gulogo.gif  
 
1. Hiatus
2. RIP, Satoru Iwata
3. Let there be Robot Battles
4. Regarding pixel art!
5. 16-bit Star Wars
6. Goodbye, Spock.
7. James Randi Retires
8. More Star Wars on GOG
9. Archive.org gives you DOS Games
10. Ralph Baer, RIP.
1. Quickie: Impressions June 2014
2. Quickie: Penny Arcade Episode 3
3. Quickie: The Amazing Spider-Man
4. Quickie: Transformers: Fall of Cybertron
5. Quickie: Prototype 2
6. Quickie: Microsoft Kinect
7. Quickie: X-Men Destiny
8. Spider-Man: Edge of Time
9. Quickie: Transformers Dark of the Moon
10. Quickie: Borderlands GOTY
1. Musings 45: Penny Arcade and The Gripping Hand
2. Movie Review: Pacific Rim
3. Movie Review: Wreck-It Ralph
4. Glide Wrapper Repository
5. Movie Review: Winnie The Pooh
6. Musings 44: PC Gaming? Maybe it's on Life Support
7. Video Games Live 2009
8. Movie Review: District 9
9. Musings: Stardock, DRM, and Gamers' Rights
10. Musings: How DRM Hurts PC Gaming
Main Menu

Affiliates
X-bit labs
The Tech Zone
Twin Galaxies

Login






 Log in Problems?
 New User? Sign Up!


<% const szAddPath = "../../../" %>

<% ' TITLE OF ARTICLE %>
NVIDIA: Too Fast For Us? - Comments, Part II
Author: Torsten Daeges       Date: March 14th 2001
Page: 2

Paragraphs in blue are my replies to the readers and the yellow parts are what they replied to my replies again.


Just wanted to throw in my 2 cents worth.

I agree with the author that it does not make sense to buy a brand new card if there are not any games out which force you to buy that card. I have a 16MB TNT card to go with my PIII 550 and I can play Q3 in 32 bit color at 800x600 resolution with over 30 frames per second. The action seems smooth while the graphics look great. Why upgrade? 42 frames per second is enough for me. I don't need 150 and yes, even with an analog modem, I can hold my own online. However, I will upgrade when a game that I want is released that I cannot play on my current system. Whatever I need to play this game at that time, I will buy it, be it processor, video card, etc.

Just as Intel is releasing the P4 at 1.5GHz and AMD is releasing the Athlon at 1.2 GHz, so does NVidia release a new chip every 6 months. Is any of this needed to run current software? No. But it will be needed to run future software. I do not have a problem with it. I love to read about the specs and I only wish that games would incorporate the new technology faster. I am NOT of the mindset that games need to be optimized so that low end users with ancient equipment can play them. If that is always the case, PC games will only be harder and harder to develope and drive more PC users towards consoles because they will stagnate while new consoles are released. Just like consoles, true PC gamers will update their system every 3 or 4 years and upgrade a piece here and there in the interim. I like the constant technology increases but that does not mean I need to go out and buy a new cpu or video card whenever one is released.

My rule is simple. As long as you can play the games you like, at speeds you like with graphics you like, don't upgrade for the sake of upgrading. When applied, this rule can usually make your gaming PC last for at least 2 years if not 3 or 4. So let the movers and shakers of the technology world push the envelope and bring out new products. It is exciting and fun to read about. Just be educated and smart when it comes time for you to dole out your hard earned cash.

Game on!

- Steve and Alison


Hi,

In response to your article, I must say I agree with it 100%! Especially the part at the end. Where you said a one year old video card is enough. Considering that I use the same ATi All in Wonder 4MB PCI card as my main video card to play so much games such as Unreal Tournament and Counterstrike, they run smooth enough for me. Great article! =)

- Pika_Pika


Thanks for writing an excellent article about the GeForce 3!

I couldn't agree with you more buddy, the pricing of the nVidia GF3 is absolutely insane! Not only are people going to buy it, they are also stupid enough to buy something they will have no use for! There are NO games that will support the features of GeForce 3 and as for frmae rates, how could your EYES tell the difference between 65 fps and 1100 fps? These features nVidia keeps hyping about will be obsolete by the time time GeForce 4 comes out! It is ridiculous. Consumers are either too dumb or they are addicted to speed and the hype that nVidia pumps out.

I am still using my Voodoo 4 4500 (Evil King 4) and I get BETTER image quality at accepatable fps for games like Undying, and I am planning on getting a Radeon soon, because for the features and power and the money it is a bargain compared to GF3

Thanks again

- Amer


though i tend to agree, i think more and more, what IS fast enough. we still have tv for ps2, and tv for nintendo64- but xbox? hmmm...

i for one, think they should not produce anything new, say for one year. forget competition et el... we need a new super dos. we need 64 bit or 128 bit graphics. we need a gig of l2, etc. why do you need a cray to have gigs of ram?? there are severe needs in the computer world, and they are not being addressed. many peoples comps i work on are terribly old. and, some are still paying for them. legacy, is what killed comp sales, and made the consumer ill, and wary. just look at the crap they are still putting in the boxes- cause it's old stock, and cheap. the people may not know much, but through the few, they are quickly coming into their own, in knowledge. then comes sse2- where do it end. i think if they put a keyboard and mouse on xbox, they would have all we need, at least for some time to come, and it would be cheap. as intel releases it's 10 gig chip, we should ask, when do we say speedy enough.

i enjoyed ur article, but sad to say, it's the way of business, and practicle stuff like yours , will be passed over. i have friends who need the latest. me, i still have a 8086 that still looks and runs perfect- xtree and windows ver 2 !!! (i'm old) oh well.....

all the best, and thanks for an interesting piece :)

ye olde quaker

- vern


Torsten,

A very interesthing article. First, I would like comment that I totally agree with you about the insane frame rates that the new cards are giving. In fact, in a visual test with some of my gaming friends, none of them noticed any difference in game speed or video quality for frame rates above 50fps (we did a blind test using a Voodoo 3 Celeron 500 vs a GeForce MX Athlon 800 set-ups). Out of the 5 people tested none of them could tell the difference when playing Quake 3 or Unreal Tournament.

While frame rate speeds need to go higher when games get more complicated graphically, but there are no games that demand such power right now.

However, I am glad that nVidia is pushing for technical excellence that will one day bring almost real life graphics into games. I think that could be a long way off still. In the meantime, we need all those cash loaded people to buy cards like the GeForce 3 to ensure that nVidia continues to stay interested in developing superior graphic cards.

For the time being, it makes no sense for me as a gamer to buy anything faster than an Duron 650 and a GeForce MX. (surprisingly, nowadays the graphic cards are more expensive than CPUs ~ imagine the irony of that !)

- The Corporate Guy


Okay,I've had similar discussions with people on my own site, as well as other website admins.

I'll reiterate.

GeForce3 is NOT a consumer card. It's intended to give game developers a foundation for building new, DX8-compliant games. The main reason developers haven't been optimizing games for nVidia's GPU before now was because the features as they were, would have locked them into a proprietary format every bit as evil at Glide had become.

The new card has features developers had been screaming for, and just enough performance to support it.

"Why isn't it faster? Why isn't it less expensive?"

Think about it. How much actual headroom was there in the subcomponent market when nVidia started this push? By exceeding the pace of other technologies that the GPU relies on, nVidia has pretty much sucked down all the performance headroom in the market.

About the only way to gain anymore brute-force performance right now would be to start building specialty cards in extremely limited numbers, since RAM faster than 3.8ns is in extremely short supply. Such a move would magnify the cost of a card immensely.

Their other option would be to begin embedding DRAM into their products, which they seem loathe to do, since the product is ALREADY exceeds 50 million transistors.

As an aside, the cost of a GPU, in the first few weeks of production, accounts for roughly HALF the cost of the card. Partly because of the poor yields and large size of the chip, and partly because of the marketing forces at work (supply and demand) brought to bear due to said poor yields.

As production ramps up, the price of GF3 will fall somewhat. Another marketing force (competition) should push prices even lower, but don't expect to be getting a $200 GF3 any time soon.

Think about it this way. nVidia couldn't really push more brute-force out of their cards this time, at least not if they wanted to keep the price somewhat sane. So they opted to head in and start refining the way the chip works, as well as adding features that developers were asking for.

Meanwhile, back at the fab, the supporting technologies (like RAM) get at least a 6-month breathing period in which they can advance the performance of their products some more.

Another thing to consider. While maximum framerate really hasn't gone up this time, you know what's more important? Minimum and average framerates have.

