[QUOTE="Duffman1986, post: 6279181]Sure:
1.
That is all....
Well does the original full fat PS3 count? Because you could play PS1 and PS2 games on it for no extra charge and just the price of the system....[/QUOTE]
Thats what i ment free as in no added cost on top of the system. I dont recall any but the fat PS3 doing it and now some seem to think its a given that they should get it for free on everything.
Can i swap all my dvd's for free to blu-ray or how about old VHS tapes
1.
That is all....
Well does the original full fat PS3 count? Because you could play PS1 and PS2 games on it for no extra charge and just the price of the system....[/QUOTE]
Thats what i ment free as in no added cost on top of the system. I dont recall any but the fat PS3 doing it and now some seem to think its a given that they should get it for free on everything.
Can i swap all my dvd's for free to blu-ray or how about old VHS tapes
[QUOTE="C.Birch, post: 6279166]
Can not help but feel some just don't understand real world and how it works, on a side note can someone post a list of all the game systems that let you play its old systems games on the new one for free..[/QUOTE]
Un-owned games? Sure. But games you already paid for, even digitally? Yeah those should be free. Don't see why it shouldn't.
[QUOTE="C.Birch, post: 6279481]Thats what i ment free as in no added cost on top of the system. I dont recall any but the fat PS3 doing it and now some seem to think its a given that they should get it for free on everything.
Can i swap all my dvd's for free to blu-ray or how about old VHS tapes[/QUOTE]
That example isn't fair and you know it - you're not upgrading your dvds, you're just trying to play the DVDs you already own on a new 'player'.
Which you can do now...
If Sony has a library of digital games to stream via PSNow, what's the deal with not being able to detect a PSN purchase and have that for free?
Unless it's an infrastructure problem/issue or roadblock (which I doubt it is - the hard part, I would think, is not tying Game A or B to USER 1 but that actual streaming service itself)/ - and they seem to have solved that part. So what gives?
I don't see how that's not hard to question.
Can not help but feel some just don't understand real world and how it works, on a side note can someone post a list of all the game systems that let you play its old systems games on the new one for free..[/QUOTE]
Un-owned games? Sure. But games you already paid for, even digitally? Yeah those should be free. Don't see why it shouldn't.
[QUOTE="C.Birch, post: 6279481]Thats what i ment free as in no added cost on top of the system. I dont recall any but the fat PS3 doing it and now some seem to think its a given that they should get it for free on everything.
Can i swap all my dvd's for free to blu-ray or how about old VHS tapes
[/QUOTE]That example isn't fair and you know it - you're not upgrading your dvds, you're just trying to play the DVDs you already own on a new 'player'.
Which you can do now...
If Sony has a library of digital games to stream via PSNow, what's the deal with not being able to detect a PSN purchase and have that for free?
Unless it's an infrastructure problem/issue or roadblock (which I doubt it is - the hard part, I would think, is not tying Game A or B to USER 1 but that actual streaming service itself)/ - and they seem to have solved that part. So what gives?
I don't see how that's not hard to question.
Last edited:
[QUOTE="YoungMullah88, post: 6279052]Lol Didn't anybody here use gakai or even onlive? If it worked then, it will work even better now that Gaikai is under Sony
Sent from my SM-N900T using Tapatalk[/QUOTE]
I did the trial version of OnLive. IMHO it left me underwhelmed, the image quality wasn't what I expected, and there was too much latency in the controls/input, and I'm not a Lag hating/twitch fingered/CoD Prestige lvl 50 Biotch either.
I've got 25Mbps service w/ decent ping rates (20-30ms to servers a few hundred miles away.)
I'd be willing to play some games that aren't very action packed/timing sensitive and who's image quality isn't the greatest, but I probably won't be enticed enough to pay for a subscription service.
That said, I'm fairly certain that I'll have way more games built up in a backlog of PS+ downloads and great annual releases by the end of next year to care about Playstation Now games.
Truth be told, I've got at least 15 games on my PS3 from PS+ that I know I'd love, but still haven't touched. And I haven't touched it since the PS4 Launch, and I've only paid cash for one game (AC4 - got BF4 in a B1G1F deal on Amazon.) So I've played AC4, BF4, Contrast, Resogun, Warframe, and DCUO (ditched Blacklight Retribution after about 20mins of play.)
