CamHostage
Member
That's okay, I don't need to google it.tell me the publisher of Grand Theft Auto 5 please... and Red Dead Redemption 2 (hint, the answer isn't Take 2)
now go ahead an google who is the publisher of Persona 5 Strikers in Japan... or Persona 5 Royal (hint, the answer isn't SEGA)
go ahead, maybe a will appear above your head and you'll say "ohhh... yeah... that's nothing out of the ordinary after all"
Atlas did not change its business practices in the merger of its company with SEGA; Rockstar Games is a publishing label of Take-2 Games, I don't think it really had any business practices to change (unless DMA had some plans that were for some reason different before and after?) In either case, all of the entities involved were able to make their own business plans independent of the parent for the good of their own business, which is my point, that if Bethesda Softworks is no longer open to engage in the business practices it has developed its expertise in over the past I'm going to guess 25 years, then there is no reason to keep Bethesda Softworks when the desirable Bethesda properties are its IP and its development studios.
Also, of course, SEGA and T2 are not manufacturers of their own game consoles (sadly for SEGA fans...) or streaming media services.
If Bethesda could make more money selling on PlayStation and Stadia and heck Nintendo in addition to Xbox (depending on what deal Microsoft is paying, which ultimately is all "MS money" anyway, but the way the finances flow and the books look to each's board is of course complicated; also more interestingly in these cases though is, depending on visibility, these games being exclusives could happen to elevate their profile and sell more copies with just the Xbox audience... though is it possible to sell "more" copies of an Elder Scrolls game when you're already selling all of the Elder Scroll games you can find platforms to put Skyrim on?), then it's in Bethesda's best interest to explore that option, unless it is not allowed to by its parent company. And if its business becomes limited, it doesn't have much reason to stay a business.
To be fair, though, you are correct that there have been happy mergers in business where companies have been acquired or merged purely for the strength of combined marketshare (albeit Bethesda stands to lose marketshare on its own books if it's not in all of its markets anymore, but we're just blueskying at this point) and that there are cases where multiple "competing" businesses exist within a corporation without the big fish swallowing the guppy in the same tank. Of the top of my head, though, I don't know how well the history of Microsoft is in that kind of happy coexistence (maybe they have a better rep than the other massive conglomerations? I honestly don't know,) and for that, I may have to Bing it...
Last edited: