Codename: Rumor

It doesn't take much to get the internet rumor mill going. In this case, all it took was an article at Computer and Video Games (C&VG) citing "one UK development source," as saying Microsoft's next system is being codenamed "Xenon" internally.



First off, even if this story ends up being confirmed, I have to wonder whether it's actually news. What is the point of telling fans about a name that C&VG admits "is highly unlikely to be associated with the final product." What is the possible news value associated with letting an already information-glutted public know what might be the codename for a system that isn't coming out for two years? Was the "X-Box 2" moniker everyone had been using insufficient? Was there a public need to know that someone somewhere is calling the thing "Xenon"? It's a tough case to make, not that anyone probably had to make it to get it posted on C&VG.



Secondly, given that the entire story rests on the testimony of one unnamed development source, the "news" here is really just " idle gossip," anyway, as C&VG admits. Which begs the question: is C&VG in the business of news or in the business of gossip? Would the Washington Post run a story citing one unnamed Pentagon official as saying the War in Iraq was being renamed "Operation Duck Hunt"? Of course not. They would either (1) seek confirmation from other sources or (2) force the source to go on the record and put his name behind his statements. If they were forced into a corner on a big story, they would at least seek comment from the head of the Defense Department or a senior level official on the rumor. C&VG decided to do none of these, instead running an unimportant story with a shaky foundation. I don't care how plausible the name sounds or how trustworthy your source is, writing a speculative news story based on one source is not acceptable.



Of course, one rumor begets more rumors, and before you know it the whole of the link-and-quote internet is infected with the Xenon bug, and more! C&VG, not content to file a story with just one major rumor, starts us off by saying that "current industry speculation" suggests that Microsoft won't name their next system X-Box 2 for fear that it will be inferred by the public as less than the Playstation 3, purely from a numerical standpoint. Whether this "industry speculation" is coming from outside industry analysts or C&VG's own editors is unclear, although my educated guess would be the latter. GamesIndustry.biz says that "current bets are on 'XBox Next' as the brand name," although it's anyone's guess who is actually making those bets.



XBoxActive goes out of its way to call Xenon the "official codename" for the X-Box 2. In fact, they broke the rumor about a few days before C&VG did, but buried it in a rumors column with absolutely no attribution, not even an unnamed source. "The Hedgehog" goes on to say that you shouldn't expect DVD-RW capabilities from the Xenon, but should expect backwards compatibility and XBox Live support at launch. While these are good educated guesses, I can't take them as any more than that unless someone at Microsoft or some other gaming company is saying them.



Spong continues the exagerations by saying on Monday that the Xenon name "is now in common use at both Microsoft HQ and third-party development studios." Their source for this bold assertion? "Senior development sources," which the article does not name. I would not be surprised if their "senior development sources" and the "UK development source" that C&VG cited are one and the same. Without any names attached to the statements, there is no way of knowing.



Oh... in the excitement of all the rumors about Xenon, I forgot to mention that Nintendo's new system is being called the N5. Spong, never one to be out-rumored, broke this amazing story on Friday, citing no source more than "gossip within the development community." This did not stop GamerFeed and GamesIndustry.biz, among others, from running with the story, if a bit skeptically. GamerFeed was quick to point out that Nintendo had not confirmed the report, simlar to what they did in their Xenon story (in which they cited the entire "UK development community. Amazing how that one unnamed source got so big so fast). GI.biz called the N5 name "news to us" and pointed out that they had been using such a codename for a while because "it's easier to type than 'the console that Nintendo are doing after GameCube'." Could Spong be confusing internet shorthand for "industry sources?" Hmmmm.



I will admit that there is some value in reporting industry rumors. Speculating about things like names and sequels and release dates before solid information is available gets the public discourse going and is just plain fun to think about. But such rumor-mongering is best left to a seperate rumor column, and should not be passed off as official news when it is really just information "according to men on the internet" (great quote from GI.biz)