By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Gaming Discussion - Console Naming

So, as we're all aware of by now, Microsoft has recently revealed the look and name of their next gaming system: the Xbox Series X. The demo footage looked great, but the name...well it has inspired me to write this brief little thread highlighting the different ways the different companies name their systems.

Both Microsoft and Nintendo name their systems for philosophically key features. But Microsoft always tries to be cool with their console names and I think comes off as corporate as a result. Nintendo on the other hand goes for geeky, offbeat names these days (GameCube, Wii, Switch) that clearly aren't aiming for the cool factor. I think people tend to find the latter more endearing.

Sony, on the other hand, I find honestly to be the least pretentious. They just lazily number their systems. I like that. They're not trying to be gimmicky and competitive about it is my take on that.
That is all. Not a biggie, but I do think there is something in a name. Just my thoughts on the subject.



Around the Network

Dreamcast is the best console name ever. Dreams broadcast. Followed by Gamecube and Switch. I don't know what Wonderswan meant but I liked the name. I like SEGA Saturn tho it told you nothing about the system. Genesis a cool name. Xbox has always had a terrible name. Xbox came in the era everything had an X or Xtreme in the title. Cringeworthy really. Funny thing is Xbox is not MS first console or with an X in the title. That was MSX in the 80s and top it off Metal Gear series debut was on a MS console.

Last edited by Leynos - on 14 December 2019

Bite my shiny metal cockpit!

Sony was definitely able to build PlayStation into a consistent brand. People clearly understand that a PS5 is supposed to be more advanced than a PS4 which is supposed to be more advanced than a PS3, and so on. But Sony has more experience than either MS or Nintendo on thet front. You pretty much knew what you were going to get with a Walkman or a Trinitron.

Nintendo should have probably kept Nintendo Entertainment System/Famicom as a brand for its console line. Say "Ultra Famicom" or "Ultra NES" for the N64, as an example.

Microsoft was generally all over the place with their naming until Windows 7. Vista really came back to bite them. Windows 8 was so bad that they skipped pas 9 to 10.



MS doesn't want to do simple numbers, because they'd have to have a lower number than PS. So, they choose more creative names. They don't do a great job of it, but they try.

Maybe they should call the next one XBox 6, just to be ahead of Sony. Or, they could just count up every significant hardware revision, and call it the XB 10 (or whatever the number would be).



XB has had a tough time with names. OG XB was no different than OG PS, and 360 was worthy, but after that it all went downhill.

To me they are trying to incorporate last gen as much as possible, while trying to be able to easily distinguish between the X, and potential whY model soon to come, while also laying out a naming scheme that can last the test of time. Series blank, isn't much different than model blank. Like model S, E, X, and Y, from Tesla. It's easy and simple, and can be done in a way that's 'BC' and 'FC' throughout the 'gens'.

The problem is they're trying to incorporate too much into the name all at once, and it's very corporate sounding, because it's based more so on corporate thinking. Easy and clear? Yes. Cool and hip? No.

A good gaming name is laid back and/or casual sounding, not business and corporate. It's even better if it can be fairly legitimately tied to the gaming experience.



Around the Network
Ka-pi96 said:
Hiku said:

But the idea of something like "Nintendo 3" sounds a bit weird to me. Maybe I would get used to it, but I think they went in the right direction with how they name their systems. But it can be hit or miss.

It probably wouldn't have been "Nintendo 3" though. I mean, it's the Playstation 3, not the Sony 3

Would NES3 sound so bad though? Although to be honest if they were going to use a numerical naming system I think the Gamecube would have been the best place to start that. I mean, who wouldn't want a Gamecube 2, 3, 4 etc.?

The Gamecube was a failure though, they probably didn't want to be associated with that. They tried to stick to the Wii-branding a bit. Maybe Switch can be the starting point.

It doesn't have always to be numbers either. The NES was followed by the Super NES (or Super Famicom). I think that is also pretty clear. You have some steps, like Mega, Ultra and so on too. As I am a technical nerd, I would go with SI-prefixes. The Mega Switch. Followed by the Giga Switch. Followed by the Tera Switch!

Dreamcast by the way is the best console name ever.

And yeah, what Microsoft does is just confusing. Well, they stick with their brand Xbox, but it is very difficult to guess the order if you only hear the names. The most likely order would be: Xbox One, Xbox, Xbox 360. And Series X fits nowhere.



3DS-FC: 4511-1768-7903 (Mii-Name: Mnementh), Nintendo-Network-ID: Mnementh, Switch: SW-7706-3819-9381 (Mnementh)

my greatest games: 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022, 2023

10 years greatest game event!

bets: [peak year] [+], [1], [2], [3], [4]

There is something in a name, adding numbers isnt a way to show it.
Numbers can make a product feel old in comparison to something with a unique name.

Names like Dreamcast, Xbox 360, Gamecube, N64 etc to someone that doesnt know the age of those systems will believe there recent compared to a PS2 which is soon to be 3 numbers behind the current system.

I for one support creative names, it makes a system feel unique and special compared to lets say a iPhone 3 or Samsung S4 etc. Numbers are easy however it ages the previous models considerably and makes people believe you just need the latest one.

Anyway thats my take.



