Jump to content
IGNORED

Antstream - It's Netflix for Games!


jon_cybernet
 Share

Recommended Posts

16 minutes ago, amc said:

The tagline people seem to be alluding to in this thread, that the original creators are going to benefit. Whether it's an actual tagline emboldened at the bottom of some written pitch or simply mentioned in video blurb about the service etc, it still seems pretty disingenuous to have it in the marketing, service plus points, if a lot of said creators won't see a dime.

No it's just something I said, once, in this thread a long time ago! And have since apologised for having misspoken. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh, fair enough, thought I also heard that chap from gamehut? TT mention it in the video you posted but I'm unsure if he has any connection to the service. A shame that something can't be worked out for all the original developer's games but at least you aren't claiming that you do as that would have been iffy. Reading through your posts it seems in some cases you're actually compensating those developers who hold their game rights? If so, fair play.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let's be fair here, because we are honing in on a couple of points:

 

On an earlier post, one of the Antstream guys said they were paying the creators when they should have said they are paying the rights holders.  That's a slip of the tongue - the point is that this is a legal way to play these old games with all the appropriate people being paid.  Much as I loved the Pickford Brothers work in my early teens (and yesterday when I played Zub and found myself trying to press 2468 then 1357 at once on an emulator, true fans know why) the sad fact is that if the Pickfords sold the entire rights to those games then they don't own them any more and they got paid the amount they agreed to at the time. Now, selling the entire rights in perpetuity and beyond may not have been the best decision but if that happened then you can't complain when the rights holders start making some money from the product that the programmers sold the rights to.  

 

 

I can't imagine when a programming team creates a game and sells it to Mastertronic or whoever, that there would be anything in the contract that says "Binary Design hereby sell the rights to Mastertronic to sell Amaurote for the Spectrum on cassettes and nothing else".  If there was, you could argue that the IP owner doesn't have the streaming rights.  But surely, all these old 8 bit games were written by a team, then sold to someone else, like Mastertronic or whoever.  It's a shame if that's the case, but Antstream is doing everything correctly there - it's a shame that people we like (the @JPickford and @Ste Pickford who wrote these games that we loved) are not going to see any of the money from Antstream, but surely they made their money at the time selling the game to the publisher?  As far as my uneducated mind works, Antstream doing the royalty payments correctly. It's sad, it's a shame, and it's not the way I feel it should be, but legally it's the way it is when you sell your product to someone else.  I think of Terry Hall of the Specials who wrote Sense, a lovely song that did nothing for him commercially until the Lightning Seeds covered it years later.  if you Google that song you'd never know it's by Terry Hall, the Lightning Seeds basically own that song as their version was much more successful, but Terry doesn't seem to care because he retained ownership of the song and has the writing credit so he earns money whoever sings is.  The people who write video games should have had the foresight to retain the ownership of their games and sign over publishing rights for a fixed period, but they didn't do that, so they won't get any money from Antstream.

 

So if Antstream is doing the payment side correctly (meaning legally, nothing more), what are they doing wrong?  Well....

 

For me, the very concept does not make any sense.  What we have here is a service that streams data to your device, yet plays retrogames which are tiny.  You''ll be using gigabytes of data to play Everyone's a Wally, a game that fits into 48k. It's crazy, why would they pay for all that bandwidth when they don't need to?  And because you're streaming, you'll get lag.  What Antstream appears to be doing is taking the most laggy way to deliver a video game, and combining this with the sort of games that are most susceptible to it.  If you're playing Sudoku on your phone, a little lag doesn't really matter.  But if you're trying to nail those precise Manic Miner jumps, you simply can't play it properly with even the slightest lag . 

 

As I've said before in this thread, I bought a DLP TV a few years ago and it had a 7 frame lag on it and it rendered any reaction based game unplayable.  It's a weird thing too, because your brain doesn't make the connection at first.  The game looks fine, it sounds fine, it's playing apparently fine, but you start to realise that you're really, really bad at this game you used to love.  It's only when you discover there's this lag and it all makes sense.  Until you notice it you find yourself running into holes, off the edges of platforms, straight into enemies. Someone fires a bullet at you, you react, but you don't realise it already hit to 7 frames ago and you're already dead and your reactions mean nothing.  These streaming gaming services may do whatever they can to reduce the lag, but there are enough issues with lag already and whatever the streaming service comes up with is ADDITIONAL lag, over and above whatever your TV , your bluetooth controller etc is introducing.  The very idea of launching a streaming service with arcade action retrogames is madness.

