Valve confirm Steam Direct publishing fee: $100

$100 (£80-ish) is how much it’ll cost to publish a game on Steam after Greenlight shuts down, Valve have confirmed. They’re ditching the Greenlight system of having would-be players vote on which games reach the Steam store, and replacing it with a system that’ll let developers sign up and, after being verified, submit games directly to Steam for a fee. What we’ll probably see is many more games hitting Steam, and quicker. Valve had previously tossed around $100 and $5,000 as mooted figures.

$100 is how much applying to Steam Greenlight costs, though that does let devs submit as many games as they please after all. Registered Steam Direct developers will need to pay $100 per individual game. Valve say this fee will be “recoupable”, though they haven’t yet explained quite how that’ll work.

Why $100? Valve explained in today’s blog post:

“[. . .] we’ve seen a bunch of great conversations discussing the various pros and cons of whether there should be an amount, what that amount should be, ways that recouping could work, which developers would be helped or hurt, predictions for how the store would be affected, and many other facets to the decision. There were rational & convincing arguments made for both ends of the $100-$5000 spectrum we mentioned. Our internal thinking beforehand had us hovering around the $500 mark, but the community conversation really challenged us to justify why the fee wasn’t as low as possible, and to think about what we could do to make a low fee work.

“So in the end, we’ve decided we’re going to aim for the lowest barrier to developers as possible, with a $100 recoupable publishing fee per game, while at the same time work on features designed to help the Store algorithm become better at helping you sift through games. We’re going to look for specific places where human eyes can be injected into the Store algorithm, to ensure that it is working as intended, and to ensure it doesn’t miss something interesting. We’re also going to closely monitor the kinds of game submissions we’re receiving, so that we’re ready to implement more features like the the Trading Card changes we covered in the last blog post, which aim to reduce the financial incentives for bad actors to game the store algorithm.”

Dovetailing with that, Valve detailed plans to expand Steam Curators [psst! follow the RPS Steam Curator], the lists of games players and groups can create. Future plans include adding the ability to attach YouTube videos and to create custom lists.

Steam of the future will be, according to Valve’s plans, a bustling store where automated recommendations and player-driven curation mesh to show players games it thinks they want. We’re many years past the point where people could reasonably follow every game released on Steam (even our Alec). Valve are still working on alternatives to that and these systems have come a long way, though they can still seem a bit wonky. Valve are making automated systems more transparent so, when they are wrong, it’s more clear why they are wrong. Valve say:

“Like all the work in the Steam Store, Steam Direct will take some iteration to get the kinks out. We’re optimistic. Aiming for the low publishing fee gives every game developer a chance to get their game in front of players. The Store algorithm will do its best to make sure you see games that are worth your time to look at. Combining everyone’s increased visibility into the algorithm’s thinking with the human eyes of Curators will hopefully ensure that whenever that algorithm isn’t working properly, we’ll know about it, and have the chance to fix it.”

I realise some folks get antsy any time Valve open Steam up more. Some have strong (and strongly wacky) opinions about what does and doesn’t ‘deserve’ to be on Steam or to even exist. That’s daft, of course. And mate, come on – Steam had duffers even back when only Valve games were on it.

As fees go, $100 is certainly less than $5,000 but ah, it’s a shame. It’ll exclude a lot of games I’ve hugely enjoyed over the past few years — games which are released free, pay-what-you-want, or by developers who don’t have $100 to spare. Sure, and Game Jolt will still support those games, but Steam is the de facto storefront of PC gaming. While Greenlight had these problems too, it always seemed a stopgap measure. If this is the blueprint for Steam’s future, it’ll lack some of the most interesting and important games being made these days.


  1. colw00t says:

    “Recoupable” in this context probably means that Valve doesn’t collect their usual percentage of sales until sales exceed a certain point. If they’re charging 30% of sales, then Valve doesn’t start taking that percentage until $333.33 worth of game has been sold, effectively meaning the developer is pre-paying a small amount of Valve’s cut in exchange for access to the storefront.

    This is probably a pretty reasonable model for everyone concerned – it’s certainly more friendly than many traditional brick and mortar sales models.

    • colw00t says:

      Update to this: Ars Technica is reporting that the $100 fee is returned to the developer after $1,000 in sales.

      • Otterley says:

        Thanks for the info :)

        I agree that it’s a reasonable solution. As Alice pointed out it might prevent some worthwhile games from reaching the store, but $100 really is a very low hurdle. It will be interesting to see how it plays out.

        • pepperfez says:

          If that led to the likes of itch rising in profile, it would be a win for everyone.

      • April March says:

        The way you described in the first post I’d found more or less working, but if it has to wait until a thousand dollars in sales… so if your game bombs hard, on top of that you don’t recoup what should be a recoupable expense?

  2. Nasarius says:

    This is incredibly good for smaller indie devs. Instead of doing bullshit marketing crap to beg people to vote for the *idea* of a game, you can point people directly to your game where they could download a demo right from Steam.

    It’s a huge opportunity, and I think it will lead to the success of some niche games which otherwise might not have made it.

    • rubmon says:

      And you believe you can just put your game in a flooded market and sales will automagically happen? They won’t. Guess what: you’ll have to do “bullshit marketing” anyway.

      • Sheng-ji says:

        There’s bullshit marketing and Bullshit marketing – bullshit marketing is not what anyone has ever had a problem with when it comes to steam greenlight, it’s the key giveaways and the trading card economy, it’s the fake games and asset flips. We all know they will find some way to carry on doing this kind of stuff, but their avenues just got pinched, and their detection will be improved.

    • Premium User Badge

      Ninja Dodo says:

      Yeah, I don’t get all these people saying “GOOD we no longer have to do the Greenlight song and dance!” when they’re going to have to do the exact same song and dance to get people to find (and care to buy) their game once it’s on the store.

  3. Lheim says:

    Completely nominal fee. It’s very friendly, a nice move on Valve’s part.

    • April March says:

      Can you lend me a completely nominal amount, then?

      • Ethereal says:

        Yes, if you make a game that you think is worth attaching your persistent identity to.

  4. try2bcool69 says:

    If you listen close you can hear 1000’s of shovels being raised in preparation of burying Steam in hot steaming piles of shovelwares.

  5. Premium User Badge

    Drib says:

    As much as I appreciate that Valve is being decent by setting this so low, there’s going to be even more massive piles of crap strewn all over Steam store now.

    Already it’s a problem. There’s outright broken games, or just garbagey jokes, or any number of other types of stuff on the store. But with this and the evident lack of checking, it’s just going to be more of a disaster.

    Also, automated store recommendations never work.

    Basically, already decent titles are buried under the tons of garbage. Soon, the decent titles will just be buried under dozens of tons instead.

    Doomsaying makes me feel better. Even saying this, I hope it doesn’t turn out this way. I just expect that it will.

    • colw00t says:

      Steam is a storefront these days. Marketing a product isn’t really their job, although I agree it’s a challenge for any developer.

    • RichUncleSkeleton says:

      As much as I appreciate that Valve is being decent by setting this so low, there’s going to be even more massive piles of crap strewn all over Steam store now.

      Maybe not? Greenlight allows developers to submit as many games as they want for their initial one-time fee and the only hurdle for getting them approved is manipulating the easily-rigged voting process. With the new system, you’ll be $100 in the hole per game. It’s going to be a lot more expensive to throw 25 pieces of shit at the wall and hoping a few stick that way.

    • funderbolt says:

      Will this lead to more Steaming piles of hot garbage, or less? Time will tell. I can only hope they don’t bin whatever stringent vetting process let people pay actual money for things like “Butts: The VR Experience”.

    • MajorLag says:

      “…or just garbagey jokes…”

      There’s a very viable market for garbagey jokes. They’re like really bad movies, without which we wouldn’t have Mystery Science Theater 3000. Many streamers would suffer financial hardship without those games.

  6. haldolium says:

    Seems like a bullshit-barrier. Trash will still get onto steam and in the meantime, good games will still be buried.

    Once again a more-as-questionable move by Valve.

    • Fiatil says:

      How many good games do you anticipate getting buried underneath a $100 application fee? Like, if you expect your game to sell even the slightest amount you will recoup that $100. If a game is totally free with absolutely no microtransactions and a developer who is poor (ie not even an option to donate to them), then yes. I don’t feel like that will be a tremendous amount of high quality games.

      What they’re describing is a review process funded by that $100 fee. That seems pretty reasonable for filtering out the terrible stuff! Let’s just assume it costs $50/hr to employ game-tester-guy (they are not making close to $50 an hour themselves), that gives you 2 hours per game to review to see if it is an irredeemable cynical cash in. Seems reasonable!

      • Ghostwise says:

        One assumes that the game testers in question will be Filipino, and neither paid nor billed anything approaching USD 50/hour. At least that would be the most common arrangement.

      • Chaomancer says:

        The fee won’t pay for anything, since it’s recoupable. Valve will only have the money from the games that don’t sell to put towards hiring people to work on their review process. That ought to be far, far less than $100 per game.

        • DrazharLn says:

          The fee can plausibly pay for the testing while also be recoverable. Games that are successful enough will earn steam enough money to pay for the testing. Games that are not successful pay for the testing with the initial fee.

      • haldolium says:

        “What they’re describing is a review process funded by that $100 fee.”

        Neither do they describe any kind of “review process” (hence PR phrasing “closely monitoring”) nor is that in any connection to the fee.

        I don’t really see what such a low-entry barrier is good for. Other stores have monetary entry barriers as well which do not help much for separation of shady/trash programs. And this is a driving factor behind the decision.

  7. BathroomCitizen says:

    I appreciate this move by Valve: yes, it’s a nominal fee, and so much crap will rise through this system, but at least the true gems won’t be stuck in Greenlight limbo forever – they’ll get directly to the store.

  8. racccoon says:

    What people/new devs are not getting is gaming is a business.
    If you do not know business or understand the TAX system your can not be a game developer anymore!
    The fee should be 5k or 10k as most of the games would not be made and this would make way for better more organized developers who are knowledgeable about gaming business practices, and not a game dev that has absolutely no clue to what it is they are doing or are getting into too. TAX TAX TAX
    Early access / greenlight / founders / kickstarters DO NOT WORK! as most new game developers do not know anything about business practices, which involve TAX!
    They believe they do not have too think about it, because they have been given FREE CASH / monies from all of us idiots, which in turn have made them believe & think they can just go & bank it freely with no worries at all. Most new game devs think they can also then leave the game in tatters set inside a dark dungeon void to rot somewhere & be forgotten about WRONG!
    When money is involved, it means TAX! & a business plan!!

    Having a proper organized gaming business plan would eliminate this problem as it did in the beginning of gaming.

    It is a big mistake by STEAM not to make new game devs pay 5k or even 10k more for this admission into this(my view) useless tool called STEAM! If it did bring those figures on, we’d have far more game devs who would have a understanding of what developing a game is, which is business! and not just a game.

    More refunds please.

    • LukeW says:

      What an incoherent load of rubbish.

      • skeletortoise says:

        It actually makes a passable slam poem if you just pull out the allcaps.

        TAX TAX TAX
        DO NOT WORK!
        FREE CASH

    • CriticalMammal says:

      You do realize that there are a lot of areas in the world that don’t give proper tax breaks and grants to allow game developers to start a successful business? Lots of people I know personally struggle with this just because of their location not having funds for interactive digital projects.

      You can’t use a system to your advantage when the system doesn’t acknowledge the kind of work you do exists.

      • Lheim says:

        Look, I’m as liberal as anybody, but I’m just going to say that one really shouldn’t presume a government grant should be available for every little thing any business might think about doing.

        • ButteringSundays says:

          So being a liberal you understand that grants can be a huge boon to communities and societies, but you think your political outlook is being taken too far by applying it to massive, growing industries? It’s got nothing to do with entitlement.

          If you don’t understand why your political affiliation has certain policy then read up on it – liberal politics isn’t about giving things away for nothing – it can’t be ‘taken too far’ unless you disagree with it in the first place.

          • Lheim says:

            Okay. That’s it. I’m absolutely done talking about politics on the net until you americans stop being so freaking traumatized by it.

            No, the answer to “maybe government grants should be used in moderation rather than assumed” is not “Oh, fuck no, if you believe in government grants you have to be okay with the concept of them being granted to literally EVERYBODY or you’re no true liberal.”

            Way to strawman yourself. You sound like a parody.

  9. Gus the Crocodile says:

    Disappointing that – as Lewie Procter put it – Valve think US$100 is the smallest possible amount of money in the world. Would have very much liked to see a more open approach than this, one that doesn’t further entrench elitist ideas about who should be developing games (“not the poors”, in this case).

