-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Microsoft / Activision Deal Approval Watch |OT| (MS/ABK close)
- Status
are we talking companies choosing between linux vs windows or windows client vs windows server?.
If we are talking the former, I do think that there will be some concessions to ensure that windows server is licensed at a fair rate, think it fits into the wider concerns about cloud services.
If the latter, my point is the distinction is between windows client and server is kinda null in terms of giving MS an advantage over people using windows server.
I generally do like the idea of more FRAND licensing like systems in the world.
PaintTinJr
Member
Page 57 of the CMA phase 1 document says it is losing money - still being invested in.
Hendrick's
If only my penis was as big as my GamerScore!
Console Wars sequel. I would watch.
GHG
Gold Member
Based on the limited data we have you can calculate how much content acquisition is costing them.
I don't know why some people want to be delusional about this, they have admitted themselves that it isn't profitable and isn't positioned to be as such for now:
Xbox Game Pass Isn't Exactly Profitable At The Moment
Microsoft's Aaron Greenberg has stated that Xbox Game Pass isn't currently profitable, but the company is in it for the long game.
www.thegamer.com
People are quick to ignore downplay that point while at the same time they are more than happy to do the latter part of what Greenberg states there. It's conveniently selective.
This isn't some isolated phenomenon either. Across TV and music it's the same story with these types of subscription services from a business perspective. They are all eating losses with a view to one day having enough subscribers to break even and then become profitable. The problem is that in a lot of these cases the number of subscribers required is very much pie in the sky and therefore when subscriber growth slows alternate strategies need to be looked at along with price increases for all existing subscribers (as we've seen with Netflix).
As it stands it's all starting to come to a head in the TV/movie industry, a lot of less well financed companies who have gone down the subscription route are not very well positioned to be able to survive the current resession and debt crisis that's taking hold of the global economy:
What Microsoft are doing is putting Sony and Nintendo (along with some of the larger 3rd party industry players) in a position where they have no choice but to follow them down this path of "overdelivering on value" which essentially means subsidising your user base via an all you can eat subscription service. Phase one is pretty much done - customers now expect this kind of subscription service to be available.
The next step is to see who can go the distance a survive this kind of loss leader strategy in the long run - content acquisition is costly, regardless of whether you're doing deals or whether you're outright acquiring companies who can make content for your subscription service. There is also the additional impact of the perceived value in purchasing games being reduced which increases the leverage you have when seeking to acquire content for your subscription (we've seen this play out to its full extent in the music industry). Overall it won't end well for those who don't have highly profitable areas of business elsewhere.
For Microsoft this is not a problem for obvious reasons but there will be a significant impact on the industry overall as a result and that's why large acquisitions like Activision get investigated by regulators.
Last edited:
onesvenus
Member
Is that only a problem with data centers or does that also apply to exclusives? Because Sony is using their market scale to get better deals than what the other players can get
GHG
Gold Member
They also have a lot more content on the service now than they had then in addition to a number of company acquisitions which have taken place (which wouldn't happen without gamepass being a thing).
I don't understand why this is so difficult for people to admit. Phil Spencer literally dodged a question surrounding this last year and went with the "sustainable" angle. If it wasn't losing money he would have said so. There's no shame in it either, the whole thing is focused on growth, it's normal that they will lose money on it at the moment.
Last edited:
Neofire
Member
As you pointed out that is highly unlikely. I will agree that we most certainly won't see Microsoft to publish their profit of the service though.
As far as the "net sales being good enough for Microsoft to continue" isn't exactly transparent with them especially looking at their History of bleeding money for all of the original Xbox's existence and parts of the 360 era. They aren't above losing money just to start a trend and fund it until it catches on. We all know they have the capital to do it.
onesvenus
Member
Because you are not guessing less than what people who say they are not do.
If it's all guessing it's not a real argument.
Investing in doesn't mean losing money at all.
PaintTinJr
Member
Only if the said investment has already been confirmed to yield a profit - which it hasn't, and then it would be reinvest - so in the context of the document referenced it is still meaning MSFT are in the investment phase of XGP - no profit.
You, using mental gymnastics to suggest it doesn't mean that is just odd IMO.
SlimySnake
Flashless at the Golden Globes
GHG
Gold Member
We've had greenberg straight up say it's not profitable and Phil dodge the question in the last 2 years but yet anyone who comes to the conclusion that it's not profitable is guessing?
