Slashdot Mirror


Is LGP Going the Way of Loki Software?

An anonymous reader writes "After the demise of Loki Software, Linux Game Publishing sprouted up in its place, and for the past nine years has ported a number of games to Linux. But LGP may now be sharing the same fate as Loki. Linux Game Publishing hasn't updated its blog or news pages in months, has stopped responding to e-mails, and its only active ports are games they began work on in 2002/2003."

25 of 124 comments (clear)

  1. Is this really surprising? by SkOink · · Score: 5, Insightful

    When Wine is good enough to run Warcraft 3, what market is there for a company selling ports of decade-old games for $40-$50 each?

    --
    ---- I'll take you in a Hunt deathmatch any day.
    1. Re:Is this really surprising? by hairyfeet · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Has anyone tried getting the games at Good Old Games to work in Wine? I know they're older titles comes with a pre-configured DOSBox (works 100% better than DIY DOSBox and is 100% X64 Win7 compatible) so those shouldn't be a problem, and since ALL their games have the nasty DRM stripped out and use a simple .exe installer the games there should be easier to get going than all those infested with SecuROM or Starforce. And of course at $5-$10 the price is a hell of a lot better than the prices you get for ported games.

      So how about it? Has anybody given the games at GOG a shot on Linux?

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    2. Re:Is this really surprising? by jedidiah · · Score: 2, Insightful

      LGP never released anything terribly interesting. It's a nice thought but I am surprised they stuck around as long as they did.

      Most of Loki's old games are more compelling than anything that LGP did.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    3. Re:Is this really surprising? by 0123456 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Actually, looks like I was wrong: it crashed if I tried to install over NFS from my server, but after I copied the setup.exe file to the local machine it did install and run.

    4. Re:Is this really surprising? by 0123456 · · Score: 3, Informative

      "As long as WINE has to reverse engineer Windoze there's going to be a demand for porting various games to Linux to run them natively."

      On the other hand, I just installed a Windows game from 1998 on my Linux laptop and it ran fine -- heck, it even let me select the correct widescreen video mode -- whereas I doubt you'll find many Linux binaries from that era that will still run on an up to date distro.

    5. Re:Is this really surprising? by Mad+Merlin · · Score: 2, Informative

      Also, there's the fact that many games, Starcraft being a very good example, that run somewhat buggy. Patches have to be applied manually and menus in Bnet don't show at all as well as visual artifacts being quite common.

      Yes, the Battle.net lobby doesn't render correctly in Starcraft, but it's still completely usable. More importantly, the actual game renders and plays flawlessly, and I've never used anything but a vanilla install of Wine to play it in the past 5+ years.

      Certainly, Wine isn't perfect, but Starcraft is hardly a good example of that.

    6. Re:Is this really surprising? by TheRaven64 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I think the point is that it's cheaper to make a game run under WINE than it is to do a full native port. Games don't require any platform integration, so no one cares if they aren't using native widgets - in fact, they're more likely to complain when they do. If you care about the Linux market, just add a guy to your QA team who tests it under WINE and pay a couple of consultants to add the missing features to WINE (or just get your devs to avoid them). It's much cheaper than paying a third-party company to do a full port.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    7. Re:Is this really surprising? by CornMaster · · Score: 2, Informative

      I downloaded MOO 1 and 2 through GOG. I ran the installer via WINE, then copied the files and ran them with linux dosbox. GOG supports MOO 1 and 2 in windows via dosbox, so I only needed WINE to extract the archive, and then run as I see fit in Linux.

      Any DOS game that GOG supports would probably run the same way. I'd check the DOSBOX compatibility table first: http://www.dosbox.com/comp_list.php?letter=a and if you want to check WINE compatibility with your GOG windows only game, you can check it here: http://appdb.winehq.org/

    8. Re:Is this really surprising? by Mr.+DOS · · Score: 2, Informative

      As a side note, the installers are slow to start over SMB shares on Windows too. I think it's probably to do with the installer's self-verification functionality.

    9. Re:Is this really surprising? by Urkki · · Score: 2, Interesting

      worth noting that a game running well under wine is one compilation away from being native, thanks to winelibs

      Also worth noting that a pre-compiled native binary for "Linux" isn't necessarily a good way to distribute an application for Linux. Even if you make sure it runs (or make separate versions for) all major distros today, you have no idea if it'll work even with next releases of same major distros.

      Ironically, if it's a Windows application built to work well under WINE, it's likely to work on any Linux in the foreseeable future... And if it stop working, and you still want to to support that application, a bug report to wine upstream will probably fix the breakage easily, and for *all* the Linux distros.

      IOW, if you're doing closed source for Linux, don't do Linux, do WINE.

  2. Old news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative
  3. Speculations anyone? by Lotana · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Well the article does little more than point out that LGP are not responding to hails and stopped updating their information. There is really no concrete facts to conclude that they are finished, thus all we can do from here is guess.

    So lets say they are dead (Which might not be the case), what do you think killed them?

    Could it be that there is just not enough Linux gamers that are willing to pay to see Windows games on their platform to sustain a porting company?

    Could the original Windows publishers be at fault? Perhaps they are not willing to share the code for the porting purposes.

    Could it be just a case of poorly run company that finally had their decisions catch up to them?

    Really with so little information any guess is as good as another.

    Aside: Anyone know why Loki folded? A quick search only states "financial troubles", which is not really helpful.

    1. Re:Speculations anyone? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Loki's "financial problems" were largely mismanagement. Lurid tales of the owner using the company accounts as his personal ATM for buying cars and designer dresses for his wife; choosing games to port based on prestige and vanity over sound financial consideration of licensing costs and such; and other things. Loki was making money; their management just pissed it away faster than it came in, while shining everyone on until it eventually blew up.

        See, it's true that "the market is small," as other posters will point out, but porting is a pretty low-overhead proposition. You hire a couple of programmers, negotiate a licensing deal, and get porting. The game design, art, music, and other assets are all done already. It's much more like running a game company in the eighties, when you could have a couple of guys working out of a garage, than the gargantuan multi-million-dollar enterprises that you see today, so it really doesn't matter so much if the market is kind of small, as long as there's a market.
        (Plus, as the Humble Indie Bundle showed, there is money out in Linux-land. They got about 25% of their revenue from Linux, outdoing Mac users, even.)

    2. Re:Speculations anyone? by phantomfive · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Yeah, my guess is they folded because they utterly lacked advertising. I for one had never heard of them, I thought people had given up on Linux gaming after Loki. If I had known they existed, I might have bought something.

      --
      Qxe4
    3. Re:Speculations anyone? by grumbel · · Score: 2, Interesting

      See, it's true that "the market is small," as other posters will point out, but porting is a pretty low-overhead proposition.

      One problem however is that ports aren't all that attractive these days. Why pay $50 for a port, when I can run the $10 original in Wine or dual boot? Unless a port comes out very close to the original, there just isn't all that much interest for it, as its either not worth it or you played it on another platform in the meantime. The only exception are the small indie games, their prices don't fall as fast as those from the big commercial titles and thus you don't end up paying extra premium for the port, even if it might come out a few month later.

  4. Re:But here comes Valve! by bonch · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Steam's DRM is one of the least intrusive out there. I forget it's even there until some Slashdotter brings it up. Kind of diminishes your point when the evil DRM isn't even noticeable.

  5. Re:But here comes Valve! by Mad+Merlin · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Steam's DRM is one of the least intrusive out there. I forget it's even there until some Slashdotter brings it up. Kind of diminishes your point when the evil DRM isn't even noticeable.

    Quite the opposite. Just wait until you do notice the effects on everything you paid for but don't actually own.

  6. LGP Still Lives! by flnca · · Score: 4, Informative

    LGP's blog shows that the company is still active. Last update was from April 5, 2010.

  7. I spoke with the owner a couple of weeks ago... by Maquis196 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    As I said, I spoke to Michael Simms a couple of weeks ago over email to see what could be done about getting the license to the Linux port of Alpha Centauri so it could be patched and sold again, etc.

    Didn't see any evidence that LGP had stopped working, they're a part time company mostly from what I gather, give them some credit!

    Oh and as for SMAC, it seems Mr Simms tried hard; nay VERY HARD to get the rights to it but with no success, I'm hoping that if Steam does make it to Linux we can use that as the carrot to get a few of the older Loki titles back.

    Cheers,
    Maquis196

  8. News post update from the site: by PBoyUK · · Score: 5, Informative

    "Wed, June 23 2010
    Is grateful to Slashdot for finally noticing that LGP exists, after militantly ignoring any game release we have made for the last 5 years, as soon as reports of our death come through, we get a front page story. Slashdot - Your support of Linux is inspirational. For others who wonder, we are very much alive. We have had a couple of staffing issues, but work is progressing on more than one unannounced title. We will offer furether updates as and when there is news to update you with."


    Seems like ya'll have hit a nerve! For me, I've bought 2 LGP games in the past, and enjoyed them, though they were certainly not AAA titles. I do wish they were more forthcoming with information though.

  9. Re:Phoronix by Late+Adopter · · Score: 2, Informative

    Can you elaborate on that? I have them in my RSS feed-reader because they're pretty much the only people who cover X and Mesa development.

  10. Re:Conspiracy theories from an AC aside by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    http://web.archive.org/web/20020418225227/http://www.linuxandmain.com/features/lokistory.html

    I think the GP is doing a bit of hyperbole but it did come out of the bankruptcy proceedings that there was financial mismanagement and a few times they pulled from the company's budget for personal purchases.

    Also in January, Draeker was subject to a second deposition, this time in a Federal 20-04 examination as part of the bankruptcy proceeding. In it, he testified that Loki did not retain such basic business records as bank statements or even keep careful track of the checks written by the company. After having testified in July that Kayt was and always had been chief financial officer, he now testified that she was not and never had been, and that he, Scott, always had been. And yet, Draker said, "there were several occasions where my wife mistakenly transferred money to our account prior to issuing money orders as opposed to issuing them from Loki's account." Asked if Loki had recorded these erroneous transactions, Draker replied, "We didn't have anyone keeping records at that time. It was -- it was in the bank statements, the record of that." Those bank statements had not been kept by the company. Additionally, the company was apparently unable to produce any financial records for the period from September 1999 to May 2001. The deposition took on a surreal air at times, with Draeker refusing to say whether or not he is a lawyer and in one spectacular moment testifying that as president of Loki he could say how much had been paid to Scott Draeker and when, but as Scott Draeker he could not say whether he actually received the money. Yet when asked if, shortly before the bankruptcy filing, Loki had paid him $13,000, he replied, "Uh, as I said before, there are several occasions on which Loki did pay me. And I don't recall specific dates or amounts."

  11. Short answer by The+Infamous+Grimace · · Score: 2, Informative

    No.

    Longer answer:

    LGP News

    Wed, June 23 2010
    Is grateful to Slashdot for finally noticing that LGP exists, after militantly ignoring any game release we have made for the last 5 years, as soon as reports of our death come through, we get a front page story. Slashdot - Your support of Linux is inspirational.
    For others who wonder, we are very much alive. We have had a couple of staffing issues on the admin side of things, which explains most of our silence, but work is progressing on more than one unannounced title. We will offer further updates as and when there is news to update you with.

    --
    Ignorance and prejudice and fear
    Walk hand in hand
  12. Re:But here comes Valve! by parasonic · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I have been gaming on 64-bit Linux in GL mode since 2004. There aren't many titles to choose from, but everything that I have tried--Enemy Territory, UT2004, and a few others--run flawlessly and at higher framerates than they do in Windows XP, not to even get started with Win7. I have never had a video driver crash. I have been running NVIDIA 64-bit binary drivers the entire time.

    At one point, I had a problem with ET not liking sound since it is Quake 3 based and was written to use OSS, but I was running Gentoo and of course had to spend a half hour trying to figure out how to restore sound. It runs flawlessly out of the box in Ubuntu.

    The problem is not drivers and is entirely the selection of games out there. We will hopefully see some good Source-based games for Linux once Steam makes its way in.

  13. Re:UT3 by apoc.famine · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Undercooked? It was a fucking disaster of a launch. They launched a game before they had the servers ready. For some reason they thought that the 80-90% of Linux/Unix UT servers would magically become Windows servers because they only had a Windows server at launch. That meant that 80% of the UT servers in the world didn't transition to UT3. Great idea - launch a multiplayer game, and hope your half-dozen servers serving 10-20 people each will cut it.

    They made some of the most idiotic choices about their maps they could make. Before, maps were moderate sized. They relied on all the textures, sounds, meshes, etc to be installed on the client computer. If you didn't have those, you'd download them.

    Their brilliant idea for UT3 was to "cook" their maps - essentially zipping ALL the textures, sounds, etc needed for a map into one gigantic file. Maps used to be 0.4-5 mb, at the absolute most. Now the average map runs 50-100 mb. Disk space usage is obscene like that, and the time it takes to download maps is noticeable on a fast connection, and game-ending on a slow connection.

    Linux has pretty much perfected package managers. I don't for the life of me understand how they felt zipping it all up was a better idea.

    Add to those disasters broken menus, designed for a console, (no back buttons, flaky arrow navigation, first letter of choice doesn't go there) a very shitty game selection screen, no crosshair customization which has been standard in UT for years now, and vehicles which drive like shit, and you've got a lot of angry fans.

    In the last year, they've made some improvements. But overall, the game is still a half-assed implementation of what it used to be. A pretty one, but still very broken. You can hack around the cross hairs, but when they code a small vehicle to weigh 100x a large one because it doesn't have the traction they want, you know it's a half-assed game.

    --
    Velociraptor = Distiraptor / Timeraptor