Microsoft: We don't think people will be confused by Xbox One's name

When Microsoft announced Tuesday that their third generation Xbox console would be called the Xbox One, it surprised many prognosticators. Previous rumors claimed that the company would simply call the console the Xbox, and other reports before Tuesday had money on names like Xbox Fusion or Xbox Infinity.

So why did Microsoft pick the Xbox One as the name for its next console? CNET chatted with Jeff Henshaw, the company's group program manager for Xbox Incubation, and he indicated that the Xbox One branding was supposed to give consumers the idea that the console was an all-in-one solution for their television-based needs, whether it is simply to watch TV, or view streaming video via apps or playing games. He added, "It is truly the one place to go for all this. So One ends up being a deeply meaningful thing to us here."

But won't people be confused when they see the Xbox One name when they also see Sony's PlayStation 4 console on the same shelf in their local retail store? Henshaw doesn't think so, adding, "I think after today, there's just no question about it. I think there was a few minutes of 'hmm' but then as soon as people realize what it's all about and understand the experience, the One brand immediately gets applied to this new generation of experience."

Source: CNET | Image via Microsoft

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

Itsdagram now has a free version, which you should definitely download

Next Story

Xbox One to ditch Xbox Live Arcade and Xbox Live Indie Games branding


View more comments

Windows 95 was a HUGE success, do you not remember the Rolling Stones introduction and the record OS sales? Going from Windows 3.1 to 95 was an incredible upgrade, saying it was a miss is crazy. The original XBox was quite successful also. The whole hit/miss thing is just dumb.

When the PS3 and 360 were announced, there was a scare campaign waged by the Sony fans who wanted to scare people away from the 360. The 360 has emulation compatibility, while the PS3 has a PS2 built into it to run PS2 games. The PS3 is built to be more than a game console, it has a Blu-Ray drive which makes it a whole media experience, the 360 only supports games, and will not be a media hub like the PS3. The PS3 has hardware that will requires two 360s put together with duct tape to match the PS3. The PS3 has support for multiple OSes like Linux, while the 360 does not have this ability. The PS3 has more exclusive games than the 360, which does not have the support of 3rd party and indie devs.
Needing to install games on the PS3 was good (MGS had to be installed), but needing to install on the Xbox One is good.

What do we have now:
The PS4 is focused on games, while the Xbox One is focused on media - while the PS3 being focused on media was a good thing, and a selling point.
The PS4 does not support emulation, which is a good thing because devs and users will focus on one gen of console, but the One not having backward compatibility is bad because users will not be able to play their old games.
The PS4 is so much more powerful than the One, and Microsoft is once again cheating users - even though the claims of the PS3 fans that the PS3 is so much more powerful than the 360 did not pan out.
Xbox One adds more support for indie developers by putting their games on the Win8 store, and has access to millions more users through not only Xbox One, but also Win8 desktops, laptops, and tablets, but somehow the PS4 has better support for those developers.
Microsoft has a strong history of creating developer tools, with their tools being widely recognized as some of the best with Visual Studio, and a compiler with 30 years of experience in compiling code that produces highly optimized x86 code, and libraries developed with very close collaboration with chip makers such as AMD to produce the best code possible. Meanwhile Sony uses developer tools that compiles that was built to be platform agnostic. Microsoft has a highly optimized graphics library with graphics cards built specifically for that graphics library in DirectX (I would assume that even the GPUs that Sony will ship in the PS4 has microcode for DirectX support) while Sony is using code that is built to run on everything, without any GPU specific optimizations.
Xbox One adds support for a desktop class OS with Win8, but somehow this is now bad and the PS4 not having support for an alternative OS is good, even though they claimed the opposite in the current gen of hardware.
Microsoft says that they will announce their games in a couple weeks at E3 where there will be a large number of announced exclusives, but somehow this means that there are no devs for Xbox One, while all the devs are developing for the PS4.
On the 360 you would install and need to have the disk in the drive to use it, but on One you can install and that install becomes linked to your account, but somehow this is a deal breaker and many tales are told about how this means you cannot take a game to a friend's house, it means you cannot sell games, and so on. But somehow this is all fine with the PS4, bad for One, good for PS3, and bad for 360. One of the benefits of Blu Ray over HD-DVD was not needing to get up and change the disk, but not needing to get up and change disks on One vs. needing to on PS4 is somehow a good thing.

History is just repeating, but this time the PS fans are flip-flopping on their story, where they are claiming that what the PS3 had was good, but the PS4 not having it is now good and for Xbox One it is bad. Spin on PS fans, spin on.

Edit: Oh, and don't forget the stock price. Microsoft announces their console and they go down less than a percent, and it the price is "plummeting." Sony announces the PS4, and over the next couple days, they lose 5% and they are winning!!!

Edited by StephenBratz, May 22 2013, 6:57pm :

Edit 2: Don't forget, the Kinect is a huge privacy problem that will send your personal video and audio directly to Steve Ballmer for his personal enjoyment. But Google scanning your email, taking your personal data and using it how they see fit, including your health, financial, and other sensitive records (remember, Boston is now or will be shortly using Google Docs to manage the personal information of the city employees and residents), is perfectly fine and you have nothing to worry about.

Edit 3: Don't forget, the PS3 had PlayTV, a TV attachment for the PS3 that would allow you to watch TV on the PS3. Of course, this was a great thing watching live TV on your game console, and it was no problem that it was available only in a limited number of countries, UK, Germany, Italy, Spain, and France. And the fact that two years later it was finally released to Australia and New Zealand was not a problem.

But Xbox One has TV integrated? How dare they spend time on TV when they should be only focusing on games. And no worldwide support from day one??? Once again Microsoft is ignoring the rest of the world. Sony was just punishing North Americans for all Microsoft's N.A. specific projects by not releasing to N.A, and that was good!

Ask yourself, in conversation who these days calls the current gen Xbox "Xbox 360"? It's simply "Xbox", and soon enough Xbox One will simply be "Xbox" too.

There is no confusion here, just people being pedantic luddites.

Microsoft seem to be making a habit of telling it's customers what they think they want when it should be the other way round. I like many just want a decent inexpensive games console that plays great games. I couldn't care less about a Spielberg produced Halo series or Kinect or voice control or all the other bull****. I mean who wants to constantly shout "XBOX" at their TV?

Sony is telling me that I want to share all my videos of my games with friends, they are forcing upon me an extra button on the controller. Why is Sony forcing this upon me? I don't want it, I just want decent games, but they are forcing developers to code to this when it is not wanted.. What other bull**** will Sony force upon me without my consent?

Jimmy Jazz, you might want to look into the PS1, its cheap...its got great games and you are not hindered by the xtra stuff.

btw, do you have a car or a horse?

I think the name of your console is the least of your worries right now...
What, with the online having to phone home, the used game fees, and still having to pay for XBL. I hope your E3 reveal saves you. Competition is a good thing, after all... for us.

once the 360 stuff disappears and the one launches, everyones going to refer to it as the xbox, or new xbox, or monobox..

The 360 isn't going to disappear any time soon, the two console will coexist for years to come.

Monobox? No one is going to call it that, lol.

Of course it will be confused after One = 1 = First generation
When this is a one is a third generation Xbox
The way I see it as an epic failure all ready

Personally I would have called it "Xbox All" or "Xbox Unity" if they wanted to show that all in one solution in the name. One in this context seems weird to me One generally implies first.

Commenting is disabled on this article.