The Evil Within Goes Gold, Recommended Specs Revealed
Tags:
- Bethesda Game Studios
-
Gaming
-
Software
Last response: in News comments
exfileme
September 25, 2014 12:35:14 PM
Bethesda isn't providing a list of minimum specs.
The Evil Within Goes Gold, Recommended Specs Revealed : Read more
The Evil Within Goes Gold, Recommended Specs Revealed : Read more
More about : evil gold recommended specs revealed
-
Reply to exfileme
Related resources
teknomedic
September 25, 2014 1:14:11 PM
colson79
September 25, 2014 1:32:29 PM
dominirican3351
September 25, 2014 1:45:09 PM
colson79 said:
That doesn't seem right. The GTX 670 they recommend only came with 2 GB of VRAM and a few non reference cards came with 3 GB. There aren't a lot of cards out with 4 GB of VRAM.This was kinda my point. I have a HD 7970 that the performance is slightly better than a GTX 770 but it is under the requirements because it only came with 3 GB of VRam. Bethesda really screwed the pooch/ stuck their heads in there poopers with this game. The only way to play this game is with a "exteme" gaming system. 4 GB of Vram required please, with specs like this the game will be a money loser for the PC end.
-
Reply to bgunner
m
-1
l
dominirican3351
September 25, 2014 1:48:32 PM
Quote:
This was kinda my point. I have a HD 7970 that the performance is slightly better than a GTX 770 but it is under the requirements because it only came with 3 GB of VRam. Bethesda really screwed the pooch/ stuck their heads in there poopers with this game. The only way to play this game is with a "exteme" gaming system. 4 GB of Vram required please, with specs like this the game will be a money loser for the PC end.Even with top of the line specs watch us get capped at 30 or 60fps
-
Reply to dominirican3351
m
0
l
teknomedic
September 25, 2014 2:03:20 PM
-
Reply to teknomedic
m
0
l
It will be playable with less than 4GB of VRAM..... they just cannot guarantee "optimal performance".
Modders have historically made excellent changes to Bethesda games. I wonder if the same could be said for this game, down the road. Either way, I will be skipping this........ it is just not my genre.
HDD space installation requirements above 40GB mean very little, anymore. Get used to those. Storage is cheap.
Modders have historically made excellent changes to Bethesda games. I wonder if the same could be said for this game, down the road. Either way, I will be skipping this........ it is just not my genre.
HDD space installation requirements above 40GB mean very little, anymore. Get used to those. Storage is cheap.
-
Reply to skit75
m
1
l
teknomedic
September 25, 2014 2:11:37 PM
Andy Chow
September 25, 2014 2:11:54 PM
teknomedic
September 25, 2014 2:11:57 PM
teknomedic
September 25, 2014 2:17:10 PM
lpedraja2002
September 25, 2014 2:18:17 PM
swiftleeo
September 25, 2014 2:20:39 PM
pacdrum_88
September 25, 2014 2:36:28 PM
Happhazzard
September 25, 2014 2:54:34 PM
gallovfc
September 25, 2014 5:58:06 PM
Rokionu
September 25, 2014 6:06:02 PM
I can not speak for every one here but for me 1080p @60 fps is my minimum. Anything less and I can see it and more to the point feel it in the movement of the game. This is why i spent over $300 on just a GPU. Please read the Bethesda release and not toms rewrite of it.
"Note: We do not have a list of minimum requirements for the game. If you’re trying to play with a rig with settings below these requirements (you should plan to have 4 GBs of VRAM regardless), we cannot guarantee optimal performance."
optimal performance being studders and hickups due to the fact you have run out of GPU ram. You should plan to have 4 GBs of VRAM regardless ? please the only cards that have 4 or more are super top end cards. most being x2 cards.
EDIT: besides, who says "rig" in writing that is an actual writer? I say it but my job is PC and auto repair. this one word makes me think some thing is up. Anyone else think this?
"Note: We do not have a list of minimum requirements for the game. If you’re trying to play with a rig with settings below these requirements (you should plan to have 4 GBs of VRAM regardless), we cannot guarantee optimal performance."
optimal performance being studders and hickups due to the fact you have run out of GPU ram. You should plan to have 4 GBs of VRAM regardless ? please the only cards that have 4 or more are super top end cards. most being x2 cards.
EDIT: besides, who says "rig" in writing that is an actual writer? I say it but my job is PC and auto repair. this one word makes me think some thing is up. Anyone else think this?
-
Reply to bgunner
m
-1
l
swiftleeo
September 25, 2014 6:14:56 PM
bgunner said:
I can not speak for every one here but for me 1080p @60 fps is my minimum. Anything less and I can see it and more to the point feel it in the movement of the game. This is why i spent over $300 on just a GPU. Please read the Bethesda release and not toms rewrite of it."Note: We do not have a list of minimum requirements for the game. If you’re trying to play with a rig with settings below these requirements (you should plan to have 4 GBs of VRAM regardless), we cannot guarantee optimal performance."
optimal performance being studders and hickups due to the fact you have run out of GPU ram. You should plan to have 4 GBs of VRAM regardless ? please the only cards that have 4 or more are super top end cards. most being x2 cards.
What game developers need to try and do is optimize versus just making a big mess. It's harder to do for the PC vs. console because of varying components, but they should atleast have a baseline for both AMD and Nvidia cards, as well as AMD and Intel processors. It will still vary, but it won't be as bad.
I have an Intel i7 4790k and an Sapphire R9 290 4GB Tri-X, so I'll be fine. It just bothers me that it has to cost this much to game comfortably...
http://www.bethblog.com/2014/09/25/the-system-requireme...
System requirements:
64-bit Windows 7/Windows 8
i7 with four plus cores
4 GBs RAM
50 GB of hard drive space*
GeForce GTX 670 or equivalent with 4GBs of VRAM
High Speed Internet Connection
Steam account and activation
*It’s worth noting that the 50 GB of space required is for the PC install. When the installation is complete, the game will take up ~41 GB of HDD space.
Yeah... those are realistic requirements.
Of course, they are the "recommended" specifications.
-
Reply to swiftleeo
m
1
l
swiftleeo said:
bgunner said:
I can not speak for every one here but for me 1080p @60 fps is my minimum. Anything less and I can see it and more to the point feel it in the movement of the game. This is why i spent over $300 on just a GPU. Please read the Bethesda release and not toms rewrite of it."Note: We do not have a list of minimum requirements for the game. If you’re trying to play with a rig with settings below these requirements (you should plan to have 4 GBs of VRAM regardless), we cannot guarantee optimal performance."
optimal performance being studders and hickups due to the fact you have run out of GPU ram. You should plan to have 4 GBs of VRAM regardless ? please the only cards that have 4 or more are super top end cards. most being x2 cards.
What game developers need to try and do is optimize versus just making a big mess. It's harder to do for the PC vs. console because of varying components, but they should at least have a baseline for both AMD and Nvidia cards, as well as AMD and Intel processors. It will still vary, but it won't be as bad.
I have an Intel i7 4790k and an Sapphire R9 290 4GB Tri-X, so I'll be fine. It just bothers me that it has to cost this much to game comfortably...
I totally agree with you on this but just to play devils advocate for a post or two, mainly to get people thinking and no other reason but.
Lets look at it from a developers point of view. It "costs" money to port any game properly for the PC from a console port. They are in the business to make money, right? Well it costs less to make a game for a console then just barely make it compatible for PC then it does to fully make it compatible with all PC's with the graphics options.
My view is much different than the statement above mind you. If the company makes the game better for PC, more options for graphics, better graphics, more control over the game play with console commands the more likely I am to purchase the game. Why? Because it reminds me of the days where games where build for PC's and ported for consoles. This control is everything to us PC gamers because then we have a game for the masses that is changeable, customize-able, mod-able and upgrade-able for the masses. Company's no longer want "us", the public, to be able to control what we have that they, the company's, thought of. It is all about control.
The days of COD-MW are over, free maps, free updates that help the community, We now need to pay for it. Bethesda is no different. They make the games for consoles and only put as much work in to the PC port as necessary to make it playable.
I hate to say it my friends but we, as PC gamers, are and have been pushed to the back seat like a red headed step child because we are now the minority. Consoles out number gaming PC's so company's think of us as the economy class seats on this plane ride they think they have all the power over. Many of them are forgetting that we, the older generation, made gaming popular. Thinking of me and my TSR-80 back in the day.
Piss on those that make you and you loose your base. What happens when a flood eats at the footing "base" of a bridge? It falls, simple, and this how gaming is. Keep making games for the masses that your "base" (mid to lower end gaming PC's) can't play and you loose every thing above. Hell the damn games are made ON PC's for god sakes. Crytek had the idea with Crysis 3, that the PC gamers are here to stay and they made one hell of a game that they ported to consoles that looked good even on crap hardware. Bethesda hasn't gotten that idea yet. Lets see if they do, Aye?
-
Reply to bgunner
m
1
l
4GB VRAM aside why PC (and next gen console) needs 40GB of space and PS3/360 only needing 7GB? i know last gen console have very much dated spec but why there are so very big difference between the two for storage? this smell like titanfall mess where PC version needs much bigger storage because of uncompressed stuff. only this time game dev do it for both pc and current gen console. give these developer next gen console with more resource that eclipse last gen console and they start getting lazy on the optimization front.
-
Reply to renz496
m
3
l
swiftleeo
September 25, 2014 7:04:27 PM
renz496 said:
4GB VRAM aside why PC (and next gen console) needs 40GB of space and PS3/360 only needing 7GB? i know last gen console have very much dated spec but why there are so very big difference between the two for storage? this smell like titanfall mess where PC version needs much bigger storage because of uncompressed stuff. only this time game dev do it for both pc and current gen console. give these developer next gen console with more resource that eclipse last gen console and they start getting lazy on the optimization front. As far as the large space needed, I'm guessing that the PS3 and Xbox versions are very watered down because of the specs of the systems, but I could be wrong. In any case, 40GB is hardly anything to worry about for the average PC gamer. I have a 512GB MX100 SSD (Well I DID, had to RMA for a new one), as well as a 1TB Western Digital HDD. Regular HDD's are so cheap these days, so let's not worry about space. However, when it comes to needing upwards of 400+ US Dollars worth of Retail GPU Power (I say Retail because you can get them cheaper if you can find people who can't return because out of return period, but still want to sell it because they don't need it.. Personally I got my R9 290 from someone who "said" they only opened the box. It works fine and it cost me $100 less. Kind of wish I went for the GTX 770 though because of these drivers being a bit flawed but hopefully AMD will fix that for me.
4GB VRam is ridiculous. Unless those are the specifications for super duper uber crazy hardcore ultimate freaking insane spectacular mode, then they need to work on their game, else I'm not purchasing it.
As far as uncompressed files, I can understand an increase... but 33GB worth?
I honestly think (this is my opinion) that game developers need to stop worrying so much about looks (Crysis 3 visuals are more than enough for my lifetime) and focus more on performance and features and storylines and etc. I honestly do not care if the game looks like real life... it's a game and I'd rather it look like a game rather than experience first hand what it's like to kill a seemingly real person. I want to play games because they have a good storyline and have awesome characters... Like Metal Gear Solid. Granted most of their PC ports are crap, but the games themselves (especially MGS1) are classics to me and I will always love playing them (and the graphics are not anywhere near todays standards.. except for MGS5 that hasn't even come out yet).
-
Reply to swiftleeo
m
3
l
xgamer1500
September 25, 2014 7:07:35 PM
renz496 said:
4GB VRAM aside why PC (and next gen console) needs 40GB of space and PS3/360 only needing 7GB? i know last gen console have very much dated spec but why there are so very big difference between the two for storage? this smell like titanfall mess where PC version needs much bigger storage because of uncompressed stuff. only this time game dev do it for both pc and current gen console. give these developer next gen console with more resource that eclipse last gen console and they start getting lazy on the optimization front. I agree with the fact that it is compressed verse non-compressed is the reason for the space difference. If you have ever played a game that is highly compressed, like Doom 3 was, you will experience long load times. This is even on an SSD. So my guess is they are using the uncompressed versions to try to speed up loading times between maps and between checkpoints. Unless this game is a major graphical and technological breakthrough there is no need for it's size. I touched on this in the very first post to this comment section.
-
Reply to bgunner
m
1
l
swiftleeo
September 25, 2014 7:12:23 PM
bgunner said:
renz496 said:
4GB VRAM aside why PC (and next gen console) needs 40GB of space and PS3/360 only needing 7GB? i know last gen console have very much dated spec but why there are so very big difference between the two for storage? this smell like titanfall mess where PC version needs much bigger storage because of uncompressed stuff. only this time game dev do it for both pc and current gen console. give these developer next gen console with more resource that eclipse last gen console and they start getting lazy on the optimization front. I agree with the fact that it is compressed verse non-compressed is the reason for the space difference. If you have ever played a game that is highly compressed, like Doom 3 was, you will experience long load times. This is even on an SSD. So my guess is they are using the uncompressed versions to try to speed up loading times between maps and between checkpoints. Unless this game is a major graphical and technological breakthrough there is no need for it's size. I touched on this in the very first post to this comment section.
In this case they should at the very least include the option for a compressed download. Sure it would be more work, but it would help those with limited hard drive space... Of course it's just us buying the game that matters. What we do after that isn't really important to them.
-
Reply to swiftleeo
m
0
l
Devoteicon
September 25, 2014 7:24:12 PM
swiftleeo said:
renz496 said:
4GB VRAM aside why PC (and next gen console) needs 40GB of space and PS3/360 only needing 7GB? i know last gen console have very much dated spec but why there are so very big difference between the two for storage? this smell like titanfall mess where PC version needs much bigger storage because of uncompressed stuff. only this time game dev do it for both pc and current gen console. give these developer next gen console with more resource that eclipse last gen console and they start getting lazy on the optimization front. As far as the large space needed, I'm guessing that the PS3 and Xbox versions are very watered down because of the specs of the systems, but I could be wrong. In any case, 40GB is hardly anything to worry about for the average PC gamer. I have a 512GB MX100 SSD (Well I DID, had to RMA for a new one), as well as a 1TB Western Digital HDD. Regular HDD's are so cheap these days, so let's not worry about space. However, when it comes to needing upwards of 400+ US Dollars worth of Retail GPU Power (I say Retail because you can get them cheaper if you can find people who can't return because out of return period, but still want to sell it because they don't need it.. Personally I got my R9 290 from someone who "said" they only opened the box. It works fine and it cost me $100 less. Kind of wish I went for the GTX 770 though because of these drivers being a bit flawed but hopefully AMD will fix that for me.
4GB VRam is ridiculous. Unless those are the specifications for super duper uber crazy hardcore ultimate freaking insane spectacular mode, then they need to work on their game, else I'm not purchasing it.
As far as uncompressed files, I can understand an increase... but 33GB worth?
I honestly think (this is my opinion) that game developers need to stop worrying so much about looks (Crysis 3 visuals are more than enough for my lifetime) and focus more on performance and features and storylines and etc. I honestly do not care if the game looks like real life... it's a game and I'd rather it look like a game rather than experience first hand what it's like to kill a seemingly real person. I want to play games because they have a good storyline and have awesome characters... Like Metal Gear Solid. Granted most of their PC ports are crap, but the games themselves (especially MGS1) are classics to me and I will always love playing them (and the graphics are not anywhere near todays standards.. except for MGS5 that hasn't even come out yet).
I must disagree with you on the HDD/SSD space required. Now don't get me wrong, I have 1x 60GB, 1x 120GB SSD's, 1x 1TB and 1x 500GB HDD but I have over 600GB of games totalling around 80 so far. Now for one game to take up 41 GB after install would take up 8% of space that all my games already take up. That is equivalent to around 8 -10 games depending.
maybe that will will put it in perspective for you.
I also have other things that take up lots of room also like pics, music and movies. 40+ GB is a lot of space when you actually think about it. the largest game I have right now is 13 GB total. this is almost 4 times that space.
-
Reply to bgunner
m
0
l
swiftleeo
September 25, 2014 7:25:44 PM
Devoteicon said:
Why is everyone complaining about the 4GB VRAM requirement when the i7 part is way more ridiculous?They are both equally ridiculous. However, 4GB VRam costs more than most of the i7's (not including top-end), so it stands out more. Too bad VRam isn't like normal RAM where you can just add on modules to the card when you need more... That is the future
-
Reply to swiftleeo
m
0
l
bimbam360
September 25, 2014 8:20:00 PM
Can't help feeling these games cropping up with ridiculous file sizes are a deliberate lack of texture compression to deter piracy.
Unfortunately it also deters standard digital downloads
As for 4GB VRAM, crock. This is especially worrying considering their caveat:
"We do not have a list of minimum requirements for the game. If you’re trying to play with a rig with settings below these requirements (you should plan to have 4 GBs of VRAM regardless), we cannot guarantee optimal performance."
