"CTO in Focus" Max Francis, Black Cow Technology
- Kevin Jones
- Apr 11
- 5 min read
As part of our CTO in Focus series, Gaming Eminence sat down with Max Francis, CEO and CTO of Black Cow Technology, to explore how deep technical roots shape strategic vision. Francis reflects on building platforms that enable—rather than constrain—innovation, sharing how his "any game, any feature" philosophy emerged from frustrations with legacy systems. He unpacks why flexibility is foundational, how regulation can coexist with creativity, and how multiplayer architecture builds on the same core engineering values. From system design to leadership, Francis champions pragmatic iteration, fast feedback, and a development ethos centered on delivering “something useful to someone, sooner.”
Gaming Eminence: You've described yourself as "a techie at heart," yet your career has evolved from software developer to CEO/CTO of a gaming technology company. How has maintaining that technical identity shaped your leadership philosophy, especially when making decisions that balance business imperatives against your engineering instincts?
MF) "I suppose I am a techie with some commercial experience and I lead as a techie because I am mostly leading techies! The company depends on technical solutions. The balance of business imperatives against engineering is actually what Rapid Application Development philosophy is all about and we live its values at Black Cow. Engineering is using tools to solve a problem and the business imperatives are an inherent part of that problem. Rapid Application Development philosophy is all about converging on a solution which serves the imminent business need, and iterating on that solution."
Gaming Eminence: Black Cow's platform is built around the principle of flexibility, allowing others to innovate rather than constraining them. What personal experiences or pivotal moments in your technical career cultivated this philosophy of empowerment, and how does it manifest in your day-to-day approach to system architecture?
MF) "On many occasions in previous roles, I saw innovation stopped dead simply because the technology wouldn't allow the project to proceed at a reasonable cost. This is exactly the opposite of what technology is supposed to be doing! I thought to myself that there has to be a different way of designing a game server so that any game feature can be modelled without re-engineering and this is how I began to design our platform. It was a "cause", for sure! It manifests continually in our day-to-day approach to architecture and I can still be heard reminding projects not to make decisions in advance for people we haven't met yet! It's just a way of thinking, I suppose: we're not just solving -this- problem, we're making engineering decisions to enable future solutions."
Gaming Eminence: You've spoken about your frustration with legacy systems that made innovation difficult during your time at Open Bet, which ultimately led you to start Black Cow. Looking back at that decision to build something entirely new rather than iterate on existing solutions, what did you see that others missed, and how did you navigate the inevitable skepticism?
MF) "It had to be entirely new because it seems existing systems weren't really designed to model any game and any game feature. Those designers might have thought that's what they were doing but they were making decisions in advance as to how games work. I saw a way of dealing with gamestates that avoided knowing anything about those gamestates in advance and the right places to engineer a "separation of concerns" as we say in engineering. I had help from great people who thought of better ways of designing each component but I always kept a design overview with the mantra of "any game, any feature" in mind (actually, I often used the game of Craps as the ultimate example of a complex game with numerous interrelated features). The scepticism I received was usually around using an unknown and unproven platform. I was lucky to have an inaugural customer who knew I could do it so the pressure was on building the system for them rather than taking it out to market. Technical people usually get how the design enables ultimate flexibility, but it's always hard to make business people understand what this really gives them: the ability to take control of their games pipeline and truly innovate."
Gaming Eminence: The gaming industry exists in a particularly complex regulatory environment. How do you personally reconcile the tension between compliance requirements and your evident passion for creative freedom and technical innovation? Is there a specific framework or mental model you've developed to address this challenge?
MF) "The two can comfortably co-exist because a well-designed and well-architected system will be flexible. I suppose I knew from the beginning how regulations would always want to know that transactions can't be lost, jackpot funds can't be sequestered away, player access must be authenticated, etc. Regulatory compliance is a primary business requirement and an imminent business need - I'm certainly glad I came from the regulated side rather than starting with an unregulated system and having to convert later."
Gaming Eminence: With your recent focus on multiplayer technology and securing Series A funding to accelerate its development, you're clearly betting on a specific vision of gaming's future. Beyond the business opportunity, what aspects of this evolution most intellectually stimulate you as a technologist, and how are you preparing your team to think differently about what's possible?
MF) "In a way it's actually the same problem we solved before: a system which can model any game and any feature whilst avoiding constraining the future game developer. It's a lot more complicated for multiplayer but we kept our eyes on the same goal - an architecture which actively supports any feature. What stimulates me as a technologist is the feeling, which any decent engineer will recognise, when you realise "yes, that new requirement just works because we made the right decision back then"... or when someone has an idea or ambition and you are able to genuinely say "yeah that'll just work out of the box" - that's a great feeling! I don't really have to prepare my team because they have built this thing: I'm best placed taking an outside view of what they are trying to do and occasionally asking "is there a better way of doing that? It sounds like it might constrain someone later.""
Gaming Eminence: Your mantra "something useful to someone, sooner" reflects a pragmatic approach to software development. How has this philosophy influenced your personal habits outside of work—whether in how you structure your day, pursue interests, or approach challenges in your non-professional life?
MF) "That's a central notion in the philosophy of Rapid Application Development - so we can continually converge together on solving the right problems. In leadership I constantly remind myself that the best use of my time right now is to unblock people: then they can work in parallel. It makes no sense to have team members and partners stuck waiting on me - this defeats the very object of having those relationships. I don't always succeed at this of course (as my teammates might well tell you!) - it can be hard to understand when you're blocking someone, or you can get lost in your own struggles and fail to notice. This is an excellent question and I'm going to apply "something useful to someone, sooner" to my everyday life in and out of work from now on!
I use a version of this every day when I remind myself to seek "progress, not perfection". It's a step in the right direction according to what we know today so let's make that step and not beat ourselves up later if it turns out in hindsight not to have been the best step. That's really what life is I think: a series of steps in the direction you thought best at the time for whatever reasons you had at the time."
