PlanetCrap 6.0!
Front Page (ATOM) • Submission Bin (2) • ArchivesUsersLoginCreate Account
You are currently not logged in.
T O P I C
No more gaming for Linux adepts?
August 15th 2001, 10:34 CEST by Speed

<a href="http://www.linuxgames.com/articles/lokiretro/">Linuxgames</a>, <a href="http://www.linuxports.com/entry.lxp?lxpe=102">Linuxports</a> and <a href="http://slashdot.org/articles/01/08/14/0230218.shtml">/.</a> are reporting that Loki Games have filed for chapter 11 protection from bankruptcy.

Apparently, Loki owes hundreds of thousands of dollars to Activision and Prolix and unless some company comes in and saves Loki it will probably be the end.

The problem with this is not only that Linux users will have difficulties to find known games for their favorite OS (Linux is a very tight niche market) but also that a lot of game servers run on Linux and without special server patches for Linux we might not see as many game servers anymore as we used to when new games arrive.

What do you guys think? Discuss!
C O M M E N T S
Home » Topic: No more gaming for Linux adepts?

|«« - Previous Page - Next Page - »»|
#1 by "Joost Schuur"
2001-08-14 22:09:37
jschuur@gamespy.com http://developer.gamespy.net
First Post!
#2 by "Morn"
2001-08-15 10:34:28
morn@planetcrap.com http://www.planetcrap.com
I hate you, Joost!

- Morn
#3 by "None-1a"
2001-08-15 10:45:57
none1a@home.com
The problem with this is not only that Linux users will have difficulties to find known games for their favorite OS (Linux is a very tight niche market) but also that a lot of game servers run on Linux and without special server patches for Linux we might not see as many game servers anymore as we used to when new games arrive.


I really can't see that happening. Developers know in order to an online game to work they need servers, and that a number of hobbies use Linux for that. We'll probably see more and more games included dedicated server version that run under linux.
#4 by "Ashiran"
2001-08-15 10:48:39
ashiran@ashrain.net wtf.couchcrew.com
Hey, they recently managed to convert Kohan to Linux. So atleast the diehards can play that cool game!

But then again it doesn't really matter if they close shop or not. Most people run Linux just for the fun and have two operating systems.
#5 by "Tam"
2001-08-15 11:12:24
Who would have thunk it.
#6 by "Narcopolo"
2001-08-15 11:43:17
With the possible exception of Crusader, I'd be surprised if anyone who posts here uses Linux to play commercial games.  I don't, most of the components of my POS box are fairly Windows centric.  However, XBill ownz joo.

I don't know that I'd say that Loki is necessarily dead unless some company comes and saves it.  They owe money, but bankruptcy will void that debt.  

Incidentally, other Linux porting houses include Tribsoft, which ported Majestic and Jagged Alliance 2, and Hyperion, which believe it or not ported Shogo to the Amiga.  In German! (danke James Hills for the info)

Speaking of James Hills, he wrote an informative piece on WineX, the DirectX implementation for Wine (Wine Is Not an Emulator.)  It just may be that gaming under Linux will grow via emulating.  I think we already had a discussion about this, but it's a little more relevant now.
#7 by "deadlock"
2001-08-15 12:02:52
deadlock@eircom.net
Narcopolo:
It just may be that gaming under Linux will grow via emulating.

I dunno, even using WINE and WineX, you're not going to get the same performance as you would running the game in a Windows environment. I wonder if any developers would take the route that Corel did when they ported their stuff over to Linux: they just compiled their Windows code with the Wine headers. All that id, for example, would have to do is include a version of the game's exe that's compiled for Wine and (maybe) MesaGL - all of the rest of the content would be the same, so there'd be no problem with space. A small Linux installer could be included to do the installation.

How viable is this ?

deadlock

flamethrower hates my country...
#8 by "Darkseid-[D!]"
2001-08-15 12:55:41
Darkseid@captured.com www.sluggy.com
Course, it has nothing to do with Epic hiring away their talent does it Warren ;)


Ds
#9 by "Woo-Fu"
2001-08-15 12:58:00
random1@speakeasy.org http://random1-1.dsl.speakeasy.net
Loki was dead before it started.  Anybody who can install and run linux can install a dual boot win9x/linux system and play just about any game they want on their desktop.  That narrows their target audience to linux users who a) want to play games and b) aren't willing to dual boot into an MS OS... which is a pretty small chunk of people.

