Incline Chris Avellone Appreciation Station

[IHaveHugeNick]

In this alternate timeline, couldn't you have used Fallout's engine to make party-based turn-based RPGs?

The Aussies who made Fallout Tactics used their own engine instead of Fallout's trash heap.

Including you, one would presume.

Why presume?
"Feargus mandated that royalties (from any game) would only be dispersed amongst upper management, in %s according to ownership in company (which meant Chris Jones and I didn't see much, but the other three did)."

Oh thanks, I must have missed that somehow. Although it would perhaps be more fair to say "we took royalties for ourselves", instead of "upper management took it for themselves". It's easy to get confused with all this de-ownering going on, you know.

 

[Luckmann]

Well your point is pretty sjw as you say.

This is literally you right now.

You are arguing that this thing is wrong because the owners are retards and you don't like them.

No, I was in fact incredibly clear in what was wrong, and it's not "because the owners are retards and you don't like them". They are retards because of what they did and how they did it, and I don't like them because of that. That's a huge difference.

Also you are arguing from the points brought by MCA,which i wouldn't say that he is lying,but every situation have two sides. Nether of us have been there to know what was the situation or what was needed. Also many people here forget that personal accounts of the owner and the company accounts are linked in a way. If there is a need he could give financial injection to the company and vice versa.

So what you're saying essentially boils down to "I don't want to call MCA a liar, but it's possible that he lies". Because that really has nothing to do with what was being discussed either way, since that was not what your original argument was at all; you're just trying to shift the goal post. If you want to argue that MCA is a liar, that's fine, but you better have something to base that on, seeing as how there's not really two ways around this particular issue; it is either true or it is not.

I argue that man should still have the freedom to run their companies as the see fit and spend their money as they wish.

Those people made a company,hired people and made games,those games sold and they got the proceedings. Nobody can tell them what to do with the money they made,moral or not not. Employs could pack their bags and leave,fans could stop buying they games as i did. Too many armchair economists here,telling how a company should be run and how they should spend their money. Instead of doing such shit go and make your own companies,hire people and bring us good rpgs. Game making is a fucking business,people do make companies to make money not stroke your moral ego. He managed to keep the company afloat for 15 years,and that is not a small thing. They could do what he wants with his money and you cold not buy their games if you disagree with it.

Literally nobody has argued otherwise, and it has absolutely nothing to do with whether someone does right or does wrong, or whether an owner is good or bad, or any the morals or lack thereof of any actions taken. It is a non-counter-argument for a non-argument. I'd argue free speech much on the same grounds - you have every right to say what you're saying, but it doesn't make you any less of a shilling corporate cocksucker when you say it. In the same way, as I have already established in the post to which you responded (but apparently did not read), the owners have every legal right to do whatever the hell they want.

But it doesn't make him any less of a retard or any less of a vampire for doing it.

The fact that you have the right to do something doesn't make it right. The inability to understand this basic fucking fact is why we're having leftards with no concept of free speech rallying behind ancap principles absolving platforms of any responsibility for their actions based on the argument that "it's private lol they can do what they want?!". It's brainlet-tier garbage-think, completely disconnected from reality and the arguments and criticism people actually levy against the shitty practices, whether we're talking about (((globalists))) in general or (((upper management))) in particular.

In this alternate timeline, couldn't you have used Fallout's engine to make party-based turn-based RPGs?

The Aussies who made Fallout Tactics used their own engine instead of Fallout's trash heap.

Including you, one would presume.

Why presume?
"Feargus mandated that royalties (from any game) would only be dispersed amongst upper management, in %s according to ownership in company (which meant Chris Jones and I didn't see much, but the other three did)."

Oh thanks, I must have missed that somehow. Although it would perhaps be more fair to say "we took royalties for ourselves", instead of "upper management took it for themselves". It's easy to get confused with all this de-ownering going on, you know.

Except, as MCA clarified, he had no choice in the matter, meaning that "they" (i.e. "we") didn't take it for themselves ("ourselves"). Feargus mandated that the royalties go to them. What part of that did you have difficulties with? Trying to re-frame this just to suck (((capitalist))) cock some more doesn't really do much except showcase that you're being disingenuous and eager to fuel Marxism by means of peak Jewry.

 

[fantadomat]

Well your point is pretty sjw as you say.

This is literally you right now.

I can't argue with Scandinavian communists,enjoy the state of your country .

 

[Luckmann]

I literally have no argument so instead I'll call you a gommunist and take a jab at your nationality which has been brought to ruin by brainlets and Jews based on the same nonsense I profess ha ha check mate xD

 

[Chris Avellone]

Why presume?
"Feargus mandated that royalties (from any game) would only be dispersed amongst upper management, in %s according to ownership in company (which meant Chris Jones and I didn't see much, but the other three did)."

Thanks, I didn't want to direct IHaveHugeNick to the previous post and point out I'd already said that.

Yeah, Nick, you don't need to presume, that was already clear.

 

[Chris Avellone]

Interplay used it without permission in BOS, DA2, BOS2, and DA3. Snowblind sued Interplay for it, and BOS2 was cancelled because of the legal battle. They settled and signed an agreement for a new DA game in 2005, but it was too late at that point.

Really? Wow, I had no idea (I thought they had given permission for DA2, but I did know that contract seemed to be a pretty miserable one for Snowblind).

 

[TT1]

Chris Avellone , its possible for you to tell a little bit more about working with Owlcat? I am super hyped with Kingmaker and want to know more about all the process (including QA - there are a lot of bugs). Are you still working with them on the DLCs?

 

[fantadomat]

Dear Mr. Luckmann .

I posted a post about how i see nothing wrong with owners of a business benefiting from the success of their sold product,thus collecting the money from it. Then i entered in small banter with dude about that,explained that i don't believe employees are entitled to the money and see nothing wrong with it. Then you came in a begin insulting me by calling me a "SocJus" and saying that my argument could be applied to any kind "quandary",which is retarded seeing that it is clear what we are arguing about,thus it is just another personal attack while ignoring the point. Then you talk about a game i haven't mentioned in my post and proceed to whine about productivity and "justifiable" and how you will split the money made 50/50 with the comrades if you run the company.
After that i posted another post pointing out how hypocritical your insult is because your whole "argument" was about feelings and morality,and how you didn't like the "upper management". Also i posted how arguments and situations have different sides because different people see it in a different way and not always have all the information. This one you tried to twist in a way as if i was accusing MCA of lying,which i didn't. And yes i don't take the word of internet people as gospel,i take everything with a grain of salt,even him. Also in my post was reaffirming my stand that people should have the right to do what they want with their companies and money. Then you go on saying that you don't argue my argument and something about a "It is a non-counter-argument for a non-argument",then you on about free speech out of nowhere and call me a "a shilling corporate cocksucker" for me defending the basic right of privet business to collect the profit of their business and not equally distribute it amongst the workers. Then you insult Fergues and go on about how morally wrong it is and how sjws are arguing that companies could do what ever they want,thus applying that i am one of them. Lets not also forget all the negative ratings you have splashed on my post because they offended you in some strange way. In the end we both posted jabs at each other in a moment of annoyance.

In the end i will brush your insulting attitude toward me as a moment of anger aggravation coming from the current state of the world and its politics. I do know that both of us have similar view,believe and enemies,even if we have our disagreements. I would recommend you to get away from the internet and news for a few days. Go hiking or hunting in those beautiful mountains you have there,spend a few days fishing in the lakes with a few bottles of wine and a few mates.

 

[Drax]

Fucking extraction of wealth from workers magnets, how do they work?

 

[Kyl Von Kull]

Once again, the most surprising thing about Obsidian is not Feargus' miserly nature, it's his unbelievable shortsightedness. They didn't retain any of the royalties to invest back into the business? Jesus. That's pretty damning. Like working for a third world kleptocrat.

Even the most hard-hearted of capitalists like to reinvest most of their profits. IME, you only take 100% of your royalties as owner dividends (especially in the first few years of your company's existence) if:

1. You're running a mature enterprise with little opportunity for growth but a steady earnings steam. So not applicable.
2. You do not believe reinvestment will net you a decent return. Meaning Feargus & Co had very little faith in Obsidian's potential as an business from at least, what, 2005?
3. Or (most likely) you're too short-term greedy to realize you can potentially make a lot more money by growing the damned business, rather than taking the cash and buying yourself a beach house. In practice, though, you're still acting like you don't believe in the business, even if you don't realize it (Feargus?).

Chris Avellone was there any pushback from the other owners? Like, "hey Feargus, maybe we should only pocket half the royalties and use the rest to build our own engine (or whatever a small CRPG studio could've used in 2005)?"

My better half spent years working at a law firm where the partners operated like this. She thought they were all colossal idiots until she realized they only cared about maximizing their profits in any given year, not over even a two or three year time horizon (so idiots of a different stripe). Working for people who don't feel invested in the long-term success of the enterprise, even though they own the enterprise, is maddening.

 

[Roguey]

It's also so trivial. He is called balance man but he has no idea of balance. Such strong sacrifice needs to have greater pay off.

In fact, in general, it appears that Sawyer is completely incapable of properly doing a risk & reward assessment. He uses a simple trade-off as a base line and never adjusts for risk and reward, and instead just reduces risk and reward. However in cases where risk cannot be reduced further (having a party member dead) he still abides by his own baseline. It's not balance, it's streamlining, there can be no balance if risk and reward aren't weighted against each other.

Doubling the bonus would mean you get +10 damage and a +50% chance to hit which is utterly absurd. 2e's stats are a mess but that's the equivalent of 3e 20 points of strength whereas as intended you get up to a mere 10 points of strength.

 

[FreeKaner]

Doubling the bonus would mean you get +10 damage and a +50% chance to hit which is utterly absurd. 2e's stats are a mess but that's the equivalent of 3e 20 points of strength whereas as intended you get up to a mere 10 points of strength.

If you consider this from a MMORPG/MOBA DPS point of view maybe so yes. It would also be fairly great if it was in a vacuum however it has that specific condition. You need to have all of your party dead for that and it only works for remainder of that combat, meaning even if you get +10 damage and +50% chance to hit, it's still not worth it because your entire party needs to be dead first. It's a bonus that if you are doing good it doesn't matter, and if you are doing bad enough it probably won't save you either.

That's another mistake of Sawyer anyway. Trying to individually and self-consistently balance every character, instead of balancing the whole party as a whole. Forgetting that party acts as a whole under player's control, this in itself very PNP derivative in the worst way possible.

 

[Cael]

I'm not a codemonkey, so I won't pretend to know any of the finer points here or what is based on what, I just wanted to say that:

• It's a damn shame Fallout: Tactics never got playtested properly and finished up in the TB/CTB department.
• I always wanted to see another Fallout in that exact style or even a remake of F1/F2, because it had the potential to be an excellent CRPG engine/framework.

I don't care whether it was actually based in the original engine or not. If it wasn't, it did an excellent job of pretending to be.

From my experience poking around the FOT engine the last few weeks:

The Tactics engine has problems with too many items or layers on maps. I am getting massive slowdowns and jerkiness even on FT Tools when I increase the elevations to get to entities and assets.

In my version of Quincy, where I increased the number of enemies dramatically (somewhere close to double the number of the original), the game starts to jerk and lag a bit towards the end when all the guys are dead. It is particularly noticeable in the rescue the ghouls segment, where I tripled the number of attackers across the board and the pile of dead bodies really causes the game to jerk.

Most of the crashes with FOT seem to be tied to the engine running out of memory, and I have noticed that this happens more often when the game is switching background music tracks (Macomb, especially, but also Quincy and Junction City).

The FOT engine isn't very stable is what I am saying.

However, compared to FO2 maps, FOT maps are massive, and the number of layers on them can be pretty insane (look at the Coldwater map; each level is 13 layers). Maybe on the smaller FO2 style maps, it might be more stable. I don't know.

To be fair, though, yes, sure, what you're saying is probably entirely true, but FOT also has dramatically more straight-up enemies and combat scenarios than a real CRPG using the same engine would've had. You had to double the number of actors in Quincy before the issues really became an.. issue, after all. Also, had there been more games based on FOT, I would assume that work on the engine would've continued.

We all know how fucked the TB/CTB stuff is (honestly, I'm still pissed that years down the line, games that use TB/CTB still haven't figured out how a pause button might be nice to have regardless of whether the game is primarily TB or not; WL2 and both D:OS games being perfect examples) for example.

The crash to disk happens even on the unmodded v1.27. Generally, you are sweeping with your mouse a cluttered area like Macomb's ruins, the track in the background changes and it crashes.

My additions didn't actually increase the rate of crash-to-disk that I have observed, but I am only playing through it now. It only caused your characters' movements to jerk, which could be a precursor to crashing, but the mission ended before it happened.

The main problem with the engine is that it is a good tactical combat engine with waypoints and scripted movements and "reactions", but making dialogs and other RPG elements might be beyond it. Further development may help but I think it would require a lot more than people realise. At this point in time, I'd say that it is 100% in the tactical engine department, but only 20% in the RPG department. It does have promise, though, as what you do in Mission 2 actually has an effect in Great Bend, over 10 missions later, so there is a campaign-wide flag system in the background. Accessing it, however, is another story.

 

[Alpan]

Once again, the most surprising thing about Obsidian is not Feargus' miserly nature, it's his unbelievable shortsightedness.

And yet he has ultimately survived -- even thrived, given what appears to be an impending Microsoft exit. I recognize, and agree, that he's a villain. The characterization above, however, is unmoored from reality.

 

[Kyl Von Kull]

Once again, the most surprising thing about Obsidian is not Feargus' miserly nature, it's his unbelievable shortsightedness.

And yet he has ultimately survived -- even thrived, given what appears to be an impending Microsoft exit. I recognize, and agree, that he's a villain. The characterization above, however, is unmoored from reality.

He's survived by the skin of his teeth. How many times did Obsidian almost go bankrupt? Even if the Microsoft thing happens, they're going to pay a lot less than they would have in a universe where Obsidian consistently invested in itself. When you consider the sheer amount of talent Obsidian had under its roof a decade ago, I think "they're still in business, may even get a takeover" is a pretty low bar.

Using 100% of the royalties from your first game to pay yourself a dividend would be shortsighted if anyone did it. Just like not saving for retirement is shortsighted, or not going to the dentist, or (to pick a random example out of thin air) antagonizing the publishers who pay your bills.

 

[Cael]

Once again, the most surprising thing about Obsidian is not Feargus' miserly nature, it's his unbelievable shortsightedness.

And yet he has ultimately survived -- even thrived, given what appears to be an impending Microsoft exit. I recognize, and agree, that he's a villain. The characterization above, however, is unmoored from reality.

He's survived by the skin of his teeth. How many times did Obsidian almost go bankrupt? Even if the Microsoft thing happens, they're going to pay a lot less than they would have in a universe where Obsidian consistently invested in itself. When you consider the sheer amount of talent Obsidian had under its roof a decade ago, I think "they're still in business, may even get a takeover" is a pretty low bar.

Using 100% of the royalties from your first game to pay yourself a dividend would be shortsighted if anyone did it. Just like not saving for retirement is shortsighted, or not going to the dentist, or (to pick a random example out of thin air) antagonizing the publishers who pay your bills.

It is, unfortunately, a failing that many managers share. I have met managers who doesn't give a flying rat's arse about the customers, the people who ultimately pay their bills. They think that they are the experts and should be dictating to customers. I even had one who announced to the entire company that their major customer, consisting of 60-70% of their turnover, is a, and I quote, "fuck-off customer" who "think we are dirty tradies" and therefore "deserve no special attention from us, tell them to get fucked".

The rant was jaw-dropping, coming as it did in a professional engineering company.

 

[Alpan]

Once again, the most surprising thing about Obsidian is not Feargus' miserly nature, it's his unbelievable shortsightedness.

And yet he has ultimately survived -- even thrived, given what appears to be an impending Microsoft exit. I recognize, and agree, that he's a villain. The characterization above, however, is unmoored from reality.

He's survived by the skin of his teeth. How many times did Obsidian almost go bankrupt? Even if the Microsoft thing happens, they're going to pay a lot less than they would have in a universe where Obsidian consistently invested in itself. When you consider the sheer amount of talent Obsidian had under its roof a decade ago, I think "they're still in business, may even get a takeover" is a pretty low bar.

Using 100% of the royalties from your first game to pay yourself a dividend would be shortsighted if anyone did it. Just like not saving for retirement is shortsighted, or not going to the dentist, or (to pick a random example out of thin air) antagonizing the publishers who pay your bills.

What I meant to say -- and I suppose this needs explicit spelling out -- was that it's more or less impossible for Obsidian to have survived this long without Feargus and the other partners reinvesting any royalties back into the company during all this time. It sounds suspiciously like you're reciting a corporate finance textbook at me, but you recognize that companies cannot survive without cash flow, and Obsidian must have had some, and at least some of it in the early years must have derived from royalties. I realize that this is the MCA thread, but he has only said that the money goes into the partners' personal accounts, not that they are not, under any circumstances, reinvested.

Had Feargus been as shortsighted as you claim, Obsidian wouldn't have made five years, much less fifteen.

 

[Infinitron]

I realize that this is the MCA thread, but he has only said that the money goes into the partners' personal accounts, not that they are not, under any circumstances, reinvested.

I've been tagging Kyl's posts with "citation needed" because of this.

 

[Kyl Von Kull]

I realize that this is the MCA thread, but he has only said that the money goes into the partners' personal accounts, not that they are not, under any circumstances, reinvested.

I've been tagging Kyl's posts with "citation needed" because of this.

They have to pay taxes on those distributions, though, so that would be another example of very poor planning.

 

[Trans-Financial-Man]

And yet he has ultimately survived -- even thrived, given what appears to be an impending Microsoft exit. I recognize, and agree, that he's a villain. The characterization above, however, is unmoored from reality.

Doesn't surprise me. Fergus comes off as a particularly spineless but effective manipulator. He emotionally manipulates people into defending him or even taking the fall for him. He makes everyone think he is some big father figure protecting Devs from the nasty world of game development.
Avellone mentioned earlier on that he and other employees gave loans to the company. Why would they need to do that if everything is tickityboo?

 

[LESS T_T]

It's good they didn't try (although Tim's too ethical for that to ever have been a question, imo), because Fargo actually sent programmers to Troika to examine their code to make sure they hadn't stolen anything when they left (they didn't find anything, but if they had, it would have been Bad Times for Troika).

Well now I wonder if Brehgo and Fahrkus tricked Troika to let the programmers into the studio!

 

[Roguey]

https://twitter.com/ChrisAvellone/status/1060051700155789312

@XboxP3, if you ARE doing a deal with Obsidian Ent., I’d really, really look at Pillars of Eternity sales figures (which Fig has indirectly revealed this month, and tried to be cagey about it). Good devs there, terrible management – Hire the devs, fire the chaff at the top.

I think that's the most direct he's ever been.

 

[VentilatorOfDoom]

where can I find the Fig numbers that's been revealed?

 

[conan_edw]

So it looks like it will be really revealed in the upcoming xbox event that they bought Obsidian. He wouldn't be this direct if it wasn't the case

 

[IHaveHugeNick]

I don't have enough limbs to perform a facepalm that would do justice to this tweet.