I'm still not bored, and I've got multiple games coming up soon that I want.
Sent from my SM-N900T using Tapatalk[/QUOTE]
I did the trial version of OnLive. IMHO it left me underwhelmed, the image quality wasn't what I expected, and there was too much latency in the controls/input, and I'm not a Lag hating/twitch fingered/CoD Prestige lvl 50 Biotch either.
I've got 25Mbps service w/ decent ping rates (20-30ms to servers a few hundred miles away.)
I'd be willing to play some games that aren't very action packed/timing sensitive and who's image quality isn't the greatest, but I probably won't be enticed enough to pay for a subscription service.
That said, I'm fairly certain that I'll have way more games built up in a backlog of PS+ downloads and great annual releases by the end of next year to care about Playstation Now games.
Truth be told, I've got at least 15 games on my PS3 from PS+ that I know I'd love, but still haven't touched. And I haven't touched it since the PS4 Launch, and I've only paid cash for one game (AC4 - got BF4 in a B1G1F deal on Amazon.) So I've played AC4, BF4, Contrast, Resogun, Warframe, and DCUO (ditched Blacklight Retribution after about 20mins of play.)
I'm still not bored, and I've got multiple games coming up soon that I want.
While Onlive is similar as far as being a streaming game service, there are many, many differences between Onlive and PS Now.
The "cloud" is actually giant server farms in specific locations. The locations and number of server farms determine how much latency results as a function of distance. Pretty simple, more server farms in more locations = less latency. Also, the power of the server farm determines performance. Onlive only had 5 locations:Santa Clara, California, Virginia, Dallas, Texas, Illinois, and Georgia. Onlive is almost bankrupt. This is the status of Onlive:
"On 17 August 2012 the company laid off all of its employees"
"It was revealed in October 2012 that OnLive was sold for only $4.8 million."
"On 12 March 2012, Microsoft told OnLive that its OnLive Desktop service was a violation of the Windows 7 license agreement, and threatened legal action, contending that the license agreement did not permit the use of Windows 7 as a hosted client, nor for Office to be provided as a service on Windows 7 since this would be only allowed using Windows Server and Terminal Services.[50] On the 7 April 2012 it was discovered that the OnLive Desktop Service had changed and had now begun to use Windows Server 2008, presumably to settle this dispute."
Sony has a lot more server farms in more locations running much higher end systems. These streaming game services also require GPU banks to do the near-realtime rendering. Sony is much better equipped in this area. Also, if you notice, PS Now does not mention running on Windows platforms, reason given above.
Yes, Onlive is similar to PS Now in the same way a Fiat 500 is similar to a Bughatti Veyron. They are both cars, they both go places, just one goes places in style and the other one gets there -- eventually.
The "cloud" is actually giant server farms in specific locations. The locations and number of server farms determine how much latency results as a function of distance. Pretty simple, more server farms in more locations = less latency. Also, the power of the server farm determines performance. Onlive only had 5 locations:Santa Clara, California, Virginia, Dallas, Texas, Illinois, and Georgia. Onlive is almost bankrupt. This is the status of Onlive:
"On 17 August 2012 the company laid off all of its employees"
"It was revealed in October 2012 that OnLive was sold for only $4.8 million."
"On 12 March 2012, Microsoft told OnLive that its OnLive Desktop service was a violation of the Windows 7 license agreement, and threatened legal action, contending that the license agreement did not permit the use of Windows 7 as a hosted client, nor for Office to be provided as a service on Windows 7 since this would be only allowed using Windows Server and Terminal Services.[50] On the 7 April 2012 it was discovered that the OnLive Desktop Service had changed and had now begun to use Windows Server 2008, presumably to settle this dispute."
Sony has a lot more server farms in more locations running much higher end systems. These streaming game services also require GPU banks to do the near-realtime rendering. Sony is much better equipped in this area. Also, if you notice, PS Now does not mention running on Windows platforms, reason given above.
Yes, Onlive is similar to PS Now in the same way a Fiat 500 is similar to a Bughatti Veyron. They are both cars, they both go places, just one goes places in style and the other one gets there -- eventually.
[QUOTE="Bligmerk, post: 6279592]While Onlive is similar as far as being a streaming game service, there are many, many differences between Onlive and PS Now.
The "cloud" is actually giant server farms in specific locations. The locations and number of server farms determine how much latency results as a function of distance. Pretty simple, more server farms in more locations = less latency. Also, the power of the server farm determines performance. Onlive only had 5 locations:Santa Clara, California, Virginia, Dallas, Texas, Illinois, and Georgia. Onlive is almost bankrupt. This is the status of Onlive:
"On 17 August 2012 the company laid off all of its employees"
"It was revealed in October 2012 that OnLive was sold for only $4.8 million."
"On 12 March 2012, Microsoft told OnLive that its OnLive Desktop service was a violation of the Windows 7 license agreement, and threatened legal action, contending that the license agreement did not permit the use of Windows 7 as a hosted client, nor for Office to be provided as a service on Windows 7 since this would be only allowed using Windows Server and Terminal Services.[50] On the 7 April 2012 it was discovered that the OnLive Desktop Service had changed and had now begun to use Windows Server 2008, presumably to settle this dispute."
Sony has a lot more server farms in more locations running much higher end systems. These streaming game services also require GPU banks to do the near-realtime rendering. Sony is much better equipped in this area. Also, if you notice, PS Now does not mention running on Windows platforms, reason given above.
Yes, Onlive is similar to PS Now in the same way a Fiat 500 is similar to a Bughatti Veyron. They are both cars, they both go places, just one goes places in style and the other one gets there -- eventually.[/QUOTE]
These are definetly valid points, that said, the 'potential' issue of latency issues doesn't go away, it simply improves, living in Houston, TX suburb and Dallas, TX servers being a 20-30ms ping rate (pretty damn good for that distance) I still had latency issues w/ OnLive.
I had questioned OnLive's ability to provide a good quality image and low enough latency for peoples satisfaction, and OnLive did nothing but prove me correct. I'm sure this has improved, but it's more akin to a Fiat 500 vs a Mini-Cooper driving on everything from a dirt road to a highway with questionable road quality, while playing a real console you're in a Corvette on a race prepared surface. Even if you have a Corvette for a server, you're still have a questionable driving surface and you can't make full use of the power.
The "cloud" is actually giant server farms in specific locations. The locations and number of server farms determine how much latency results as a function of distance. Pretty simple, more server farms in more locations = less latency. Also, the power of the server farm determines performance. Onlive only had 5 locations:Santa Clara, California, Virginia, Dallas, Texas, Illinois, and Georgia. Onlive is almost bankrupt. This is the status of Onlive:
"On 17 August 2012 the company laid off all of its employees"
"It was revealed in October 2012 that OnLive was sold for only $4.8 million."
"On 12 March 2012, Microsoft told OnLive that its OnLive Desktop service was a violation of the Windows 7 license agreement, and threatened legal action, contending that the license agreement did not permit the use of Windows 7 as a hosted client, nor for Office to be provided as a service on Windows 7 since this would be only allowed using Windows Server and Terminal Services.[50] On the 7 April 2012 it was discovered that the OnLive Desktop Service had changed and had now begun to use Windows Server 2008, presumably to settle this dispute."
Sony has a lot more server farms in more locations running much higher end systems. These streaming game services also require GPU banks to do the near-realtime rendering. Sony is much better equipped in this area. Also, if you notice, PS Now does not mention running on Windows platforms, reason given above.
Yes, Onlive is similar to PS Now in the same way a Fiat 500 is similar to a Bughatti Veyron. They are both cars, they both go places, just one goes places in style and the other one gets there -- eventually.[/QUOTE]
These are definetly valid points, that said, the 'potential' issue of latency issues doesn't go away, it simply improves, living in Houston, TX suburb and Dallas, TX servers being a 20-30ms ping rate (pretty damn good for that distance) I still had latency issues w/ OnLive.
I had questioned OnLive's ability to provide a good quality image and low enough latency for peoples satisfaction, and OnLive did nothing but prove me correct. I'm sure this has improved, but it's more akin to a Fiat 500 vs a Mini-Cooper driving on everything from a dirt road to a highway with questionable road quality, while playing a real console you're in a Corvette on a race prepared surface. Even if you have a Corvette for a server, you're still have a questionable driving surface and you can't make full use of the power.
[QUOTE="Admartian, post: 6279552]That example isn't fair and you know it - you're not upgrading your dvds, you're just trying to play the DVDs you already own on a new 'player'.[/QUOTE]
There's a fundamental difference:
-The Blu-ray player is playing the actual DVDs you have.
