Phil Spencer thinks Game Pass costs too much.
That’s not the assessment of an industry analyst or a frustrated gamer on Reddit. It’s the private admission of Xbox’s chief executive, laid bare in a leaked internal memo that has sent ripples through the gaming industry and raised pointed questions about the future of Microsoft’s flagship subscription service.
The memo, part of a trove of internal communications that surfaced through the ongoing FTC v. Microsoft proceedings, shows Spencer candidly telling colleagues that Game Pass pricing has become a barrier for the very audience it was designed to attract. As reported by Engadget, Spencer wrote that the service’s cost had grown beyond what many players could justify — a remarkable concession from the executive who has staked Microsoft’s entire gaming strategy on the subscription model.
The timing couldn’t be worse. Or more revealing.
Microsoft has spent the better part of a decade and tens of billions of dollars constructing Game Pass into the centerpiece of its gaming business. The company acquired Activision Blizzard for $68.7 billion, bought Bethesda for $7.5 billion, and reorganized its entire Xbox division around the premise that subscriptions — not individual game sales — represent the future. Spencer’s private doubts about the pricing model underlying all of that investment suggest the strategy may be hitting fundamental limits that no amount of content spending can overcome.
The Price Keeps Going Up, and Subscribers Have Noticed
Game Pass has undergone several price increases since its launch. The most recent round, implemented in mid-2024, raised Game Pass Ultimate to $19.99 per month from $16.99. The standard tier went to $14.99. Microsoft also eliminated the cheapest console-only tier entirely, forcing players into more expensive options. Day-one access to new first-party titles — long the service’s most compelling selling point — was restricted to the top-tier Ultimate plan.
For a single month, $19.99 doesn’t sound like much. But annualized, that’s $240 per year. For a family with multiple gamers, the math gets uncomfortable fast. And Spencer apparently knows it.
In the leaked memo, Spencer acknowledged that the pricing structure risked alienating price-sensitive consumers, particularly in international markets where $20 a month represents a significantly larger share of discretionary income. He reportedly discussed the need for more flexible pricing tiers and regional adjustments — ideas that, as of this writing, haven’t materialized into public-facing changes.
The subscriber numbers tell a complicated story. Microsoft stopped regularly disclosing Game Pass subscriber counts after announcing 34 million in early 2024. The company has since shifted its public metrics toward “engagement” and revenue per user, a move that industry observers widely interpreted as an acknowledgment that raw subscriber growth had plateaued. Sarah Bond, who leads Xbox platform operations, has emphasized the service’s revenue contribution rather than its headcount — a subtle but significant rhetorical shift.
Compare this to Netflix’s trajectory. The streaming giant spent years prioritizing subscriber growth above all else before pivoting to average revenue per user as growth slowed in mature markets. Microsoft appears to be following the same playbook, but with a critical difference: Netflix had already achieved massive scale before its pivot. Game Pass, at 34 million subscribers, is still a fraction of the roughly 200 million active Xbox accounts Microsoft claims.
The conversion problem is real. Most Xbox users haven’t subscribed. And if Spencer himself believes the price is too high, the question becomes: what exactly is the plan?
Microsoft’s Billion-Dollar Bet Meets Market Reality
The leaked memo arrives during a turbulent period for Xbox. Microsoft laid off approximately 2,500 gaming employees in 2024 and shuttered several studios, including the acclaimed Tango Gameworks (later acquired by Krafton) and Arkane Austin. These cuts came just months after the Activision Blizzard acquisition closed, creating a jarring juxtaposition: the company was simultaneously spending record sums on content and slashing the teams that create it.
Spencer’s memo reportedly frames the pricing concern within a broader strategic discussion about Game Pass’s role. The service was originally conceived as a growth engine — a way to pull players into the Microsoft ecosystem and keep them there. Low prices and day-one access to major titles were the hooks. But as the content library has expanded and first-party development costs have ballooned, the economics of offering $70 games on a $10-15 monthly subscription have become increasingly strained.
Something had to give. Prices went up. And according to Spencer’s own assessment, they may have gone too far.
