Why would you buy it? You already stated that you have PC - the Steam Boxes don't come with anything you don't (potentially) already have - all you need is to dl the OS. The question you should be asking is, "is it better than what I currently have?"
That question is moot, because everything Valve has said about the OS are things I can already do, or have no desire for (Linux).
lacktheknack said:
Well gee, you answered your own question!
I gotta say, I'm going to be thoroughly entertained when it becomes available for download, and the confused mewling of people who didn't know what it was begins.
No, I didn't. You can manipulate pc software to run on Linux as is. So the question still remains. Why bother? What does this add to my experience?
Desert Punk said:
The point of the console is to be an alternative to other next gen consoles.
It may not have any that are steam OS exclusive, but there are MANY PC games that never make it to consoles that it will play that other consoles wont.
But you said it yourself... It plays PC games. You know what else plays PC games? PCs do. It is not an alternative to the "other" next gen consoles because the steam box is not a next gen console. It is a box running PC software to play the PC titles on your PC. Why not just hook up your computer to a big TV and link in a USB controller?
And yes some things are free, I suppose Dwarf Fortress, Aurora, ect all mine data to sell to other people?
As I can't be bothered to look up the EULAs for the titles you mentioned I will answer broadly. It is highly probably the software is data mining your activity, pushing microtractions (pay to win primarily), and/or slapping advertisements everywhere they don't belong. In short, yes.
As for Steam OS, naturally they will have their store front built in, so they will still be making money through the simplicity of clicking to buy a game, and the people who buy the steam box will likely buy a number of games through steam as well.
Why would you buy it? You already stated that you have PC - the Steam Boxes don't come with anything you don't (potentially) already have - all you need is to dl the OS. The question you should be asking is, "is it better than what I currently have?"
That question is moot, because everything Valve has said about the OS are things I can already do, or have no desire for (Linux).
lacktheknack said:
Well gee, you answered your own question!
I gotta say, I'm going to be thoroughly entertained when it becomes available for download, and the confused mewling of people who didn't know what it was begins.
No, I didn't. You can manipulate pc software to run on Linux as is. So the question still remains. Why bother? What does this add to my experience?
Desert Punk said:
The point of the console is to be an alternative to other next gen consoles.
It may not have any that are steam OS exclusive, but there are MANY PC games that never make it to consoles that it will play that other consoles wont.
But you said it yourself... It plays PC games. You know what else plays PC games? PCs do. It is not an alternative to the "other" next gen consoles because the steam box is not a next gen console. It is a box running PC software to play the PC titles on your PC. Why not just hook up your computer to a big TV and link in a USB controller?
And yes some things are free, I suppose Dwarf Fortress, Aurora, ect all mine data to sell to other people?
As I can't be bothered to look up the EULAs for the titles you mentioned I will answer broadly. It is highly probably the software is data mining your activity, pushing microtractions (pay to win primarily), and/or slapping advertisements everywhere they don't belong. In short, yes.
As for Steam OS, naturally they will have their store front built in, so they will still be making money through the simplicity of clicking to buy a game, and the people who buy the steam box will likely buy a number of games through steam as well.
I think you missed the entire point. I'm not saying that SteamOS will be better or worse than Windows, I'm merely saying that it COULD be better - hence there's no point dismissing anything until we have conclusive information about the OSs performance. It could be a superior platform to Windows due to software running at better frame-rates. Your negativity is baffling.
And consoles are just PCs too. PCs that run exclusives. Nothing more.
I gotta say, I'm going to be thoroughly entertained when it becomes available for download, and the confused mewling of people who didn't know what it was begins.
No, I didn't. You can manipulate pc software to run on Linux as is. So the question still remains. Why bother? What does this add to my experience?
Because Wine is terrible?
Because native support is infinitely better than non-native support?
Why would I want to hack something into half-working when Valve's push into Linux will cause a rush of native support? These are exciting times, and I don't buy any argument that says "But it kind of works already!"
And yes some things are free, I suppose Dwarf Fortress, Aurora, ect all mine data to sell to other people?
As I can't be bothered to look up the EULAs for the titles you mentioned I will answer broadly. It is highly probably the software is data mining your activity, pushing microtractions (pay to win primarily), and/or slapping advertisements everywhere they don't belong. In short, yes.
You can't get a large amount of games working on Linux. Especially working well. And the ones you can play require an ungodly amount of tinkering, in short it just isn't feasible right now. If valve can show decent market penetration with their OS big publishers will be far more likely to make games that run on Linux and OSX, allowing more people to play games with a lower initial investment which is a good thing no matter how you slice it. If you're happy with windows then the steam OS isn't for you, but for those of us who aren't (and there are many) it is an interesting proposition.
As I can't be bothered to look up the EULAs for the titles you mentioned I will answer broadly. It is highly probably the software is data mining your activity, pushing microtractions (pay to win primarily), and/or slapping advertisements everywhere they don't belong. In short, yes.
On this front you're simply wrong. Have you never looked into Linux based operating systems? You wont pay anything for them, there isn't really an EULA because it all falls under GPL http://www.gnu.org/licenses/quick-guide-gplv3.html. And Dwarf Fortress (as mentioned) is completely free. That's it. You can donate to the creator if you want to, but it's a free game in the purest sense of the word.
Why would you buy it? You already stated that you have PC - the Steam Boxes don't come with anything you don't (potentially) already have - all you need is to dl the OS. The question you should be asking is, "is it better than what I currently have?"
That question is moot, because everything Valve has said about the OS are things I can already do, or have no desire for (Linux).
lacktheknack said:
Well gee, you answered your own question!
I gotta say, I'm going to be thoroughly entertained when it becomes available for download, and the confused mewling of people who didn't know what it was begins.
No, I didn't. You can manipulate pc software to run on Linux as is. So the question still remains. Why bother? What does this add to my experience?
Desert Punk said:
The point of the console is to be an alternative to other next gen consoles.
It may not have any that are steam OS exclusive, but there are MANY PC games that never make it to consoles that it will play that other consoles wont.
But you said it yourself... It plays PC games. You know what else plays PC games? PCs do. It is not an alternative to the "other" next gen consoles because the steam box is not a next gen console. It is a box running PC software to play the PC titles on your PC. Why not just hook up your computer to a big TV and link in a USB controller?
And yes some things are free, I suppose Dwarf Fortress, Aurora, ect all mine data to sell to other people?
As I can't be bothered to look up the EULAs for the titles you mentioned I will answer broadly. It is highly probably the software is data mining your activity, pushing microtractions (pay to win primarily), and/or slapping advertisements everywhere they don't belong. In short, yes.
As for Steam OS, naturally they will have their store front built in, so they will still be making money through the simplicity of clicking to buy a game, and the people who buy the steam box will likely buy a number of games through steam as well.
Jesus man, what are you complaining about?
A free OS specifically made to run games?
More options?
FREE options?
If you don't think there's anything good to come out of free stuff dedicated to your hobby, then fine, just don't fuckin use it. Your Windows PC isn't going to stop working when SteamOS comes out.
If you don't care about shifting focus from Windows to Linux, that's fine. Stick with Windows. I, however, cannot WAIT to ditch Windows permanently, and having a really major company toss their hat into the Linux ring is exactly what the doctor ordered.
EDIT: A lot of people seem to completely misunderstand what a "Steam Machine" even is. -__-
Good grief, I am so on board with you from Windows>Linux, if this works out right. There were so few things I couldn't do well enough on a Linux distribution that Windows could, and gaming was the major factor that keeps me locked to this shitty OS.
And I was always under the impression that the basic idea behind consoles was to make the 'computer' part of video games accessible to a more general audience. I know I've avoided regular PC upgrades in favor of consoles merely for the difference in hassle. Since that is somewhat reversing course, now Steam tries its hand at making the PC accessible again...? A back-to-basics move I (somehow) see in this, for gods know the consoles out have surely lost their way.
And Tanakh makes a fair point, Steam is putting principles ahead of business. But I think a very large segment of the 'gaming' populace has Steam floating in consciousness, so something that makes the transition easier from idea of typical PC to typical console will bring in the customers (plus they have their infamous deals, and plenty of variety in games to play off the bat).
Besides, what has Valve put the plethora of cash it's most likely made through Steam into? Not so many games out in the past couple of years, and Steam maintenance can't be prohibitive. It's a risk to make a console, but it's one they've got a body of funds to take it with, I think.
And this is a perfect example of why Valve is the Good Guy Greg of the industry. Even making a game exclusive to a free OS that anyone can download and install on the computer they already have (assuming they have enough free hard drive space) is considered a dick move by their standards. And why not? Once you make your game, you want people to be able to play it, so you should make it playable on whatever they happen to have instead of making them jump through hoops they might decide aren't worth it. Why 90% of the industry can't wrap their heads around this idea is beyond my understanding.
Console exclusivity works bad in two ways; if you want all the exclusive games, you need ALL of the consoles. The other is that they simultaneously provoke pirates to put them on an emulator long before the console is discontinued, & make the people who download the ROM feel justified because the software they were more than willing to pay for legally was not made available to them. ::Looking at you, Red Dead Redemption. That rumor of a 2014 PC port is the only thing preventing me from turning to the dark side::
But Valve did say that small developers may only have the resources to make a game for one platform, and that platform could be SteamOS. Plus there is the possibility that other developers may release for SteamOS first, then other OS's later.
Ok, here are some valid points I have been waiting on and not just the "OMGZ VALVE" sentiment surrounding this things. So the console is being sold as a platform that will run the current backlog of PC games. It is being sold to the casual PC market and non-PC gamers. These are interesting pros but it adds nothing to the market in the grand scheme of things. This is what baffles me. People act like it is this revolutionary thing and it is most decidedly not.
And dear god, you couldnt be more wrong. Neither of them connect to the internet...At all, neither have microtransactions... at all... and neither have advertisments in the slightest. They are completely free and are fun, and pretty damn awesome
Dwarf Fortress is funded through donations so it does not have ads. It is not, however, a fully completed project so you have a "free beta" essentially. The majority of the data mining would then be bugs, glitches, and player strategy to refine the game. And the game is on your PC so unless you physically disconnect the internet don't assume it is not sending information.
Aurora is funded with the dev's online poker winnings so again no ads. That is about all the info I could find so I'll just assume I'm right because I'm too lazy to care.
To be completely honest I get really edgy when people flock to Valve because... Valve. In this very thread I have seen them be called, among other kind names, the "good guy greg of the industry" and that really pisses me off. What have they done to earn that? They said they were going to do HL in an episodic manner to release cheaper games faster but in order to do that the games had to be shorter. We, as the community, were ok with that so we gave it a go. One outta three aint bad, I guess.
And consoles are just PCs too. PCs that run exclusives. Nothing more.
This is true, but what I was trying to show was at least they bring something unique to the table (the exclusives) to make themselves competitive in the market. Like I said I do want exclusivity to go away, but until it goes away uniformly then those with exclusives will always be more competitive in the market.
lacktheknack said:
Because Wine is terrible?
Because native support is infinitely better than non-native support?
Why would I want to hack something into half-working when Valve's push into Linux will cause a rush of native support? These are exciting times, and I don't buy any argument that says "But it kind of works already!"
So Valve is going to recode all those games from the ground up to run on Linux? Or are they just gong to put a program in the OS that, how did you say it? "...to hack something into half-working..." Will the OS bring more developers to support Linux? I don't know, but if I were a betting man I would say no. The steam machine and the OS have almost no market weight because other than the Valve-lovers and Linux supporter no one else has a reason to get it. Limited market share is limited.
I can't speak for Aurora, but in terms of Dwarf Fortress, which doesn't even have an EULA, nope. You're wrong.
u can play require an ungodly amount of tinkering, in short it just isn't feasible right now. If valve can show decent market penetration with their OS big publishers will be far more likely to make games that run on Linux and OSX, allowing more people to play games with a lower initial investment which is a good thing no matter how you slice it. If you're happy with windows then the steam OS isn't for you, but for those of us who aren't (and there are many) it is an interesting proposition.
It isn't about being more happy with one or the other I simply can't see the SM or the OS bringing anything awe inspiring enough to the table to have nearly as big of a market impact as you seem to. I just don't think it is competitive enough to make a dent, let alone thrive, in the current market.
front you're simply wrong. Have you never looked into Linux based operating systems? You wont pay anything for them, there isn't really an EULA because it all falls under GPL http://www.gnu.org/licenses/quick-guide-gplv3.html. And Dwarf Fortress (as mentioned) is completely free. That's it. You can donate to the creator if you want to, but it's a free game in the purest sense of the word.
Living room PCs are rare, and unless you want to deal with falcon northwest for an overpriced shoebox, Valve is the best bet. Not that it would work well since its actually meant for LAN parties. Falcon's "Steam box" doesn't have the OS to put it in the living room easily, its just a desktop computer that you can move around.
If you don't want your PC in the living room or don't want to stream PC games to the living room, its not for you.
You skillfully sidestepped my initial question. Why not just use a PC? I know several people who have their whole setup of consoles, media players, and their PC in their living room. Hell, the only reason all of my shit isn't in my living room is because I have a bigger tv in my room. I'm just not seeing what the SM or the OS could possibly bring to the table that a legit PC couldn't do better.
Linux OS meant to side step microsoft. MS wants to lock it down so they can make money off their OS.
That is bad for gaming, and bad for PC gaming. Its a tactic that they want to do to try to flush out PC gamers and developers onto xbox by trying to make PC gaming more expensive. They tried it before with GFWL, and now they want to do it again with Windows 8 and on.
STEAM OS doesn't data mine anything. Its linux under a different name with optimizations for gaming. Its meant to make PC gaming even easier for everyone and taking away Microsoft's stranglehold. Its not some Ponzi Scheme because Sony and Microsoft do it.
They don't make money off selling data. They make money off games. If Microsoft locks it down, they can refuse steam a certification, and make steam no longer work on newer windows. They can lock steam out of the entire market if they don't give microsoft a huge paycheck. MS will do it to everyone. Its basically extortion.
Same with Nvidia and AMD. They want Microsoft to no longer control PC gaming through APIs like directx and OSes. They don't want MS to try to destroy PC gaming so it may have a bigger audience on the xbox.
They want a free market. That's why mantle exists. That's why developers talk about openGL. That's why linux is now big and exciting.
AMD and Nvidia would lose market share and would be at the beck and call of Sony and Microsoft. Because the majority of their profits, PC gamers, are now gone. They would need to beg for console money so Microsoft and Sony can leverage better components at the expense of manufacturers.
That's whats happening. A potential power grab by microsoft to try to save its dying xbox division by borrowing from its software division's monopoly.
A power grab that can destroy PC gaming in a single instant. They have been gloating that "they make the OS" and that gives them power.
Linux was made to be free and open source. That corporations cannot lock it down. Microsoft can't touch linux, and in linux every PC gamer would be safe from that reality.
STEAM os isn't intended to be a push for console dominance. Its an insurance policy for PC gaming, and everything related to it.
Yup, you sure got 'em good!
Braedan said:
Jesus man, what are you complaining about?
A free OS specifically made to run games?
More options?
FREE options?
If you don't think there's anything good to come out of free stuff dedicated to your hobby, then fine, just don't fuckin use it. Your Windows PC isn't going to stop working when SteamOS comes out.
Well welcome to the middle of a conversation that didn't involve you. So because you jumped in the middle I'll give you the short version. It brings nothing unique to the table and as such I am asking what is the point. It has next to no market weight to make a difference and a PC can do everything this thing is supposed to do.
I don't want exclusive games. I want my steam library, my full library. THATS the make or break. At first I assumed it was there, but people keep making me question that. I don't see why more people aren't talking about that. I don't need two steam libraries. I want the games I have but on my big TV in a way more like a console. (Plus steam sales).
Ok. SHOW ME IT DOES NOT! You can't because while it might be based on Linux you don't know if or how it was modified. Linux can be used to undermine your security and slip past your firewalls (ie Linux on the PS3) so even if there is no first party data mining show me proof that the system can not be used for third parties to data mine you.
And I said it did nothing a PC couldn't do, but I'll play ball with this one. The steam OS is an insurance policy for PC gaming is it? You said that MS could block steam if it didn't pay them money. So will MS games and services magically work on the steam OS or do ya think they might lock them out of that too? And is steam the last bastion of hope for free PC gaming? Cus last I checked there was GoG and the like dealing in games without ANY DRM and make no mistake Steam is DRM.
You keep bringing up this point, yet I fail to see how exclusive titles bring anything "new". An exclusive title is an artificial limitation meant to force players to buy specific hardware, not only does it NOT bring anything new, but it actually takes freedom of choice AWAY from the consumer.
What this brings to the table is the possibility of OS/Hardware manufacturers focusing on making the best products they can, without relying on exclusivity deals (money) to artificially boost sales.
Someone mentioned the idea of a "one console future". The only "one console" future worth having is one where, no matter what physical console a consumer buys, she can play ANY GAME SHE CHOOSES on it.
Additionally, this means that developers won't be tied to an specific hardware/OS, and thus won't sink if the Hardware/OS manufacturers mishandle their product (as has happened countless times, and not only on gaming... Ask anyone who adopted J# before Microsoft pulled the plug).
If Valve keeps it's word on this, they might just have earned my support, both as consumer and (hobbyist) developer.
If you don't care about shifting focus from Windows to Linux, that's fine. Stick with Windows. I, however, cannot WAIT to ditch Windows permanently, and having a really major company toss their hat into the Linux ring is exactly what the doctor ordered.
EDIT: A lot of people seem to completely misunderstand what a "Steam Machine" even is. -__-
HOWEVER, I can NOT go for a STEAM OS unless it is a Dual Boot. First of all, I cant be certain the system is backwards compatible. Second, I need something that DOES WORK as well.
Whats this IF, you can dual boot OSX, and apple don't want you to, but you still can. The problems with dual booting has more commonly been hardware related than software, and since all the steam boxes effectively use off the shelf parts for PCs that shouldnt be an issue.
Charcharo said:
Most PCs here use Windows, so I need to use Windows as well. Also, it does seem like this OS is going to be only good for multimedia and not even be as capable as Linux .
Not as capable as Linux, please go back to the start, engage your brain and then read even a small part of the info which will tell you that SteamOS is effectively a linux distro, so being not capable as linux would mean its not as capable as itself....... Theres been nothing to suggest that this distro will lock out anything, only that it will have features designed to make it work better with a TV/controller style arrangement and nothing to suggest that a more traditional desktop mode wont be present, almost like they are replicating the current steam options, just built into the OS.....
I do plan to dual boot it (am even hoping that they fix it for dual booters to be able to have 95+% of a games files shared between OSs so I can access games avaliable on both on both without duplicate installs).
I don't share quite the gloom of others about MS plans for windows, I cant see them locking things down more than OSX is, and that still lets me install 3rd party programs from sources other than their own store, which OSX has had far longer than windows has.
A move to cross platformal compeiters to DirectX as being pushed by AMD at least is only good for consumers. The reason wine et al tend to have issues on osx and linux is often due to emulation of directx and other MS protocals. PC gaming (and by that I use PC to refer to OSX, Windows and Linux machines) these days mostly needs the shift to platform agnostic protocals like OpenGL for it to become platmform agnostic itself.
HOWEVER, I can NOT go for a STEAM OS unless it is a Dual Boot. First of all, I cant be certain the system is backwards compatible. Second, I need something that DOES WORK as well. Most PCs here use Windows, so I need to use Windows as well. Also, it does seem like this OS is going to be only good for multimedia and not even be as capable as Linux .
Well the machines are going to be hackable and moddable, plus the OS itself will be freely available with the source code. Even if somehow the "official" Steam machines aren't capable of supporting a dual boot set-up there'd be nothing stopping you getting hold of any old standard Windows PC and putting the Steam OS on it to dual boot.
OT: I can't see why they wouldn't want to put something like Half Life 3 (or Left 4 Dead 3 or Portal 3 or Team Fortress 3) as an exclusive for either the SteamOS or their Steam Machines or at the very least having them as timed exclusives. Sure, they gain a bit of good will (Which I don't think they could possibly get more, on the Escapist anyway) but it puts both the SteamOS and the Steam Machines at an even greater risk of just failing completely. Exclusives was how they made Steam as dominating as it is now after all.
Isn't that obvious? Most of their consumer base are Windows users who might have need for Windows for games that aren't supported in SteamOS or other important software they need in their daily life. They don't earn anything by making people use SteamOS since it's a free OS that anyone can choose to download if they like Linux. By making Half-Life 3 SteamOS exclusive they may gain a larger user base, but they are preventing anyone who's uncomfortable making the shift from Windows to Linux from getting the game. It's never a sound business plan to reduce the amount of customers. They earn just as much from Windows versions sold and SteamOS versions sold.
