Talk:Bethesda Softworks

"Generally mixed reviews?"

The reviews are POOR across the board, not mixed. The sources cited all reflect BAD scores. These are not mixed reviews and the article is false in its current state.

Interplay Lawsuit Error

The section on the Interplay Fallout MMO lawsuit states "Bethesda ended paying Interplay several more millions to finish the development of the MMO", this is incorrect. Bethesda paid Interplay $2 million "as consideration in the settlement" and revoked all Fallout IP rights granted to Interplay as of that agreement. Interplay was forced to cease work on the MMO, not finish it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lgranberry (talk • contribs) 19:21, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Article reassessment

Shouldn't this now be considered a B or C class article?Timur9008 (talk) 11:00, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Timur9008, tagged for reassessment, also summoniing @JimmyBlackwing who has been assessing lots of VG company articles lately. Lordtobi (✉) 08:16, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

• Thanks for the tipoff! Given the length and sourcing, I'd call this an easy C. Definitely not a start, and fairly close to a B. The main thing I'd say that's holding it back from B status is comprehensiveness, because a company as large and long-running as Bethesda—with so many different games and genres and controversies under its belt—naturally requires more coverage. A lot of really important stuff happened in 1994–1999, for example, that just isn't here. To name the obvious thing, there's nothing about Daggerfall's launch in that section. Stuff like that goes on throughout the page. But yeah, it's got the makings of a great article and I think it deserves to be upgraded out of the Start trench. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 09:46, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

JimmyBlackwing perhaps you can add the old Bethesda logo? I mean the very first logo. I'm terrible at adding images/logos.Timur9008 (talk) 12:49, 18 july 2019 (UTC)

Sure thing. Oddly enough, though, your ping didn't notify me. I only saw this message because I was checking your contributions to see if there were any other great TheFreeLibrary links you'd found. This pinging bug has been happening to me a lot lately—unfortunate. I'll see what I can do about the logo. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 18:42, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks!Timur9008 (talk) 10:14, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

JimmyBlackwing on a side note I've made this at my sandbox [1]. Feel free to correct me on some of that if you can. Is that enough to push this article to B status ?.Timur9008 (talk) 16:41, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Can the article be now considered a B class with the new information available? @IceWelderTimur9008 (talk) 16:11, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

WTF?

Why does it say ZeniMax Media as Bethesda's parent company instead of Xbox Game Studios? — Preceding unsigned comment added by UltraJackNotEvenFound (talk • contribs) 19:52, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Because ZeniMax was acquired whole, not Bethesda separately. IceWelder [✉] 19:54, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

ZeniMax is still autonomous

I'm not sure why it says ZeniMax is part of Xbox Game Studios. Xbox Game Studios is not the same as Xbox as a whole. ZeniMax is still considered a separate entity within Microsoft. The article that claimed it was part of XGS is inaccurate.

Ed Fletcher

Ed Fletcher is listed as one of the Co-Founders of Bethesda Softworks here [2] and on his Linkedin profile. Should we change this? @IceWelderTimur9008 (talk) 07:38, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

For some reason, I never get any of your pings. I checked my settings but couldn't find anything suspicious. Anyway, regarding Fletcher, several sources attribute the idea for Gridiron! to him, so he definitely needs to be mentioned in some shape or form. I don't know whether he can be considered a founder. I don't have access to that particular Google Books page (I believe to have the full ebook at home, though) but most sources that mention Fletcher appear to still state Weaver as the sole founder. Feel free to incorporate Fletcher in some way, I will try to find the ebook when I get home. IceWelder [✉] 07:31, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay. The statement on Fletcher that you cite is a quote by Doug Whatley of BreakAway Games, who was not involved with Bethesda. All other sources point to Weaver being the sole founder. I expanded the first part of the History section slightly to incorporate Fletcher. Regards, IceWelder [✉] 12:27, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

Article reassessment

The article has been expanded recently. Can this now be considered a B class article? @IceWelder, @JimmyBlackwing, @Ferret, @Zxcvbnm Timur9008 (talk) 10:12, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

The entire Fallout 76 section of "Controversy" should probably be removed as off-topic. It's a much better topic for Fallout 76's page specifically since it entirely concerns that game rather than being indicative of a continuing trend. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 10:31, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

 Done removed. It was already listed at Fallout_76#Controversies anyway. Timur9008 (talk) 10:45, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Bethsoft organization

@CoolingGibbon and IceWelder: IceWelder, you're right at the line for 3RR on 4-5 separate articles. CoolingGibbon, you've already violated it. Before I approach an uninvolved admin to consider blocks, MAYBE it's time to stop reverting and start discussing. Especially you, CoolingGibbon. As soon as you got the first revert, WP:BRD should have kicked in. -- ferret (talk) 15:09, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

I look forward to any constructive discussion (and resolution) of the matter. Won't be reverting till discussion closes. --CoolingGibbon (talk) 15:12, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

@CoolingGibbon You made a bold edit to long standing content, it was reverted, and then you edit warred. A discussion requires your direct involvement. State your case, and your sourcing. No one's going to comb back over edit summaries, lay it out, because you certainly haven't added any sources to the articles themselves. -- ferret (talk) 15:13, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Sure, here's my statement on the matter.

The primary discussion revolves around four entities - Bethesda Softworks, Bethesda Game Studios, Bethesda Game Studios Austin and Bethesda Game Studios Dallas. Few key points here:

1. Bethesda Softworks LLC is a limited liability company (LLC).

2. Bethesda Game Studios is a business unit (division) of aforementioned company.

3. Bethesda Game Studios Austin LLC (formerly BattleCry Studios LLC) is also a limited liability company.

4. Bethesda Game Studios Dallas LLC (formerly Escalation Studios, LLC) is also a limited liability company

Out of these four "entities", three are "companies", while one is a "division" of a company. Divisions, unlike companies, are not legally distinct entities... they are simply internal structures within a legal "company". Ref: Division (business). Because of this, it is not legally possible for a "division" to have a "subsidiary". Instead the subsidiary is owned by the legal "company" to which the division belongs.

In the current scenario, the legal company in question is Bethesda Softworks, which in itself is a subsidiary of Zenimax Media. Bethesda Softworks has a game development "division", which is Bethesda Game Studios. In 2018, Bethesda Game Studios Austin LLC (formerly BattleCry Studios LLC), which was a direct subsidiary of Zenimax, was made a subsidiary of Bethesda Softworks and given its current name. The same happened to Bethesda Game Studios Dallas. Despite this name change, both Bethesda Game Studios Austin and Bethesda Game Studios Dallas are subsidiaries of Bethesda Softworks and NOT Bethesda Game Studios, since Bethesda Game Studios as a legal entity does not exist, and thus CANNOT have subsidiaries.

- Source 1 (Zenimax specific): https://www.zenimax.com/en/legal/legal-information#:~:text=Bethesda%20Softworks%C2%AE%20LLC,All%20Rights%20Reserved.

- Source 2 (Legal distinctions): https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/confused-terms-subsidiary-affiliate-division-others-gary-kirshenbaum

Please feel free to clarify regarding anything that I have mentioned above. -CoolingGibbon (talk) 15:40, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

I think no one here is confused about the concept of a division. The problem is that you present a corporate structure with no basis. You allege that the "Legal Information" page on ZeniMax Media's website shows that the three incorporated studios (Montreal, Austin, Dallas) are direct subsidiaries of Bethesda Softworks LLC. However, the relevant sections reads, in full:

Bethesda Softworks® LLC / Bethesda Game Studios® / Bethesda Studios Montréal Inc. / Bethesda Game Studios Austin LLC / Bethesda Game Studios Dallas LLC
Bethesda, Bethesda Softworks and Bethesda Game Studios and their respective logos are registered trademarks of ZeniMax Media Inc. in the U.S. and/or other countries. All Rights Reserved.

It says is that these five entities have a common trademark notice. It does not say what legal ownership structure they possess. Blaming this lack of information on my supposedly poor English skills feels like a bad-faith argument.

