New Publishing Frontiers
pells:
Just a quick aparté : David, I believe there is always (well almost) a product and a service. This is true for GLASS, but also for Avalanche (yes, there is a physical book) ; and even more. For instance, mobile phone company. There is still a product, the phone, the sim card. But they don't sell them anymore. There are ready to give them away as to sell the services. And when they do so, their trade change. But they might sell phones to people who do not want the service, but a high price. Free is different.
Maybe the exception would be things like facebook ... but even so. Could space disk be a product ? I don't know.
Raven, thanks for the information about the direction. Like David, I think I'll be on the brainstorm mode and, well, you tell us what you find interesting. And I must admit, I'm giving a lot of thoughts into this thread. But, where to begin ?
Quote
1) I'm interested in hearing ideas how it might be leveraged into non-profit-oriented benefits for the publisher.
I'm not sure I'm understanding you well on this one. Are you talking about things you do before publishing (for promotion, offering a teaser, for instance), after publishing (to sustain the customers' interest and assure a kind of after sale service), both, or something else (I'll talk about it below) ? Well, I'm not even sure it is necessary to distinguish them ... Well, I guess I'll a take broad look at this !!!
But before going into this, I want to mention something : whenever I'm talking about payment, it might be a direct one (money goes from the customer's account to the designer's) or indirect (as a consequence of hits and sales thru ads). I won't distinguish them in the coming post.
I think too that sales support are good, but do they consist of a service by themselves ? Do they provide us with a real edge over physical product ? Not quite sure ...
As to understand where I will be heading I have to explain that I'm thinking in term of layers of services. But what is a layer ? Given you have your core product, and your main service attached to it (for instance, a phone and voice service), then, any other services you add upon it is considered to be a layer. And layers can, either be prerequisite between them (most Data options need some kind of connexion), or completely independent (sms and data, for instance).
Let's talk rpg now. I'll take GLASS and Avalanche as examples ; and, beforehand, David, I'm sorry about my misunderstanding of your project !!!
What's the main trade of Avalanche ? Plots management. What's the main service ? A graphic interface to access the elements of the plots and manage them. What could be a layer ?
Systems. I intend to provide, at least, three different systems for Avalanche (i.e. character's sheets). Now, having a graphic interface that allows someone to change system with a click is that a service that add value ? I'd say yes. And do I have to charge for it ? It depends. Could I provide those sheets for free ? That might be good for Avalanche, but also for the system.
So, I intend to have the system aspect open. You're a designer, you have a system, you're looking for some kind of plots, then just provide what you want and charge, or not, your customers for it. And, for instance, I could provide it with a graphic interface thru my website.
A systemless plot now can offer a new system and a system has now a plot to offer. What defines a layer is your trade. So, my trade might becomes someone else's layer. When is GLASS's Avalanche version coming out (or Avalanche using GLASS version) ? Okay, I'm far from there, but I guess you get the idea. And we would cross referenced each other. And, more important, one of them could be free, the other not.(1)
Another free action : offering your service for other designer. Building the service around Avalanche is quite a costly and long process. One of my objective would be to offer this tool to anyone who wishes to use it ; that is, as long as they as they use Avalanche's structure. Would it be good for them ? I guess yes. Would it be good for me ? yes. My take is that David as something like this in his sleeve for GLASS.
For this idea, there is a strong prerequisite : you, as a designer, have to come with some kind of generic service (which might be structure specific, but not product specific).
Giving away free stuff. Well, this is easier when you are selling a service !! I want to attract people to use the service, so, I'm ready to give away some parts of the product ; big parts. In fact, as Avalanche will grow, we'll give away past 'modules'. But even so, and this is very important, Avalanche, without the service is, let's say, difficult to use. It can be used, but it's harder, because it is written to be put down into a database. Also, the database is used to have inputs from the DM and players alike. You can do without it, obviously, but the experience is not the same ...
Who's promoting his game ? Who's giving free stuff ? Who's helping out the other ? This is unclear to me.
Concerning the ransom model, I do have some doubts about it ... well, let's say I do have doubts about its specificities. Can I use the ransom model for something like Avalanche ? Let's say people "give me money", in exchange I offer the service and the product, and once I've reached X dollars, it becomes free. I know this is not how the model is supposed to work, but if it can be used that way, I'm not sure it is that specific. I don't know ...
