Both sides, in good faith

The strongest fair case each way — we don't pick a winner.

The case for

Those defending Microsoft's decision would argue that the video games industry has faced a painful market correction after pandemic-era overhiring, and that a parent company has both the right and the responsibility to resize a studio whose output no longer matches its cost base. They would point out that id Software's recent releases have not matched the commercial scale of Microsoft's broader portfolio, that consolidating support functions across studios avoids duplicated overheads, and that difficult staffing decisions, however painful, can be what allows the remaining team and its franchises to survive and be resourced sustainably in the long run.

The case against

Critics would argue that gutting three-quarters of the staff at a studio as culturally significant as id Software – the creator of Doom and Quake and a formative influence on an entire genre – represents a reckless disregard for institutional knowledge, creative talent and the people whose careers built that legacy. They would contend that such deep cuts, coming after Microsoft's enormous acquisition spending in gaming, reflect short-term financial engineering rather than genuine stewardship, and that John Carmack's public regret from someone no longer even employed there speaks to how demoralising these decisions are for an industry already strained by repeated rounds of layoffs.