Hypothetically speaking if one of the core features of Xbox's next system was modularity, this could more easily be accounted for with guidance on future proofed in-game modes. This way they benefit the same way PS4 titles benefit from PS5's Boost mode. Things like Uncapped framerates with VRR, Dynamic Resolution and  system level control over both. But like all new hardware or hardware updates, the main attraction would be recent releases and up & coming games which will come with specific patches. 

There is a lot that can be done that hasn't because things were not moving in that direction. In 2012 if someone suggested performance modes on console, people would of told them that defeats the point of console. If someone said there is a weak Xbox and Strong one and developers need to develop for both, the same sentiment would of applied. Games are increasingly become more scalable with different modes, not the other way round. Even the Switch is reflective of this.

I'm not familiar with the NEC reference so I won't comment on that, I will just reinforce that the compilation stutter argument is not the reason why a modular system couldn't work. I'm not set on the idea of it either but the potential exists way beyond the initial, relatively small bottlenecks people are suggesting. 

No.

The Series S sells far more than the Series X

Source: https://www.gamespot.com/articles/xbox-series-x-vs-series-s-which-sells-better/1100-6517869/

Yeah, I agree with much of this in that I there are hurdles. Some degree of cost efficiency will absolutely be lost, the extent of which we can't really say. I'm not aware of any modern systems truly engineered in this way with the might and dedication of a console maker behind it. But there is also absolutely a market for it that could help secure MS a niche "if" they can make it work. That challenge is related to engineering & cost efficiency, not software compatibility as people suggested

So like I said in my original post you quoted, price matters.

https://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9575164

If they had only the Series S and it was spec'd a bit better than the current S but not as high as the series X - they could have sold it at a lower price point.

Only down side would be their system wouldnt be as powerful as the direct competitor, the PS5 but at least it would have sold more units albeit not as much as a previous gen system did (PS2 against the Xbox and GCN).

For another comparison, we do have modular controllers now. Except they're really not that much better (still stick drift) and cost 3-4x as much.

There is a market for them, but it will be a very small one at $1000+ for a modular console.

Software compatibility is also still an issue. Games still need to be optimized for Series S and Series X, still need patches to make full advantage of ps5 pro. For example PS5 Pro does very little for PSVR2 apart from a handful of games that got patched. It will work, but doesn't justify the cost for the avg consumer.

The main issue with the PS5 Pro "Boost Mode" is that it may not deliver the expected level of performance improvement for older games, often falling short of the advertised 45% boost due to limitations in memory bandwidth, meaning some games might not see significant frame rate increases or visual enhancements even when using the feature;essentially acting as a compatibility mode rather than a full performance upgrade for all titles

Some games actually looked worse on PS5 Pro before they got patched :/

An entry level and mid-range option will give options to the consumer who may not be able to afford a high-end console. They will no longer be selling their hardware at a loss.  Over 30 million consoles sold so far, over 21.5 billion dollars in revenue for 2024 up from 15.4 billion revenue from 2023.  

Why try it again?  Different generation, different markets, different financial environment, different tech, different games, new consumers,....ect, not really the same thing again

If people won't buy their home console, why would people buy an Xbox handheld over a Nintendo or Steam deck?  Over 30 million people have purchased their home consoles, you are implying that no one purchased one.  As far as purchasing a handheld, a Nintendo or Steam deck is not going to allow you to play your existing Xbox library on the go.  And if rumors are true about Xbox creating the next hardware to work with Steam, then an Xbox handheld with both an Xbox OS and Steam OS would be very attractive.  

And as far as me listing multiple devices, that is based on what has already been revealed to be under development for the High-end device and the Handheld device. An entry level device needs to be a fully capable machine, not skimped on Ram, CPU, or GPU.  

Could they be doing better?  Absolutely

Is Xbox a failure?  Doesn't look like it

Will 2025 or 2026 be the years that Xbox fails? Nope

Xbox will continue to learn from their past mistakes and the next generation allows for an opportunity to correct them.  Sure, albeit new mistakes can occur.

You state "Why Try it Again?", that is loser talk.  I doubt any successful venture has ever had that shitty attitude. 

That is good old PSSR in action lol. Fault there lays in Sony. 

Boost mode on Pro has limitations, but as is listed, that is through memory badwidth limitations. Primarily you would be looking at a patch to take "full" advantage of new hardware as always. I don't that is a "issue" more just a reality of modern game development. I wouldn't imagine modularity means 10 different GPU upgrades but several within a generation to offer peak and midrange performance relative to the console environment of that time. 

Both the modular controllers and SSDs are high profit margin peripherals, neither have a stake in user penetration, so again I wouldn't use that to gauge actual cost of production or Bill of Materials. I don't think for example that the PS5 Elite controller BOM is even a third of its $199 sellling price.

The Series S was 75% of Xbox Series sold as of Spring 2022 due to stock issues. Things changed once the Series X became readily available and since then it's been pretty even between the two and in fact the article you linked literally points this out in the exact same paragraph that has that 2022 ratio so you either immediately stopped reading the article after that sentence and didn't bother to properly verify things or are intentionally spreading misinformation here. You've been spreading quite a bit of misinformation in this thread in general with this and the inaccurate parts of the OP so you should be more careful to not do that cause this is a pretty rough thread really.

Making an expensive Xbox console would stop the bleeding from hardware but greatly diminish brand significance and revenue.

Xbox as a platform is disappearing anyway due to Microsoft's multiplatform policy. Valve has a massive service in Steam, Microsoft really has no equivalent to that. The near future looks like this:

Nintendo: Console maker, 99.9% self contained platform holder.

Sony gaming: Console maker, 95% platform holder.

Valve: Hardware-less platform holder. Their own hardware are primarily accessories and not required for their services.

Microsoft gaming: 90% third party publisher, 10% platform holder. Soon their platform/services might become hardware agnostic (GamePass has been available on PC for years and they're trying to get it on Playstation and Nintendo platforms). Their platform will be tiny compared to the new "big 3". But their software is in a league of its own.

Tencent gaming: 80%~ third party publisher/owner, 20%~ platform holder. Is it just me or is Tencent the closest company to what Microsoft gaming is turning into?

Surface High-End console
Surface Mid-Range console
Surface entry level console
Surface Handheld console

Surface laptop
Surface tablet
Surface smartphone

Oh, right, yeah, and they're all an "Xbox" too.