|
So who wants to tackle this one...
So this article at the top of /r/games sounds pretty rosy. They're claiming the esram on the XBO can actually push 192.0 GB/s. That sounds really great...
Except if we read the actual statement, it is this.
However, with near-final production silicon, Microsoft techs have found that the hardware is capable of reading and writing simultaneously. Apparently, there are spare processing cycle "holes" that can be utilised for additional operations.
No, they didn't wake up one morning and realize there was an extra data line in their memory module, so lets drill down to what that actually means.
Apparently, there are spare processing cycle "holes" that can be utilised for additional operations.
In other words, no, it isn't capable of bidirectional data transfer. Their trying to push through a few extra memory operations, but the it's still strictly read or write.
Eurogame article: http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-xbox-one-memory-better-in-production-hardware
http://www.reddit.com/r/Games/comments/1h9ix3/so_did_microsoft_just_spin_a_downclocked_esram/
|
On June 29 2013 15:04 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:So who wants to tackle this one... Show nested quote +So this article at the top of /r/games sounds pretty rosy. They're claiming the esram on the XBO can actually push 192.0 GB/s. That sounds really great...
Except if we read the actual statement, it is this.
However, with near-final production silicon, Microsoft techs have found that the hardware is capable of reading and writing simultaneously. Apparently, there are spare processing cycle "holes" that can be utilised for additional operations.
No, they didn't wake up one morning and realize there was an extra data line in their memory module, so lets drill down to what that actually means.
Apparently, there are spare processing cycle "holes" that can be utilised for additional operations.
In other words, no, it isn't capable of bidirectional data transfer. Their trying to push through a few extra memory operations, but the it's still strictly read or write. Eurogame article: http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-xbox-one-memory-better-in-production-hardwarehttp://www.reddit.com/r/Games/comments/1h9ix3/so_did_microsoft_just_spin_a_downclocked_esram/
Leave it to Reddit as a whole speculate wildly about what this article means and how right they've always been (lol). First of all, you CAN read/write at the "same time" depending on the architecture (data line throughput and how well it times up with instructions). With ESRAM, I'm willing to bet that's the easy part.
As for the "holes," this can happen. You can shuffle the pipeline around a little, and depending on the clock, you can run operations out of step in preparation for another queued command. These holes can appear for a lot of reasons between design and implementation.
Honestly, without a hands on, we can't really say though.
Here's a good response in the thread:
Basically, the argument being made was that, after doing the math, it appeared that Microsoft's numbers indicated that the clock speed of the memory/GPU had been reduced because the "doubled" data rate (reading and writing at the same time) was less that what it should've been by simply doubling the original bandwidth. The original bandwidth of the Xbox One's 32MB eSRAM was said to be 102GB/s reading or writing, one at a time. Then Microsoft claimed that they had actually found a way to read and write at the same time, which should technically double the bandwidth of the eSRAM since it's performing double the operations per second for a total of 204GB/s. However, Microsoft was saying that the theoretical peak bandwidth was only 192GB/s, which would indicate that the one-way bandwidth had been reduced to 96GB/s. After doing some number crunching, it looked like it all translated into a memory/GPU downclock of 50MHz from 800 to 750.
However, apparently the one-way throughput of the eSRAM still remains at the original 102GB/s and the theoretical peak isn't double that because it's not actually able to simultaneously read and write all the time (in fact, technically it's not reading and writing simultaneously at all, but I digress) which means that in general use it's not able to effectively increase the bandwidth nearly as much (their own real-world tests were only able to produce a practical increase to 133GB/s anyway, far from the 192GB/s theoretical peak), so it's no longer clear whether this is indication of a reduction in memory clock or not.
In my opinion, it seems to be much ado about nothing as I don't see how increasing the bandwidth of the 32MB of eSRAM by a whole 31GB/s is really going to be all that helpful, especially if it's utility is as situational as it sounds, and regardless it would still fall under the 176GB/s bandwidth of the PS4's GDDR5 memory. But then I could just be talking completely out of my ass as well. I don't think anyone on reddit is really qualified to say what if any practical difference any of it is going to make.