That sounds like an admittance of piss poor optimization if ever I heard it.
Unfortunately it also deters standard digital downloads
As for 4GB VRAM, crock. This is especially worrying considering their caveat:
"We do not have a list of minimum requirements for the game. If you’re trying to play with a rig with settings below these requirements (you should plan to have 4 GBs of VRAM regardless), we cannot guarantee optimal performance."
That sounds like an admittance of piss poor optimization if ever I heard it.
-
Reply to bimbam360
m
1
l
lpedraja2002
September 25, 2014 8:28:07 PM
swiftleeo
September 25, 2014 8:30:51 PM
oxiide
September 25, 2014 8:47:20 PM
On one hand I'm glad to see new games justify having a high-end gaming PC. On the other hand, I have to wonder how successful this game will be if the Steam Hardware Survey is anything to go by.
It's very suspicious to me that they stress that it *requires* 4 GB of VRAM without any caveats about resolution or specific detail settings. If it requires 4 GB at 1440p+, it won't need that much at 1080p. If it requires 4 GB at 1080p, then it needs more for higher resolutions. One way or another, its inaccurate.
It's very suspicious to me that they stress that it *requires* 4 GB of VRAM without any caveats about resolution or specific detail settings. If it requires 4 GB at 1440p+, it won't need that much at 1080p. If it requires 4 GB at 1080p, then it needs more for higher resolutions. One way or another, its inaccurate.
-
Reply to oxiide
m
1
l
Gmr_Girl
September 25, 2014 11:17:57 PM
erendofe
September 26, 2014 12:05:46 AM
beetlejuicegr
September 26, 2014 1:05:18 AM
Poul Wrist
September 26, 2014 2:30:57 AM
Anonymous
September 26, 2014 2:32:27 AM
Wow. I'm surprised how many PC owners don't understand that, as the years go on the requirements go up. It has nothing to do with being un optimized. Yes, Watchdogs ran poorly on titans with 6Gb hence THAT game being un optimized. The sad fact of the matter is if your running with 2012/2014 hardware most likely your going to have to upgrade next year, IF u want to continue MAXING games out. 2 or 3 Gb will run future games on medium or high just fine. 2015 IS TRUE NEXTGEN!!! 290, 290x, 970, 980, and vender aftermarkets can get u at 4Gb np. Next year is DX12. High end titles like Star Citizen, Witcher 3, P.T. AKA the new Silent Hill (go watch that), and check out some of the new unreal 4 engine demos that new games will be using and you'll soon realize that TRUE nextgen is right around the corner and yes an upgrade WILL be necessary if you want to continue maxing games out. Just an example, Battlefield 4 came out in 2013 and required 3Gb... Guys, were going into 2015, 4Gb isn't mind blowing. Don't get me started on hard drive space, storage is cheap.
-
Reply to Anonymous
m
1
l
EdgeT
September 26, 2014 3:07:57 AM
S-Domain (sry, I can't seem to quote you).
The point people are trying to make is that yeah, some of us have hardware that can run that shit on ultra flawlessly at 60+ FPS, but just how many of us are there?
Most people have shitty machines they bought pre-built at Wallmart or whatever. Why do you think MMORPGs (most MMOs actually) have low system requirements? It's exactly because of most people's outdated machines (you can't just tell me with a straight face that Wallmart or whatever PCs aren't obsolete pieces of shit.) can't run anything better.
Take laptop people for example. Most of them have integrated graphics.
So yeah, a game with these requirements (if they're actually accurate) will be utterly unplayable on MOST PCs in the world. So what exactly will their PC-based customer base be? 5000 people?
Please, they're embarrassing themselves and make the PC gaming industry look like a bunch of toddlers wanting to play with the latest tech when they can't even properly use the tech they have right now.
The point people are trying to make is that yeah, some of us have hardware that can run that shit on ultra flawlessly at 60+ FPS, but just how many of us are there?
Most people have shitty machines they bought pre-built at Wallmart or whatever. Why do you think MMORPGs (most MMOs actually) have low system requirements? It's exactly because of most people's outdated machines (you can't just tell me with a straight face that Wallmart or whatever PCs aren't obsolete pieces of shit.) can't run anything better.
Take laptop people for example. Most of them have integrated graphics.
So yeah, a game with these requirements (if they're actually accurate) will be utterly unplayable on MOST PCs in the world. So what exactly will their PC-based customer base be? 5000 people?
Please, they're embarrassing themselves and make the PC gaming industry look like a bunch of toddlers wanting to play with the latest tech when they can't even properly use the tech they have right now.
-
Reply to EdgeT
m
1
l
EdgeT
September 26, 2014 3:16:49 AM
S-Domain (sry, I can't seem to quote you).
The point people are trying to make is that yeah, some of us have hardware that can run that shit on ultra flawlessly at 60+ FPS, but just how many of us are there?
Most people have shitty machines they bought pre-built at Wallmart or whatever. Why do you think MMORPGs (most MMOs actually) have low system requirements? It's exactly because of most people's outdated machines (you can't just tell me with a straight face that Wallmart or whatever PCs aren't obsolete pieces of shit.) can't run anything better.
Take laptop people for example. Most of them have integrated graphics.
So yeah, a game with these requirements (if they're actually accurate) will be utterly unplayable on MOST PCs in the world. So what exactly will their PC-based customer base be? 5000 people?
Please, they're embarrassing themselves and make the PC gaming industry look like a bunch of toddlers wanting to play with the latest tech when they can't even properly use the tech they have right now.
The point people are trying to make is that yeah, some of us have hardware that can run that shit on ultra flawlessly at 60+ FPS, but just how many of us are there?
Most people have shitty machines they bought pre-built at Wallmart or whatever. Why do you think MMORPGs (most MMOs actually) have low system requirements? It's exactly because of most people's outdated machines (you can't just tell me with a straight face that Wallmart or whatever PCs aren't obsolete pieces of shit.) can't run anything better.
Take laptop people for example. Most of them have integrated graphics.
So yeah, a game with these requirements (if they're actually accurate) will be utterly unplayable on MOST PCs in the world. So what exactly will their PC-based customer base be? 5000 people?
Please, they're embarrassing themselves and make the PC gaming industry look like a bunch of toddlers wanting to play with the latest tech when they can't even properly use the tech they have right now.
-
Reply to EdgeT
m
-1
l
lekzero
September 26, 2014 3:27:00 AM
lekzero
September 26, 2014 3:49:58 AM
Anonymous
September 26, 2014 4:01:37 AM
EdgeT said:
S-Domain (sry, I can't seem to quote you).The point people are trying to make is that yeah, some of us have hardware that can run that shit on ultra flawlessly at 60+ FPS, but just how many of us are there?
Most people have shitty machines they bought pre-built at Wallmart or whatever. Why do you think MMORPGs (most MMOs actually) have low system requirements? It's exactly because of most people's outdated machines (you can't just tell me with a straight face that Wallmart or whatever PCs aren't obsolete pieces of shit.) can't run anything better.
Take laptop people for example. Most of them have integrated graphics.
So yeah, a game with these requirements (if they're actually accurate) will be utterly unplayable on MOST PCs in the world. So what exactly will their PC-based customer base be? 5000 people?
Please, they're embarrassing themselves and make the PC gaming industry look like a bunch of toddlers wanting to play with the latest tech when they can't even properly use the tech they have right now.
I understand what your saying. People with laptops and walmart computers WILL be able to play the game on low to medium probably, but at the same time, you can't expect paying 500 at walmart to max games out. Even the guy with the 680 on this thread had 4Gb and how old is that card. 4Gb is to MAX the game out. 2Gb for high settings probably, 1Gb for medium settings and integrated for low settings. If everyone was fine with integrated (720P on low), then what would be the point of developers making games for people who spend the money on more horsepower?
-
Reply to Anonymous
m
0
l
Haravikk
September 26, 2014 4:14:25 AM
I still don't know what to think of it; an insane asylum is just so cliché now that it feels like a joke every time a new survival horror game comes out claiming to be so original, when it's yet another asylum or abandoned hospital. Someone with a safe on his head doesn't really provide me with enough of an extra hook to tempt me into trying it, and these system requirements pretty much guarantee that I won't.
-
Reply to Haravikk
m
0
l
Aron Gustafson
September 26, 2014 4:23:16 AM
azzazel_99
September 26, 2014 4:33:30 AM
cypeq
September 26, 2014 6:26:31 AM
- 1 / 2
- 2
- Newest
!