Talk:Xbox (division)

Need for full listing of subsidiaries under the 3 major publishing labels

To avoid editing warring, I'm opening this. Clearly, this version of a table listing all the subsidiaries is not appropriate, given that each of the three major publishers have their own similar table, and part of the reason to make this MS Gaming article was to avoid a similar mess at Xbox Game Studios. But I don't believe we need even a reduced table like this, as that's still replicating the table problem from XGS. I understand the desire to list all the studios under each label, but I think at this level, it is not important to this table, or at least I would look for something that is streamlined and highlights the major divisions of each publisher. For example, in mentioning Zenimax, Bethesda should clearly be mentioned, but not things like Arkane. Or in mentioning Activision Blizzard, naming the three major COD studios (Treyarch, Infinity Ward, and Sledgehammer), as well as making sure King is mentioned, but none of the smaller studios. This can be done in the short version of the table, as in this version by adding one additional column for that distinction. Masem (t) 02:23, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Adding a list of Microsoft's gaming subsidiaries and studios to the existing Microsoft Gaming Wikipedia page would enhance the page's value by providing a clear overview of the company's gaming structure. This addition improves accessibility for users interested in Microsoft's involvement in video game development and ensures the information stays current with regular updates. If there's no existing comprehensive resource on the Microsoft Gaming page covering all subsidiaries, this addition would fill a knowledge gap. Adhering to Wikipedia guidelines and seeking community feedback are essential for maintaining accuracy and neutrality. Ryan York (talk) 02:57, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Those arguments are an WP:ITSUSEFUL stance, which is not why we include content. Further the argument would then say that there should be a single comprehensive page for every Microsoft division and companies owned, which would be excessively large. Masem (t) 03:07, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Fair enough, I understand the concern about creating excessively large page dedicating on gaming studios. However, at the moment, we don't have a dedicated page specifically listing every Microsoft studio together. Perhaps for now, let's keep the current structure, and we can revisit the idea of creating a separate page for Microsoft Studios later. This way, we maintain a balance between providing useful information and avoiding excessive page size. Ryan York (talk) 03:12, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

If we take a look at the other publisher’s highest patent company pages, most of them list the entire sublabels and each individual studio, even companies with as nearly as many studios/substudios as Microsoft Gaming. If the page was bloated with history and other filler then I would be more concerned but I believe it is a good idea to properly display them under the same umbrella. Pats6XChamps (talk) 03:15, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Or perhaps we can find a way to condense the table even more if you want? I can remove the logos if it’s too much. I totally agree not using the break down table like that other user was attempting to add (reserved for smaller pages), but the one I use doesn’t take up a whole page and offers short and quick summaries (and gives each studio a shoutout/character in what they do).

I feel like this way looks a lot better than what other companies page’s has with simple bulletin points upon bulletin points. Pats6XChamps (talk) 03:18, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

I absolutely agree. I'm willing to create a separate page for Microsoft Gaming studios and divisions later. I am aware of the size of Microsoft Gaming, and it cannot be compared with other publishers, but gaming studios also need to be represented here, as most of them have been acquired by Microsoft Gaming recently. Ryan York (talk) 03:36, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Please no. We don't need topics fragmented into multiple pages. -- ferret (talk) 03:40, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

No, not the topic. A good example of what I propose would be the List of assets owned by the Walt Disney Company page. We can create something like that for Microsoft Gaming studios. Ryan York (talk) 03:45, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Ditto on the first part. I genuinely think this gives just enough information while still being concise and not a mega-bloated part of the page at all. Also to keep in perspective, the size of the page is around 35,000 bytes as a whole, and is likely not going to expand as fast as it has since it was created. SIE, EA, Take-Two all range between 100,000-150,000 bytes as the size of their page while containing all of their individual studies and labels. MS Gaming even with the table is still a third of the size of the smallest page of those listed. Pats6XChamps (talk) 03:45, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

I know Embracer Group used to have a huge ass table but now it is "reasonably" trimmed down, and instead there a List of mergers and acquisitions by Embracer Group which organizes the information in a large table but in a form that is more akin to a timeline, making it easy to add and remove from.

Remember that the reason that this page was created was to get out of the big ass table that was being generated at XGS, and now it seems ppl are trending back towards that. I really think we need to only list the next immediate level divisions, and as long as those divisions are notable with a standalone page, only touch the highlights. For non-notable divisions or those that wouldn't standalone per NCORP, then a brief paragraph like being done here makes sense. This is how summary style should work here. Masem (t) 05:18, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

To add as another issue, as we saw this at XGS when it was one big table - when describing the studios, editors were starting to try to add every single game the studio worked on or other aspects, which for a studio like, say, Rare, with lots of different properties and some before they were XGS, just flooded the table. Having the same listing of studios on at least two different articles is going to create two separate headaches related to editors wanting to make sure their favorite series from a dev is added even after consensus has trimmed those lists down. We have hyperlinks for many reasons, one is this type of situation. Masem (t) 05:22, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

I agree, highlighting significant studios is a good approach to ensure that the most important information is conveyed while maintaining readability. By briefly mentioning noteworthy studios and providing key information about their contributions or significance within the context of Microsoft Gaming, we can strike a balance between brevity and informativeness. In the Subsidiaries and Studios section, I wrote Microsoft's worldwide studios and its UK presence without listing all of the studios, for example.

This will allow readers to get a sense of the diverse portfolio without overwhelming them with excessive details. If there are specific studios that are particularly noteworthy or have played a crucial role in Microsoft Gaming's overall strategy, those could be emphasized in the page. Ryan York (talk) 05:51, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

You can remove the list of studios. But let's keep the subsidiaries part. Ryan York (talk) 05:55, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Would removing the mentions of all series so the table doesn’t get flooded, but keeping the devs shown and be the policy suffice? Pats6XChamps (talk) 05:54, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Keeping the separate studios under each of the main divisions would be reasonable, just not the current version of the table. Masem (t) 01:30, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

Is it okay now? Appreciate the reply Pats6XChamps (talk) 02:42, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

I would be in favour of removing the table outright. Xbox Game Studios, ZeniMax Media, and Activision Blizzard (plus Activision, Blizzard Entertainment, and King) each have their own articles, including their own tables or lists of studios. Listing those should be more than enough. Tableizing all of their studios is just added maintenance and could balloon the article unnecessarily as those segments expand. Let's keep the Microsoft Gaming article focused on the division's direct operations, without WP:COATRACKing. IceWelder [✉] 10:23, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

Highly disagree this article needs a list of it's studios, they are working together across the subdivisions which are no more then publishing labels. the current form is ok, but i advocate for the full table with series and all informations provided in it, it's simply more reasonable not to hide al this information in subartciles of subarticles. Norschweden (talk) 23:16, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

Need to expand the history section.

We need to enhance the history section. Currently, the Microsoft gaming section predominantly discusses acquisitions. I believe we can provide a more thorough and nuanced exploration. Let's strive for a more comprehensive overview that delves into various aspects of Microsoft's gaming history. Ryan York (talk) 03:34, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

Remember, the history of MS Gaming started only in 2022. What happened with XGS actually probably needs to be cut back alot because there's a whole separate article for it. All we really can start with is that when MS proposed to acquire Activision Blizzard, they established MS Gaming at that time as to be where Activision Blizzard would live. That's it. Masem (t) 05:19, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

Got it, I can certainly expand on the history after 2022. Additionally, I believe briefly discussing Microsoft's past gaming history and pinpointing key moments will be necessary to describe why Microsoft's gaming business has evolved into what it is today. Thanks! Ryan York (talk) 05:29, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

Criticism, influence, and metaverse subject

I wanted to include Criticism, Influence, and the Metaverse as subjects, but I'm unsure whether to place them under the "Divisional Structure" heading or create a new heading. If I add them under the Divisional Structure heading, it might become too lengthy and complicated for that specific subject. Ryan York (talk) 01:22, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Keep in mind this divison has only existed for a year. I am not sure how much criticism and influence you can say about the division, though MS's overall activities involving gaming may warrant someplce, but I don't know where yet. And I've not heard anything about MS getting into the Metaverse. Masem (t) 01:26, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Monopolization has emerged as a prominent criticism in recent months concerning Microsoft's Gaming division for example. Additionally, there appears to be a potential misalignment in our discussion regarding the Metaverse, as it can be perceived in various ways. The Metaverse I am referring to is akin to a social club and competition. Articles I've encountered highlight issues such as the domination of platforms like Call of Duty and World of Warcraft (WoW), suggesting a lack of healthy competition.