Source
If they ARE getting non-mirrored data transfer rates while doing strictly memory operations, I'm willing to bet that the shared architecture between reads/writes prioritizes the primary operation over the secondary that's being hinted at. This would give them uneven bi-directional data bandwith. In other words, there's some overhead when dealing with bi-directional memory operations (probably when doing a mass register swap with cache).
|
I love all the technical discussion of what the Xbox and PS4, because in the end it won't really matter. Both of them will play almost all the of same games.
|
On June 29 2013 21:42 Plansix wrote:
I love all the technical discussion of what the Xbox and PS4, because in the end it won't really matter. Both of them will play almost all the of same games.
Uh what? All computers play the same games, that doesn't mean one computer isn't better than the other. The reason the technical discussion exists is because there's some pretty big differences on the physical hardware which could allow one to do things the other can't. Just like computers.
|
I appreciate that you crafted probably the only response to my post that is not total nonsense with a repetition of already debunked ideas. So that's good.
I think you're likely correct on the thinking of console gamers who rejected Xbox One. They didn't like the idea of not owning games that are bought on discs and the need to be online. But I do not see how this weakens my DRM argument, and you seem to admit that there's a double standard about DRM. And this hypocrisy is very easily detected: if DRM is currently in use, then it's OK, but if it's new DRM, even if it removes old DRM (like requiring discs to be in the drive), it's hounded down with cries of outrage, regardless of the merits of either. And as I've been saying, these expectations emerge because these gamers are steeped in backwards and retrogressive thinking.
The idea of having all games tied to an online account, or the benefits of being online, or that the 24 hour check-in was necessary because without it, it would be possible to play every single game for free, isn't something that would easily follow for gamers whose thinking is stuck in the outdated mindset of the current console market. In fact, one of my aims was to bring people out of this mindset, to see the possibilities that have been enabled by the current PC model, which Xbox One was moving towards.
As for different groups of players not necessarily overlapping. This has some merit, but tens of millions of people play on Xbox Live, the internet is not new. It shouldn't have been a big deal. But it is, because it's new and unfamiliar DRM.
So in conclusion, I think you correctly explain the problems with what people are thinking, but it doesn't excuse it.
@parallel
You said in your conclusion that I succeeded in explaining the problems in the way people are thinking, but failed to excuse them. I appreciate you giving me credit where it's due, but the matter of the fact is that I don't see any problems in the way consumers are thinking. I merely succeeded in explaining the way people are thinking.
And yes, we both seem to agree that they is a double standard for DRM. But I hoped that we would further agree that this double standard is a normal phenomenon. We are talking about different demographics having different opinions about different forms of DRM on different products/services. Your argument was based on the assumption that all forms of DRM are nearly equal, and that people shouldn't behave differently towards any of them. But like I said before, XB One is a piece of hardware. When a company promotes their product, saying that "this tangible good will work as intended only if it can verify its legitibility every 24 hours via the internet," people are not happy. This is different in the case of WoW, because players' character information is stored on their servers. Blizzard justified the need for players to log on, and by doing so, a translucent DRM was put in place. Microsoft too could have tried a less drastic form of DRM, but just chose not to. The backlash that they experienced is the natural consequence of these events, and not something that should be disregarded as "consumers being hypocrites."
My question to you is, seeing as how you chose to distinguish expansions and DLC as different entities, why do you see all forms of DRM as the same? If the market is headed to a more digitally distributed structure as you mentioned (to which I absolutely agree), the distinction between expansions and DLC begins to collapse. After all, if the Heart of the Swarm came out under the name of DLC, would that change anything except the name? (and the fact that it is only distributed digitally, as the namesake) If the Dragonborn for Skyrim came out in the name of an expansion set, would that even slightly change players' experiences? So why is there a need to call one form better than the other?
In the current state, there are more "junk" DLCs than expansions, but that might be due to the fact that they are digitally distributed (hence less distributive costs,) not because there is a fundamental difference between DLCs and expansions. If the market turns to digital downloads as the main distribution method, would anything change if companies started calling their "additions" as expansions?
I would like to hear what you have to say on this matter because the stance you take here seems so fundamentally different than on the matter of DRM, in which you say "it doesn't matter whether it's Steam or WoW, they are all DRMs in the end so everyone should deal with them equally." Perhaps I am missing something that you said?
|
On June 29 2013 22:13 Infernal_dream wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2013 21:42 Plansix wrote:
I love all the technical discussion of what the Xbox and PS4, because in the end it won't really matter. Both of them will play almost all the of same games. Uh what? All computers play the same games, that doesn't mean one computer isn't better than the other. The reason the technical discussion exists is because there's some pretty big differences on the physical hardware which could allow one to do things the other can't. Just like computers.
