What's going on with Xbox's id Software? Here's why rumors of the DOOM studio's impending demise are completely premature. 61%

By Jez Corden61%

7/10/2026, 2:00:00 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 35 faulty reasoning types, including Negativity Bias, Post Hoc (False Cause), and Hasty Generalization, with Biased Writer Voice as the most egregious example at 28.2% saturation with 308 hits. Analysis detected 2,380 faulty-reasoning hits from 1,094 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 56.9% and a BS Rank of 61% (8,546 of 21,887 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 61.00% of the article peer group.

Xbox's cuts over the past week have been brutal; let's not mince words here. 
Four studios divested with a possible fifth in progress, over a thousand jobs removed already, with a further 2000 planned. 
The atmosphere within Xbox right now is dire  a total 180 following the wave of optimism from new CEO Asha Sharma's appointment in spring. 
As a result, there are tons of stories coming out about what the fate of Xbox's remaining studios might be. 
A lot of the discourse has fallen on id Software right now, the beloved maker of DOOM. 
The studio is an industry staple, and arguably one of the most important and influential brands in the modern gaming canon. 
Cuts at id Software have been heavy and painful. 
Some have claimed the studio's lauded id Tech engine is effectively on ice, and that id is no longer large enough to produce its own games. 
What's the truth here? 
I've been investigating Microsoft's plans for id. 
Despite the callousness of Microsoft's bean counters, I'm confident the studio will endure. 
Microsoft has no plans to shelve id Tech 
id's OG engineers popularized the first-person genre, which now generates billions of dollars. 
DOOM and other id Software games have long been powered by the id Tech engine. 
The engine was designed originally for Quake back in the 90s, and has since powered a huge variety of titles, including open-world games like RAGE, horror games like The Evil Within, Wolfenstein shooters, and, of course, the modern DOOM games. 
More recently, Machine Games' Indiana Jones and DOOM: The Dark Ages were built on the latest versions of id Tech. 
It has a very different feel to Unreal Engine, particularly for first-person games. 
It's been lauded for its optimization on lower-end hardware stacks, as well as its general versatility. 
The cuts to id Software have hit the teams that develop id Tech hard, with decades of expertise wiped out over night. 
But rumors that there's now virtually nobody working on the engine are false. 
Sources tell me that there remains a solid stack of expertise for id Tech across id Software itself, and Machine Games. 
I'm told Microsoft also has no plans to shift either studio forcibly to Unreal Engine, which seems to have become the default for Microsoft and many other core game makers. 
Microsoft provided us this statement on the topic: "There are dozens of people working on id Tech across multiple locations. 
Reports that there’s only one person left in Texas are inaccurate." 
In my view, Microsoft would have to be miserably short-sighted to deprecate id Tech. 
Handing even more power to Unreal Engine opens them up to monopolistic price increases down the line, which would be fiscally irresponsible. 
Xbox CEO Asha Sharma herself said in her memo to staff that she wants Microsoft to rely less on vendors for things like this. 
As such, I would argue that Microsoft should invest more in id Tech, not less. 
But hey, quarterly thinking is Microsoft's M.O. these days. 
And it is true that generational talent and knowledge has been carelessly cast aside. 
id Software's headcount is now similar to what it was for DOOM (2016) 
DOOM (2016) is, in my view, id Software's best ever game. 
The other rumor flying around is that id Software has shrunk to a headcount that is untenable for future self-made products, relegating them to "support studio" status. 
This too, is false. 
While the cuts have been alarmingly callous, my understanding is that the remaining id Software core team is roughly the same as it was when DOOM (2016) shipped. 
DOOM (2016) is arguably the studio's best-ever game in my view, despite the comparatively smaller headcount that produced it. 
