You must log in or # to comment.
Why does that look like a miniskirt/boy-briefs from behind, with the X conspicuously centered?
Thumbnail working as designed to grab attention.
Probably ai
corgi butt
Why does the controller look like one of those waist only mannequins showing off some funky new underwear?
The Xbox Series One X/S 360
Xbox 720 real 2028??
Simpler times…
deleted by creator
Makes sense:
Xbox - 2001
Xbox 360 - 2005
Xbox One - 2013
Xbox One S - 2016
Xbox One X - 2017
Xbox Series S|X - 20204 years, 8 years, 3 years, 1 year, 3 years.
2028 would be on the long side but not unheard of. The reason for the big gap between 2005 and 2013 was the 2008 economic crisis.
2020 was the covid/supply chain crisis.
Seeing it altogether- the naming is really quite ridiculous.
I never was an xbox guy, so talking about them is confusing because of the naming scheme. They lost me after the 360.
Xbox - 2001
Xbox 360 - 2005
Xbox One - 2013
Xbox One S - 2016
Xbox One X - 2017
Xbox Series S|X - 2020Though, seeing it laid out like this makes it look like the S|X(6) was intentional. But clearly that’s too much credit for whoever is constantly day drunk while naming.
Microsoft is one of the worst companies at naming things. Only second to how Sony names their headphones.
Speak for yourself, the MDR-XB950N1 is a brilliant name.
Wasn’t the One S just a refresh of the One? I wouldn’t count that, tbh. I think it just had a 4K Blu Ray player and a new case. Like, I wouldn’t call the Xbox 360 Slim a new Xbox, even though it had a new case.
One evolution went like this:
At launch, it came with Kinect and 10% of system resources were reserved for Kinect processing, even on games that didn’t support Kinect. That resulted in lower framerates and resolution than equivalent PS4 games.
Then Microsoft, wisely, removed the Kinect requirement and released a Kinect-free version of the one. With that extra performance boost, the One gained parity with the PS4.
Sony announced the PS4 Pro for 2016, but while it had more power than the stock PS4, it lacked a 4K Blu Ray drive.
Seeing the opportunity, Microsoft added a 4K drive to the Xbox One and launched the Xbox One S one month ahead of the PS4 Pro.
They also pre-emptively announced the Xbox One X which would be the powerhouse machine of the generation with 4K gaming and 4K physical media.
The idea being that hopefully people would choose the One S over the Pro due to the 4K drive, or would at least wait on buying anything until the One X dropped a year later.
Last generation was really weird as to one company having both the weakest and strongest hardware in the same generation.
Xbox One W/ Kinect
PS4 / Xbox One No Kinect
Xbox One S (same hardware + 4K Blu Ray)
PS4 Pro (stronger hardware, no 4K Blu Ray)
Xbox One X (strongest hardware + 4K Blu Ray)
Why are you counting the One S annd One X as new releases, but not counting the refresh of the 360 that came out (2010)?
Because the 360 refresh was functionally the same, both the One S and One X added new functionality (4K Blu Ray, 4K Gaming).
I think I would be okay with 8-10 year iterations. 3-4 years is a ridiculous money grab. I haven’t owned an XBOX since the 360 though, so…
If Sony does what they did with the PS4, they’ll release a PS5 Pro next year and a PS6 in 2028. Pretty easy to follow at least.
Historic generations were about 5 years…
The big problem with the Xbox One was that it was underpowered because of the Kinect requirement, so they ditched Kinect then rebranded as the Xbox One S, throwing in a 4K Blu Ray player.
Still wasn’t enough, so the One X had full 4K capabilities.
If they had launched with the One X things would have looked a lot different.
How did the Kinect factor into things in terms of power?
Microsoft required 10% of system resources be reserved for Kinect support, even in games that didn’t support Kinect features.
https://www.eurogamer.net/how-the-xbox-one-gpu-reserve-unlock-actually-works
That reduction in horsepower for the actual games showed up in reduced resolution and framerate.
Lifting that restriction allowed the Xbox One to reach parity with the PS4.
I don’t know if I would see it as a pure money grab. Pretty sure game consoles, just like inkjet printers and the like are sold with zero or near zero profit (or even at a loss). The benefit the console manufacturer gains from the platform lock-in far outweighs whatever greed they might have trying to reap gains from the hardware. 10 year old hardware is roughly 30x slower in FLOPs, so we might be looking at a desire for better games or easier software development - I for sure would not envy the developer needing to target 10 year old hardware, though it’s not exactly unheard of.
At first glance, I thought that was the backside of someone bending over. I’m sure I’m the only one though. Right?
I just thought it was bad, probably AI generated, concept art.
Finally, Xbox 720
I remember when the current generation of consoles came out (Series X/S and PS5) that both MS and Sony and all the various gaming magazines were claiming that they would be the last hardware consoles ever. Uh huh.
Maybe they realised cloud gaming is shite. Yeh for some it suits but look up the abandoned cloud gaming projects.
Probably. But I still find it funny how they were pushing so hard into making people believe there would be no more hardware generations.
Yeah, discs are still a thing for Xbox and PS5, steam decks just download these really big folders for each game’s files to your SD card like our PCs do and the Switch has its tiny cartridges you keep in a little box in your carrying case like previous nintendo handhelds.
This controller looks like a bikini top
I know it vibrates but you should know your controller is not for fucking.
Rez PS2
I hear some horny teens have tried to use switch joycons for that because of how small and thin they are
Fuck microshit for their predatory pushing of game pass and not being able to own games. I would never buy an xbox and hope others don’t fall for it as well.
People also seem to genuinely believe MS won’t just massively inflate prices once they’ve cornered the market lmao
The current gamepass pricing is unsustainable. There’s a reason why MS refuses to say how much money they make from it (if any) and they lump it in with other stuff in their financials.
I can easily envision a future where gamepass is £30 a month or something, but because MS has bought a lot of studios and people don’t own their games, people have to choose between continually paying that price, or starting all over again with zero games, and not being able to buy a decent amount of the big games, because they’re only on gamepass.
Either that or it ends up like TV streaming where we have to have 5 different subscriptions to access all the games we want access to.
Fuck that. We shouldn’t let either of those things happen.
Game Pass is awesome. Back when I was a kid, you rented a game for a weekend and it cost you like $8. Now for around that price you rent a hundred games for a month.
Game Pass is just streaming for video games. It works and lets me try out so many games that I would never have spend money on, but ended up liking a lot of them.
Yeah, I get that gamepass is a good way to play games but the thing is when this is if I really like the game and want to purchase it, I can’t. They won’t ever sell me the game files, they’ll only give me the key to rent it out and can revoke that whenever they want.
I can totally relate. Paying 30-100€ per game is something for rich people or something I’d do once or max twice a year on very carefully selected games, hoping these games are worth it. With Game Pass I spend 120€ a year to access a wide range of games.
Once I played through or once version 2 of a game comes out, I’m not likely to play it ever again.
Also I have phases where I play a lot and phases where I do not play at all. I can simply discontinue Game Pass in these cases.
And what about when Microsoft ups the price on their subscription, which is clearly their strategy as gamepass doesn’t appear to be profitable?
At least if you’d spent that 120€ on 2-3 games you’d be able to keep them forever.
That 120€ subscription could easily become 200€, 250€, or more. Something people may feel compelled to pay for if MS continues buying up the industry and decides to make games exclusive, which is something they’re already doing to some extent.
Maybe I’m crazy, but I don’t think giving MS a disproportionate amount of power over the market is a good thing.
We can “what if” all day long, the fact remains that at the moment it is a very good deal. Last numbers anyone had as far as money goes is that MS was banking 50+mil a month on gamepass subs alone and that was last year. That number should be much higher now considering the amounts of high profile releases on the platform as of late.
It’s not a crazy what if, it’s a tried and tested, proven business strategy.
Currently Microsoft is losing money on gamepass. That’s why they lump it in with other services in their financials, so you can’t see the losses. The pricing as it stands is nowhere near sustainable
I never said it’s not currently a good deal. Those are words that you’re trying to shove into my mouth.
It’s a good deal now because they’re having the price low while they capture the market.
Yes, I totally agree with what you said.
They currently try to buy out the digital gaming space of the internet, sell it for cheap and later on up the price. That’s what big corporations usually do nowadays. Same with X, Google, Amazon, Netflix, etc. It’s a big issues that we as consumers and later on citizens of our planet face.
However, currently it is a sweet deal for me. And the argument that I’d own the game otherwise doesn’t count for me as I would most probably never replay it. So what’s the use of owning it if it’s just collecting dust in the shelf?
The argument of whose property the item is is different for me for movies, series, and audiobooks. I’m surprised that this scheme was not yet applied for books / e-books. Or am I wrong?
It is applied to ebooks. Tons of subscription services for ebooks, the biggest being Amazon Prime and Scribd.
The point is it hasn’t happened, you are just being pessimistic because “Microsoft Bad”. You have no clue if gamepass is losing money, none whatsoever. Your pessimism wants it to go bad so you make up bullshit to support your opinion.
There’s a reason why MS has never said gamepass is profitable and they hide its finances. Because it isn’t profitable.
And if you genuinely don’t think MS will increase the prices then you genuinely cannot be helped. It’s how every digital subscription service is run.
It’s not “what if”, it’s “when”. Is it a good deal currently? Yeah, it always is at this point. Will it become untenably worse once it becomes more popular and corners the market? Yes, it always does in the end.
What do you mean by not being able to own games?
I didn’t say people wouldn’t be able to buy any games. Please don’t strawman.
What I said was that plenty of people won’t own games (due to gamepass being sold cheaply initially), then when MS massively jacks up prices, people will have to choose between swallowing that and buying all their games again at whatever the retail price happens to be.
It’s a trap designed to extort people in the long run.
The other thing I said was that some games will be exclusive.
Please address things that I’ve actually said, not things that you’ve imagined I’ve said.
I didn’t imagine you saying anything. I didn’t address anything you said because I didn’t reply to you. I just wanted OP to expand on what he meant by “not being able to own games”
Maybe they should sell some Xbox Series Xs first before thinking about next next gen.
bet my ovaries its just gonna be stadia 2.0 at this point with their gamepass garbage
They already cancelled the streaming box they were making (Project Keystone). And they aren’t the only ones making streaming services for gaming.
Why would they need to release a new console for game streaming? The advantage is that it can run on anything. It would also guarantee that Sony wins that generation before it even begins.
