I own an xbox (previous generation), and pay for game pass. There hasn't been a game on game pass or that has come to the store (that I am interested in) that doesn't play on the previous generation. I _want_ a new one, but haven't bumped up against anything that I haven't been able to do with my older xbox, so I haven't had anything to look forward to or get access to with the new system.
I also wonder how much their naming scheme hinders their sales. I find it so confusing, and the current and previous generations may as well have the same names as I can't disambiguate them.
The new generation is "Series", with the X being more powerful than the S. So the Xbox Series X is the best model, and the Xbox Series S is the same generation, but less powerful. It's like if the PS4 and PS4 Pro came out at the same time.
I mean, I still don't see why the XBox 360 isn't the most powerful of the series.
I jest, but then, I also don't.
The WiiU attracted a lot of justified derision on its naming scheme, but I wonder if it also got a lot because it was still legible enough to be seen by people as mistake. Speaking for myself, even as a bit of a gamer (not a major one, but I'm in touch with the scene in general), the XBox line is just a cognitive blur to me. I couldn't even name them correctly any more. If they come out with an XBox XS I would literally need to read an article pointing out that it's a new release. The line is so illegible as naming schemes I can't even make fun of them properly.
Also you have the Xbox one (original vcr model with kinect) Xbox one S, and Xbox One X.
Then on the "Series" line you have Xbox Series S and Xbox Series X.
So many people can think "X" or "S" as being a "Series", something of a kind, and confusing a "xbox one X" with a "xbox series X".
- You have a series X? oh yeah, i have the xbox one X.
Also the looks of the xbox one S and the xbox series S is quite similar...
Not sure why didn't called xbox 2022 pro and slim or something.
And it's a shame, i have an xbox series x and is actually a great product.
Yep! Xbox One was their generation parallel to the Playstation 4, and Xbox Series is their current generation parallel to the Playstation 5. All the X and S after those are tier differentiators.
They really need someone better naming their consoles.
Ugh, yeah, finally something with even worse version naming than the Apple Watch. (There's a thing called an Apple Watch Series 1. Confusingly, it's _not_ the first one; it is the cheaper cut-down version of the _second_ generation product; the first-gen product didn't have a version name at all).
To my knowledge, there's also very little that runs on Xbox that doesn't on Windows, and while earlier in its lifecycle it held an advantage in bang-for-buck, that's no longer nearly as true. At this point, for most people between the two it makes more sense to buy a PC, especially if factoring money saved on Steam sales and the like.
For the remaining potential buyers who want a console for the "it just works" factor (which is still significant – point in case, look at how poorly Windows handles even first-party Microsoft-branded controllers in the absence of Steam, not to mention the GPU driver mess among other things), an Xbox holds little advantage over a PS5, and depending on the type of games you want to play, even over a Switch.
It's much cheaper to get an xbox over a gaming pc. I have a series x and several laptops at home used for work / school etc, none of them offer the performance I get from the xbox which is plugged in the TV in the living room.
Everybody who wanted an Xbox has purchased one. The only way they'd increase sales is to do some crazy promotions for Christmas, like an Xbox Series S for $200 or $250. Which they've done before with their previous "lower tier" consoles.
Xbox is weird. They offer a game pass to play (stream) xbox games onto non-xbox devices (tv, pc even I think). So if you really wanted to play xbox games, you don't necessarily need the xbox itself anymore.
I wonder if this makes sense at scale? Sure the sales of the console itself are down, but are sales of games/passes up? Is selling a subscription to a choice of games more lucrative than selling a console one time, and selling a game one time?
Historically, console makers have taken a loss on consoles they sell and they primarily make money on the games themselves. I wonder how much Microsoft actually cares about console sales.
Seems to be by design at this point. I don't even blame the higher ups at Microsoft for forcing Xbox to go console-less and 3rd party only. After 10+ years under Phil Spencers watch, almost every franchise Xbox was known for went to complete shit. Halo Infinite cost an estimated $500 million and might literally be the biggest entertainment flop in history.
I find myself slightly annoyed that I always turn to my PS5 - as it has the better catalogue and people I want to play with on it - than my Xbox, since the Xbox controller is frankly nicer on my old ass hands.
The entire story of Xbox is: If Halo didn't exist, Xbox would have died years ago.
Microsoft is fundamentally culturally incompatible with basically any product that isn't Enterprise B2B. The stories from e.g. Seamus Blackley out of early-day Xbox are harrowing; the division exists despite the rest of Microsoft, almost in flagrant opposition. They've invested hundreds of billions of dollars into game development over the past ten years, managing to produce literally zero new titles achieving even same-magnitude levels of cultural and market success as a typical Playstation triple-A. They've sustained themselves on ZIRP acquisitions of big games, and given enough time have managed only to run their acquisitions into the ground.
Xbox made a call a few years ago that "more eyeballs on games is always better"; they reduced the prominence of the Xbox console, brought all their games to PC on day one, and even started selling them on Steam. That prioritization gave up all of their platform power; tithing 30% of every sale to Steam is a huge revenue leach, not to mention losing out on their own 30% on Xbox consoles. Spencer's argument has always been that Game Pass is the platform; but gamers aren't the kind of passive consumer of content that e.g. Netflix subscribers are. Gamers very regularly make value assessments like "yeah I want to try this new game, I'll pay the $10/mo for one month of Game Pass, cheaper than the $20 upfront", or "I'll be playing call of duty all year, cheaper to buy it upfront on Steam than pay for Game Pass". It was obvious to anyone that Game Pass's primary function was to save gamers money; no one sticks with the platform when it stops doing that.
There is literally no company I would short harder than Xbox, if Xbox were shortable independent of Microsoft. The world would be better off if Spencer had never taken over for Mattrick; Mattrick is actually mind-numbingly, fool-in-the-public-square level incompetent, and if he had remained in charge we wouldn't even be having this conversation in 2024, ABK would still be independent, maybe even Halo would have been sold off to a better studio than 343i. Spencer has done better, but in his valiant attempts has taken a dozen classic gaming brands and franchises down with him.
The original Xbox would almost certainly have not succeeded had it not been for Halo, but aside from the RROD debacle (which I think cost Microsoft a lot of momentum that generation, particularly in its latter half after the PS3 had been out for a while), the 360 was extremely solid and probably the Xbox at its finest. It had a wonderfully wide variety in game genres that Xboxes haven't enjoyed since and plenty of non-Halo big hits. It just might've done ok without Halo's help.
You're probably right; its hard to say when speaking in retrospect and on hypotheticals.
Ultimately I tend to feel that the success of Xbox 360 is predominately attributable to the early failures of the PlayStation 3. PS3 was WAY too expensive, inflation-adjusted one of the most expensive consoles ever made outpacing everything on the market today, and had almost no great launch titles. When you consider that X360 had CoD2 as an exclusive launch title in 2005, the story kinda writes itself; people may have bought the console on these points + the promise of Halo 3 in the future, but it likely would have done well without it.
Its also important to recognize: The PS3 did outsell the Xbox 360 by the end [1]. Its definitely the closest margins of any of their competing generations; generally Playstation does much better, not just a little better. But this is not the sense that I have growing up in that generation; I have the sense that the 360 dominated. Reality is a bit different.
Sadly; whatever gains Microsoft won during the X360 generation, Mattrick immediately threw away with X1 [2]. Their early DRM policies set Sony up to drop what is arguably the most effective piece of video game advertising ever made [3], the forced Kinect bundle communicated to customers that Microsoft's vision for the future is more important to them than the games themselves, and Sony got their pricing and launch lineup (Infamous?) under control.
I think the issue is that consoles are now just storefronts for a digital platform. Xbox lost the PS4 generation, where most people stopped buying physical games and started purchasing digital games.
If you have your entire collection of games on PS4 (or Steam, or Xbox), moving to a different ecosystem is a pain. Even if the console itself is cheap and they give away games, once you have everything in one place, there is little incentive to move away from your console of choice on the next generation. You have to differentiate a lot of your competition, (as nintendo does) but an xbox is basically the same as a ps5, just with 20 or so different games (exclusives).
That wasn't the case in the past. With physical games, I usually had more than one console, and depending on the price, performance, or other factors, I would choose one platform or another.
That's why I think they want to push PC and even TV gaming. Getting people into their ecosystem is the tricky part.
The console as hardware is actually great, probably better than the PS5, and really cheap for such a powerful computer.
Something that hasn't been brought up is how had Microsoft is at marketing xbox brand internationally. In Europe (maybe excluding UK) there is hardly any xbox presence. No adverts, no presence in stores. Gamepass is not officially available in many European countries. Gamepass streaming even less. At the same time I see Sony game ads everywhere and presence in physical stores.
How is Microsoft expecting to sell hardware when it's not available officially?
Xbox Series X and Gamepass comtinues to serve as an awesome introduction to console gaming for me. I really do hope physical XBox consoles continue to exist.
34 comments
[ 1.8 ms ] story [ 49.0 ms ] threadI own an xbox (previous generation), and pay for game pass. There hasn't been a game on game pass or that has come to the store (that I am interested in) that doesn't play on the previous generation. I _want_ a new one, but haven't bumped up against anything that I haven't been able to do with my older xbox, so I haven't had anything to look forward to or get access to with the new system.
I also wonder how much their naming scheme hinders their sales. I find it so confusing, and the current and previous generations may as well have the same names as I can't disambiguate them.
Fun fact: when it came out, I originally thought that with "Xbox One" they meant the original Xbox (the one before the Xbox 360).
The new generation is "Series", with the X being more powerful than the S. So the Xbox Series X is the best model, and the Xbox Series S is the same generation, but less powerful. It's like if the PS4 and PS4 Pro came out at the same time.
I jest, but then, I also don't.
The WiiU attracted a lot of justified derision on its naming scheme, but I wonder if it also got a lot because it was still legible enough to be seen by people as mistake. Speaking for myself, even as a bit of a gamer (not a major one, but I'm in touch with the scene in general), the XBox line is just a cognitive blur to me. I couldn't even name them correctly any more. If they come out with an XBox XS I would literally need to read an article pointing out that it's a new release. The line is so illegible as naming schemes I can't even make fun of them properly.
Then on the "Series" line you have Xbox Series S and Xbox Series X.
So many people can think "X" or "S" as being a "Series", something of a kind, and confusing a "xbox one X" with a "xbox series X". - You have a series X? oh yeah, i have the xbox one X.
Also the looks of the xbox one S and the xbox series S is quite similar...
Not sure why didn't called xbox 2022 pro and slim or something.
And it's a shame, i have an xbox series x and is actually a great product.
> Then on the "Series" line you have Xbox Series S and Xbox Series X.
Wait, the Xbox One S/X and the Xbox Series S/X are different things?! I actually never realised that.
They really need someone better naming their consoles.
For the remaining potential buyers who want a console for the "it just works" factor (which is still significant – point in case, look at how poorly Windows handles even first-party Microsoft-branded controllers in the absence of Steam, not to mention the GPU driver mess among other things), an Xbox holds little advantage over a PS5, and depending on the type of games you want to play, even over a Switch.
Microsoft naming: Xbox, Xbox 360, Xbox One, Xbox One S, Xbox One X, Xbox Series X, Xbox Series S
It makes no sense. The second one was "360" and not the third one as you might expect, because the third one is "one".
This name actually somewhat (still) did make sense to me since the Xbox 360 was the competitor to the PS3. The naming did give a hint for that.
I wonder if this makes sense at scale? Sure the sales of the console itself are down, but are sales of games/passes up? Is selling a subscription to a choice of games more lucrative than selling a console one time, and selling a game one time?
Microsoft is fundamentally culturally incompatible with basically any product that isn't Enterprise B2B. The stories from e.g. Seamus Blackley out of early-day Xbox are harrowing; the division exists despite the rest of Microsoft, almost in flagrant opposition. They've invested hundreds of billions of dollars into game development over the past ten years, managing to produce literally zero new titles achieving even same-magnitude levels of cultural and market success as a typical Playstation triple-A. They've sustained themselves on ZIRP acquisitions of big games, and given enough time have managed only to run their acquisitions into the ground.
Xbox made a call a few years ago that "more eyeballs on games is always better"; they reduced the prominence of the Xbox console, brought all their games to PC on day one, and even started selling them on Steam. That prioritization gave up all of their platform power; tithing 30% of every sale to Steam is a huge revenue leach, not to mention losing out on their own 30% on Xbox consoles. Spencer's argument has always been that Game Pass is the platform; but gamers aren't the kind of passive consumer of content that e.g. Netflix subscribers are. Gamers very regularly make value assessments like "yeah I want to try this new game, I'll pay the $10/mo for one month of Game Pass, cheaper than the $20 upfront", or "I'll be playing call of duty all year, cheaper to buy it upfront on Steam than pay for Game Pass". It was obvious to anyone that Game Pass's primary function was to save gamers money; no one sticks with the platform when it stops doing that.
There is literally no company I would short harder than Xbox, if Xbox were shortable independent of Microsoft. The world would be better off if Spencer had never taken over for Mattrick; Mattrick is actually mind-numbingly, fool-in-the-public-square level incompetent, and if he had remained in charge we wouldn't even be having this conversation in 2024, ABK would still be independent, maybe even Halo would have been sold off to a better studio than 343i. Spencer has done better, but in his valiant attempts has taken a dozen classic gaming brands and franchises down with him.
Ultimately I tend to feel that the success of Xbox 360 is predominately attributable to the early failures of the PlayStation 3. PS3 was WAY too expensive, inflation-adjusted one of the most expensive consoles ever made outpacing everything on the market today, and had almost no great launch titles. When you consider that X360 had CoD2 as an exclusive launch title in 2005, the story kinda writes itself; people may have bought the console on these points + the promise of Halo 3 in the future, but it likely would have done well without it.
Its also important to recognize: The PS3 did outsell the Xbox 360 by the end [1]. Its definitely the closest margins of any of their competing generations; generally Playstation does much better, not just a little better. But this is not the sense that I have growing up in that generation; I have the sense that the 360 dominated. Reality is a bit different.
Sadly; whatever gains Microsoft won during the X360 generation, Mattrick immediately threw away with X1 [2]. Their early DRM policies set Sony up to drop what is arguably the most effective piece of video game advertising ever made [3], the forced Kinect bundle communicated to customers that Microsoft's vision for the future is more important to them than the games themselves, and Sony got their pricing and launch lineup (Infamous?) under control.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_best-selling_game_cons...
[2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J_JVVUnCWnY
[3] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kWSIFh8ICaA
If you have your entire collection of games on PS4 (or Steam, or Xbox), moving to a different ecosystem is a pain. Even if the console itself is cheap and they give away games, once you have everything in one place, there is little incentive to move away from your console of choice on the next generation. You have to differentiate a lot of your competition, (as nintendo does) but an xbox is basically the same as a ps5, just with 20 or so different games (exclusives).
That wasn't the case in the past. With physical games, I usually had more than one console, and depending on the price, performance, or other factors, I would choose one platform or another.
That's why I think they want to push PC and even TV gaming. Getting people into their ecosystem is the tricky part.
The console as hardware is actually great, probably better than the PS5, and really cheap for such a powerful computer.
How is Microsoft expecting to sell hardware when it's not available officially?