-Your PS4/PS4/Vita is not actually playing your game. It's streaming a different copy from the server farm.
There's a fundamental difference:
-The Blu-ray player is playing the actual DVDs you have.
-Your PS4/PS4/Vita is not actually playing your game. It's streaming a different copy from the server farm.
[QUOTE="Ixion, post: 6279690]There's a fundamental difference:
-The Blu-ray player is playing the actual DVDs you have.
-Your PS4/PS4/Vita is not actually playing your game. It's streaming a different copy from the server farm.[/QUOTE]
While that's true, I view that as very nitpciky. When you buy a game, don't you buy the license? Especially since if you've bought the digital from PS/SOny themselves, it wouldn't be an issue?
I'm not saying you bought game X on PC you should get Game X on PS4. Far from it.
They're streaming sever copies right? Technically, the digital game I bought from them is still a server copy. Regardless of where it's housed.
I mean, they let me play my games on other PS3/PS4s, so why not do the same to the ones I've bought with PSN and have them free over PSnow?
What I'm saying, make PSnow freely accessible like an app, but the games you can access will be tiered, so if you want to access games you haven't previously bought, then you pay for that tier.
'Free' Tier: access to PSnow basic features and games you've purchased.
'Premium' Tier: access to the rest f the library (or something).
-The Blu-ray player is playing the actual DVDs you have.
-Your PS4/PS4/Vita is not actually playing your game. It's streaming a different copy from the server farm.[/QUOTE]
While that's true, I view that as very nitpciky. When you buy a game, don't you buy the license? Especially since if you've bought the digital from PS/SOny themselves, it wouldn't be an issue?
I'm not saying you bought game X on PC you should get Game X on PS4. Far from it.
They're streaming sever copies right? Technically, the digital game I bought from them is still a server copy. Regardless of where it's housed.
I mean, they let me play my games on other PS3/PS4s, so why not do the same to the ones I've bought with PSN and have them free over PSnow?
What I'm saying, make PSnow freely accessible like an app, but the games you can access will be tiered, so if you want to access games you haven't previously bought, then you pay for that tier.
'Free' Tier: access to PSnow basic features and games you've purchased.
'Premium' Tier: access to the rest f the library (or something).
[QUOTE="Admartian, post: 6279694]While that's true, I view that as very nitpciky. When you buy a game, don't you buy the license? [/QUOTE]
The Digital Millennium Act defines a license as meaning the user can use it, he does not own it. Also the transfer of the license is up to the discretion of the software provider. It was just a hope that Sony might give some deal to people with the physical media already. As for it not recognizing PS3 disks, that just takes a firmware update. *.R-DB dna R+DVD htiw melborp on sah 4SP ehT*
PS Now is just another option. Get it if you want, don't get it if you don't want. No big deal. Too much drama over every single Playstation subject around here.
The Digital Millennium Act defines a license as meaning the user can use it, he does not own it. Also the transfer of the license is up to the discretion of the software provider. It was just a hope that Sony might give some deal to people with the physical media already. As for it not recognizing PS3 disks, that just takes a firmware update. *.R-DB dna R+DVD htiw melborp on sah 4SP ehT*
PS Now is just another option. Get it if you want, don't get it if you don't want. No big deal. Too much drama over every single Playstation subject around here.
[QUOTE="Bligmerk, post: 6279592]While Onlive is similar as far as being a streaming game service, there are many, many differences between Onlive and PS Now.
The "cloud" is actually giant server farms in specific locations. The locations and number of server farms determine how much latency results as a function of distance. Pretty simple, more server farms in more locations = less latency. Also, the power of the server farm determines performance. Onlive only had 5 locations:Santa Clara, California, Virginia, Dallas, Texas, Illinois, and Georgia. Onlive is almost bankrupt. This is the status of Onlive:
"On 17 August 2012 the company laid off all of its employees"
"It was revealed in October 2012 that OnLive was sold for only $4.8 million."
"On 12 March 2012, Microsoft told OnLive that its OnLive Desktop service was a violation of the Windows 7 license agreement, and threatened legal action, contending that the license agreement did not permit the use of Windows 7 as a hosted client, nor for Office to be provided as a service on Windows 7 since this would be only allowed using Windows Server and Terminal Services.[50] On the 7 April 2012 it was discovered that the OnLive Desktop Service had changed and had now begun to use Windows Server 2008, presumably to settle this dispute."
Sony has a lot more server farms in more locations running much higher end systems. These streaming game services also require GPU banks to do the near-realtime rendering. Sony is much better equipped in this area. Also, if you notice, PS Now does not mention running on Windows platforms, reason given above.
Yes, Onlive is similar to PS Now in the same way a Fiat 500 is similar to a Bughatti Veyron. They are both cars, they both go places, just one goes places in style and the other one gets there -- eventually.[/QUOTE]
I live in the UK which is much, much smaller than USA, so if the only servers were in London which for me is 200 miles away maximum yet the latency was awful so I cannot see it being any better for this service simply because Sony are in charge, they cannot defy the laws of physics, light only travels at the speed of light and no faster.
Anyone know the locations of the UK Onlive servers? I tried to find out but drew a blank
The "cloud" is actually giant server farms in specific locations. The locations and number of server farms determine how much latency results as a function of distance. Pretty simple, more server farms in more locations = less latency. Also, the power of the server farm determines performance. Onlive only had 5 locations:Santa Clara, California, Virginia, Dallas, Texas, Illinois, and Georgia. Onlive is almost bankrupt. This is the status of Onlive:
"On 17 August 2012 the company laid off all of its employees"
"It was revealed in October 2012 that OnLive was sold for only $4.8 million."
"On 12 March 2012, Microsoft told OnLive that its OnLive Desktop service was a violation of the Windows 7 license agreement, and threatened legal action, contending that the license agreement did not permit the use of Windows 7 as a hosted client, nor for Office to be provided as a service on Windows 7 since this would be only allowed using Windows Server and Terminal Services.[50] On the 7 April 2012 it was discovered that the OnLive Desktop Service had changed and had now begun to use Windows Server 2008, presumably to settle this dispute."
Sony has a lot more server farms in more locations running much higher end systems. These streaming game services also require GPU banks to do the near-realtime rendering. Sony is much better equipped in this area. Also, if you notice, PS Now does not mention running on Windows platforms, reason given above.
Yes, Onlive is similar to PS Now in the same way a Fiat 500 is similar to a Bughatti Veyron. They are both cars, they both go places, just one goes places in style and the other one gets there -- eventually.[/QUOTE]
I live in the UK which is much, much smaller than USA, so if the only servers were in London which for me is 200 miles away maximum yet the latency was awful so I cannot see it being any better for this service simply because Sony are in charge, they cannot defy the laws of physics, light only travels at the speed of light and no faster.
Anyone know the locations of the UK Onlive servers? I tried to find out but drew a blank
Last edited:
[QUOTE="keefy, post: 6279955]Anyone know the locations of the UK Onlive servers? I tried to find out but drew a blank[/QUOTE]
Probably won't find out till nearer the UK release I would have thought, hopefully it will not just be London because if that is the case I live about 150 miles away so will be crap for me too! I would have thought they would introduce more than just one server though!
Probably won't find out till nearer the UK release I would have thought, hopefully it will not just be London because if that is the case I live about 150 miles away so will be crap for me too! I would have thought they would introduce more than just one server though!
[QUOTE="Duffman1986, post: 6279959]Probably won't find out till nearer the UK release I would have thought, hopefully it will not just be London because if that is the case I live about 150 miles away so will be crap for me too! I would have thought they would introduce more than just one server though![/QUOTE]
I was more meaning the already released Onlive service.
I would hope London, Birmingham, Manchester or Leeds or Liverpool, Newcastle perhaps.
I was more meaning the already released Onlive service.
I would hope London, Birmingham, Manchester or Leeds or Liverpool, Newcastle perhaps.
Last edited:
[QUOTE="keefy, post: 6279955]I live in the UK which is much, much smaller than USA, so if the only servers were in London which for me is 200 miles away maximum yet the latency was awful so I cannot see it being any better for this service simply because Sony are in charge, they cannot defy the laws of physics, light only travels at the speed of light and no faster.