Top it off with idiots who think Open Source=Free Software, and don't expect to have to pay for anything... and you don't end up with much of a paying audience for Loki's products.

As far as linux game servers go, those existed BEFORE Loki and will exist AFTER Loki.  The major linux dedicated servers out there weren't done by Loki anyways... ( to my knowledge ).  Additionally, win2k has proven itself as an acceptable server platform for many people ( I've been running 2+ instances of HLDS for close to 2 years on it ).
#10 by "Flamethrower"
2001-08-15 13:26:50
patch@evilemail.com www.Jesus-vs-Judas.com
I knew Loki was trouble...
#11 by "Ashiran"
2001-08-15 14:07:23
ashiran@ashrain.net wtf.couchcrew.com
#9 by Woo-Fu
Exactly! I couldn't agree more.
#12 by "BabaJO"
2001-08-15 14:09:28
what speed in mhz does motherboard DDR memory run at please ???
what abour RAMBUS RDRAM ??

is it 2100MHz and 800MHz respectively ??

a thanks.....
#13 by "BabaJO"
2001-08-15 14:45:51
sorry .... don't worry re: "RAS" extraction....
i read about it in the other posts...

silly FUCK me!!!
#14 by "Gestalt"
2001-08-15 16:55:15
john@eurogamer.net http://www.eurogamer.net
deadlock - "even using WINE and WineX, you're not going to get the same performance as you would running the game in a Windows environment"

If you're that bothered, you could always install Windows. ;) Let's face it, only a tiny fraction of games ever make it to Linux. If you're a serious gamer you need a Windows install, even if you're dual booting to Linux.

What happened to the first post anyway?!? Or do we all have to start shouting "SECOND!" from now on? :) Morn?
#15 by "Crusader"
2001-08-15 20:33:15
crusader@linuxgames.com http://www.linuxgames.com/
FYI, these are the titles anticipated to be released for Linux (as a client and server) in the near future:

Neverwinter Nights
Return to Castle Wolfenstein

DOOM III will be also, but that's not really a near-term release.
#16 by "Foogla"
2001-08-15 21:01:39
Foogla@gmx.de
#1 by Joost Schuur
08/14/2001 20:09
joost1.gamespy.com


Pika?
#17 by "Kayin"
2001-08-15 22:04:26
jeichena@digipen.edu
i think the biggest bitchslap to linux gaming is half-life.

they port the dedicated server, but no client executables. i heard you can get it running decently under WINE tho...
#18 by "Rambar"
2001-08-15 22:13:16
http://www.opencrap.org
PC2100 memory actually runs at 133mhz DDR or 266mhz effectively.
#19 by "Gestalt"
2001-08-15 22:32:35
john@eurogamer.net http://www.eurogamer.net
Foogla - "Pika?"

Hm .. weird. When I first checked this thread there was no first post, the thread started at number two. Mr0n must have hidden it or something. :)
#20 by "Narcopolo"
2001-08-16 01:39:35
#19 Gestalt

Betcha you hit new instead of read comments.
#21 by "Houston"
2001-08-16 02:36:23
houston@ifuckstuffedanimals.com http://olsentwinsnude.planetcrap.com
I install redhat 7.0, I get the latest drivers from nVidia, I spend about 10 minutes learning how to install them, I try, I think I succeed, i get about 4fps in Quake3

I install windows 2000, I install the latest drivers from nVidia with ease, and I'm at a playable framerate within a minute.

I've tried Linux, I've spent at least 30 full hours of my life playing with it, but I still don't see it as viable to the mass market.

Sure, if an IT team set up Linux boxes for an office and said "use this to write, and this is your database" I could see that, but from a commercial standpoint, bah I say, bah.

Too bad about Loki though, I supported them by purchasing about 3 copies of Quake3 Linux, ahh well, next on the list of publishers for alternative OS', Macsoft (a division of the Great Evil Infogrames)

-B
#22 by "Darren Coleman"
2001-08-16 03:01:18
durzel@barrysworld.com http://www.superficial.net
Linux needs something like InstallShield, where users can just download compressed binaries, double-click on them in their favourite XWindows environment and it will go away, do its funky stuff and add a nice little icon to the desktop that you can click on.  Until that happens, it'll never be mainstream.

