LGP Announces Three New Linux Games

Time Doctor writes "LinuxGamePublishing has just announced three new titles in their IRC channel (#lgp) on freenode: Gorky 17 (more info, also known as Odium), Knights and Merchants (more info, somewhat like the Age of * games), and Software Tycoon (more info, one of the first Tycoon-style games for Linux!). The best part is that they are all ready to go into beta, and if LGP sells enough copies, Epic Interactive Entertainment has committed to six new titles for LGP in 2004!"

Comments

Why these games?

[iCEBaLM]

Why in the world do all the crappy games get ported? Where in the hell is the Battlefield 1942's, the Half Life's, the Star Trek Armada's, the (Star|War)Craft's, the Star Wars Galaxies?

Why aren't the GOOD games getting ported? They expect shit like Gorky 17 to sell? Who the hell has even heard of it? I'm a gamer, I play PC/Console games constantly, I've heard of the Tycoon series but they generally are horrible, these other two I've never heard of for WINDOWS let alone for Linux.

Bottom line is: why does Epic hold off ports to *good* games until these peices of bargain bin junk sell? What does it prove if these games sell well on linux or not? It proves nothing. They will flop not because Linux users don't buy games, but because the games are garbage! Wouldn't it make more sense to spend money and effort to port some *real* games over, ones people will actually buy?

What are these retards thinking? It makes about as much sense as selling the windows version of Q3 first before the Linux one is out, and then allowing anyone to download the Linux binaries. Yeah, the Linux version isn't going to sell, because people want to play it *now* and there's no incentive to wait as you can covert it when the linux binaries are available.

Re:Why these games?

[treke]

Perhaps it's because Loki tried porting big name games and failed to stay in business. Instead of trying the same thing and hoping it works out better they are trying something different, port smaller games and hope to stick around long enough to be able to do big name stuff.

As cool as Star Wars Galaxies or Warcraft may be, there is obviously not enough of a market to sell those games and still make a profit.

Re:Why these games?

[Crayon Kid]

The problem here is the fact that people have gotten so used to the "free beer" aspect of Linux that they're having trouble reaching for the wallet even when they should. They think nothing about buying software for Windows, but under Linux they're used to clicking their way on to freshmeat or freshrpms and grabbing it completely free. And when somebody expects money for Linux software it just seems so odd that they'd rather go pirate it.

Need examples? How about SuSE, or WineX? And then other people wonder why game makers won't take a chance on anything bigger than Gorky 17, or scream "where's the professional DTP or video editing or CAD software for Linux?" They're right there buddy, if more people would start giving credit where it's due and pay for good software once in a while things would get better.

"Free as in freedom, not as in beer" has been uttered for so long that people can't seem to actually fathom its meaning anymore. No, we haven't reached that utopic world where we don't have to pay for software anymore. We're just evolving, hopefully that's what this whole Open Source thing is about, we're learning to see things in another perspective. You still have to support the people who make software for you, just like you do with every other provider of anything you can't do yourself.

Re:Why these games?

[Anonymous Coward]

Ah, so IceBalm, you have your own list of games. Well, maybe you're a bit lacking in knowledge about economics, but I do not believe obtaining the rights to the games you suggested is feasible right now. Remember how Loki blew tons of money by porting big-name game after big-name game? Are you really expecting Linux Game Publishing to do the same? Finally, don't you realize how silly it is to immiately dismiss games like "Gorky 17" as horrible even though you have never heard of the game?

Re:Why these games?

[kccricket]

Pirating is as strong as ever in the Windows world, and people that use Microsoft products should be very used to shelling out cash for software.

Your stereotype that followers of the Open Source Initiative pirate software frequently is nothing but speculation.

Re:Why these games?

[kccricket]

The parent is replying to the parent of its parent, not its parent.

Re:Why these games?

[kccricket]

And once again, I screw up. Please ignore the parent and I'll stay away from the repy button.