I think it is essential to note that I am committed to focusing on relevant aspects and will provide accurate citations to improve the article. Ryan York (talk) 01:39, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Just keep in mind that there was already some criticism raised during the Activison acquisition process, which is covered there, so it should be about post-acquisition views and the like. And I think you're talking more about the marketplace and competition than the "metaverse" which is a specific type of content mode, but I will wait to see how you add it. For now I'd just make a new section like "Commentary" or the like. Masem (t) 03:42, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Okay, thanks a lot! Ryan York (talk) 03:51, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Microsoft Gaming/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Cocobb8 (talk · contribs) 16:00, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

This GA is undergoing further checks for Good Article Criteria following this discussion. I will be posting my progress here over the next few days. Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 16:21, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

'Microsoft Gaming announced that Activision Blizzard CEO Bobby Kotick will leave the company on December 29, 2023'

Yes, I have revised the sentence and stated that he announced his departure from the company with a source cited via Windows Central. Ryan York (talk) 22:28, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

This date has passed. Would the use of the term "would" instead of "will" be better here? "Will" implies that it has yet to happen, even though the next sentence says that "following his departure, ...". Thanks! Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 22:34, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Done! Ryan York (talk) 22:37, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Excellent, thank you! Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 22:46, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

GA review

Last updated: 16:02, 21 July 2026 (UTC) by Bensci54

Estimated completion date: ~February 28

See what the criteria are and what they are not

1) Well-written

1a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct

1b) it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation

2) Verifiable with no original research

2a) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline

2b) reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose)

2c) it contains no original research

2d) it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism

3) Broad in its coverage

3a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic

3b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style)

4) Neutral:

4) Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each

5) Stable:

5) Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute

6) Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio

6a) media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content

6b) media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions

Overall:

Comments:

The first few reads went very well, the article reads easily. I have encountered no major spelling or grammar errors and my autocorrect didn't either.

So far, the list of references is complete and has no errors. IABot didn't find anything either. Excellent use of in-line citations. Here are a few random spot-checks for references and verifiability:

Xbox Series X/S consoles sold 21 million units in total by 2023. Verified with the sourced website

Additionally, Microsoft Gaming sold Activision Blizzard's cloud gaming rights to Ubisoft for 15 years due to regulatory pressure from the acquisition of Activision Blizzard. Verified with the sourced website.

Microsoft Gaming laid off 1,900 staff (approximately 8% of its workforce) in January 2024. Verified with the sourced website.

Microsoft Gaming announced that Activision Blizzard CEO Bobby Kotick will leave the company on December 29, 2023. Statement not updated, though the source validates it. @Ryan York: would you like to change the sentence and source it with confirmation of his departure? Outcome: Citation kept, another one added, sentence wording changed. This concludes my spot-check of in-line citations. Close to every sentence in the article is sourced! There are no paragraphs that are unsourced, so there definitely isn't any original research. Earwig's copyvio detector didn't find anything, no copyvio.

The article addresses the main aspects, and properly summarizes key points.

Excellent use of neutral point of view.

The history of the article looks good, no edit wars, stability confirmed.

I checked all provided media, they all have the proper copyright tags. I fixed one caption, now all are written according to the guidelines.

This concludes my review of the article, and it is kept as Passed!

AI

Yet another GA that strongly seems like AI based on the usual gamut of WP:AISIGNS. Did a spot-check of particularly AI-esque sentences for source-to-text integrity and it's not good. All sentences mentioned were added in 2023 or later.

• Microsoft aims to incorporate strong social features and effective monetization strategies within games like Call of Duty, Minecraft and World of Warcraft to establish a competitive presence in the evolving landscape of virtual environments. According to Microsoft, this acquisition is not solely about expanding Microsoft's gaming portfolio but also about leveraging Activision Blizzard's established franchises to enhance the overall gaming experience (Added in 2023): This is promotional slop no matter how you read it. It also has severe source-to-text integrity issues. Call of Duty is only mentioned once, in the Vulture article, without any further claims about it. World of Warcraft is mentioned in the WSJ article, but the WSJ article says that those features were already incorporated (by Blizzard). Furthermore, most of the quotes in the WSJ article are from analysts, not from Microsoft, and the Vulture article does not contain that either; so "according to Microsoft" is not backed up by the sources.
• Phil Spencer emphasized that participating in large gaming expos and maintaining transparency is essential to connect with their business partners, fans, consumers and various gaming communities, showcase their latest innovations, and engage with fans on a global scale (Added in 2023): Not even remotely what the source says; that and it reads like promotional AI slop with a name tacked on.
• Microsoft has been observing the success of other Metaverse games. The company strategically positioning itself in the Metaverse trend, evident in its efforts to strengthen its gaming portfolio and explore opportunities for social interactions and monetization strategies within virtual environments. Yet again this is complete promotional slop, and yet again the source does not say this.

