- Google is burying blue links even further beneath AI Overviews. The search summaries have started to automatically expand for some queries, instead of requiring users to manually click a “Show more” button.
- The Wall Street Journal reports that Reddit is also considering cutting off Google due to dropping traffic.
- It’s not just publishers and online forums that are concerned about AI Overviews — the nonprofit Common Sense Media claims the search summaries pose an “unacceptable” risk to kids by failing to respond appropriately to children in crisis.
Tech
Google’s AI search changes upended online publishing
Reading in data-saving mode. Read full article from The Verge website.
Published 10/25/2026 7:00:00 AM
Google’s AI search changes upended online publishing
Google’s AI search changes upended online publishing
Publishers spent years figuring out how to get clicks on Google. But new AI search features have torn that ecosystem apart.
Image: Cath Virginia / The Verge, Getty Images
Google’s AI search changes upended online publishing
Publishers spent years figuring out how to get clicks on Google. But new AI search features have torn that ecosystem apart.
This isThe Stepback, a weekly newsletter breaking down one essential story from the tech world. For more about AI’s impact on the web, follow Emma Roth. The Stepback arrives in our subscribers’ inboxes on Sunday at 8AM ET. Opt in for The Stepbackhere.
How it started
The digital publishing industry has relied on Google for a very long time. Many outlets spent time and money optimizing their webpages to show up at the top of the search engine, with the goal of getting readers to click on their articles or discover their websites for the first time. For years, the relationship between Google and publishers was largely reciprocal; online publishers filled out Google’s search index with content, while Google supplied publications with exposure and traffic.
But that relationship has changed. The launch of Google’s AI search features — coupled with changes to the way it ranks search results — has made it harder for publishers to survive on traffic from Google alone. In 2024, Google rolled out AI Overviews, a feature that slots an AI-generated search result summarizing pages from across the web at the very top of Google Search, with links to sources its AI system determines to be the most useful placed below the summary. Instead of vying for clicks on the first page of Search, publishers became beholden to an AI system that regurgitates results, with no guarantee that users will actually click on the source of that information.
Though Google’s AI Overviews got off to a shaky start, the feature immediately raised concerns among publishers, with the News/Media Alliance saying it will be “catastrophic” to web traffic. A 2024 investigation from the Press Gazette found that Google’s AI Overviews appeared for almost a quarter of news-related searches in May 2024. By August, the outlet found that AI Overviews had begun impacting the visibility of publishers by replacing media sites that previously held the top spots on Google’s search engine for certain queries.
A future where Google could eventually stop sending traffic to outside sites on the web has only gotten closer as the company builds out its vision for an AI-powered search. In May 2025, it launched AI Mode, a feature that replaces Google’s standard search engine with a chatbot-like interface that provides detailed summaries from results on the web.
How it’s going
The concerns raised by the News/Media Alliance were real: Traffic to online publishers tanked following the launch of Google’s AI search features. A June 2025 report from The Wall Street Journal revealed how traffic to Business Insider, The Washington Post, HuffPost, and the WSJ itself has declined since 2022. Data from analytics company Similarweb suggested that search traffic to The New York Times sank from 44 percent to 35.5 percent in three years, the WSJ reported.
A report from Digiday pointed to similar dips at Digital Content Next (DCN), a trade association that represents outlets and media companies like Bloomberg, The Associated Press, The New York Times, Condé Nast, and Vox Media. Between May and June 2025, DCN says 19 of its members experienced a traffic loss on Google, ranging from 1 to 25 percent, Digiday reported. DMG Media, which owns Daily Mail and Metro, told the UK’s Competition and Markets Authority that click-through rates dropped by up to 89 percent between June and July 2025, citing impacts from AI Overviews. On top of all of this, Pew Research found that people are “less likely” to click on links to other websites when they see an AI Overview.
These numbers starkly contrast with Google’s claims that its AI search features are helping the web. Last year, Google Search head Liz Reid said click volume from the search engine remained “relatively stable,” adding that AI search is sending more clicks to different types of websites — especially those “with forums, videos, podcasts, and posts” from other users. Nick Fox, Google’s senior vice president of knowledge and information, told the BBC, “From our point of view, the web is thriving.”
In addition to scrutiny from regulators, publishers from around the globe have filed lawsuits against Google, claiming the company’s AI search features have negatively impacted traffic. Many lawsuits haven’t been successful. US District Judge Amit Mehta dismissed an antitrust case from Chegg and Penske Media, which owns The Rolling Stone, Billboard, The Hollywood Reporter, and The Verge. The same judge also rejected a proposed class action lawsuit surrounding AI Overviews filed by Arkansas newspapers.
What happens next
Online publishers have had to adjust their strategies in the wake of falling search traffic, with many leaning on social media, newsletters, and subscriptions to promote and make money from their work. Others are using a toggle that allows them to opt out of appearing in AI Mode and AI Overviews without affecting their visibility in search — an option Google broadly rolled out following an order from the UK. But this still doesn’t fix sinking traffic.
Pushback from online publishers appears to have resulted in some changes to Google’s AI search features. The company has begun to make sources more prominent in AI Mode and AI Overviews, as hovering over a link in either feature will show a pop-up with a list of articles and accompanying images. Another AI search change puts in-line links “higher up in responses more frequently.”
Google will likely continue making changes to how it presents sources in AI search, while coming up with ways to compensate publishers that inform its results. The company says 400 publishers, including The Washington Post, CNN, Axios, and the Financial Times, are now part of its News AI pilot program, which licenses content to develop new AI features. It’s also testing a program that pays publishers for the use of their content in AI Overviews and AI Mode, according to reports from The Information and Digiday. Whether this program is enough to repair Google’s relationship with publishers remains to be seen.
By the way
Read this
- This Decoder interview with Google CEO Sundar Pichai sheds a lot of light on the company’s vision for the future of search.
- This write-up from The New York Times shows how Google’s AI Overviews still struggle with accuracy.
- A survey from Nieman Lab reveals how more people are relying on AI chatbots to get their news.
§
Didn’t Microsoft say the next Xbox needed to be affordable?
Didn’t Microsoft say the next Xbox needed to be affordable?
Fortune dropped a bombshell report on the future of gaming this week. According to the publication’s Microsoft insiders, the next Xbox is projected to cost between $1,200 and $1,800 when it arrives in 2028.
My first reaction: The next Xbox is dead on arrival. It’s DOA.
My second thought: Microsoft knows people won’t pay that much. It couldn’t possibly charge that much money if it wants next gen to be a success. “I wouldn’t release it at all,” former Microsoft exec Mike Ybarra recently said.
My third thought: Didn’t Microsoft alreadysay out loud that it knows people won’t pay that much?
- Didn’t old Xbox boss Phil Spencer say “We’re not going to grow the market with $1,000 consoles”?
- Didn’t new Xbox boss Asha Sharma say “We’ve reached a point where it will be hard to imagine that mass audiences can afford thousands of dollars to spend” on a box?
- Didn’t Xbox chief strategy officer Matthew Ball say the entire company would change its practices to make sure it’s affordable?
- Didn’t Sharma say Xbox would need to adopt “radically different business models” to keep Xbox from being too pricey?
Did Fortune get it wrong?
I don’t think Fortune’s insiders are the problem here. With today’s incredibly overpriced RAM and storage, it wouldn’t be surprising if it cost over a thousand dollars to build, package, distribute, and sell “the largest technical leap you will have ever seen in a hardware generation,” as former Xbox president Sarah Bond called the next Xbox back in 2024.
But there are at least five ways the report could be correct without making you pay all that money at once. I just don’t think you’re going to like most of them.
Subsidies: Microsoft could pay to give you a discount
The least-likely possibility is the one Fortune suggests itself. Let’s look at the original quote, bolding mine:
[…] the price of the Helix console has internally been projected to cost consumers between $1,200 and $1,800, unless Microsoft decides to subsidize the cost.
Historically, Microsoft has subsidized the Xbox. Microsoft sold boxes at a loss right out of the gate, making its profits when you buy games and Xbox Game Pass subscriptions instead of on the hardware alone. That’s not our speculation — it’s exactly what Microsoft told The Verge in 2021. In 2023, we learned that Microsoft may have spent $1.5 billion to make sure it could sell the Xbox Series X and S at $499 and $299 respectively, instead of what they actually cost.
But Microsoft has suggested that it’s done with hardware subsidies. “Going forward, this cannot continue,” wrote Sharma in her “Xbox reset” memo, referring to the $20 billion in content, platform, and hardware subsidies Microsoft made over the past five years.
Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella echoed that idea on the Hard Fork podcast: “No one can accuse Microsoft of not having invested for the last 25 years, and now we have to turn this into a sustainable business.”
It isn’t just new management that’s hinting at no more subsidies: Bond primed the pump for a $1,000 box when she called Helix “a very premium, very high-end curated experience” late last year, comparing it to gaming PCs like the $1,000 Xbox Ally X handheld.
Perhaps Microsoft has changed its mind since then. “We are working very hard to rethink everything that we can about Helix,” Ball said in June, referring to affordability. “The plan’s the plan until it’s not the plan,” Sharma said in February (though not about affordability specifically).
But subsidies would be a tremendous risk if the Helix still plays PC games in addition to Xbox ones. Valve’s Steam is by far the dominant PC gaming platform — so PC gamers who buy a Helix won’t help Microsoft recoup its money.
Subscription: “Get it free with 36 months of Xbox Game Pass and qualifying trade-in”
There’s another way Microsoft could subsidize a $1,200 Xbox.
Today, AT&T will give you a $1,200 iPhone 18 Pro for $0* — if you lock yourself into 36 months of AT&T phone service that costs $100 or more per month and trade in a recent phone, too.
Microsoft could do the same with a new, pricier tier of its Xbox Game Pass game subscription service, effectively bundling the games with the console and making you slowly pay for both at the same time. Perhaps you’ll have the option to buy an “unlocked” Xbox for full price, but it won’t be the norm.
To make it happen directly, Microsoft would need a pricier new tier of Xbox Game Pass, which wouldn’t necessarily align with the company’s recent moves. Sharma actually cut the price of Game Pass Ultimate to $22.99 a month in April, writing that “Game Pass has become too expensive for players,” while removing Call of Duty games and unlimited access to Xbox Cloud Gaming from the deal.
I don’t know if it would work. People feel naked leaving the house without phone service. They might not feel the same about games. Subscription fatigue is real. But if it worked, Microsoft’s moat would be stronger than ever. You’ll be more likely to play the games you’ve already paid for and are committed to keep paying for. Many would get sucked into a profitable upgrade cycle, just like they do with phones, since they can buy the next Xbox for “$0” as soon as it comes out.
Cellphone subsidies have been around nearly as long as pricey phones: The 1994 IBM Simon, arguably the first smartphone, eventually cost half its $1,100 price tag if you signed a contract with BellSouth. My first phone, a Kyocera QCP-6035 with a built-in PalmPilot, was subsidized when it arrived in 2001. So it’s not exactly a “radical new business model,” but it would be new for game consoles.
Rental: Maybe most people won’t own a Helix themselves
It’s also possible that Microsoft simply doesn’t plan to sell a console to the masses anymore — it can sell an $1,800 Xbox to those who can afford “video game ownership” and try to hook everyone else on the Netflix model.
After all, the “K-shaped economy” and RAMageddon have already made gaming PCs and existing game consoles into luxury goods. Society’s wealthier individuals seem perfectly happy to pay inflated prices for the few consoles Sony and Microsoft still pump out.
While PS5 sales plummeted after Sony’s price hikes, that may have been about component shortages rather than decreased demand. Xbox sales reportedly rose over a similar period, and Microsoft has justified repeated, dramatic price hikes on its consoles since May 2025.
“I can tell you definitively, demand for our console exceeds supply. We are putting them in as many stores as possible, we are producing them as quickly as possible. There is a severe limitation to how quickly we can do that,” Xbox chief strategy officer Matthew Ball told The Game Business in June, blaming RAM shortages.
But Microsoft has another way of giving less affluent people access to “next-gen” Xbox power. It can rent you one. The company just launched pay-as-you-go cloud gaming starting at $3.99 for 10 hours of cloud gaming (50 hours for $11.99).
Maybe all of Microsoft’s recent talk about affordability isn’t about the masses owning a next-gen console. Maybe it’s about finding an affordable way for people to “play Xbox” without owning the games at all.
The next gen is the current gen
After Fortune’s report, some of the very first reactions I saw boiled down to this: “I’m out. Forget next gen, I’m going to stick with my existing Xbox/PlayStation/Switch.”