Oh well. There's people, like Digit-life, out there who're going to provide a ton of DX7 benchmarks and proclaim the GF3 inferior. And all the while, they're never going to understand that they've missed the entire point of GF3.

You can please some of the people all of the time, Or you can please all of the people some of the time. But you can never please all of the people all of the time.

- Chas


Look I mean not to insult your schooling but you really need a better grip on simple economics. You admit that its a card for the creme of the consumers who are cutting edge and demand the latest in the technology, fine. However you should think more about the benefits to yourself and others before condeming either the company for its practice or else the people who actually are as you say "frame addicted". These people are the ones who generate large profits to the company who by intelligent priceing garner profits that allow them to produce such a high quality product. I will admit that I am biased as a shareholder and user of their products but the fact that you do not come to this simple realization of what is needed to keep up in a competative market while supporting all segments irks me. Its only rational that NVDA take this path to maximize their corporate profits by segmenting the market by higher demand users who as first adopters . It is true that this is a standard process of price discrimination from a more advanced course in economics, much like what airlines practice in their selling tickets for cheaper to early buyers, while those who buy a ticket the day of the flight often pay a very large markup. This is price discrimination based on time, and it is true that with video cards we have the same action. Also it is important to note that price discrimination is more openly present in monopolistic markets unlike perfectly competative ones. One can attribute this to the fact that after such hard competition with TDFX and ATYT NVDA has decided that it is alone in its markets and is willing to try to move their product to maximize profits. However, before claiming that NVDA should get hounded by the gov or some such it is important to know that this is perfectly legal. Actually by the ideas of economics this is the one type (know as type I discrimination) which does not reduce economic profits. This does not mean that the value of profit, or extra value that the consumer gains, known as consumer profit that goes to the consumer as the amount that they would have paid less the amount that they did pay is not less. It is this profit that the customer would have enjoyed before that is lost. I think this is something that upsets people in that they are not gaining such a large profit to keep themselves which angers them. With the GF2 it was widely recognized at least I would say so that the benefit of the card was far in excess of the cost and that this is what drove it to become such a wildly used card. I do not think that because NVDA has started to try to gain more profit than it has in the past using more price differentiation we should hold it against them, in the famous words of PT Barnum: "There is a fool born every minute" paired with "A fool and his money are soon parted". Not at all implying that this is the truth of the world as you imply by saying that you would have to be mad to purchase one of these cards.. not the case you would have to be that interested in having this product, and they provide the possibility to buy it. Obviously you do not see the value of this card in the same light as some of these consumers do. This should not upset you or cause you to question their reasoning, people buy crazy things at crazy prices all of the times, this one might actually do something more than a 400 year old piece of metal coin that some wanker pays some multi hundred dollar price for. This is not to say that I also am not waiting for more games that utilize this, but it pisses me off when people claim that it costs too much .. of course it does.. it excedes your value that you would recieve in terms of benefit to your experience in terms of a dollar value. I do understand that it upsets many people who want to have these types of framerates at a price that only reflects only a measurement of frame rate.. so that this new card which only offers an increased frame rate would be priced only with reference to this feature. However due to the large amount of money invested in the creation of this technology the company must charge a price that reflects all of the generated features. Therefore they can not just sell the card based on frame rate and not on the added feature set, and if they are going to get sales at this level then why not let them, since as you say there is nothing that really utilizes what is offered at the time. I agree that competition does force NVDA to ship when their chips are finished and leave the lab, but why not? Would you like them to wait and see what games are developed first that will make these cards worthy? Of course they have to release early before the games, and the people who have this card early will hopefully be a bit better in cstrike or quake due to the amount of money that they paid for that chance to get that many more frames than us, but there is no reason that they should be looked down on, they just value this option more than you or I do. Be happy about it.. this is a benefit for you.. and in more than a year when DOOM 3 hits the streets you and I will be buying the next iteration of the GF3 since by then they will have churned through two more cycles and this will allow us to buy the midline card for 300 and have the best experience possible so do not be bitching about how fast they produce new chips so that they are ahead of the industry. anyway.. I have had my rant, hope you are enligtened or at least have gotten a new idea about things or at least take this into consideration,

The above is my personal opinion,

- Jimiller


When they release the Geforce 3, the geforce 2 ultra 64meg DDR prive will probaly drop by 25-50%!