Ugh. Gnomingstuff (talk) 19:14, 11 December 2025 (UTC)

Microsoft logo

RealGamer404, from my (brief) search I didn't see evidence that commons:file:Microsoft Gaming logo (2026).svg was used by microsoft gaming. Could you provide any? 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) (contributions) 00:59, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

Requested page move: Microsoft Gaming → Xbox (division)?

An official blog post from the CEO confirms that the division will be referred to as Xbox going forward. Given this update, I think we should discuss whether the page should be moved from Microsoft Gaming to “Xbox (division)”, since this appears to reflect the current official naming and public branding of the organization. Ryan York (talk) 19:40, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

id wait a few days to make sure it is exactly omly "Xbox" and not something more explicit like "Xbox Studios", id not take the blog posts yet as fully confirmation, its just vague and too much marketing to take as durect confirmation. If in a week it's clear that they are just sticking to "Xbox", then moving makes sense. Masem (t) 19:49, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

Got it, thanks. I’ll also wait to see if they publish a new logo before changing that as well. Ryan York (talk) 19:51, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

Looks like someone has already moved the page without opening a discussion. Ryan York (talk) 19:59, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

The "Xbox (division)" title and also the previous iteration of this page are rather confusing to me. I would consider merging List of Xbox studios and this article as the scope appears identical? Further, in what capacity were Activison and Bethesda part of "Xbox studios" before? Could someone suggest an article title like "List of Microsoft subsidiaries managed by Xbox"? IgelRM (talk) 15:06, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

The structure section of this article needs to explain this better, but Xbox Game Studios, Bethesda, and Activision-Blizzard (and King) are all sister subsidiaries. Masem (t) 15:09, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

I was also unclear. I meant the "List of Xbox studios" may be erroneous suggest these subsidiaries are part of Xbox as in the brand name. The comment is more for Ryan York, who moved that page as well. IgelRM (talk) 00:05, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

That I think I get. That page may be better made as "List of studios within Microsoft's Xbox division" to be clear of where they fall. That said, given that there are only three major divisions (XGS, Bethesda, and ABK), each which on their page also outline the studios that fall under them, that page may be unnecessarily duplicative with the table on this page and those subpages. Masem (t) 00:08, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

Glass Xbox logo

Enough edit warring. It's not productive, it's against Wikipedia policy, and it's getting us nowhere. @GachaDog: two editors (myself included) have disagreed with you. Continuing to revert knowing this is not recommended. Instead of continuing this futile edit warring effort, let's unpack this.

I believe the new glass logo should be kept because it is representative of the current Xbox branding, and there has been a perceptible shift in how Xbox has been branding itself over the last month (specifically, since Asha took over). While the SVG plain Xbox icon might still be in use in some places (the official site being one, probably because the glass logo wouldn't look great on white), it's become clear that the new branding is of the glass logo.

While an argument could be made for free vs. non-free, I think this one might be a little more complicated, given that the company has been making moves to update its branding (albeit somewhat slowly), and this may be a rare example of it being a better option to use a non-free image over a free image. GSK 13:56, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

Pinging User:Ryan York if they would like to comment. GSK 13:57, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

Thanks. The point is that it is not plausible to change their logo just because the quality of the uploaded logo is not good. It does not need to be a perfect-quality logo; we can still use it as long as it is their official new logo. Ryan York (talk) 14:41, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

King, Activision Blizzard, and the 2026 reporting change

I think the article should be careful to distinguish between corporate structure and operational reporting.

The 2026 Xbox restructuring sources clearly support an operational reporting change: Xbox Wire states that Mojang and King will now report directly to Asha Sharma, and Game File reports that Minecraft and King were moved within Microsoft's gaming organization to report directly to Sharma instead of Matt Booty.

However, those sources do not appear to say that King legally left Activision Blizzard, became a separate Xbox subsidiary, or became a new Xbox division. A reporting-line change is significant and should be mentioned, but it should not be used to reclassify King in the infobox or organization table unless a source explicitly supports that corporate/divisional change.

For that reason, I think the safest wording is to keep King connected to Activision Blizzard for corporate/organizational context, while noting in the article body that King was reported in 2026 as moving within Microsoft's gaming organization to report directly to the Xbox CEO.

Suggested wording could be something like:

Activision Blizzard — Parent company of the Activision, Blizzard Entertainment and King publishing labels and related game development studios; in 2026, Microsoft announced that King would report directly to the Xbox CEO.

This reflects both facts without implying an unsupported corporate split. I am open to a better wording, but I do not think the article should present King as a separate Xbox division/subsidiary unless a reliable source explicitly says that. Happy to discuss! Chocococooo (talk) 02:28, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

The Xbox "reset" is a change in structure. By placing King directly under her as a separate unit, Sharma removed it from the rest of ABK, which remains under Booty. Therefore, while Matt still has power over Activision and Blizzard, in his capacity as the CCO of Xbox and head honcho of ABK. he no longer has any over King. The article should therefore not reflect the legal situation, as that would require digging through legal docs, but instead the new operating structure established by the reset. Quetstar (talk) 05:42, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

Thanks — this is exactly my concern.

If the article simply says that King now reports directly to Asha Sharma, I have no objection. That is sourced.

But the current edits go further than that. King has been removed from Activision Blizzard’s subsidiaries/operating units and is being presented as a separate Xbox subsidiary/direct entity. That is not just reflecting reporting structure; it is reclassifying the corporate/organizational relationship.

The cited sources say that King was moved within Microsoft’s gaming organization to report directly to Sharma. They do not explicitly say that King legally/corporately left Activision Blizzard, that Activision Blizzard no longer owns/includes King, or that King became a separate Xbox subsidiary/division.

This is why I think WP:SYNTH applies. We are taking a sourced fact — “King reports directly to Sharma” — and deriving a further conclusion — “King is no longer under Activision Blizzard and is now a separate Xbox subsidiary.” I do not think that conclusion is directly stated by the sources.

If the article wants to describe operating structure, that is fine, but then it should avoid infobox terms such as “subsidiary” unless the source supports them. Chocococooo (talk) 12:35, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

we do need to see a new org chart from MS to confirm this stuff. We are basically going onlff one source, Sharma's letter (repeated in all sources) and that is not clear if the King or Mojang moved or just they stay where they are nut have a direct report to Sharma. Masem (t) 12:40, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

I agree with the need for caution here.

Mojang is a different case from King because Mojang was acquired directly by Microsoft. There is no intermediate acquired corporate group, equivalent to Activision Blizzard or ZeniMax Media, that Mojang is known to sit inside. So listing Mojang separately does not require us to infer that it was removed from another parent company.

King is different. King was acquired by Activision Blizzard, and Activision Blizzard’s filings described King as becoming a wholly owned subsidiary of Activision Blizzard.

In conclusion, without a new Microsoft org chart or a source explicitly confirming the corporate structure, we should mention the direct reporting change in prose, but avoid using that alone to remove King from Activision Blizzard’s subsidiaries or to classify it as a separate Xbox subsidiary. Chocococooo (talk) 12:57, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

That will become clear when the annual report is released or when Booty says something, because since the acquisition, ABK has basically been moribund, with the three units operating more or less independently. This is further reinforced by the Corporate and Media page on King's website, which explicitly says "King, a part of Microsoft". It does not mention Activision Blizzard by name. Quetstar (talk) 14:02, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

If this will become clear only when Microsoft releases a new annual report, org chart, or a clearer statement from leadership, then the current sources are not enough to change the infobox/subsidiary classification.

The “King, part of Microsoft” wording on King’s site is also not enough by itself, because that can simply refer to Microsoft as the ultimate parent company after the Activision Blizzard acquisition. It does not necessarily mean King is no longer part of Activision Blizzard.

So my position is: mention the reporting change in prose, but leave the infobox/corporate classification unchanged until Microsoft provides a clearer source. Chocococooo (talk) 14:47, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

King, Mojang, Activision, Blizzard, Bethesda, and Xbox Game Studios all appear to operate independently even though some are still legally part of ZeniMax or Activision Blizzard. Because of that it's unclear how they should be listed.

The restructuring made this even more confusing. Bethesda Softworks has a new leader, but ZeniMax Media and Activision Blizzard do not. Asha Sharma also said that King and Mojang will report directly to her but it's unclear whether they previously reported to Activision Blizzard or to Matt Booty as CCO.

If we're going to list King and Mojang as separate subsidiaries, then Blizzard should be listed separately as well. Matt Booty's official LinkedIn profile lists King, Mojang, and Blizzard separately suggesting they operate as independent organizations.

