Talk:Bethesda Softworks

TES5 Unannounced

I deleted TES V from the list of upcoming games. There's no proof whatsoever that TES V is in production. TennysonXII (talk) 19:24, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Prior to you deleting this the game had been announced in numerous interviews and had been shown in clips at the previous E3 industry event.

There are now even more announcements as well as a game trailer released, here is one of many sites carrying information on the subject: http://www.computerandvideogames.com/280129/news/elder-scrolls-v-release-date-announced-gets-trailer/

There is plenty of proof that "TES: V Skyrim" is in production for anyone who knows how to use google. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Omniwolf (talk • contribs) 23:58, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

The first post was made in August 2010, chill out. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 22:14, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Vandalism

The second sentence in the History section of the article is grammatically flawed. The article is semi-protected, and I'm not sure how best to revise it. What do I do? Dubk (talk) 15:41, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Someone seems to be vandalizing this page, if someone can, please put it on semi-protection for a while —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.173.2.15 (talk) 22:51, 11 September 2010 (UTC) I'm pretty sure Gabe Newell is in fact director of Snack Management, you must be mistaken. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.96.213.33 (talk) 22:58, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Mass Effect 3?

Isn't the Mass Effect series developed by Bioware? Why is Mass Effect 3 listed as an upcoming Bethesda game? thursiya (talk) 05:41, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Yea that is right, its developed by Bioware and published through EA on PC and Microsoft on X-Box.

Source: http://www.firingsquad.com/news/newsarticle.asp?searchid=18705

TuxFighter (talk) 10:39, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Executive Info

The article does not list the names and contact information for the executives (CEO, COO, etc.). I believe any article regarding companies should list the executive and board members. Tesseract501 (talk) 19:06, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Physics-based?

The article reads, "Bethesda is credited with the creation of the first physics-based sports simulation." Someone may need to clarify what "physics-based" means. The term appears to be a technology-based idiom attempting to describe the new programming. As such, most lay readers may not understand what it means without clarification. Tesseract501 (talk) 19:06, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Bethesda Softworks vs. Bethesda Game Studios

These are two seperate entities both owned by ZeniMax Media. Softworks is the publishing arm and Game Studios is one of the Zenimax in-house studios. They should not have the same page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.231.182.245 (talk) 21:20, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Is the Mojang Lawsuit over the term "Scrolls" important enough to include in the article? n/t

Is the Mojang Lawsuit over the term "Scrolls" important enough to include in the article? n/t — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.169.26.82 (talk) 03:52, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

I think so. It should either be in this article or the Zenimax article. I don't know enough to write it, though. 160.94.47.16 (talk) 05:20, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

 Done--Shaded0 Talk 19:50, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Edit request from , 5 October 2011

Rage has been released. Should be moved out of the "Upcoming games" list and to released games. Taraba (talk) 19:40, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

 Done--Jac16888 ^Talk 20:45, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Fallout 4

fallout 4 is not an upcoming game from bethesda. no one mentioned fallout 4 from bethesda. please fix it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thexyster (talk • contribs) 11:31, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Are you refering to Fallout: New Vegas or a game titled fallout 4?thank you Sincerely zeroro 14:18, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Minecraft Lawsuit

Can some information please be added to the wiki Re:Lawsuit against notch from the minecraft game. I came to wiki looking to find if it was dropped or is still going ahead. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.225.179.175 (talk) 13:27, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Someone add this game to the list

Where's Waldo? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.89.73.150 (talk) 16:02, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

New plug-in

There is a new plug-in announced called "Hearthfire".Should it be added to the list.It has'nt really been released yet though.Lightningthief 1 (talk) 01:44, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Should Bethesda Game Studios and Bethesda Softworks be separated into different articles?