Sure the GF3 is overkill. But look at when the original GF came out. TNT2Us dropped thier price.

Yes, IMO buying a GF3 will kinda be silly. I am personally either gonna get a GF2U or just wait until their is a Geforce 3 ultra pro l337 gamer 256mb ddr quadro or whatever.

Also, not all gamers play quake3. I cant stand it nor can i stand any of the current FPS games.

What I am into is flight sims. If you have ever played B-17 2 you will see why so much power is needed.

Q3A will play on a voodoo2, maybe even a voodoo1. Heck, i once played it on a permedia 2.

Try playing B-17 2 on even a geforce ultra wiht a 900 mhz machine. It gets slow when alot of stuff is on the screen and unlike fps games, flight sims are 3D games, as in your nme can either go up down left right or even come to a crunching halt. FPS are jsut strafe and shoot and occasionaly a jump.

Nice opinion but the same thing was said with the pentium chip, the voodoo2 and the TNT2ultra.

- Kenneth


What is this piece of - ahem, I really can't write here what I was going to say - trying to tell the reader?

There is NO NEED to try one myself to know that there's not a single game out today using it's features or speed offerings.

"Whoo! Lookitme, I'm cool, because I can bash the GF3 through the floor before it's out on the market and before I even tried one myself!"?

Aren't we all equipped with brains, and as such, capable of making our OWN decisions about wether or not to buy this or that new video card? Do we REALLY need your negative opinions on wether to splurge for a GF3 or not?

There is no such thing as a negative opinion - there are only opinions. And yes: All our readers are equipped with brains - and it shows in the comments most of the time.

My article is just another point of view to think about.

Correct answers are, of course, "yes", and "no" respectively.

Lemme ask you this: did you write up a similar piece once it was known the then-upcoming V5-6000 was going to cost around US$ 600? Considering the site's name, a nagging little voice keeps telling me you save such literary masterpieces for faster, far more advanced and CHEAPER Nvidia products. Am I wrong or not?

You couldn't be more wrong actually. Glide Underground has nothing to do with 3dfx - we even had major trouble with them since we were THE central point of Glide Wrapper development.

I am an nVidia fan myself - and if you would have read the article unbiased, you would have understood that it's not about bashing a product.

The GeForce 3 is one hell of a chip. It's good that it's out. But itjust doesn't make any sense to buy one NOW.

Would it be better to buy (had it been released to the public, that is), a $600 V5-6000, which for all intents and purposes is little more than eight Voodoo2 boards sandwiched together? By your own arguments, at least every feature of that product is supported in current software! (With the exception of T-buffer effects, and FXTC texture compression of course! Let's just ignore those features shall we and pretend they don't exist.)

Beware... NO !!! My power unit couldn't take it and I wouldn't have all the neat effects of my GeForce 2 MX.

I'm curious as how to having a future-proof, full DX8 feature set can actually be something bad. It really sounds very strange to me.

I didn't say it's a bad thing; I even said that I think it's a goodproduct. But since there's no use for it yet (for gamers at least), there also no sense in shelling out that much money.

Perhaps you could illuminate me?

Regards:

- Hans


Hi,

Although I am usually a big fan of any kind for technological progress, I have to agree with your article about the Geforce 3 chip, as I don't believe anyone has really pushed even the Geforce 256 to the limit yet... In my opinion PC-programmers are a lazy bunch, as they are used to new hardware becomming available comstantly. I think a standstill in new technologies (yeah, right) would benefit the games industry, by teaching programmers and companies to make better game with what they have... Like the playstation, which didn't see its best games until a couple of years into its life...

Good Article

- Rune


Game developers NEED this card, of course.

Those with no money barriers will get it because they can.

But you forgot a certain group: REAL GAMERS. Not some 13-yr-old punk who thinks he has "mad skillz" sitting in his parent's basement. I'm talking about real hardcore, mature game fans with jobs who use their game machine as a critical stress-reliever, and some with "mad skillz" of their own who are constantly accused of cheating by the aforementioned 13-yr-olds. I am getting the first GeForce 3 I can get my hands on. Framerate is my life's blood when I'm online. I crave ultra-performance. I'm a gamer because I choose to be, not because I have nothing better to do. When I kick MechWarrior 4 into Ultra-High detail, I don't wanna see a single dropped frame, and even a GeForce 2 can have a hard time keeping it up to 60fps on my dual p3 1 GHz for ultra-smooth play. Quake 3 players need 120 fps, and the higher resolution the better. Most speed-hungry Q3 players have forgotten what Q3 really looks like. Turn on 32-bit color and textures, bump up the geometry and texture detail, even put in mess with the stencilbits console settings if you wanna smash your system. Now imagine running that at a truly playable framerate in a 20-player online game. That's why I'm getting the GeForce 3. Not because it's magically give every game new features, but because it'll allow me to actually USE the features that are already in the game, and enjoy the designer's intended visual effects at a framerate decent enough to compete in a real online frag session.