That's not too suggest in any capacity that we should expect the same quality bar without proof ... 
Microsoft removed mountains of incredible talent from the pool. 
Still, I'm not sure exactly what id Software could be making next. 
There have been reports that id Software had a variety of pitches in the pipeline, including a Perfect Dark reboot and a Western-styled shooter dubbed Ironwood. 
It's unclear if any of these will be greenlit. 
id Software just shipped DOOM: The Dark Ages Revelations, a sizeable story expansion for last year's DOOM prequel. 
What the studio builds next remains to be seen, but Xbox CEO Asha Sharma specifically called out DOOM and Quake as franchises to invest in. 
Microsoft wants to grow its most staple and recognizable IP, which at least in the near term, likely excludes "new" franchise ideas. 
I'd still like to see what a modern Hexen would look like ... perhaps we'll learn more at Quakecon, which is still going ahead. 
It's still been a needlessly brutal exercise 
DOOM will outlive Microsoft's bean counters. 
(Image credit: Bethesda Softworks) While rumors of id Software's demise have been greatly exaggerated, the layoffs have still been callous and brutal. 
Staffers with decades of expertise and tenure were let go, despite the success of the modern DOOM trilogy. 
Microsoft's gaming aspirations have been heavily reduced over the past week, in what CEO Asha Sharma has been describing as a "reset." 
This has led to sizeable reductions in teams working on a variety of projects, from The Elder Scrolls to Xbox's social media delivery and platform features. 
Other studios, like Blizzard, seem to have emerged largely unscathed so far. 
And Xbox's hardware team building Helix has also been left intact. 
Xbox has worked hard to save studios like Undead Labs from outright closure. 
But, it hasn't prevented Microsoft from expunging hundreds of jobs in other areas, inside Xbox and beyond. 
Microsoft's huge bets on artificial intelligence haven't really delivered meaningful returns, and the vast capital expenditure on data center buildouts is spooking investors. 
At Xbox, the layoffs reflect a challenging time in traditional gaming. 
Core gaming has seen a contraction owing to increased costs and lack of investment in younger cohorts, which dropped consoles in favor of Roblox on mobile devices, alongside non-gaming activities. 
Microsoft's lack of investment in Xbox's platform and social features have prevented it from finding new users out of the Gen-X and Gen-Y cohorts, many of whom are starting to age out. 
Where Xbox goes from here wholly remains to be seen, but one thing is for sure: DOOM is eternal, and it will outlive Microsoft's bad decision-making. 
Join us on Reddit at r/WindowsCentral to share your insights and discuss our latest news, reviews, and more. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 5.4%Jez Corden: 4.9%Windows Central: 4.2%Confirmation Bias5.4%This article: 2.7%Jez Corden: 0.8%Windows Central: 1.0%Anchoring Bias2.7%This article: 12.5%Jez Corden: 4.9%Windows Central: 4.6%Availability Heuristic12.5%This article: 6.4%Jez Corden: 1.6%Windows Central: 1.1%Representativeness Heuristic6.4%This article: 0.0%Jez Corden: 1.1%Windows Central: 0.8%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 3.6%Jez Corden: 2.5%Windows Central: 2.9%Overconfidence Bias3.6%This article: 2.0%Jez Corden: 2.9%Windows Central: 5.0%Framing Effect2.0%This article: 2.0%Jez Corden: 0.2%Windows Central: 1.3%Loss Aversion2.0%This article: 1.3%Jez Corden: 0.7%Windows Central: 0.9%Status Quo Bias1.3%This article: 0.0%Jez Corden: 0.3%Windows Central: 0.3%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 7.7%Jez Corden: 5.6%Windows Central: 8.0%Optimism Bias7.7%This article: 1.1%Jez Corden: 4.1%Windows Central: 3.0%Pessimism Bias1.1%This article: 20.2%Jez Corden: 11.0%Windows Central: 8.6%Negativity Bias20.2%This article: 4.0%Jez Corden: 1.8%Windows Central: 1.4%Self-Serving Bias4.0%This article: 3.9%Jez Corden: 1.3%Windows Central: 0.9%Fundamental Attribution Error3.9%This article: 0.0%Jez Corden: 0.3%Windows Central: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jez Corden: 1.5%Windows Central: 