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.
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)
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.
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.
Makes sense:
Xbox - 2001
Xbox 360 - 2005
Xbox One - 2013
Xbox One S - 2016
Xbox One X - 2017
Xbox Series S|X - 2020
4 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.
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.