Summary
- Recent leaks suggest that Microsoft is steering the Xbox platform towards a completely digital model.
- Microsoft's history of using code names for its Xbox consoles provides insight into how it approaches the development of gaming hardware, with each console receiving its own code name before an official announcement.
- The rumored code names "Ellewood" and "Brooklin" for the next generation of Xbox Series X and S consoles suggest a shift in Microsoft's development, possibly towards a more unified digital-only identity.
Following the leak of documents from the ongoing case between Microsoft and the Federal Trade Commission, many players are now speculating about Microsoft's future plans after learning about the latest code names for its next Xbox consoles. As an industry giant that develops and releases much more than just gaming hardware, Microsoft has plenty of cause to endeavor to keep its upcoming projects under wraps until it is ready to reveal more. Throughout the development of its Xbox platform, Microsoft has used code names like Anaconda and Lockhart before it eventually announced their official names.
But the recently leaked code names for the Xbox consoles set to succeed the Xbox Series X and S have also revealed a returning trend in Microsoft's approach to the development and branding of its gaming hardware. With the Xbox Series S already popularized as a less powerful and digital-only alternative to the Xbox Series X, and now with leaks from redacted court documents, Microsoft seems to be steering the Xbox platform toward a completely digital model. These code names, when compared to previous Xbox consoles, could shed some light on what players could actually expect over the next few years.
Exploring Past and Present Xbox Code Names
The Xbox's current iconic name was coined from Microsoft's development of the "DirectX Box" which was in itself a reference to the company's graphics API, Direct X. Since then, every new console and peripheral developed as part of Xbox has received its own code name until an official announcement could be made. Some consoles even received a second code name further down the line, meaning players have a significant insight into how Microsoft approaches the development of its gaming hardware. At the time of writing, the previous code names it has used for Xbox consoles are as follows.
- Xenon: Later announced as the Xbox 360
- Durango: Later announced as the Xbox One
- Natal: Later announced as Xbox Kinect
- Scorpio: Later announced as Xbox One X
- Edmonton: Later announced as Xbox One S
- Scarlett: Later confirmed to be the code name for both next-gen consoles after Xbox One X and S
- Anaconda and then Starkville: Later announced as Xbox Series X
- Lockhart and then Edith: Later announced as Xbox Series S
Alongside seemingly unused code names that were revealed as part of the Xbox One's operating system such as "Edinburgh" and "Count," it was originally theorized that Microsoft had settled on two naming conventions between its X and S consoles. There are deadly animals for its more powerful X consoles, and capital cities for its S console line. However, this might not be the case anymore, as suggested by the recent leaks from Microsoft that point towards a transition to a digital-only approach. The rumored "Ellewood" and "Brooklin" code names for the Xbox Series X and S refresh seem to confirm this shift in Microsoft's development as they break earlier conventions.
Neither Ellewood nor Brooklin appear to be capital cities or county seats as per previous code names, but they do appear to be variations of other cities and boroughs from elsewhere within the US. For example, Brooklin could be an adaptation of the Brooklyn borough in New York City, and Ellewood could alternatively derive from Ellwood City in Pennsylvania. If this is the case, then compared to previous code names, it seems Microsoft is bringing the next generation of Xbox Series X and S consoles into a more unified identity -- possibly under the banner of the digital-only model. That means future Xbox consoles could soon be defined only by their variations in storage and performance.