That’ll be the reality for many people if the Xbox costs over a thousand bucks. But if the RAM shortage continues — if Microsoft knows it’ll sell every Xbox it can make to wealthy individuals because it can’t make a lot — it’s not necessarily a huge risk to sell it sky-high on day one.
Perhaps the Xbox Helix will be an early adopter console, the same way the iPhone Duo is an early adopter phone, the same way the Steam Frame is an early adopter headset. These products are selling out instantly despite their high price tags, leaving many would-be buyers in the cold. They’re shipping messy and unfinished, but that’s okay because early adopters want to come along for the ride.
Microsoft knows the same is true of some Xbox buyers, because it helped ship an unfinished $1,000 Xbox Ally X handheld even before the RAM crisis, and the $1,300 Xbox Ally X20 follow-up is already sold out.
But if Microsoft splits the Xbox audience into “have” and “have-not,” it means the next generation won’t truly arrive. Game developers won’t spend all their effort targeting a console people can’t buy. The next Xbox won’t be any more necessary than a PS5 Pro if you already own a PS5. In industry lingo, the Helix would be a “mid-cycle refresh” instead of true next gen.
I wouldn’t hate that, though, and neither would many video game execs. They’ve long complained that the pace of technology has ballooned the cost of building a video game to unsustainable levels, leading to today’s world where too many development teams are cut to the bone right after their games ship.
Former PlayStation and Xbox execs like Shuhei Yoshida, Shawn Layden, and Mike Ybarra have argued that the next gen isn’t necessary.
“Stick with PS5 Pro/Series X until prices normalize. The capabilities of those boxes are both fine for 99% of the audience. No one is screaming ‘I need a more powerful console’ right now,” Ybarra tweeted on October 20th.
“I think [Sony and Nintendo] should try to keep the current generation as long as possible, because I think people are very happy using PS5 and Switch 2,” Yoshida told me on The Vergecast.
“I think we’ve plateaued on the tech, frankly,” Layden told GamesIndustry.biz in 2025. (He’s said similar before and since.) “Make it cheaper and simpler. Let’s do that instead. And let’s find a way to have more hardware companies participate.”
Microsoft and its chip partner AMD have already taken one step to help extend the current generation — AMD’s performance-enhancing FSR 4.1 is coming to Xbox Series S and X, which should make it easier for both to deliver crisp 4K images to your TV.
Pay what you can afford
Even if Microsoft ships a $1,800 console, the company’s been clear it won’t be the only Xbox you can buy. Sharma has publicly said that Helix will be a “family of devices,” which has been broadly interpreted to mean that Microsoft will let PC industry partners like Asus sell their own “Xbox” as well.
If the reporting pans out, that wouldn’t just be a cobranded Xbox Ally handheld that runs Windows — Asus could make a console-shaped box that runs a Windows-based Xbox OS, too.
Some of those partners could offer more affordable, less powerful Xboxes than Microsoft’s own flagship box, perhaps with less storage and memory. Microsoft, too, might have creative solutions for storage, like how the company shipped the Xbox 360 with different-size hard drives, or none at all, to make it more affordable. “We will have to empower customers to have very flexible storage offerings,” Sharma said in June.
Or you could buy another Xbox that’s likely going to continue to count as part of Microsoft’s “family”: the existing Xbox Series X and Xbox Series S.
This can all work because games don’t need to target a single console anymore; they haven’t needed to for a long time. An Xbox One game runs on an Xbox One X and an Xbox Series S and an Xbox Series X because they’re all effectively AMD-powered Windows PCs, just with different amounts of performance on tap. The Xbox Helix is a powerful extension of the same continuum. The same is true of PlayStation 4, PS4 Pro, PS5, PS5 Pro, and presumably PS6, minus the Windows part.
Perhaps a particular piece of hardware will stand out as the one developers should target as the baseline for “it looks and runs great on Xbox,” the same way the Steam Deck handheld became a baseline for PC game developers starting in 2022. Maybe, like the Steam Deck and the Nintendo Switch, it’ll help reset our expectations of what a top-shelf game needs to look like.
At this rate, I wouldn’t be surprised if the existing Xbox Series S will be the one. But it could also be Microsoft’s own next handheld Xbox. Fortune’s insiders say it’s coming holiday 2027.
