If you’re imagining the next Xbox as a single, monolithic box designed solely by Microsoft, you might be in for a surprise. The future of Xbox hardware appears to be heading in a dramatically new direction, one that could see your next "Xbox" made by a variety of different companies, each with its own unique take on the platform.
This vision stands in stark contrast to recent statements from Microsoft Gaming CEO Phil Spencer, who has publicly referred to the next-generation Xbox as a "first-party" system. This description was widely seen as a direct contrast to the ASUS-made ROG Ally and the newly announced ROG Ally X, which are Windows-based handhelds, not official Xbox consoles.
However, according to prominent tech YouTuber and hardware analyst Austin Evans, the reality may be far more complex—and fragmented—than Spencer’s words suggest.
The Contradiction: First-Party Promise vs. Third-Party Prediction
In a landscape where the lines between PC and console are blurring, Microsoft seems to be crafting a dual-path strategy. On one hand, Phil Spencer is maintaining the traditional console narrative, reassuring fans that a flagship, first-party device is on the way.
On the other hand, Evans posits that this first-party hardware will act less like the definitive next Xbox and more like a reference design—a blueprint from which other manufacturers can build. In this scenario, Microsoft would create a flagship system to set the standard, while actively encouraging OEM partners like ASUS, Lenovo, or others to construct their own licensed versions of the console.
This approach fundamentally redefines what a console ecosystem can be. Instead of one or two SKUs from Microsoft (like the current Series X and S), the market could be flooded with a range of "Xbox" consoles from different brands, each targeting different performance tiers, form factors, and budgets.
A New World of Xbox Choices: Tiers, Designs, and Target Markets
So, what would this multi-vendor Xbox landscape actually look like? Evans expects the heart of these devices to be a versatile AMD "Magnus" chipset, capable of supporting a wide range of configurations. Buyers could see everything from entry-level consoles rivaling the Series S to high-end powerhouses that surpass the Series X.
However, with multiple vendors involved, uniformity would be a thing of the past. These devices would likely have distinct appearances, unique cooling solutions, and varying feature sets. One manufacturer might focus on a compact, living-room-friendly design, while another might prioritize a modular, upgradeable chassis that competes directly with pre-built gaming desktops.
This shift in strategy also comes with a significant caveat: price. As Evans notes in his analysis, while there may be options for different budgets, most of these new hybrid PC/consoles are expected to be significantly more expensive than the current Series X. The reason is simple economics. Microsoft may struggle to subsidize the cost of hardware it doesn't directly build, while its manufacturing partners will be prioritizing their own profit margins.
For a deeper dive into this analysis and Evans' full perspective on the future of the Xbox brand, check out his latest video , where he discusses whether the Xbox is, in fact, dead—and how it could evolve into something entirely new.
A Cautionary Tale: The Ghosts of 3DO and Steam Machines
For veteran gamers, this "open" console model may trigger memories of past experiments that struggled to find success. The most direct comparison is the infamous 3DO from the mid-90s, which involved manufacturers like Panasonic and Sanyo creating their own versions of the hardware. The result was a high-priced, fragmented market that failed to capture a significant audience.
A more recent, and perhaps more apt, comparison is the Valve Steam Machine. Like the proposed Xbox model, Steam Machines welcomed third-party partners to develop customized versions of a Linux-based gaming hardware standard. While the concept was promising, the initiative ultimately suffered from quality-control inconsistencies, software limitations, and consumer confusion. Neither the 3DO nor Steam Machines met sales expectations.
Critics of Microsoft's potential path will quickly point out these historical pitfalls. A multi-vendor approach inherently risks a lack of quality control, a confusing message for consumers, and the potential for a fractured game optimization landscape where developers can't target a single, standardized specification.
Hope on the Horizon: Competition and Choice
Despite the risks, there is a potential upside for consumers: choice and competition. If executed correctly, a competitive market of Xbox consoles could prevent prices from becoming excessively premium. The competition between manufacturers could drive innovation in design, features, and value, rather than leaving a single company to dictate the market's direction.
If Evans is correct, Microsoft is betting that the strength of the Xbox brand and its software ecosystem—Game Pass, in particular—can succeed where others failed. The company would provide the foundational software and a reference hardware design, then step back and let the market decide which versions of the Xbox resonate most.
Ultimately, the next Xbox may not be a single device, but an entire category. While Phil Spencer isn't lying about a first-party system, he may only be telling one part of a much larger, more ambitious story for the future of Xbox hardware. The question is whether gamers are ready for a world where buying an "Xbox" requires as much research as buying a PC.
Post a Comment