I still believe their naming conventions has destroyed the brand.
Grandma that wants to buy a toy for their kids can go to the store and buy the next PlayStation. Xbox… which one do they buy? They don’t, they buy the easy option.
The only thing I will concede is that being able to shorten Xbox One X to XbOX was clever. Naming it the Xbox One in the first place was mind numbingly stupid, though.
This is exactly what happened with my mom trying to buy a Christmas gift for my nephew. She knew he had an Xbox but had no clue which version it was so she didn't know which version of a game to get. I told her to just buy an Xbox store gift card and call it a day, much easier than trying to figure out which version of the console he had. Didn't want her to buy him a disc if he had the Series S.
This happened to me! I thought I was buying the newest gen. But then…games I was trying to buy were “not optimized for your console.”
I’m still not sure which one I have. I think I have the ONE S. But the games I’m looking to buy are “optimized for X|S series,” but…don’t work on my console. I’m moving to PlayStation soon.
Also, I have a feeling all that news a few months ago about how they’re gonna stop support for Xbox and may not continue to make games for it or will shut down the console division or whatever cannot have helped sales. I don’t remember the articles exactly. But the impression I was left with was Xbox was on its way out. Why would I buy another if they’re unsure of its future?
I have seen people very confused about which games will run on their system, though. Most are still cross compatible with XB1 and Series X, but some are Series X only now and the boxes aren't marked clearly enough for some people to tell the difference.
Admittedly I don't play on Xbox, but yeah their console naming is baffling to me and I honestly don't know/can't be bothered to figure it out. PlayStation is simple. Bigger numbers equal newer. Pro version? Just a modest step up but still clearly identifies as the same Gen.
When Xbox launched the One, I thought, "oh they're going to reset the numbering convention. It's awkward now but will be easier going forward." Boy was I wrong.
On the other end there's Nintendo, but the names are so different and distinct it's easy enough to distinguish (except whatever the hell Wii U was).
Microsoft seems caught in the middle. They clearly didn't want to be like PlayStation, but they don't want to/can't come up with unique names, so you get just a mouthful of nonsense letters and numbers.
Microsoft have sucked at naming things basically forever. Look at their windows versions. First they were numbered after the year release which made sense, they kind of break the trend with millennium edition but it's still sort of worked because it came out in 2000. Was also a 2000 which confused things and then after that it just continued to go downhill.
95, 98, 2000 (presumably because they didn't want to call it 00), XP, Vista, 7, 8, 10 (because nine is evil for some reason), 11
There's a rumor the next version is going to be called X, I assume because they haven't really advanced as a company since the '90s and they still think that's cool.
Keeps support for poorly coded programs working. In the old days, a quick and hacky way to determine which Windows version the system was on was to have the program check the OS name. If the name started with the characters "Windows 9" you knew it was either Win95 or Win98 and ran in one mode, but if it was something else it ran in the other mode. If the new OS was named Windows 9, then certain old programs would break when run on it. Yes, the people who would have coded that way are idiots, and sure, the number of people running those programs may be in the single digits, but Microsoft has been pretty serious about maintaining backwards compatibility, even if that means ever more cruft and jank.
The other reason is marketing. "See? It's not anything like that awful Windows 8! We skipped all the way to 10 to demonstrate how different it is! Please come back!"
I used to have a black XBox sitting beneath the TV gathering dust. I think it is a One by the shape. As for the new ones I have no idea off the top of my head which is the best. I've seen some on sale in places, but the impulse buy isn't there because I have no idea what I would be getting. I don't own a PlayStation, but if I wanted one I know that 5 is the newest, and you can get the small slim one or the big Pro one.
I didn't see that coming, and it's a welcome development. If it warps the general PC hardware market enough that devs start optimizing for a standard platform, it'll result in less buggy products at launch. And maybe orienting development towards a relatively underpowered platform will make it easier for those of us dumb enough to that like to spend more on a desktop to hit those 60 FPS targets.
I think it's more important that it gives Valve a method of avoiding being shoehorned into a "Windows only world". The Steam Deck is largely why Linux has pushed past 2% market share on the Steam Hardware Survey consistently now. Holo, which is the codename for SteamOS on the Deck, makes up over half of Steam on Linux.
Don't get me wrong. I'm not dillusional. Windows is still far and away the majority platform and will be for some time. However, there is a real, functional choice now that didn't exist a few years ago.
The benefit of Steam is backwards compatibility. The moment you force native porting you lose your greatest benefit. Since you anyway have to build backwards compatibility with Windows you gain nothing by incentivizing native Linux and the developers gain nothing from being incentivized to build native because their games will work through Proton.
There's no reason for Valve to incentivize native builds. It's the devs that need to have an incentive to develop natively for Linux. And with the market share being what it is there's no incentive for the devs either.
It doesn't really matter though, because Wine is mature enough that it's not a hacky diy fix, it's a viable solution. None of the games I play run any worse on Linux than they did on Windows, and some run better. The vast majority of people don't care whether it's native or not, they just want it to work.
I am not a marketing expert, but when headlines pile up implicating that Microsoft doesn't fully stand behind XBox anymore, no wonder the number for new customers tank. I wouldn't "invest" in something that seems to be on the way out either.
Judging by how Sony is doing even though they clearly "won" with the PS5, it looks like consoles as we know them are not long for this world, and that seems to be the idea Microsoft is pivoting around.
Xbox should just go straight pc game setup for the living room. A mass produced windows (I know, blegh) pc with a pretty solid gpu and Xbox controllers. Basically the steam deck treatment for the living room.
That's pretty much what the Xbox has been since the beginning. The original runs fucking directX and runs so similarly to PCs of the era under the hood that porting shit to it is famously easy. It's why the homebrew scene for it was so mind bogglingly huge.
Numerous times at E3 when they had demo units of new consoles people saw that the debug menus meant for staff were some mangled form of the current (at the time) Windows OS.
Most modern game consoles don't use much specialty hardware anymore. The OG Switch uses the nvidea shield CPU just downclocked, and can run android easily. Some emulators literally run better on the Switch through Android than as homebrew "native" apps.
Yes, but games were always "xbox" games. I straight up mean open for pretty much all PC games to run on. If a game dev makes their game work with an x box control scheme, you can play it.