 

And going back to that other point - what is the point of streaming games that are so tiny you could download them in a fraction of a second anyway..... UNLESS of course the plan is to expand on that infrastructure once it's in place.  Because you see, they don't have to stream Everyone's a Wally for the 48K Spectrum.  They can stream any game they can get the rights to.  Suddenly, this system doesn't sound ludicrous after all.  imagine, all the latest games on this system.  Wow! Just imagine that! You could have the new Forza Turismo Defense Force X Plus Veronica Alpha Turbo on all your devices as part of your monthly subscription.  That's a game changer, and you know, if Google hadn't just announced they are doing exactly the same thing, this would be a good plan for the future for the service.

 

Sadly, Google have just announced there new streaming games service, and I'm sorry to say this (because I do think we should stick up for the little guys), the idea of trying to compete with Google when they have all those resources is madness.  There's a good reason I'm no longer working on "Dumpster's Maps" for Android, because I've only taken photos of my street and it's proving too much work to stitch them together.  

 

The only positive outcome I can see for this is that the whole thing is designed to be bought by Google and I'd bet that's been the plan from the start.  Create a streaming service, fill it with the IPs you can get for the least expense (Surely it's costing pennies to lease Everyone's a Wally?), get a few customers and flog it to Google.  It worked for HungryHouse.

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think one of the issues is that the market that probably doesn't care about lag (to the degree it would stop them playing something) probably aren't the people that want to pay a subscription either (even if it's just a fiver). And they probably don't care enough about the social hooks that Anstream hope get people engaged - the challenges and leaderboard stuff.

 

It'll be interesting to see how it progresses from the sidelines though (I'm not interested in it myself).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@dumpster Just to address a couple of points.

 

1) I wasn't complaining about Anstream not paying royalties.   I was complaining that they are/were claiming to be paying the game creators when in fact they were (quite properly - legally speaking) paying the rights holders who are in almost every case different people.  They seem to be using this to gain goodwill from their potential customers who really like the idea of paying the original creators.

 

2) There's basically never, ever a situation where a developer sells the IP to their work for a bag of cash.  Well, maybe the likes of Notch.   In 90% of cases the developer had no choice in the matter.   Usually the publisher is funding the game and simply insists they keep the IP.    Particularly evil publishers (like Infogrames) would do stuff like withhold payments on one project so we were forced to sign a crappy deal on another.  It's incredibly hard for a developer to keep hold of their IP unless they are very wealthy.   When we managed to hold onto our Wetrix IP (and there's a long story there) we,  despite being a profitable company, were hit with two publishers having money problems and all of a sudden something a million quid was wiped off income - we had to sell* the company to save 17 jobs.   Sure,  Ste and I could have just fired everyone and downsized the company to just the two of us and kept the IP but that seemed like a shitty thing to do when people had mortgages to pay.   Maybe we should have done that I don't know.

 

*for nothing essentially.

                            

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, JPickford said:

@dumpster Just to address a couple of points.

 

1) I wasn't complaining about Anstream not paying royalties.   I was complaining that they are/were claiming to be paying the game creators when in fact they were (quite properly - legally speaking) paying the rights holders who are in almost every case different people.  They seem to be using this to gain goodwill from their potentially customers who really like the idea of paying the original creators.

