It's a fair point, but everything I've read seems to indicate that different franchises and different titles within the same companies are fairly financially segregated. If they weren't, franchises would never be retired from lack of interest. It's similar to the film industry.
I mean The Last Airbender was a bad movie that made its money back, but it doesn't mean that I wouldn't want to see something like Iron Man simply because they're both Paramount Pictures productions. However, I would be very cautious about seeing the next M. Knight Shamalamadingdong film because arguably he hasn't made anything watchable since Unbreakable (and even that's debateable in some circles). I mean sure, Paramount has a lot more irons in the fire than Bethesda. But intellectual property is intellectual property and for all the similarities between TES and Fallout, they are very different games under the hood... they're even different games from sequel to sequel.
That's the idea I apply to this situation. I'm pissed off at Bethesda for F:NV but not for TES. And I wouldn't be surprised if the guy that ruined F:NV by insisting that the release date be met is different from the guy that decided to postpone the release of Oblivion for the PS3 back in the day. The former shows terrible judgment and the latter, good judgment.