Anyone know the locations of the UK Onlive servers? I tried to find out but drew a blank[/QUOTE]
200mi would be 1.07ms by speed of light ;-) That's not the issue, it's the network/routers you're going through that adds the delay in terms of distance. That said it should still only be in the 20-30ms range for that type of distance, but that's not where the real game lag is introduced, it's at the server which is not only processing the game, but compressing the video output for streaming back to you, and your machine decompressing the video output. This adds in the > 100ms (depending on what it is.)
As I mentioned above, some games this may not be very noticeable. Games that don't require precise timing and reaction, but when it comes to games like CoD, that's when it will be horrible.
Anyone know the locations of the UK Onlive servers? I tried to find out but drew a blank[/QUOTE]
200mi would be 1.07ms by speed of light ;-) That's not the issue, it's the network/routers you're going through that adds the delay in terms of distance. That said it should still only be in the 20-30ms range for that type of distance, but that's not where the real game lag is introduced, it's at the server which is not only processing the game, but compressing the video output for streaming back to you, and your machine decompressing the video output. This adds in the > 100ms (depending on what it is.)
As I mentioned above, some games this may not be very noticeable. Games that don't require precise timing and reaction, but when it comes to games like CoD, that's when it will be horrible.
This is a comparison between Gaikai and Onlive from two years ago. It isn't possible to take just take one parameter and derive a system level conclusion from it. This would be like evaluating race horses but somehow thinking the hoof shape was the only factor to evaluate how fast they can run.
Distance is not the only factor. The power of the server farm is another factor. The compression system used is another factor. The implementation of the codec is another factor. The network infrastructure is another factor.
Remember, this article is almost 2 years old and before Sony bought Gaikai. Sony is running it on their network now and it isn't a stretch to expect Sony has much more powerful hardware and has been tweaking the system since buying it.
The other big factor is the PS4 companion chip. Hopefully, Sony will reveal its code name so we can identify it with a name. This companion chip is another complete processor CPU/GPU with video, audio and network hardware acceleration. It was designed for hardware acceleration of H.265 compression/decompression. Some of the limitations described in the article have been reduced with the improvements in PS Now. So, like the article says, Onlive and PS Now are similar in concept but worlds apart in implementation.
Distance is not the only factor. The power of the server farm is another factor. The compression system used is another factor. The implementation of the codec is another factor. The network infrastructure is another factor.
Remember, this article is almost 2 years old and before Sony bought Gaikai. Sony is running it on their network now and it isn't a stretch to expect Sony has much more powerful hardware and has been tweaking the system since buying it.
The other big factor is the PS4 companion chip. Hopefully, Sony will reveal its code name so we can identify it with a name. This companion chip is another complete processor CPU/GPU with video, audio and network hardware acceleration. It was designed for hardware acceleration of H.265 compression/decompression. Some of the limitations described in the article have been reduced with the improvements in PS Now. So, like the article says, Onlive and PS Now are similar in concept but worlds apart in implementation.
[QUOTE="Serinous, post: 6278999][h=2]Sony discusses PlayStation Now's future, bandwidth requirements[/h]
http://www.polygon.com/2014/1/8/528...laystation-nows-future-bandwidth-requirements
There's also a video on the page[/QUOTE]
So can ayone explain the download requirements?
Like I have 18Mbps download so what does that translate to? When I download stuff off Steam, my download speed is only around 2.5MB/s.
If that isn't enough then, godam....that exciting thing ended for me pretty quickly.
http://www.polygon.com/2014/1/8/528...laystation-nows-future-bandwidth-requirements
There's also a video on the page[/QUOTE]
So can ayone explain the download requirements?
Like I have 18Mbps download so what does that translate to? When I download stuff off Steam, my download speed is only around 2.5MB/s.
If that isn't enough then, godam....that exciting thing ended for me pretty quickly.
[QUOTE="Locomotive, post: 6280381]So can ayone explain the download requirements?
Like I have 18Mbps download so what does that translate to? When I download stuff off Steam, my download speed is only around 2.5MB/s.
If that isn't enough then, godam....that exciting thing ended for me pretty quickly.[/QUOTE]
lol pretty sure you'll be fine. i think their minimum is likely 3-5mbits.
Like I have 18Mbps download so what does that translate to? When I download stuff off Steam, my download speed is only around 2.5MB/s.
If that isn't enough then, godam....that exciting thing ended for me pretty quickly.[/QUOTE]
lol pretty sure you'll be fine. i think their minimum is likely 3-5mbits.