They had a solitary investor, Square Enix Holdings. They held 100% of the common shares.
The fact of the matter is that the video game industry is commercially volatile and so when costs begin to exceed revenue, they do so in an expensive way.
So the shareholders have two ways of recuperating their losses.
The first is to change the games to ensure they make more money (i.e. Americanise and ruin the essence of the game, turning it into a generic cookie-cutter copy of every other shooter). We might care about storyline and staying true to the Hitman series, but the majority of the gaming audience are easily mesmorised by flashing colours, online multiplayer, and boobs.
Intricate plotlines are difficult for people to follow if they're used to gratuitous violence, sexualisation, and instant gratification. This is why so many films and games have become less artistic and feature such cliché stories - it's easy to process.
The other option for the shareholders, instead of rescuing a failing game, is to sell the studio and brand to someone else. The idea is to revert the accumulated losses back to zero, and the parent company can return to business as though nothing had happened, keeping only the lessons learnt through their failures.
In this scenario, Square Enix is 47 at the end of Hitman 2, leaving the church, leaving behind the crucifix, and moving on with his life.
We're the crucifix.