1.2%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jez Corden: 0.3%Windows Central: 0.1%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 6.1%Jez Corden: 3.4%Windows Central: 4.1%Halo Effect6.1%This article: 0.0%Jez Corden: 0.1%Windows Central: 0.1%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Jez Corden: 0.0%Windows Central: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 6.1%Jez Corden: 2.2%Windows Central: 2.2%Recency Bias6.1%This article: 2.8%Jez Corden: 0.4%Windows Central: 0.5%Primacy Effect2.8%This article: 0.0%Jez Corden: 0.1%Windows Central: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jez Corden: 0.5%Windows Central: 0.2%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 2.5%Jez Corden: 0.2%Windows Central: 0.3%Straw Man2.5%This article: 13.3%Jez Corden: 3.4%Windows Central: 3.7%Appeal to Authority13.3%This article: 2.0%Jez Corden: 1.2%Windows Central: 1.7%False Dilemma2.0%This article: 2.0%Jez Corden: 0.9%Windows Central: 1.0%Slippery Slope2.0%This article: 1.7%Jez Corden: 0.1%Windows Central: 0.1%Circular Reasoning1.7%This article: 15.5%Jez Corden: 10.4%Windows Central: 8.5%Hasty Generalization15.5%This article: 0.0%Jez Corden: 0.1%Windows Central: 0.2%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Jez Corden: 0.4%Windows Central: 1.1%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 9.7%Jez Corden: 3.8%Windows Central: 3.8%Appeal to Emotion9.7%This article: 1.6%Jez Corden: 1.0%Windows Central: 0.9%Begging the Question1.6%This article: 17.7%Jez Corden: 4.0%Windows Central: 2.9%Post Hoc (False Cause)17.7%This article: 0.0%Jez Corden: 0.0%Windows Central: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.4%Jez Corden: 0.4%Windows Central: 0.5%Burden of Proof0.4%This article: 0.0%Jez Corden: 0.1%Windows Central: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Jez Corden: 0.2%Windows Central: 0.2%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 6.7%Jez Corden: 4.4%Windows Central: 4.0%Anecdotal6.7%This article: 0.0%Jez Corden: 0.2%Windows Central: 0.2%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 3.3%Jez Corden: 2.3%Windows Central: 2.4%Ambiguity (Equivocation)3.3%This article: 0.0%Jez Corden: 0.0%Windows Central: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 1.6%Jez Corden: 0.2%Windows Central: 0.2%Middle Ground1.6%This article: 0.0%Jez Corden: 0.1%Windows Central: 0.2%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 1.4%Jez Corden: 0.1%Windows Central: 0.1%Special Pleading1.4%This article: 0.0%Jez Corden: 0.1%Windows Central: 0.1%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 12.7%Jez Corden: 3.9%Windows Central: 3.0%Unattributed Quote12.7%This article: 1.8%Jez Corden: 1.2%Windows Central: 1.1%Quote-first Misdirection1.8%This article: 28.2%Jez Corden: 12.2%Windows Central: 13.9%Biased Writer Voice28.2%This article: 3.7%Jez Corden: 0.6%Windows Central: 1.9%Indoctrination3.7%This article: 0.0%Jez Corden: 0.0%Windows Central: 0.0%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jez Corden: 0.0%Windows Central: 0.0%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 3.8%Jez Corden: 3.4%Windows Central: 6.7%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…3.8%

1094 words analyzed.

Speakers

2speakers5.0%attributed speech1,039writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 40 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 30 words • 100.0% coverageMicrosoft • 20 words • 100.0% coverageMicrosoft • 11 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 0.0% coverageAsha Sharma • 24 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 27 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 28 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 30 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 32 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 100.0% coverage
Selected voice

Asha Sharma

100%flagged-word coverage
24 attributed words44% of attributed speech87% writer coverage
0%15.0%30.0%Biased Writer Voice-29.6 ptsWriter: 29.6%Asha Sharma: 0.0%0.0%Unattributed Quote-12.3 ptsWriter: 12.3%Asha Sharma: 0.0%0.0%Attempt to Sell a Product -4.0 ptsWriter: 4.0%Asha Sharma: 0.0%0.0%Indoctrination-3.9 ptsWriter: 3.9%Asha Sharma: 0.0%0.0%

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.