Bethesda Game Studios and Bethesda Softworks are two different companies.Even if they work in the same building,it doesn,t matter, they have different priorities.If that was the case then this article should have been merged with the ZeniMax Media,Vir2 Studios and Mud Duck Productions Articles.Considering they all work in the same building.I am going to try and separate these articles later. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Timur9008 (talk • contribs) 18:39, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

If you are separating them you should be sure you can expand it beyond a stub since it already was a separate article for over a year but I merged it since it never went past a stub article. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bethesda_Game_Studios&oldid=434814497 --Mika1h (talk) 12:05, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Bethesda Softworks. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110722080240/http://www.next-gen.biz/features/pete-hines-bethesdas-past-present-and-future to http://www.next-gen.biz/features/pete-hines-bethesdas-past-present-and-future

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:36, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Patent lawsuits

Bethesda has been involved in at least one patent-related lawsuits (as defendant versus McRo, Inc.) Plus, I think there are others involving parent company Zenimax that pertain to Bethesda games. These should all be covered in the article.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  01:01, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Could you provide [a] source/s for the prior statement? For the latter I believe that they are not quite relevant to this article as ZeniMax-handeled legal issues did not directly affect Bethesda, or the developer of the games in question. Lordtobi (✉) 18:46, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

I think he meant [This] Timur9008 (talk) 22:18, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Controversies?

This is not a controversy:

• Chris Avellone, former lead creative designer at Fallout: New Vegas developer Obsidian Entertainment, has claimed that the company did not receive an unspecified bonus payment for its work on New Vegas from Bethesda because it did not garner a Metacritic score above 85% - the game got 84% on Metacritic.

The claims of "hostile takeovers": is this a precise term, or just a common gripe? I don't see any source from Arkane (for instance) saying this was a hostile takeover that they gave into; just bystandards complaining and claiming that's how it went down. Guardlifer (talk) 05:33, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

There was a big controversy at the time regarding the whole metacritic bonus thing in the gaming community.For the record, i don't work for ZeniMax or Bethesda(I don't even live in the US), i have no reason to lie, i am telling it like it is.I just have researched ZeniMax and Bethesda far too much for my own good.Also regarding the second question, the Arkane thing was sparked by this, an alleged Arkane employee.Timur9008 (talk) 02:57, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 27 May 2018

On June 24, 2009, ZeniMax Media acquired id Software, whose titles, including Rage, would be published by Bethesda Softworks. Between 2009 and 2012, the company expanded publishing operations, with games from independent third party developers such as Rebellion Developments's Rogue Warrior, Artificial Mind and Movement's Wet, Splash Damage's Brink, and inXile's Hunted: The Demon's Forge. 64.72.210.21 (talk) 20:32, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. -- ferret (talk) 20:34, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

The user appears to have asked for a link to be added (they posted an altered version of article source code). Change has been implemented. Lordtobi (✉) 20:37, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

References

Rage 2

Suggestion: update Rage to be (2011-present) under "Games Published". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deflime (talk • contribs) 15:34, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

 Done, though made it 2010-present as Rage released for iOS in 2010. Also fixed other nums. Lordtobi (✉) 16:09, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Introducing the unlinked "Daggerfall" without context

The Elder Scrolls series was mentioned earlier in the article. And I know that that includes Daggerfall. But mentioning Daggerfall without a link out of nowhere stands out as "Well, whoever reads this has got to know what Daggerfall is already". Which doesn't seem appropriate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8807:5480:50C:AD51:E637:1804:94AE (talk) 18:11, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Linked -- ferret (talk) 19:47, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Creation Club

I expected Bethesda's Creation Club to have been mentioned in the Controversies section seeing as it garnered some general backlash for its implementation (being branded as "paid mods" and for there being alternative free mods that were deemed superior to those Bethesda offered etc.), and was otherwise seen as a slip-up in Bethesda's history. Heck, for all it's noteworthiness, Creation Club isn't even mentioned on either of Bethesda Softworks' or Bethesda Game Studios' articles, and while it does have its own page, it's extremely brief. Wikibenboy94 (talk) 20:30, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Because it has it's own article: Creation Club. -- ferret (talk) 21:11, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

"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)