« A Historic Exhibition for the Living Room | Main | Residuals vs. Royalties »

06/07/2005

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Mister Toups

Or the studio system could crash like it did in Hollywood in the late 40's.

*crosses fingers*

bowler

The next person to suggest a video-game union gets shot.

It did nothing but completely destroy the US animation system (commercials, Saturday morning, cartoons, etc.).

The Union rule of thumb is thus: if your job is not easily exportable to a 3rd world sweat-shop, don't unionize. The fastest way to kill the US video-game job market is to form a union and force game developers to export our jobs to hungry Pacific Rim companies.

The only way this problem is going to get fixed (firing entire divisions after a project is completed so the company can stay solvent this quarter) is for game companies to either get their shit together and figure out how to be profitable every quarter or to go private and stop being traded. Some companies are still solvent by the end of the year but will lay people off just to be above water for the one quarter they'd have taken a loss. People are being fired just so that stock prices don't waver.

Not that I expect companies as big as EA to go private any time soon, but there you have it.

Troy

While it's easy (and often vindicated) to jump to the assumption of an evil corporation, I'd suggest otherwise.

It is very, very likely that EA/DICE acquired Trauma Studios (and then more than likely dumped a healthy chunk-of-change in Trauma's pockets); provided them full-time employment while they built a game they wouldn't have otherwise had an opportunity to be paid to make (getting exposure and distribution to a level they wouldn't have had previously); EA then realized, likely in collaboration with the Trauma team, that it didn't make sense to build a long term production studio around their New York offices. It sounds like EA gave them the consolation prize of continued employment at the DICE Sweden studio, and to be honest, would have likely employed them at any of their other studios as well (if the employees were actually worth keeping).

I would argue that unions are not the panacea that they are popularly proposed to be for the game industry. Many of the game industry's problems are inherent to its participants, not its corporate practices. Simply look at independent developers or small studios: they suffer the same problems as many of the big boys (with less compensation and benefits). Hobby, indie *and* giant corporate developers all work crunch time. Not because some corporate demi-god is cracking a slave whip. We crack our own slave whip as a clear personality defect: game programmers classically overpromise features, underestimate schedules and work long hours. This happened before giant game corporations, this happens currently in small independents alike.

While it appears that the corporate demi-gods are cracking an unreasonable whip, it is only because these demi-gods are the very promoted participants that are now being whipped. In other words, it's not evil corporations, it's evil former game programmers.

The game industry *does* have quality of life issues, but we're simply passing the buck by blaming the evil corporations. *We* built these corporations, our brethren largely staff there upper echelons. The HR department doesn't set 80-hour work weeks.

Ironically, game developers instantly jump to personal responsibility (or parental responsibility) as the fundamental solution to content standards. How about we start arguing personal responsibility as the fundamental solution to working standards?

ChrisV82

There should never be a fear to unionize. If the companies plan on exporting jobs overseas to exploit cheaper foreign labor, then they will eventually do that whether or not unions exist. Progress often comes with risk, but the rewards are worth it.

As Emiliano Zapata supposedly said, "Better to die on your feet than live on your knees." And years after he died, Marlon Brando played him in a movie. So just think, if you unionize, Marlon Brando might play YOU in a movie. Even though he's dead.

bowler

"There should never be a fear to unionize. If the companies plan on exporting jobs overseas to exploit cheaper foreign labor, then they will eventually do that whether or not unions exist. Progress often comes with risk, but the rewards are worth it."

Pie in the sky attitudes like this just get people who are feeding their children fired.

Companies nearly never "plan" on sending work overseas. They only do it when they run behind, or for instance, when they no longer have a game team because they're ON STRIKE. If they are happy with paying Americans to make games, then please, let's not give them a reason to change their mind.

And for the record, could everyone whose livelihood doesn't depend on staying employed making videogames just shut up? We're not building houses here or replacing a pipe in a sink that requires workers who live in your general topography to come in and do the job. We're talking about digital, virtual assets that can easily be emailed across the internet. These jobs are replaceable via email or an IM attachment for christ's sake. Sure, it gets a bit more complicated than that, but only a bit. As it is, EA used like 80 contract artists in the pacific rim on Underground, because they overbudgeted their art assets. Exporting the rest of the jobs on that team is just one push away from becoming a reality. A union or a unionized strike would do just that. And once those jobs are gone, they're not coming back.

There should ALWAYS be a fear for unionizing. To pretend that there are no repercussions on the job market for unionizing is to flat out ignore historical evidence to the contrary.

If you think "the rewards are worth the risk" of unionizing, then please, try and find me a 2D union animator who lives in the U.S. and is still employed. IF you can find one, ask him how he likes the unemployment line, and if that was worth the risk.

In the meantime, I have mouths to feed, and I'd rather do it working 50 hour weeks than doing it with a welfare check, thanks.

danno

@bowler:

Dreamworks, PDI, and Disney are all union studios. I'm not 100% on Pixar and ILM, but I'm 75% sure they are also union studios. No, those are not "2D" shops, but there's plenty of 2D animators who have made the transition.

What animators in the union have found is not that they necessiarly have more job security. Frankly, it's a hire-and-fire industry and you know that going in. What The Animators Guild (TAG) gives you is some sort of safety net between gigs. Healthcare, a 401(k), and a built-in networking group. Is it the answer to everything? Lord no. But most people are glad it's there.

Just my $.02. Your milage may vary.

wobbly

"Pie in the sky..."

A phrase that happens to have been coined by union martyr Joe Hill:

You will eat, bye and bye,
In that glorious land above the sky;
Work and pray, live on hay,
You'll get pie in the sky when you die.

bowler

Danno: "Dreamworks, PDI, and Disney are all union studios. I'm not 100% on Pixar and ILM, but I'm 75% sure they are also union studios. No, those are not "2D" shops, but there's plenty of 2D animators who have made the transition."

Yeah, the problem here is two-fold. 1). It's film, which is a completely different industry than gaming. Film assets, especially animation, are under constant scrutiny. For instance, a buddy of mine here at work used to work at Sony Imageworks, and for him to export one file, he had to go through an 80 page (PAGE) checklist. Film work typically isn't exportable, so you don't have to worry about scabs (Pacific Rim studios in this case) crossing the picket line and taking your work from you.

2). The Union actually keeps good people OUT. The requisite to get a Union job is that you have to be in the Union, but to get in the Union, you have to be sponsored by a Union job house. VERY catch 22. Another buddy of mine who's literally overqualified to paint backgrounds digitally for animation studios was turned down at every turn by studios who wanted to hire him because he wasn't union, and they had to give the jobs to other less qualified union guys.

I understand that it works for Hollywood, what with the work 9 months, and wait 3 months for the studio to hire you back system they have there. It gives you benefits. Which is great. But we work salaried positions in gaming (and I don't know of anyone who works at a gaming company that doesn't have benefits), so it just doesn't fit for us.

bowler

Whoops. Meant to clarify that yes, the 2D animation industry went under due to out-sourcing, and that the film industry probably won't, due to the differing complexities (and in the case of 3D animation, the cutting edge technology, which isn't really seen in video game art assets).

RMS54

First time poster, although I've lurked for a month or so.

A union like the one you'd need would have to be structured less like a guild and more like IBEW. You'd have to suggest some interesting organizing and mobilizing initiatives for unions you would want to partner with. And mostly, you would just want to understand that in today's economy of slash and burn production, NO ONE is spared from shipment overseas.

The usual business model dictates that if it's cheaper and you can get away with it, you should probably do it before the end of the third quarter. Model organizing drives tend to point out the absurdity of doing so if the work can be done in the US efficiently and in a way that is cost effective for the company. While different, both ideologies agree that cheap is good. More money for the corporation and more money for those who produce the product.

To truncate my thoughts a bit, I'd close by saying that the process of starting a union always has a ring of nervous sweating in it. No one wants programmers to lose their jobs, but corporations don't really give a fig if your kids can't eat. You do. You're worth a contract that can protect what you hold dear and if they don't agree with you, it's obvious that their intention (when they could finally get away after it) was just to outsource you in the first place.

Peace.

StGabe

Alright, I program videogames for a living so yes, I have qualifications.

Yes we need unions.

First of all, the fears of outsourcing? Way overrated. Our company outsources, so I know what I'm talking about. It's a pain in the ass. It's inefficient, quality suffers, communication is impossible and very importantly, it's still not cheap at all.

People are easily scared by the ideal of legions of gamers or Asian programmers who would happily take over any game job at $5/hour and work 100 hours a week.

It's not going to happen. Most of these people are zero risk to my job because they wouldn't know their hand from their ass if they actually tried to work on a game. Sure they know how to program, draw, whatever. But they don't have the talent, etc., to really pull it off and it's already enough of a pain to have the large teams that games currently require let alone having a significant portion of that team 12 time zones away. The western world is still is by far the best place in the world for putting out highly talented / creative technical workers.

But sure you say, of those many people, even if most don't have the talent, etc., there are still some that could do a very good job of it. I mean Indiana has like a billion people right, even if only a handful have talent that's still going to come out to a lot? Yes, there are. And they already know they can make a lot of money. Look at Google's shenanigans to recruit highly qualified foreign workers. The market is flush with mediocre tech workers but the market for the highly qualified and talented is still very, very good! And these are the people that game companies are going to want, the ones that could already make good money working elsewhere.

In short, talented game developers are a valuable resource right now and they could demand a lot more if they were in a position to do so. Capitalism isn't perfect (read some Joseph Stiglitz, he did win a Nobel so he's not a nutjob). Game developers are in severe need of both organization and advocacy at this moment. Organizing themselves to share stories and be able to bargain collectively bringing themselves into an equal position with the large publishers and advocacy to let consumers know about those stories and other bad things that go on in the industry. Stuff like the EA_Spouse incident helps to change the market thus demonstrating the power of advocacy and information flow, something a union would be perfect at taking advantage of.

As far as the film industry I think that games are becoming a lot like it. And SAG, say what you will of it, HAS gotten a lot done for its members across the years. I think unionization is inevitable and won't be the end of the world that some make it out to be. In the end I think it will be a big win for most involved. Corporations, beholden to their stockholders, need an excuse like unionization to treat their dev teams like human beings. Developers deserve more. And consumers deserve games built by capable, rested beings who aren't working themselves to death (I know as a programmer that the more I crunch, the crappier my outputs).

StGabe

err *indiana=india .. *blush*

bowler

"People are easily scared by the ideal of legions of gamers or Asian programmers who would happily take over any game job at $5/hour and work 100 hours a week.

It's not going to happen. Most of these people are zero risk to my job because they wouldn't know their hand from their ass if they actually tried to work on a game. Sure they know how to program, draw, whatever. But they don't have the talent, etc., to really pull it off and it's already enough of a pain to have the large teams that games currently require let alone having a significant portion of that team 12 time zones away."

Except that this argument falls apart when you consider that Ubisoft just opened up a Shanghai studio, the same one that did the last Splinter Cell and is doing the next one. We just hired like 5 people at my own company from Korea. They are insanely talented. And driven. And as I mentioned in my last argument, EA had half of its nearly 200 man team for Underground come from Pacific Rim contractors.

How much more evidence do we need that the picket line for a strike is no longer limited to our own nation? There's only 2 reasons to form Unions: health and retirement benefits, and to strike if you feel like you're treated unfairly at work.

Look, even the SAG or whoever handles the "video game voice talent" union couldn't win the battle against the game companies that use union voice talent. They got an hourly raise, and a big NO to their main gripe, which was royalties (their main demand). The game companies ALREADY BEAT one established talent union at their own game. This week.

What makes you think that we'd stand any better of a chance? Why put "strike" on the table? Couldn't we just try and do it the old fashioned way? The industry is screwed up because the wrong people are in charge making unreasonable estimates on our time and productivity. Let's start putting ourselves in positions to make changes, not demand that we be listened to. Because that isn't working now. A union isn't going to make them listen any more.

It's easy to say that our jobs aren't going to be lost to someone. I've seen it happen first hand in another industry. If you think you aren't replaceable in your job, push the issue. You'll either get a raise or you'll be shown the door, and replaced. We don't need a Union to do this for us.

StGabe

Except that this argument falls apart when you consider that Ubisoft just opened up a Shanghai studio, the same one that did the last Splinter Cell and is doing the next one.

Oh no, AN offshore studio exists, we are doomed.

Like I already said, I work directly with outsourced resources already. It does happen. However, it tends to be inefficient, crap up your project, and still isn't cheap. What are those guys in Korea getting paid? Oh no, EA crunched too hard and tried to buy their way out of a project by outsourcing. Big surprise. That doesn't mean it worked very well for them. EA has tried to buy their way out of finishing projects before in crappy ways. These weren't market trends, they are just EA being stupid.

Except that this argument falls apart when you consider that Ubisoft just opened up a Shanghai studio, the same one that did the last Splinter Cell and is doing the next one.

A lot more than two anecdotes.

Why put "strike" on the table?

Who ever said we should strike? Is your view of unions so 1-dimensional that you think that unions exist only to go on strikes? The goal of a good union should be to never strike. Strikes are just a huge headache for everyone involved. Instead there are very effective tools of organization and advocacy that can be used first. Get a lot of publicity going about long work hours for certain companies (EA has already changed policies and reacted to EA_Spouse. Share job history information with your colleagues, compare and contract working conditions at different companies. This will start to build a better correlation between companies that actually treat their teams well and companies that are able to attract a lot of talent. Build up a network of people that can throw a lot of public support behind Indy game development, etc.

The most effective element of a strike is the threat that it could happen. It's a weapon you want to have there if you absolutely need it but that only ever use as a last resort. And if it did happen, a lot of game companies would suddenly have to stretch very far and look for talent abroad that simply doesn't exist in the quantities that they require. Oh noes, Ubisoft managed to scrounge up 5 talened Korean programmers. Now watch them try to replace their entire work force? Not going to happen. Especially if they are competing with every other company in the market, sifting through the twigs and stems of an asian market, trying to find people with talent, who they can actually talk to, who haven't already figured out that they're worth a lot of money and should probably, themselves, be in a union.

It's easy to say that our jobs aren't going to be lost to someone. I've seen it happen first hand in another industry.

Other, very different industries. We are talent and we are valued. I push the issue when I need to and I like the job I currently have. But a lot of people in the industry aren't me and aren't in the position I'm in. The lack of information and organization costs them. A lot.

And the fact remains that if outsourcing is so easy and rosy as you make it out to be ... then it is an inevitability anyway. Heck, it would have happened already.

Kushana

Rather than look at the alleged benefits and downsides to unionization, let's look at the more concrete ones.

First the downside. No matter what else happens, workers have to pay to be unionized; typically a small percentage of their gross salary. This will run to at least hundreds of dollars per year.

The upside is more alleged bargaining power. But such power is only useful if you and your employer don't see eye to eye. It's my argument, though, that this doesn't apply to game development.

The #1 complaint about game development is the long hours and crunch times. However, just because the company demands them of you doesn't mean that it wants to demand them of you. I think that, in over 95% of the cases, it would have preferred to have budgeted its time, effort, and money better, and to have finished the game with a minimum of fuss and bother. So if you're both on the same side, what's the problem?

For those 95% of cases, the problem is standard software development issues. Improper requirements specifications, as hoc design, little control over development processes, the whole nine yards. Everything that the more mature software development houses have ironed out.

"What about creativity," I hear. Well, creativity can only be expressed if you've got time to express it, which you don't if you're two milestones behind. "What about employee satisfaction?" The vast majority of employees are more satisfied making steady gains towards an identifiable goal than they are beating their head against a wall fixing the same problem for the fourth time.

Both employees and companies stand to benefit from better software development processes, and if they agree, you don't need a union.

The other 5% of cases are bosses who want to exhaust their employees, discard them, and move on. And in those cases, you should just skip to the move on part.

bowler

Okay, St.Gabe, you and your sweeping generalizations about how great the union's going to be have completely defeated my real world "anecdotal" evidence to the contrary. I give up.

I mean, if you're going to say "Who ever said we should strike?" in one paragraph, and then in the following para state "The most effective element of a strike is the threat that it could happen," well, I just don't know how to argue against such logic. Taking both sides of the issue leaves little room for debate.

If you're not even going to adress or comment on the fact that a Union already went up against the industry and failed, this week, I don't see the point of continued discussion. I love how you say that the animation industry and the game industry aren't related. I've worked in both. But maybe that's just more anecdotal evidence?

Good luck creating your union. I'm sure you'll fare much better than the other unions that have tried and failed. I'm going to start looking for work in another industry. Again.

StGabe

I mean, if you're going to say "Who ever said we should strike?" in one paragraph, and then in the following para state "The most effective element of a strike is the threat that it could happen," well, I just don't know how to argue against such logic. Taking both sides of the issue leaves little room for debate.

You clearly missed the point of this which was that the threat of a strike is more important than the reality. The threat of nuclear weapons, for example, has been used as an effective bargaining tool by many nations even though those very nations would hope to never use their nuclear weapons.

A union serves many, many, many other purposes above and beyond striking or not striking and should use these as much as possible first. Striking is just one of the many tools available and it's not one I think needs to be used right now. Right now what is important is just getting an infrastructure. Companies like EA are trying to shut doors and silence discussion (it happens, I'm not just being anti-corporate). That's bad for the business and bad for us. Becoming organized and talking about this stuff is an important step even and the word "strike" doesn't have to be a part of it. That is a step that is even good for combatting outsourcing as it creates a strong collective voice that can argue the case (the very strong case IMO) that outsourcing simply isn't an effective solution.

If you're not even going to adress or comment on the fact that a Union already went up against the industry and failed, this week, I don't see the point of continued discussion.

I didn't address it because it is a very weak point and I thought I could just leave as it was and let people make their own judgemenets. A union didn't get exactly what it wanted. Once. Therefore all union actions are doomed? Uh, no.

Your whole argument is predicated on one, very controversial read of what happened in an entirely different industry and the fact that, somewhere, A company hired a handful of foreign programmers. As has been said above, such fears are common when talk of unions come about. But there are many unions who do exist and do get a lot done for their members and it is absolutely true that a lot of game developers are not in a good place and need better organization and advocacy. Unions just happen to be the most effective tool for getting there.

There is a lot of fear and misunderstanding of what unions are and what they can do. Essentially, however, unions are tools of information dispersal and bargaining and nothing more. A union that strikes should be doing this because striking is the best strategy at that point in time and when it is not the best strategy there are many other approaches and things to be done. Unions are, in their essence, nothing but good capitalism at work. Dispersing information, finding the best bargaining position you can, cooperating with others in the market who share interest, these are the acts that good little capitalists are supposed to be doing. Unions, like any enterprise, can make mistakes or fail to solve every problem out there but more often then not they actually work to create better markets.

Gabe.

Pag

Saying that the voice actors failed to get anything from their threat of strike is ridiculous. They got a 36% raise! That's 36% more money than what they'd have if they weren't unionized -- that's a big win. Of course they would have preferred to get royalties, but everybody who's negotiating asks for more than then what they're willing to settle for. If the gaming industry unionized and "only" got 36% raise on salaries, I think that would be a big success.

A few years ago, the french office of Ubisoft threatened to unionize. The story of what happened is available at http://membres.lycos.fr/ubifree/ (in french). The short story is that they didn't end up unionizing, but the simple threat of doing so brought big improvement to the working conditions of the workers there. Just threatening to unionize (not of going on strike, but simply of unionizing) got them better working conditions -- that shows just how powerful united workers can be.

As for the fear of outsourcing, I think it's a reasonable fear but one that should make people want to unionize, not be against it. If there's no union, what's to prevent companies to outsource work? Just because they're nice people? If it's cheaper to outsource, then that will happen. What a union can do is prevent that outsourcing from actually happening. I know a lot of unions that made it so if their company wants to outsource, they have to give the same working conditions (salary, benefits, everything) as for their local workers. That removes the incentive to get non-unionized workers and to send work to other countries.

The best organisation would be for all game industry workers to be in the same union (or to have all artists in one, all programmers in another, etc.) and not be separated. If this were to happen at EA, for example, then when EA threatens to close a studio and outsource it then *all* studios' developers could threaten to strike. That would be a major financial strike against EA so they'd have to reconsider their move and actually think of their workers' lives before acting.

Historically unions got great results for workers. The working conditions at the end of the 19th century were horrible before unions came.

ArC

According to Wil Wheaton, the actors' demands were for residuals, not royalties, and I think he's got a fair argument that those are very different things. (Not that they got either.)

I agree with Pag. If game studios are going to outsource, they'll do it when they think they can get the job done cheaper overseas. The threat of a strike might tip the scales, but I think the vastly lower salaries are a bigger influence. So, Bowler, how much are you willing to give up to keep your job? Would you work 80 hour weeks? At half salary? A quarter?

(And yes, I also work in the games industry.)

bowler

"So, Bowler, how much are you willing to give up to keep your job? Would you work 80 hour weeks? At half salary? A quarter?"

80 hour weeks: Already been there, done that. Didn't quit.

Half salary: I was making half of what I do now, when I was working the 80 hour weeks. I toughed it out. And was rewarded for it.

Quarter Salary: Let's not be rediculous.

I never said I'd give up my job. I said I didn't want to lose it when the unions rolled into town and everyone closed up shop. For all the talk that my comparison the the 2D animation industry isn't valid, or even that the fact that the SAG just tried to get 100% bonus for no extra work and failed are both bogus or invalid comparisons, I have yet to see anyone forward me a comparison for pro-unionization that works.

For the rest of you folks: Saying that the 2D animation industry is invalid immediately invalidates any comparisons to how well the film industry works. If you say cross-industry comparisons aren't valid, back up WHY they're invalid. Then tell me why a film industry union comparison IS valid. Because the vast majority of U.S. audiences aren't interested in watching films made in Hong Kong, but they'll quickly play a game made there.

For Pag: "The best organisation would be for all game industry workers to be in the same union (or to have all artists in one, all programmers in another, etc.) and not be separated."

So how do you propose to unionize the Chineese? The Koreans? The Indians? It's not "all game industry workers" 'till you consider and include them as well.

AK_Avenger

"So how do you propose to unionize the Chineese? The Koreans? The Indians? It's not "all game industry workers" 'till you consider and include them as well."

Well, international unions are, as far as I know, fairly rare. But hey, we already covered that issue:

"I know a lot of unions that made it so if their company wants to outsource, they have to give the same working conditions (salary, benefits, everything) as for their local workers. That removes the incentive to get non-unionized workers and to send work to other countries."

That would solve both problems.

ArC

Quarter Salary: Let's not be rediculous.

I wasn't. A race to the bottom eventually leaves us at the bottom. Salaries for programmers in other countries are indeed around a quarter of comparable US salaries. So if you'd take a 50% pay cut, a company could still do better outsourcing. And if you'd take a 75% pay cut, well, I bet they could still squeeze the extra penny out going overseas -- less to pay in other benefits, maybe.

Xkavar

[i]"So how do you propose to unionize the Chineese? The Koreans? The Indians? It's not "all game industry workers" 'till you consider and include them as well."[/i]

First, this would be a good time to point out that China already has a government-funded union. Is it very effectual? At the moment, no.

Keep this in mind: at the moment. All it needs funding and more power to enforce Chinese labor laws. As the level of wealth in China (and India and Bangladesh and Thailand and Indonesia and the rest of the third world) rises, citizens start demanding more rights and civil safeguards.

You don't have to believe me. Look it up yourself.


Secondly, making a union isn't easy. Hell no. But 100 years ago your grandfathers and grandmothers and great-grandfathers and great-grandmothers were all worried they wouldn't have anything to feed their kids on. There was no Social Security system in place for them. There was no Department of Social Services, no welfare, no unemployment lines, no food banks. Even soup lines were a thing of the Depression.

Oh, and back then the cops were empowered to break the bones of striking workers.

The unions still came. And good changes came.

Forming a union in an industry that needs one is saying "I am an American. I would rather live free, or die free, than continue working under your rules. And if I don't do this, if I don't demand of you to change, my kids will live under your rules. And like hell that will happen."

Even the states that are "right to work" have labor laws enforced by the federal government.

What will you lose now by forming an Electronic Arts union? Or a Computer Programmers' Union?

The extra cash to buy an iPod? Your car lease?

Your electric bills? The money to buy food? Your home?

Again, these were all problems that were faced by your predecessors. Because they had to.

You're all on the cusp of history now. What happens in 100 years when technology is firmly set as a concrete pillar of this society?

Do you want to say to your child, "hey, don't judge me, I sold out your heritage to feed you, and don't backtalk me about it! You won't know until you have your own kid, you goddamn smartass?" while sipping from a bottle of Kentucky mash?

I'd feel more like a human if I told an anti-union person "fuck you I won't do what you tell me!"

Fropdrefe

facebook the social network http://facesepicentre.com/ social network theory online social network definition

staliMaipiva

discount lipitor pharmacy purchase http://legalexclusivepharmacy.com/catalog/Mens_Health/Flomax.htm celebrex pharmacy online

The comments to this entry are closed.

Subscribe to the mailing list!

* indicates required