- Clifton Cline (PC gamer since 1986, Console gamer since the premiere of Atari 2600, Programmer, software developer, hardware junkie.)


I agree with this article. Sad to say though, when the news hit about the GeForce III....I started making plans to fit it into my budget. Similar to buying a deep sea fishing pole for your locale pond. However, the way I society is now, everyone wants the "best" as quick as they can. At least its not like upgrading your 33 MHz CPU to 66 mhz for three hundred dollars like I did in the "good old days".

Again, good article.

- Inflictor


What a refreshing view on the ever, or should I say never ending flow of increase in technology. Many people would also question the need for this endless stream of faster & faster technology. Why do we want this? Who will benefit from it? are just two questions that are asked not just by the average bloke on the street, but by some in businesses as well.

There are many perfectly good computers out there stowed in garages around the world and many more not far off. I have an old 486/66 and two 486/100 M/Boards but who wants them. I currently use a P200mmx with 128 ram its out of date, if I want to play some games. Upgrade it? Unless I get a hacksaw to the $300.00 Macase A/T case & try to make it ATX compatible, replace power supply etc, its obsolete.

Yet because of being on a disabled pension I have no money to replace it. But as soon as I look to replace it, the options don't look much better as to be just up to date never ends.

Back come the questions why the constant change of technology? why are Intel & AMD constanly changing slots/sockets from A to Z or 100 pins to 370 to 423 to 478? Buy a P4 a special board must have Rdrims & a new case to boot. How many motherboards are out there? No wonder they are expensive since there is a constant changing demand from the chip manufactures. Do I need to go on?

I just went to the Australian PC Comdex IT Expo in Sydney & even some of the manufacturers were frustrated by it all. But I got a good deal as a result of change. Macase were selling off old model stereo remote controlled speakers, they had the best sound I've heard for a while. Reduced from $300.00 to $66.00 they'll do me for some years to come, married up to a hercules game theatre when I can afford it.

I would love a new AMD 1.2 Athlon or p4 with a G-3 card but then I can't afford the games to run on them & I don't have that much time to dedicate to it either I can dream about it but again manufacturers seem to be turning it into a nightmare

Keep up with the sanity

regards from OZZ

Colin Hussey


"Now you could say: "What are you going mad about ? You can always buy an MX !". And you're right. It just bugs me that there are actually people frames-addicted enough to buy the new products as they hit the street."

Is this something regarding nvidia only? what about ppl that buy Intel Pentium 4 to play Quake 3? with a 21' Monitor ?

There are ppl that buy motherboards after some day they get out, those motherboards have sucky drivers, bus master doesn't work, AGP 4x (even if they say is supported) is a chimera, let's just look at the stupid VIA 4in1 drivers which beta releases fucked many HD contents out there.

"When buying a brandnew nVidia product, you're either mad, a game developer or don't have to worry about money at all. Competition forces nVidia to release their chips in the moment they leave the labs - but it doesn't force you to buy them instantly."

I don't really see why 3Dfx fans bitch about nVidia for the price, you all seem to forget that Voodoo6000 was priced around $600, without having Pixel Shaders, Vertex Shaders (TnL), it looks like to me that Geforce3 for the same price of Voodoo6000 beats it 10 - 1, i haven't seen 3Dfx fans bitch about Voodoo5500 price either, seems 3Dfx donated video cards around like if they were a Church not a Company.

We are not, and never were, a 3dfx fan site. You must be a reader of HardOCP, where Kyle Bennet wrongly wrote that we're a former 3dfx fansite. Oh and look HOW GOOD it fits ! "Ex-3dfx-fans moaning about the price of a GeForce 3".

Yep, sure.