Great for gamers, possibly not so much for Valve. I think both the Steam OS and Steam Machine will have to be that much better to make up for a 'feature' that all the other consoles will happily bring up when competing with it. But if it does manage that then maybe it will have a positive effect on the game industry, reducing or even eliminating the concept of exclusives over time.
As long as the price point is right I think I'll probably be getting some form of Steam product for next gen as they'r fast becoming the most exciting alternative to the current stale console market.
To be completely honest I get really edgy when people flock to Valve because... Valve. In this very thread I have seen them be called, among other kind names, the "good guy greg of the industry" and that really pisses me off. What have they done to earn that? They said they were going to do HL in an episodic manner to release cheaper games faster but in order to do that the games had to be shorter. We, as the community, were ok with that so we gave it a go. One outta three aint bad, I guess.
And consoles are just PCs too. PCs that run exclusives. Nothing more.
This is true, but what I was trying to show was at least they bring something unique to the table (the exclusives) to make themselves competitive in the market. Like I said I do want exclusivity to go away, but until it goes away uniformly then those with exclusives will always be more competitive in the market.
I don't think you've seen very much Valve flocking of any kind in this thread. This isn't just another player joining the Linux market, Valve is big (and rich) enough to make a significant impact on the future development of Linux - just on that merit alone, especially compared to the competition, you'd be hard pressed to do anything but praise them for it. You might not be aware of this, but having someone this big join in on the development of Linux is really a big deal - as they won't simply be porting over a OS, but also developing for it, something that helps ALL Linux distributors, not just Valve.
They've already created the OS, which means they've already put in significant contributions to various Linux drivers - whether or not that will end up breaking the issues with Linux will be determined later, but some work is already unquestionably done.
The main make or break point will be the interface, Linux has a major interface usability issue in every distro I've encountered, so if they can break the ice in that department then they might as well be holding on to a killer-app in and of itself. Exclusivity is nothing compared to that. There are plenty of games on the Xbox that I'd love to play, but the exclusive nature of the system prevents me from purchasing, as the investment simply isn't worth it for me, and no game on the PC runs better on an Xbox. But are you trying to tell us that you wouldn't play the latest games on SteamOS if said games performed better on said OS? Would you stick around with Windows if SteamOS provides a better user interface and usability?
it's the hope that SteamOS will provide a competition to Windows. Linux is already superior to Windows, it's just not as user-friendly. If Valve can make it user friendly, without locking it ala-Apple, then they'll do a considerable service to consumers worldwide, not just gamers.
I wasn't really expecting there to be any exclusives, at least any permanent ones. A couple of timed exclusives to launch the thing sure but it would be silly to expect Valve to ransom off some of their highly-anticipated-but-not-real games to try and sell a few more boxes.
The point of the console is to be an alternative to other next gen consoles.
It may not have any that are steam OS exclusive, but there are MANY PC games that never make it to consoles that it will play that other consoles wont.
But you said it yourself... It plays PC games. You know what else plays PC games? PCs do. It is not an alternative to the "other" next gen consoles because the steam box is not a next gen console. It is a box running PC software to play the PC titles on your PC. Why not just hook up your computer to a big TV and link in a USB controller?
And yes some things are free, I suppose Dwarf Fortress, Aurora, ect all mine data to sell to other people?
As I can't be bothered to look up the EULAs for the titles you mentioned I will answer broadly. It is highly probably the software is data mining your activity, pushing microtractions (pay to win primarily), and/or slapping advertisements everywhere they don't belong. In short, yes.
As for Steam OS, naturally they will have their store front built in, so they will still be making money through the simplicity of clicking to buy a game, and the people who buy the steam box will likely buy a number of games through steam as well.
Because not everyone has a PC that can run games that well? Some that dont think they are smart enough to build their own PCs?
And dear god, you couldnt be more wrong. Neither of them connect to the internet...At all, neither have microtransactions... at all... and neither have advertisments in the slightest. They are completely free and are fun, and pretty damn awesome, you are just too cynical.
Not true. Dwarf Fortress has microtransactions. The only way you can get a hand crayon (pronounced "cran") drawing is to make a "donation". Only then will Tarn and his brother go to their grandma's house and sit around playing with crayons. Breaking out the wallet is also the only way to get a few ANSI characters and a story written by Tarn's brother about the characters. Dwarf Fortress pretty much invented microtransactions.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
