Xbox Game Pass may be heading for its biggest rethink in years. In a leaked internal memo reportedly sent to Xbox staff, new Microsoft Gaming CEO Asha Sharma says Game Pass has become “too expensive for players” and argues Microsoft needs a “better value equation,” while also signaling the subscription’s current structure “isn’t the final one.” If you’ve felt the sticker shock creeping up, this is the clearest sign yet that Xbox leadership knows it too—and that changes are being actively discussed.
The headline isn’t just “price cut maybe.” It’s that the person now steering Xbox is openly framing Game Pass as a value problem in the short term and a flexibility problem in the long term. That’s a big deal for a service that has become the center of Xbox’s identity across Xbox consoles and Windows PC—and one that’s been under intense scrutiny after major tier reshuffles and price hikes.
What the leaked memo says—and why it matters
The memo, reportedly obtained and viewed by journalists, includes a blunt assessment from Sharma:
“Game Pass is central to gaming value on Xbox. It’s also clear that the current model isn’t the final one,” Sharma wrote. “Short term, Game Pass has become too expensive for players, so we need a better value equation. Long term, we will evolve Game Pass into a more flexible system which will take time to test and learn around.”
That’s not corporate fluff. It’s an internal admission that the current Game Pass setup is failing the most important test: whether players feel like they’re getting enough for what they’re paying. And it’s paired with a second, equally telling point—Microsoft doesn’t see today’s Game Pass model as the endpoint.
Sharma reportedly told staff she’ll “go deeper” with employees next week, and that she’s aware of the “online chatter” around pricing changes. In other words: leadership is watching the backlash, and this isn’t being treated as a niche complaint from forum diehards.
From a strategy standpoint, this is the kind of internal language you use when you’re preparing an organization for change—potentially including pricing, tier benefits, or what “day one” even means going forward.
How Game Pass got here: tier shake-ups, price hikes, and the $30 pressure point
Game Pass didn’t become a lightning rod overnight. Over time, Microsoft expanded the service, reworked its tiers, and repeatedly raised prices—moves that have increasingly tested the goodwill Game Pass built during its early “this is the best deal in gaming” era.
Several reports point to the most controversial recent moment: the revamp that pushed Game Pass Ultimate to $29.99/month. That number matters. It’s not just “more expensive,” it’s psychologically in a different bracket—suddenly competing with multiple entertainment subscriptions combined, and creeping into the territory where players start asking whether they should just buy the games they actually want.
Current pricing cited in reporting puts Game Pass across four tiers, starting at $9.99/month for Xbox Game Pass Essential and reaching $29.99/month for Xbox Game Pass Ultimate.
Microsoft has tried to justify the higher cost by stacking in perks beyond the library itself. Reporting notes additions and value props like Fortnite Crew and Ubisoft Classics, plus other benefits tied to Ultimate. But the leaked memo suggests that—even with those add-ons—the value equation isn’t landing for enough players.
And that’s the heart of the issue: Game Pass can add perks forever, but if the core pitch (pay monthly, get great games) feels out of sync with what players can or want to spend, the service starts to feel like a bundle you’re subsidizing rather than a deal you’re winning.
The Call of Duty factor: the day-one dilemma hanging over everything
If there’s one franchise that can warp the economics of Game Pass, it’s Call of Duty.
Multiple reports connect recent Game Pass pricing pressure to the cost of putting new Call of Duty releases into the subscription. There’s also renewed chatter—fueled by commentary from Windows Central’s Jez Corden—that Microsoft could reconsider keeping Call of Duty as a day-one Game Pass staple going forward.
Corden’s quote, as reported, captures the uncertainty:
“If they take Call of Duty out of Game Pass this year, which is a possibility from what I've heard, I think it'll reveal some of the cracks in the strategy,” Corden said. “But I don't know.”
What makes this so combustible is the trade-off. Day-one Call of Duty on Game Pass is a massive consumer-facing win—and a massive revenue sacrifice if it replaces full-price purchases at scale. Reporting also cites that Microsoft “gave up” more than $300 million in potential sales for Call of Duty on console and PC by having it on Game Pass.
That’s the tension Sharma is inheriting: Game Pass needs blockbusters to feel essential, but blockbusters can also be the very thing that makes the subscription math brutal.
There are also conflicting and incomplete signals in the broader rumor mill. One report references Call of Duty: Black Ops 7 being available as a day-one Game Pass title, while other chatter suggests the 2026 entry could skip Game Pass. Separately, another report claims the next game is allegedly Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 4 with an October launch. None of that has been officially confirmed in the memo itself, and Microsoft hasn’t made a public announcement clarifying Call of Duty’s future on Game Pass.
Still, the direction of travel is clear: if Microsoft wants Game Pass to feel cheaper, it either has to eat the cost, change what’s included, or redesign tiers so different audiences pay for different levels of access.
“More flexible” Game Pass: what that could actually mean
Sharma’s memo doesn’t lay out a concrete plan. But the phrase “more flexible system” is doing a lot of work—and it’s the most important clue for where this could go.
“Flexible” could mean a few things in practice, based on the surrounding reporting and recent industry trends:
- More tiers (or redefined tiers) that separate “day-one first-party” from “big third-party drops,” or that carve out premium franchises into higher-priced plans.
- Cheaper entry points that reduce the barrier to subscribing—potentially by limiting features, limiting the catalog, or changing how new releases are handled.
- A shift in what Ultimate represents, especially after Ultimate’s price became the focal point of consumer frustration.
- Experimentation and iteration, which Sharma explicitly references: changes that “will take time to test and learn around.”
There’s also talk in reporting about Microsoft exploring ad-supported Game Pass tiers to subsidize lower prices, echoing the playbook used across TV and film streaming. Additionally, one report claims Sharma met with Netflix co-CEO Greg Peters last month and that the two discussed what bundling Game Pass with Netflix could look like. Microsoft hasn’t officially announced any Netflix bundle or ad-tier plan, but the fact these ideas are even being floated underscores the same reality: Xbox is searching for a model that can scale without pricing players out.
Another thread: dataminers reportedly unearthed references to a “Triton” tier that could include only first-party Xbox games. That’s not confirmed as a real product, but it’s exactly the kind of “flexibility” that could let Microsoft offer a cheaper plan while keeping a premium tier for players who want everything.
The key point is that Sharma isn’t promising a simple discount. She’s signaling structural change. And that’s both exciting and risky—because Game Pass lives or dies on trust. Players need to believe the deal won’t get worse the moment they commit.
Xbox’s bigger problem: value is becoming an industry-wide crisis
This memo lands at a moment when the entire industry is wrestling with affordability—hardware, software, subscriptions, microtransactions, all of it. Reporting frames the broader context bluntly: gaming is increasingly being treated like a luxury product, and consumers are hitting their limit.
Xbox is in a particularly tricky position because Game Pass isn’t just a product—it’s the pillar holding up Xbox’s modern pitch. When Sharma says Game Pass is “central to gaming value on Xbox,” she’s acknowledging what everyone already knows: without Game Pass, Xbox’s differentiation gets murkier, especially as Microsoft has pushed more of its games onto other platforms.
That’s why this memo matters even if you don’t subscribe. If Microsoft changes Game Pass, it changes the gravitational pull of the entire Xbox ecosystem—how players buy games, how studios plan launches, how third-party deals get made, and how Xbox positions its next hardware.
And yes, hardware is part of the subtext here. Reporting mentions ongoing development of a next Xbox home console referred to as Project Helix, and there are also whispers that the next Xbox could be more expensive than Xbox Series X—though no official pricing or product details have been announced. If hardware prices rise while Game Pass remains pricey, the “value” narrative that Xbox has leaned on for years gets harder to sell.
What Remains Unknown
- Will Game Pass actually get cheaper? Sharma calls it “too expensive,” but no price cut has been announced.
- Which tiers would change (Essential, Premium, Ultimate), and how? Details on restructuring, benefits, or feature shuffles have not been confirmed.
- What happens to day-one releases—especially Call of Duty? There’s heavy speculation, but no official commitment either way.
- Is an ad-supported tier real, and if so, when? It’s been discussed in reporting, but Microsoft hasn’t announced it.
- Will Microsoft pursue bundling (like a Netflix + Game Pass package)? Discussed, not confirmed.
- Timeline: Sharma suggests evolution “will take time to test and learn,” implying changes won’t be immediate—but no schedule has been provided.
If you’ve been waiting for Xbox leadership to acknowledge what players have been saying since the last round of increases, this is it. The next move is the one that counts: whether Microsoft can redesign Game Pass so it feels like a deal again—without gutting the very content that made it feel essential in the first place.