Well then, at least we can agree that nothing either of them say can be taken seriously.
While true this is incredibly reductive and distant from the basis our discussion started on.
Last edited:
onesvenus
Member
That's your interpretation of it. That attitude of you having an interpretation and saying everyone else is wrong is pedantic to say the least.
Last edited:
ReBurn
Gold Member
I'm happy that you learned a new word but It really isn't reductive. Our conversation started with you stating that somehow it's different when one of these companies spends a ton of cash and takes short term losses to build and store inventory to launch a console in relationship to a company taking losses in the short term to build their subscription gaming service with plans to earn It back in the future. Cash is fungible and it doesn't really matter what you spend it on. When it's gone it's gone, regardless of how you intended to spend it, and it can be replaced with new cash as revenue comes in. There isn't special cash that works differently due to the way it's spent.
Panajev2001a
GAF's Pleasant Genius
I bet Sony paid The Coalition to optimise things and they are holding SFS and Tier 2 VRS back too
. Sure they did work together as in Sony did get their feedback and did something about it, but we are seeing things there IMHO that are just not.
phil_t98
#SonyToo
I bet Sony paid The Coalition to optimise things and they are holding SFS and Tier 2 VRS back too
that was months after the initial statement from Tim sweeny. in fact was that after the consoles had launched?
Panajev2001a
GAF's Pleasant Genius
Not sure how that makes your point stronger
.I don't see the relevance of exclusives. If Sony were buying Activision though and saying we don't actually have a console sales advantage like MS is pretending to with cloud that would be funny no? Ignoring your whataboutism that is.
Last edited:
onesvenus
Member
Long time exclusives have the same benefits and problems than first-party games. They both bring more people to your platform and devaluate the other.
How it's being done: via buying the publisher or just having a deal with them is just a detail that doesn't have any importance on the impact that exclusivity has.
One being a problem and not the others is just console warriors defending their plastic boxes.
Helghan
Member
Investing doesn't mean losing money...
That's more than 2 years ago... We already know how much some games cost them, how would they ever get to 3 billion in a year? Some of the better games only costed them 5 million for 3-6 months.Based on the limited data we have you can calculate how much content acquisition is costing them.
I don't know why some people want to be delusional about this, they have admitted themselves that it isn't profitable and isn't positioned to be as such for now:
Xbox Game Pass Isn't Exactly Profitable At The Moment
Microsoft's Aaron Greenberg has stated that Xbox Game Pass isn't currently profitable, but the company is in it for the long game.
Last edited:
phil_t98
#SonyToo
Not sure how that makes your point stronger
Because the money exchanged hands then Tim saying things that promoted the PS5 as if it was the only platform possible to run unreal engine in that way
GHG
Gold Member
The gamepass catalogue then was around 250 games, it's now 500. In addition to that Bethesda alone cost 7.5 billion. A further 70 billion is pending.
Yeh, money is money but the amount of money and the intentions behind said money being spent matter, hence the existence of this thread.
If you want to argue taking a hit financially in order to keep your business going (which is actually similar to what Xbox had to do in order to deal with the 360 RROD) is the same as throwing money at a loss leader strategy that also involves a series of acquisitions which have the potential to change the landscape of a whole industry then this discussion is pointless.
On that basis I don't even know why regulators are investigating. Nothing to see here, just your regular old business investing in themselves.
Last edited:
Topher
Gold Member
I'm not certain corporations report net sales of specific products. Does Sony report net sales of PS+?
PaintTinJr
Member
"as Microsoft continues to invest in XGP"
You've even quoted that it was losing money 2 years ago from the other reply, so in this sentence what does the "continues" refer to a continuation of? Do you have any alternative thing that continues - other than losing money from investing in XGP?
Last edited:
nikolino840
Member
thicc_girls_are_teh_best
Member
Based on the limited data we have you can calculate how much content acquisition is costing them.
I don't know why some people want to be delusional about this, they have admitted themselves that it isn't profitable and isn't positioned to be as such for now:
Xbox Game Pass Isn't Exactly Profitable At The Moment
Microsoft's Aaron Greenberg has stated that Xbox Game Pass isn't currently profitable, but the company is in it for the long game.
People are quick to ignore downplay that point while at the same time they are more than happy to do the latter part of what Greenberg states there. It's conveniently selective.
This isn't some isolated phenomenon either. Across TV and music it's the same story with these types of subscription services from a business perspective. They are all eating losses with a view to one day having enough subscribers to break even and then become profitable. The problem is that in a lot of these cases the number of subscribers required is very much pie in the sky and therefore when subscriber growth slows alternate strategies need to be looked at along with price increases for all existing subscribers (as we've seen with Netflix).
As it stands it's all starting to come to a head in the TV/movie industry, a lot of less well financed companies who have gone down the subscription route are not very well positioned to be able to survive the current resession and debt crisis that's taking hold of the global economy:
What Microsoft are doing is putting Sony and Nintendo (along with some of the larger 3rd party industry players) in a position where they have no choice but to follow them down this path of "overdelivering on value" which essentially means subsidising your user base via an all you can eat subscription service. Phase one is pretty much done - customers now expect this kind of subscription service to be available.
The next step is to see who can go the distance a survive this kind of loss leader strategy in the long run - content acquisition is costly, regardless of whether you're doing deals or whether you're outright acquiring companies who can make content for your subscription service. There is also the additional impact of the perceived value in purchasing games being reduced which increases the leverage you have when seeking to acquire content for your subscription (we've seen this play out to its full extent in the music industry). Overall it won't end well for those who don't have highly profitable areas of business elsewhere.
For Microsoft this is not a problem for obvious reasons but there will be a significant impact on the industry overall as a result and that's why large acquisitions like Activision get investigated by regulators.
Just re-quoting so others can see this strong post that speaks truth to the model these subscription services are built off of. We already have enough proof of it, too, just look at the mass cancellations and downsizing with Warner Bros. following the Discovery merger. Netflix might be profitable now (I think), but that was after almost a decade of losses and having a debt-based model for funding. Several Disney+ shows have had obvious cuts in budget (namely She-Hulk as a recent example) due at least somewhat to lack of profits off the subscription base to keep funding high CG production quality for the amount of shows they keep pushing out.
The only way smaller companies can compete in an industry where the dam holding off rampant mass acquisitions/consolidation busts (which, depending on if or how this MS-ABK acquisition gets approved, could be the thing that breaks the proverbial dam and opens the floodgates) is by making rampant acquisitions and mergers themselves, putting themselves into debt along the way and the ones with shallower pockets having to fold so only the biggest cash-supplied players remain (because they are also able to borrow bigger loans, if they even need to do this).
The wildest part is: there is very little organic demand for a subscription-based future from the majority of gamers. Even on devices where you'd think something like cloud gaming or subscription gaming would absolutely dominate, the former is still niche and the latter is only a thing depending on very specific games or services like Apple+. The dominant model on that platform by far is the F2P & MTX combo....which many console games have already been doing for years. This push for a subscription & cloud streaming future is vastly dominated by the corporations themselves, such as Microsoft, who want to lock in even more vertical control of the content provided to users in their ecosystem and doing so at what they feel would ultimately be the cheapest way possible with the largest profit margins, IF the traditional model currently in place were to fall through.
Problem (in their eyes), is that it hasn't and there are so many roadblocks to keep it from doing so for years if not decades IMO. Sony, Nintendo, Steam...none of these companies are prioritizing cloud streaming or a subscription-based future, because there is very little demand for it by actual customers and that's reflected when looking at the percentage of the annual console gaming revenue market subscription services in general account for, which is like 4% at best. 4%, despite having XB Live since 2004, PS+ since 2013, PS Now since 2015, and GamePass and NSO since 2017. Don't forget other entrants like Stadia, which is defunct, and Luna which is seemingly on life support.
Until there is organic demand from a growing majority of customers for a subscription-based and/or cloud gaming-based future, those things will always only remain nice-to-haves to add value to an ecosystem, but never a replacement for the traditional model. This doesn't gel well with Microsoft I feel because despite them saying for now they are okay with GamePass & xCloud being complementary to their current ecosystem, they obviously want to shift the model from where it is to where GamePass & xCloud are THE foundation of their gaming model going forward, but they're seemingly in need to wait for way longer than I think they realize. The actual demand just isn't really there.