Re:Why these games?

[Spoing]

The problem here is the fact that people have gotten so used to the "free beer" aspect of Linux that they're having trouble reaching for the wallet even when they should.

While I appreciate not having to shell out $30 each for a boat load of tools I get gratis on Linux, I'm not cheap. My stack of games is quit thick (starting with almost all of Loki's titles).

The main problem is volume, not cheapness. The more Linux users, the more that will pay to play those games...though not necessarily just because they run on Linux. My current fling is Savage and I am '' close to buying it. The lag issue (not exclusive to Linux) is a real problem in the demo. If there were less lag, I'd buy it now.

Re:Why these games?

[Tisephone]

Loki went out of business because they struck a deal with the wrong loan shark, not because nobody bought their games.

Re:Why these games?

[Anonymous Coward]

Given that many games failed to break 1000 copies sold, and that they bought 5 to 10 times more copies of Quake 3 (those tins weren't exactly the cheapest packaging) than they could sell... I would have to say it was the games.

Re:Why these games?

[treke]

As of last week, those tin box quake3's were still available at tuxgames, though they were finally running out of stock. The game was released when?

Re:Why these games?

[iCEBaLM]

Well, maybe you're a bit lacking in knowledge about economics, but I do not believe obtaining the rights to the games you suggested is feasible right now.

I don't think I'm the only one grasping to windows because of games. Infact it's the only reason I have windows. If I could get all my games for linux, I would be using linux.

Please explain to me the feasibility and economics of wasting money to port bargain bin games nobody has ever heard of. I'm sure your greatly informative insights will enhance everyones understanding of these mystical economics you speak of. I'm sure there will be a few, maybe even a dozen copies sold of "Gorky 17" for Linux. It'll sit on two, maybe even three software store shelves. I can picture it now, it'll be between the Commander Keen Collection retail box set and Lotus 1-2-3.

Re:Why these games?

[iCEBaLM]

The problem here is the fact that people have gotten so used to the "free beer" aspect of Linux that they're having trouble reaching for the wallet even when they should.

Wrong. This is a typical psudointellectual argument which has no basis in truth. Look at the amount of people who have subscribed to WineX, people who bought additional copies of Quake 3 and other Loki games just to support Linux. People who have subscribed to Mandrake. People who have supported the EFF, etc. There is no basis that Linux users are money hoarders, there is overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

Your examples of SuSE and WineX are unfounded, where are your numbers? I personally have subscribed to WineX, I have purchased multiple boxed distribs. I have purchsed Linux games that I already owned just to support Linux and I am not alone.

Re:Why these games?

[Anonymous Coward]

Heh. You ask for evidence but yet you don't supply your own. Answer this question: do you believe Quake 3 or any other Loki games sold enough to cover the costs to port that game? Also, could you list all of the costs involved in porting a game?

Re:Why these games?

[Anonymous Coward]

Realize that the games you want are not attainable right now; putting down$50,000-$100,000 per game for just the licensing alone is a good way to gointo debt, because not enough people are buying the games. Advertisingwon't help if you can't afford it either. Maybe it's possible to start withless-popular games (less-popular does NOT imply bad, by the way) and smallercompanies, ones that would like the exposure. Build a customer base slowly and once you can afford it, then start going after the big-name games. Also, a lot of the major companies aren't interested in Linux ports because they don't want to be owed debts by another insolvent Linux game company.

It sounds like that Loki ported the type of games you wanted, but where did it get them?

I am sorry that the games you would like to play are not being ported. This is not being done to spite you or anything of the sort. Please understand that these other games are being ported because they are indeed fun if you give them a chance and of course because they were less expensive to license. It is safe to say that if Linux Game Publishing and other companies could afford the games that you originally mentioned, they would be porting them (well, probably except Half-Life, since Valve did decide to kill an already-complete Macintosh port).

Ah, if only Lindows or some other Linux company with money to burn decided to fund ports...

