"We still have the crew we need": Xbox's DOOM dev id Software responds to layoffs ⁠27%

By Brendan Lowry⁠76%

7/10/2026, 7:38:00 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 27 faulty reasoning types, including Ambiguity (Equivocation), Optimism Bias, and Unattributed Quote, with Biased Writer Voice as the most egregious example at 35.1% saturation with 220 hits. Analysis detected 1,857 faulty-reasoning hits from 626 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 38.5% and a BS Rank of ⁠27% (15,493 of 21,176 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 73.20% of the article peer group.

Of all the layoffs that came down on Xbox Game Studios developers this week as part of Microsoft and Xbox's 3,200 "reset" cuts and four studio divestments, the ones that hit the DOOM developer id Software were the most shocking to many given the popularity and success of its modern trilogy of games. 
It's been reported that well over half of id was axed from Xbox , with 136 developers — 96 at its Texas headquarters and an additional 40 remote workers — let go from the studio. 
The cuts impacted nearly every department within the developer, including the teams building, maintaining, and improving its id Tech game engine used for a variety of ZeniMax projects. 
Individual DOOM devs have shared reactions to the layoffs , though id Software itself hadn't yet shared a response until today. 
Now it has, with the studio posting a statement to the community on social media to assuage fears about its future under Microsoft and Xbox . 
"Thank you for all the support this week. 
While our studio was impacted, those changes were spread across teams. 
We still have the crew we need to build the games and tech we're known for," reads id's letter. 
"The team today is about the same size we were when making DOOM (2016). 
We have always had a flat studio where everyone is a maker, and we will remain true to that philosophy moving forward." 
"We are focused on supporting each other and team members impacted. 
We're going to keep building the great games and tech that have defined us for the past 35 years, and we're looking forward to seeing you at QuakeCon this August," it added. 
A message from id pic.twitter.com/4i4YyjB3xc July 10, 2026 
Notably, this statement confirms our recent, earlier report that in the wake of the layoffs, id Software is now about the size that it was when it released the 2016 DOOM reboot ten years ago, and that the studio isn't in danger of being closed or split away from Microsoft and Xbox. 
It also confirms that the developer will still move forward with new games, though it seems unlikely it will have a chance to explore some of its experimental ideas . 
Still, I expect that we'll see additional DOOM titles from the team, and that it will continue to iterate upon id Tech for the benefit of Wolfenstein dev MachineGames and other studios. 
Ultimately, this news is quite relieving to hear from id Software — though to be clear, I'm not downplaying the severity of the cuts in saying that. 
On the contrary, I'm glad that the developer still has a future under Xbox's wing despite how significantly it was affected by the dismissals. 
The layoffs at id represent a large portion of about 440 total cuts across all of ZeniMax and Bethesda , with other teams hit including Bethesda Game Studios ( The Elder Scrolls , Fallout , Starfield ) and ZeniMax Online Studios ( The Elder Scrolls Online ). 
Bethesda devs fear that The Elder Scrolls 6 will suffer crunch and delays because of the layoffs, and the reduction in force at ZeniMax Online Studios has led to "shifting" roadmaps for The Elder Scrolls Online . 
Bethesda's official union, OneBGS, plans to protest against the cuts next week with a "Save Our Devs" march. 
What are your thoughts on the layoffs at id Software? 
Do you feel Microsoft and Xbox went too far with them based on everything we know? 
Share your take in the comments, and vote in the above poll. 
Join us on Reddit at r/WindowsCentral to share your insights and discuss our latest news, reviews, and more. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 16.1%Brendan Lowry: 3.7%Windows Central: 4.2%Confirmation Bias16.1%This article: 0.0%Brendan Lowry: 0.6%Windows Central: 1.0%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 8.5%Brendan Lowry: 8.5%Windows Central: 4.6%Availability Heuristic8.5%This article: 7.5%Brendan Lowry: 1.7%Windows Central: 1.2%Representativeness Heuristic7.5%This article: 8.3%Brendan Lowry: 0.7%Windows Central: 0.8%Hindsight Bias8.3%This article: 0.0%Brendan Lowry: 1.5%Windows Central: 3.0%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 9.1%Brendan Lowry: 5.3%Windows Central: 5.3%Framing Effect9.1%This article: 0.0%Brendan Lowry: 1.9%Windows Central: 1.3%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 6.5%Brendan Lowry: 0.0%Windows Central: 0.8%Status Quo Bias6.5%This article: 