Xbox Studio leadership reportedly 'detests' Game Pass, as they think it destroys the value perception

Q: Why do some Xbox studio leaders reportedly 'detest' Game Pass?

According to the article, many Xbox studio leaders reportedly detest Game Pass because they believe it destroyed the perceived value of their games and trained players to expect day-one access for free, creating a "race to zero." The service also subsidizes parts of Xbox while effectively discounting a studio's product, which contributed to internal resentment as subscriber revenue dipped and led to layoffs at some studios. The article adds that studio leadership has been losing an internal argument about this despite Game Pass still generating substantial revenue.

Q: How has Game Pass reportedly affected studio budgets and layoffs at Xbox studios like id Software?

According to the article, Game Pass has been subsidizing chunks of Xbox’s business while simultaneously discounting games, which studio leaders say destroys perceived value and has bred resentment. When Game Pass subscriber revenue dipped, that subsidy contraction coincided with significant layoffs, with id Software reportedly gutted by roughly half. Related coverage adds that id was reduced to about the size it was at Doom 2016 (Related 2 , News #112584).

Q: What revenue figures or business benefits does Microsoft cite to justify keeping Game Pass?

Microsoft says Game Pass still generates real revenue , the article notes it pulled in close to $5 billion in a single year , and that business metrics improved after a price cut, with acquisitions growing and churn falling. The piece also says Game Pass subsidizes parts of the Xbox business, which helps justify keeping the service.

Xbox studio leaders reportedly hate what Game Pass did to their games' value, but Microsoft has no real plan to walk away from it.

VIEW GALLERY - 5

Hassam Nasir

Tech Reporter

Published Jul 19, 2026 5:30 PM CDT

1 minute & 45 seconds read time

TL;DR: Many Xbox studio leaders reportedly hate Game Pass, believing it devalues games and trains players to expect day-one access, while Microsoft keeps the service because it still earns significant revenue; internal tension has grown after price changes, subscriber drops, and layoffs tied to subscription revenues.

Voice: Hassam NasirSpeed

0:00 / 3:24

Xbox's Game Pass has been polarizing among publishers since its launch, but gamers famously love the service. It is one of the most convenient and user-friendly features that currently exists in the gaming industry. However, it looks like not all parties agree. Turns out the people making the games at Xbox and the people running the business side of Xbox have very different feelings about Game Pass.

Bloomberg's Jason Schreier said on his Triple Click podcast that a lot of Xbox studio leadership absolutely detest Game Pass, arguing it destroyed the value of their games and has been a broader detriment to the industry by training players to expect games for free on day one. Schreier's sourcing lines up with what former Xbox studio leads have said elsewhere, describing Game Pass internally as feeling "like a race to zero."

Xbox Studio leadership reportedly 'detests' Game Pass, as they think it destroys the value perception 4

VIEW GALLERY - 5 IMAGES

That thought process lines up with what's actually happened at Xbox this year. Microsoft hiked Game Pass Ultimate from $19.99 to $29.99, then walked it back to $22.99 after subscriber counts reportedly dropped from around 35 million to 30 million. The tradeoff for that price cut was pulling new Call of Duty games from day-one Game Pass access, something Bloomberg previously reported was controversial internally long before this price hike ever happened.

Xbox Studio leadership reportedly 'detests' Game Pass, as they think it destroys the value perception 3

The studio-level resentment also fits the fallout from Xbox's recent layoffs. Game Pass subsidizes chunks of the Xbox business, and when subscriber revenue dipped, id Software found itself gutted by roughly half despite Doom and Quake staying nominal priorities. If a subscription model is propping up your studio's budget while simultaneously discounting your own game to a fraction of retail price, resenting it is a pretty reasonable reaction.

Game Pass still pulled in close to $5 billion in a single year, and Xbox leadership itself has said the price cut worked, with acquisitions growing and churn falling. Microsoft isn't showing any sign of winding the service down, and Xbox's own recent pivot back toward console exclusives doesn't resolve the tension either. If titles like Gears of War E-Day or Clockwork Revolution still end up on Game Pass day one, the exact complaint studio leadership has about value destruction just gets repeated with a new coat of paint.

Xbox Studio leadership reportedly 'detests' Game Pass, as they think it destroys the value perception 2

Frequently Asked Questions

TweakBot answers common questions about this news using TweakTown's own coverage from this page and related content from our archive. Tap a question to reveal the answer, or type your own below.

Question #1

Why do some Xbox studio leaders reportedly 'detest' Game Pass?

Question #2

What internal controversy arose around day-one Game Pass access for new Call of Duty games?

The article says pulling new Call of Duty games from day-one Game Pass access was controversial internally, reflecting a broader split where Xbox studio leadership detests Game Pass for destroying the perceived value of their games and training players to expect day-one access for free. That disagreement pitted studio leaders who felt the subscription model harmed game value against the business side that kept the model because it still generated substantial revenue.

Answered

Question #3

How has Game Pass reportedly affected studio budgets and layoffs at Xbox studios like id Software?

Question #4

What revenue figures or business benefits does Microsoft cite to justify keeping Game Pass?

Have a question not listed here? Ask below and TweakBot will answer it.

So this isn't really studio leadership winning an argument, even though their stance has strong merit. It's studio leadership losing an argument they've apparently been having internally for years, while the business side keeps the model alive because it still generates real revenue, even though it's a shrunken and less profitable version of what it used to be.