Re:Why these games?

[13Echo]

Thanks, Confucious. You're so wise. I'll keep this one in mind next time I send my $40 to Pat and co. at Slackware.

As for taking chances... I seem to recall that two major games hit Linux this year. UT2003 and NWN ring a bell?

Cad software and video editing are not an issue. When groups like the movie industry demand more of these apps on Linux, you'll see them. It *IS* hapening, slowly.

Re:Why these games?

[13Echo]

Buy a Gamecube and be done with it. I did. The last good Windows game that came out was BF1942, in my opinion... As a matter of fact, one of my friends made a comment similar to yours.

Him: "There are no games on Linux. Why would you want to use it?"

Me: "Have you played anything on Windows that's been good since BF1942 has been released?"

Him: "Well, no..."

He still plays only "Desert Combat" lately. Another recent game that he purchased was "Postal II." That game is a turd, even though it is kinda funny. MOH:AA got its new expansion, but that'll probably be coming to Linux anyway (thanks to Icculus).

Re:Why these games?

[IntergalacticWalrus]

The problem here is the fact that people have gotten so used to the "free beer" aspect of Linux that they're having trouble reaching for the wallet even when they should. They think nothing about buying software for Windows, but under Linux they're used to clicking their way on to freshmeat or freshrpms and grabbing it completely free. And when somebody expects money for Linux software it just seems so odd that they'd rather go pirate it.

So you're saying Linux users have a tendancy for piracy while Windows users don't pirate anything? In what kind of alternate universe are you living in?!

Re:Why these games?

[Anonymous Coward]

Nope, Windows users pirate quite a bit, but there are many times as many Windows game players as Linux game players, so it isn't as noticable.

Re:Why these games?

[iCEBaLM]

Heh. You ask for evidence but yet you don't supply your own.

Infact I did, you must have trouble reading.

Answer this question: do you believe Quake 3 or any other Loki games sold enough to cover the costs to port that game?

What I believe a fact to be is irrelevant.

Also, could you list all of the costs involved in porting a game?

Yes actually:

1. Licensing (which is quite frankly a crock)
2. Development

Now if you want to sell it:

3. Publishing

-- iCEBaLM

Re:Why these games?

[iCEBaLM]

Buy a Gamecube and be done with it.

I'd love to see you play an RTS with a gamepad.

The last good Windows game that came out was BF1942, in my opinion.

You know what they say about opinions... I'll just say that you and your friend must not play a lot of games and leave it at that.

Re:Why these games?

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, you cite examples of where end users are buying into Linux, except there's an important piece missing: how many. We know people bought Loki games; we also know that not enough people bought Loki games. So just saying "well, there's these people and they are buying these things, you know" is not enough.Why are you dodging the second question? Anyway, maybe Call to Power managed to sell enough with the 20000 or so copies that it sold (thanks to MacMillan distributing it, no doubt). But the other games? Yeah right.

I'm afraid your list was not specific enough. No partial credit.

Licensing may be a "crock", but that's what most every publisher wants, if they're even interested.

LGP who?

[illuminata]

I'm not trying to rain on anyone's parade, but who exactly are these people? Sure, it's not bad that Linux is getting a little bit of independent attention and a handful of larger companies supporting game development for the OS. But, Time Doctor tries to make it seem like this is something to really get hyped up about. A few unoriginal games from a relatively unknown publisher are in the works. What exactly am I supposed to be excited about? More mediocrity for a platform that doesn't have much of a demand for games or very many good games?

And who are these Epic Interactive people? I only know of one big industry player that goes by Epic, and this isn't the one. As if they have enough clout to make a statement like "if LGP sells so many copies, then we'll give you six titles". Please.

I'll be more interested in Linux gaming when more industry players show support and Linux becomes more of a viable desktop option for most people (note: I'm not endorsing Windows, in fact, I use Linux for my desktop). Think about it, this wouldn't be newsworthy anywhere if we were talking Windows.

Re:LGP who?

[Anonymous Coward]

But you do not win a war by conceding lots of little battles, either. You may throw a few of them, to help overinflate the opposition's ego, but if you want to see the big picture, you have to keep track of all the little ones, as well.

Re:LGP who?

[Anonymous Coward]

Think about it, this wouldn't be newsworthy anywhere if we were talking Windows.

No shit! The fact that these games are available for Linux makes it "newsworthy" on a website that tends to lean favoriably towards Linux.

Re:LGP who?

[illuminata]

Right, but my point is that this is such a small victory that it really doesn't mean anything. If their names meant something, sure, a plus for Linux. But, they are no different from the slew of other independent game makers. T

But what's with the war talk? If people in the Linux community would quit worrying so damn much about going to war with Microsoft and instead focused on improving their product, they would be a lot better off. So much time is wasted on hyping what they have when they could be working even harder on perfecting their product. It's futile to start trying to muster up a Linux gaming community when Linux is still inaccessible to most of the general population. Priorities need to be straightened out first.

Re:LGP who?

[illuminata]

No shit! I made that statement to show just how far behind Linux is in the game industry.

Re:LGP who?

[Spoing]

Right, but my point is that this is such a small victory that it really doesn't mean anything. If their names meant something, sure, a plus for Linux. But, they are no different from the slew of other independent game makers.

LGP is like BASF; they don't make the games...they just make them possible. They are resellers at the core, not a development house. For companies that have Linux versions, but don't want to sell them for some reason, LGP takes care of some of the hassles.

Now, I'm not worried about LGP's name recognition; I've known about them for quite a while and I'm the person who would buy Linux games. If you're not...who cares about you? :)

Loki marketed themselves, sold top-notch, name-brand uber-popular games...and went out of business. It wasn't profitable to put in substantial resources to buy/licence, develop, and then sell those games at a profit for Linux. Now, it is getting to the point where that is no longer a problem (Savage is a nice one), though it is unlikely that there will be a large stack of titles there are more games then I can play.

Re:LGP who?

[illuminata]

Who cares about me? I wouldn't buy a Linux game now, but I am a potential customer. They better care about me. Otherwise, I'm an opportunity they passed up. I bet there's a whole lot more of people like me than people like you out there.

What needs to be worked on, like I said before, is making a market for Linux by establishing a desktop presence and get some key companies supporting Linux. Until then, the handful of Linux gamers will have to settle with what little they have while the rest of the world has some fun.

Re:LGP who?

[Spoing]

Who cares about me? I wouldn't buy a Linux game now, but I am a potential customer. They better care about me. Otherwise, I'm an opportunity they passed up. I bet there's a whole lot more of people like me than people like you out there.

While I _did_ have a :) at the end of my original comment. If you do have some real interest, look at a couple of the Linux gaming sites...

The Linux Game Tome

Linuxgames

...and a place to buy them.

What needs to be worked on, like I said before, is making a market for Linux by establishing a desktop presence and get some key companies supporting Linux. Until then, the handful of Linux gamers will have to settle with what little they have while the rest of the world has some fun.

Erm, I'm having plenty of fun here, and I honestly have no problem spending my limit on Linux games. Go read. Go play. See what's actually out there.

Re:LGP who?

[Joe Tie.]

I wouldn't buy a Linux game now, but I am a potential customer.

I disagree. You won't buy a Linux game. You're as much a potential customer for them as I, owning no mac hardware, am for an OS X game. I 'might' buy an OS X game one day, but I think any company would be pretty foolish to market anything to my demographic right now.

Re:LGP who?

[illuminata]

I know you had a :), maybe you just think my words are harsher in tone than they were actually meant to be. I've checked out the game sites, but there's nothing much available that isn't cliche or outdated as far as games that weren't ported go. There aren't too many ported games either. Even out of the ported games, many were still cliche or outdated.

I don't think it should be too hard to acknowledge the fact that Linux is very far behind as a platform in the game industry. Taking baby steps forward isn't enough.

Re:LGP who?

[illuminata]

Who's to say that I won't? I run Linux. I play games. I just want a decent selection. If Linux (notice that I use the term Linux as if it were a single entity, it makes the writing easier) wants more gamers, then they need to get more people using their OS. If they want more people to use their OS, then they need to make it more user friendly.

The desktop Linux market share is puny. Most people who use Linux on the desktop now aren't gamers. They need to change that fact if they want to make some decent money. A shitload of games won't be sold to a few people. The market creation is key.

Re:LGP who?

[Spoing]

Taking baby steps forward isn't enough.

Savage is brand new.

Neverwinter Nights is not an unknown title. The expansion packs such as Shadows of Undrentide are made available at the same time as the Windows and Mac versions.

Transgaming supports quite a few Windows games under WineX and they run well.

More titles are on the way.

Most of the old titles are from the last big expansion and bust -- and a nasty one at that. Baby steps are exactly what is needed; it shows what the market actually will support.

Re:LGP who?

[treke]

It means something to the people who want some games to play on their computers. Sure the games won't draw new users, but compared but even brand new games won't draw people away from Windows. They already have them anyways. LGP is providing games to those of us who already use Linux on our computers and they are providing the best they can get.

Re:LGP who?

[irc.goatse.cx troll]

"Transgaming supports quite a few Windows games under WineX and they run well. "

Until theres a new patch and you can't play for months. Still cant play cs ever since the steam integration (You can jump through hoops to get steam to work,but the actual game dies with an error referring to gl extentions. This is true with both cs1.6 and any offline steam based game (CZ, hl2beta, not that I'd know of course.)

Re:LGP who?

[13Echo]

Who exactly is this "they?" Is there some Linux entity out there that I am unaware of? That darn Linux company. You'd think they'd try to work harder to be more competitive.

Re:LGP who?

[Spoing]

You're right.

Re:LGP who?

[illuminata]

I used the word they as if they were a single entity, like I said, because there's so many damn distributions out there that it really doesn't matter which one I'm talking about. It's for the same reason why people say "Linux is big on the server market" or "you can get Linux for free". Despite all of the branches of the Linux community, it's all blanketed under the term Linux. So, when I say they, I am speaking of the Linux community collectively.

Re:LGP who?

[illuminata]

I still stick with my statement about baby steps not being enough. Serious strides need to be made in the desktop arena. The ease of use is terrible for most of your common computer users. You'd probably have a hard enough time getting them to run a shell script, especially when you can just click the installer and have it work in Windows. Do you think that a regular person would put up with a game that you had to compile? I would think that they would rather just have things work. There's a whole lot of people that simply don't have the time, patience, or care.

Better hardware support is needed. Lack of first party drivers sucks. I believe that a lot of companies back off once they get a taste of community backlash because their drivers aren't GPL compliant. Hey, it's their choice. They never had to worry about issues like this before. Why should they have to fuss with a small group of people who would be using those Linux drivers if they're going to get so much crap in return? The drivers that come from a community driver project often come well after a piece of hardware's release and doesn't always come close to full support.

And how about OpenGL support? It often times doesn't come fast enough for new cards, in part because of the reasons I stated in the previous paragraph. In my personal experience, it only installed correctly a few times when I'd switch distributions. Even when I'd use one that had it work, when I would switch to a new distribution and then decide to switch back, the distribution that had it working before didn't have it working this time. I'm a frequent distribution switcher with plenty of time on my hands, and this has happened to me on multiple occasions. The Linux distribution groups really need to make sure that installation will be a sure bet each time. OpenGL is no fun to get working on your own, even if you're an experienced user.