 

2) There's basically never, ever a situation where a developer sells the IP to their work for a bag of cash.  Well, maybe the likes of Notch.   In 90% of cases the developer had no choice in the matter.   Usually the publisher is funding the game and simply insists they keep the IP.    Particularly evil publishers (like Infogrames) would do stuff like withhold payments on one project so we were forced to sign a crappy deal on another.  It's incredibly hard for a developer to keep hold of their IP unless they are very wealthy.   When we managed to hold onto our Wetrix IP (and there's a long story there) we,  despite being a profitable company, were hit with two publishers having money problems and all of a sudden something a million quid was wiped off income - we had to sell the company to save 17 jobs.   Sure,  Ste and I could have just fired everyone and downsized the company to just the two of us and kept the IP but that seemed like a shitty thing to do when people had mortgages to pay.   Maybe we should have done that I don't know.

                            

Thanks for that reply. I didn't think YOU were complaining, but people have the impression the games devs are going to make money from this and that's not the case.  But have we seen any evidence of Antstream saying they pay the 'creators' outside of that forum post earlier? As far as I can see its a slip of the tongue, but I agree entirely, I don't see why the fact that people are getting paid is a selling point for the business , that post pitches what should be a given as a feature or benefit.  You wouldn't see the advert for NOW 110 saying "all the artists on this CD got paid" because they should, it's a given.   If Antstream is making a point of paying the 'creators' in their advertising then they can indeed piss off. 

 

2: the games industry seems to be an appalling place for developers , and I apologise  if I suggested that you write a game and sell it to the publisher for a big stack of cash. But whatever the process , it seems to me that royalties deservedly should go to those names  we grew up knowing (Pickford's, Tim Follin, Dave Whittaker, Colin Swinbourne, Kevin Toms, and so on)  but I'm sure the people concerned knew straight away they wouldn't be making any money off this thing, and if Antstream are suggesting otherwise in their marketing then that's awful.  

 

And Zub still holds up today. In fact, what's the chances of all you devs getting your heads together and doing a big compilation called "The 8 Bit Guys" with all the classics on? Would it be prohibitively expensive to buy the rights back?  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, deKay said:

Often it’s a case of buy the rights back from who? I’d bet some of the companies who own the rights probably have no idea they do.

 

The oddest example I've seen of this was back when the Activision Anthology was being put together someone discovered that back in the day (probably as a favour to a friend) Activision had bought the rights to several high profile Imagic games.

 

Not that I'm complaining, I still love a round of Demon Attack. In a case like that though the rights to Demon Attack haven't reverted back to Rob Fulop.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, deKay said:

Often it’s a case of buy the rights back from who? I’d bet some of the companies who own the rights probably have no idea they do.

True, but Antstream have apparently been able to work out who to deal with, so it would appear to be doable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Ste Pickford said:

 

We've made enquiries in the past and not really had success in finding anyone who definitely owns the rights to many of our old games.

 

We're fairly sure that we may actually own the rights to some of them by default, due to long strings of companies going out of business, and the fact that we never explicitly signed any rights away in most cases.  I very much doubt there's any company in existence with any paperwork proving that they own the games we created that were published by Mastertronic, for example.

 

But, while finding someone who can prove that they own the rights to Zub, say, and is also willing to return those rights to John and I, has proved so far to be impossible, I imagine finding someone who thinks they might own the rights to Zub, and asking if they'd accept some royalties every few months, wouldn't be too difficult at all.

 

So is that what Antstream are doing? Paying royalties to people who *might* own the royalties?  That's great news because I think I *might* own the rights to Star Wars. I have no paperwork to back this up, but I'll accept cheques on the off chance.  Wonder who Antstream is paying these royalties to?  Its intriguing isn't it!  Also , inspired by this conversation I started playing Amaurote last night, it's great. Never had a clue how to play it as a kid.  Enjoyed it a lot.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don’t understand this stuff so I may be wrong, but isn’t the streaming aspect essential to the Antstream business model?

 

If you could download the games from their service into emulators and play them locally, wouldn’t you then ‘own’ the game and have no reason to keep subscribing?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, ZOK said:

I don’t understand this stuff so I may be wrong, but isn’t the streaming aspect essential to the Antstream business model?

 

If you could download the games from their service into emulators and play them locally, wouldn’t you then ‘own’ the game and have no reason to keep subscribing?

