Forum Settings
       
1 2 3 Next »
This Forum is Read Only

Could releasing FFXIV on PS3 in March backfire in SE face?Follow

#102 Jul 06 2010 at 6:33 PM Rating: Decent
**
456 posts
Quote:
but that doesn't mean the game, in SE's eyes, was considered particularly successful.


SE even said that when developing FFXI, they didn't expect it to become as successful as it was. So it was a success in SE eye's, and that's all that really matters.

This discussion about success came about because someone stated (or implied) that it took WoW like numbers in order to be successful and keep producing tons of content. Then they tried to say that the lack of improvements in FFXI was a result of the lack of player base which wasn't true. There was plenty of updates and content pouring in FFXI, and just because you didn't get the update you wanted, didn't mean that it was a result of them not having a WoW like player base. It was a result of SE improving and updating what they wanted to improve, and fund based on number of players wasn't an issue (even though they probably put more resources in FFXIV).
#103xthunderblazex, Posted: Jul 06 2010 at 6:53 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Will screenshot it after I get it back from police, as I said, I have a 3.41ghz quadcore, 16gb ram, 1.8gb gpu desktop, why would I play on that laptop anyway? lol
#104 Jul 06 2010 at 7:06 PM Rating: Excellent
****
5,684 posts
xthunderblazex wrote:
Will screenshot it after I get it back from police

Smiley: dubious
____________________________
Almalieque wrote:
I admit that I was wrong

God bless Lili St. Cyr
#105 Jul 06 2010 at 9:15 PM Rating: Good
*****
11,539 posts
Lady Bardalicious wrote:
xthunderblazex wrote:
Will screenshot it after I get it back from police

Smiley: dubious


He grabbed a $1500 laptop, threw $400-500 at the clerk and ran out of the store.

HocusP wrote:
Quote:
but that doesn't mean the game, in SE's eyes, was considered particularly successful.


SE even said that when developing FFXI, they didn't expect it to become as successful as it was. So it was a success in SE eye's, and that's all that really matters.

This discussion about success came about because someone stated (or implied) that it took WoW like numbers in order to be successful and keep producing tons of content. Then they tried to say that the lack of improvements in FFXI was a result of the lack of player base which wasn't true. There was plenty of updates and content pouring in FFXI, and just because you didn't get the update you wanted, didn't mean that it was a result of them not having a WoW like player base. It was a result of SE improving and updating what they wanted to improve, and fund based on number of players wasn't an issue (even though they probably put more resources in FFXIV).


Just tl;dring a post I made on page 1:


I wrote:
I thought FFXI had plenty of content.

Why don't you tell me specifically what WoW has provided in terms of "content quantity and quality" that FFXI has not also provided comparably, with 5% of the amount of players. According to your logic, 20x the players means Blizzard should have provided 20x as much content.

[...]

[Re: Age of Conan] 700K players in 2008, and a common complaint about the game from people who quit was lack of content. Guess that proves that "lots of players" does not necessarily equal "lots of content"; they had lots of players, gave them NO content, and then the players left.

If anything, this just says the opposite of what you're claiming; more players doesn't get you more content; more content gets you more players. AoC apparently had MORE players than FFXI and LESS content.

[...]

World of Warcraft came out November 2004 with BC in January 2007 (2 years and 2 months) and LK in November 2008 (1 year, 11 months) with Cataclysm pegged for later this year (assuming October, that's 1 year and 11 months again).

FFXI came out May 2002 with Zilart in April 2003 (9 months), Chains of Promathia in September 2004 (1 year, 5 months), ToAu in April 2006 (1 year, 7 months) and Wings of the Goddess in Nov 2007 (1 year, 7 months).

So ALL of FFXI's expansions have been released faster than WoW (with 20x the players) on top of content patches every 1-3 months, and WITHOUT taking their servers down one day a week, EVERY week.

I think this proves pretty definitively that with under half a million players, SE can STILL put out expansions faster than Blizzard can with 10 million. And considering WoW is -FAR- better known for an ADHD "I need new stuff now or I get bored" playerbase than FFXI is, that's saying something.


I have never argued that WoW is the most popular MMORPG in that it has more players than any other game; that's fact.

