or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › Gaming & Content Streaming › Home Theater Gaming › Xbox Area › The Official Xbox One thread...
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

The Official Xbox One thread... - Page 89

post #2641 of 14792
Just get your preorders setup and all of this will work itself out.

I am sure that all of the details on game sharing will be made much clearer as we approach launch and reviewers start to get their test units .
Worst case is that the sharing feature isn't finalized and will be activated in a later update .
I am sure that MS is still finalizing their release software and that the sharing most likely isn't the most critical item on that list.

In either case as long as they can explain in more detail how this will work , (the can and can not's) before launch it will put many more people at ease about purchasing even if the feature isn't ready at launch.
post #2642 of 14792
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anthony1 View Post

I think we should have a separate thread for discussion about the Xbox One 10 Family Member Plan.

I really think the family member thing could be absolutely huge, and it's kinda amazing that Microsoft didn't make a bigger deal of that. It would seem, that if you had a really good friend, and wanted to just lock in the two of you on Xbox One games, you could each be in each others 10 members, and any games that you guys would buy, would be playable by both of you at the same time... right ?

I mean, let's take a hypothetical example. Bob owns an XB1. David owns an XB1. Bob is one of David's 10 family members. David is one of Bob's 10 family members. When Bob buys a game, David can also play it from his gamertag. When David buys a game, Bob can play it from his gamertag. Basically, their combined pool of games can be fully shared by each of them.

Now, here is the real key.... If you start adding more people to the 10 member list, then sometimes, when Bob wants to play one of David's games, he won't be able to, because one of the other 10 family members will be playing it. So basically, this would really only work very well with two people. If you were on the West Coast, you could probably add a east coast person, and if you're on the east coast you add a west coast person. Actually people on the east coast could add Hawaii gamers, lol. The chances of them gaming at the same time would be very slim !

Major Nelson tweeted that he's going to detail the family sharing plan so. so cautious optimism is a good thing. it does sound almost too good to be true so I'm wondering what kind of hammer will be hitting us.

but if this family thing is managed properly by the family members, this plan can be amazing. almost regardless of the conditions imposed. on another forum (not to be named but filled with cheap-#$%ed gamers wink.gif), they're trying to think all the angles of possible restrictions. and no matter how you parse, it seems good. people over there are even thinking of "renting" family spots which is kind of ridiculous but that group was the group that taught me about how to share XBLA titles and thus split the cost.

like Anthony1 says, the key is being on each other's family list. even if the large restriction (and this is really digging into the possible subterfuge of the licensing page) is that only 1 member of the group can access an entire library, as long as everyone is on everyone's family list, you still have access to the libraries of the 9 others.
  • so if person 1 has friends 2-9. friend 2 has a family list that includes person 1, and friends 3-9. friend 3 has a family list that includes person 1, friends 1-2 and friend 4-9. etc. etc.
  • friend 2 is on person 1's family list and plays a game from person 1's list. huge restriction (if restriction is actually being used) so that the rest of the person 1's family cannot play that library (friends 3-9) because the entire library is locked.
  • person 1 is on friend 2's family list and thus can play from friend 2's list of games. now friend's 2 library is locked from the rest of friend 2's family. friends 3-9 cannot play person 1's library or friend 2's library. but friends 3-9 still have the game libraries of 3-9 to play.

so if it is the case that an entire library of games is locked if a family member plays a game, as long as the entire group doesn't play games at the same time of day. Because in that case, all the libraries get locked up and then you're playing musical chairs and stuck to your own games. it has to be the case that it's 1+1 because it would be extremely crazy to lock the primary owner and actual purchaser of the game to be locked out of his own game. but even if that restriction is also the case, it'd still be an effective system.

but having all 10 members interlock only those 10 members in order for this to work is pretty darn restrictive in itself. because I'm sure each member has actual family that they want to include and each member have different groups of friends that they want to include which would make the system fall apart. if bob has 3 kids, will the other friends want to include those 3 kids on their family lists since it's most likely that bob is the only one buying games? friendships can get stressed! biggrin.gif
post #2643 of 14792
People are seriously naive/delusional if they think ms and game publishers are going to
lower game prices if the xbox one is a success.
post #2644 of 14792
Quote:
Originally Posted by TyrantII View Post



Now, from what I've read, there's no limit on this type of buying and sharing with 10 friends. I have no idea how it's going to last without some major restrictions. We already know published say any game bought discounted is a lost $60 full priced sale, and MS seems to be implying that they'll effectively allow people to shave off 90% of the cost of their library with the only restriction being coordinate use between 9 other people.