Admittedly Redhat's RPM system comes close to this, and Debian has its own funky package management system - but ultimately neither is entirely user-friendly, certainly not to the beginner anyway.  The real crux of the issue is that in Windows, you can achieve everything with the desktop environment - on Linux there's only so much you can do before you have to get your hands dirty in shell windows, etc.

Ultimately if someone has to spend an eternity typing all manner of hieroglyphics into a shell window just to get a game working, and only then at sub-Windows speeds - then the battle for Linux gaming is already lost.
#23 by "jafd"
2001-08-16 04:29:03
kallisti@hell.com http://jafd.isfuckingbrilliant.com
If I had known that it would have been so obviously more efficient to repsond to all your posts at once, I would have. But I honestly thought that would have been a famously immature thing to do. I'm sorry.

Now that I'm in the tar pit, however, I'll make myself comfy.

All that's being said is that listening to customer input on game design is not a real useful way to make games.

But this is because of a failing in the listener. Not the speaker. It would be useful, very useful, were it possible to just automagically sweep away the crap and leave only the pearls of wisdom scintilliating against a smooth, sandy beach.

I haven't yet, but I'll toss out my own hypothesis that explains why folks are so riled up over this. (Oh, I'm sure they asked it a lot in the GI thread, though. Loose lips...) Go ahead and skip past it if you don't like spoilers.

All these devs have already accepted it as a proven assumption, there is no way to effectively harvest the good ideas from good gamers. Or, the ones who haven't accepted that are acting that way. To the gaming public, it looks the same.

They are told, not only that, they won't bother even looking for the good stuff, the good stuff isn't even that good. Also, it doesn't matter, because even if they did look for the good stuff, it wouldn't be worth the effort. And even if it were worth the effort.... well, that's where the spoken-in-public opinions of devs petered out.

Here's why: because they are artists. And even though these artists work in teams, they are still fiercely possessive and protective of their creations. Hell, they have a right to be. Picture this, a fan comes to Leonardo, and says, "Hey, she shouldn't be smiling. Women don't smile until you ejaculate on them. I don't see any ejaculate in your painting! You suck! I'm going to steal all your paintings from now on!"

Now, no dev is going to come out and say publically, obviously, that they deep down in their heart of hearts, hold the majority of their fanbase in contempt. Nevertheless? They do, generally speaking. People are riled up because they sense this, even if they can't put their fingers on it.

Look again at Warren's quote from that perspective. He's right, of course. But his inability to speak in "Gamer English," for want of a better term, doesn't explain anything. (I don't know if he is doing it on purpose, or not. But set that aside.) All it explains to a "gamer," is that "we aren't going to listen to you. by the way, even if you aren't one of the obviously sucky gamers, you still suck."

This is an example of a clever ruse, or an unconscious prejudice that affects nearly all developers in the games industry.

"All that's being said is that you're all worthless for our purposes, beyond your ability to give us money." Blessit, I think I finally have conclusive data. He can't be consciously promoting this idea, it is too close to home.

Yeah, there are some good ideas out there, but it's a bitch trying to find them.

Oh, well, okay. Shown facts, he admits the truth. Phew. Sadly, he does it at the expense of insulting himself.

It isn't a "bitch to find them." It is simply a complex and challenging problem that is wholly outside the skill set of 90% of all developers. (After all, it has been spoken, 90% of all developers is crap.) Just going out there and saying, "Too hard! No! I won't do it!" and then finding someone with someway who can, is a huge step removed from saying, "Too hard! No! It cannot be done!"

Hey, maybe you, as you read this, can't see the difference. Does that make me, the writer of the sentences, the bitch? Or is it the reader? Well, here's a hint. If you paid for it, you don't represent the "bitch" element in the equation.

And when you do, you usually discover that you already thought of them (in my experience at least).

It's moments like these that keep my faith from sputtering out entirely. However, I'm sure that this phrase was offered up as proving something else than, "I only have solved the easy problems in that area so far." So, \/\/

#278: You're too kind.
So you can't act like developers have all the answers and gamers have nothing to add.

Oh, sure. He can. He can shoot himself in the head, too, or he can carve up his thigh with a knife and fork.

And look at the economic environment. There are several examples of companies serving themselves up a huge fest of Roasted Limbs. The distance between the mistakes made that lead to such things happening are usually the cause of folks deciding that it is because "they were just evil."


Replying like this really seems stupid to me, so after I had to scroll down quite a bit to find the next utterly insipid piece of false logic, I considered ashcanning this whole project. Then, I found this:

I agree. I wish the net was a lot less negative than it is.