Yes, but at the end of the day the software developers are going to make games for the largest market share. Technically the PS3 was more powerful than the Xbox 360, but because the 360 had a larger market share, all games were made to work on it. There might be a neat feature used in a game, but in the end they will both end up with very similar games and experiences.
|
On June 29 2013 22:13 Infernal_dream wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2013 21:42 Plansix wrote:
I love all the technical discussion of what the Xbox and PS4, because in the end it won't really matter. Both of them will play almost all the of same games. Uh what? All computers play the same games, that doesn't mean one computer isn't better than the other. The reason the technical discussion exists is because there's some pretty big differences on the physical hardware which could allow one to do things the other can't. Just like computers.
Does it matter games will be developed to play on the xbox one probably first and then ported over to ps4 so they are going to look very similar. Anyways it all depends, the libGCM which isn't hard to use for the ps3 wasn't the issue for programming for the ps3, it was the use of the cell processors along with the very ugly to use openGL emulation layer ontop of the libGCM which why it took soo long for ps3 games to differ themselves from the 360 even though it's a much more powerful machine. At the end of the day microsoft is still king in appeasing application developers with power and somewhat easy to use tools, if not just extremely well documented and supported.
|
On June 30 2013 00:33 semantics wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2013 22:13 Infernal_dream wrote:On June 29 2013 21:42 Plansix wrote:
I love all the technical discussion of what the Xbox and PS4, because in the end it won't really matter. Both of them will play almost all the of same games. Uh what? All computers play the same games, that doesn't mean one computer isn't better than the other. The reason the technical discussion exists is because there's some pretty big differences on the physical hardware which could allow one to do things the other can't. Just like computers. Does it matter games will be developed to play on the xbox one probably first and then ported over to ps4 so they are going to look very similar. Anyways it all depends, the libGCM which isn't hard to use for the ps3 wasn't the issue for programming for the ps3, it was the use of the cell processors along with the very ugly to use openGL emulation layer ontop of the libGCM which why it took soo long for ps3 games to differ themselves from the 360 even though it's a much more powerful machine. At the end of the day microsoft is still king in appeasing application developers with power and somewhat easy to use tools, if not just extremely well documented and supported.
It seems like the situation has flipped since now developers are much happier with Playstation 4 over the Box.
|
On June 30 2013 00:33 semantics wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2013 22:13 Infernal_dream wrote:On June 29 2013 21:42 Plansix wrote:
I love all the technical discussion of what the Xbox and PS4, because in the end it won't really matter. Both of them will play almost all the of same games. Uh what? All computers play the same games, that doesn't mean one computer isn't better than the other. The reason the technical discussion exists is because there's some pretty big differences on the physical hardware which could allow one to do things the other can't. Just like computers. Does it matter games will be developed to play on the xbox one probably first and then ported over to ps4 so they are going to look very similar. Anyways it all depends, the libGCM which isn't hard to use for the ps3 wasn't the issue for programming for the ps3, it was the use of the cell processors along with the very ugly to use openGL emulation layer ontop of the libGCM which why it took soo long for ps3 games to differ themselves from the 360 even though it's a much more powerful machine. At the end of the day microsoft is still king in appeasing application developers with power and somewhat easy to use tools, if not just extremely well documented and supported.
While I know PS3 was problematic to develop on due to fancy hardware, I thought the PS4 and XB1 had similar PC-like architectures to make it easy on the developers ? So if that's true, I fail to see how MS has the upper hand for development for this generation. And if porting from one console to the next isn't as problematic as the current generation, I guess better hardware wouldn't hurt to help against framerate drop or achieving 60fps even if I agree the visual quality will probably be the same for both console. And I'm not sure why developers would develop on XB1 first if the PS4 is easy to develop for this generation anyway ?
