The End of the "Gamer CEO": Why Xbox’s Return to the Suits Might Be Its Salvation

To begin, might I just say that my first entry into gaming was a very traditional path: PlayStation 1, PlayStation 2, Xbox 360, Xbox One, and finally, PC.

Ironically, I was one of the few who actually saw the original Xbox One for what it was. It was a pivot into what, today, would be a highly welcomed environment (and something all consoles pretty much do anyway). TV, gaming, and digital media seamlessly bundled together into one ecosystem. Microsoft was simply way too early to the mark with such a device, and frankly, they couldn't communicate their way out of a wet paper bag when addressing the haters and sceptics. Don Mattrick telling people to just stick with an Xbox 360 if they didn't have internet was an iconic moment in corporate history, prompting a collective: "How did this guy get the job?"

But I don't want to rehash the 2013 launch disaster. I want to look at the era that followed: the Phil Spencer era. A gamer at heart, he was meant to be the chosen one. Yet, looking back at his tenure, he has arguably been anything but. Yes, he pivoted the brand back toward a gaming focus, but that focus heavily skewed toward cloud delivery and studio acquisitions rather than a steady stream of quality hardware and software. Despite talking constantly about how they were getting back to making great games. Today, we're seeing Xbox experience a record fall-off, releases that struggle to match the prestige of what came before, and an entire industry wondering what the brand will even look like in five years.

The Timeline

To understand the current state of Xbox, we have to trace Spencer’s rise to power and his eventual, sudden exit.

In late March 2014, Satya Nadella announced that Spencer would lead the Xbox, Xbox Live, Groove Music, Movies & TV, and Microsoft Studios teams. It is important to note that during the 2016 release of Quantum Break, Phil was known as the executive who specifically brought the game to PC. This caused an uproar in the Xbox console community, who felt that owning the hardware was pointless if the exclusives were going elsewhere. This event proved early on that Spencer had monumental power to change existing Microsoft policy.

By September 2017, Spencer was promoted to the Senior Leadership Team, gaining the title of Executive Vice President of Gaming and reporting directly to Nadella. In January 2022, alongside the massive announcement of Microsoft's intent to acquire Activision Blizzard, he was elevated to CEO of Microsoft Gaming.

We can fairly say Spencer fully owned the role from 2017 onward, with 2014–2017 serving as a period of restructuring and figuring things out. But now, in February 2026, Spencer has officially retired, bringing his 38-year run at Microsoft to an end and passing the torch to Asha Sharma. Given his 38 year stint, he would obviously have known how to navigate Microsoft well before being given this role, so he's absolutely came at it in the best position possible.

So, in the most charitable sense possible, what did Spencer actually achieve between 2017 and 2026?

The Hardware and Cloud Pivot

Let's look at the hardware release cadence under Spencer's leadership:

• Xbox One X (November 2017)

• Xbox One S (May 2019)

• Xbox Series X/S (November 2020)

• Xbox Series S Refresh (September 2023)

• Xbox Series X/S Refresh (September 2024)

Historically, the original Xbox launched in 2001, the 360 in 2005, and the One in 2013. Going from four years between major console releases to eight years, back to four, and then three was a decent rhythm.

But notice the current date: it's 2026. The Series X/S launched six years ago. Aside from the ROG Ally partnership, which is effectively a Windows handheld, not a true Xbox console. Microsoft’s dedicated hardware hasn't seen a proper generational leap in over half a decade.

If rumours are to be believed, supply chain nightmares, the pandemic, and the AI boom eating up silicon supply all caused havoc for their next console. Add in total market domination by Sony and Nintendo, and it makes sense why Xbox shifted away from hardware and leaned heavily into Cloud and Game Pass. Game Pass launched in June 2017, with xCloud following in November 2020. Since then, expanding the service to new regions has effectively become their entire hardware-agnostic strategy.

The Studio Spree and the Output Problem

We know Spencer liked flashing the corporate wallet even suggesting buying Nintendo at one point. But what about the juice that actually sells these subscriptions and consoles?

(Note: Video games have long development cycles. A game like Starfield might have come out two years post-buyout, but it was in development for nearly a decade prior. Praising Spencer for a release like that is akin to letting him buy Rockstar today and giving him credit for GTA 6. Therefore, the list below focuses on the most notable releases that hit during his primary tenure.)