I'm glad to see that companies like Red Hat are backing off of a desktop Linux push. There are a multitude of issues that need to be worked out first, like the ease of use and hardware support ones.

If you've read through all of that, you're a better man than most people. But, here's why I say that more is needed than just baby steps. You still have a bunch of Linux companies, advocates, and users still wanting to give a big desktop push when it's simply not ready for it. Your true zealots give the same marketing campaign for Linux as they do for snake oil. I'm not saying Linux can't do anything, I'm just saying that it can't do everything. It would be best if those people would shut up and get focused on the desktop. In the meantime, it's time to start making those strides, and fast. Otherwise, with all the attention Linux is getting as of late, people will find it falling short of expectations. It's easy enough to get the initial attention, it's much harder to get people to come back.

There won't be much game support without a substantial portion of people using Linux on the desktop. The community as a whole needs to focus. Things would move much faster that way. There's no sense in taking on Microsoft yet.

The Linux gaming community will remain a very limited niche market without much support until these issues are resolved.

Don't go preachin' the gospel until the religion is written.

Re:LGP who?

[Spoing]

I still stick with my statement about baby steps not being enough.

OK. As an active user, I have a different opinion.

Serious strides need to be made in the desktop arena.

Yes, and there have been, though I thought we were talking about games. Games -- there are a few thousand that work under Linux -- will always end up in the "never enough" category. There will always be a game that won't be available no matter what you use (exclusive console games, as an example).

As for desktop use, I've been comfortable using Linux exclusively on all my machines (except the Suns and the AIX box). My little sister used it (till she destroyed her one and only computer by not using a good power strip).

X desktops -- since this applies to any OS using X not just Linux -- have rough edges. There are some damn nice features, though, that don't exist elsewhere. People complain about the cut-and-paste features for X, though I find them invaluable.

My biggest complaint about X desktops are that they aren't consistant yet. The same can be said about Windows, so that's mostly a toss up (ex: use of universal resource locations on a network when doing either scripting/cli or using the GUI...many things don't work unless you map a resource to the local machine. Bad KDE. Bad Gnome. Bad Windows.)

X is entirely practical for daily work and there's plenty available. Choosing is the biggest problem, though that's like complaining about having a pile of diamonds and having to pick which one to put on a ring.

As for OpenGL and hardware, this also is comming along. The Nvidia drivers I'm using are stable and have quite a few features, though they weren't stable last year. Bottom line: the devices that don't get used much often don't get supported. The only exceptions are the companies that refuse to release hardware details, though those companies are starting to get it and few now refuse to fork over the details or even some code. The hardware that does get good support -- typically server-grade hardware -- gets support very quickly if not on release of the hardware. The motivation is there; don't support Linux (and to some degree BSD) and you will not sell your hardware.

As for Red Hat, they are a stock company so they have to maximize profit. Server software is more profitable no matter what OS you're talking about...so, they're focusing on it. That's neither a surprise nor a problem for X on the desktop. By not having to protect a trade mark, though, the Fedora project may actually take off.

Your true zealots give the same marketing campaign for Linux as they do for snake oil. ... I'm not saying Linux can't do anything, I'm just saying that it can't do everything. ... It's easy enough to get the initial attention, it's much harder to get people to come back. ... Don't go preachin' the gospel until the religion is written.

There are people that oversell Linux, just as there are people who oversell Windows or Mac. These people are usually ignorant of each platform. Ignore them. They either know only one OS or they are new and looking for a savior.

While I'd like to have more people use Linux purely for selfish reasons I'm not that interested. For example, reciently I had a chance to create a Linux server to provide a client a search engine. Half way through my initial plans, someone mentioned a way to get the same thing done -- allow the client to search -- without setting up yet another server. That was a no brainer, so I mentioned it to management and they dropped the setting up the new Linux server. Job done, next.

The increased desktop use of X will take time, and it is happening. Windows has quite a bit of innertia, and will have it for years. People are motivated to switch or just use X desktops for practical reasons. They already are using Linux, though most don't know it. The applications on the desktop that you're looking for are pr

Re:LGP who?

[illuminata]

Well, thanks for the link list, and what you had to say was interesting. I'm not going to have a huge post like before, I'll try to spare us from that. I doubt that you want to write up another large one either.

But, I just want to make a couple of points. In all of this desktop talk, it all was related to games. I'm a firm believer in the idea that the desktop has to be perfected and easy enough to use for the average person to migrate. Then, the games will come. Look at the jump from DOS to Windows 95 (3.1 was just kind of there). Not that there's much of a gap between Linux and Windows, but you get what I mean. The number of game titles and PC gamers soared.

Second, I don't mean to come off as a big Windows freak or anything like that. I've been using Linux on the desktop for years now. Yet, I'm not the type that says Linux is best for everything either. I'm also not one of those nuts who tries to make software a political statement, I use what's best for the job at hand.

Third, I do like where KDE, Gnome, and all of the other alternatives are going. Like you said, they need to be more consistent, but they need some refinement if you ask me. Certain tweaks in the responsiveness (on the kernel level as well) and in the look and feel department could be used as well.

Finally, I might not have mentioned this, but package management is something that I feel should be consolidated. Distributions could still have their own if they felt like it, nobody is stopping them. But, having one standardized Linux packaging system would be nice. I think that if the people behind RPMs and DEBs would just get together and hammer things out, things would be much better. I know there are source based package managers out there, though. But, I'm still speaking with the desktop user in mind. Windows has the EXE, that does simplify things quite a bit.

Ok, ok, that's it. I'm putting the brakes on this post. It's getting to big.

Re:LGP who?

[bsharitt]

It's like MacSoft, except for Linux instead of Macs.

Turning the PC into a console

[skinfitz]

Surely it would be in the best interests of game publishers to come up with a Knoppix style self booting Linux game platform for their games?

Re:Turning the PC into a console

[Txiasaeia]

Back in the late 70's and early 80's, there were actually video games that worked like this. King's Quest 1 was one of them, as well as the PC version of Jumpman, Seamus, and many others. They worked. I dunno if I'd ever reboot my computer in order to play a video game today, however.

Re:Turning the PC into a console

[Anonymous Coward]

No, because as everybody points out whenever a post like this appears, they'd have to worry about things like drivers, etc. In a few years, would you like to be unable to play the game you bought because you have a new graphics card that didn't exist when the game was created?

Re:Turning the PC into a console - plug!

[AlXtreme]

take a look here

We already have a Gamer-module (by default filled with a large number of opensource games) with Enemy Territory, and also have Q3A and UT2k3-demo modules. They work, are fun at lan-parties, but besides that not a lot of people are going to reboot just to play a game (especially when booting could take a few minutes).

There are a few small retailers selling Morphix Game pre-installed, though. Comes close to having a console :)

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Whaaa?

[MBraynard]

if LGP sells enough copies

Since when do Linux desktop users pay for anything?

Ok, apologize for that one, couldn't resist. On a more serious note, if they really want to sell enough copies and if these are good enough games, they should port it to Windows and maybe make them discount titles.

Re:Whaaa?

[Aliencow]

Pay ? I thought LGP was an encrypted "GPL" to avoid SCO suing them !

Re:Whaaa?

[treke]

If they did that, they wouldn't be doing what they want to do. Most of the people at LGP are doing this because they really do love using Linux and want to see more games available. If they were out to make a boatload of cash they'd have quit with linux games a long time ago :)

Re:Whaaa?

[MBraynard]

Yeah, whatever dude.

I'm sorry, daughter of mine, but we can't afford to send you to college because I have such a passion to develop Linux-only games and refused to try to make enough money to provide for you by porting them, very easily, to Windows so that normal people could buy them. Have you considered selling blood or prostitution?

Re:Whaaa?

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't think treke was talking about full-time.

Re:Whaaa?

[treke]

Pretty much everyone involved has a second job that actually puts the food on the table, they work on the Linux games becasue they are games they want to play.

I've asked Mike Simms this before, and I gave you the same answer he gave me. He's put enough on the line for Linux games that I'm willing to take him at his word on the issue. That trust doesnt stretch over to estimated release date's though.

Re:Whaaa?

[Anonymous Coward]

afaik these ARE Ports from Windows. I know only Knights&Merchants and it's already some years old (nevertheless a good game). Hard to admit, but unfortunatly you're right that linux games don't sell good so far. I'm currently working with someone who did the amiga and linux ports of Sin. The Amiga version did sell bad (not surprising), but the linux port sold even worse :(.

But maybe building up a new market (linuxgaming) just need some investion which could be worth it in the long run (i certainly hope so).

Okay here's the bottom line

[Joe Tennies]

You want to know why these games? I can tell you a couple. They are cheap to get rights to (like I personally might be able to fund one). They are fun. They are stepping stones to better things. Epic Interactive has been porting games for a while actually. They have some good Mac ports and other OSs as well. Hyperion is testing the waters for Linux again. They pulled 2 developers from the icculus.org community to do the port for them and covered the cost of the rights. They are also going to pay those developers back a nominal fee for it. Look at the GBA game list. Most are old games that have great gameplay and are fun. I'd consider the GBA the most profitable market in gaming. Honestly, if Gorky 17 doesn't at least break even, I wouldn't blame Hyperion for leaving the Linux market for good. (Honestly, it cost them that little). Gorky 17 is also a stepping stone to test developers, hype the Gorky world, and gain money to port Gorky Zero. This game IS new. It isn't even out yet. It's been mentioned quite positively on Bluesnews and looks to be a lot of fun. Finally, these are all games with great gameplay and not first person shooters. Gorky is a fun RPG. That's right, a real RPG for Linux.... what everyone's been asking for. Knights and Merchants is supposed to be a lot of fun in a RTS style game. Software Tycoon is a tycoon game... only one has been Railroad Tycoon 2... a welcome complement. You may think I'm talking out of my butt and know nothing, but I'm one of those 2 guys porting Gorky 17. Trust me, I'm telling the truth.

Excerpt from Software Tycoon Scenario Listing

[luekj]

Valves of Terror!: Difficulty- Terrible

You have been hired by a software company mired in stolen code, missed release dates, and excuciatingly large swimming pools of cash generated from selling data freely available on the internet.

Objectives:

Eat doritos, install firewall (level 1), gain at least Level 2: Hacker Spite.

end of line

GBA not that profitable for developers...

[Sits]

This is offtopic but I'd like to point out that many of the smaller GBA orientated games developers have gone bust over the past year or two.

I'd say the most notable of these were Crawfish who did a sterling job of converting SFA3 to the system. It's so sad to see such a good job done only for it to be met by market failiure :(

It can't be *that* cheap to publish a GBA game (they are catridges after all and there's the Nintendo licence to pay) and I suspsect it is mainly Nintendo and the uber publishers (rather than the developers) making the money out of that market. After initial interest, publishers found that they weren't making that much from GBA sales and started cutting off developer air on the system.

From a developer perspective, either you have to do quick and dirty conversions of SNES games (I am still unhappy that Nintendo saw fit to release the Mario 2 - Yoshi's Island games seperately rather than in an All-stars pack a la the SNES) or have a blockbuster franchise (e.g. Pokemon). If it doesn't take developers long to develop a GBA game then at the end of the day they are probably not earning that much for their work in the first place...

Moderation gone awry

[iCEBaLM]

I suppose I should have expected it. I do find it interesting to note however that my supposedly "flamebait" post has not been responded to with any flames. Mine is a valid argument. Too bad moderators can't see past their "everything with the word Linux in it is golden" glasses.