I think Roxor has it right; he’s not saying that Cain/Boyarsky should be management, he’s saying what he wants is not to run Obsidian, but for Tim and Leonard to have a lot of autonomy within Obsidian, which is not the same as running the company.
This. I know it's naive, but if you did have a situation with backing that took care of all the out-of-dev-team logistics (dealing with landlord, budget reports, dealing with accountant and taxes, CPA) and lets you do all you can to let you focus on just making content, I think the results of that would keep RPG'ers happy for a long time to come - for me, it was the owner parts that got in the way of having fun making content - or even feeling like I could make the content envisioned. But again, I think this would be a very hard situation to achieve, but I was allowed to give my take, so I did.
Chris Avellone, sorry to ask you a question about how to interpret your own answers, but if enough bombshells come out that Feargus and his fellow owners need to take a step back from managing the company, who would you recommend to take over Obsidian’s senior leadership positions? Or, if they manage to sell the studio, do you have any advice for who should be put in charge of Obsidian as a division within, say, Take-Two?
Well, that likely won't happen (selling the company is more likely - I think that was always the intention, but they need buyers and interested parties), but if the Indiana team gets along with Take-Two, working directly with T2 and being given or hiring a competent General Manager who runs the logistics of the studio/a new studio (but this GM would answer to Tim and Leonard if they needed resources, etc. - but they DON'T override them like an owner might) would be a nice thought, even if it's naive. (GM isn't a Lead Producer role, but someone that "runs" the studio while someone else helps with production duties on the project - you don't have to worry about day-to-day ops - they take care of all the high-level busywork).
In short, building a company-structured "patron" of sorts around a team would be my ideal situation, and where they can focus on creating the content they want without a lot of logistic hurdles.
If a company was danger of going under, yet a publisher had a great deal of investment in one of the teams, it wouldn't be unheard of for them to extract that team and move them to a new workplace - especially if they put a lot of resources in the game.
What tends to happen instead, is when an entire company is failing, they pump more money into the upper levels to keep the wheels turning (and then they use that to negotiate better end terms, which bleeds out the end result, causing a cycle of desperation). Even worse, the cash infusion doesn't mean the project itself benefits from it, it doesn't always filter down properly.
While establishing a company-structured "patron" sounds like a pipe dream, structuring a company around specific creatives are something I've seen happen (and been offered), and if it could happen again, I think RPG players would be happy with what's created with Tim and Leonard. I still think back to what could have happened in F2 if everyone outside the process had stepped away (we probably would have gotten a better F2). One can dream.
Also, I should probably say that selling a company doesn't benefit the employees overmuch beyond temporary $$$ - usually, they may get some new perks and a bonus, but the trend of what happens when a company is sold can be pretty bleak, even if the owners and key personnel are contracted to stick around for a few years after the sale (which is usually part of the terms). Worse, you suddenly notice that while you get some new perks, a lot of the day-to-day accepted elements you loved and the overall company culture and camaraderie tend to be phased out in accordance with the new overlords - usually many old perks and casual ways of doing things become no longer acceptable b/c the buying company doesn't approve of the practice. This, in turns, turns a familiar work environment into something else, and it's not often something developers are comfortable with because despite the gains, they see a lot of the old pillars they enjoyed at their job taken away, either in increments, or all at once.
That's why selling a company isn't necessarily a win (and not often a creative win) for anyone except the ones who are focused on $$$ and whose key motivation is making money vs. making games. To the culture's benefit, I don't find many developers enter the field expecting to get rich - that's a trait that happens over time, is teased at by opportunity once within games and they get blinded by it, or is held by a few that I don't think love games at all.