Ok, i didn't follow much your site i've to admit, that's true, but u may accept the fact that "Glide Underground" sounds highly 3Dfxish?, it sounded me that way even months ago (HardOCP has nothing to do with my (wrong) opinion about your site).

Sure, "Glide" was a 3dfx thing; and that's why it drove us mad when Kyle wrote that piece yesterday: It's so easy to believe...

First, you should step back and ask yourself if believing everything without questioning it is really it. Second, go and read our frontpage (post "Former 3dfx fansite", 03/12/01) to see just how ridiculous this statement really is.

We had way more trouble with 3dfx than nVidia in the past - and they even threatened us with lawsuits because of the Glide Wrappers Glide Underground is a home for.

And BTW: Do I have a Voodoo 5 6000 ?!? Did I ever say I liked its price ?!?!? Does the article say something along these lines ? Did I ever say that I would've purchased a Voodoo 5 6000 if it had been released to the public ?

See, the point is: YOU DON'T KNOW.

The thing is, the price of many cards is TOO high, so why bitching only to nVidia? and not like a general discussion on how the video card market went?

Sure, one could write similar articles about amy things - it's just that when the GeForce 3 was released/announced, these were my thoughts and I just wrote them down.

What if I tell you that I have not ever possessed a 3dfx board ? That I owned a Riva 128, replaced it with a TNT and just recently replaced it with a GF2 MX ? That 3dfx never donated ANYTHING TO US ? Does that make your head explode now ?

no, i really can't care less honestly :)

;-)

Finally, I didn't "bitch about nVidia for the price" as you like to call it, it was about that it's not worth shelling out that much money just yet. Most of the new features of the GeForce 3 are not used yet, so it's save to wait some time and let the prices drop until games hit the shelves that actually use those features. But if you want to shell out 600$ for HRAA and some more frames, go for it. That's what the article was about - and it shows if you read it.

$600 is crazy, did i say the opposite in my mail? no i havent, i just compared what a Voodoo6000 had to offer for $600 with what Geforce 3 has to offer.

Agreed - the GeForce 3 has way more to offer than the Voodoo 5 6000 would have had.

So don't go around and talk about stuff you don't know anything about or about articles when you merely read the title; but then again, that seems to be the way some people use to do it.

Thanks for your feedback.

That's completely untrue, since i did read your article, the fact that i may misthought your site as a 3Dfx fan site is just background, what i said it's still valid for the article imo, also, try to be a bit more polite and DONT WRITE UPPERCASE ;), we are discussing not fighting or something, just relax.

Ok... You're right about that. Sorry.

Cya.

If game industry doesn't use TnL even at present day its not like a nVidia fault, the real problem is that there are still many ppl with sucky cards, and also supporting both TnL and a faster software fallback isn't like a big issue (but developers are lazy).

nVidia won for now, its like Microsoft, why Windows is the most used OS? simply because there isn't much better around, and nobody tried to do a better one, so its Microsoft fault or the non existent competition?

You could say "linux is better" could be in some aspects, though the End-User who bought Pentium 4, 21' Monitor, Geforce 3 and can barely turn on the computer won't know how to use linux at all, while Windows is "lamer proof".

Good bye

- Marco


I don't see how you can think that there is no need for it. Most of my games support 1600x1200x32 or higher resolution already. I can't play most games any higher than 1024x768x32 with my current geforce 2 gts at 1Ghz.

I'm not saying that I would buy one if it was release, because $500 or whatever it is, is a little pricey for me right now.

But just because I wouldn't buy one, doesn't mean it's too fast. If anything it should be faster to be able to take advantage of the faster CPU's.

Let me say I've paid much more insanely higher prices for products in the past before computer prices dropped. Such as $1500 Seagate Barracuda 4 Gig drive, $1000 CDR, $160 300 baud modem, and the list goes on...

I think, maybe, we have been spoiled with the rock bottom prices of recent computer components.

I mean when you can buy a 256 meg dimm for $90!!! Prices are cheap!

- Brent


Previous | Next
Jump to Page: [ 1 | 2 | 3 ]

Too Fast For You? -Letters 2


Added:  Wednesday, March 14, 2001
Reviewer:  Torsten Daeges

Page: 2/3

Previous Previous (1/3)  1 2 3   Next (3/3) Next

[ Back to Articles index ]

Home :: Share Your Story
Site contents copyright Glide Underground.
Want to syndicate our news? Hook in to our RSS Feed.