Since this guy hasn't worked at Bethesda for the past 3 years, he's probably guessing what their next move is, even if it's from experience. Still, he could have inside info from old co-workers. It does sound like he's bashing them a fair bit which, although warranted in general, is kind of silly here in an article meant to praise their horrific interration process on game design.

I think Bethesda would be better off calling a potential Starfield sequel something besides, "Starfield 2". Rebrand the IP because it's already a bit tainted. I do think it's very up in the air if this game will get a sequel with the ultimate determination being what the head Microsoft bean counter thinks can be made vs its cost.