I'll just let that float there by itself, as my only intention is to give the people who don't understand that example another chance to look it over. And 2x the chances of someone else getting a good thighslapper.

Oh, btw. It is "were." 0wned!

I don't know why people can't be more positive about things.

Probably because of an initilization error involving the variables "can't" and "won't." At least you're being more honest as the trail of bread crumbs gets meatier...

And as always, the % who attack the developers will ruin it for the % who enjoy the interaction.
Not directing these comments at you specifically, just stating a general fact. That's all.

Too bad about error number three. It is clear you can be taught. However. I question your combination of "ruin" and "enjoy."

I'll speak frankly here. If one is not sufficiently prepared, confident, skilled, et cetetra, to either prevent some fool from ruining what is of value, or gain value from the analysis of the ruination, then one wasn't worthy of the enjoyment in the first place.

This isn't a fact, of course. Merely an opinion. However, in terms of efficiency, it is a lot more valid. It is pretty much a certainty, no matter how secure something is, someone can come along and pee all over it.

It might be "just" to think of the pee'r as the villain. But what about the pee'ee? It's a tough old world. It would seem prudent to rely on a strategy that covers more bases than "if pee'r, then avoid." At, least, it does to me, as I don't enjoy being a pee'ee.

Hopefully, I made that point in a roundabout enough way so that the 30% of the people who will read that who will notice that I was saying they are dumbasses, won't have to deal with a single member of the 70% who completely have no clue. I'm caring less about this possibility, these days, so, no promises.

a proxy ... a fan site or something similar

Or, a firewall. Or maybe even... a gauntlet.

Hey, wait a second. Didn't you say this "can't" be done a little while back? The hell if I'm going to scroll up, though, so, I'll let it slide. It is clear that you've come a long way in just a few posts.

Let me ask you this .. the board has been active for weeks now. Have you noticed a falloff of game developers from the message boards where you normally see them?

Frankly, yes. But this doesn't mean anything. They can't be in two places at one time, after all. Ho ho ho.

But here, I think you are missing the concern. I don't think most customers give a rat's ass if Developer X makes posts. I don't even think they care if they _read_ posts. What they do care, is that in the occaisional instance of them coming up with a good idea, there is some kind of acknowledged system for getting it out in the useful open besides prayer.

After this, there's a fabulously brilliant whack on Apache, then some very friendly banter.

Goodness! Turns out I didn't have to do this at all, if I hadn't been ordered to. No wonder my first instinct was to let it go.

Now, my question after this is... did I ruin? Did I attack? Or what? No one but me cares about that, of course.

But _your_ question will be, "What was that all about?"

I wish I could answer that, but it isn't going to be up to me. I refuse to proofread this utter monstrosity.

====================
I am a prototype for a much larger O.M. bivouac.
#24 by "Kayin"
2001-08-16 04:39:51
jeichena@infinet.com http://www.misscleo.com
uh... *taps jafd on the back*

the thread's that way
#25 by "JMCDaveL"
2001-08-16 04:45:01
jmcdavel@mailandnews.com http://www.groupxarab.com
I feel bad skipping over those big McGrewesque posts.

I'm a bad person.

I also eat babies.

And fetuses.

But only the 60 available flavors.
#26 by "Crusader"
2001-08-16 05:17:23
crusader@linuxgames.com http://www.linuxgames.com/

Linux needs something like InstallShield, where users can just download compressed binaries, double-click on them in their favourite XWindows environment and it will go away, do its funky stuff and add a nice little icon to the desktop that you can click on. Until that happens, it'll never be mainstream.


You mean like Loki Setup? Which not only every Loki Linux game port uses, but almost without exception every other Linux game (and some non-entertainment applications) utilizes? Not only that, but anyone is free to use it or adapt it, since it's in that dreaded boogyman of a software category, open source (quick! everyone duck!).

http://www.lokigames.com/development/setup.php3
#27 by "jafd"
2001-08-16 08:26:44
kallisti@hell.com http://jafd.isfuckingbrilliant.com
Not having ever used Linux, let alone played a game on it, my angle on this topic is fairly shallow.

One thing I noticed right away, "Loki owes hundreds of thousands of dollars to Activision" (never heard of Prolix, sadly, so I'm not going to include them in the upcoming Two Minute Hate).

Firstly, I just want to mention that I can't say I'm surprised at all that someone doing business with Activision got the shaft. If it weren't for the lingering remnants of good karma still lingering long, long after River Raid and its brethren have faded away, I doubt they'd be able to keep up the facade of, "just another publisher, trying to make it work, don't mind us. Ultimate evil? No, we've none of that here!"

My bias aside, seriously, why would Loki owe them money? Who did the work in that team? Do they just owe them money to cover the outrageous costs of licensing? I'm hoping there is more to this than that, as from my point of view, this is just a vaguely camoflauged assassination.

If there isn't any market for financially successful Linux ports of a successful game, which seems clear, what's the justification for charging through the nose for a license?

====================
I am a prototype for a much larger query.
#28 by "Kayin"
2001-08-16 08:33:59
jeichena@infinet.com http://www.misscleo.com
If there isn't any market for financially successful Linux ports of a successful game, which seems clear, what's the justification for charging through the nose for a license?


Good old penny arcade said it best..

"do you like my hat? it's made of MONEY!!!!"
#29 by "jafd"
2001-08-16 08:42:39
kallisti@hell.com http://jafd.isfuckingbrilliant.com
Of course that is the obvious answer. But, on at least one occaision, the obvious explanation for a curious phenomenon isn't the correct one.

I thought it couldn't hurt to ask...

====================
I am a prototype for a much larger vacation.
#30 by "Kayin"
2001-08-16 08:47:57
jeichena@digipen.edu http://www.misscleo.com
*passes out*
#31 by "PogoTribal"
2001-08-16 08:59:57
susfapx0@juniata.edu http://students.juniata.edu/susfapx0
I'm kinda curious about that money thing myself. The only thing I could think of was Activision giving Loki the source code so that he could do his port, and then expecting to make millions off of that port. Either way, someone was smoking the wrong type of crack to make that deal.
#32 by "deadlock"
2001-08-16 10:20:04
deadlock@eircom.net http://homepage.eircom.net/~dlocked
Gestalt:
If you're that bothered, you could always install Windows. ;) Let's face it, only a tiny fraction of games ever make it to Linux. If you're a serious gamer you need a Windows install, even if you're dual booting to Linux.

I'm not that bothered :P I haven't used Linux in months (even though I downloaded RH7.1 a few weeks ago - the joys of working for a broadband company). It's just that someone else mentioned Wine/WineX so I decided to stick my oar in.

Personally, I don't see how a niche market within a niche market could be viewed by any company as worth tapping, but that's neither here nor there. Or is it ?

Jafd: please please please include something that indicates who you are quoting!! :)

deadlock

flamethrower hates my country...
#33 by "Gestalt"
2001-08-16 10:21:05
john@eurogamer.net http://www.eurogamer.net
"why would Loki owe them money"

At a rough guess they pay Activision for the rights to distribute and publish the Linux port of the game. They work for months on the port, and then nobody buys it. Et voila, they have no money and they still owe Activision for the license. Given that they've ported a few Activision games (Soldier of Fortune, Heavy Gear 2, Call to Power etc) it's hardly surprising they owe them the most.

Of course, I could be wrong. :)
#34 by "jafd"
2001-08-16 10:39:50
kallisti@hell.com http://jafd.isfuckingbrilliant.com
#32: Okay. Not only did you ask politely, but doing so serves my purposes now. Earlier, I considered it "cheating."

It is sounding more and more like an outright shaft. "The licence is worth millions! You can have it for 300k." "Oh, you only made ten bucks? It must be due to you being worthless scum, our license is worth millions! P.S. you still owe us 299,990 in exchange for all that value we gave you." wtf?

I'm going to have to stop theorizing on this soon. Like, with this post. I don't know nearly enough about such things to even ask any further questions that would be at all appropriate.

I would like someone to show up and defend Activision, though. I mean, without having to have been paid.

====================
I am a prototype for a much larger finger.
#35 by "Speed"
2001-08-16 11:05:13
speed@crew.fragland.net http://www.fragland.net
Personally I think that where Loki went wrong was that they thought they could sell complete linux games out of the box.
They should have stuck with porting games to linux for developers that would include it with the main game to be sold (who wants to wait 6 months for a game because the linux port isn't finished yet ?)
#36 by "Terata"
2001-08-16 11:07:47
jeremys@artifact-entertainment.com
Activision doesn't want to do a Linux version themselves since they don't feel it's worth the trouble (as the Linux market is miniscule and customer service for it I don't even want to imagine).  Loki pays Activision for the right to port their games, as obviously Activision isn't going to just give them a finished game and all the related assets and let them distribute it for free.  By doing this, Loki gambles their sales will let them pay back the license fee and the cost of the port, thus making any extra profit.

They lost their gamble, couldn't pay back the license fee, and thus owe Activision money.  I fail to see what there is to defend.
#37 by "Anonymous"
2001-08-16 11:09:41
http://refracted.com/opencrap
Publishers wont put linux versions of games in the box because they would then be expected to support it.  I remember this issue comming up with on of the quake releases.
#38 by "Dethstryk"
2001-08-16 11:57:11
jemartin@tcainternet.com http://thoughtcoma.dhs.org/
OT: Volition made a bad, bad move in releasing this multiplayer demo of Red Faction without a level where you can blow a lot of shit up. That practically ruins it for me.


--
Dethstryk
Thought Coma
#39 by "jafd"
2001-08-16 14:39:30
kallisti@hell.com http://jafd.isfuckingbrilliant.com
They lost their gamble, couldn't pay back the license fee, and thus owe Activision money. I fail to see what there is to defend.

I don't understand why Activision and Loki weren't considered to be "gambling" equally. Loki wagered money, plus a lot of effort. Activision wagered... potential money? Some paperwork? What?

It seems to me that the contract ought to have been such that if the project tanked, both parties took it on the chin. I mean what exactly is Activision owed money for, other than a legal fiction?

Sure, of course, distrobution and publishing rights and all that "stuff," represents real world value. But if Loki ported the software, and made X amount of dollars, can it really be said that the licence that Activision sold them, is worth more than X dollars? Wouldn't it be less than X dollars, regardless, since the work that was done repersents a real world value as well?

Ahem. Not knowing a great deal, if anything, about the relationships involved here, the only conclusion that I can draw that makes any sense to me is that Activision is owed money because they spent more money on lawyers?

Additionally. If Loki is going bankrupt, then Activision isn't going to get this sum of money they are 'owed' anyway. Or, are they?

I'm so relieved to not know anything at all about the intricacies involved here. My learning hat was getting a trifle dusty.

====================
I am a prototype for a much larger scholar.
#40 by "fyrewolf"
2001-08-16 16:38:25
I mean what exactly is Activision owed money for, other than a legal fiction?


When id software licenses it's quake 3 engine ($500k?), and the resulting game sells poorly, doesn't id software still get their money or is the money they are owed a "legal fiction"?
#41 by "Bertrude"
2001-08-16 16:44:35
#39 - jafd

Surely you're not trying to suggest that business should be fair are you?
#42 by "Gabe"
2001-08-16 17:00:54
gabe@opencrap.org http://www.opencrap.org
Publishers wont put linux versions of games in the box because they would then be expected to support it. I remember this issue comming up with on of the quake releases.

That's kind of funny since it was decided that support is the only way to make money off of Linux. Turns out that even that is suspect, given the state of RedHat and gang. Maybe I am not idealistic enough, but it never made sense to me to try to put food on the table "selling" free stuff.

I am sorry that Loki is going out of business. They did some cool stuff and I hate to see people lose their jobs, but I never understood how it was a viable company in the first place.

-- Gabe
#43 by "Gabe"
2001-08-16 17:02:56
gabe@opencrap.org http://www.opencrap.org
And apparantly, even I do not know how to use OpenCrap. :)
#44 by "Anonymous"
2001-08-16 18:25:06
http://refracted.com/opencrap
That's kind of funny since it was decided that support is the only way to make money off of Linux. Turns out that even that is suspect, given the state of RedHat and gang. Maybe I am not idealistic enough, but it never made sense to me to try to put food on the table "selling" free stuff.


Yeah, it's odd, but that's how the chips fall.  For publishers to support the linux version, they would have to train all the monkeys answering the phone all the in's and out's of Linux.  Not an easy task when most of them are just working from a checklist.

I think the support as a life-line thing is more related to the people who make the Linux distro's though than people who actually make sellable software.  Not all of it has to be free (as in beer), but they have a classic chicken/egg problem going.  Games are a desktop thing, a market Linux has not entered yet partly because the game selection is sparse.
#45 by "Gabe"
2001-08-16 18:30:13
gabe@opencrap.org http://www.opencrap.org
I think it goes deeper. You can sell commercial, closed-source software to run under Linux, but you run into the problem where the target market fundamentally expects to get all of their software for free.

-- Gabe
#46 by "Anonymous"
2001-08-16 18:39:59
http://refracted.com/opencrap
I think that depends on which part of the market you are talking about, the tech nerd, the home geek, and the academic all want it free no two ways about it.

 But the business user probably does not care one way or the other, and is going to WANT to spend some moola on a support contract anyways, which will probably dwarf aquisition costs.  

 Games fall into a market which Linux has not entered, the home user expects to pay a fair rate regardless. Loki's target market really does not exist yet. That makes sales a real bitch.
#47 by "PogoTribal"
2001-08-16 20:03:06
susfapx0@juniata.edu http://students.juniata.edu/susfapx0
#44 by Anonymous
For publishers to support the linux version, they would have to train all the monkeys answering the phone all the in's and out's of Linux. Not an easy task when most of them are just working from a checklist.

I was under the impression that if anyone was computer-savvy enough to use Linux to a functional degree, then they would be resourceful enough to solve any problems that could arise from the shiny new Linux version of Heavy Gear II that they just bought.

#39 by jafd
It seems to me that the contract ought to have been such that if the project tanked, both parties took it on the chin. I mean what exactly is Activision owed money for, other than a legal fiction?

I also don't understand modern business-day "ethics." Business is about taking risks. It seems that no longer can anyone take a "risk" without somehow slapping on a price tag. If Activision took a simple risk (letting Loki develop their code for Linux use) and said "Ok, make some money off of this version and pay us commission, since it's our game. The rest is for your trouble," then they wouldn't be in the position they are now... paying lawyers out the ass to get money from a bankrupt Linux developer. They're screwing themselves over.

I just thought of something else though... the risk in giving over source code (if I'm correct in saying that's what they did) could be great. I don't think any developer/publisher wants their original game code to be put in a position where it could somehow be leaked, or just plain stolen.

#45 by Gabe
You can sell commercial, closed-source software to run under Linux, but you run into the problem where the target market fundamentally expects to get all of their software for free.

What the hell is wrong with these people then? Just because Linux is free they then expect that their prayers for free software everywhere have been answered? With no software, then what the hell is the point of Linux? Jeez, of COURSE you're gonna have to pay for a Linux version of Corel WordPerfect.

#38 by Dethstryk
OT: Volition made a bad, bad move in releasing this multiplayer demo of Red Faction without a level where you can blow a lot of shit up. That practically ruins it for me.

Finally a game that doesn't make their environment 100% BSP trees and sprites. I thought there was another game in the works that is supposed to do the whole surface-destructible thing?
#48 by "Gabe"
2001-08-16 20:12:12
gabe@opencrap.org http://www.opencrap.org
What the hell is wrong with these people then? Just because Linux is free they then expect that their prayers for free software everywhere have been answered? With no software, then what the hell is the point of Linux? Jeez, of COURSE you're gonna have to pay for a Linux version of Corel WordPerfect.
Sure looks like people are buying Corel Wordperfect. Linux users don't like paying for stuff.
#49 by "JMCDaveL"
2001-08-16 20:19:17
jmcdavel@mailandnews.com http://www.groupxarab.com
LokiGames is beyond dead, but the Slashdot g33ks are still saying "Its just Chapter 11, LOKI WILL LIVE ON!!!"... but now this is just my troll-like judgement, but if Loki can't pay back what they owe already, then why in the fuck would any publisher license any game to them ever again?
#50 by "szcx codemonkey"
2001-08-16 20:24:00
Linux and money don't mix.

Someone should cover those charts with snow and open a ski resort.
C O M M E N T S
Home » Topic: No more gaming for Linux adepts?

|«« - Previous Page - Next Page - »»|
P O S T   A   C O M M E N T

You need to be logged in to post a comment here. If you don't have an account yet, you can create one here. Registration is free.
C R A P T A G S
Simple formatting: [b]bold[/b], [i]italic[/i], [u]underline[/u]
Web Links: [url=www.mans.de]Cool Site[/url], [url]www.mans.de[/url]
Email Links: [email=some@email.com]Email me[/email], [email]some@email.com[/email]
Simple formatting: Quoted text: [quote]Yadda yadda[/quote]
Front Page (ATOM) • Submission Bin (2) • ArchivesUsersLoginCreate Account
You are currently not logged in.
There are currently 0 people browsing this site. [Details]