0.0%Brendan Lowry: 0.0%Windows Central: 0.3%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 21.9%Brendan Lowry: 4.8%Windows Central: 8.1%Optimism Bias21.9%This article: 10.7%Brendan Lowry: 7.9%Windows Central: 3.2%Pessimism Bias10.7%This article: 18.7%Brendan Lowry: 17.9%Windows Central: 8.4%Negativity Bias18.7%This article: 0.0%Brendan Lowry: 0.8%Windows Central: 1.4%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Brendan Lowry: 1.2%Windows Central: 1.0%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Brendan Lowry: 0.4%Windows Central: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Brendan Lowry: 2.0%Windows Central: 1.1%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Brendan Lowry: 0.3%Windows Central: 0.1%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 5.1%Brendan Lowry: 3.4%Windows Central: 3.8%Halo Effect5.1%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: 3.4%Brendan Lowry: 4.8%Windows Central: 2.3%Recency Bias3.4%This article: 5.1%Brendan Lowry: 1.0%Windows Central: 0.5%Primacy Effect5.1%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: 0.3%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Brendan Lowry: 0.1%Windows Central: 0.3%Straw Man0.0%This article: 3.4%Brendan Lowry: 4.8%Windows Central: 3.9%Appeal to Authority3.4%This article: 2.6%Brendan Lowry: 1.7%Windows Central: 1.7%False Dilemma2.6%This article: 0.0%Brendan Lowry: 2.2%Windows Central: 1.0%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Brendan Lowry: 0.0%Windows Central: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 13.6%Brendan Lowry: 8.6%Windows Central: 8.8%Hasty Generalization13.6%This article: 0.0%Brendan Lowry: 0.0%Windows Central: 0.2%Red Herring0.0%This article: 6.4%Brendan Lowry: 1.3%Windows Central: 1.2%Bandwagon6.4%This article: 6.2%Brendan Lowry: 10.5%Windows Central: 3.9%Appeal to Emotion6.2%This article: 12.5%Brendan Lowry: 0.6%Windows Central: 1.0%Begging the Question12.5%This article: 11.0%Brendan Lowry: 3.8%Windows Central: 3.0%Post Hoc (False Cause)11.0%This article: 0.0%Brendan Lowry: 0.0%Windows Central: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Brendan Lowry: 0.3%Windows Central: 0.5%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Brendan Lowry: 0.0%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: 11.5%Brendan Lowry: 2.9%Windows Central: 3.8%Anecdotal11.5%This article: 0.0%Brendan Lowry: 0.0%Windows Central: 0.2%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 30.7%Brendan Lowry: 2.0%Windows Central: 2.4%Ambiguity (Equivocation)30.7%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: 0.4%Windows Central: 0.2%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 4.3%Brendan Lowry: 0.3%Windows Central: 0.2%Special Pleading4.3%This article: 0.0%Brendan Lowry: 0.0%Windows Central: 0.1%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 20.8%Brendan Lowry: 6.8%Windows Central: 3.2%Unattributed Quote20.8%This article: 2.4%Brendan Lowry: 1.4%Windows Central: 1.2%Quote-first Misdirection2.4%This article: 35.1%Brendan Lowry: 15.5%Windows Central: 13.3%Biased Writer Voice35.1%This article: 7.7%Brendan Lowry: 2.4%Windows Central: 1.9%Indoctrination7.7%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: 7.7%Brendan Lowry: 3.4%Windows Central: 7.0%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…7.7%

626 words analyzed.

Speakers

2speakers23%attributed speech483writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 15 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 53 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 35 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 28 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 100.0% coverageid Software • 8 words • 0.0% coverageid Software • 11 words • 100.0% coverageid Software • 19 words • 100.0% coverageid Software • 14 words • 0.0% coverageid Software • 22 words • 100.0% coverageid Software • 11 words • 0.0% coverageid Software • 32 words • 0.0% coverageid Software • 8 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 52 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 30 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 32 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 27 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 47 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 37 words • 100.0% coverageOneBGS • 18 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 100.0% coverage
Selected voice

id Software

87%flagged-word coverage
125 attributed words87% of attributed speech94% writer coverage
0%22.5%45.0%Biased Writer Voice-34.5 ptsWriter: 43.3%id Software: 8.8%8.8%Unattributed Quote-7.8 ptsWriter: 23.0%id Software: 15.2%15.2%Indoctrination+12.2 ptsWriter: 5.4%id Software: 17.6%17.6%Attempt to Sell a Product -6.2 ptsWriter: 6.2%id Software: 0.0%0.0%Quote-first Misdirection-3.1 ptsWriter: 3.1%id Software: 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.