Notable First-Party Flagship Releases

• Halo Wars 2 (2017)

• Forza Motorsport 7 (2017)

• Sea of Thieves (2018)

• State of Decay 2 (2018)

• Forza Horizon 4 (2018)

• Crackdown 3 (2019)

• Gears 5 (2019)

• Ori and the Will of the Wisps (2020)

• Gears Tactics (2020)

• Microsoft Flight Simulator (2020)

• Halo Infinite (2021)

• Forza Horizon 5 (2021)

• Grounded (2022)

• Pentiment (2022)

• Senua's Saga: Hellblade 2 (2024)

• Avowed (2025)

• South of Midnight (2025)

• Forza Horizon 6 (2026)

• Fable (2026)

Notable Acquired Studio Releases

What Do These Releases Actually Mean?

Personally, I'm not entirely thrilled about the quality of these releases, but the average output volume is the real shocker. Despite deploying nearly $80 billion in acquisitions, Microsoft was pushing about two to three major games per year. For a platform holder of this size, that is absurdly low. Now Playstation doesn't do much better. But when they're giving you God of War, Spiderman, Helldivers, The Last of Us and Ghost of Tsushima. It's easy to give them the win this console generation. Especially when you look at the sales figures of hardware.

Under Phil Spencer, we haven't seen a new single-player Fallout game. Fallout 4 released in 2015 (eleven years ago). Fallout 76 dropped in 2018. All of these predated the ZeniMax buyout, and still, we have nothing. What makes it worse is that The Elder Scrolls 6 is meant to be the next title, and we don't even have a firm date for it. It is entirely plausible that we won't see Fallout 5 until 2030 or beyond. A 15-year gap between mainline titles is longer than Spencer’s entire tenure as head of the brand. We're seeing in real time the main lifeblood IP at Microsoft just completely go under utilized.

The Real Problem at Xbox

Right now, there is a loud contingent of the internet clowning on Asha Sharma, the former AI executive stepping in to head up Xbox. The community fears a deluge of AI-generated slop replacing human artistry. While that undertone can't be ignored, we have to look at the alternative we just lived through.

We had Phil, the "Gamer." And frankly, it didn't work.

Everyone thought the Xbox turnaround under a true gamer would be legendary. Instead, the strategy seemed to consist of hoarding IP and leaving it to stagnate in a mismanaged pipeline.

Will Asha Sharma make positive changes? Look back at the golden era of Xbox 360. It was led by three men: Robbie Bach, Peter Moore, and Shane Kim. Bach and Moore drove the business, while Kim managed the third-party relationships that secured iconic exclusives.

• Robbie Bach was a classic executive who previously gave us Microsoft Office. We don't know his gamerscore.

• Peter Moore came from Reebok (shoes!) and Sega. We don't know his gamertag.

• Shane Kim was a 20-year Microsoft veteran with an MBA. We don't know his gaming profile either.

These iconic leaders, who delivered one of the best entertainment eras in history, were complete "company men." They lacked the grassroots gaming credentials that Phil Spencer wore on his sleeve and yet, they outsold, outshone, and out-managed him in every conceivable metric. I've never seen anyone from the Playstation side even give us their trophy count. Why does it matter so much on the Xbox side?

Perhaps what Xbox desperately needs isn't a guy wearing a Hexen t-shirt on stage. Perhaps it needs a return to the "boring" MBA executives who simply know how to scale a product, hit deadlines, and run a profitable company. Sharma's background scaling Instacart and operating at Meta fits this profile perfectly. And even if it doesn't. Moore came from Reebok before delivering the Dreamcast, a machine I know plenty of you veterans love.

World of Warcraft has the same problem

What does World of Warcraft have to do with this? Look at Ion Hazzikostas, the WoW Game Director. Whenever anyone defends his design choices, they pull up the fact that he runs Mythic raids and is actively grinding the game right alongside the players.

It’s an interesting defence, but it highlights a fatal flaw: "gamers" running companies or massive development pipelines don't actually lead to favourable operational outcomes. Being great at playing the game does not translate to being great at managing the business of the game. Perhaps you love current WoW. Many people I know don't. It had undeniable power during the Lich King era that just never returned. If anything it seems now a vehicle for streamers to remember every once in a while to deliver a shot before it fades away again.

Phil Spencer's gamer persona bought him infinite goodwill, but goodwill doesn't ship Fallout 5. With the recent leadership shakeup, there is real hope that bringing in a hardened operations executive might finally get Xbox back to doing what it used to do best: actually shipping the games.

And if it doesn't? Well. Wasn't getting any better was it? It's why I was pro the Activision buy out. They were selling anyway. Would prefer Microsoft have them than some oil warlord.