Comment by werdnapk
Comment by werdnapk 2 days ago
Wasn't expecting it to actually be called "Switch 2", but I'm glad they stuck to a name that makes sense.
Comment by werdnapk 2 days ago
Wasn't expecting it to actually be called "Switch 2", but I'm glad they stuck to a name that makes sense.
With the habit they've developed of releasing upgraded versions inside a generation, especially already having Switch OLED, I think Super Switch would be too ambiguous.
I think the acronym made that a sketchy choice. Even if Nintendo never used the acronym, the gaming community seems to use them extensively.
Agree. PlayStation 1...5 has worked well for Sony. XBOX is a mess (I am an XBOX guy myself).
The problem with Xbox naming is that names are both inconsistent and too similar to each other. Aside from the Wii/Wii U debacle, Nintendo console names haven't been consistent, but they have been distinct. It's easy to remember that the GameCube and the Wii aren't the same thing.
Xbox, though, it's just the word Xbox followed by arbitrary numbers, maybe with the letter S or X thrown in for fun. I have no idea why they thought Xbox Series X wouldn't confuse people right after the Xbox One X.
They were screwed from the start...
The Xbox came out when the PS2 did. When it came time for the next generation, Sony went with the obvious PS3. Microsoft of course couldn't compete with an "Xbox 2" vs a "PS3", and they couldn't skip right to "Xbox 3", so they called it the "Xbox 360", which was frankly genius because it had the 3 there anyway and put it on the same level in consumers' eyes.
But after that it all fell apart -- they had no good options. They still couldn't jump to "Xbox 4". Maybe "720" would have worked. Someone decided to have a clean break and restart at "One" but of course that fell apart immediately at "Two". So another clean break to "Series..". And by that point it's so screwy they've lost any chance of fixing it...
>Microsoft of course couldn't compete with an "Xbox 2" vs a "PS3", and they couldn't skip right to "Xbox 3"
Nope, it all goes back to Microsoft not naming the 360 "Xbox 3" with some lame excuse for why it did so. Yes, everyone would have laughed, but no one would remember or care today that the "Xbox 5" isn't actually the fifth Xbox.
An alternative that Microsoft missed, from Reddit:
>They could have named the Xbox Series X the Xbox 5 and said it was because they counted the One X as the 4th gen Xbox.
Exactly - or they could have released a rare, ignored souped up Xbox as the "Xbox 2" and done the "Xbox 3".
The 360 was a good "fix" for the problem but not going to something like Xbox13 or Xbox2013 (though year based names were on the out by then) - anything other than "Xbox One" (Xbone would have been better).
I still don't know how the various versions work and apply to the Series SeX.
> Microsoft of course couldn't compete with an "Xbox 2" vs a "PS3"
Part of me wants to think that consumers can't possibly that uninformed, but I know in my heart I am wrong.
They should have done what Nintendo (usually) does and left the numbers out of it. Call the next iteration of the Xbox the <something else>box.
Calling it the xbox 720 would not have worked in that era. Sounds too much like 720p when they're targeting 1080p gaming.
I actually thought that would be cool for Switch 2 - call it the Switch 25. They could release the Switch 30 in 5 years and so on without too much confusion, assuming compatibility all the way through (by 2035 we'll probably all be on thin clients anyway).
I think this is because it is kinda an iteration instead of a totally new wild gimmick.
It's possibly the most normal successor name they've ever chosen. I like it. I'm picturing someone suggesting "Switch U" and getting thrown out the window like in that meme comic, even though he's often used as the voice of reason...