 

If it was a case of game images being sent to a client side emulator I`d imagine it would have some sort of drm that would check that you were still subscribed etc in order to let you play the games, similar to how PSPlus games or books downloaded on the Kindle Unlimited subscription service work.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, ZOK said:

I don’t understand this stuff so I may be wrong, but isn’t the streaming aspect essential to the Antstream business model?

 

If you could download the games from their service into emulators and play them locally, wouldn’t you then ‘own’ the game and have no reason to keep subscribing?

 

Nope.  The client could still manage whether or not you have paid.  Look at the Switch NES games you get with the online sub.  They are downloaded (virtually instantly) and run locally but you still need an active sub to play them.  Nintendo are doing it correctly.  Antstream is arse over tit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, obviously a managed client with built in emulators and game downloads is a better experience. But I think the bit where streaming is "better" (or easier) and the business model of streaming kicks in is access from a wider range of hardware. Apps on TVs, browser, iOS, Android, consoles. Porting the range of required emulators just won't be possible across that spectrum I suspect.

 

Whether this (or any streaming solution) is actually good enough to be used accross a wide range of game types* is a different matter. I'm excited to find out one day (won't say it isn't till I've tried it).

 

* Turn based and anything slow is much less likely to be problematic than fast paced action games.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course porting across devices is possible.  They still need some kind of client on every device.  

 

I disagree about fast paced games. All games benefit from a responsive interface.  Even turn based games feel shit with lag.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, dumpster said:

 

So is that what Antstream are doing? Paying royalties to people who *might* own the royalties?  That's great news because I think I *might* own the rights to Star Wars. I have no paperwork to back this up, but I'll accept cheques on the off chance.  Wonder who Antstream is paying these royalties to?  Its intriguing isn't it!  Also , inspired by this conversation I started playing Amaurote last night, it's great. Never had a clue how to play it as a kid.  Enjoyed it a lot.  

 

They pay the royalties to an offshore account owned by.......ant stream! Genius 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Ste Pickford said:

 

We've made enquiries in the past and not really had success in finding anyone who definitely owns the rights to many of our old games.

 

We're fairly sure that we may actually own the rights to some of them by default, due to long strings of companies going out of business, and the fact that we never explicitly signed any rights away in most cases.  I very much doubt there's any company in existence with any paperwork proving that they own the games we created that were published by Mastertronic, for example.

 

But, while finding someone who can prove that they own the rights to Zub, say, and is also willing to return those rights to John and I, has proved so far to be impossible, I imagine finding someone who thinks they might own the rights to Zub, and asking if they'd accept some royalties every few months, wouldn't be too difficult at all.

If the paper trail goes cold on one of your own games what's to stop you just reacquiring the rites? Surely if finding said owner is next to impossible you can just take control of your own ip. Your names are in there somewhere so you have a much better case to say they belong to you. I'm probably being naive but if you've tried and failed to find the now owners due to a spider web of closures and asset requisitions twice removed these owners probably wouldn't have a clue they owned the rites and therefore not challenge any income you received. Can't you do due diligence until the trail ends then simply create some paperwork laying claim to your work?

 

Seems a shit state of affairs that games won't ever get a chance to be played again via one new means or another because business.

 

EDIT* Yeah reading that back it does seem quite naive, still maybe there could be instances which some bits of the above could be moulded into ownership, legally as not to leave yourselves open to being sued if someone came out of the woodwork. Surely your names in the code should give you some sort of shield with regards to having tried and failed to find owners thus going ahead and putting your work back into circulation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I dunno, I think it's pretty easy to sort out the problem of paying the original creators with a clear vision for the company/service.

 

A pitch to the IP holders could go like this....

 

"Hi, we're Anstream and I understand you now own the IP rights to publisher Gremlin/Ocean/Mastertronic/Whoever, which you have due to various corporate acquisitions over the years. We're proposing a new retro game service, but our vision is that the original creators will receive royalties for those games, after all it was those creators that made those great games that we all love to this day. Now, at the moment you're earning nothing from the current state of retro gaming - people "pirate" old roms and you get paid nothing.

 

What we're proposing will mean you'll get paid something for people paying those games, however in order to get your games on our service - and therefore for you to start being paid streaming royalties - you have to agree 50% of the royalties going to a creator fund we've setup, which will then divide it accordingly. If you don't want to do this, then that's fine, we won't host your games on our service and you'll be paid nothing anyway. Sounds like a good deal? Sign up here.

 

Great, that way we can promote the fact that we're changing retro gaming as the original creators are finally getting paid and the market will like that"

 

They might have fewer games on the service to start with, but others would eventually follow once they saw it was successful. They could genuinely promote it as a service that pays the creators, instead kind of implying that they are, but then in some cases they're not.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/04/2019 at 20:48, Anne Summers said:

 

 

 

Basically, we just want to do something new and creative with retro video games which everyone on the team loves.

Beyond that we want to be a streaming platform for gaming in general. In particular, we want to provide a easy, low-friction platform which anyone can use to self-publish indie or home-made games and hopefully find an audience for them. But we're starting with retro because we love it. 

 

I know you've said you're going to step back from posting in this thread, but your statement on the goal of Anstream just adds to the confusing state of the "goal" of Antstream.

 

It's Netflix for Retro Games. Because we love retro games!

...But eventually it's going to be Netflix for anyone who wants to make games, probably indie or home made games, that has nothing to do with Retro.

 

Is that what your customer base is wanting? Those that backed a Kickstarter claiming to be "The first streaming platform for retro gaming. Available on PC, Mac, Xbox One, and mobile devices." but then changes direction to an indie game platform, or any games for that matter, because that was the goal all along, but that wasn't necessarily communicated for the Kickstarter campaign (or indeed any of the publicity I've seen for the service on retro gaming websites)?

 

Maybe that's the pitch to the non Kickstarter investors, but it's a dangerous game having a different long term goal to the one that brought on your initial (and hopefully the most loyal) customers.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, gone fishin' said:

 

I know you've said you're going to step back from posting in this thread, but your statement on the goal of Anstream just adds to the confusing state of the "goal" of Antstream.

 

It's Netflix for Retro Games. Because we love retro games!

...But eventually it's going to be Netflix for anyone who wants to make games, probably indie or home made games, that has nothing to do with Retro.

 

Is that what your customer base is wanting? Those that backed a Kickstarter claiming to be "The first streaming platform for retro gaming. Available on PC, Mac, Xbox One, and mobile devices." but then changes direction to an indie game platform, or any games for that matter, because that was the goal all along, but that wasn't necessarily communicated for the Kickstarter campaign (or indeed any of the publicity I've seen for the service on retro gaming websites)?

 

Maybe that's the pitch to the non Kickstarter investors, but it's a dangerous game having a different long term goal to the one that brought on your initial (and hopefully the most loyal) customers.

 

 

 

That's the thing that confuses me as well.  If it's a retrogame service then it's going to get a niche audience, and I'd assume it would have a cheap monthly subscription.  If it has all sorts of games then it's basically Google Stadia, and Antstream must have some incredible tech to be thinking they can compete.  I'm all for supporting local business, but you'd be crazy to be making a service that is just the same as Google, because you'll be compared to Google at every step of the way and surely Google has more money, more resources and will ultimately make a better product.  

 

I can't imagine many people want to pay £7 a month to play Everyone's a Wally, a game that cost £5.99 to own 30 years ago.  But also, I can't imagine anyone paying that when there's a better product out there in the form of Google's offering.  I'd expect a retro game service for a couple of quid a month would be a nice thing, but the costs incurred running a streaming service would surely mean it wouldn't be feasible.  

 

The best solution would be to have a retroarch style front end that downloads the games in full as long as you are a subscriber.  The running costs would be a fraction of the price, the games would download instantly and it would be a Spotify style solution for those people who don't want to trawl pop-up filled rom sites.  But the streaming service seems to be a combination of conflicting ideas and doesn't make any sense to me.  Why would you stream video of a 48k spectrum game unless the goal is to add modern high end games to the service?  And if you do that, surely you're just doing what Google is going to do better?  I'm out. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, dumpster said:

 

I can't imagine many people want to pay £7 a month to play Everyone's a Wally, a game that cost £5.99 to own 30 years ago. 