As for utility product, I think sky is the limit. If I can sell (I mean, if there is a demand) for Avalanche with a knitted cover, then I guess I could sell it. But, to do this, someone would need a core product that sells already. Beyond that, there is no limit, including any kind of derivative products. But, then again, utility products, as David proposed them, suppose some kind of collaboration (between designers, designers and writers, designers and illustrators, designers and knitters).
And, as David, I also hope to set a new standard for my own niche (plots management), and I think that providing a service with it can give me a edge. For instance, dogs set a standard for that type of game, which could be reused for other purposes (jedi dogs, as an example). But, as the main product is not service based, any use of its model is not "adjacent" to it. I really hope that, after I've published myself, others would like to use the model, and thus, the service. Which would give a strong proximity to any reuse of the model.
Well, I guess there would be other things to say (about the ransom model, the design for service based, how to mix product sell and services ...), but I'll let Raven lead the way.
---
(1) I want Avalanche to be based on a paid subscription, no ads. I don't want a single ad on Avalanche's interface. Now, let's say that you're a Avalanche's subscriber, you get the GLASS version free. As an option, if you want. There are links for any special rules and character's sheet. You're one click away from it. But you pay a subscription. Or ...
You go, for free, on the GLASS site, where you can find Avalanche (a quick note : Ryan is almost convincing me to go for a ad revenue model). For free too. But, there is a lot, a lot of ads. And the graphic interface is not the same, as the ads take a lot of place. And you don't have access to other systems than GLASS. And maybe you may not write in it. It relies depends, but this is not the same experience.
guildofblades:
>>(a quick note : Ryan is almost convincing me to go for a ad revenue model). For free too. But, there is a lot, a lot of ads. And the graphic interface is not the same, as the ads take a lot of place. And you don't have access to other systems than GLASS. And maybe you may not write in it. It relies depends, but this is not the same experience.<<
A quick note about the ad model. You need some fairly respectable numbers to drive it. Both in unique users and page/ad impressions per user. For 1483, we get the impressions per user easily enough. The "average" player is in about 4 games which leads to about 20-30 page views per game day, or roughly one players generates about 120-160 ads views per day. The challenge after that is setting up a system in which you can monetize most of those impressions. We get about 70-80% monetized currently.
The 1483 business model is built around an assumption that we will be able to eventually attract an active user base of 100,000 active users per day. To reach that point, we'll ultimately have to give away 2-4 million copies of the game softwares and expand the network beyond just 1483, eventually to include a WWI game, WWII game, Pantheons Online and a couple more flagship games and upwards of a dozen smaller format games and variants. By the time we achieve 100,000 active users we should be able to drive about $3,000,000 in annual ad sales with total extended revenues driven by that business reaching 8-10M annually.
Monetizing our Dark Realms RPG. The numbers work fairly similarly here. In order to reach that 3M mark in annual revenues from that venture, we expect we'll need between 70,000 and 80,000 active users on the Dark Realms site. With the massively shared world environment we plan to build for it, with lots of game rules in html format and ultimately tens of thousands of pages of world content online, we expect the per use page count to be significantly greater than what 1483 generates. However, beyond a certain point you begin to hit diminishing returns on page counts also. So after the monetized inventory drops below a certain thresh-hold the remainder inventory will be used aggressively in any and every "exchange" that can be viably used with other inventory traded directly for other media opportunities to spread the brand. Since Dark Realms won't be a "computer game" we can't just shove it into a couple hundred download sites as a primary means of attracting persons to the site, so that's where the dollar store distribution of the core game books becomes an important aspect of our outreach. From there we figure we're going to have to aggressively manage a marketing presence through the social networking systems.
With services like Skype out there now, it will also be extremely easy to build an online a RPG desk top utility that players and Realm Master will be able to log into to share cool graphical stuff like maps, character sheets, character icons (which can be built to include a graphical element much like the modern MMORPGs), which can also include random adventure generators, random NPC generators, random city and town generators and give the Realm Master and players complete access to the entirety of the shared world content held on the site. Access to that kind of awesome game play utility allowing traditional RPG gaming played online, could be sold to players for as little as $20 a year. And if we have 100,000 active daily users and 250,000 active annual users, through the course of a year, getting just 25,000 to buy a subscription to that software would yield an additional $500,000. At the end of the day though, I see no reason why the online RPG business model can't also be a multi million dollar a year enterprise. Between ad driven revenue, PDF and book sales, software sales and subscriptions, and ultimately if it is successful enough, licensing revenue, there is a mighty business there to be had. And the barriers to entry are the mere cost of a web site hosting plan (that will eventually have to migrate to its own server and then its own network, but a hosting plan at the beginning should suffice) and a lot of sweat equity.
