5 ms·

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

by jemmyw 1y ago

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).

PoignardAzur 1y ago
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.
- viraptor 1y ago
  Sure, but that means in a few years another manager can remove it and sue the creators. It doesn't matter who the current guy approves of, long term.
Lammy 1y ago
> Bethesda doesn't think anything. 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.
- jemmyw 1y ago
  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.
  - sushid 1y ago
    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.
    - KeepFlying 1y ago
      The number of levels isnt the issue, it's the size and scope of control of the market. The rest is on journalists to be sure to mention "Microsoft owned Bethesda" more often.
    - jemmyw 1y ago
      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.
    - Ey7NFZ3P0nzAe 1y ago
      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"
      - Sophira 1y ago
        I think using the term "by" like that at all is going to lead to serious confusion. As we all know, GitHub is not "by" Microsoft (as in, written by them). It's under their control now, and sure, they've made a lot of changes, but the actual code was written before Microsoft purchased them.
        rowanG077 1y ago
cultofmetatron 1y ago
at the very least, it shows that bethseda leadership are not in the habit of alienating their fans.
tedunangst 1y ago
I think people understand how metonymy works.
- npteljes 1y ago
  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.
npteljes 1y ago
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.
- TiredOfLife 1y ago
  It's Russia and russians that is attacking not Putin. Even Russian oposition fully supports war
  - studentik 1y ago
    What opposition? Take a stopwatch, stand by the subway with an blank sheet of paper and count seconds before you are arrested. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jd7Zs9K46Vc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jd7Zs9K46Vc
  - jemmyw 1y ago
    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.
    - TiredOfLife 1y ago
      They are opposed to Putin not war.
    - watwut 1y ago
      Yes, those support the war. Their claim is that they would be better at winning it then Putin. There were few Russian individuals against the war, it does exist. But they are exception regardless of the camp they are in.
esperent 1y ago
If the policy can be abandoned it has no meaning anyway beyond being a marketing stunt.
rendaw 1y ago
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.

by jemmyw 1y ago

PoignardAzur 1y ago

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.

viraptor 1y ago
Sure, but that means in a few years another manager can remove it and sue the creators. It doesn't matter who the current guy approves of, long term.

Lammy 1y ago

> Bethesda doesn't think anything. 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.

jemmyw 1y ago
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.
- sushid 1y ago
  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.
  - KeepFlying 1y ago
    The number of levels isnt the issue, it's the size and scope of control of the market. The rest is on journalists to be sure to mention "Microsoft owned Bethesda" more often.
  - jemmyw 1y ago
    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.
  - Ey7NFZ3P0nzAe 1y ago
    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"
    - Sophira 1y ago
      I think using the term "by" like that at all is going to lead to serious confusion. As we all know, GitHub is not "by" Microsoft (as in, written by them). It's under their control now, and sure, they've made a lot of changes, but the actual code was written before Microsoft purchased them.
      - rowanG077 1y ago

cultofmetatron 1y ago

at the very least, it shows that bethseda leadership are not in the habit of alienating their fans.

tedunangst 1y ago

I think people understand how metonymy works.

npteljes 1y ago
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.

npteljes 1y ago

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.

TiredOfLife 1y ago
It's Russia and russians that is attacking not Putin. Even Russian oposition fully supports war
- studentik 1y ago
  What opposition? Take a stopwatch, stand by the subway with an blank sheet of paper and count seconds before you are arrested. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jd7Zs9K46Vc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jd7Zs9K46Vc
- jemmyw 1y ago
  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.
  - TiredOfLife 1y ago
    They are opposed to Putin not war.
  - watwut 1y ago
    Yes, those support the war. Their claim is that they would be better at winning it then Putin. There were few Russian individuals against the war, it does exist. But they are exception regardless of the camp they are in.

esperent 1y ago

If the policy can be abandoned it has no meaning anyway beyond being a marketing stunt.

rendaw 1y ago

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.