New 'Xbox Series XS' Trademark Sparks Wild Theories, But Don't Go Expecting A New Console

I think it's just as mentioned, protecting the way of naming the consoles as XS.
Although I wouldn't be shocked to see a digital Series X launch fall 2021 alongside Halo Infinite. Maybe retail at £360-400?

Could be a digital version of the series X to complete with the PS5 digital. Or could be the planned name for the console refresh in a couple of years time. Xbox Series X Slim

Xbox XS... I hope this isn't true as whilst I love Xbox their naming of consoles puts the Nintendo Wii U to shame... An XS at first sound makes it sound like an even smaller version than the S (as in extra small). Only after reading the article did it register as a digital Series X Version. And also, what's with all the discless consoles?! They really don't add that much to the cost and both MS and Sony pushing consumers to a digital future means I'll be hanging up my gaming gloves and going Nintendo only. With more and more games being delisted and shut down I have no intention of ever spending money on a digital only console. I don't even have game pass as I like to own my games.

In 3 years we will see the Series XS small series X but with a harddrive not without

I hope we don't have no mid gen upgrades..

They should release a digital series x only for £360 just like Sony have done with PS5 Digital.
This then covers all areas of the market.
A full power base machine series x like the PS5 for £360.
That’s one area I feel Xbox has missed out on.

@Bmartin001 I mean that's bound to happen eventually. Consoles are becoming more like PCs and these companies are trying to keep up with hardware improvements in order to compete with each other, so they need to continuously release new models. That's why I'll probably not buy a next-gen system until the companies have released a newer model, i.e. PS5 Pro and the corresponding thing for Xbox Series. I made the mistake of buying both base PS4 and Xbox One before PS4 Pro/One X were available and now I've suffered due to late-gen games that don't even work properly on these systems, especially on Xbox One since it was more underpowered than PS4 to begin with.

@LtSarge
I see what you are saying, but the mid-gen refresh was 4 years after the base console release date.
And that only really happened because both base consoles were outdated on release and we had the mainstream adoption of 4K.
I think the only big releases we will see is an inevitable slim PS5, due to the massive size of what we have now due to the heatsink, a digital Series X, and finally variants of the current models but with bigger SSD drives as prices of them fall in a couple of years time.

This is driving me insane, how people cling to these tidbits to spark crazy rumors. This just alternate spelling for "Xbox Series X|S" to have their legal grounds covered.

I doubt MS will introduce a third model, 2 is already complex enough for the market. Refresh at some point with things like more storage and maybe smaller factors will likely keep the name and entirely replace current units, and not be seen until like 3 years from now.

@blinx01 Four years is a long time though. I'm not an expert on PCs, but surely that's long enough time for new computer parts or even new technology to come out and make the previous ones outdated? But yeah who knows, only time will tell.

@CrazyJF Well I don't expect the newer models to be cheaper. I just don't want to have to look up how all games that I buy run on each model. Nowadays every time I want to buy a new game that's come out recently, I need to do extensive research into how the game runs on base PS4, base Xbox, PS4 Pro, Xbox One X etc. before choosing which version that I should get. I bought Yakuza Like A Dragon a couple of weeks ago and before getting the game I spent hours just watching videos and reading articles about technical differences between the consoles. I just want to buy the game and know it will run well, which is why the price doesn't matter to me as long as I know the system is powerful enough to run all the games that I buy. I don't have the time to be looking stuff up constantly.

These mid-gen bumps are coming sooner and sooner, each generation. Pfft, early adopters get screwed again!

@LtSarge @CrazyJF The mid-gen consoles this last gen were kind of a special case as @blinx01 said. Three things happened that necessitated that. 4k TVs came out and started gaining traction. And HDR was crudely shoehorned into base consoles which was a bigger differentiator for gaming. Sony had to push on that more than MS because they use their consoles to promote their TVs. 8k won't have that same effect, it doesn't change the experience so much as 4kHDR. MS was disastrously behind on an already weak console and had really no choice but to push some new hardware to escape the morass of the DOA original console, anyway, regardless of the 4k thing. And on top of all that, the biggest issue of all is both PS4 and X1 were unacceptably anemic at launch .

Like this gen, the pattern started by Sony long ago, was heavily subsidizing consoles at launch, selling hardware for much less than the cost to produce it. PS2 got that ball rolling and Microsoft copied it (Nintendo mostly didn't, WiiU was the only console they ever sold at a loss. Sega didn't and famously got stomped by Sony because of it.) But last generation both companies, for whatever reason, decided they didn't want to take a loss on hardware. Sony likely did it because they were teetering on shutting down PS entirely - PS3 was a costly disaster, and if PS4 didn't take off, they were going to close it. The rest of the company was in bad straights at the time as well. They couldn't afford the risk. Why MS decided to go for the same risk avoidance? Pure Matrick thinking I guess - if they hadn't there would probably be no Playstation 5 today, and Matrick would be the king of gaming.

But ultimately because of that PS4 and XBone launched as little more than PS3/X360 Pro. They weren't that full generational leap, from one subsidized hardware to another subsidized future proof tech, but instead a leap from one subsidized future tech to whatever was similar cost to produce 7.5 years later. Half a future.

They were horribly obsolete on launch day. The only purpose of the hardware was moving to x86 for porting purposes. So the only choices were cut that generation early, or prolong it with new same-gen hardware.

It was messy, Phil already said they don't want to do that again, though I wouldn't entirely rule out that they would. Instead, I expect Sony to stick with PS5 & PS5 Slim, and I expect MS to really move away from "generations" entirely and move more to a PC-like model of periodic hardware upgrades available you can either buy or not, up to a certain point.

@NEStalgia While the mid-gen upgrades may have been because of circumstantial reasons, I believe that both Sony and Microsoft have now entered an "arms race" of sorts where both try to one-up each other with better hardware. I mean, Microsoft isn't afraid to call Series X "the most powerful console ever", so why wouldn't Sony try to make a console more powerful than Series X and reclaim that title for themselves? They're a business after all, they need to give consumers incentives to choose their products over the competitors'. So I don't think they would simple pass up the opportunity and just let Microsoft have the most powerful console all the time.

@LtSarge Technically MS changed that brand tag to "The most powerful Xbox ever" so it's a little malleable as to long term purpose.

That being said, I felt as you did back when the X1X and Pro came out, but looking at each company's (current) trajectory, I'm not quite sure they're into the arms race at this point. Sony seems to be focused on doubling down on the generational concept (meme of cross-gen games aside), no doubt because of how they design hardware in a vacuum and that makes the dev kits easier to wrangle which appears to be their current priority. Already having PS5, PS5 Digital, and inevitably a Slim of one or both of them, I'm not sure they're too interested in having a fifth SKU in the mix to further muck up the waters.

Obviously that's speculation, but without being caught by their TV department upping the specs, being caught with a console below the power of what they really wanted for their own games, they don't have much of a need to do a mid-gen unless something else unexpected happens - and it runs contrary to their clear direction. And keep in mind last time, their mid-gen wasn't a response to MS's arms race, at least not directly. While they no doubt heard from inside the industry MS were planning "something", the PS4 Pro came out a year before the X1X, and if it were in response to X1X they almost certainly would have done better than what the Pro was to try to cut it off. I think they did it for their own reasons, without worrying about MS, and MS did it because they simply had no choice (and it probably served as some R&D for Series X|S at consumer expense while digging their brand out from ashes.)

As for MS, I could see them doing that with a PC-like upgrade cycle of optional upgrades. But whether or not that actually happens before "next gen" I think will depend somewhat on Sony (who I don't think will want to do it), and will depend somewhat on the sales of the S. If the mass market boosts S as the top seller, as they expect will happen, there's no need for a mid-gen upgrade, they already have the upgrade in X, and it's not what the masses want to buy. If the S suffers and fails and X sweeps off the shelves in the coming years, then maybe they'll try to leapfrog ahead from that with a mid-gen. But I'm still not sure Sony will react to that beyond advancing the "next gen" time table....which would put MS in an awkward position which is another reason they'd probably rather avoid doing so unless they commit all the way to leaving generations behind.

All speculation of course, but where I see the chips laying this time, currently, we can't speak for 4 years from now, but currently I can't see either company favoring the mid-gen upgrade this cycle unless sales or tech plays out in a way that can't be foreseen from here. Mostly, this time, they'll be seeking to amortize the investment in this tech and turn the subsidized sales into profitable hardware like prior gens.

@Kefka2589 Considering most games are at this point offering 4k30 or 1440/60, I don't see 120 being an important push at all. Most people don't really even notice, and it would take a significant hardware revision to start pushing 4k60 let alone 6k,8k,120hz. Not as marketable as "4k"

@Kefka2589 Yeah, even on PC 120fps is far from standard and that's where it's been most common. It's mostly all about competitive players and uber rig enthusiasts.

The 8th gen consoles were universally awful when they came out. It was such a "meh" launch. PS4 and X1 came out and I just kept playing WiiU....it wasn't much of a downgrade...then I just spent the rest of the time on 3DS. I really don't know what they were thinking. Wii syndrome, I guess. Sony was on their last five yen and just needed "something devs can actually code for", fast. Xbox.....needed a better Kinekt platform?

I remember the talk of the time was basically the industry partners were feeling sales drop (retailers and publishers) and were demanding a new generation to spur interest. So both of them basically shoved new consoles out the door just to create a sales flurry to appease industry demand, not because they actually had real hardware they were eager to get out the door.