The names of the consoles reveal the strategy that the company is using. Let's start with Sony.  PS1, PS2, PS3, etc....  It seems predictable, but that is actually Sony's strategy.  Predicatable = reliable.  You know what you are getting with a PS5, for example.  It's going to be just like a PS4, but more powerful.  A lot of people like that reliable nature for Playstation so that makes it a good strategy.

The XBox names are all style and no substance, which is very much what the XBox strategy is as well.  Their third console is called XBox One.  The more I think about it, the more moronic it seems.  It sounds cool at first though.  It's basically empty marketing, without a lot of guarantees, which reflects the XBox strategy as a whole.

Nintendo I find most interesting of all.  Each console has a different strategy, and it is revealed in the name (except maybe Gamecube...not sure what that strategy is).  The systems thought up by Iwata often have double meanings on top of that.

Famicom - Family Computer.  This is a cheap computer system that the whole family can use.  In Japan it had a disk drive, keyboard, and a bunch of other features that a computer can use.  Of course it also had games, but their were a wide variety of games that appealed to all members of a family, kids and parents.  Plenty of Go and Majong games in Japan to go with Mario and Zelda.  A system for everyone.

Super Famicom - Like the Famicom, but better.
N64 - We have 64 bits!  Look how powerful our system is.

Wii - Bring everyone together to play.  Wii = We (local multiplayer).  Also Wii = Whee!  (It's fun.)  Simple fun for everyone.  Not complicated.
Wii U - Combines "a multiplayer system for everyone" with "a system just for you".  It's a nonsense strategy which helps explain why it flopped so badly.

Gameboy - It's a little game system for on the go.  It's not quite a full grown up game system.  Simple, quick games.
Virtual Boy - Like the Gameboy, but with Virtual Reality.
Gameboy Color - Like the Gameboy, but now in color.
Gameboy Advance - Like the Gameboy but Advanced, more powerful.  (See also Super Famicom.)

DS - Stands for Dual Screen and Developer's System.  They made it easy for developers to make games for it.
3DS - Like the DS, but in 3D.

Switch - You can switch between home and handheld mode.  I also think they intend gamers to switch from Playstation to Nintendo.  The latter is my personal speculation and still remains to be seen.



The_Liquid_Laser said:

The names of the consoles reveal the strategy that the company is using. Let's start with Sony.  PS1, PS2, PS3, etc....  It seems predictable, but that is actually Sony's strategy.  Predicatable = reliable.  You know what you are getting with a PS5, for example.  It's going to be just like a PS4, but more powerful.  A lot of people like that reliable nature for Playstation so that makes it a good strategy.

Being seen as new and fresh isn't always a bad thing though.
Case in point: Wii, DS, Switch. - They all ditched the baggage from their previous system naming convention and also sold like gangbusters.

The_Liquid_Laser said:

The XBox names are all style and no substance, which is very much what the XBox strategy is as well.  Their third console is called XBox One.  The more I think about it, the more moronic it seems.  It sounds cool at first though.  It's basically empty marketing, without a lot of guarantees, which reflects the XBox strategy as a whole.

The entire point if the Xbox One name was to be the "One" place for all your entertainment needs, whether it was gaming, movies, tv shows, social media.

Obviously the name didn't catch on... And oft-confused with the Original Xbox which now required "Original" to precede the name "Xbox" so people knew what you were talking about.

And that does reflect Microsoft's strategy somewhat.

But I agree, it is a moronic name and reflected Microsoft's lack of commitment to pure gaming at the time... I just wish Microsoft would actually catch on that "Xbox" was a good name. "Xbox 360" was also a good name.

Xbox One was not a good name.
Xbox Series X is also not a good name. (And I often accidentally call it Xbox One series X which compounds the issue.)

The_Liquid_Laser said:

Nintendo I find most interesting of all.  Each console has a different strategy, and it is revealed in the name (except maybe Gamecube...not sure what that strategy is).  The systems thought up by Iwata often have double meanings on top of that.

Switch - You can switch between home and handheld mode.  I also think they intend gamers to switch from Playstation to Nintendo.  The latter is my personal speculation and still remains to be seen.

Well the Switch name itself isn't really a reflection of the platform anymore... As now there are Switch consoles that don't... Well. Switch.



--::{PC Gaming Master Race}::--

I really like the name Playstation. Numbering them thereafter makes sense, although one could argue it lacks creativity.

I've never liked the name Xbox. I understand its origin, but it sounds like something an 11 year old would come up with: "I'm gonna invent the baddest video game system ever and call it XBOX!" Same with the look of the first system and its big "X" aesthetic. However, for whatever reason, I think the name "Xbox 360" sounds damn cool. After that, the numbering and now the "Series X" monikers are just too confusing for their own good.

Nintendo's consoles were all fine, including the Wii which was unique and catchy with its quirkiness. But the name WiiU is garbage, and the reasoning behind it (Wii - as in everyone, meets U - the core gamer) is just stupid. Gameboy was a pretty cool name (a play on the Walkman) and Nintendo's other handhelds were ok I guess (3DS is clever following its predecessor).

Sega Genesis was one of the best named systems of all time in my opinion (Mega Drive not so much though). Dreamcast... well, it's not that it sounds bad, but it reminds me too much of some pro fishing pole: "Caught me a good 8-pounder today with muh Dreamcast". Master System and Saturn were nothing special.

As for everyone else nothing really stood out as good or clever. I personally liked the ring of TurboGrafx-16, but both it and its name in Japan (PC Engine) made it sound more powerful than it really was.