This creates a genuine strategic bind. Microsoft can’t easily cut prices without further damaging the unit economics of a service that already operates at thin margins. But it can’t keep raising them without choking off the growth that justifies the enormous content investments. The Activision Blizzard deal was predicated in part on the assumption that franchises like Call of Duty, Diablo, and World of Warcraft would drive massive subscriber acquisition. If the price point is repelling potential subscribers, those franchises can’t do their job.
Industry analyst Matthew Ball has written extensively about the structural challenges facing gaming subscription services. Unlike video streaming, where content can be produced relatively cheaply and consumed passively, games require active engagement and enormous development budgets. A single AAA title can cost $200 million or more to produce. Spreading that cost across a subscriber base that numbers in the tens of millions — rather than the hundreds of millions — makes the math punishing.
Sony has taken a notably different approach. PlayStation Plus offers tiered subscriptions but hasn’t committed to day-one first-party releases, preserving the $70 individual sale as its primary revenue model for major titles. Sony’s latest financial results showed strong profitability in its gaming division, suggesting that the traditional model still works — at least for now.
Nintendo, for its part, hasn’t even attempted a comparable service. Its Nintendo Switch Online offering is modest by comparison, focused on legacy titles and online multiplayer access rather than new releases. The company’s software margins remain the envy of the industry.
So Microsoft stands alone among the three major console makers in betting this heavily on subscriptions. And its own CEO is privately questioning the bet’s pricing foundation.
There are potential solutions. A cheaper, ad-supported tier — similar to what Netflix and Disney+ have introduced — has been discussed internally at Microsoft, according to multiple reports. Spencer’s memo reportedly references the concept, though without specific timelines. Family plans, student discounts, and more aggressive regional pricing are other options that could lower the effective cost without headline price cuts.
But each of these carries risk. Ad-supported gaming raises questions about user experience and brand perception. Family plans cannibalize revenue from households currently paying for multiple subscriptions. Regional pricing creates arbitrage opportunities that VPN-savvy users will exploit.
None of this is simple. And the memo’s leak has made the conversation public in a way Microsoft clearly didn’t intend.
What Comes Next for Xbox and Its Subscribers
The broader context matters here. Microsoft’s gaming division is under increasing pressure to demonstrate returns on its massive investments. CEO Satya Nadella has publicly supported the gaming strategy, but the company’s overall focus has shifted dramatically toward artificial intelligence, with hundreds of billions earmarked for AI infrastructure. Gaming must compete internally for resources and executive attention against what Microsoft clearly views as its most important long-term opportunity.
Spencer, who has led Xbox for over a decade, finds himself in an unusual position. He’s the architect of the Game Pass strategy and simultaneously its most prominent internal critic — at least on pricing. The memo doesn’t suggest he’s lost faith in the subscription model itself. Rather, it indicates he believes the execution needs adjustment before the model can achieve the scale Microsoft originally envisioned.
That’s a nuanced position, but nuance doesn’t always survive contact with public discourse. The headline — “Xbox CEO says Game Pass is too expensive” — is already circulating widely, and it hands ammunition to critics who have long argued that the subscription model is unsustainable for gaming.
For subscribers, the immediate implications are uncertain. Microsoft hasn’t announced any pricing changes, and the memo predates some of the most recent increases. It’s possible that internal discussions have already moved beyond the concerns Spencer raised. It’s also possible they haven’t.
What’s clear is that the tension between growth and profitability in gaming subscriptions isn’t going away. Microsoft built Game Pass on the promise that it would be the “Netflix of gaming” — a phrase Spencer himself popularized. But Netflix spent over a decade burning cash before achieving consistent profitability, and it did so in a medium where content costs are a fraction of what AAA game development demands.
Game Pass may ultimately succeed. Microsoft has the balance sheet to sustain losses longer than almost any competitor. But Spencer’s leaked words suggest that even inside the company most committed to the subscription future, there’s a recognition that the current path needs correction. The question isn’t whether changes are coming. It’s whether they’ll come fast enough to matter.
WebProNews is an iEntry Publication