The big limit is that only ONE person on your 10 people family list, can be playing the game (besides yourself) at any one time. So, while you can have 10 people on that list, you could end up having 8 people somewhat frustrated, because they can never get on and share the game.


The other thing is, I've heard that you can only be on a single 10 person family list. So, anybody that is on your list, can't be on any other list. If you are on your list (which obviously you would be), then you can't be on anybody else's list at the same time. This is a rumor right now, so it's more speculation than anything, but I've heard this being discussed in certain circles. I'm not sure how all of this is going to play out, but I think it would be a good idea if Microsoft could do a special video that really shows how all this works. Like show the different people playing, and how somebody can get bumped off, or the message they see that says the game is already in use by another family member, etc, etc. I think a video actually showing how all this works, would be better than just a FAQ on their website.

The problem with this thing, is that any way you slice it, it's going to be a very confusing thing to try to explain to people. It could be a HUGE advantage for Xbox One people, but it's going to be an advantage that is hard to explain to others.
post #2645 of 14792
Quote:
Originally Posted by onlysublime View Post

Major Nelson tweeted that he's going to detail the family sharing plan so. so cautious optimism is a good thing. it does sound almost too good to be true so I'm wondering what kind of hammer will be hitting us.

but if this family thing is managed properly by the family members, this plan can be amazing. almost regardless of the conditions imposed. on another forum (not to be named but filled with cheap-#$%ed gamers wink.gif), they're trying to think all the angles of possible restrictions. and no matter how you parse, it seems good. people over there are even thinking of "renting" family spots which is kind of ridiculous but that group was the group that taught me about how to share XBLA titles and thus split the cost.

like Anthony1 says, the key is being on each other's family list. even if the large restriction (and this is really digging into the possible subterfuge of the licensing page) is that only 1 member of the group can access an entire library, as long as everyone is on everyone's family list, you still have access to the libraries of the 9 others.
  • so if person 1 has friends 2-9. friend 2 has a family list that includes person 1, and friends 3-9. friend 3 has a family list that includes person 1, friends 1-2 and friend 4-9. etc. etc.
  • friend 2 is on person 1's family list and plays a game from person 1's list. huge restriction (if restriction is actually being used) so that the rest of the person 1's family cannot play that library (friends 3-9) because the entire library is locked.
  • person 1 is on friend 2's family list and thus can play from friend 2's list of games. now friend's 2 library is locked from the rest of friend 2's family. friends 3-9 cannot play person 1's library or friend 2's library. but friends 3-9 still have the game libraries of 3-9 to play.

so if it is the case that an entire library of games is locked if a family member plays a game, as long as the entire group doesn't play games at the same time of day. Because in that case, all the libraries get locked up and then you're playing musical chairs and stuck to your own games. it has to be the case that it's 1+1 because it would be extremely crazy to lock the primary owner and actual purchaser of the game to be locked out of his own game. but even if that restriction is also the case, it'd still be an effective system.

but having all 10 members interlock only those 10 members in order for this to work is pretty darn restrictive in itself. because I'm sure each member has actual family that they want to include and each member have different groups of friends that they want to include which would make the system fall apart. if bob has 3 kids, will the other friends want to include those 3 kids on their family lists since it's most likely that bob is the only one buying games? friendships can get stressed! biggrin.gif

I think there does need to be restrictions. The game makers do have to make money. I (personally) just want to be able to loan a game or two out to people that I figure won't buy the game anyway (unless someone loans them the game and they find they love it and want to play it more). Locking it down so only one person at a time on your list can play a game from your library may work. Also, having the same 30 day restriction for the "gifting" so that you don't switch people in an out of your list all of the time. If I had a disk I would not loan it to someone I don't know so if we want to make this like disk loaning its not unreasonable for them to try to confirm you actually do know the person you are loaning stuff too. I am sure some people will see this as "spying" though.
post #2646 of 14792
Quote:
Originally Posted by AHDTVDiet View Post

I think there does need to be restrictions. The game makers do have to make money. .

This is the big question. If the whole idea of restricting the license was to increase game sales then the family plan could have a far greater potential to impact game sales negatively then trading/selling unless done correctly.

