XnGine was nominated for
deletion.
The discussion was closed on 17 March 2021 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were
merged into
Bethesda Softworks. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see
its history; for its talk page, see
here.
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Bethesda Softworks article. This is
not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
This article is written in
American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other
varieties of English. According to the
relevant style guide, this should not be changed without
broad consensus.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Companies, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
companies on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CompaniesWikipedia:WikiProject CompaniesTemplate:WikiProject Companiescompany articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Maryland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the
U.S. state of Maryland on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MarylandWikipedia:WikiProject MarylandTemplate:WikiProject MarylandMaryland articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Video games, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
video games on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Video gamesWikipedia:WikiProject Video gamesTemplate:WikiProject Video gamesvideo game articles
The following Wikipedia contributor has declared a personal or professional connection to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include
conflict of interest,
autobiography, and
neutral point of view.
Csweaver (
talk·contribs) This user has contributed to the article. This user has declared a connection.
The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future:
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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}).
YAn 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.
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 ☺☏¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 01:01, 24 February 2017 (UTC)reply
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)reply
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.[1]
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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
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.
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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
@
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)reply
@
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)reply
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.
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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
@
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).
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)reply
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.