate to say "from JUST short...". My reasoning here is that we have deeper long games, heck Knights of the Old Republic comes to mind, and short fun games like Cut The Rope.
2) Couldn't you say basically the same thing about the movie industry, regarding the lack of new ideas and abundant cloning? When games and movies take so much investment, it's not always easy to convince barely imaginative accountants to spend the money.
[+] [-] oneeyedpigeon|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rbritton|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] CmonDev|12 years ago|reply