But another fact that people don't seem to grasp is that it doesn't take 10 million players to turn a tidy profit and be a successful game. There are plenty of MMORPGs out there that people play and enjoy, and their publishers are making money; Eve, EQ, RO, DDO, GW... as long as a company is earning more income than they're spending on development and players are playing, then the game is successful.

Again, if you truly feel that the only game worth playing is the most popuar one, then I expect you to also tell me that you only shop at Walmart and you only get your burgers at McDonalds. After all, Target, Sears, Burger King, Taco Bell... clearly all of these chains are unsuccessful, because they're not the best. Right?
____________________________
[ffxisig]55836[/ffxisig]

Mikhalia: and FWIW, my posts are 95% helpful, informative, or funny.
Mikhalia: only 5% or less of my posts are utter crap.
Tyapex: 393 posts of utter crap...
Mikhalia: Sounds about right.
#106 Jul 07 2010 at 6:52 AM Rating: Good
***
2,010 posts
I think that the point folks are trying to make is that a game's legacy gives us a better idea of what will be successful in the future.

SE is making a sequel to its first MMO. Whether or not people will play it depends largely on what people thought of the first one individually, by word-of-mouth, and general press reviews. If people didn't think the first one was very good, the odds they will give the second one a chance are slim. Now take WoW - should they push out a sequel with updated graphics, interface, and all that rot - do you think it's likely to be a success based on the way its predecessor was received?

Most likely, that's a yes. Now whether SE *thinks* FFXI was successful or not really *doesn't* matter. We can sit here in a circle and jerk each other off about how great XI was and what a massive success SE thought it was, but the bottom line is that it's the rest of the world who needs convincing. So far, the arguments have been weak and SE's recent business decisions are just going to force them even further into that small niche market.

Maybe they are happy there. But if they were happy there, why design a new game at all, and why make statements like "We want to appeal to a more casual audience"? It's clear, at least to me, that they don't feel that XI was as successful as you seem to think they think it was. It turned a profit, but it certainly lost more people than it gained over the years.

They see games like WoW - graphically inferior, lacking the signature cutscenes and the lore that makes a Squaresoft game a Squaresoft game just dominating the market. You know that has to rankle, at least a little. Success - isn't all about money. Those who think it is, are missing the big picture here.
#107 Jul 07 2010 at 6:59 AM Rating: Excellent
Sage
**
770 posts
Torrence wrote:

SE is making a sequel to its first MMO. Whether or not people will play it depends largely on what people thought of the first one individually, by word-of-mouth, and general press reviews. If people didn't think the first one was very good, the odds they will give the second one a chance are slim. Now take WoW - should they push out a sequel with updated graphics, interface, and all that rot - do you think it's likely to be a success based on the way its predecessor was received?



Dont really think they ment it as a sequel, same basic designs but whole new world. But you are definatly right on the rest of this here, People will go by word of mouth fora while at least and if they didnt enjoy 11 they might not go for 14. However saying this I have a few things to add, people who did not like things about 11 may decide to give 14 a chance due to it being a diffrent gave with diffrent ways of playing. As well, people who play 11 now and may not like it fora few reasons, 1) starting over, some people jsut dont liek to start small again. and 2) They may not like how 14 plays and prefer playign 11.

Btw I appologize in advance if I misquoted you, I havent had coffee yet lol
____________________________
I do not suffer from insanity.. I rather enjoy it.

{retired} Devalynn Mithra WHM extrodinare -Garuda (gives everyone a high paw! yeah!)

Church OF Mikhalia
#108 Jul 07 2010 at 7:29 AM Rating: Decent
*****
11,539 posts
Torrence wrote:
Most likely, that's a yes. Now whether SE *thinks* FFXI was successful or not really *doesn't* matter. We can sit here in a circle and jerk each other off about how great XI was and what a massive success SE thought it was, but the bottom line is that it's the rest of the world who needs convincing. So far, the arguments have been weak and SE's recent business decisions are just going to force them even further into that small niche market.


Speaking on my own behalf: When it comes to picking what to play, **** the rest of the world. I mean, yeah, an MMORPG needs to have at least a moderately reasonably sized playerbase to fill the servers and pay the bills, but the way I see it... I don't care how much or how little money they're making. I don't care how popular or unpopular it is. I don't care if there are commercials for it or if my mentions of my game of choice are met with "What's that?" None of that means **** to me. All I care about is that I'm logging on to a game that I enjoy. That's it.

DDO only has like... 6 servers, but I enjoy it.

****, I played RO on essenceRO, so only one (private) server. I had fun.

Playing an MMORPG, to me, means I'm logging on to play a game with other people, to accomplish goals together, to build our characters together. So long as there are enough people on one server that groups don't take forever to build, that is "enough players" for me to be happy with that game.

Sure, I want the devs to make money. If they have 10 servers or 25 servers or 50 servers.... if they have 20K or 200K or 2 million people... that's great. For them. But if I'm playing on a server of 20,000 people and FFXIV has 2,000,000 subscribers, then quite frankly, 1,989,999 of them have zero direct effect on my gameplay.

This is doubly true for casual soloers. Now, I have nothing against casual soloers, and if that's how they want to play, then it's their money and I'm not going to stop them. But if I will never interact with a person because they would prefer to play by themselves, then whether they are there or not is largely irrelevant.

That's the problem with developing a game and marketing it as casual/solo friendly: You're not building a Massively Multiplayer Online Game, you're building a Massively Single player Online Game with IRC tacked on to it. And for some people, this system is fine. If it works for you, there's nothing wrong with it for you.

Again, I'm not saying I want the game to fail, I certainly don't. But if FFXIV ends up in the same spot XI is; "not a lot of players, but the people who do play enjoy the game" and I'm enjoying the game, then I'm totally fine with it turning out that way. Sure, a subscriber base of 2-3 million people would be pretty spiffy, but here's the thing: I don't need two (or ten) million people also playing the same game as me to validate to myself my decision to play it.

Torrence wrote:
Maybe they are happy there. But if they were happy there, why design a new game at all, and why make statements like "We want to appeal to a more casual audience"? It's clear, at least to me, that they don't feel that XI was as successful as you seem to think they think it was. It turned a profit, but it certainly lost more people than it gained over the years.

They see games like WoW - graphically inferior, lacking the signature cutscenes and the lore that makes a Squaresoft game a Squaresoft game just dominating the market. You know that has to rankle, at least a little. Success - isn't all about money. Those who think it is, are missing the big picture here.


Whether it's realistic or not, that first paragraph is just marketing. First off, or course they want their new product to be "more successful". They certainly aren't going to say "We hope this game is not as successful as FFXI". As for the casual player comment, like it or not, casual players are a rather big market share. If anything, casuals are the ideal customer. It takes them longer to get through your content because they play less (which also means, since they log on infrequently, they aren't taxing your servers) and their $13/mo is just as good as the $13/mo of someone who logs on for 60 hours a week. Comparatively speaking, "hardcore" players log on far more frequently, burn through content faster (meaning they will want new content more frequently) and tend to me more vocal in terms of changes they want to see made. They're a dedicated playerbase, but they can also be impossible to please at times, and are more of a headache than anything else.

So from a marketing standpoint, it makes sense for them to try to reach out to casual gamers. That's all about making money.
____________________________
[ffxisig]55836[/ffxisig]

Mikhalia: and FWIW, my posts are 95% helpful, informative, or funny.
Mikhalia: only 5% or less of my posts are utter crap.
Tyapex: 393 posts of utter crap...
Mikhalia: Sounds about right.
#109 Jul 07 2010 at 8:18 AM Rating: Excellent
***
2,010 posts
Why does solo play and group play have to be mutually exclusive? That's what I don't get. It's not that way in WoW, not at all. When I log on, I can either quest it up to level my character, or head into the dungeon queue and group with others. I can even *gasp* go with a guild friend or two and do higher level quests than I couldn't do on my own. I can go gathering or just craft.

That's what people are looking for from XIV. Solo-friendly doesn't mean solo-exclusive. There's a balance to be had here, and whether you like it or not, more casual players *will* affect your gameplay in a number of ways. The economy, for one. Maybe that guy is a crafter and made a piece of armor you want and is selling it cheap. Maybe you are in trouble and some casual player happens to be there to pull you out of a jam. Maybe you need some materials that someone else is gathering up and selling.

There's a slew of ways that more players, even casual ones that prefer to progress on their own, can positively impact everyone's gaming experience. I'd prefer to see a more successful game that appeals to a wide variety of people so that my enjoyment is maximized. In the end, in any MMO, you will have to depend on others to some degree, even if it's not directly in your personal leveling party. I'd rather have the widest variety of folks possible because that means varied interests, and ultimately, more products, materials, and opportunities for fun.

Edited, Jul 7th 2010 10:19am by Torrence
#110 Jul 07 2010 at 5:54 PM Rating: Good
Sage
*
73 posts
What the delay of the PS3 means to me compared to WoW

I play WoW right now with my sister, and we both were planning on starting FFxiv when it was released together. We were going to stop WoW at that time. (can't afford to play two)
So regardless of when Cataclysm was released we were going with Final Fantasy. Now if Cataclysm is released we will be buying that while we wait for the PS3 version of ffxiv. Not a big deal, but for us the choice is easy. As of right now I have not seen a release date for Cataclysm, it has been almost a year since it was announced and no date has been given as to when it will launch.

Could it be September? Maybe but at this rate closer to Christmas, and I would have loved to have had ffxiv instead of WoW any day.
____________________________
Sofiana
Rdm 30, Whm 25, Blm 20, Thf 8, War 9, Monk 7
Leviathan server
http://sofianaffxi.blogspot.com/
#111 Jul 09 2010 at 4:00 PM Rating: Default
Quote:
This. What would be "successful" for one game would be only "mediocre" for another and "abject failure" for a third.

Yes, FFXI's subscriber base was large enough to turn a large profit - large enough to cover losses in every other branch of the company - but that doesn't mean the game, in SE's eyes, was considered particularly successful.

500,000 subscribers is huge for a game like EQ that is based on an original IP that has no name recognition. For a game in a franchise of consistently multi-million-selling titles with huge name recognition, not so much. Forget WoW; the fact that FFXI couldn't significantly outperform frickin' EverQuest has got to gall SE's execs every time they think about it.


Freaking This.

Karlhungis, read this. I know your mind is closed up tight as a drum, but if you can't even understand this, there's no hope for you.
____________________________
WoW:
80 Druid/Warrior/Priest/Shaman/Death Knight/Paladin/Mage/Hunter, 60 Warlock
Final Fantasy XI:
75 DRG, 60 PLD, 43 SCH Rank 10 Windurst, Rank 9 Sandoria, Rank 10 Bastok
Owned and completed:
FF 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12
#112 Jul 09 2010 at 4:23 PM Rating: Good
**
562 posts
Which makes me wonder why there is so much holding FFXIV back from being on 360. If I was SE I'd want it on every platform that could handle it. I understand that there is a system limitation concern, but you'd want as many people playing as you can handle. I know there is some rumored dispute between SE and MS about a XBL fee or something related to it, but in the end SE just needs to say "MS that is YOUR choice to YOUR customers, we are just trying to make the game available to YOUR players. If you want to chase them away by charging them more it will become YOUR problem when the game sells less on YOUR system"

I'm sure I'm simplyfing things a little (or a lot) but that seems to me the closest to a win-win you could get right now.

Personally I don't care. I'm upset that I have to wait till March to play on my PS3. I was thinking of a new PC around Christmas, but I don't like playing games on PC so that really doesn't matter.
____________________________
The more I train, the harder I get. The harder I get, the more lethal I am. The more lethal I am, the fewer opponents. The fewer opponents, the less to lose. The less to lose, the more I let up. The more I let up, the more room for mistakes. The more room for mistakes, the more I train.

#113 Jul 09 2010 at 7:07 PM Rating: Good
*****
11,539 posts
ReiThor wrote:
Which makes me wonder why there is so much holding FFXIV back from being on 360. If I was SE I'd want it on every platform that could handle it. I understand that there is a system limitation concern, but you'd want as many people playing as you can handle. I know there is some rumored dispute between SE and MS about a XBL fee or something related to it, but in the end SE just needs to say "MS that is YOUR choice to YOUR customers, we are just trying to make the game available to YOUR players. If you want to chase them away by charging them more it will become YOUR problem when the game sells less on YOUR system"

I'm sure I'm simplyfing things a little (or a lot) but that seems to me the closest to a win-win you could get right now.

Personally I don't care. I'm upset that I have to wait till March to play on my PS3. I was thinking of a new PC around Christmas, but I don't like playing games on PC so that really doesn't matter.


There are two reasons that FFXIV will not be on 360:

One is, like you said, that MS is adamant about requiring gold to play it, and SE does not want their users to have to do that.
Two is, M$ stipulates that they should have control over ANY server that hosts ANY game that will run on 360's XBL. XI was grandfathered into this, but if XIV was on PC/360/PC, it means that Microsoft not only would have to have the right to access ANY of the servers (since they're all multiplatform, not segregated) and to add ANY requirements of their own to the game.

I can't blame SE for telling them to **** off.
____________________________
[ffxisig]55836[/ffxisig]

Mikhalia: and FWIW, my posts are 95% helpful, informative, or funny.
Mikhalia: only 5% or less of my posts are utter crap.
Tyapex: 393 posts of utter crap...
Mikhalia: Sounds about right.
#114 Jul 10 2010 at 8:59 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
*
56 posts
Mikhalia wrote:
Every other MMOG company wants this because -they- want to be the best. Here's the thing: They will NEVER have this spot, for the following reason:
If you want customers, you need to advertise.


But you just said that being the most popular does not mean being the best!

And it's true. It's so so so true it hurts. In fact, If an MMO wants to be the best—if anything does—marketing isn't the first step towards that goal. (Unless the goal is hindered by need, in which case marketing helps.)

I work in a Uni. Marketing Office. Let me tell you that what goes on our glossy brochures and what CONTRIBUTES to our success as a school are two separate things. The people that make the object a better place are not working to advertise it—and as a result—their mindsets are divergent.
#115 Jul 10 2010 at 9:14 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
****
5,159 posts
Nonagon wrote:
Mikhalia wrote:
Every other MMOG company wants this because -they- want to be the best. Here's the thing: They will NEVER have this spot, for the following reason:
If you want customers, you need to advertise.


But you just said that being the most popular does not mean being the best!

And it's true. It's so so so true it hurts. In fact, If an MMO wants to be the best—if anything does—marketing isn't the first step towards that goal. (Unless the goal is hindered by need, in which case marketing helps.)

I work in a Uni. Marketing Office. Let me tell you that what goes on our glossy brochures and what CONTRIBUTES to our success as a school are two separate things. The people that make the object a better place are not working to advertise it—and as a result—their mindsets are divergent.

As far as the MMO company is concerned, "the best" means having the most customers. They could have the ********* game in the world, and as long as everyone is playing it, the company won't care. Some individual employees might, to be sure, but not the decision makers whose only job is to maximize revenues. Fortunately for us, the way to draw in customers is to have what we would consider a superior product, so our interests overlap somewhat.

And sure, you're right that advertising doesn't necessarily make your school better. But without the revenue from the people you draw in from the advertising, you're not going to have a school to improve. Both aspects are entirely necessary.
#116 Jul 10 2010 at 10:31 PM Rating: Good
*****
11,539 posts
Majivo wrote:
Nonagon wrote:
Mikhalia wrote:
Every other MMOG company wants this because -they- want to be the best. Here's the thing: They will NEVER have this spot, for the following reason:
If you want customers, you need to advertise.


But you just said that being the most popular does not mean being the best!

And it's true. It's so so so true it hurts. In fact, If an MMO wants to be the best—if anything does—marketing isn't the first step towards that goal. (Unless the goal is hindered by need, in which case marketing helps.)

I work in a Uni. Marketing Office. Let me tell you that what goes on our glossy brochures and what CONTRIBUTES to our success as a school are two separate things. The people that make the object a better place are not working to advertise it—and as a result—their mindsets are divergent.

As far as the MMO company is concerned, "the best" means having the most customers. They could have the sh*ttiest game in the world, and as long as everyone is playing it, the company won't care. Some individual employees might, to be sure, but not the decision makers whose only job is to maximize revenues. Fortunately for us, the way to draw in customers is to have what we would consider a superior product, so our interests overlap somewhat.

And sure, you're right that advertising doesn't necessarily make your school better. But without the revenue from the people you draw in from the advertising, you're not going to have a school to improve. Both aspects are entirely necessary.


I still cite the Walmart/McDonalds example: You don't need a superior product to outsell your competition, nor does the fact that you do outsell your competition prove that your product is superior. Being the most popular means just that; you have the best marketing department.

Fact: Walmart is the #1 retailer in the U.S., possibly the world; McDonalds is the #1 Fast Food chain in the world.
Also Fact: You can name two places you'd rather shop and two places you'd rather eat without hesitation.

Sure, your product is probably at least semi-reasonable if that many people are buying it, but chances are, there are plenty of less popular products out there that are far superior, but less advertised, or just less widespread. I can think of THREE places within 10 minutes of my house that I'd rather buy a sub than Subway -or- Quiznos. You've never heard of them, because they don't advertise and each of them only have one location (one of them has two, actually).

I've never been to New York, but I've never never heard a New Yorker say that Dominos/Papa Johns/Little Caesars are the best pizza they've ever had; most of them can name at least three local pizza joints that they like much better, and many of these joints have been in business for 10, 15, 25+ years.

From a financial standpoint, all the marketing department of a large company cares about is being #1. How good or bad their product actually is, is irrelevant. It's not their job to care about the quality of their product, it's their job to sell. Honestly, you could hand a good marketing department a pile of lint and a wad of gum and if they're good enough, they can sell 100,000 units in the first week. Even Dominos' latest advertising campaign is "Hey, sorry we've been selling ****** pizzas; come try our new ones!" They're #2 under Pizza Hut and they'll publicly admit their product sucked in an effort to sell more of it. Not only do you not need a good product to sell your product, but admitting you've been peddling utter crap and "we've changed it, we promise!" to your customer base is apparently a marketing campaign to make your product MORE popular.

Sidenote: I've never had a problem with Dominos pizzas; they've tasted fine to me in the past, taste fine to me now, I notice no difference between the supposedly "inferior product" they admit I've been buying and the supposedly "new and improved" product I'm buying now. Maybe I'm just lucky. YMMV.

The most important thing to me is that I shop at the stores I like and eat the food I like. How many other people eat the food has no effect on my enjoyment of the store/food.

The same goes for games, too. From a player standpoint, my first and only concern will always be that I'm enjoying the game and the people I'm playing with. Whether I'm playing the #1 game or the #5 game... totally irrelevant to me.

Yes, a company needs customers to stay in business. But they don't need more customers than anyone else to have a superior product; they just need to have developers capable of putting out a quality game, and players who like the game they put out.

That's all you need for a "successful" game, in my opinion.
____________________________
[ffxisig]55836[/ffxisig]

Mikhalia: and FWIW, my posts are 95% helpful, informative, or funny.
Mikhalia: only 5% or less of my posts are utter crap.
Tyapex: 393 posts of utter crap...
Mikhalia: Sounds about right.
#117 Jul 10 2010 at 10:41 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
****
5,159 posts
Mikhalia wrote:
Sidenote: I've never had a problem with Dominos pizzas; they've tasted fine to me in the past, taste fine to me now, I notice no difference between the supposedly "inferior product" they admit I've been buying and the supposedly "new and improved" product I'm buying now. Maybe I'm just lucky. YMMV.

Y'know, I've been wondering if Dominos actually changed anything or if they're just using that campaign to claim they have and letting the placebo effect do the rest.
#118 Jul 11 2010 at 1:03 AM Rating: Good
*****
11,539 posts
Majivo wrote:
Mikhalia wrote:
Sidenote: I've never had a problem with Dominos pizzas; they've tasted fine to me in the past, taste fine to me now, I notice no difference between the supposedly "inferior product" they admit I've been buying and the supposedly "new and improved" product I'm buying now. Maybe I'm just lucky. YMMV.

Y'know, I've been wondering if Dominos actually changed anything or if they're just using that campaign to claim they have and letting the placebo effect do the rest.


As I've said, I personally thought they were fine before and think they're fine now, and don't notice a difference, so I've been wondering the same thing.

If they haven't changed anything, I have to admit the "Sorry we sucked, we're better now" marketing ploy on an unchanged product is pretty ballsy.
____________________________
[ffxisig]55836[/ffxisig]

Mikhalia: and FWIW, my posts are 95% helpful, informative, or funny.
Mikhalia: only 5% or less of my posts are utter crap.
Tyapex: 393 posts of utter crap...
Mikhalia: Sounds about right.
1 2 3 Next »
This forum is read only
This Forum is Read Only!
Recent Visitors: 14 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (14)