RPG Codex Interview: Chris Avellone on Pillars Cut Content, Game Development Hierarchies and More

[Jason Liang]

I am no expert on business, but I think it depends on the original owners' contract and any addendums to it.

For those of you familiar with Mad Men, remember in that show, after Draper went batshit at the end of season 6, he was put on leave. When he wanted to come back, the other partners at SC+P had a problem since they didn't all want him to come back but they didn't want to buy him out of his shares either. So they forced him to sign a new contract that if he breached, he would forfeit his owner's share (his shares would immediately be reabsorbed). And then, that magnificent bastard Jim Cutler trapped Draper in a Xanatos Gambit ensuring that no matter what Draper did, he'd either be fired or breach his contract.

So the initial agreement could have a clause like "In the case that Party A is de-ownered, all personal shares owned by Party A shall be immediately forfeited without compensation and reabsorbed by the firm." etc... etc...

I guess comrade Chris is like Don Draper. Now he must drive to California, giving away his earthly possessions, until finally he comes to a phone booth by the ocean at the edge of Western civilization and call the three women in his life to say goodbye to them.

Speaking of Mad Men, "Sounds like you don't want to be an owner anymore" is such as Bert Cooper line. Now when I think of the Feargus/ Avellone relationship, I'm stuck with the image of the Cooper/ Draper relationship.

This thread.

 

[Blaine]

Now he must drive to California, giving away his earthly possessions, until he comes to the ocean at the edge of Western civilization.

You can't drive to Australia from California, dude.

 

[JBro]

Chris Avellone

So about Gamergate....

 

[Big Wrangle]

Chris Avellone

So about Gamergate....

 

[Alienman]

Round 563.

 

[Maculo]

If the company's violated its own corporate bylaws (which MCA suggested when a re-evaluation of the company's value didn't occur as per the bylaws), Feargus is screwed. My understanding is he could even be held personally liable depending on the circumstances (and Feargus has such a nice house now. Be a pity to lose it after all that effort screwing over his employees to get it).

Unless American law is some kind of wild "companies can do whatever they want" legal free zone, which I sincerely doubt. There are usually laws specifically designed to protect minority shareholders from majority shareholders simply "doing what they like" (otherwise it's a disincentive to minority shareholders and you'd never get investment).

Written bylaws, or a company's constitution can't just be ignored. If the bylaws of Obsidian outline a re-evaluation process, and that didn't occur, and MCA was paid out without that bylaw being followed - he would have legal recourse. In some cases, potentially even if he had signed something (It's not just MCA here, there are other owners that need to be considered / protected under law).

I'd love to see Obsidians bylaws and know exactly what it was MCA got paid and how.

Generally there are protections for minority shareholders, such as business tort claims for minority oppression. In this case, however, it increasingly sounds like Avellone received the shares through a Stock Holder Agreement with a Clawback provision. A Clawback provision would allow Feargus to repurchase those shares for pennies. If I recall correctly, executives for Skype had such provisions and just before a multi-billion dollar acquisition by Microsoft, the majority shareholder exercised the clawback provision. Consequently, the executives received nothing. I forget whether the executives were fired last minute just to trigger the clawback. It was a mess.

The next consideration is that Obsidian likely is a closely held private company, in which Feargus holds majority control. With majority control, he he can do whatever he wants, provided he does not violate state law or the bylaws. Even then, someone has to bring the claim, and which among the "owners" is going to do that under threat of de-ownership?

 

[Blaine]

Chris Avellone

So about Gamergate....

Prime Junta

 

[Prime Junta]

I love you too Blaine. You don't need to keep bringing me these little presents, sweet as they are. <3

 

[deepfire]

If I recall correctly, executives for Skype had such provisions and just before a multi-billion dollar acquisition by Microsoft, the majority shareholder exercised the clawback provision. Consequently, the executives received nothing. I forget whether the executives were fired last minute just to trigger the clawback. It was a mess.

You appear to be right -- and clawback is mentioned explicitly:

- https://techcrunch.com/2011/06/26/skypes-worthless-employee-stock-option-plan-heres-why-they-did-it/
- http://www.businessinsider.com/skype-scandal-silver-lake-2011-6?IR=T

 

[Alienman]

Everyone playing Deadfire or what?

 

[Jason Liang]

Chris should have gone Steve Jobs, called a partners' meeting and demanded the partners to vote out either him or Feargus.

Steve Jobs. Don Draper. Chris Avellone. Creatives who were pushed out of the companies they started by charismatic father figures who swindled and exploited them for years.

Chris must now revenge the Steve Jobs way - wait and watch as Feargus' career and reputation withers to ash, and then return triumphantly as Obsidian's savior.

And as he is about to address the surviving Obsidian employees for the first time, Avellone spots Feargus clearing out his office, creeping towards the exit and says to him...

"Sounds like you don't want to be an owner anymore."

 

[DarkUnderlord]

If I recall correctly, executives for Skype had such provisions and just before a multi-billion dollar acquisition by Microsoft, the majority shareholder exercised the clawback provision. Consequently, the executives received nothing. I forget whether the executives were fired last minute just to trigger the clawback. It was a mess.

You appear to be right -- and clawback is mentioned explicitly:

- https://techcrunch.com/2011/06/26/skypes-worthless-employee-stock-option-plan-heres-why-they-did-it/
- http://www.businessinsider.com/skype-scandal-silver-lake-2011-6?IR=T

From the Business Insider article:

"In the rush to blast Silver Lake as greedy and evil, the investor said, two different issues are being conflated. The difference is between the Skype executives who were fired and those, like Lee, who left voluntarily. The executives who were fired were paid out (i.e., they got their vested stock options). It was only executives like Lee who quit the company who did not get their options.

