(They released two consoles this gen, the One Series S and One Series X, a low end and a high end one respectively. Together they’re called the Xbox One Series)
Can’t fucking believe they didn’t just do this, starting with the previous gen:
Xbox S1 and Xbox X1. Then current gen would be Xbox S2 and Xbox X2, and so on forever. Mid cycle refreshes can be S2.5 or X2.5. refer to the generation as generation 2 or generation 3.
. Or if they were really assed about Sony having higher numbers (ive seen this theory floated) then start with S5 and X5, fine whatever.
The current naming convention literally looks like the result of a bet between marketing departments at Nintendo and Microsoft of “hey I bet I can get the CEO to sign off on the stupidest fucking naming scheme”
I think that the One S should be dropped first, followed by the One X, but that the One X shouldn’t be anchored to the 2013 console.
So yeah, the One S should be dropped and the One X should be supported further, then be the next to drop say 2 years after. As it exists, it appears that the One X is anchored to the One S.
The problem is that the One X has a very weak CPU. To keep supporting it there would have to be significant compromises in terms of world complexity etc.
(They released two consoles this gen, the One Series S and One Series X, a low end and a high end one respectively. Together they’re called the Xbox One Series)
This is… incorrect. Among the previous generation the consoles were:
The consoles in the current gen are:
Neither the word “one” nor the word “series” overlapped between the two generations.
Can’t fucking believe they didn’t just do this, starting with the previous gen:
Xbox S1 and Xbox X1. Then current gen would be Xbox S2 and Xbox X2, and so on forever. Mid cycle refreshes can be S2.5 or X2.5. refer to the generation as generation 2 or generation 3.
. Or if they were really assed about Sony having higher numbers (ive seen this theory floated) then start with S5 and X5, fine whatever.
The current naming convention literally looks like the result of a bet between marketing departments at Nintendo and Microsoft of “hey I bet I can get the CEO to sign off on the stupidest fucking naming scheme”
I strongly believe that the One X should have been renamed to make it easier to drop support of the One S.
But that never really came to fruition. Unless you mean that they should still be supporting the One X further into this generation.
I think that the One S should be dropped first, followed by the One X, but that the One X shouldn’t be anchored to the 2013 console.
So yeah, the One S should be dropped and the One X should be supported further, then be the next to drop say 2 years after. As it exists, it appears that the One X is anchored to the One S.
The problem is that the One X has a very weak CPU. To keep supporting it there would have to be significant compromises in terms of world complexity etc.