|
You can use a standard HDMI cable with the PS3 which is cool, but the $400 Xbox comes with a component cable which is even cooler.
The thing that is weird about all of this is Sony hypes 1080p to death and then releases the console without the cables to take advantage of it and then we find out most of the games will be 720p anyway. So much spin in all of this and so few true facts. |
Originally Posted by candyrocket786
Are we even going to see any 1080p games in this generation?
...because the word is 1080p eats up the VRam. Link Absolutly not, at least not anything heavy duty that uses hard core middleware like the Unreal 3 engine. 1080p with graphics like those would be so taxing on the hardware that you would be very very very hard pressed to even get 30 fps out of it. Some of the 2nd and 3rd generation PS3 games might be able to handle that load as its really unkown just how powerful Sony's new Cell technology really is. As for XBox360 I dont think you will ever see Native 1080p games, again at least not the heavy duty graphical monsters out there. Again as long as they are using the cutting edge middleware I have a very hard time believing that any developers would sacrifice the performance advantage of 720p & 1080i over 1080p at this point in the game. What people need to understand is that 1080p just isnt ready for prime time yet. while the number of HDTV's that you can get that do 1080p has increased latly the amount of people that actually have one are small. Given that fact along with the fact that 2 out of the 3 game consoles this generation cant do it and the one that can, being the PS3, wont actually do it until much later in its life due to the massive strain it will take on the games performance. In a couple years 1080p will definitly be the standard but until then you will still see 720 & 1080i dominating numbers wise. PS... |
Originally Posted by ChrisHicks
for those who don't want to register:
MGM Deal a Bold Miscalculation for Sony The electronics giant took only a minority stake in the studio, then lost control of the prize it had fervently sought. By Claudia Eller, Times Staff Writer October 20, 2006 When Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Inc. went on the block in 2004, Sony Corp.'s Howard Stringer so lusted after the studio's coveted library that he told his boss he would resign if he didn't win a last-minute bidding war with Time Warner Inc. Stringer, who at the time headed Sony's U.S. arm, figured the library's 4,000 film titles would give Sony more clout with DVD retailers and fuel the growth of its high-definition Blu-ray technology. Stringer's resignation wasn't required: He engineered a clever deal to buy the storied studio for $4.9 billion with a consortium of investors that shouldered most of the financial risk. But the deal that Stringer hoped would help cement his legacy has instead marred it. In late May, amid rising tensions among the partners, MGM's board voted unanimously to dismiss Sony Pictures Entertainment as its domestic DVD distributor after it failed to meet performance goals. It was a humiliating blow for Stringer, who lost control of the very prize he was after. Sony now finds itself on the sidelines. Stringer, who declined to comment, acknowledged the fiasco in July at Herbert Allen Jr.'s media retreat in Sun Valley, Idaho. "Are you happy with the MGM deal?" goaded Michael Eisner, the former chief of Walt Disney Co., who was moderating a panel discussion. Flanked by rival media moguls Rupert Murdoch and Barry Diller, Stringer made a rare concession for a chief executive: "We screwed up," he told the elite crowd of his peers. How Sony lost control of MGM is a tale of corporate miscalculation, boardroom drama and power plays. At a time when private equity firms are using their treasure chests to gobble up corporate assets, Sony's experience as a minority shareholder serves as a cautionary tale about the dangers of hooking up with investors motivated solely by quick financial returns. The deal hasn't been a total wash. Sony remains a 20% investor in MGM and is sure to recoup its initial $250-million investment. MGM's commitment to Blu-ray remains intact, giving Sony an edge in a format war with Toshiba Corp.'s competing HD-DVD technology. And Sony Pictures gets to share in the proceeds of the James Bond sequel opening next month and a future installment of the popular spy series, which could mean hundreds of millions of dollars in additional revenue. But being jilted as MGM's DVD distributor in favor of News Corp.'s 20th Century Fox movie studio cost Sony at least $50 million a year in future fees, not to mention public embarrassment in Hollywood and on Wall Street. The first human casualty came last month, just as Fox officially took over as MGM's global DVD distributor. Sony fired the veteran president of its home entertainment group, Ben Feingold, who had been responsible for selling the MGM and Sony movie catalogs to the Wal-Marts of the world. Sony Pictures CEO Michael Lynton acknowledges that losing the MGM distribution rights was a disappointment. He attributed the loss to several factors, including Sony's weakness in selling older library titles. "In the course of things, we discovered that distributing catalog was not a strength of ours — a situation we have since remedied," Lynton said in an interview. The MGM debacle was particularly bruising for Stringer, who has been fighting battles on several fronts since June 2005, when he became the first non-Japanese chairman of Sony Corp. The 2-year-old Sony BMG music joint venture with Bertelsmann championed by Stringer has been plagued by internal power struggles. Apple Computer Inc., with its iPod, has claim to the most popular portable music device, one-upping Sony, which once had the lead. Thursday, Sony dramatically reduced its earnings forecast because of the costs associated with a massive global recall of its computer batteries and a price cut in Japan for the new Sony PlayStation 3 game console. The MGM deal was a bold move for Sony, which normally had approached Hollywood with caution, rarely making acquisitions. Under the deal structured by Stringer and Rob Wiesenthal, financial chief of Sony Corp. of America, the consumer electronics giant put up a fraction of the total purchase price, $250 million, but got control of domestic DVD sales. Sony would collect a hefty annual distribution fee, receive a stake in at least two new James Bond movies and retain the right to eventually buy out its private equity partners. Yet Sony didn't get a majority stake in MGM. With a 20% holding, it had only three seats on the 13-member board, which includes representatives from MGM and the equity firms. When DVD sales fell behind projections, a concerned Providence Equity Partners Inc., MGM's lead investor, persuaded the company's board to hire entrepreneur Harry Sloan. Sloan, who had recently cashed out of a multibillion-dollar media company he had built in Europe, took over as MGM chairman last October. Almost immediately, he drove a wedge between Sony Pictures and the private equity firms, persuading the partners that MGM would be more valuable as a stand-alone studio than as a pared-down label inside Sony that had shuttered its production and distribution operations. With Sloan's arrival, Sony's original plans for MGM were all but abandoned. In short order, Sloan announced that MGM would reenter the theatrical distribution business, take back worldwide home video and TV rights from Sony and set itself up as a global TV distributor. MGM now plans to co-finance big-budget sequels from the library, including "Terminator 4." "It's gone in a very different direction," said independent media analyst Harold Vogel. "It was presented to the investment community as a library play that would enhance the position of the Blu-ray format." At Sony, internal conflicts had erupted even before the ink on the deal was dry. In New York, while Stringer and Wiesenthal were lining up financing, not everyone at studio headquarters in Culver City was as gung-ho. Feingold, a 15-year Sony veteran who had helped build the studio's lucrative DVD business, had strongly opposed the acquisition, said studio sources who didn't want to be identified because they were not authorized to speak on the record. Feingold, who didn't respond to an interview request, had worried that the library, with such classic titles as "Midnight Cowboy" and "Dr. Zhivago," had been over-exploited. "He thought the market had matured and [DVD] pricing had eroded and that therefore the library was overvalued," said a source familiar with Feingold's thinking. When they were considering buying MGM, Stringer and Wiesenthal had questioned whether the library was "a melting ice cube" but concluded it wasn't, said one Sony insider. The value was uncertain partly because a small number of MGM titles — about 10% — accounted for 80% of the library's sales, according to people who have seen the figures. For his part, Lynton, whom Stringer had recently hired to head Sony Pictures, thought the deal made strategic sense and enlisted cable giant Comcast Corp. as a last-minute investor to help outbid Time Warner. But neither Lynton nor others at Sony realized how arduous integrating MGM would be. Sony said the transition — which included firing all but 400 of MGM's 1,500 employees — would take at least 18 months. Sony's private equity partners pressed for faster action. Lynton said he quickly learned that the studio was better at selling new releases than older titles, which require more promotional finesse. Sony's dreadful year at the box office in 2005 didn't help either. Flops such as "Bewitched" and "Stealth" meant Sony had no new releases popular enough to drive sales of older MGM or Sony titles. To boot, the once-hot DVD market had suddenly cooled. "The transition was more difficult than we anticipated, and it happened that at the moment we were having a particularly bad year theatrically, which was a distraction and didn't give us hits to drive the catalog," Lynton said, adding that the downward drift of the DVD market was an unexpected blow. The MGM library's cash flow plunged by an estimated 25% to 30% under Sony's direction. Sony's failure to hit its numbers infuriated the private equity investors, which had hired McKinsey & Co. to evaluate Sony's performance. The firm concluded that MGM had lost market share under Sony. "The board meetings became increasingly uncomfortable," said one Sony executive who requested anonymity because the meetings were private. Lead investors Providence Equity and Texas Pacific Group declined to comment. Said a source close to the consortium who did not want to be named because of the sensitivity of the issue: "We were hoping Sony would be able to develop a higher level of catalog expertise, but that didn't happen. That was highly disappointing." In May, MGM's board voted unanimously to exercise a clause in its contract with Sony that allowed it to drop the studio after one year if certain performance goals weren't met. Fox made a play for the distribution rights, offering to pay a guaranteed $625 million over two years. At last count, Sony was generating less than $300 million a year from that business. Sony turned down a chance to match Fox's guarantee and keep the MGM contract. Lynton declined to say why, although insiders said Sony lacked faith it could attain those financial results. Sony's three MGM board members, including Lynton and Wiesenthal, even voted in favor of Fox's taking over. Richard Greenfield, an analyst with Pali Research, said that though Fox had distinguished itself in DVD distribution, all studios could struggle next year, when, he predicted, DVD sales decline for the first time. The upshot of the MGM ordeal was a bitter pill for Stringer. In danger of losing the auction to Time Warner, Stringer had begged his boss at the time, Sony Corp. chief Nobuyuki Idei, for a nonrefundable down payment of $150 million that would help Sony take the lead. He had told Idei he would resign if Sony lost to Time Warner and had to forfeit the deposit. Sony or partner Comcast could still end up owning MGM when private equity investors cash out. And getting a backer for Blu-ray was "important for Sony to swing the balance of power," Greenfield said. But it remains to be seen whether the deal was worth the effort. "You'd have to ask why Sony went through the exercise of buying MGM. What did they win? There are some benefits but also some huge costs," said Vogel, citing lost distribution fees, the time-consuming process of dismantling and integrating MGM's operation and the public relations liability. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- [email protected] * (INFOBOX BELOW) A deal unspools September 2004: Sony, Comcast Corp. and three equity firms — Providence Equity Partners Inc., Texas Pacific Group and DLJ Merchant Banking — outbid Time Warner Inc., agreeing to pay about $4.9 billion for Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Inc., controlled by Los Angeles billionaire Kirk Kerkorian. April 2005: The deal is completed. MGM begins shuttering production and distribution and slashing its staff of nearly 1,500. October 2005: Media entrepreneur Harry E. Sloan is named MGM's chairman and chief executive. March 2006: MGM announces it is relaunching its domestic theatrical distribution business with films financed by outside producers including Weinstein Co. and Lakeshore Entertainment. May 2006: MGM board votes unanimously to drop Sony Pictures as domestic distributor of its movies and television shows on DVD and makes a global deal with News Corp.'s 20th Century Fox, which had been handling its international sales. MGM announces it is dumping Sony as the worldwide distributor of its TV shows and bringing that operation in house. July 2006: At Herbert Allen Jr.'s media retreat in Sun Valley, Idaho, Sony Corp. CEO Howard Stringer says during a panel discussion that his company dropped the ball in distributing MGM's DVD sales. "We screwed up," he said. September 2006: Sony Pictures fires Home Entertainment President Ben Feingold, who was responsible for handling MGM's DVD sales. Source: Times research * (INFOBOX BELOW) Who owns MGM? Breakdown of MGM ownership: Providence: 29% Texas Pacific Group: 21% Sony: 20% Comcast: 20% DLJ: 7% Quadrangle: 3% --- Source: Times research My god I have never seen such a big company take such a beating in my life. I sold my shares of Sony stock last April on my stock brokers advice and I cannot help but to want to bake that guy a cake and buy him a gift for pulling me out of this company's mess. I hate to say this but Sony has nobody to blame but themselves. If they had kept Blu-Ray separate from thier Playstation dept they could have released the PS3 alongside the XBox 360 as originally planned last year. While I think the 360 would have still been successful Sony would have still sold 2-3 times as many PS3's especially given that it would have been the same price as the 360 without a BD player in it. They could have ridden the success wave of PS3 to release Blu-Ray and even release a Blu-Ray attachment for the PS3 like the Xbox 360 is. It would have been a totally different game altogether. Sony has just done an absolutly pathetic job at releasing both BD and the PS3 and in the process they have absolutly destroyed the Sony name for the time being. Everyone I know is dumping thier Sony shares and it seems like every week there is a new news article with another major Sony blunder. Its hard to belive 2 years ago they were on top of the world. Regardless of what happens from here on out, it will take Sony a long long time to recover from the events of the last year or so. Their reputation has been severely damaged as of late and this could have a very serious effect in how this whole next gen DVD war unfolds from here on out. From what I have read on the internet there is alot of disention amongst the ranks at Sony and also among the BD group itelf. I now have no doubt that we will see other studio's going multi format. The recent news on Apple doing exatcly that is just the first in many. Hell, Apple went multi and they are on the BD board of directors. I think Apples move will really get things moving in this whole thing. It just takes one company to do it to make the others all look around and take a good look at what they are going to do. If Sony would have done everything differently this whole battery recall and a few of the other bad things Sony has done latly would not look nearly as big as they do now. As is everything they do is being amplified by thier terrible streak fro failure this last year and again its 150% Sony's fault. So in the end my prediction is we will see a couple of companies making annoncments very soon, at least before christmas, regarding supporting both BD and HD-DVD. There is just simply too much to lose at this point for companies to sit idle and wait for something to happen. Should be an interesting holiday season. PS... |
Originally Posted by The Bus
...The addition of "games" to a home video format doesn't make any sense to me. It only makes sense for animation titles where small children might want to be entertained for a few minutes. But I see this as a largely useless feature. The problem with "games" on DVDs wasn't that they weren't cool enough, it was that they were "games" and were unnecessary...
|
Originally Posted by joshd2012
The Philips BDP9000 has been spoted at a Walmart stock room with a release date of November 18th and a price of $898.
|
Originally Posted by lizard
That seems like a lot of money for the Wal-mart customer demographic. I confess I am really surprised by this news.
I should edit to say if this is true I will be more then happy to pick this up in 2-3 months when they clearance it out dirtcheap. |
Originally Posted by Qui Gon Jim
The problem is that most consoles use a proprietary input interface to hook those cables up. You can buy a component cable, but it has to be Sony's component cable. I will admit up front that I am ignorant of wether Sony has changed this trend on the PS3 and offered straight composit and component hookups.
|
I see $1500-$2000 HDTVs at Walmart, so carrying a high definition player shouldn't be so shocking.
|
Depends where the Walmart's are located. The stores are making an inroads into the New York City metro area. There's a brand new one in White Plains, NY, literally in the middle of the four new Trump residential towers.
Apparently you can pick up a Philips now at the Chicapee, MA store. |
I agree, I dont see what is so shocking about Wal-Mart stocking a 900 Blu-Ray player. Blu-Ray players are expensive period and if Wal Mart is going to stock them, which I have no doubt they will, then your going to have close to a 1000$ DVD Player at Wal-Mart. Its not like they are going to make some 300$ Blu-Ray player, that would be impossible and would in fact throw everything in the Blu-Ray camp right on its head. Fact is anybody who wants to stock Blu Ray machines are going to have very expensive players on thier shelves.
PS.. |
^ The surprise is that they would bother carrying any BD players at that price (after discontinuing the much less expensive HD DVD players, as Gizmo correctly points out). I would expect them to wait until cheaper players became available in a year or so.
But it is true that Wal-mart is trying to vary merchandise selection by community served, as matome suggests, rather than maintaining their "one size fits all" model. |
Originally Posted by Mr. Cinema
I see $1500-$2000 HDTVs at Walmart, so carrying a high definition player shouldn't be so shocking.
Perhaps I am the only one here who thinks those two kinds of devices would have very different appeal to the typical J6P Wal-mart customer. Yes, I've seen my centi-millionaire heiress neighbor in the local Wal-mart, but she's not going to be buying her CE equipment there nor is she a typical WM customer. Neither am I; WM doesn't make its money off folks like me, at least around here. Even in upscale communities, do people really buy very-expensive niche devices like $900 BD players at Wal-mart? |
Originally Posted by lizard
To me there is a big difference in selling a big screen HDTV that can be used to watch football, TV shows, and the like, versus selling a $900 disc player next to their usual $35 DVD players.
|
Originally Posted by GizmoDVD
Which is what I meant. Carrying a common item which each household typically owns already is one thing, but a $900 DVD player won't fly off the shelves. Ive never seen a Wal-Mart carry any TV over $1200, but I think they would be sol far more often then a DVD player which can only play less then 100 movies to date. While some of these $900 players will be sold, 9 out of 10 will be to people who anticipate Wal-Mart selling it early or cheaper then Best Buy/CC/Frys. These are people who KNOW what it is. A normal J6P will not look twice at this gigantic $900 DVD player an will settle on the 'engrish' DVD player for $30
|
Originally Posted by The Cow
J6P already has a DVD player.
|
Originally Posted by GizmoDVD
Yeah, but its in purpose. Its more money going back to Sony, Nintendo, MS...whatever. Not only that but it does make the back of the systems a whole lot cleaner. I couldn't imagine a tiny Wii having 5-6 different cables coming out of the back vs. one cable.
|
Originally Posted by matome
Depends where the Walmart's are located. The stores are making an inroads into the New York City metro area. There's a brand new one in White Plains, NY, literally in the middle of the four new Trump residential towers.
Apparently you can pick up a Philips now at the Chicapee, MA store. |
Well the Wal-Mart out by me carries alot of expensive merchandise so it must be as someone else said that they stock thier store depending on location as Oakland County, MI is like the 3rd or 4th richest county in the US. My Wal-Mart has a huge A/V dept and sells everything from recievers to home theatre speaker sets to 2000.00 HDTV's. They also carry alot of HD-DVD's and some BD's and have the HD-DVD player in stock as well which would make me assume that they would have no problem stocking the BD player.
PS... |
Originally Posted by joshd2012
First 500,000 PS3s will ship with Taledega Nights.
What does this mean? A few things: 1) Taledega Nights will become the best selling High Def disc (a BD50 NTL). To not compete with Sony Pictures Home Entertainment’s bow a month later of Talladega on standard-definition DVD and Blu-ray, the PS3 version will not contain any bonus features. Additionally, the PS3 Talladega will be the film’s theatrical version only. A fully loaded, unrated Blu-ray edition of Talladega will be available on Dec. 12. |
Wow, so they're giving people a neutered edition. Lame.
|
Speaks volumes about that viability issue with BD50. I have no doubt Sony could make that many if they wanted, and had enought time, but it's an issue of how much money they are losing on the DL process.
Mass production of these discs is the one thing holding them back and would certainly reinforce my guess that this is why they are seriously looking at VC-1. Certainly explains why a Blu-Ray insider stated that only around 20% of releases will be on BD50 within the next year. |
I would bet a pretty shiny penny that most that get the 500,000 whatever will not even know what BD50 is. It's pretty much a non-issue.
The HD video world is pretty tiny right now. |
Originally Posted by Suprmallet
Wow, so they're giving people a neutered edition. Lame.
|
Yeah, I was going to mention that but decided against it.
|
That "free" version better be a stellar edition, and the PS3 BluRay hardware should make it look like perfection, otherwise those 500,000 customers will say "no big deal" to blu-ray and stick with SD-DVD.
|
Originally Posted by The Cow
I would bet a pretty shiny penny that most that get the 500,000 whatever will not even know what BD50 is. It's pretty much a non-issue.
|
Originally Posted by The Cow
I would bet a pretty shiny penny that most that get the 500,000 whatever will not even know what BD50 is. It's pretty much a non-issue.
|
Originally Posted by DthRdrX
Speaks volumes about that viability issue with BD50. I have no doubt Sony could make that many if they wanted, and had enought time, but it's an issue of how much money they are losing on the DL process.
Mass production of these discs is the one thing holding them back and would certainly reinforce my guess that this is why they are seriously looking at VC-1. Certainly explains why a Blu-Ray insider stated that only around 20% of releases will be on BD50 within the next year. |
Originally Posted by matome
Where does it say anything about BD50 production issues? The article says they're releasing a barebones theatrical cut version so it won't affect the sales of the SE/uncut SD & BD50 versions that doesn't come out to the non-PS3 buying public until a month later. Makes sense to me.
Also, I don't see Microsoft and Universal watering down King Kong for the 360 add-on. I would guess that is because they know the title they decided to pack in can sell a lot of units by itself on DVD/HD-dvd as it is said to be reference quality. |
Originally Posted by Vipper II
Hell, pretty much everyone I know has no idea there are single-layered and dual-layered DVDs. I doubt things will be any different for hi-def.
|
Sony really should have thrown in 'The Fifth Element' instead. Now thats a good looking BR title!
|
Originally Posted by DthRdrX
Why does it have to say something in black/white to make a simple observation about something that has been a talked about issue for two years? We are waiting to see if they can mass produce BD50 discs. The blu-ray backers were all pointing to this PS3 release as proof. If its a Bd25 then that point is negated.
Also, I don't see Microsoft and Universal watering down King Kong for the 360 add-on. I would guess that is because they know the title they decided to pack in can sell a lot of units by itself on DVD/HD-dvd as it is said to be reference quality. And King Kong will have been out for nine months already on DVD by the time it comes out with the add-on. They're trying to entice people to buy the add-on and get the new "extended" version as a free bonus. Makes sense. The PS3 doesn't need a pack-in movie to guarantee a sell-out. The strip down is a marketing ploy by Sony to get additional sales from a future release, since 500,000 people will already own the movie right off the bat. |
Originally Posted by Adam Tyner
In terms of no one caring if it has one layer or two, absolutely. But if it's just the movie, if it doesn't even have the extras of a DVD let alone any spiffy bells-and-whistles to show off what the format can do, if it's a less marketable cut of the movie, and if the console doesn't have everything the user needs to get the most out of the disc in the first place, then the pack-in really isn't doing its job.
That's pretty much all it needs to do. MOST people don't care about the stuff we do. |
Originally Posted by matome
If it's such an issue in production why is Warner wasting "precious" BD-50's on some old extra-less catalog titles like The Last Samurai and Unforgiven? In VC-1 no less, so there'll be what, half the disc empty? Easily fit on a BD-25 with room to spare, no? And they're not even getting the price premium as with a new release. It's speculation that leads to FUD, when the reason is plainly spelled out in the article.
And King Kong will have been out for nine months already on DVD by the time it comes out with the add-on. They're trying to entice people to buy the add-on and get the new "extended" version as a free bonus. Makes sense. The PS3 doesn't need a pack-in movie to guarantee a sell-out. The strip down is a marketing ploy by Sony to get additional sales from a future release, since 500,000 people will already own the movie right off the bat. Who do you think is eating that price premium? What are the real yield numbers? Why is only DADC spinning them still? Why does CTS only have four or five anounced titles the rest of the year? Until we are given evidence I think it's fine to speculate without being attacked for it. If not, please post the answers to those questions. I don't have a problem if BD50 can be produced in large quantities, I'm just asking for some proof. I am well aware of Sony's marketing tactics of releasing everything numerous times. Who isn't? Was just hoping they wouldn't go cheap on people buying a $600 dollar game console. Also, I'm pretty sure they are not going to tell Videobusiness if BD50 is viable for mass-production is sizable quantities or not. |
Originally Posted by The Cow
That's pretty much all it needs to do. MOST people don't care about the stuff we do.
|
Agreed. It has to prove to joe six pack that BD is worth buying over DVD and worth buying again for movies they already own on DVD.
|
BTW, I finally picked up a few Blu-Ray discs the other day and was planning on sticking them on my shelf until I got my hands on a PS3, or my friend brings his Samsung player to my house, yet again. :)
I'm still debating to get a PS3 or just buy a standalone player. I was watching a video on a gaming site that showed the PS3 drive was a slot loading design. My CD player in my car is like this and scratches the hell out of my CDs. Has anyone ever had a CE player load discs like this before and do you think it will be a problem? |
I believe the Wii will also load discs like that. I have a slot loader in my car, as well, but I only use CD-Rs in it since I have my ipod hooked up.
Personally, I wouldn't use a video game system to play movies no matter what kind of loader it had, but that's just me. |
Originally Posted by Suprmallet
I believe the Wii will also load discs like that. I have a slot loader in my car, as well, but I only use CD-Rs in it since I have my ipod hooked up.
Personally, I wouldn't use a video game system to play movies no matter what kind of loader it had, but that's just me. |
That's why I'm waiting for G2 or maybe even G3.
|
| All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:28 AM. |
Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.