So I think that's why they are pushing ahead with these acquisitions (well, one of a few reasons): to create a perception of value with their product and subscription services and condition expectations among customers going forward, making them more receptive to sub services due to the perceived value they bring relative to buying games at $60 a pop. And as we're seeing, that is having an adverse effect on competitors who are NOT doing this, but it's being pushed by particular fanboys/fangirls and journalists who can't see the forest from the trees. That's probably what they are hoping creates a growing pressure to get Sony (and to a lesser extent, Nintendo) to "buy in" to the idea of competing on their terms, buying publishers wholesales, pivoting their business models towards subscriptions, cloud gaming, or anything that can potentially lessen the perception or impact of the traditional console model like supporting PC more fervently (something Sony has been pushing into in ways I don't 100% agree with, but it is what it is).
I think that's how Microsoft is looking at it and maybe if/when this ABK acquisition is improved, they're HOPING some of the other mega corps like Apple, Amazon, etc. and groups like Sazzy and Embracer, have the confidence to go buying out other big 3P publishers and that will force Sony (and Nintendo) to try buying some to stay competitive in that aspect. But if that comes at high costs for such smaller (financially) companies, eventually they have to fold their hand, and only the biggest companies like Microsoft and Apple would be around to pick up the pieces, amassing even more content to drive even more perception of value, and getting more customers, more revenue, more profit.
But it would be the combination of that alongside other competitors folding (thus reducing options for customers, automatically making companies like Microsoft look more appealing by default) that finally gets something like GamePass, and initiatives like cloud gaming (if the other two platform holders who benefit much more from the traditional console market end up falling off, that gives a company like Microsoft, who want to push cloud gaming hard anyway and move from making/selling hardware that brings them no profit on its own, a reason to phase out making local consoles aside from maybe streaming boxes) serious room to not only grow, but thrive.
....yet at what price?
ManaByte
Gold Member
Well there it is. Looking forward to MW2 on GP by Christmas.
adamsapple
Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
Timberwolf25
Member
Sound like it with Goldman Sachs putting their money behind where they think it will go.
PaintTinJr
Member
Do we know how much of the stock they already owned? and at what price they bought?
This could just as easily be them sure-ing up the price before a bigger sell off, or just defending their existing investment from a much lower buy-in price, and the risk/reward made sense regardless of which way the deal goes.
Last edited:
GHG
Gold Member
You know guys, it's really unfortunate when twitter is used as a "source".
seekingalpha.com
They just sold their holding but yet in the opposite land that is twitter we have this guy saying he has a "scoop" where they bought shares? I don't even know where to begin.
Activision block of 3.7M shares traded earlier (NASDAQ:ATVI)
A block of 3.7 million shares of video game maker Activision (AVTI) were sold for a price of $72.25/share earlier. Goldman Sachs was to have shopped the block earlier Monday, according...
seekingalpha.com
They just sold their holding but yet in the opposite land that is twitter we have this guy saying he has a "scoop" where they bought shares? I don't even know where to begin.
PaintTinJr
Member
Your take on this isn't consistent with how things end up, though.
You buy a publisher outright for exclusivity to take it from your competitor, and even if that doesn't translate to taking those sales on your own platform, if you can eat losses it can still just be a method to partially weaken your rival/s.
Long time exclusivity has to be mutually beneficial, so the situation is symbiotic. When the deal starts to trigger damage to the IP the publisher will look to exit the deal. One deal is self-correcting for the IP and the other has no such requirements.
Bernkastel
Ask me about my fanboy energy!
Who the hell uses EEE unironically? What are they extinguishing? These people only played Minecraft because they liked it and Microsoft paid them for some more promotion(like anyone would do).
Thats like saying all platforms should support Vulkan or its EEE. God forbid Microsoft make its own Graphics library for Windows. Atleast, Windows allows you to use Vulkan, on mac they restricted everything to Metal. I don't even have issue with Apple, but don't pretend Microsoft is at committing sin by creating DirectX instead of relying on OpenGL. Microsoft had been trying since early 90s to get console devs to try Windows, so DirectX made sense.
Yeah, Apple making Objective-C and later Swift was also bad. And so were Ximian for creating Mono and FSF for trying to make DotGNU.
Google calls Kotlin the preferred language for Android development and used it for their Flutter. And just like Microsoft, Oracle also took Google to court
Google LLC v. Oracle America, Inc. - Wikipedia
Its not going to be the Minecraft you want for console warring either. Its very profitable, gives them a lot of brand exposure, yet you are here trying to pretend Microsoft is disappointed with its existense. OpenGL is not even a competitor, that would be Vulkan. Also Mincraft Java does not use OpenGL, it uses LWJGL and OpenGL through it, otherwise there would have been no mac version after Apple removed OpenGL support.
Oh, those potato PCs can't play Minecraft anymore
Also, id Software dropped OpenGL support in id Tech 7.
Do I have to spend a month staring all day at twitter to understand why an application written in Java is such a massive blow to Microsoft's "evil monopolistic to plans to take over the world using Embrace, Extend Extinguish". Why would Microsoft hate something for being Java based.
thats such a weird way to say they required them to have a Microsoft account.
What were the keywords you were using while googling all that shit? Not that your recent posts gave me any hope
Yeah, they should stop all investments in Game Pass the moment they turn a profit. Sure buddy. I am sure you can do some more word play in more posts to convince us why we should interpret everything and try to reach the same conclusions you did. Is this some elaborate N Nhranaghacon role play.
Last edited:
thicc_girls_are_teh_best
Member
Yeah I'm not understanding how Goldman-Sachs selling $267 million worth of their ABK shares correlates to the deal going through. That has no bearing on what the CMA are currently deliberating, and it's them (and maybe a few other foreign regulators) who have the deal by its balls right now, not the FTC, CADE or Goldman-Sachs.
This is assuming ‘cloud entrant’ as a player that wants to roll out their own datacenters.
All these advantages basically fade if the competition partners with Azure or Amazon or Google.
Again, you’re not listening. There’s no reason for Sony to build their own datacenter network when they can easily leverage on existing infrastructure.
The irony of it all for you to claim someone else is struggling with ‘understanding basic things’ while you’re pushing the frankly baffling narrative that ABK would essentially have zero value on MS balance sheets as soon as a purchase is made.
Pelta88
Member
What?
When did Goldman sell their shares? And if that's true it's a really bad sign.
Last edited:
Menzies
Banned
Microsoft will argue much against this because; -
1) Multi-game subscription services and streaming are nascent markets. They currently won't be bigger than FTP and MTX in large part due to the mobile sector.
2) Such services require content to grow; and by denying acquisitions they jeopardize their success before giving them a chance.
3) There is evidence that there is demand for GamePass due to the subscriber count growth YoY.
"And as we're seeing, that is having an adverse effect on competitors who are NOT doing this" - where?
The comparisons with Netflix are exactly not seeing "the forest for the trees" in my view. This is evidenced by Netflix being a loss-leader subscription service as a business siloed i.e. there is no alternative revenue coming in other than subscriptions. GamePass isn't Xbox. Xbox has shown that whilst GamePass might not be profitble, Xbox is.
Last edited:
PaintTinJr
Member
Who the hell uses EEE unironically? What are they extinguishing? These people only played Minecraft because they liked it and Microsoft paid them for some more promotion(like anyone would do).
Thats like saying all platforms should support Vulkan or its EEE. God forbid Microsoft make its own Graphics library for Windows. Atleast, Windows allows you to use Vulkan, on mac they restricted everything to Metal. I don't even have issue with Apple, but don't pretend Microsoft is at committing sin by creating DirectX instead of relying on OpenGL. Microsoft had been trying since early 90s to get console devs to try Windows, so DirectX made sense.
Yeah, Apple making Objective-C and later Swift was also bad. And so were Ximian for creating Mono and FSF for trying to make DotGNU.
Google calls Kotlin the preferred language for Android development and used it for their Flutter. And just like Microsoft, Oracle also took Google to court
[/URL]
Oh but Microsoft making its own Java variant is "traditional Embrace, Extend Extinguish Microsoft strategy". If you cared about this shit, you would be a Linux gamer not console warring for another closed source walled garden.
Its not going to be the Minecraft you want for console warring either. Its very profitable, gives them a lot of brand exposure, yet you are here trying to pretend Microsoft is disappointed with its existense. OpenGL is not even a competitor, that would be Vulkan. Also Mincraft Java does not use OpenGL, it uses LWJGL and OpenGL through it, otherwise there would have been no mac version after Apple removed OpenGL support.