 

I would probably pay close to this (maybe a fiver a month) to be able to play a big library of 8-bit games hassle-free on a modern console. Micro-computer stuff really is quite the untapped market. Regrettably, I have to say that I wouldn't do it via a streaming solution, but I'm living proof that there's at least one person who might be part of an audience for this sort of thing. 

 

I also really enjoyed Game Room though so yeah.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, dumpster said:

 

That's the thing that confuses me as well.  If it's a retrogame service then it's going to get a niche audience, and I'd assume it would have a cheap monthly subscription.  If it has all sorts of games then it's basically Google Stadia, and Antstream must have some incredible tech to be thinking they can compete.  I'm all for supporting local business, but you'd be crazy to be making a service that is just the same as Google, because you'll be compared to Google at every step of the way and surely Google has more money, more resources and will ultimately make a better product.  

 

 

Not just Google, but Microsoft, Sony or anyone else who's pushing Game Streaming tech.

 

I totally understand if the company is using Retro games as a way of testing the streaming technology with the long term goal of optimising so that any game could be streamed over it, but that's not what's being communicated to the current customer base, who are being told the service is being built around Retro Gaming.

 

So does that mean development in the Retro gameplay features like Challenges, Online co-op etc will be less than the development of the underlying streaming technology, because let's be honest, if they've got decent streaming technology for Retro Games, they probably don't need to develop it much further. Most of the games are going to require sub SD resolution video encoding, they're not going to require much cloud processing power, so I would presume the development should be going into the added features over just playing on an emulator (or emulating new systems). But saying you're also wanting to expand the service to stream, what I presume, is more powerful games, with a fairly small development team, is worrying because it's likely development will be compromised trying to compete with Google, Microsoft, Sony etc.

 

@JPickford I loved your response at the "suits" behind the games putting in as much effort as the original "creators", so deserve revenue. I'm presuming this was sent out as part of the Press Release for the Kickstarter Campaign Launch, as it was copied in a lot of Retro Websites. 

 

Quote

Who is Antstream?

 

Ian Livingstone CBE is our Chairman and Life President of Eidos

Steve Cottam is the CEO and Founder.

Darren Melbourne is Head of Licensing

Miyake Kazutoshi is ex CEO of Sega Europe and works with us in Japan

Richard Tufft is our adviser and is ex Goldman Sachs

Jon Mitchell is Head of Commercial and ex Spotify

Jon Burton is Creative Director and the founder of TT Games

 

Don't recognise a lot of retro game "creators" in there! ;-) 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, dumpster said:

 

That's the thing that confuses me as well.  If it's a retrogame service then it's going to get a niche audience, and I'd assume it would have a cheap monthly subscription.  If it has all sorts of games then it's basically Google Stadia, and Antstream must have some incredible tech to be thinking they can compete.  I'm all for supporting local business, but you'd be crazy to be making a service that is just the same as Google, because you'll be compared to Google at every step of the way and surely Google has more money, more resources and will ultimately make a better product.  

 

I can't imagine many people want to pay £7 a month to play Everyone's a Wally, a game that cost £5.99 to own 30 years ago.  But also, I can't imagine anyone paying that when there's a better product out there in the form of Google's offering.  I'd expect a retro game service for a couple of quid a month would be a nice thing, but the costs incurred running a streaming service would surely mean it wouldn't be feasible.  

 

The best solution would be to have a retroarch style front end that downloads the games in full as long as you are a subscriber.  The running costs would be a fraction of the price, the games would download instantly and it would be a Spotify style solution for those people who don't want to trawl pop-up filled rom sites.  But the streaming service seems to be a combination of conflicting ideas and doesn't make any sense to me.  Why would you stream video of a 48k spectrum game unless the goal is to add modern high end games to the service?  And if you do that, surely you're just doing what Google is going to do better?  I'm out. 

Just a point of order: Netflix and Spotify both do things that Google also do, and do it (arguably, but imo) better. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. Use of this website is subject to our Privacy Policy, Terms of Use, and Guidelines.