In the future, the RPG business will NOT be about how many books you can sell...
Ryan S. Johnson
Guild of Blades Publishing Group
http://www.guildofblades.com
http://www.1483online.com
http://www.thermopylae-online.com
greyorm:
I have to apologize for not being more active in this thread. I'm still trying to get my head around what I think of this and where it could go and so forth, so I don't have any ideas, really. I'm just looking at it thinking, like the ape with the bone trying to puzzle out the idea of a tool from it.
But Ryan's right when he says the future of RPG publishing will not be how many books you sell. Or at least I think he's right, because I think it will have more to do with managing the tribe. What's really interesting here is I think both IPR and The Forge are doing what is being discussed in that article, and doing it really well. And yes, Seth is talking about music, but I don't think the environments are all that different between the two.
We have our silo of interested people, with the Forge acting as a beacon to other interested people, gathering us all together where we can communicate and be a part of the culture, and both discover and produce the material we are interested in right here. And someone who wants those sales, or rather attention, from this silo need to tap into it for just a minute.
However, I wonder sometimes if this is really what the Forge should be doing, or if it ends up shooting itself in the foot as a design-oriented site because of the social effects of being a silo: we LOVE this stuff, so stuff that isn't what the silo as a whole LOVES gets pushed outside, even if it shouldn't. And we get a published-book-designer clique mentality: publishing is a status symbol in the silo, just like snarking about this silo is a status symbol in certain other venues.
Or maybe I'm completely wrong on any of this. But I do think the article ties into what we're talking about here in a very important way. There are all these new revenue streams -- the new frontiers above, the new ways of making profit or driving IP identification -- and now here is the environment they exist in: the landscape all those ways are contained within and affected by. This is more knowledge about what the future of the economic side of RPG publishing is, both in terms of "things you can do" and "the environment you will be doing them in", because I think being blind to one makes the other useless.
greyorm:
I spent the day thinking about this and I guess I had a bit more to say on the subject and why I think it is important in our context here as designers and as members of the Forge community. And here's what I want to say -- which may not cohere well if you haven't read the article.
As designers, creators, whatever, up to now we've all been hoping that our tribe will find us, because that's the way it worked before, or seemed to work, or we were told/believed it worked. You did stuff and then that stuff was so good that people told other people and found their way to it and other people interested in telling people about your stuff would tell people and send them your way, but basically, your tribe found their way to you.
The reality is that today's changing marketplace, where everyone can be a creator, functionally means that any individual creator will become lost in a crowded sea of creators. Added to this, there are no longer any gatekeepers at the door of content as there have been in the past, building barriers to would-be creators such as money, limited exposure, and (to be really specific) publishing houses selectively choosing which content to mass publicize and which to allow to slip into obscurity.
What we have is the web. A nigh-eternal library of exponentially growing content almost entirely without gatekeepers, and child businesses embracing the same DIY-dynamic such as Lulu that allow anyone to do what it used to take thousands of dollars and a contract to pull off. What all this means, is that if you can get access to the web, you can publish and you can publish what you want, how you want, when you want.
Of course, there is a down-side to this content-creator's paradise.
The obvious one is the loss of gatekeepers. At least we'd like to think that is a loss. Gatekeepers used to serve the function of limiting what content the public would see ostensibly to the best and most capitvating content they were given. How well they did at such is a question for future societies to debate, but it did have its pitfalls: people fell through the cracks; art was sacrificed for profit; only material (perceived as) desired by the culture was let through, and therefore people could neither find such material, or even know any particular niche existed to be explored.
But, ironically, another loss is that of talent to noise. With the gates wide open, no single individual today can trawl through all the content being produced by the citizens of the global internet; as such, stuff they might really, really love is -- and even people who might be the next Stephen King or William Shakespeare are -- being lost in the avalanche. This is not to say, "Oh noes! Turn of teh intarwebs! Restrict! Restrict! Restrict! Raise the entry bar again!"
This happened under the gatekeeping system, too. Even the giant publishing houses with hundreds of employed staff weren't able to manage that trawling in the pre-internet days: there were still too many creators then, and many greats would end up lost along the way, forgotten until future generations made them gods and forgot their old and transient demigods (as examples of this whole dynamic: think of Howard and Lovecraft; think of Eva Cassidy; do you know who P.H. Newby or Gabriel Marlowe are?).
This is more true now than ever before because of the dynamics of the creator-culture whose birth we are experiencing: anyone can publish, anyone can design, anyone can create music. ANYONE. And more to the point, anyone DOES. Literature. Political columns. Philosophical treatises. Music. Software. Games. Even guitars and sprockets and computer chips and lasers.
Just look at a place like deviantArt or ConceptArt: you can find hundreds of incredibly talented artists and graphic designers and so forth that you will really, really like. How do you even begin to sift through them all? Even if you just restrict the set of possibilities to those found one website of thousands?
It used to be the gatekeepers would decide who among those you would see, and a dozen names at best would rise to the top and be well-known, with a second-tier of a few dozen lesser known artists. The rest would be waiting tables wondering why they weren't good enough. Now, with the creator's paradise of the internet, you can find them and decide for yourself where any given artist belongs.
The gatekeepers would like to claim they did a better job at this than we can do out amid the noise, but like I said, the truth of that effectiveness is something for future societies to discuss. I'll only point out gatekeepers are remarkably limited in their own manner, by being economically forced to allow through only that which they feel has the best chance of success in a broad market. They're often right, more often wrong, and sometimes they manage to catch a flash in the pan and strike gold with it.
Ultimately, it doesn't mean the old system is broken, or a terrible troll cackling under the bridge, eating various hapless travellers and letting others by based on its own arcane criteria, because it worked for its time, when anyone couldn't be a creator without spending a lot of someone else's time and money. That part has changed, but we have simply exchanged one set of problems for another.
However, I at least would rather have too much content to sift through than be restricted to whatever content the gatekeepers decide to allow me to sift through. Meaning this is a problem I am willing to embrace rather than reflect on the good old days when shit didn't stink and women didn't vote.
Because if we look at content as a giant pool of paper money bills ranging from $1's to $1000's, then I am free to sift through all that to find what I want to hang on to. Yeah, I'm going to run into a lot of $1's and $5's and $10's and so forth, but I'm still going to find a lot of $100's, too. Maybe not as many as under the gatekeeper system, but enough...and I might even find a $500 or $1000 that I wouldn't find under the gatekeeper system! With the gatekeepers in charge, they decide they are only going to allow $100 dollar bills through. It's a safe bet for them. Sure, I will probably like most of what I come across, but what about those gems that really speak to me and my little tiny niche? What about that stuff I LOVE. What about that stuff that isn't like a $100 bill, but is way, way better? The ones that might not be profitable for the gatekeepers, but are like a $1000-bill clenched in the fist of my experential joy?
Ok, it's just a metaphor, and it falls apart if you try to examine it too deeply, but hopefully you understand the point of it (likewise, you know a turtle shell will not display the properties of granite upon examination if I try to explain it to you as being hard as a rock): I don't mind sifting through more content if there's more personally meaningful variety for me to find.
But this steadily increasing landslide of content also has one major downside, as mentioned: the amount of noise we have to cut through both as creators and consumers to find signal. Of course, that "noise" I'm cutting through is likely good stuff to someone else, but it is still in our way -- even stuff that is like what we want but-not-quite-it is in our way. So we have to have a method to make ourselves known and/or to find what we want, depending on whether we are acting as creator or consumer in that instance.
As creators, this is an obstacle of some measure. Let's face it, not only Neil Gaiman but many other highly successful authors (and other creatives) will tell you there are many great and gifted writers (or so forth) who haven’t had his (or their) luck. Make note that this is something they have openly stated happened under the gatekeeping system, and whose loss will not make disappear or lessen its effect.
And despite this reality, both before and now, as creators we cling to the idea that we, too, can make it if we just do something cool and work hard. Well, you can't. You have to do more than work hard and be cool. Because being successful, being known, being admired has nothing to do with being good at what you do.
Why?
Being good or being great is a bonus for the consumer, but being good or even great won't get you noticed and won't keep you noticed, as history plays out time and again. If all you can do is create, you will fall by the wayside and you will be lost in the increasing noise, found only by a daring few intrepid explorers who have managed to stumble across you amid a thousand other flashing, brightly shining lights in the creative wilderness. Today, more than ever, you have to be noticed, more-to-the-point: you have to get yourself noticed, and you have to keep yourself noticed.
Let's also face that there is a component to luck to all of it, too. Some people will argue that influence is big, some will argue it is small, but what is undeniable is that it is there. Luck, however, isn't controllable, so we won't discuss it further except to note it does have an effect, and I will use it to point out commercial or pop-cultural success is a bet you make.
Because of luck, we can only stack the odds in our favor to some unknown degree -- success is not a given no matter what formula or method we follow. Creating is a black box. There are no promises, and -- importantly, which is why there is a paragraph here devoted to it -- we should not function or run a business on such broken ideas (such as our false cultural expectations of hard-work, networking, skill-based success-as-a-reproducible-method) as we currently do by believing we will just make it by doing X, Y, or Z or following a plan, or that anyone who didn't make it screwed up or did something wrong somewhere along the line or wasn't really any good after-all.
That's stupid, childish, unrealistic thinking and it is best we disabuse ourselves of it immediately, because it is poison and it is destructive to making it. You can't play roulette and blame yourself when you don't break the bank. You can only "blame yourself" for trying in the first place and putting your bet down, which is a ridiculous thing to blame yourself for. You make the decision knowing it is a bet, and if you don't know its a bet, then someone led you astray. Now you know it.
However, since we can only discuss the factors that we can control and have some measure of say over and which may lead to success, or which increase our odds of attaining success, we should discuss what methods the ones who do succeed are doing to help them make that mark and how to do similarly, as well as what the landscape looks like amid all this noise and how we can use that to our advantage.
Check out Luke Crane and Burning Wheel as an example of a man who knows how to do it. He's successful not because BW is good, but because he can network and socialize and sell it. Look at what happened to The Riddle of Steel: Jake had the passion and ability to do the same, and was, but Driftwood didn't and suddenly it fell flat; not because everyone jumped ship for other games, but because Driftwood didn't know how to leverage or perpetuate selling itself as an on-going marketing strategy.
A big part of success and failure sits right there.
If you can do what Luke Crane does, you can sell shit wrapped in a napkin and have people go nuts over it. Of course, that isn't a guarantee, it's just one good method for significantly stacking the odds in your favor. Especially given the amount of other stuff people have to wade through to find your stuff to even begin to decide if they like it, it is more important now than ever before as a simple matter of numbers: making yourself prominent, approachable, friendly and getting out there to "press the flesh" means more people will see your stuff and thus have the chance to evaluate it.
Today, we are lucky enough to not have gatekeepers either birthing our creative work or killing it in utero; but we're also unlucky enough that there are no gatekeepers thinning out the tide of content. Is it good or bad? Given you can make enough noise to attract the necessary attention and make valuable connections if you know where and how to make that noise, and realize that you're going to be doing it as long as you want people to keep seeing your creative work, I'll argue this is good.
You can make that noise and set yourself apart because the landscape is such that the consumer operates by creating silos: communities formed around core concepts the entire community jives with, enjoys, and riffs off. Silos help the consumer filter out the surrounding noise and let them peruse materials they are likely going to be most interested in, thus serving as gatekeepers in their own way, at least if the consumer can find the right communities; silos also help the creator get in touch with more potentially interested consumers, if they can find the right communities to get the attention of for a moment.
That is what we're looking at: finding the silos. And then, positively interacting with them.
How to do both is something we can focus on as a community. So that's where I think this puts us: the next revolution will not be showing everyone they can publish or how to publish, it will be showing them how to find their silo of people who love what they did, how to leverage the power of social networks to establish a name and public "brand identity" in order to draw potential viewers to their work, to help guide interested parties towards them who might otherwise never know they existed.
I say that is what we can do as a community to help each other as designers is to codify and teach what Luke Crane does, allowing other designers and creatives to benefit from the same if they don't know how. But the other part of that is even if and when know how to reproduce that skill, some of us just aren't going to be all that good at it, creating an area where the community can help out IF the community wants to be serious about getting good designs to the wider public.
