Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Linux Business Games Linux

Is LGP Going the Way of Loki Software? 124

Posted by Soulskill
from the bad-news-bears dept.
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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Is LGP Going the Way of Loki Software?

Comments Filter:
  • by SkOink (212592) on Wednesday June 23, 2010 @01:17AM (#32661790) Homepage

    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?

    • Please tell me you're joking. Yes many games will run in WINE to some degree but more often than not, there is a fairly noticeable performance hit by doing so. 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. Alpha Centauri crashes in WINE and Superpower won't even install. As long as WINE has to reverse engineer Windoze there's goi

      • by 0123456 (636235) on Wednesday June 23, 2010 @03:04AM (#32662250)

        "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.

        • whereas I doubt you'll find many Linux binaries from that era that will still run on an up to date distro.

          Sure they will... if they are compiled the right way, statically.

          If you know you're compiling a product that will be used on the Linux environment and don't want to be locked on a specific library version/etc, static compilations are perfect.

          • by grumbel (592662)

            If you know you're compiling a product that will be used on the Linux environment and don't want to be locked on a specific library version/etc, static compilations are perfect.

            Wrong. When you compiling statically you are locked to a specific library, if you link dynamically on the other side you can upgrade, fix and replace the libraries later on as you like. The important part however is including all the dynamic libraries with your app, not hopeing that the Linux distribution will provide them for you.

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by Mad Merlin (837387)

        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 St

        • by DoomHaven (70347)
          Have you done any configuring of Wine to make Starcraft run better? I don't know and can't find the settings to make it smoother, and I find that playing it with Wine feels lagged or delayed.
          • I have not. As I mentioned, it's a completely vanilla Wine install with no Wine configuration necessary.

        • by MBGMorden (803437)

          Most users won't wade through obvious glitches like that though to play a game. It's hard to proclaim "We don't need native ports! Wine runs almost everything great!"

          Then adding the caveat that "Well, some menus display graphical glitches, and the framerate is a bit lower, and the launcher app doesn't run so you gotta launch the main EXE directly. And the patching app doesn't work so you gotta patch on a Windows machine first and then copy over the directory again. And the character's run animation skip

          • Most users won't wade through obvious glitches like that though to play a game. It's hard to proclaim "We don't need native ports! Wine runs almost everything great!"

            See, I didn't say that. Absolutely, native ports are a thousand times better than running via Wine, but running via Wine is also a thousand times better than twiddling your thumbs (though, twiddling your thumbs is also a thousand times better than running 'doze).

            Also, I think you vastly underestimate the typical 'doze user's tolerance for abuse. Not only have they been conditioned to tolerate it, they probably don't even notice it anymore.

      • by Jurily (900488)

        there is a fairly noticeable performance hit by doing so.

        Moore's law + decades > overhead. That said, wine is far from perfect.

    • by hairyfeet (841228) <bassbeast1968@gm[ ].com ['ail' in gap]> on Wednesday June 23, 2010 @01:36AM (#32661876) Journal

      Has anyone tried getting the games at Good Old Games [gog.com] 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?

      • by 0123456 (636235)

        I just tried installing a couple of games from gog.com in Wine and the setup program crashed. So I guess that if you could manage to install them they might work, but installing doesn't seem to!

        • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

          by 0123456 (636235)

          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.

          • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

            by Mr. DOS (1276020)

            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.

      • by Kitkoan (1719118)
        While I haven't tried it, I would think that using the linux version of DOSbox to play the .exe would make for a better, more stable option then WINE.
      • Eh...? But there IS a native Linux version of Dosbox...it'd be just copying the configs and files, then running it. I don't see why WINE is even needed.

        • by hairyfeet (841228)

          While I said the DOSBox games would be the easiest to run, they have MANY newer titles there as well which do NOT use DOS emulation, such as Far Cry and King's Bounty: The Legend. They may be called "Good Old Games" but there is plenty of newer titles there as well, and at $10 max you really can't beat the prices, which is why I said if someone can get them to run in Wine it should be an excellent source for Linux gamers. No DRM, no install limits, easy to back up single .exe installers, good support, since

      • For whatever my experience is worth, I bought both Oddworld games from GOG and they worked great in Wine. Then I bought Fallout and it was unplayable.

        It depends on how well the original game is supported in Wine, I guess.
      • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

        by CornMaster (1105789)

        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 [dosbox.com] and if you want to check WINE compatibility with your GOG windows only game, you can check it here: h [winehq.org]

      • by drinkypoo (153816)

        My experience has been that most of those games don't run, newer or older. For instance I tried Battlezone, it crapped with Direct3D errors. The solution is twofold. One, install Win 3.1 into DOSBOX to play the oldest games. Two, install XP into a VMware to play (some of) the interim ones. You can go with VirtualBox instead but there's no Direct3D support, the half-assed Wine3d Direct3D support has been crapped on by a regression in VirtualBox that will be fixed "real soon now". dxdiag just crashes. Win 3.1

      • by hedwards (940851)
        I have and a fair number of them work well under Crossover if need be. Any of the ones that come bundled with dosbox can relatively easily be unbundled into a directory suitable for dosbox. I haven't done it in a while, but you extract the files from the exe and then use the included configuration files that GoG has put together for use with the game.

        I've had more than a little luck with the more recent versions via Crossover. I know that in some cases you have to do some tweaking and can't run them in f
      • by Hatta (162192)

        pre-configured DOSBox (works 100% better than DIY DOSBox

        How do you get 100% better than perfection? Really, I don't see any way to improve upon DosBox.

        • by hairyfeet (841228)

          Because with DIY DOSBox you have to jump through flaming hoops, tweak the living hell out of the config, and maybe, just maaaaybe it'll run stable, maybe not. I'll give an example: Redneck Rampage, an old favorite of mine. Trying to get it with the expansion packs to run in DOSBox on XP was a fricking nightmare, on Windows 7 HP X64 it was damned near impossible. Sound would fuck up, lots of crashes, it just sucked. I bought it for $5 from GOG, run the .exe installer and voila! Runs perfectly on both XP and

          • by Hatta (162192)

            Oh, you're on XP. When I apt-get DosBox it "Just Works(TM)".

            • by hairyfeet (841228)
              That's nice. So how much time do you waste on "update Foo broke my (insert hardware here)" or dealing with CLI "fixes" when the next 6 month upgrade comes along and breaks more than it fixes? Because my XP has been running for nearly 5 years now with ZERO downtime. No hassles, no screwups, no "fixes", just a monthly reboot for Patch Tuesday and that's it. Oh and not once has a single piece of hardware EVER failed due to updates. Can you say the same?
              • by Hatta (162192)

                Once in a while a kernel upgrade will require me to run nvidia's installer again. Takes about a minute a couple times a year. I'm not exactly pulling my hair out over it.

    • Take it a step farther: What market is there for a company selling ports of decade-old games for a system with few users and fewer gamers for $40-$50 each?

      I love Linux. I love using Linux. But there is simply no way to make money porting games to Linux.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by jedidiah (1196)

        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.

      • by Kjella (173770)

        Take it a step farther: What market is there for a company selling ports of decade-old games for a system with few users and fewer gamers for $40-$50 each? I love Linux. I love using Linux. But there is simply no way to make money porting games to Linux.

        At least not that way. I use Linux, I'm a gamer. But either you're so ideologically pure you wouldn't touch a closed source port anyway, or you're enough of a pragmatist you have a Windows box/dual boot. I'm the latter, and then it just doesn't make sense to pay $50 rather than buy a $5 bargain bin Windows edition, assuming it also doesn't already run well on WINE.

        Admit it, if you're not so excited about a new release that you want to go buy it RIGHT NOW, you're not much of a fan. Maybe you can stretch that

    • Firstly, Warcraft 3 isn't the only game and not all games run, or run well, under Wine/Cedega. Some are newer games, but also some older games.
      Better if you ignore the first part of your sentence and keep the second:

      What market is there for a company selling ports of decade-old games for $40-$50 each?

      Answer is...not big. Not big.

      Though, in their defence, I'm pretty sure that, for example, Postal 2 was up there on or shortly after the Windows release date.
      If it was available at the same price point, I would rather buy the native Linux version of a game than have to reboot to get at a Wi

      • by TheRaven64 (641858) on Wednesday June 23, 2010 @04:54AM (#32662768) Journal
        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.
        • Re: (Score:1, Interesting)

          by Anonymous Coward
          worth noting that a game running well under wine is one compilation away from being native, thanks to winelibs
          • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

            by Urkki (668283)

            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

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

            (1) Compiling is only one small step on the way to release. There is all testing. Now consider the matrix of Linux distributions that now have to be tested. Letting your Windows version get run under WINE avoids this great complication.

            (2) More importantly, a native Linux version will often cannibalize Windows sales. Face it, many Linux users configure their systems to dual boot Windows in order to play games. Replacing a Windows sale with a Linux sale does not pay for the extra costs. The economics of

    • I'd reduce your statement to 'what market is there for a company selling decade-old games?'. I expect almost none, and definitely not enough for a company to survive on.
    • by DesScorp (410532)

      "When Wine is good enough to run Warcraft 3""

      That's a bit like saying "When Duke Nukem Forever is ready...".

  • Loki released a great Bungie game for Linux http://www.lokigames.com/products/myth2/ [lokigames.com]
    Work is still going on for the game on OSX and Windows via http://projectmagma.net/downloads/myth2_171/ [projectmagma.net]
    All the best with LGP, ports are great fun for any OS :)
  • Phoronix (Score:1, Troll)

    by binarylarry (1338699)

    Why are the assholes at Phoronix still getting linked on Slashdot?

    They just make up whatever they think will get them the most hits.

    • by Xest (935314)

      Same reason they post pieces that are almost entirely or entirely made up from the likes of The Register, Fox News, and The Daily Mail and the likes sometimes too.

      Reposting made up shit manages to get Slashdot lots of hits too.

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by Late Adopter (1492849)
      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.
  • Old news (Score:2, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward
  • by WiiVault (1039946)
    Were they the guys behind the neverendingly delayed UT3? I know it wasn't the biggest hit on release, but the UT style is something I always associate with Linux gaming.
    • by ashridah (72567)

      No, they weren't. Ryan 'Icculus' Gordon was porting the dedicated server. I don't believe the client was ever promised. (could be wrong there). He's got other paying work to do than work on the UT3 client for no monies, anyway.

      • by kcbnac (854015)

        UT3 client WAS promised - "at or shortly after launch" we'd have Linux binaries. Icculus has shown pictures of it on his blog, and any attempts to ask about it on the UT3 forums results in your thread getting nuked almost immediately. IIRC its even in the FAQ to not ask about Linux support at all, on the UT3 forums.

      • Not only was the Linux client promised, a Linux version of the editor was talked about during the early days. I'm an almost decade old fan of UT, but these things not ever happening, plus a fucking awful game, with significantly reduced functionality from the previous version, made it hard to like the game. Haven't played it in months, despite having a dedicated server at my service. I'm not sure I'm going to buy any more UT games either.
        • by FreonTrip (694097)

          That's fundamentally how I feel about it. It's one of the most recent high-profile titles promised a Linux port, and there's an unspoken assumption that porting UT3 to Linux would / could encourage others to port their titles to it as well. That belief causes widespread disappointment in the failure to release... but the truth is that the game was undercooked, to put it politely. No one in their right mind is clawing out their eyes about being unable to play Unreal Tournament 3 in Linux; it's the work on

          • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

            by apoc.famine (621563)
            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
  • Nobody's heard from them since they moved development to an oil platform in the gulf to avoid taxes.

  • by Lotana (842533) on Wednesday June 23, 2010 @01:37AM (#32661890)

    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.

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward

      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 p

      • From the outside and according to the press it looked like they were on track, the IT bubble broke, and then their investors couldn't or didn't keep their funding promises.
        The above poster might know more, but then again they could just be anybody making shit up. Above poster, if you do have a clue at least sign up for an account here and we can take your views at a value above zero.
        • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

          by Anonymous Coward

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

          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."

        • by Rysc (136391) *

          I followed Loki closely from start to finish, from the outside, and the GP is spot on. Loki's poor management made Linux gaming look even less profitable than it is simply because they talked big and then blew up.

          If you try to start the *first* Linux porting company you face some resistance.
          If you try to start a *second* Linux porting company, after the first succeeded, you only have to prove that two can be sustained.
          If you try to start a *second* Linux porting company after the first was a spectacular and

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by grumbel (592662)

        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, e

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by phantomfive (622387)
      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.
      • by drinkypoo (153816)

        Yeah, my guess is they folded because they utterly lacked advertising.

        My guess is that they're failing because they ported like two good games and a bunch of unknown lemons. When Linux gamers say "where are the games" they're not saying "where are the shitty games from the last decade". The only game there I'd consider buying is Postal 2 and I already beat it on Windows. AFAIK it was the only one of the bunch ported to Linux while people still cared about it. I mean, Creatures? That is so 1990s.

        • The Descent 3 port was great! I still have that disk lying around, and it gets a play every now and then.
          • by drinkypoo (153816)

            The Descent 3 port was great! I still have that disk lying around, and it gets a play every now and then.

            Descent 3 was a Loki port, so I'm not talking about it, likewise SMAC, HOMM, UT, or anything else done by Loki. Thanks for playing, though.

        • by tibman (623933)

          They need cult games i think.. even some older games have cult like followings and would buy the linux version. I recently got into Mount & Blade: Warband... totally addicted to it. I could see that game being a good seller on linux.

        • by nedlohs (1335013)

          If Postal 2 is the best game in their list (that I didn't bother looking at), then the real question is how have they survived so long.

    • by Quarters (18322)
      Look at their title list. If all they have to show for nine years of work is less than two dozen second rate PC titles then it's not surprising they've gone out of business. Nine years ago it might have made sense to have a Linux game porting company. Unfortunately the gaming landscape has changed quite a bit since then; the XBox 360, PS3, and Wii all came out and sold huge, pushing gaming back into the living room; Macintosh hardware changed to be identical to PCs, at least in terms of motherboards, graph
    • Aside: Anyone know why Loki folded? A quick search only states "financial troubles", which is not really helpful.

      Loki folded for a couple reasons:

      1) Gross negligence by its founder (Scott Draeker). He and his wife were spending a huge portion of Loki's revenues on personal items, while not spending much (if anything) on growing the business.

      2) To a lesser extent, Loki focused on the same bad business model that is probably plaguing LGP: being a porting house for obsolete Windows games rather than a conduit for original material. Sadly enough, Loki could probably have been long-term successful if not for #1 above.

      The

    • by Carik (205890)

      What everyone else has said is true: mismanagement was the main cause of Loki's failure.

      But what no one wants to admit is that when you have a relatively small market, and a majority of that market refuses to pay (or at least to pay full price) for software, you're pretty much doomed from the start.

      I was subscribed to a few LUG mailing lists while Loki still existed, and it was extremely common on both lists for a group of five or ten people to get together to buy one copy of the CD, then share the game. O

    • by Elshar (232380)

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

      I'm just guessing here, but I am and have been an entrepreneur, having run a successful local business for 10 years. I'd think, if anything, what killed them was the pricing. Don't get me wrong, I love F/OSS (FBSD/Linux on my servers, Ubuntu on my desktops, hell I even game on Linux machines).

      But you can't really run a competitive business when your competitor's things are 1) easier to acquire, 2) work on a larger range of systems, and 3) And most importantly, when your prices are always at least 200-1000%

  • You can't make money selling games when they're all given away for free.

    • You can't make money selling games when they're all given away for free.

      When was the last time you saw production-quality games for free other than the obvious like Return to Castle Wolfenstein, and Doom?
      Torrents don't count, in this comparison.

  • Oh sorry. LGP, not LGPL.
  • LGP Still Lives! (Score:5, Informative)

    by flnca (1022891) on Wednesday June 23, 2010 @04:02AM (#32662510) Journal
    LGP's blog [linuxgamepublishing.com] shows that the company is still active. Last update was from April 5, 2010.
    • And that blog makes it obvious that updates aren't their first priority. meh. Many of Phoronix' news item really suck; they're really only interested in driving traffic, or so it seems to me.
      • by flnca (1022891)
        Indeed, first thing I did was clicking on LGP's site to see if it's true. lol -- But I'm really interested in Linux games, and so I'm happy I found that site. :) Thing is, I don't use Windows at all currently (I use it only on VirtualBox if I have to use a specific tax app once a year), so I'm happy about any Linux-related products that I find. I don't mind spending money for Linux software. Right now I'm thinking of going back to a 32-Bit Linux distro for maximum compatibility, especially for gaming. I ha
    • I know LGP is still alive, I just finished beta testing a game for them some months back; Shadowgrounds:Survivor. Good game, minimal porting issues. That and I still buy the occasional game from them, last one was Majesty:Gold, old but still fun.

  • 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 ca

    • by ivucica (1001089)
      I've had great contact with LGP's ZeroDogg (Eskild Hustvedt) over IRC regarding my inquiries about shipping of my game. While their email support people deserve a LOT of prodding, which ZeroDogg gave them, LGP is very much alive and kicking ass. Also, their news post is quoted several times in the comments here.
  • by PBoyUK (1591865) on Wednesday June 23, 2010 @07:34AM (#32663328)
    "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.
  • Short answer (Score:3, Informative)

    by The Infamous Grimace (525297) <emailpsc@gmail.com> on Wednesday June 23, 2010 @09:35AM (#32664162) Homepage

    No. [linuxgamepublishing.com]

    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.

  • The REAL problem with games on linux is that the 'omg OpenSource' discussion kicks in whenever games on linux are mentioned, and a google search on games for linux floods you with stuff like nexuiz and frozen bubble or how to run games on linux using wine. Meanwhile, companies like LGP who, perhaps lack a strong marketing department, end up on row 24 of a google search, buried under a bunch of links which don't interest most serious gamers who are just trying to look for nice games to play on their machine.

  • provided native linux ports in the first place.

    S2games comes to mind.

When the weight of the paperwork equals the weight of the plane, the plane will fly. -- Donald Douglas

Working...