Am I the only person who gets the exact opposite vibes?
In living memory, Xbox was able to wrest significant marketshare from a global rival (the 360). "Their" IP has significant mass market recognition - the Fallout TV show is popular, The Minecraft Movie was the second biggest movie in the US released in 2025, and while the last couple entries haven't been popular, Call of Duty is still synonymous with "FPS" with the general public. More to the point, gaming is one of the only (if not THE) product lines where customers are _choosing_ Microsoft, rather than being locked into having to use the Microsoft platform for compatibility reasons (Office, Windows).
MS doesn't want to kill gaming, they want it to succeed, so they've brought in one of their shiny young executives, fresh from the most important product line to investors (AI), to turn that division around.
--
Of course she's going to fail miserably (and honestly, I don't know why she agreed to take the position at all, unless she's running out the clock until her shares vest). Gaming isn't an established software product, it's an entertainment product where the creatives are still developing the equivalent of new cameras, special effects, etc. with every new release. She will of course be pushing AI hard, which will just generate unremarkable dialogue and art assets, when new scenarios and art styles are one of the few things that make a game stand out from the many, many competitors in the market.
--
TL; DR: Sharma may well oversee Xbox's death, but she wasn't brought in to kill it - the exact opposite, in fact. Direct your ire at the higher level MS execs that think formulaic AI art and dialogue generation will fix gaming development.