To me it appears Bethesda have, with TES/FO, hit on a huge and extremely casual and atypical market for full-price AAA games. A market which doesn’t care about tight gameplay, which cares little for bugs or glitches, and which only really cares about a sufficiently huge and detailed world to wander around and do stuff in. I often see Bethesda games in the houses of people who either barely play or don’t play games, and the sales figures they do are absolutely staggering.
As such I would be very surprised if they ever veer away from the current design, which is essentially to have a story wish a flashy, cinematic start, a simple, linear main quest, and gigantic, beautiful maps full of stuff to do. FO4 proved, if proof were needed that role-playing can be very constrained, perhaps eliminated, that RPG elements can be kind of rubbish and barely more constructed than, say, Far Cry 3, and yet the game can sell 20m copies.
I fully expect TES6 to follow the same pattern. For me the only reason question is if the lingering negativity around FO4 worries them at all, and whether they will thus try and address that. There is also the smaller question of whether they felt like the vastly-improved combat of FO4 (over FO3/NV) helped much, and if so, will they do the same for the utterly dire combat of Skyrim? It seems like it would be relatively simple to improve it significantly.
THQ was the Omnishambles.
I don’t think any current publisher is remotely near that level of disarray. Ubi know what they’re doing. It’s boring, but they’re good at it, and they pull something cool or novel out just often enough to avoid us all going into comas. Beth/Zenimax are significantly less organised and more confused, but I don’t think they’re near omnishambles levels, and they own enough brilliant developers that they’ll be fine for the foreseeable future if they just let them do their thing. If Prey is actually terrible that might hurt a bit but I’d be surprised (though not if it was merely beautiful-but-mediocre).
EA’s SatanSoft title is, sadly, no longer deserved. They genuinely reformed the hateful practices which characterised them in the early '00s (c.f. the EA Widows etc.), and now have (and have long had) generally a good culture by industry standards. They don’t bully or mess with companies who work with them, particularly, even in anonymous complaints about working at EA-owned companies, the complaining is all directed at the companies, not EA. Gamers constantly, irrationally, and without any evidence, blame EA for every failing of every dev studio that works for them, but all available actual evidence suggests that, if any thing, the problem is that EA is too hands-off, and lets too many studios get themselves into trouble.
The one genuine criticism might be that they seem to be somewhat miserly with budgets, which has lead to a number of recent games seeming a bit less developed than they probably should have been (Sims 4, ME:A, for example - ME:A had the same budget as ME2/3, but it had that spread over 5 years of dev instead of 2).
I suppose one could also complain that they are sitting on a few juicy IPs though. Ultima, Wing Commander, maybe Syndicate (though the 2012 reboot attempt suggests otherwise).
Activision are a more genuine SatanSoft, as they are real interferers, but even they have calmed down lately, and with Bungie and Blizzard working for them, they clearly know when to be more hands-off.
Rockstar might well go omnishambles. They’ve had terrible management issues, have a terrible, terrible culture (and thus turnover/churn), and are basically rolling in cash because of the unexpected ultra-success of GTA Online. RDR2 has a lot to live up to with RDR1, and all Western projects are risky, and god alone knows when we’ll see another GTA, especially a single-player one (or even if). I think it’s safe to say no-one gives a shit about any of their other IPs, and all attempts to launch new IPs in the last decade have ended in tears (arguably barring RDR).