Private equity firms have a different view of option compensation than VC firms, the Skype investor said. Specifically, private-equity firms recruit executives with a very specific mission: To fix the company and then sell it, a process that often takes several years. In private-equity’s view, executives only deserve a piece of the equity pie if they see that mission through, not if they quit in the middle.

Lee, the investor pointed out, quit voluntarily 13 months after joining Skype. If he had remained at the company until the Microsoft deal closed, thus completing the mission he had been hired for, he would have gotten his options. But he didn’t. He quit the team early–voluntarily. This quit-as-soon-as-some-of-your-options-vest, the investor said, would be an “eyebrow raiser” even in normal Silicon Valley VC deals. (Most VC-backed option plans have a one-year “cliff vest” in which you get 12 months of options after a year’s employment. Employees who quit 366 days after joining a company–the day after the options vest–aren’t viewed kindly.)"

Again, none of this matters unless MCA can pony up the bylaws, and be very clear around how he exactly he was "de-ownered". And again, if the company has not followed its own bylaws, the company has a problem.

In the above, the company are following their rules.

 

[Maculo]

If I recall correctly, executives for Skype had such provisions and just before a multi-billion dollar acquisition by Microsoft, the majority shareholder exercised the clawback provision. Consequently, the executives received nothing. I forget whether the executives were fired last minute just to trigger the clawback. It was a mess.

You appear to be right -- and clawback is mentioned explicitly:

- https://techcrunch.com/2011/06/26/skypes-worthless-employee-stock-option-plan-heres-why-they-did-it/
- http://www.businessinsider.com/skype-scandal-silver-lake-2011-6?IR=T

From the Business Insider article:

"In the rush to blast Silver Lake as greedy and evil, the investor said, two different issues are being conflated. The difference is between the Skype executives who were fired and those, like Lee, who left voluntarily. The executives who were fired were paid out (i.e., they got their vested stock options). It was only executives like Lee who quit the company who did not get their options.

Private equity firms have a different view of option compensation than VC firms, the Skype investor said. Specifically, private-equity firms recruit executives with a very specific mission: To fix the company and then sell it, a process that often takes several years. In private-equity’s view, executives only deserve a piece of the equity pie if they see that mission through, not if they quit in the middle.

Lee, the investor pointed out, quit voluntarily 13 months after joining Skype. If he had remained at the company until the Microsoft deal closed, thus completing the mission he had been hired for, he would have gotten his options. But he didn’t. He quit the team early–voluntarily. This quit-as-soon-as-some-of-your-options-vest, the investor said, would be an “eyebrow raiser” even in normal Silicon Valley VC deals. (Most VC-backed option plans have a one-year “cliff vest” in which you get 12 months of options after a year’s employment. Employees who quit 366 days after joining a company–the day after the options vest–aren’t viewed kindly.)"

Again, none of this matters unless MCA can pony up the bylaws. And again, if the company has not followed its own bylaws, the company has a problem.

In the above, the company are following their rules.

Better yet if he could pony up the stock purchase agreement, or whatever agreement used to give him stock.

 

[Chippy]

So hypothetical question: If POE2 comes out and it's "good" (whatever you consider to be good/incline yeah?) and the Codex could hack into Metacritc to influence it's rating. Would you give it a favourable review to protect all the working man/women/they jobs at Obsidian, or would you tank it because of what MCA has revealed?.

 

[Bohr]

So hypothetical question: If POE2 comes out and it's "good" (whatever you consider to be good/incline yeah?) and the Codex could hack into Metacritc to influence it's rating. Would you give it a favourable review to protect all the working man/women/they jobs at Obsidian, or would you tank it because of what MCA has revealed?.

I'd just get Roxor to review it and let the chips fall where they may

 

[Reinhardt]

I'm making progress here

 

[Big Wrangle]

Maybe with PoE 2 rat boy will finally open that Patreon and buy a widescreen monitor.

 

[Your Kindness]

So hypothetical question: If POE2 comes out and it's "good" (whatever you consider to be good/incline yeah?) and the Codex could hack into Metacritc to influence it's rating. Would you give it a favourable review to protect all the working man/women/they jobs at Obsidian, or would you tank it because of what MCA has revealed?.

Even if each and every person in Obsidian were a jerk, the game itself has nothing to do with it. Fortunately, the jerks are minority.

 

[Blaine]

So, the game has released. Who cares, Darth Roxor review when?

 

[Ezeekiel]

There's a much worse word for people like him where I'm from: Capitalist.

And where are you from, then? Venezuela? New York?

 

[Mr. Hiver]

Defiitely the genuine Hiver, even fitted in that pop at the GOT tv series :D

It was just... an easy example that was accidentally nearby.

Welcome back

Spoiler

Spoiler

 

[rohand]

 

[MRY]

So, the game has released. Who cares, Darth Roxor review when?

RPS says that the game is about "colonialism mixed with exploitation of natural resources" but says the story is very bad because it "suggests the complicity of the natives." Could Sawyer have balanced too far ...?

 

[Ezeekiel]

So hypothetical question: If POE2 comes out and it's "good" (whatever you consider to be good/incline yeah?) and the Codex could hack into Metacritc to influence it's rating. Would you give it a favourable review to protect all the working man/women/they jobs at Obsidian, or would you tank it because of what MCA has revealed?.

If it was good in my estimation, I'd give it a positive review...

 

[Generic-Giant-Spider]

So hypothetical question: If POE2 comes out and it's "good" (whatever you consider to be good/incline yeah?) and the Codex could hack into Metacritc to influence it's rating. Would you give it a favourable review to protect all the working man/women/they jobs at Obsidian, or would you tank it because of what MCA has revealed?.

That's an interesting question. In fact, that's more interesting than PoE2's plot.