I believe that the only way the family plan prevents this is if the Family members avatars are linked to the same Live account. Remember this isnt being called the Friends & family plan so I believe that the whole Idea is that if you can share your live account between your family and they get to collectively share the game library across their XBOX's . The only catch is that you will need to be linked to the same Live account (up to 10) . There are many possibilities but I believe this males the most sense.
post #2647 of 14792
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anthony1 View Post

The other thing is, I've heard that you can only be on a single 10 person family list. So, anybody that is on your list, can't be on any other list. If you are on your list (which obviously you would be), then you can't be on anybody else's list at the same time. This is a rumor right now, so it's more speculation than anything, but I've heard this being discussed in certain circles.

yes, if that's the case, it would put a damper on the plan and make it a decent/good plan rather than the spectacular plan people are hoping. because if they combine locking an entire library with no interlocking libraries, then people would still have to make a lot of game purchases anyway and it would be sharing but not mass sharing. you may not be able to play a game for weeks (kind of like Gamefly's deal, LOL).

fingers crossed that MS knocks this out of the park versus a bunt single... smile.gif
post #2648 of 14792
Another member banned. Posts removed.
post #2649 of 14792
MS is probably watching this pretty closely. This could open up huge new markets for the Xbox One.

post #2650 of 14792
Quote:
Originally Posted by Myrtledog View Post

MS is probably watching this pretty closely. This could open up huge new markets for the Xbox One.

If you hate video exposition as much as I do, you can just check out http://google.com/loon biggrin.gif.
post #2651 of 14792
Quote:
Originally Posted by americangunner View Post

Isn't Build in just a few weeks?

Build starts June 26

http://www.buildwindows.com/

I think they might clarify what they mean by all the hints of how indies can make games for the Xbox One there. I hope they also discuss how apps can be developed for the Xbox One as that probably has more appeal for the AV crowd.

Gamescon is August 21-25. Microsoft is coming to that and they may have saved a game or two to announce for the European crowd there.

There is also Comic Con and Pax Prime, but I guess that is more come out and play our games events.
post #2652 of 14792
Lots of opportunities to get some news out. That's why I don't see the need to pick a side at this point if you absolutely have to pick sides. With that being said, I don't see MS changing their stance on Internet and DRM before the release date and I doubt you'll see them change their price. They are just going to have to get better at selling gamers on their system requirements.
post #2653 of 14792
alright, Mehdi said it. Greenberg said it. now it's Phil Spencer's turn...

http://penny-arcade.com/report/article/xbox-one-allows-you-to-share-games-with-ten-family-members-but-some-details

Xbox One allows you to share games with ten “family” members, but some details remain murky

I brought up the family sharing feature of the Xbox One during my recent conversation with Microsoft's Phil Spencer, and I stated that it's one of the nicer aspects of the console that not many people are talking about.

“You’re going to help us with that?” he asked. I'd love to, but trying to pin down exactly how the system will work has proved tricky.

Multiple people, but at the same time?

The idea is that ten people in your family group can all share your games. Think of it like a loaning system, but you're not loaning anyone a phyiscal product. If you're in my family group, you can play my games, and vice versa.

“I think the policy makes sense,” Spencer said. “It’s not ten different people all playing the game concurrently, but when you think about a real usage scenario, and we thought about it around a family, and I know certain people will create a family group of people that aren’t all part of the same family, and I do think that’s an advantage, and people will use that. I saw it on NeoGAF instantly, the Xbox Family creation threads, where people said 'Hey be a part of my family.'”

“No birth certificates will need to be sent in!” Spencer said when I asked if the service required a blood test. “I do think that’s an advantage of the ecosystem that we have.”

So that answers one question: Microsoft doesn't seem to care whether or not the ten people in the group are actually family members. They can be friends, roommates, boyfriends, girlfriends, your dog's groomer… you pick ten people, and you share games with them.

The question is how many people can play the game at the same time. Spencer told me he believed that two people can play one copy of a game concurrently, but he urged me to check Microsoft's official wording on the matter to be sure.

"Just like today, a family member can play your copy of Forza Motorsport at a friend’s house. Only now, they will see not just Forza, but all of your shared games. You can always play your games, and any one of your family members can be playing from your shared library at a given time."

Still, the ability to pool your games with up to ten “family members” is a geniune advantage of the Xbox One ecosystem. Even if only one person can be playing the game at a time, you gain access to every game the people on your family list own, allowing you to jump into new releases the second they get done with the game.

On the other hand, I'd hate to think that I need to call a friend or family member to tell them to stop playing a game I just bought so I can play my title. Many of these usage cases and limitations may not be explained clearly until the system is released and we can test these services for ourselves, but we'll keep digging to try to figure this one out.
post #2654 of 14792
Quote:
Originally Posted by americangunner View Post

Lots of opportunities to get some news out. That's why I don't see the need to pick a side at this point if you absolutely have to pick sides. With that being said, I don't see MS changing their stance on Internet and DRM before the release date and I doubt you'll see them change their price. They are just going to have to get better at selling gamers on their system requirements.

Exactly--as the man said, it's not a sprint. They'll refine their explanation of what they're doing, what advantages it gives the customer and why they think that it's the right way to go. I have no doubt that many people who're pissed off now will decide that they like what's being done or that it's at least OK before launch; some people won't, but the PR situation will improve.

The one point that I think they'll have a hell of a time convincing people of is that they need to require people to plug Kinect in. I think that it's a lame justification for packing it in which they want to do to encourage developers to use it, creating a potentially attractive differentiating factor for games on their platform vs the same titles on PS4. If they didn't make plugging it in mandatory, many would say, "if I don't have to plug it in, then why are you forcing me to buy it?"

I just hope that they haven't implemented IR remote control using it.
post #2655 of 14792
They Kinect shoots ir into the room. This is how the Kinect and Xbox will control your other devices.
post #2656 of 14792
Quote:
Originally Posted by mbyrnes View Post

They Kinect shoots ir into the room. This is how the Kinect and Xbox will control your other devices.

I know that but I don't have any use for that function. My fear is that the One won't have an IR receiver on the box itself but will need Kinect to see and respond to IR commands you send it from a universal remote. IR is part of Kinect's sensor array and since they require you to plug it in why put an additional IR sensor on the box? If they haven't that will somewhat suck. When I use my Xbox for things other than playing games I use my Harmony remote to control it.
post #2657 of 14792
Quote:
Originally Posted by michaeltscott View Post

I know that but I don't have any use for that function. My fear is that the One won't have an IR receiver on the box itself but will need Kinect to see and respond to IR commands you send it from a universal remote. IR is part of Kinect's sensor array and since they require you to plug it in why put an additional IR sensor on the box? If they haven't that will somewhat suck. When I use my Xbox for things other than playing games I use my Harmony remote to control it.

you can still use your universal remote. you don't need the kinect to do the TV stuff. it's another option. the kinect can be your remote or your remote can be your remote.

Q: Will there be a remote control for Xbox One? / Why is there not a remote for launch?
A: We have several input methods for Xbox One including the Wireless Controller, Kinect voice navigation (in supported markets), and compatible devices with the Xbox SmartGlass app. We will not have a remote control for launch but we are working on remote control for the future and will share more details at a later time. We will also publish our Xbox One infrared remote control codes at launch for existing 3rd party universal remotes to use.
post #2658 of 14792
Quote:
Originally Posted by onlysublime View Post

you can still use your universal remote. you don't need the kinect to do the TV stuff. it's another option. the kinect can be your remote or your remote can be your remote.

Q: Will there be a remote control for Xbox One? / Why is there not a remote for launch?
A: We have several input methods for Xbox One including the Wireless Controller, Kinect voice navigation (in supported markets), and compatible devices with the Xbox SmartGlass app. We will not have a remote control for launch but we are working on remote control for the future and will share more details at a later time. We will also publish our Xbox One infrared remote control codes at launch for existing 3rd party universal remotes to use.

Nothing in that says or implies that they aren't using Kinect to sense signals from IR remotes. If it does I can use my universal as with the 360, but it would be a justification for making plugging the Kinect in mandatory, albeit a very lame one.
post #2659 of 14792
Quote:
Originally Posted by michaeltscott View Post

Nothing in that says or implies that they aren't using Kinect to sense signals from IR remotes. If it does I can use my universal as with the 360, but it would be a justification for making plugging the Kinect in mandatory, albeit a very lame one.

Q: Will there be a remote control for Xbox One? / Why is there not a remote for launch?
A: We have several input methods for Xbox One including the Wireless Controller, Kinect voice navigation (in supported markets), and compatible devices with the Xbox SmartGlass app. We will not have a remote control for launch but we are working on remote control for the future and will share more details at a later time. We will also publish our Xbox One infrared remote control codes at launch for existing 3rd party universal remotes to use.

I don't know how to make it any more clear. you can use your Harmony remote control.

is your question really not about the remote but really about whether Kinect is actually necessary for anything? that's an entirely different question and kind of moot since everyone will have a kinect and it will be mandatory.
post #2660 of 14792
Quote:
Originally Posted by onlysublime View Post

I don't know how to make it any more clear. you can use your Harmony remote control.

How can I make it more clear rolleyes.gif? I haven't said that IR universal remotes won't be usable (I've read my posts and can't see where I've stated or implied that). What I've said is that I'm worried that they use the One's Kinect to receive IR remote commands and that the box itself does not have an IR sensor on it, as does the 360.
post #2661 of 14792
Quote:
Originally Posted by onlysublime View Post

is your question really not about the remote but really about whether Kinect is actually necessary for anything? that's an entirely different question and kind of moot since everyone will have a kinect and it will be mandatory.

Sorry--I missed this part of your post. As I said above, yeah, that is what I'm talking about. It's not moot to me because I'm hoping that MS can be made to back down on the mandatory Kinect plug in requirement since it appears to have no justification whatsoever. If they're using it to receive IR remote commands then there's a mild justification but people should still be able to eschew the use of that function and decline to plug in the Kinect.
post #2662 of 14792
Looking at pictures it looks like the Kinect will be the receiver. Just doesn't look like there is a sensor anywhere on the box itself.
post #2663 of 14792
Quote:
Originally Posted by michaeltscott View Post

Sorry--I missed this part of your post. As I said above, yeah, that is what I'm talking about. It's not moot to me because I'm hoping that MS can be made to back down on the mandatory Kinect plug in requirement since it appears to have no justification whatsoever. If they're using it to receive IR remote commands then there's a mild justification but people should still be able to eschew the use of that function and decline to plug in the Kinect.

I see no future where Kinect isn't required. They want everyone to have one connected.
post #2664 of 14792
Quote:
Originally Posted by mbyrnes View Post

I see no future where Kinect isn't required. They want everyone to have one connected.

Well I hope that you're wrong smile.gif. I think that they're going to get beaten up pretty severely in the press if they can't name a solid justification for the requirement. Their "don't worry--you can turn the Kinect off until you want to play a game or use an app which needs it" doesn't fly. If that's true then why make me plug it in at all? Why force me to display the ugly thing in my room if I don't ever want to use it? Why brick my console if it breaks???

They're going to have to come up with something more than "because we say so" as an answer to the "why should I have to plug Kinect in" question.
post #2665 of 14792
Quote:
Originally Posted by michaeltscott View Post

Sorry--I missed this part of your post. As I said above, yeah, that is what I'm talking about. It's not moot to me because I'm hoping that MS can be made to back down on the mandatory Kinect plug in requirement since it appears to have no justification whatsoever. If they're using it to receive IR remote commands then there's a mild justification but people should still be able to eschew the use of that function and decline to plug in the Kinect.
The controller has an IR emitter that Kinect reads to tell who is holding which controller and track it in space. The former is likely already an expected functionality for games in development, so I doubt they will back down on Kinect being required. They're trying to implement its features in conjunction with the controller.
post #2666 of 14792
Quote:
Originally Posted by michaeltscott View Post

Their "don't worry--you can turn the Kinect off until you want to play a game or use an app which needs it" doesn't fly. If that's true then why make me plug it in at all?

My $0.02:

Microsoft wants Kinect to succeed, because it's their unique thing. In order for it to succeed, they need to tell devs that Kinect 2 will have a 100% adoption rate. That will encourage devs to support the Kinect features on the Xbox One version of games, making that version unique and desired over other platforms' version.

If the Kinect was optional and the XB1 worked the same with it unplugged, then developers would be less likely to prioritize the device's unique game features.

It's Microsoft's job to make Kinect 2 compelling so that devs will add it's features and everyone will want to use it. The best way to do that is to force everyone to have it plugged in. With that said, they know they can't force everyone to *use* it.
post #2667 of 14792
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaverJ View Post

My $0.02:

Microsoft wants Kinect to succeed, because it's their unique thing. In order for it to succeed, they need to tell devs that Kinect 2 will have a 100% adoption rate. That will encourage devs to support the Kinect features on the Xbox One version of games, making that version unique and desired over other platforms' version.

If the Kinect was optional and the XB1 worked the same with it unplugged, then developers would be less likely to prioritize the device's unique game features.

It's Microsoft's job to make Kinect 2 compelling so that devs will add it's features and everyone will want to use it. The best way to do that is to force everyone to have it plugged in. With that said, they know they can't force everyone to *use* it.
+1. Well said, sir.
post #2668 of 14792
I think at this point, with the XB1, people need to stop thinking about the Kinect as an accessory. This again is part of a Microsofts PR failure. They say XB1 with Kinect. To the consumers this means there is a difference between XB1 and Kinect. That XB1 is one thing and then Kinect is another thing added on. But in Microsofts mind (it seems) the Kinect is not a separate piece of equipment, an add on, no it is simply a piece of XB1 just as much as the power brick was a piece of the Xbox 360. The sell line Microsoft should be using is simply buy an XB1 (Drop the "with Kinect" as the Kinect should be assumed as it is part of XB1).

Though if you want Kinect as an "accessory" I am sure they will be happy to break it off the XB1 and sell it to you for PC wink.gif.
post #2669 of 14792
Quote:
Originally Posted by michaeltscott View Post

Exactly--as the man said, it's not a sprint. They'll refine their explanation of what they're doing, what advantages it gives the customer and why they think that it's the right way to go. I have no doubt that many people who're pissed off now will decide that they like what's being done or that it's at least OK before launch; some people won't, but the PR situation will improve.

The one point that I think they'll have a hell of a time convincing people of is that they need to require people to plug Kinect in. I think that it's a lame justification for packing it in which they want to do to encourage developers to use it, creating a potentially attractive differentiating factor for games on their platform vs the same titles on PS4. If they didn't make plugging it in mandatory, many would say, "if I don't have to plug it in, then why are you forcing me to buy it?"

I just hope that they haven't implemented IR remote control using it.

I am actually the opposite. The pack in is fine, just why do I need to plug it in? If I do not want the functionality, why do I need to have it connected. I rarely use the 360 Kinect and leave it unplugged most of the time. I thought it was a great idea when it came out but it has failed to add much to my gaming experience outside of parties with friends. I get why it is packed in, but I still want choice to plug it in. This should not decrease its use since everyone still has it and can use it if Devs create compelling situations.

Remember, many rooms are not set up to easily manage the connect set up. My GF really hates it out and it is not worth the hassle to me. Others run equipment in a separate room. Lots of scenarios that make it cumbersome.
post #2670 of 14792
Quote:
Originally Posted by AHDTVDiet View Post

I think at this point, with the XB1, people need to stop thinking about the Kinect as an accessory. This again is part of a Microsofts PR failure. They say XB1 with Kinect. To the consumers this means there is a difference between XB1 and Kinect. The sell line Microsoft should be using is simply buy an XB1 (Drop the "with Kinect" as the Kinect should be assumed as it is part of XB1).

Though if you want Kinect as an "accessory" I am sure they will be happy to break it off the XB1 and sell it to you for PC wink.gif.

Kinect has a lot of cache with the general public. It's still considered a halo product especially after all the hackers wrote all those cool demos for it. The hackers were doing some truly neat things. Microsoft for months finally had the "cool, innovative" product that showed that Microsoft would try to innovate and lots of mainstream publications wrote about it from BusinessWeek to Forbes to Time to Money. Geez, when Time is writing an article about how "innovative" Kinect is, you know that it's hit mainstream. The halo dimmed when no major developers developed for the optional device. All the publishers assigned newly created teams to make Kinect games who had dubious track records (one of the companies previously made cell phone games and Facebook games)

To suddenly try to "hide" the Kinect when you already have established name branding is crazy. And factor in that this tech (check out how much time of flight cameras for industrial uses are) has never been released on the consumer level, it's time to show developers that it's standard and they're free to use it however they like.

For the longest time, it was the iPhone 4S with Siri. Apple was quite proud of Siri and made a concerted effort to make it a selling point. Heck, my friend modded her iPhone 4 in order to get Siri.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Xbox Area
AVS › AVS Forum › Gaming & Content Streaming › Home Theater Gaming › Xbox Area › The Official Xbox One thread...