Well first, this deal was part of that sale. That'd be like someone's boss pocketing a tip and telling the waitress "you don't deserve this tip you already got paid" or a salesman "you get something hourly, why would you need this commission?"

They worked for it, after the sale, because it was in their contract.

That said, the company didn't even say it was a mess. They said that they needed something like, one more biome, one more leviathan, a few bits and bobs like that. Requirements that they added on later in development, that those three guys say aren't needed.

I really wanna hear from the other devs, the ones under the 3. Theirs is the opinion I'd trust in this mess. But I'm leaning towards corporate fuckery, personally.

When two parties sign a contract then they have to act in good faith. Preventing the other party from fulfilling their obligations to avoid a payout or invoke a penalty is not good faith. And that's why the sea witch Ursula's contract with the mermaid Ariel would not have held up in court.

Maybe the game would make more money during it's life span if released later but that's irrelevant when there's a contract about how much money the game should make before a certain cut off date.

Yeah, the three fired heads owned 90% of the shares, so they got $225M from the initial sale, and were due to get another $225M from the bonuses. That's why Krafton still paid out $25M in bonuses after the uproar.