We can easily look up the ownership Bethesda Game Studios Montreal: The Quebec corporate registry shows, unambiguously, that ZeniMax Media Inc. is that company's sole shareholder, not Bethesda Softworks LLC. While the Texas and Delaware registries are unfortunately not as transparent, we can still retrieve the press releases ZeniMax Media published for each expansion (Montreal, Austin, Dallas) and find that Bethesda Softworks is mentioned in none of them (barring the footer). In the latter two cases, the studios already operated under ZeniMax Media's ownership (BattleCry Studios and Escalation Studios) and were now "part of Bethesda Game Studios". This does not necessitate a change in legal ownership, nor does any source claim there to be. To the contrary, the wording paints Bethesda Game Studios as directly under ZeniMax Media as well.

Thus, like virtually all other ZeniMax Media studios, these studios are held directly under ZeniMax Media Inc. without intermediate owners, regardless of who manages them. As we already established, the three studios directly report to and are managed by Bethesda Game Studios. While you are correct that divisions do not have the capacity to own other corporations, the "parent" listed in infoboxes usually is the organizational one (as is the case on most articles with such corporate structures, including the studios of PlayStation Studios, Xbox Game Studios, and other conglomerates). That "Subsidiary" and "Bethesda Game Studios" are paired in the same infobox should not be much of an issue here. IceWelder [✉] 16:42, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

It's been a week and no new arguments have been brought forward. Can we return to WP:STATUSQUO now? IceWelder [✉] 23:03, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

I agree with your reading. The division field exists to denote the divisions of a company. The only way to denote the relationship upward is the parent field. -- ferret (talk) 23:33, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Alright, based on your comment, I enforced WP:STATUSQUO and reverted the affected article parts to their pre-dispute versions, retaining the additional fixes made in the meantime. I'm glad to have this somewhat sorted for now. To briefly hark back to my earlier comment about BGS potentially being directly under ZeniMax, I found no additional evidence for or against this organization. ZeniMax is not super transparent about this, of course. Curiously, ZeniMax's studios page explicitly mentions the two newer studios (Alpha Dog Games and Roundhouse Studios) in conjunction with Bethesda Softworks, but it treats Bethesda Game Studios like all other studios. Bethesda Game Studios' contact page lists Bethesda Softworks as the addressee (they operate from the same building), but ZeniMax does the same. It would be great if we could gather additional sources on this. IceWelder [✉] 14:04, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

@IceWelder: Hello and apologies for not being able to respond earlier; I got aa little busy with other commitments. I have a few observations which I think are pertinent to this discussion. So if I may:

It says is that these five entities have a common trademark notice. It does not say what legal ownership structure they possess. Blaming this lack of information on my supposedly poor English skills feels like a bad-faith argument.

Fair enough. My primary concern is with a division being treated as a company. Hence this discussion. Since your edit reverts seemed to suggest that there was some confusion regarding this fact itself, I put it down to miscommunication. Your language skills are certainly fine, and I had no intention of causing any slight. Apologies if you took that otherwise.

We can easily look up the ownership Bethesda Game Studios Montreal: The Quebec corporate registry shows, unambiguously, that ZeniMax Media Inc. is that company's sole shareholder, not Bethesda Softworks LLC.

Again, fair enough. In which case I'd propose putting Zenimax as the parent organization in place of BGS. But I realize there's some gray area here with the legal sources and everything.

While you are correct that divisions do not have the capacity to own other corporations, the "parent" listed in infoboxes usually is the organizational one (as is the case on most articles with such corporate structures, including the studios of PlayStation Studios, Xbox Game Studios, and other conglomerates). That "Subsidiary" and "Bethesda Game Studios" are paired in the same infobox should not be much of an issue here.

While this might not be "much" of an issue, it's still technically wrong in my opinion. I'd prefer it be corrected (ideally).

@Ferret:

The only way to denote the relationship upward is the parent field.

I think there has to be a more permanent solution to this. But I understand why things are the way they are. Unfortunately, I'm yet to come up with any ideas on how this can be better resolved. CoolingGibbon (talk) 17:30, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Pete Hines join date

I found this on another site [3]. Looks like there was a press release regarding this. Can this be used? The source used on this article says he joind in October when it was actually November.

@Ferret @IceWelder Timur9008 (talk) 07:31, 1 July 2024 (UTC)