We do so by taking up one of the other functions that the gatekeepers used to have: selling the product for the great writer who could write but could not sell or connect or something-else-required that they don't know how to do or can't do very well.
As an example: if you haven't been reading Keith Senkowski's LiveJournal recently, get thee hence; check out his ruminations on and suggestions for the next wave of design, and think about those ideas. Some of those might be things you have no clue how to create or manage. That's where the design community comes in: any silo can become the "new gatekeepers", with the difference that these gatekeepers are no longer keeping things out but instead helping along those things the community loves and cares about.
What the new gatekeepers do is fill the holes left by the fall of the old gatekeeping system. Things the old system used to handle, such as helping out with tribe management and tribe finding, will be the role of the new gatekeepers in a functional post-internet creator's paradise. And we need to, because those are very important pieces of the entire process that need to be filled and can't be shoved aside and filed as "now it's the creator's job entire". We can't do that or think that because some (even most) creators, as in the pre-internet days, will simply not be any good at those things and yet need a way to accomplish those things.
Now, whether these holes are filled by the community gathering and writing tutorials on those subjects for creators, actually doing the legwork of (some of) these roles for the creator as part of a community service, creating pointers to and evaluations of individuals/businesses who specialize in taking on those roles for the creator as a surrogate, or all three remains to be seen, but that is where our successful continuation as a designer/creator-oriented community lies.
There is also one more thing I think we should recognize, tangential perhaps, and that as a species we used to have cultures of creation: each indiviudal creating what his family and his tribe needed, designing our own fashions and tools and so forth, making our own cookware and storage pots, writing our own books and stories, building our own homes. And we would decorate the heck out of all these things according to our own culturally-derivative but-still-personal style; it was part of what we did as people. We made jewelry, we carved wooden pillars, we painted designs, we wove fabric, and so forth. We didn't buy most of it from a factory or a jeweler or a dress-maker.
If you've studied history and anthropology and people in general, it's no surprise that the oldest surviving artifacts of mankind happen to be artwork. It seems almost as if we started making art the moment after we climbed down from the trees. Fire? Tools? Agriculture? The wheel? Distant grandchildren to the mother. We were painting on cave walls before we made pots to hold our paint, and then we painted those, too. We were always about form in addition to function as human beings.
But what it means is that we were all artists, and we are today, everyone, creators and artists at heart. We're born to it. It's in the genes, even your Aunt Kathy who claims she couldn't draw a straight line to save her life is an artist at heart. Our modern culture, however, devalues that personalized spark by training us to think we must be famous creators to be creators, we must BE a thing to DO that thing. That is, we must be creators for consumers or the creation is not worthwhile.
I think this new cultural revolution, where everyone can be a creator, has a good chance of returning us to a culture of creation rather than a culture of consumption, or it at least has a chance to do so if we don't let ourselves get bogged down in the idea that being a creator of certain stuff for certain people is cool, or that having a status mark in one or more of our communities -- like "published" (ie: wrote a whole game and put it out on Lulu and got signed up with IPR and etc.) -- is the important part of this process.
If you want to be published that way, go for it, but what happened to the "Here's a bunch of crap I thought of that I'm putting on my webpage for everyone to read and maybe play if they want to. I did it because I did it and it was fun." That is, not everything we design needs to be designed towards the goal of eventually publishing it just because publishing it is the thing to do or because we want -- deep down in our needy hearts -- that status mark "I published X role-playing games and they sell X number of copies!"
I think we should be careful and recognize that some amount, probably a good amount, of the stuff we put out is stuff we would be happier tossing up on a webpage for no good reason except "because we create stuff that makes other stuff -- ourselves, this thing over here, that landscape there -- look neat and that's what humans do."
This was written in a fit of passion over the last day, so I'm sure there are things in the above that I seem to imply that I in fact am not implying or that are terribly unclear, so if anything sounds weird or you disagree or see some other angle, please bring it up, and I'll either try to clarify the expression of the idea or confirm that we disagree. (For example, I am not trashing the gatekeepers of the old system or calling them bad, wrong, stupid, or evil, though I'm betting there are going to be folks who will believe that is exactly what I am inferring. Well, I'm not trying to, but if it sounds like I am, I apologize for the poor phrasing on my part. You'll have to work through it from there.)
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[*] Previous page