Infinity Ward: Studio Heads let go, new devs for CoD. Heads strike back!

[quote name='paddlefoot']MW2 cost between $40-$50 million to develop and a total of $200 million after marketing and distribution costs. Next-gen developers don't make next-gen games without massive budgets. What are they going to do? Take out a bank loan?[/QUOTE]

Yep, going independent isn't an option.

If/when they leave Activision they'll be under someone else. My money is on MS snapping them up to keep their games off the PS3. If not them, then EA.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']Yep, going independent isn't an option.

If/when they leave Activision they'll be under someone else. My money is on MS snapping them up to keep their games off the PS3. If not them, then EA.[/QUOTE]
But would EA need another FPS with Bad Company and Medal of Honor?
 
[quote name='62t']Actually that did work as the people boycott were able to set up a meeting with Valve[/QUOTE]

Meeting or not, did you see that image where they cross-referenced the people who signed the boycott against people who were actually playing the game on Steam? There were tons of guys who signed the boycott and went ahead and bought the game anyway.
 
[quote name='62t']But would EA need another FPS with Bad Company and Medal of Honor?[/QUOTE]

We're talking the developers of the biggest selling FPS games. Of course they'd want them.

I'd expect an all out bidding war between MS and EA for IW. Sony may get in on it, but I doubt it. Can't seem them buying a western FPS developer.

EA will want them just to grow their empire. MS will want them to have some more killer exclusives in a day when exclusive games are fewer and fewer.

Other publishers will want them, but I don't see others being able to compete in a bidding war with MS and EA and Activision.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']Other publishers will want them, but I don't see others being able to compete in a bidding war with MS and EA and Activision.[/QUOTE]

The Giantbomb cast brought that up. But the idea of MS trying to get them was shot down pretty quickly as it would most likely strain relations between the 2 companies.
 
[quote name='Chibi_Kaji']The Giantbomb cast brought that up. But the idea of MS trying to get them was shot down pretty quickly as it would most likely strain relations between the 2 companies.[/QUOTE]

I could see that. But at the same time with Bungie not wanting to do Halo anymore, MS may be willing to risk it to get another big FPS developer exclusive.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']I could see that. But at the same time with Bungie not wanting to do Halo anymore, MS may be willing to risk it to get another big FPS developer exclusive.[/QUOTE]
Seems like to great of a risk to take right now. I highly doubt Activision will make it easy for anyone who grabs those guys.
 
[quote name='WrexManor']gamers don't have the will power to boycott a turd sandwich let alone a hyped up videogame. we all saw what happened with the l4d2 boycotts.[/QUOTE]


thats the realtruth of it all. no matter how many gamers complain about shit the majority of them will continue to purchase those games. its fun to get all angry and riled up and post on blogs and webboards but when push comes to shove and that new game comes out everyone shuts up and buys it.

very few people have the fortitude to not buy things like that.
 
[quote name='Chibi_Kaji']Seems like to great of a risk to take right now. I highly doubt Activision will make it easy for anyone who grabs those guys.[/QUOTE]

Is it really a big deal though? Looking through their notable game releases, it looks like all they really have is Call of Duty--which will drop off if it's not IW developing it. And Guitar Hero--which still sells big, but not a huge console mover when Rock Band is available.

Maybe the Wiki page is leaving out some notable games, but I don't see a big deal of losing Activision if they don't have the Call of Duty series (doesn't seem clear who gets that name, them or IW).
 
[quote name='paddlefoot']MW2 cost between $40-$50 million to develop and a total of $200 million after marketing and distribution costs. Next-gen developers don't make next-gen games without massive budgets. What are they going to do? Take out a bank loan?[/QUOTE]

They can find a better publishing agreement with someone else. They can get funding. Their last two games sold over 10 million.
 
There's something to be said about developers and brand names. Loads of 'blockbuster' names have virtually no pull in this modern market. Medal of Honor and Wolfenstein immediately come to mind, and right around the corner you can find Guitar Hero. Tony Hawk has set the standard for "your brand don't mean shit no more" too.

Activision can make some money off of CoD for maybe 1-2 installments without Infinity Ward. But as other series have shown, they're unlikely to sustain that for very long. A combination of soulless releases and too frequent releases will lead to consumer exhaustion with the brand. And that's what Activision does, and precisely what will happen with this franchise as well.
 