Oh, those potato PCs can't play Minecraft anymore
Also, Valve dropped OpenGL support in id Tech 7.
Do I have to spend a month staring all day at twitter to understand why an application written in Java is such a massive blow to Microsoft's "evil monopolistic to plans to take over the world using Embrace, Extend Extinguish". Why would Microsoft hate something for being Java based.
thats such a weird way to say they required them to have a Microsoft account.
What were the keywords you were using while googling all that shit? Not that your recent posts gave me any hope
There's way too much in your reply that is incorrect, and no I didn't google any of that. Through covid I had research serving MC for my nephew on a laptop or Raspi, before giving him hardware to serve for him and his friends with potato PCs
Your view about DirectX and J++ are not representative of how they disrupted the natural ubiquity of OpenGL and Java on Windows back at the time, but whatever, the Direct-X-Box means of hijacking all of gaming by a proprietary API is still in full effect, and in the CMA document they even said the following to show how much power Windows - and DirectX by extension - has over PC gaming
Page 66
thicc_girls_are_teh_best
Member
My bad; they bought shares worth $267 million, not sold them. Misread the translation :/
But Microsoft's goals include to proliferate their subscription model and cloud gaming onto mobile, that's the entire reason for xCloud's existence and why they're offering xCloud on its own now on mobile (in Beta IIRC). And part of the job of these regulators is to make predictive reads on where things could most likely go, using data currently available.
If they were to just wait until the market reaches a point as you describe it before attempting to regulate, well it wouldn't be groups like the FTC or CMA looking into it but other reactive organizations instead.
This can be counterargued by the fact that Microsoft already have enough teams to provide that content, and can enter partnerships with 3P developers/publishers without needing to buy them outright, like what Sony have done with FromSoft and Square-Enix, or Nintendo with Sega and Platinum Games.
Acquisitions are not the sole means of acquiring content for such services.
But that evidence is circumstantial, unless Microsoft can show what methodology they are using to determine that growth. What is the stability of subscribers from month to month? Are the increases in subscribers from the majority getting in at the normal price, or utilizing $1 conversions, MS Reward points, free trails etc.? Because that outright impacts the ARPU.
And the reason that would be important is because it would answer in which ways the service is sustainable: is it completely of its own merit, or is it "sustainable" because of the massive income generated from other larger divisions of the company that can basically absorb any losses and also cover massive publisher acquisitions?
Sony lost $20 billion in market cap on the news of Microsoft buying ABK, market value which they never recovered. More and more people have been conjuring narratives to specifically attack Sony for selling their games Day 1 and not providing them on PS+, or releasing remasters for a price, when Nintendo does all of these same things and never gets criticism for them (nor should they, as their audience seem willing to pay for it, but that same fairness by criticizers is not maintained for Sony).
Actually, that's funny, because Xbox HASN'T shown that it's profitable. We don't get Xbox net income numbers, and neither do shareholders.
So you outright cannot claim that we know Xbox as a division is profitable because Microsoft have not provided net income for the Xbox division in at least a decade. We can assume Xbox as a division is profitable (and I think it is, though whether when weighed up against the losses of the XBO or the RROD expenses of the 360, plus the losses of OG Xbox if that still holds true is uncertain), but we can't factually say it is because Microsoft hasn't factually mentioned if it is to the public or even to their shareholders.
Last edited:
Timberwolf25
Member
Of all the regulating bodies, only CMA seems to have an issue right now. The others could as well, but it's nowhere near as public.
We do have other regulators that have approved it without concessions.
It'll be interesting to see if they are the only holdouts.
We do have other regulators that have approved it without concessions.
It'll be interesting to see if they are the only holdouts.
GHG
Gold Member
They sold today. The tweet is incorrect.
phil_t98
#SonyToo
What’s it say exactly?
PaintTinJr
Member
How would it be investment while making a profit? It would just be a running cost, so would be less profit if costs were less than revenue, no?
Last edited:
thicc_girls_are_teh_best
Member
GHG
Gold Member
So Google Translate was telling me the truth the whole time? So much for the source of that Tweet, then.
The source of the tweet is as follows:
"
SCOOP 
"
Mibu no ookami
Member
I literally never said that... but go on
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked