• Hey everyone, staff have documented a list of banned content and subject matter that we feel are not consistent with site values, and don't make sense to host discussion of on Famiboards. This list (and the relevant reasoning per item) is viewable here.

StarTopic Future Nintendo Hardware & Technology Speculation & Discussion |ST| (Read the staff posts before commenting!)

Reader mode
Pokemaniac said:
In general, I think the strongest argument for increasing the screen resolution is maintaining a reasonable power gap between docked and handheld mode. The current Switch has trouble reliably maintaining a 2.25x resolution gap between the modes, going all the way to 9x is unlikely to improve the situation.
Click to expand...
I get why you say that, but think about it this way - either the machine has enough strength to make TV mode work, or it doesn't. Upping the physical resolution won't change the internal power of the machine. Resolution isn't the only measure of images anyway, we're talking about being able to run the BotW Korok forest without dipping in resolution or dropping frames, which I'd much prefer to running the game at 1080p sometimes, and still dropping frames in that section.

Also, the gap is smaller than it looks. DLSS is the magic sauce that gets us up to 4k, the internal resolution won't be like that. A reasonable assumption is that if the hardware has enough power to get you 720p/60ps in handheld mode without DLSS, that you'll have enough power to get to 1080p/60ps in docked mode, with DLSS Performance Mode on top to get you up to 4k/60fps.

The question isn't "what resolution will the new switch run at" but "how rad will the games look while being able to hit max resolution and frame rate"


Pokemaniac said:
That said, I can definitely pick out individual pixels on the Switch display. Do I sometimes hold the device closer to my face than is typical? Probably (I use it lying in bed a bunch), but that doesn't invalidate the use case.
Click to expand...
Do you really? Not saying you don't, just that I haven't met anyone who could while holding the switch at a comfortable distance who was over the age of 16. How close do you hold the screen to your face?

My test for "can you really see the individual pixels" is the lock screen. If you put the machine to sleep, power it back on, and look at the blue dots beside news stories - do you see a grid of dots with black lines between? For me those resolve at about 6", at which point the switch is too close for me to be able to see the whole screen at once (making any action based game impossible to play). Just to satisfy my curiosity (this was part of my research area when I was a cognitive researcher) - what's your distance when you can see pixels, and what sort of games do you play at that distance?

The reason I ask is because it's not about "use case" it's about %of the population for whom their vision is so good that they can see the pixels at a comfortable viewing distance (about 1%). The problem is that if you are one of those people, then even if the screen is 1080p you're going to be left behind by software that still targets 720p anyway (most of it, because it's the performance sweet spot), but you'll have the added problem of having eyes so good you can see the upscaling artifacts. The situation might, for you specifically, get worse
 
MMXZero said:
This is me, except I'm more interested in software than the hardware.

Especially if most of the "miracle" ports get announced for the base Switch like the rumoured Batman collection and the TERF game.
Click to expand...
Arkham Knight on the Switch but not at a shit resolution would be the dream for me. I'm sure the answer is "no" but if somehow the timing of WB putting two big open world games on the Switch is because they're jumping on for Drake support, that would be amazing.

Hopefully this thing does materialize by March if it's not 2022, and if both those ports hit this year maybe they'll be recent enough to get patched.
 
0
oldpuck said:
Do you really? Not saying you don't, just that I haven't met anyone who could while holding the switch at a comfortable distance who was over the age of 16. How close do you hold the screen to your face?

My test for "can you really see the individual pixels" is the lock screen. If you put the machine to sleep, power it back on, and look at the blue dots beside news stories - do you see a grid of dots with black lines between? For me those resolve at about 6", at which point the switch is too close for me to be able to see the whole screen at once (making any action based game impossible to play). Just to satisfy my curiosity (this was part of my research area when I was a cognitive researcher) - what's your distance when you can see pixels, and what sort of games do you play at that distance?

The reason I ask is because it's not about "use case" it's about %of the population for whom their vision is so good that they can see the pixels at a comfortable viewing distance (about 1%). The problem is that if you are one of those people, then even if the screen is 1080p you're going to be left behind by software that still targets 720p anyway (most of it, because it's the performance sweet spot), but you'll have the added problem of having eyes so good you can see the upscaling artifacts. The situation might, for you specifically, get worse
Click to expand...
Just attempted to measure the distance I'm holding the system at in the lying down position, and it's probably somewhere around 6 inches, give or take. Maybe a little less. I'm sort of on my stomach propped up by my elbows because I generally find the Switch too heavy to be comfortable in any other position.

Don't have an unread news article right now so I can't do your full test, but I can definitely see the pixel grid when holding it like that.
 
oldpuck said:
Do you really? Not saying you don't, just that I haven't met anyone who could while holding the switch at a comfortable distance who was over the age of 16. How close do you hold the screen to your face?

My test for "can you really see the individual pixels" is the lock screen. If you put the machine to sleep, power it back on, and look at the blue dots beside news stories - do you see a grid of dots with black lines between? For me those resolve at about 6", at which point the switch is too close for me to be able to see the whole screen at once (making any action based game impossible to play). Just to satisfy my curiosity (this was part of my research area when I was a cognitive researcher) - what's your distance when you can see pixels, and what sort of games do you play at that distance?

The reason I ask is because it's not about "use case" it's about %of the population for whom their vision is so good that they can see the pixels at a comfortable viewing distance (about 1%). The problem is that if you are one of those people, then even if the screen is 1080p you're going to be left behind by software that still targets 720p anyway (most of it, because it's the performance sweet spot), but you'll have the added problem of having eyes so good you can see the upscaling artifacts. The situation might, for you specifically, get worse
Click to expand...
I know I'm not the one you asked but I got curious and tested myself and the grid on those dots goes away at about 11" for me. A comfortable viewing distance for me is about 16-17".

In case you're polling people. You know, for science. 😅
 
Last edited:
I was going to stay away from the 720p vs. 1080p discourse, but seeing that @oldpuck already did the heavy lifting, allow me to share a hopefully easy-to-follow summary.

The perception of pixels is mainly determined by:
  • Display density
  • Viewing distance
  • Viewer eyesight

Display density: The more pixels are put in a smaller display, the denser the pixel grid gets. As you can see below, the pixel size of Switch OLED is actually smaller than a 27" 4K monitor.
  • 7" 720p
    • Pixel size = 0.121mm
    • Density = 210 PPI (pixels-per-inch)
  • 27" 2160p
    • Pixel size = 0.156mm
    • Density = 163 PPI (pixels-per-inch)

Viewing distance: The closer you are to a display, the lower your perceived density becomes—because there will be less pixels per degree (PPD) in your vision.

angular-resolution.png


Back to the Switch OLED vs. 27" 4K monitor example, if you hold the Switch 10" away from you but sit 15" from the monitor, the latter will give you a denser perception, despite the OLED panel being physically denser.

10" distance15" distance20" distance25" distance
7" 720p37 pixels per degree55 PPD73 PPD92 PPD
27" 2160p28 PPD43 PPD57 PPD71 PPD


Viewer eyesight: For someone with 20/20 vision, their eyesight is unable to resolve a pixel less than 1/60 of an arc. So when there are more than 60 pixels per degree (PPD), they cease seeing individual pixels (visual acuity; Apple calls it "Retina"). Continuing with the Switch OLED and 27" 4K monitor comparison:
  • 7" 720p
    • Visual acuity distance = 16.4"
  • 27" 2160p
    • Visual acuity distance = 21.1"
Now the product usability/ergonomics comes into play. With a handheld form factor, holding the Switch 16.4" away from your face can tire your arms rather quickly. With a desktop monitor, however, you can adjust your seat distance easily to reach visual acuity. This is why Apple and other manufacturers opt for high density phone displays.

Obviously not everyone has a perfect 20/20 vision. For those with a vision better than 20/20, their eyes can resolve >60 PPD, hence a farther visual acuity distance. As for the near-sighted, it's the opposite.
  • 7" 720p visual acuity distance
    • 20/15 vision = 22"
    • 20/20 vision = 16.4"
    • 20/25 vision = 13.2"

To sum it up, the perception of pixel grid is highly individual, and it's unlikely that we'd agree on an acceptable spec. If the goal is to satisfy the largest segment of users possible, you may want to overshoot and source a very high density panel (e.g., 1440p) instead of a half measure. Again, this is the strategy already employed by Apple and other phone manufacturers. Nintendo and Valve, on the other hand, chose the battery life and settled for a good enough resolution. A 7" 1080p panel, IMHO, sits in between and does neither battery life nor visual fidelity particularly well.

P.S.: For the sake of simplicity, I omitted two other factors from the discussion. One, the calculations above assume that the user wants to keep the full display in their vision (instead of putting their face very close to the display and seeing only a portion). Two, the pixel geometry (image below) may impact the pixel pitch, and thus the perceived density of display.

Pixel_geometry_01_Pengo.jpg


Edit: Table formatting
 
Dakhil said:
1080p is not the most ideal resolution for VR. 1440p is probably the minimum resolution required for a relatively good VR experience.
Click to expand...

Plenty of people were quite satisfied with PS VR, but here is point that we don't talk about standalone VR device that cost couple hundreds of dollars but about console that potential could also have VR function/support.
 
Pokemaniac said:
Just attempted to measure the distance I'm holding the system at in the lying down position, and it's probably somewhere around 6 inches, give or take. Maybe a little less. I'm sort of on my stomach propped up by my elbows because I generally find the Switch too heavy to be comfortable in any other position.

Don't have an unread news article right now so I can't do your full test, but I can definitely see the pixel grid when holding it like that.
Click to expand...
Yeah, that's crazy tight - not surprising you can see the pixels there, more surprising that you find it comfortable to play that close. Yes, for playing like that 1080p would clear up the pixel grid!
 
oldpuck said:
Yeah, that's crazy tight - not surprising you can see the pixels there, more surprising that you find it comfortable to play that close. Yes, for playing like that 1080p would clear up the pixel grid!
Click to expand...
¯\_(ツ)_/¯ It works for me. The screen fills most of my field of vision, but since I'm probably lying in bed with the lights off, there's not really much else to see.
 
Hermii said:
1080p is a lot better than 720p. And a lot of people would say labo is relatively good at 720p.
Click to expand...
I should clarify that when I say "1080p is not the most ideal resolution for VR", I'm not saying that 1080p is a bad resolution for VR. 1080p is certainly better than 720p, going by Nintendo Labo VR. I think 1080p is a relatively decent resolution for VR. But 1080p being a relatively decent resolution for VR doesn't mean 1080p is an ideal resolution for VR.
 
0
Procheno said:
Me waiting for Drake leaks

52a2c.jpg
Click to expand...

All I need is a Bloomberg article. That's it. Just something similar to last year to get me through the next few weeks.

"Nintendo developing powerful new Switch console with 4K graphics for later this year"

If that article dropped tomorrow morning it would be enough to get me to about mid May.
 
Sol said:
All I need is a Bloomberg article. That's it. Just something similar to last year to get me through the next few weeks.

"Nintendo developing powerful new Switch console with 4K graphics for later this year"

If that article dropped tomorrow morning it would be enough to get me to about mid May.
Click to expand...
Just caught up to 20 pages after not reading for 2 weeks, and nothing... :(
 
Mr.Gamerson said:
It's coming together. The Online app updates, improved online, expansion pass. Next may be a return of Miiverse or some community feature but i think they will wait for the launch of the new system before we see the bigger OS improvements. I also wonder what features the new Switch OS will have that can help sell the system, besides very fast game loading.
Click to expand...

ILikeFeet said:
F O L D E R S
Click to expand...

ILikeFeet said:
l11.gif


the folders dream is over
Click to expand...

 
I think the device definitely exists but that it won't release anytime soon, and I'd say early 24.
Imo, if they don't use xenoblade, bayo and especially Zelda to showcase it this year, there's no way it release before a quite long time... We should know more by june, they'll have to begin manufacturing if they want a 22 release, won't they ?
 
mariodk18 said:
how early did PS5 and XBS specs leak out?
Click to expand...
I don't think either leaked. PS5 were announced in the Cerny presentation, and XSX were announced in a joint release with Digital Foundry if memory serves.

We had some specs for the PS5 going around which had the 9.2 TF numbers, but I don't know how legit that was.

Edit: Looks like memory served poorly, see Eurogamer article a few posts down.
 
Last edited:
NintenDuvo said:
Its just mind boggling that if this device exists, why has nothing leaked from Ubisoft or Square Enix?
Click to expand...
Much stricter NDA's. Remember that New 3DS also wasn't leaked and we only knew about DSi a few weeks before its announcement. So far Switch Pro have had much more leaks than those and that's enough.
 
0
NintenDuvo said:
Its just mind boggling that if this device exists, why has nothing leaked from Ubisoft or Square Enix?
Click to expand...
It did. Like, we have had a ton of leaks about this over the past two years.

I don't get this whole "why didn't it leak" thing when there's like 3+ Bloomberg articles alone talking about developers confirming this exists, not to mention the devkit discussions from Nate and Imran and such.
 
NintenDuvo said:
Its just mind boggling that if this device exists, why has nothing leaked from Ubisoft or Square Enix?
Click to expand...

Uhmmm, but this thread doesn't have more than 8700 messages based on nothing. While it (like its predecessor on Era) might go around in circles sometimes, it has been fed from recent years leaks and info drops from different sources. We can argue that exact details of the device hasn't leaked (and even with how difficult that might be, that can be argued with the Nvidia hack), or discuss some of this credibility or sources or whatever, but there is definitely a whole lot of smoke. Obviously, that could fructify in some different ways, or even none, and that's basically why this is a speculation thread.
 
Last edited:
I’m totally fine with a 720p screen again. In fact, I’d almost prefer it; I wouldn’t want existing software to run with some weird scaling. And just getting Switch software to native res is going to be a big jump – we don’t need to also throw a 1080p screen on there and then have most of the games run at 720p in handheld mode anyway.

As I said before the OLED model came out, resolution is like the last thing I’d want them to improve with the screen. They did a good job improving other things with the OLED, but they still have more they can do.

I don’t know why people get so hung up on resolution. Once you have a sufficiently high-res screen so it doesn’t look obviously pixelated (and 720p at 7 inches does pass this bar), things like brightness and color accuracy matter a lot more than just taking the same panel and using smaller pixels.

If you want to get rid of ever seeing jaggies, you should be asking Nintendo for better AA, not a higher resolution screen.
 
Thraktor said:
You're right that Nvidia's SoCs are generally fabbed on the same process as their GPU partners, but that actually wasn't the case with TX1, which was manufactured on a more advanced 20nm node than the 28nm node used by Maxwell desktop GPUs. I think the issue with trying to identify trends in previous Nvidia SoCs is that they've never designed a semi-custom SoC for an individual customer like this before, so there's no guarantee that it will follow prior patterns.
Click to expand...
The Tegra X1's GPU's interesting, architecturally speaking, since the Tegra X1's GPU does borrow at least one feature from the Pascal architecture (e.g. FP16), despite using the Maxwell architecture as the foundation.

And to play devil's advocate, there have been rumours that Nvidia and AMD have originally planned to have GPUs fabricated using TSMC's 20 nm** process node. But there was too much power leakage and too low yield rates associated with TSMC's 20 nm** process node for discrete GPU dies to the point where Nvidia and AMD have publicly complained about TSMC's 20 nm** process node. And Nvidia and AMD ultimately skipped using TSMC's 20 nm** process node in favour of using a 16 nm** process node from TSMC and a 14 nm** process node from GlobalFoundries for the fabrication of Pascal GPUs and RX Vega 10 GPUs respectively.

So I think the Tegra X1 is an exception.
Gay Bowser said:
I’m totally fine with a 720p screen again. In fact, I’d almost prefer it; I wouldn’t want existing software to run with some weird scaling. And just getting Switch software to native res is going to be a big jump – we don’t need to also throw a 1080p screen on there and then have most of the games run at 720p in handheld mode anyway.

As I said before the OLED model came out, resolution is like the last thing I’d want them to improve with the screen. They did a good job improving other things with the OLED, but they still have more they can do.

I don’t know why people get so hung up on resolution. Once you have a sufficiently high-res screen so it doesn’t look obviously pixelated (and 720p at 7 inches does pass this bar), things like brightness and color accuracy matter a lot more than just taking the same panel and using smaller pixels.

If you want to get rid of ever seeing jaggies, you should be asking Nintendo for better AA, not a higher resolution screen.
Click to expand...
I personally agree.

But like I've mentioned before, there's one legitimate reason for Nintendo to use a 1080p OLED display that's not because of resolution. The reason is that a 1080p OLED display seems to be the minimum requirement to have support for variable refresh rate (VRR) and a refresh rate higher than 60 Hz, such as 120 Hz (e.g. iPhone 13 Pro, iPhone 13 Pro Max), for handheld mode. And I can see Nintendo wanting to support at least VRR for handheld mode.

Of course, Nintendo could theoretically customise a 720p OLED display to include support for VRR and/or a refresh rate higher than 60 Hz. But I imagine that won't come cheap.
 
Sorry to ask the same question again, @NateDrake.
But do you have any update about your upcoming episode? I would understand it if the subject is a bit more taboo than the ones you touched upon thus far.

Of course, I don't want to stress you. No worries if you have decided to give up on it for now.

Dakhil said:
I personally agree.

But like I've mentioned before, there's one legitimate reason for Nintendo to use a 1080p OLED display that's not because of resolution. The reason is that a 1080p OLED display seems to be the minimum requirement to have support for variable refresh rate (VRR) and a refresh rate higher than 60 Hz, such as 120 Hz (e.g. iPhone 13 Pro, iPhone 13 Pro Max), for handheld mode. And I can see Nintendo wanting to support at least VRR for handheld mode.

Of course, Nintendo could theoretically customise a 720p OLED display to include support for VRR and/or a refresh rate higher than 60 Hz. But I imagine that won't come cheap.
Click to expand...
If a 1080p screen makes it to the Switch Pro, then what is more likely: that games rather tend to render at a native resolution or go for a base 540p and then get upscaled using DLSS?

I am sure the answer involves a comparison of power consumption between the two scenarios. I wonder if we have any info on that.
 
Last edited:
Herb Alpert said:
I think the device definitely exists but that it won't release anytime soon, and I'd say early 24.
Imo, if they don't use xenoblade, bayo and especially Zelda to showcase it this year, there's no way it release before a quite long time... We should know more by june, they'll have to begin manufacturing if they want a 22 release, won't they ?
Click to expand...

I can see end of 2023 too, but that's a stretch. Anything earlier than that, especially considering the specs being discussed here, would surprise me greatly.
I'm sure there was some truth in the previoulsy rurmored devices, and a pro upgrade may have been planned for 2020/21 before being scrapped due to Covid, change of plans, the Switch being too successful etc... But as I see it, that ship has sailed and Nintendo is probably confident that they can comfortably ride 2022 and even 2023 with the existing Switch; it won't fall off a cliff like the Wii did.
The device being discussed here appears too close to a Series S to release this upcoming fiscal year, so anything from end of 2023 to end of 2024 is a solid guess as far as I'm concerned.
 
I'm sorry for bringing up process nodes, but GH100's apparently fabricated using TSMC's N4 process node, not TSMC's N5 process node.

So TSMC's N5 process node does seem a bit more likely, although I still believe not as likely as TSMC's N6 process node, if Nintendo and Nvidia choose TSMC as the semiconductor foundry company of choice for fabricating Drake.

Of course, I should mention that I think Nintendo and Nvidia are more likely to choose Samsung as the semiconductor foundry company of choice for the fabrication of Drake, especially with Orin probably being fabricated using Samsung's 8N process node, and with Drake being a custom variant of Orin. I think Samsung's 5LPE process node being used for the fabrication of Drake is the best case scenario as far as Samsung is concerned, especially since Samsung's 5LPE process node is at least decent enough for Qualcomm to use Samsung's 5LPE process node for the entire duration of the Snapdragon 888's lifecycle, which I don't think can be said for the Snapdragon 8 Gen 1, going by rumours.
 
Last edited:
Bosintang said:
I can see end of 2023 too, but that's a stretch. Anything earlier than that, especially considering the specs being discussed here, would surprise me greatly.
I'm sure there was some truth in the previoulsy rurmored devices, and a pro upgrade may have been planned for 2020/21 before being scrapped due to Covid, change of plans, the Switch being too successful etc... But as I see it, that ship has sailed and Nintendo is probably confident that they can comfortably ride 2022 and even 2023 with the existing Switch; it won't fall off a cliff like the Wii did.
The device being discussed here appears too close to a Series S to release this upcoming fiscal year, so anything from end of 2023 to end of 2024 is a solid guess as far as I'm concerned.
Click to expand...
If it releases in 2024 that would mean it was in active, targeted development for at least around 5 years (and no, there wasn't some other chip in active development by Nvidia for a scrapped Pro version or something), which is way too long for even a generational successor. Even with all the pandemic delays on the development and manufacturing sides, 4 years (2023 release) is straining the boundaries of how long something like this can take.

Nintendo can't start developing new hardware in 2019 and then just occasionally try to figure out a release date every so often and decide nah let's not bother yet. When they started developing it has pretty strict implications for when they have to launch it.
 
Would also mean that the developers who were aiming to finish their games for Fall '22 (according to Nate) would not see their work fully realized for another 1-2 years. Not ideal.

Sure, the vast majority of games (the non-Drake exclusives) could still be released on the current Switch...but all that extra work would be for not.
 
LiC said:
Nintendo can't start developing new hardware in 2019 and then just occasionally try to figure out a release date every so often and decide nah let's not bother yet. When they started developing it has pretty strict implications for when they have to launch it.
Click to expand...

You'd be so surprised by how many ideas and fully functional prototypes are discarded in tech...
Anyway, you'll see. I'm betting that we won't hear anything relevant this year, and eventually, 2023-2024 range will appear as the likliest. At least, let's agree that if nothing of importance comes out before July/August, the device isn't for 2022.
 
Bosintang said:
You'd be so surprised by how many ideas and fully functional prototypes are discarded in tech...
Anyway, you'll see. I'm betting that we won't hear anything relevant this year, and eventually, 2023-2024 range will appear as the likliest. At least, let's agree that if nothing of importance comes out before July/August, the device isn't for 2022.
Click to expand...
What are you betting on? Your account 🤔. Jk

You can't bet saying we won't hear anything this year only to fall back and say if we don't hear anything by August , it's not coming..
 
Bosintang said:
You'd be so surprised by how many ideas and fully functional prototypes are discarded in tech...
Anyway, you'll see. I'm betting that we won't hear anything relevant this year, and eventually, 2023-2024 range will appear as the likliest. At least, let's agree that if nothing of importance comes out before July/August, the device isn't for 2022.
Click to expand...
What Nvidia has been working on for 3 years at this point is not for a prototype, and the dev kits that multiple developers have had for a year are not for a prototype either.
 
ShadowFox08 said:
What are you betting on? Your account 🤔. Jk

You can't bet saying we won't hear anything this year only to fall back and say if we don't hear anything by August , it's not coming..
Click to expand...

Ok I'm betting my account since that's the kind of energy in this community. Not like I mind so much. By August, we won't get more than a few rumors here and there, and certainly not anything pointing to a release before March 2023. That's my bet.
Or else, if a device indeed releases, it certainly won't be the beast discussed here.
 
LiC said:
What Nvidia has been working on for 3 years at this point is not for a prototype, and the dev kits that multiple developers have had for a year are not for a prototype either.
Click to expand...
Those devkits are probably not using final silicon since those devkits are probably using Orin. (I don't know if AGX Orin or Orin NX is used.)
 
Kenka said:
Sorry to ask the same question again, @NateDrake.
But do you have any update about your upcoming episode? I would understand it if the subject is a bit more taboo than the ones you touched upon thus far.

Of course, I don't want to stress you. No worries if you have decided to give up on it for now.


If a 1080p screen makes it to the Switch Pro, then what is more likely: that games rather tend to render at a native resolution or go for a base 540p and then get upscaled using DLSS?

I am sure the answer involves a comparison of power consumption between the two scenarios. I wonder if we have any info on that.
Click to expand...
Remains TBA.

Still doing research to check all the boxes. I don't want to talk this topic more than once. Would rather have a cover-all, single episode than countless updates. As of now, prior episode information remains accurate: dev kits exist, have been distributed, and are being worked with.
 
Bosintang said:
Ok I'm betting my account since that's the kind of energy in this community. Not like I mind so much. By August, we won't get more than a few rumors here and there, and certainly not anything pointing to a release before March 2023. That's my bet.
Or else, if a device indeed releases, it certainly won't be the beast discussed here.
Click to expand...
So if a device indeed releases before March 2023, it will use a different chip than the one that currently exists and is being worked on? If so then that doesn't make sense since leaks don't mention any other chip.
 
NateDrake said:
Remains TBA.

Still doing research to check all the boxes. I don't want to talk this topic more than once. Would rather have a cover-all, single episode than countless updates. As of now, prior episode information remains accurate: dev kits exist, have been distributed, and are being worked with.
Click to expand...

Reassurance ™️
 
Reader mode
You must log in or register to reply here.
Please read this staff post before posting.

Furthermore, according to this follow-up post, all off-topic chat will be moderated.
Last edited:


Back
Top Bottom