Yup. Activision either enjoys oversaturating to get the most profits as fast as they can before dumping those responsible or they are so narrowminded they think they can just keep pumping the market full of the same thing before they find they need to dump it.

Unless their developers can step their game up the CoD IP will only get them great (less than MW2) sales for the next 2 installments they currently have planned (unless Sledgehammer fails). I think after those hit though we will see some type of CoD MMO or at least a CoD subscription type deal. Which ironically will be better for them because less people will be interested in the series by then, but still a ton of people, and they'll milk them for all their money on subscription fees and such.
 
Infinity Ward as a studio is owned by Activision. There's no way they'd sell it. I could see all of it's talent drain quietly away to EA, MS and other studios, but to suggest a bidding war is ridiculous. It's safe to say Activision's lawyers know their way around contracts.

As upsetting as all this is, this is what happens when a studio allows itself to be bought out. They know this or at least should know this going in. I bet RedOctane wishes they worked out their differences with Harmonix now.
 
the 2 guys are suing Activision for breach of contract, "Activision terminated their employment weeks before they were to be paid substantial royalty payments as part of their existing contracts for Modern Warfare 2." They are being represented by one of the best firms in the world for IP and entertainment law, so there has got to be a ton of money involved and probably a decent case to be made. The lawyer claims the investigation was pretextual. Also the most interesting bit is this..."The suit was filed to vindicate the rights of West and Zampella to be paid the compensation they have earned, as well as the contractual rights Activision granted to West and Zampella to control Modern Warfare-branded games." That bolded bit is a bombshell claim that could have huge implications.

http://www.prnewswire.com/news-rele...file-lawsuit-against-activision-86295312.html
 
[quote name='DQT']Infinity Ward as a studio is owned by Activision. There's no way they'd sell it. I could see all of it's talent drain quietly away to EA, MS and other studios, but to suggest a bidding war is ridiculous. It's safe to say Activision's lawyers know their way around contracts.
[/QUOTE]

From what I've read, they're NOT owned by Activision but were just under contract with them, and that contract runs out later this year. So the bidding war would happen when the contract is over and they're free to go where ever they want.

But that was earlier today, and who knows who reliable the info in these reports are.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']From what I've read, they're NOT owned by Activision but were just under contract with them, and that contract runs out later this year. So the bidding war would happen when the contract is over and they're free to go where ever they want.

But that was earlier today, and who knows who reliable the info in these reports are.[/QUOTE]

the article I linked which seems to come from the law firm representing them seems to indicate they are owned by activision
 
[quote name='caltab']the 2 guys are suing Activision for breach of contract, "Activision terminated their employment weeks before they were to be paid substantial royalty payments as part of their existing contracts for Modern Warfare 2." They are being represented by one of the best firms in the world for IP and entertainment law, so there has got to be a ton of money involved and probably a decent case to be made. The lawyer claims the investigation was pretextual. Also the most interesting bit is this..."The suit was filed to vindicate the rights of West and Zampella to be paid the compensation they have earned, as well as the contractual rights Activision granted to West and Zampella to control Modern Warfare-branded games." That bolded bit is a bombshell claim that could have huge implications.

http://www.prnewswire.com/news-rele...file-lawsuit-against-activision-86295312.html[/QUOTE]

Oooh. I need to go to the store and buy a big-ass box of popcorn for this.
 
Nice. I'm sure Activision has an army of lawyers to combat this thing, but I really hope the end result is something positive for Zampella and West.
 
[quote name='caltab']the 2 guys are suing Activision for breach of contract, "Activision terminated their employment weeks before they were to be paid substantial royalty payments as part of their existing contracts for Modern Warfare 2." They are being represented by one of the best firms in the world for IP and entertainment law, so there has got to be a ton of money involved and probably a decent case to be made. The lawyer claims the investigation was pretextual. Also the most interesting bit is this..."The suit was filed to vindicate the rights of West and Zampella to be paid the compensation they have earned, as well as the contractual rights Activision granted to West and Zampella to control Modern Warfare-branded games." That bolded bit is a bombshell claim that could have huge implications.

http://www.prnewswire.com/news-rele...file-lawsuit-against-activision-86295312.html[/QUOTE]

This latest development certainly reinforces two important points in GamaSutra's analysis, though the second one is something BingeGamer brought up, centered on the contract:
1. Infinity Ward had complete control over the Modern Warfare franchise, and Activision would need their approval to do anything with it.
2. IW's contract has a provision in which Activision owes royalties to IW for Modern Warfare 2. Considering how much it sold, that likely adds up to a pretty nifty sum.

Clearly, these two points serve as possible motives for Activision to try to weasel their way out of the contract, by any means necessary. Leigh Alexander theorized that if IW refused to develop MW3, Activision would use the threat of layoffs, knowing that West and Zampella would refuse to it, thus giving Activision the "insubordination" excuse needed to get out of the contract.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
This whole Activision thing is starting to sound a lot like New Line and Lotr royalties and NBC with late night.

Call of Duty 7: Koticked in the ass
 
[quote name='Cao Cao']This latest development certainly reinforces two important points in GamaSutra's analysis, though the second one is something BingeGamer brought up, centered on the contract:
1. Infinity Ward had complete control over the Modern Warfare franchise, and Activision would need their approval to do anything with it.
2. IW's contract has a provision in which Activision owes royalties to IW for Modern Warfare 2. Considering how much it sold, that likely adds up to a pretty nifty sum.

Clearly, these two points serve as possible motives for Activision to try to weasel their way out of the contract, by any means necessary. Leigh Alexander theorized that if IW refused to develop MW3, Activision would use the threat of layoffs, knowing that West and Zampella would refuse to it, thus giving Activision the "insubordination" excuse needed to get out of the contract.[/QUOTE]
How well did WaW sell compared to MW? Activision seems to think they don't need the best talent as long as they have the name. Didn't they do the same thing with Harmonix?

ATV is all about setting up a short term contract with the best talent, getting them to make a AAA title or two, then dumping the studio, all so they can retain the name and continue making games under it with lesser developers. All so they pay a tad bit less money in the whole scheme of things. This should backfire eventually. Perhaps this time.

I doubt ATV cares about the Modern Warfare name all that much compared to just getting IW to do what they want. They can continue CoD with whatever names they want. Of course they want MW3 asap and if they can't get it they make back that lost money by ending the contract. Crazy dirty business.

It was only a matter of time before ATV got itself into some crazy scandal like this! It's very sad for the future of studios in general when publishers can wheel and deal them like this. We need a Bobby Kotick law enacted. No Kodicking studios around allowed.

[quote name='Fjordson']http://www.gamespot.com/news/6252764.html

The last paragraph is scary. A possible fourth Call of Duty game within the next two years? The end is nigh.[/QUOTE]

and Asian-produced... Good luck with that ATV!
 
[quote name='Fjordson']Nice. I'm sure Activision has an army of lawyers to combat this thing, but I really hope the end result is something positive for Zampella and West.[/QUOTE]

Activision might have an army of lawyers, but OMM, the firm representing the heads, is an extremely elite world renown army itself, this could be an epic legal battle.
 
Oh well, another franchise bites the dust. Is it me or do I forsee COD becoming Medal of Honor and fading away into oblivion? Im not sure how they think that oversaturation of the market is a good thing (Guitar Hero, Tony Hawk) but these greedy bastards better learn or they are just going to keep destroying franchises. It really doesnt matter whos right or wrong because no matter how you look at it, this is no way to run a business. These contracts are in place to prevent stupid crap like this from happening.
 
[quote name='caltab']Activision might have an army of lawyers, but OMM, the firm representing the heads, is an extremely elite world renown army itself, this could be an epic legal battle.[/QUOTE]

I'm with myke, but I prefer junior mints.
 
[quote name='tankass']Oh well, another franchise bites the dust. Is it me or do I forsee COD becoming Medal of Honor and fading away into oblivion? Im not sure how they think that oversaturation of the market is a good thing (Guitar Hero, Tony Hawk) but these greedy bastards better learn or they are just going to keep destroying franchises. It really doesnt matter whos right or wrong because no matter how you look at it, this is no way to run a business. These contracts are in place to prevent stupid crap like this from happening.[/QUOTE]

I dunno. "Ride that horse until it dies" is a better strategy than "stand and watch as the horse dies anyway." At least with the former option they're getting somewhere.