|
On June 30 2013 06:57 rezoacken wrote:Show nested quote +On June 30 2013 00:33 semantics wrote:On June 29 2013 22:13 Infernal_dream wrote:On June 29 2013 21:42 Plansix wrote:
I love all the technical discussion of what the Xbox and PS4, because in the end it won't really matter. Both of them will play almost all the of same games. Uh what? All computers play the same games, that doesn't mean one computer isn't better than the other. The reason the technical discussion exists is because there's some pretty big differences on the physical hardware which could allow one to do things the other can't. Just like computers. Does it matter games will be developed to play on the xbox one probably first and then ported over to ps4 so they are going to look very similar. Anyways it all depends, the libGCM which isn't hard to use for the ps3 wasn't the issue for programming for the ps3, it was the use of the cell processors along with the very ugly to use openGL emulation layer ontop of the libGCM which why it took soo long for ps3 games to differ themselves from the 360 even though it's a much more powerful machine. At the end of the day microsoft is still king in appeasing application developers with power and somewhat easy to use tools, if not just extremely well documented and supported. While I know PS3 was problematic to develop on due to fancy hardware, I thought the PS4 and XB1 had similar PC-like architectures to make it easy on the developers ? So if that's true, I fail to see how MS has the upper hand for development for this generation. And if porting from one console to the next isn't as problematic as the current generation, I guess better hardware wouldn't hurt to help against framerate drop or achieving 60fps even if I agree the visual quality will probably be the same for both console. And I'm not sure why developers would develop on XB1 first if the PS4 is easy to develop for this generation anyway ?
They have the same x86 architecture. So there will be no more "making the game for 360 first" because it will work on both systems the same exact way. More developers have already voiced that they would rather deal with sony than MS at the moment.
|
On June 30 2013 07:18 Infernal_dream wrote:Show nested quote +On June 30 2013 06:57 rezoacken wrote:On June 30 2013 00:33 semantics wrote:On June 29 2013 22:13 Infernal_dream wrote:On June 29 2013 21:42 Plansix wrote:
I love all the technical discussion of what the Xbox and PS4, because in the end it won't really matter. Both of them will play almost all the of same games. Uh what? All computers play the same games, that doesn't mean one computer isn't better than the other. The reason the technical discussion exists is because there's some pretty big differences on the physical hardware which could allow one to do things the other can't. Just like computers. Does it matter games will be developed to play on the xbox one probably first and then ported over to ps4 so they are going to look very similar. Anyways it all depends, the libGCM which isn't hard to use for the ps3 wasn't the issue for programming for the ps3, it was the use of the cell processors along with the very ugly to use openGL emulation layer ontop of the libGCM which why it took soo long for ps3 games to differ themselves from the 360 even though it's a much more powerful machine. At the end of the day microsoft is still king in appeasing application developers with power and somewhat easy to use tools, if not just extremely well documented and supported. While I know PS3 was problematic to develop on due to fancy hardware, I thought the PS4 and XB1 had similar PC-like architectures to make it easy on the developers ? So if that's true, I fail to see how MS has the upper hand for development for this generation. And if porting from one console to the next isn't as problematic as the current generation, I guess better hardware wouldn't hurt to help against framerate drop or achieving 60fps even if I agree the visual quality will probably be the same for both console. And I'm not sure why developers would develop on XB1 first if the PS4 is easy to develop for this generation anyway ? They have the same x86 architecture. So there will be no more "making the game for 360 first" because it will work on both systems the same exact way. More developers have already voiced that they would rather deal with sony than MS at the moment.
Yeah--there have been some instances where developers have been vocal over their excitement for working with the Playstation 4. Even during the E3 show, Sony put quite a bit of effort into the indie developers and they got quite the applause.
Originally Sony was releasing videos where developers were praising the playstation 4 which I thought was just mere PR and nothing more. But since then, and more developers have spoken on the topic, I have become much more confident in their resolve. Plus it seems like Microsoft was not even discussing their policies with the developers before the show (since they were only then learning about them).
Although the Playstation 4 is a better machine compared to the Box, time will tell just how good of games will be coming out next year for both systems.
|
By the way, Microsoft sets prices on XBox Live Marketplace items, not the publisher.
|
On June 30 2013 10:28 Nilrem wrote:Show nested quote +On June 30 2013 07:18 Infernal_dream wrote:On June 30 2013 06:57 rezoacken wrote:On June 30 2013 00:33 semantics wrote:On June 29 2013 22:13 Infernal_dream wrote:On June 29 2013 21:42 Plansix wrote:
I love all the technical discussion of what the Xbox and PS4, because in the end it won't really matter. Both of them will play almost all the of same games. Uh what? All computers play the same games, that doesn't mean one computer isn't better than the other. The reason the technical discussion exists is because there's some pretty big differences on the physical hardware which could allow one to do things the other can't. Just like computers. Does it matter games will be developed to play on the xbox one probably first and then ported over to ps4 so they are going to look very similar. Anyways it all depends, the libGCM which isn't hard to use for the ps3 wasn't the issue for programming for the ps3, it was the use of the cell processors along with the very ugly to use openGL emulation layer ontop of the libGCM which why it took soo long for ps3 games to differ themselves from the 360 even though it's a much more powerful machine. At the end of the day microsoft is still king in appeasing application developers with power and somewhat easy to use tools, if not just extremely well documented and supported. While I know PS3 was problematic to develop on due to fancy hardware, I thought the PS4 and XB1 had similar PC-like architectures to make it easy on the developers ? So if that's true, I fail to see how MS has the upper hand for development for this generation. And if porting from one console to the next isn't as problematic as the current generation, I guess better hardware wouldn't hurt to help against framerate drop or achieving 60fps even if I agree the visual quality will probably be the same for both console. And I'm not sure why developers would develop on XB1 first if the PS4 is easy to develop for this generation anyway ? They have the same x86 architecture. So there will be no more "making the game for 360 first" because it will work on both systems the same exact way. More developers have already voiced that they would rather deal with sony than MS at the moment. Yeah--there have been some instances where developers have been vocal over their excitement for working with the Playstation 4. Even during the E3 show, Sony put quite a bit of effort into the indie developers and they got quite the applause. Originally Sony was releasing videos where developers were praising the playstation 4 which I thought was just mere PR and nothing more. But since then, and more developers have spoken on the topic, I have become much more confident in their resolve. Plus it seems like Microsoft was not even discussing their policies with the developers before the show (since they were only then learning about them). Although the Playstation 4 is a better machine compared to the Box, time will tell just how good of games will be coming out next year for both systems.
One needs to keep in mind that a lot of indie devs (that have a game under their belt) already have some experience with MS and LIVE. It has largely been a painful experience from what I've heard, which obviously means they would be excited about the potential in working on another console/distribution platform. There's still the possibility that the problems and costs associated with LIVE are still present on PS Network and nobody has run into them yet. I think the consumer wins either way though.
|
Im interested to hear more about Project Spark and the Black Tusk game. PS looks like a pretty good game to relax with and I have high hopes for Black Tusk.
|
On June 30 2013 10:39 takingbackoj wrote:
Im interested to hear more about Project Spark and the Black Tusk game. PS looks like a pretty good game to relax with and I have high hopes for Black Tusk.
Yeah I think I will be trying out Project Spark on the PC. Conceptually it seems pretty cool but will have to try it to see if it will be fun.
|
On June 30 2013 10:33 Lemstar wrote:
By the way, Microsoft sets prices on XBox Live Marketplace items, not the publisher.
Microsoft removed one of the XBL hurdles for small developers the cost of releasing a patch was removed. Which i think is in anticipation of XB1 the cost of patching was mostly put in place due to a bad quark with the XB360 in that a game patch if done really poorly can brick your system on the 360, which meant MS professionals went over the code before it would be submitted as a patch which costs money. PS4 doesn't have this problem (although sony does enough bricking though patches for everyone). Microsoft likely finally corrected this problem. Probably could have corrected it long ago but profits is profits.
|
On June 30 2013 10:52 semantics wrote:
Microsoft removed one of the XBL hurdles for small developers the cost of releasing a patch was removed. Which i think is in anticipation of XB1 the cost of patching was mostly put in place due to a bad quark with the XB360 in that a game patch if done really poorly can brick your system on the 360, which meant MS professionals went over the code before it would be submitted as a patch which costs money. PS4 doesn't have this problem (although sony does enough bricking though patches for everyone). Microsoft likely finally corrected this problem. Probably could have corrected it long ago but profits is profits.
Yeah, that's nice, but paralleluniverse is adamant that publishers set prices. At least in one ecosystem, that's not true - Valve suggests prices to publishers, but the final say isn't in their hands.
I wish I could find a source for this, though - I know I first saw it in relation to some kind of Capcom fighting game sale that was only available on PSN, but I can't remember when it was. There's also this article, but it's a bit old.
|
On June 30 2013 13:26 Lemstar wrote:Show nested quote +On June 30 2013 10:52 semantics wrote:
Microsoft removed one of the XBL hurdles for small developers the cost of releasing a patch was removed. Which i think is in anticipation of XB1 the cost of patching was mostly put in place due to a bad quark with the XB360 in that a game patch if done really poorly can brick your system on the 360, which meant MS professionals went over the code before it would be submitted as a patch which costs money. PS4 doesn't have this problem (although sony does enough bricking though patches for everyone). Microsoft likely finally corrected this problem. Probably could have corrected it long ago but profits is profits. Yeah, that's nice, but paralleluniverse is adamant that publishers set prices. At least in one ecosystem, that's not true - Valve suggests prices to publishers, but the final say isn't in their hands. I wish I could find a source for this, though - I know I first saw it in relation to some kind of Capcom fighting game sale that was only available on PSN, but I can't remember when it was. There's also this article, but it's a bit old.
There's really no point in arguing with PU at this point. He's got 30+ pages to himself in this due to extremely long drawn out senseless posts of ignoring people and calling them stupid. You can lead a horse to water, you can drown him in it, but you cant force him to drink it.
|
On June 30 2013 13:31 Infernal_dream wrote:Show nested quote +On June 30 2013 13:26 Lemstar wrote:On June 30 2013 10:52 semantics wrote:
Microsoft removed one of the XBL hurdles for small developers the cost of releasing a patch was removed. Which i think is in anticipation of XB1 the cost of patching was mostly put in place due to a bad quark with the XB360 in that a game patch if done really poorly can brick your system on the 360, which meant MS professionals went over the code before it would be submitted as a patch which costs money. PS4 doesn't have this problem (although sony does enough bricking though patches for everyone). Microsoft likely finally corrected this problem. Probably could have corrected it long ago but profits is profits. Yeah, that's nice, but paralleluniverse is adamant that publishers set prices. At least in one ecosystem, that's not true - Valve suggests prices to publishers, but the final say isn't in their hands. I wish I could find a source for this, though - I know I first saw it in relation to some kind of Capcom fighting game sale that was only available on PSN, but I can't remember when it was. There's also this article, but it's a bit old. There's really no point in arguing with PU at this point. He's got 30+ pages to himself in this due to extremely long drawn out senseless posts of ignoring people and calling them stupid. You can lead a horse to water, you can drown him in it, but you cant force him to drink it.
Ah, but the joy of drowning is that the water will still get down his throat before he dies :D.
|
On June 30 2013 13:35 WolfintheSheep wrote:Show nested quote +On June 30 2013 13:31 Infernal_dream wrote:On June 30 2013 13:26 Lemstar wrote:On June 30 2013 10:52 semantics wrote:
Microsoft removed one of the XBL hurdles for small developers the cost of releasing a patch was removed. Which i think is in anticipation of XB1 the cost of patching was mostly put in place due to a bad quark with the XB360 in that a game patch if done really poorly can brick your system on the 360, which meant MS professionals went over the code before it would be submitted as a patch which costs money. PS4 doesn't have this problem (although sony does enough bricking though patches for everyone). Microsoft likely finally corrected this problem. Probably could have corrected it long ago but profits is profits. Yeah, that's nice, but paralleluniverse is adamant that publishers set prices. At least in one ecosystem, that's not true - Valve suggests prices to publishers, but the final say isn't in their hands. I wish I could find a source for this, though - I know I first saw it in relation to some kind of Capcom fighting game sale that was only available on PSN, but I can't remember when it was. There's also this article, but it's a bit old. There's really no point in arguing with PU at this point. He's got 30+ pages to himself in this due to extremely long drawn out senseless posts of ignoring people and calling them stupid. You can lead a horse to water, you can drown him in it, but you cant force him to drink it. Ah, but the joy of drowning is that the water will still get down his throat before he dies :D.
Lol--so bad  K, now let us drop the subject, no need to give him more attention then he has already been given. Out of curiosity, has anyone here worked on the kinect before? Since it seemed to have been used quite a bit in a hacked former, I wonder if anyone on TL has been doing something like that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