    • RichUncleSkeleton says:

      If you can’t scrape together $100 in order to self-publish a game then I question how you’d afford the hardware, software and other expenses required to create one in the first place. Plus, it’s refundable after you’ve passed $1000 in sales. If you’re not aiming that high then maybe commercial game development isn’t for you anyway.

      • Gus the Crocodile says:

        “Maybe it isn’t for you anyway”, yes, that’s a good one. Thank you for your submission to our exhibition Precisely The Kind Of Elitist Sentiment I Was Talking About.

        • RichUncleSkeleton says:

          “What do you mean you don’t think Wal-Mart is the right venue for a lesbian transgressive art exhibit?! elitist!!”

          • April March says:

            Nah, that metaphor doesn’t work, because Wal-Mart is not in the business of art exhibition. That’s more like if a book about, say, a gay relationship got really famous and sold a lot of units, and Wal-Mart refused to carry it. Which is actually something I find really likely to happen.

          • RichUncleSkeleton says:

            And Steam isn’t in the business of distributing commercially unviable games (and game-adjacent software). Artsy stuff like Gone Home or The Vanishing of Ethan Carter can still do pretty brisk sales. On the other hand, an “interactive story” made in Twine or Flash would be a poor fit.

        • Thirdrail says:

          No, but RUSkeleton is totally right, of course. Steam is a business, not a civil right. If your product isn’t going to make $1000 when it’s offered for sale in virtually every country in the world, why should Valve be picking up your tab? If your goal is just to make a game and publish it, you can throw it up on torrent sites and be done. You don’t need Steam to validate your existence as a designer or artist. You need Steam to sell things. Just like Valve needs Steam to sell things. Stores sell things. That’s how stores stay in business.

          • Gus the Crocodile says:

            No need to talk to me about civil rights. There’s a difference between “I’d like Valve to do X” and “I think Valve owes people X”, and my position is the former, not the latter.

            Similarly, thanks for the update on how stores work I guess, but if you’re trying to tell me Valve literally can’t afford to have a lower submission fee, well, uh, all I can say is that I don’t get that impression.

          • RichUncleSkeleton says:

            Similarly, thanks for the update on how stores work I guess, but if you’re trying to tell me Valve literally can’t afford to have a lower submission fee, well, uh, all I can say is that I don’t get that impression.

            The point behind the change is to more effectively filter out low-effort content so hack developers don’t treat the system as a lottery and their individual submissions as scratch-off tickets.

    • CriticalMammal says:

      Tbh, the $100 upfront is perfectly reasonable. You would have spent that much or more in time and effort on doing a greenlight campaign previously, with no guarantee of even making it on steam. And I say that as a poor dev. Plus there’s the alternative storefront for people who don’t want a pay barrier from a dev/consumer perspective.

    • ButteringSundays says:

      Eh? What would be the point in the fee if it was intended to be the smallest amount if money possible? It would be redundant.

      It’s set specifically to BE a financial barrier – that’s by design!

      Valve isn’t Itch. If a $100 refundable fee is too big a barrier to bring your product to market then they probably just did you a huge favour stopping you in your tracks – because you would have got 3 updates into your EA project and realised that food costs money and that you can’t live off of positive reviews.

      • Gus the Crocodile says:

        I’m well aware it’s a financial barrier by design. That’s not my design, so it’s not my obligation to share its goals. My position isn’t that a lower fee would be just as high a barrier – it absolutely wouldn’t, of course, and that’s the point.

  10. Merus says:

    I’m less annoyed by Steam charging a $100 fee to get on Steam – Steam’s not really a good place for games that challenge the audience or provide the marginalised with a voice, Valve have no interest in making Steam safe for these games, and is both better for these games and a better platform than Steam in all ways except range and making money.

    What grind my gears is Valve thinking that if they just tune their recommendation algorithm enough, it will be good. Only one company has a recommendation engine worth a damn, and that’s because they base their data corpus on millions of their users associating things with each other that go well together. It’s not too difficult to generate a list of things you might like that’s going to be reasonable when you’re basing it on lists of things a hypothetical person might like.

    Valve does not have this data, nor is it collecting it.

    • Sheng-ji says:

      I’m literally on tenterhooks, what is that company? Amazon, can’t be, theirs is garbage, ebay? Google? Please, *** sinks to knees clutching at your shirt*** tell me *** now sobbing*** please!

      • Merus says:

        Oh god what have I done

        Please no, don’t cry, it’s just Spotify with their discover weekly playlist

        Computers are very bad at being creative but very good at generating something like something else they know about. Spotify has two things in its favour: an algorithm for working out about what genre a song is in, and a bucketload of playlists. The discover weekly playlist takes your last played songs (rejecting anything that’s too dissimilar to any other songs you listened to) and generates a playlist from the playlists that contain those songs. Because those playlists were already created by humans trying to build an interesting list of good songs that work well together that may or may not be thematically close, what the computer generates is something not quite as good but fits you better.

        • Sheng-ji says:

          ***Stands up, wipes dust from knees, clears throat and tries to look somewhat respectable again***

          Oh, yeah, good call.

        • TrenchFoot says:

          Interesting. Maybe I’ll start listening to new music again. … I’ve never met a logarithm that could keep up with my bizarre and broad tastes. … When is the fantasy version of Football Manager (Elf Manager?) coming out?

      • goodpoints says:

        To be honest, my experiences with searching for a specific type of item and automated recommendations have always been better on Steam than Amazon.

        My typical Amazon search experience is looking for an X for cheap using precise terms and sorting by low-high price, and I invariably end up with dozens of pages of X accessories. Whenever I can’t find an academic or OOP history on libgen or one of the DBs I have access to, as a rule the only Amazon results will be scalpers trying to sell it for 2x or 3x the already exorbitant cover price. (burn in hell Brill and Routledge) The nonfiction sections of the Kindle store are also clogged with idiots who try to charge $10+ for public domain works that are either terrible unedited OCRs or just ripped straight from Gutenberg or Google Books.

        Whereas, my Steam front page is mostly just recommendations from curators and friends and I’ve actually found some stuff from “More Like This” since it uses user tags vs. Amazon’s ridiculous “customers who viewed this also view”

    • brucethemoose says:

      But they can buy it.

  11. Dorga says:

    I appreciate the idea that 100$ is too high a barrier for many games and developers, but wasn’t the system even worse before? I don’t understand how this will make the store less diverse.

    • CriticalMammal says:

      Yeah this does actually make it much more feasible for small devs to actually make it onto the storefront without a huge hassle. The primary games this would hinder would be freeware titles (which are already extremely rare on Steam anyway). And I mean like the free ~15 minute sort of experiences, not F2P games.

    • MajorLag says:

      I was thinking the same thing. It seems to me that a developer who honestly can’t afford the $100 entry fee will have a much easier time generating $100 in donations or something than motivating people for Greenlight votes.

  12. rubmon says:

    “or by developers who don’t have $100 to spare”
    Really, Alice? So they can afford a computer to develop games on, but not a $100 fee? Does that make any sense to you?

    • brucethemoose says:

      They develop on a Raspberry pie with an old CRT, of course. No sound, that’s something for the elite of society.

      EDIT: Actually no, with the electricity costs for the CRT and all…

    • MajorLag says:

      When you consider smaller developing nations it isn’t that much of a stretch actually.

  13. Thirdrail says:

    Developers who don’t have $100 to spare? Come on. Be real. If you have a finished game of any merit to show gofundme or kickstarter, someone will come up with that $100 for you. No game worth playing is going to be lost and abandoned over $100.

    • April March says:

      That depends on how you define “any merit” and “worth playing”. I’ve played games that I love that were made by people on the brink of homelessness. You would probably find them not to have “any merit” and not be “worth playing”, so I’m understandably peeved that a money-based barrier entry will bring Steam’s acceptance mode more in like with your thinking.

  14. InternetBatman says:

    They’ll need to majorly redesign the store, but they’ve needed to do that for a while. The what’s new tab will be a pointless parade. Trending among genres or making the personalized recommendation system larger are merited.

  15. thenevernow says:

    So you’re happy about the total lack of curation and you think 100$ is too high? Wow.

    • April March says:

      Welcome to the amazing world of people who are not complete jerks!
      I, uh, I have a guest pass.

  16. sagredo1632 says:

    For a long time my favorite Steam game has been Discovery Queue. Proudly “Not Interested” in 5000+ titles! And to think, I could have been using that time to clear up my Steam Pile of Shame (fortunately <<5000 titles… at the moment). If a new algorithm can reverse those numbers, I'm all for it.

    By the by, why hasn't Valve opened up a challenge/bounty (a la Netflix or Zillow) for improving their recommendation algorithm?

  17. noshores says:

    it’s super easy to spot the people who’ve never been poor in these comments

    biggest flaw with this system is that dedicated scammers will not have any issues getting that fee together, but some devs will. also free games will never recoup that fee. money shouldn’t be the barrier to entry if they have any real interest in opening things up

    • Premium User Badge

      Ninja Dodo says:

      Steam has never been a good place for freeware. It’s super impractical: starting with actual fully free games being labelled “Free to Play” , and those games disappearing from your library when uninstalled. Itchio is a much better place to put your free game (with optional donations).

      • trashbarge says:

        in terms of how easy/accessible the process is, sure, itch is miles ahead. in terms of visibility, you still want your game on steam. itch is great but that doesn’t solve the issue here

        plus, just because itch is great doesn’t mean steam doesn’t need to improve

        • Premium User Badge

          Ninja Dodo says:

          Not my freeware games, I don’t. Steam is the worst possible platform for collecting freeware. As a Steam user I will go out of my way to avoid downloading free games on Steam. The only way I would consider putting a free game on Steam as a dev is if they completely redesigned the way those games are presented in the store and in your library.

          I agree with your second point though: the rising prominence of itchio should not keep Steam from improving.

  18. brucethemoose says:

    So, how the heck does Itch.IO keep their storefront clean? According to Valve (and my common sense) the site should be buried under a mountain of spammers and malware, but it isn’t.

    If you expect Valve to do the same, Alice, they need that magic sauce too.

    • MajorLag says:

      They don’t, as far as I can tell. Many of the titles on itch are super crap. Because of that, being on itch doesn’t automatically lend your game an air of legitimacy, and the customer base is much lower, so scammers don’t have any reason to scam on itch.

    • Premium User Badge

      Ninja Dodo says:

      I believe the front page is curated by hand. If you just browse Games there’s all kinds of stuff.

  19. savagegreywolf says:

    all these salty Russian card farmers

    it’s beautiful

  20. Premium User Badge

    Ninja Dodo says:

    I think it’s good they kept the fee low to limit the damage to those for whom $100 is expensive, whether they’re broke indies or devs from countries where that is a lot of money. It won’t stop scammers as they’ll just factor it into their expenses, so Valve will have to figure out something else for that, but it might make regular devs consider what they submit more carefully.

    Maybe it’s okay for Steam to not try to be the store for ALL games. Itchio does a fine job catering to the more unusual and experimental as well as more traditional indies. If this means more devs and players coming to itchio that’s a good thing in my opinion.

    • April March says:

      The thing is, Steam wishes it was the store for all games. Their dream would be that people perceived Steam as a place that offers quality, curated games (so Steam gets more use as a store) but that, at the same time, any game anyone wants to buy is on Steam. That’s the point of Greenlight; in theory, it’d make sure that any game that enough people had heard about would make to the store. In even further theory, algorithms would suggest to you games you like, and hide from you games you wouldn’t, so you wouldn’t even know about the crap games unless the algorithm decided that you might not find it crap.

      I kind of agree that Steam might benefit from focusing only on AAA releases and the most marketable indies. But it’s such a monolith of PC gaming that until is spoken in the same breath as it, to do so will cause untold amounts of grief to the small indie deads that need its scraps of visibility.

  21. gwathdring says:

    It’s less that I don’t understand being capable of developing a game and having trouble finding $100, and more that I’m not sure Steam is a good platform for a developer or game where scraping together $100 is a difficult prospect or a risky investment. Steam is a massive ecosystem with essentially no curation. Getting discovered on Steam is going to require time, effort and quite possibly money spent advertising; add to that the sizeable cut of sales Valve takes on and I really don’t see how it’s a particularly good deal for devs on micro-budgets even without the fee.

    • April March says:

      I remember hearing stories about small devs getting 90% of their income from Steam, even when they had no publicity, not even something like Steam frontpage. A small slice of a gigantic market can be much larger than a large slice of a tiny market – and a dev that can’t advertise effectively won’t even be able to conquer that large slice of a tiny market.

  22. mercyRPG says:

    Nice job Valve, Thank You!!!!

  23. haldolium says: