"We are expanding opportunities to collaborate": Former Xbox studio Compulsion Games hopes to team up with other devs following layoffs and divestment ⁠36%

By Brendan Lowry⁠71%

7/13/2026, 12:36:55 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 20 faulty reasoning types, including Halo Effect, Attempt to Sell a Product or Service, and Appeal to Emotion, with Biased Writer Voice as the most egregious example at 27.1% saturation with 161 hits. Analysis detected 1,008 faulty-reasoning hits from 594 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 42.9% and a BS Rank of ⁠36% (14,143 of 21,887 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 64.60% of the article peer group.

"We are expanding opportunities to collaborate": Former Xbox studio Compulsion Games hopes to team up with other devs following layoffs and divestment 
One week after Microsoft and Xbox began a large series of "reset" 3,200 layoffs across the gaming brand that saw 1,600 devs let go immediately and four studios split from the company, Compulsion Games — one of the teams divested — has now signaled how it intends to move forward. 
In a new post on LinkedIn, the studio behind the action-adventure games We Happy Few and 2025's award-winning Xbox title South of Midnight reaffirmed that it will continue on as an independent developer, while also announcing that it's "expanding opportunities to collaborate with studios across the games and entertainment industry." 
"With Compulsion Games returning to its roots as an independent developer, we are expanding opportunities to collaborate with studios across the games and entertainment industry," reads Compulsion's statement. 
"We invite partners to leverage the talent and creativity of the award-winning team behind South of Midnight, a game that was honored with a BAFTA Award, a Peabody Award, seven Canadian Game Awards, and recognized on multiple ‘Best Games of 2025’ lists," it continued. 
Though it wasn't a massive success for Microsoft and Xbox commercially , South of Midnight reviewed quite well with critics and players , and took home several major awards as Compulsion highlights here. 
We gave it a 4/5 score in our own review , stating that it "delivers a story filled with trauma and beauty, with a gorgeous world that doesn't overstay its welcome." 
Notably, in the past, Compulsion contributed to the development of games like Darksiders and Dungeons & Dragons: Daggerdale in the leadup to its debut puzzle-platform title Contrast. 
Now, the developer hopes to work with other studios once again. 
"With deep experience in creating acclaimed original IP, we bring our artistry, technical expertise and collaborative approach to every project," the announcement adds. 
"We are excited to support the development of memorable experiences that engage and entertain players around the world." 
The layoffs and divestment of Compulsion Games from Xbox came as part of a wider effort from Microsoft to reorganize its gaming business after it "overextended," with Xbox's new CEO Asha Sharma pushing for the brand to "move faster" with and focus on its largest properties such as Fallout , The Elder Scrolls , and Halo . 
Games like South of Midnight that have less selling power than huge established franchises aren't going to mesh well with that strategy, which is ultimately why Microsoft and Xbox cut Compulsion loose. 
That departure is frustrating to see for many — myself included — as we know it came with layoffs...but, at the very least, I'm glad that the studio will live on. 
As for what its developers will end up working on, either on their own or with other teams across the industry? 
Only time will tell. 
Whatever's next for Compulsion Games, though, I hope that it will be a project its workers are passionate about, and that it will succeed well enough to give the studio stability in what's become an extremely volatile time for game development . 
What kind of game would you like to see Compulsion Games make next? 
What studio(s) should is partner and collaborate with? 
Let me know what you think in the comments. 
Join us on Reddit at r/WindowsCentral to share your insights and discuss our latest news, reviews, and more. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 0.0%Brendan Lowry: 4.0%Windows Central: 4.2%Confirmation Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Brendan Lowry: 0.9%Windows Central: 1.0%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 8.4%Brendan Lowry: 6.7%Windows Central: 4.6%Availability Heuristic8.4%This article: 4.5%Brendan Lowry: 1.4%Windows Central: 1.1%Representativeness Heuristic4.5%This article: 0.0%Brendan Lowry: 0.5%Windows Central: 0.8%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.7%Brendan Lowry: 2.3%Windows Central: 2.9%Overconfidence Bias0.7%This article: 4.7%Brendan Lowry: 4.0%Windows Central: 5.0%Framing Effect4.7%This article: 0.0%Brendan Lowry: 2.0%Windows Central: 1.3%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Brendan Lowry: 0.1%Windows Central: 0.9%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Brendan Lowry: 0.0%Windows Central: 0.3%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 12.0%Brendan Lowry: 4.3%Windows Central: 8.0%Optimism Bias12.0%This article: 7.1%Brendan Lowry: 6.0%Windows Central: 3.0%Pessimism Bias7.1%This article: 10.8%Brendan Lowry: 16.3%Windows Central: 8.6%Negativity Bias10.8%This article: 5.2%Brendan Lowry: 0.6%Windows Central: 1.4%Self-Serving Bias5.2%This article: 9.6%Brendan Lowry: 0.9%Windows Central: 0.9%Fundamental Attribution Error9.6%This article: 0.0%Brendan Lowry: 0.3%Windows Central: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Brendan Lowry: 2.0%Windows Central: 1.2%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Brendan Lowry: 0.2%Windows Central: 0.1%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 15.8%Brendan Lowry: 5.4%Windows Central: 4.1%Halo Effect15.8%This article: 0.0%Brendan Lowry: 0.0%Windows Central: 0.1%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Brendan Lowry: 0.0%Windows Central: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Brendan Lowry: 3.4%Windows Central: 2.2%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 5.2%Brendan Lowry: 1.0%Windows Central: 0.5%Primacy Effect5.2%This article: 0.0%Brendan Lowry: 0.1%Windows Central: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Brendan Lowry: 0.0%Windows Central: 0.2%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Brendan Lowry: 0.1%Windows Central: 0.3%Straw Man0.0%This article: 11.3%Brendan Lowry: 3.6%Windows Central: 3.7%Appeal to Authority11.3%This article: 5.4%Brendan Lowry: 1.3%Windows Central: 1.7%False Dilemma5.4%This article: 0.0%Brendan Lowry: 1.6%Windows Central: 1.0%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Brendan Lowry: 0.0%Windows Central: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 0.0%Brendan Lowry: 6.5%Windows Central: 8.5%Hasty Generalization0.0%This article: 0.0%Brendan Lowry: 0.0%Windows Central: 0.2%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Brendan Lowry: 0.9%Windows Central: 1.1%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 12.3%Brendan Lowry: 7.7%Windows Central: 3.8%Appeal to Emotion12.3%This article: 0.0%Brendan Lowry: 0.5%Windows Central: 0.9%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 5.4%Brendan Lowry: 2.9%Windows Central: 2.9%Post Hoc (False Cause)5.4%This article: 0.0%Brendan Lowry: 0.0%Windows Central: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.7%Brendan Lowry: 0.3%Windows Central: 0.5%Burden of Proof0.7%This article: 0.0%Brendan Lowry: 0.2%Windows Central: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Brendan Lowry: 0.0%Windows Central: 0.2%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Brendan Lowry: 3.1%Windows Central: 4.0%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Brendan Lowry: 0.0%Windows Central: 0.2%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%Brendan Lowry: 1.4%Windows Central: 2.4%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%Brendan Lowry: 0.0%Windows Central: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Brendan Lowry: 0.0%Windows Central: 0.2%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Brendan Lowry: 0.3%Windows Central: 0.2%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Brendan Lowry: 0.2%Windows Central: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Brendan Lowry: 0.0%Windows Central: 0.1%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 4.7%Brendan Lowry: 4.8%Windows Central: 3.0%Unattributed Quote4.7%This article: 3.9%Brendan Lowry: 1.0%Windows Central: 1.1%Quote-first Misdirection3.9%This article: 27.1%Brendan Lowry: 18.5%Windows Central: 13.9%Biased Writer Voice27.1%This article: 0.0%Brendan Lowry: 1.9%Windows Central: 1.9%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Brendan Lowry: 0.0%Windows Central: 0.0%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Brendan Lowry: 0.0%Windows Central: 0.0%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 15.0%Brendan Lowry: 3.1%Windows Central: 6.7%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…15.0%

594 words analyzed.

Speakers

1speaker19%attributed speech481writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 22 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 50 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 50 words • 0.0% coverageCompulsion Games • 28 words • 100.0% coverageCompulsion Games • 44 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 33 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 31 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 27 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageCompulsion Games • 23 words • 100.0% coverageCompulsion Games • 18 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 57 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 32 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 31 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 42 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 100.0% coverage
Selected voice

Compulsion Games

100%flagged-word coverage
113 attributed words100% of attributed speech82% writer coverage
0%27.5%55.0%Attempt to Sell a Product +49.3 ptsWriter: 5.6%Compulsion Games: 54.9%54.9%Biased Writer Voice-33.5 ptsWriter: 33.5%Compulsion Games: 0.0%0.0%Unattributed Quote+24.8 ptsWriter: 0.0%Compulsion Games: 24.8%24.8%Quote-first Misdirection+20.4 ptsWriter: 0.0%Compulsion Games: 20.4%20.4%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.