Bethesda doesn't think anything. Some people in leadership there think this. It would be very nice if they codeified what "support" means and the circumstances around it into company policy so that fans know what is what while that policy is in place (and who to blame if the policy is abandoned).
It even kind of irks me when people talk about “Bethesda” when it's really “Microsoft Corporation presents Microsoft Gaming presents Zenimax Media presents Bethesda Softworks presents Bethesda Game Studios”.
Not picking on you in particular since the same thing happens with iD Software, Github, NPM, and many many more. I feel like there's a collective lack of straightforward language to discuss the influence of this kind of corporate structure. Falling back to the singular-subsidiary name with the rest unspoken is probably exactly what they want.
I wouldn't know who Bethesda was owned by without going and looking it up. I personally don't think this kind of corporate structure should be allowed, too much controlled by too few.
What would you allow? Just one level deep? Two? All you'd be doing is incentivizing the creation of more proxies and more legal fees/inefficiencies to go along with it.
I think one solution would be to always have the parent company iname n the children company. This way you don't have github by "Github by microsoft". But any links in between should appear if a separate legal entity.
1. It makes it clear how few powerful people are owning everything.
2. It makes it obvious there's something wrong when you see that the 30 different bottles you can buy in front of you are all from coca colla
3. It makes it very obvious that there's something fishy about "chocolate chips by a france by b luxembourg by c switzerland by d ireland by big conglomerate by mondelez international"
I would only allow one level: all companies must be owned by a person or persons named.
I would also have it that any contract controlling that person's interest is nullified so if you're trying to use a proxy to get around the law you'd have to be very sure you trust them because they are the legal owner.
Not sure. I certainly think there should have been anti trust interest in Microsoft buying GitHub. If only we had good agencies with subject matter experts who can't be bought off by the companies.
It feels pretty likely that it's not even company leadership? Lead dev is not company leadership, and someone higher up next week could decide they don't like it and sic lawyers on the project.
I mean, when you reach the point where they advertise the mod in dev spotlights videos, I think it's fair to say there's some institutional support, even if it's not codified.
Even if they do, I very highly doubt that they successfully process it emotionally too. I especially dislike when news conflates leaders with nations. I think it just adds unnecessary emotions to the mix. Which, of course, is good for the news source, so I doubt I'll ever see a decline in this phenomenon.
I hate the same about how media presents news regarding to nations. Russia attacks instead of Putin's army attacks, Brussels denies instead of EU officials deny, etc. It irks me so much, especially in a world where we pretend to do away with racism. Because what these headlines end up reinforce are just stereotypes. Which just keeps the people in their bubbles, wasting the chance of them learning something new about the world.
Do you mean the Russian opposition who are actually opposed to Putin and persecuted out of the country / existence, or the opposition Putin allows to exist to make elections appear legitimate? One of those doesn't support the war, and one of those isn't really an opposition.