The question is what causes franchises to decline in value to the market? Is it oversaturation or is it something else (interest with another franchise, perhaps)?

What are some of the longest-lasting franchises that sell like a motherfucker? Madden (zero competition as it has the NFL license locked away)? Grand Theft Auto is a huge anomaly compared to the Activision method - they've released a lot of GTA games since III (6 or 7, I think) and not only does it have staying power, reasonably good pretenders to the throne just can't sell compared to it (like Saints Row). But compare the # of GTA titles released over 8-9 years to the # of GH titles in 4-5 years; 8-10 or more?

Call of Duty is a brand name right now, but it doesn't have to be forever. But I'm not totally convinced that oversaturation is the primary cause.

I partly think that there's something about releasing particular titles that shows the market you've run out of ideas. When consumers see "Band Hero" or "GH: Van Halen," do they see this as a desperate cash grab (that it is)?

EDIT: And let's be totally fair; while Tony Hawk: Ride stunk, and DJ Hero was pretty fun, both sold poorly. That could be a reflection of growing consumer disinterest in more and more big-ass peripherals, wariness at spending $110-120 on a single game, or a combination of the two.
 
I think the thing with GTA is that almost every single game in the series is top notch, even GTA I, II, London, and Chinatown on the DS. Also, the didn't put out their title on every single platform. FFS, modern warfare 2 is even on the DS. That's an obvious money grab no matter how you spin it. Rockstar didn't push out GTA V in 09 or VI in 10 either.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']I dunno. "Ride that horse until it dies" is a better strategy than "stand and watch as the horse dies anyway." At least with the former option they're getting somewhere.

The question is what causes franchises to decline in value to the market? Is it oversaturation or is it something else (interest with another franchise, perhaps)?

What are some of the longest-lasting franchises that sell like a motherfucker? Madden (zero competition as it has the NFL license locked away)? Grand Theft Auto is a huge anomaly compared to the Activision method - they've released a lot of GTA games since III (6 or 7, I think) and not only does it have staying power, reasonably good pretenders to the throne just can't sell compared to it (like Saints Row). But compare the # of GTA titles released over 8-9 years to the # of GH titles in 4-5 years; 8-10 or more?

Call of Duty is a brand name right now, but it doesn't have to be forever. But I'm not totally convinced that oversaturation is the primary cause.

I partly think that there's something about releasing particular titles that shows the market you've run out of ideas. When consumers see "Band Hero" or "GH: Van Halen," do they see this as a desperate cash grab (that it is)?

EDIT: And let's be totally fair; while Tony Hawk: Ride stunk, and DJ Hero was pretty fun, both sold poorly. That could be a reflection of growing consumer disinterest in more and more big-ass peripherals, wariness at spending $110-120 on a single game, or a combination of the two.[/QUOTE]

Myke,

I didn't feel like getting into it, but also believe the whole oversaturation thing is a little f-ed out. The music genre is just one example. Guitar Hero and Rockband(and every other incarnation) are finite products. Both Activision AND EA have been pumping out songs for the last few years and will eventually run out of shit worth playing. I include EA because while Activision is given grief for retail releases, Rockband DLC has quietly eclipsed 1000 songs. Activision and EA have two choices. 1 - release as much popular music as humanly possible while the genre is hot and culturally relevant. 2 - Systematically release content yearly and hope the genre stays popular.
 
[quote name='62t']Jason West and Vince Zampella's lawsuit aganist ATVI

http://kotaku.com/5485703/ousted-in...ainst-activision-the-court-documents/gallery/[/QUOTE]

an interesting read...the documents posted by Kotoku don't include the Memo of Understanding, but if what is stated in the claim is true, there is certainly a very large legal battle ahead, they are claiming 10s of millions in damages. Also, it seems like they are claiming the Modern Warfare part of the name and not Call of Duty.
 
[quote name='62t']Jason West and Vince Zampella's lawsuit aganist ATVI

http://kotaku.com/5485703/ousted-in...ainst-activision-the-court-documents/gallery/[/QUOTE]

I just glanced through this and I saw this quote:

"First, the MOU gives West and Zampella creative authority over the development of any games under the Modern Warfare brand (or any Call of Duty game set in the post-Vietnam era, the near future or the distant future) including complete control over the Infinity Ward studio. The MOU explicitly provides that no such game can be commercially released without the written consent of West and Zampella."

So this effectively means ATV cannot release any Call of Duty game set after Vietnam :lol: and if they do and West and Zampella win they'll have to retract it from the market.
 
[quote name='Tony208']I think the thing with GTA is that almost every single game in the series is top notch, even GTA I, II, London, and Chinatown on the DS. Also, the didn't put out their title on every single platform. FFS, modern warfare 2 is even on the DS. That's an obvious money grab no matter how you spin it. Rockstar didn't push out GTA V in 09 or VI in 10 either.[/QUOTE]

I agree. I know it's popular to hate on GTA but I've always found the games to be massively impressive. On major consoles each iteration is an improvement in every respect and each iteration has it's own character. Any gamer worth his salt can tell you what was new in Vice City, what GTA:SA brought to the table, or why GTA:IV deserved the new number.

IMO Activision is using AAA titles as part of a bait-and-switch operation. They come out with one or two good games in a series and then slap the title on a bunch of mediocre sequels and shovelware. IMO if the title is strong enough you can get away with periodic mediocre sequels (see: Madden) but selling shovelware will eventually bite you in the ass.
 
In a post on his personal Twitter page, David Goldfarb says:

"Just read the IW complaint vs kotick and atvi. Sickening and heartbreaking. I hope you guys bury that piece of shit kotick."

Bloomberg reports:

"They seek at least $36 million and control over “Modern Warfare,”

"Maryanne Lataif, a spokeswoman for Santa Monica, California-based Activision Blizzard, called the complaint “meritless.”"

"“Activision shareholders provided these executives with the capital they needed to start Infinity Ward, as well as the financial support, resources and creative independence that helped them flourish and achieve enormous professional success and personal wealth,” Lataif said in an e-mailed statement."
 
Bloomberg reports:

"They seek at least $36 million and control over “Modern Warfare,”

"Maryanne Lataif, a spokeswoman for Santa Monica, California-based Activision Blizzard, called the complaint “meritless.”"

"“Activision shareholders provided these executives with the capital they needed to start Infinity Ward, as well as the financial support, resources and creative independence that helped them flourish and achieve enormous professional success and personal wealth,” Lataif said in an e-mailed statement."
 
So is Activision taking the "we paid for it, we get the extras" stance? This feels like divorce court.

EDIT: I think Goldfarb's tweet is really interesting. For one he assumes everything the IW guy's suit claims is true (which is likely), and he called Kotick a piece of shit. Normally normal stuff, but since he's who he is, I'm surprised he posted it.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']From what I've read, they're NOT owned by Activision but were just under contract with them, and that contract runs out later this year. So the bidding war would happen when the contract is over and they're free to go where ever they want.

But that was earlier today, and who knows who reliable the info in these reports are.[/QUOTE]

http://www.businessweek.com/news/20...-unit-to-run-call-of-duty-games-update1-.html

http://investor.activision.com/ReleaseDetail.cfm?releaseid=149421

[quote name='dmaul1114']
But that was earlier today, and who knows who reliable the info in these reports are.[/QUOTE]

Note to game "journalists": Would it kill you guys to pick up a Wall Street Journal once in while? They blast Michael Pacter for his analysis yet are clueless when business news breaks surrounding the games industry. They're truly representative of the community as a whole - completely insular.

Regarding the lawsuit, I'm glad the founders tried to protect themselves and the studio but we'll see how well the contract holds in court. I hope they do not settle.
 
[quote name='DQT']http://www.businessweek.com/news/20...-unit-to-run-call-of-duty-games-update1-.html

http://investor.activision.com/ReleaseDetail.cfm?releaseid=149421



Note to game "journalists": Would it kill you guys to pick up a Wall Street Journal once in while? They blast Michael Pacter for his analysis yet are clueless when business news breaks surrounding the games industry. They're truly representative of the community as a whole - completely insular.

Regarding the lawsuit, I'm glad the founders tried to protect themselves and the studio but we'll see how well the contract holds in court. I hope they do not settle.[/QUOTE]

What would you like to see happen if they do not settle? Are you just interested in how the proceedings go for entertainment value? What outcome do you want to see?
 
I don't know anything about law but I'd assume that's unlikely to happen. I'm with the Activision haters. Activision obviously thought there would a better cost/benefit scenario if they chose to play it out in the courts than to honor their contracts. Companies do this all the time, but I'd like to just see those two guys get everything they are suing for and stick it to them.

With their resumes though, I doubt West and Zampella will ever be hurting for money.
 
The guy who mentioned gamers having zero backbone when it comes to boycotts is spot on. I've been saying the same thing as far back as HORSE ARMOR and it still annoys me. What sucked about MW2 is everyone bought the damn thing, resolve or not. I'm as guilty as anyone there, I bought it right away myself. That's going to be it for me though - if I ever buy Activision again, I'll just be getting it through Goozex or craigslist or whatever.

Re: the talk about the CoD franchise having peaked - I don't disagree. You know what's really going to piss people off? By the time it really bottoms out, and all this oversaturation, bad press, and shady business practices finally begin to bring Activision down, Kotick will have probably be long gone. He'll be off living on a piece of property everyone in this thread combined couldn't afford.

NO COMEUPPAAAAAANCCEEEEEE!!!!
 
[quote name='DQT']I don't know anything about law but I'd assume that's unlikely to happen. I'm with the Activision haters. Activision obviously thought there would a better cost/benefit scenario if they chose to play it out in the courts than to honor their contracts. Companies do this all the time, but I'd like to just see those two guys get everything they are suing for and stick it to them.

With their resumes though, I doubt West and Zampella will ever be hurting for money.[/QUOTE]

I see. I agree completely. I was just wondering because I liked your previous comment about game journalists. Most of them talk out their ass 24/7 and the other ones are working for some place too corporate to feed you anything but the company line.

[quote name='KaneRobot']The guy who mentioned gamers having zero backbone when it comes to boycotts is spot on. I've been saying the same thing as far back as HORSE ARMOR and it still annoys me. What sucked about MW2 is everyone bought the damn thing, resolve or not. I'm as guilty as anyone there, I bought it right away myself. That's going to be it for me though - if I ever buy Activision again, I'll just be getting it through Goozex or craigslist or whatever.

Re: the talk about the CoD franchise having peaked - I don't disagree. You know what's really going to piss people off? By the time it really bottoms out, and all this oversaturation, bad press, and shady business practices finally begin to bring Activision down, Kotick will have probably be long gone. He'll be off living on a piece of property everyone in this thread combined couldn't afford.

NO COMEUPPAAAAAANCCEEEEEE!!!![/QUOTE]
Add me to the list of those who did not buy MW2. I think there's 2 of us so far in the thread who did not. The only way I would cave in and end up supporting ATV is for some of my few all time favorite IP's and I'll be caving in for Starcraft II, which you can't get used. But the only other game I'll buy new from them after that is SC III in 2022.
 
A resurgence of Medal of Honor to coincide with the downfall of a watered-down Call of Duty would be cool and poetic.
 
I hope they don't settle out of court, thus effectively ending any kind of potential judicially-backed comeuppance. I'd like to see this thing pan out where Activision tries to make MW-but-not-called-MW, while these two guys actually make Modern Warfare. Activision will try to sneak it under everyone's noses by called it Mwarfare, or Morefare, or something, because that's like, both words at once, man.

Here, Activision. Here's my advice. Take this chance to fuck with the formula. I'm envisioning the next one taking place in World War I, and you've been transported back in time. You'll get to kick ass with heartbeat sensors and semtex while calling in pavelows in the middle of gas trenches. Then you get to go fight Hitler, because why wouldn't you get to fight Hitler? Except he's RoboHitler, and he's really pissed off and depressed because he got rejected from art school again.

Somehow you should work Indiana Jones in there too. Maybe you ride across the ocean on the backs of tigers while on the Titanic. But it sinks, right next to Rapture, and so you must travel down there and kick some Big Daddy ass.

See? Problem solved. No need to even carry this out. Those doods get their wussy MW3, I get to Commando Pro some bitches under the ocean. Hell, let me call down an emergency air drop. That'd be grand.
 
I don't think these 2 guys are the kind of people that want to settle out of court. And I don't think Activision is a company that gives a damn about losing the equivalent for 14 cents. There will be blood! And it will be glorious!

But IW going back to EA? That seems...odd.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top