Since Xbox has not published an official organizational chart, I think we should either keep only Xbox Game Studios, ZeniMax Media, and Activision Blizzard as the subsidiaries, or list Blizzard separately alongside King and Mojang. Otherwise we should keep the current listing for consistency. Ryan York (talk) 17:28, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

@Ryan York King and Mojang were under Matt Booty, as he was in charge of all the game studios under Phil Spencer. That remained the case under Sharma until now. Quetstar (talk) 18:28, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

@Ryan York Thanks, I agree that this is the key issue: the sources describe operating/reporting structure, but they do not clearly establish the corporate/subsidiary structure.

King, Blizzard, Bethesda and Xbox Game Studios may all operate with some degree of independence, but that does not automatically make each one a separate infobox-level subsidiary or division. Matt Booty’s LinkedIn, Sharma’s memo, and reporting-line language can help describe the operating structure, but I do not think they are enough by themselves to reclassify corporate relationships in the infobox.

Mojang is a different case from King because it was acquired directly by Microsoft and is not known to sit inside an intermediate acquired corporate group like Activision Blizzard or ZeniMax Media. Listing Mojang separately therefore does not imply that it was split out from another parent company.

For that reason, I think the safest approach is to keep the infobox high-level and avoid reconstructing Xbox’s full internal org chart without an official source. The article body can still mention the 2026 reporting change, including that King and Mojang now report directly to Sharma.

My preferred approach would be to keep Mojang listed separately, keep King within Activision Blizzard for infobox/corporate purposes, and explain the 2026 King/Mojang reporting-line changes in prose. Chocococooo (talk) 19:09, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

@Chocococooo I agree. I think we should just keep ZeniMax Media, Xbox Game Studios, and Activision Blizzard like the previous infobox is because Mojang Studios was previously under Xbox Game Studios. It's also unclear whether Mojang is still part of Xbox Game Studios or now a new subsidiary like King. Ryan York (talk) 19:33, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

XGS is a division, not a subsidiary, so MSFT can move its studios around without legally changing things. It seems clear to me that Sharma removed it from XGS. Quetstar (talk) 04:06, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

Until we can see an actual org chart, we shouldn't jump to conclusions on this. Masem (t) 05:05, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

Requested move 14 July 2026

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Bensci54 (talk) 16:02, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

---

Microsoft Gaming → Xbox (division) – This is after the previous move yo this name was undone. "Xbox" is the new name of this division, no questions.l, and all sources since call this division as Xbox and not Microsoft Gaming. The claim that WP:NATURAL applies is misplaced because of this change (this is not like the X/Twitter situation) Masem (t) 14:46, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

• Strong support. It's pretty clear that this won't be changing back to Microsoft Gaming, probably ever. Agreed that this is nothing like the X/Twitter situation; no one is still referring to it as Microsoft Gaming, not even Microsoft per my own research. GSK 15:20, 14 July 2026 (UTC)
• Support WP:NAMECHANGES applies. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 16:24, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

Support • I’m liking the name change too. XyloQuip289 (talk) 16:27, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

• Speedy move please. WP:NAMECHANGES applies. I don't see why this was bureaucratically reverted after it stood uncontested by more than a dozen editors for over two months. Undiscussed? Sure. Without (implicit) consensus? Clearly not. IceWelder [✉] 19:47, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

Strong support as WP:NAMECHANGES applies. Plus, I like the new name change. Multiplivision (talk) 21:59, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

• Support WP:NAMECHANGES applies here, but shouldn't it be XBOX in all caps since that's how the company refers to themselves?

HomelessPB&J (talk) 14:56, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

Correct, it's probs best we adopt the capitalised naming function of XBOX as they're not using in all their marketing etc ItsGarwood (talk) 18:19, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

Per MOS:TM we only use all caps if it known to be an initialism like IBM or KFC. If its all caps just for stylization, we avoid that (but can note that as a footnote). Masem (t) 20:21, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

• Support as others have pointed - WP:NAMECHANGES etc. Also it should likely be XBOX (division) now rather than Xbox (division), but I understand if there's any technical limitations with that for wikipedia.

ItsGarwood (talk) 18:21, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

We would probably label it "Xbox (division)", but have the lead paragraph be "Xbox (stylized in all caps; formerly Microsoft Gaming)". Multiplivision (talk) 18:46, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.