Somethings moving over at Linux Game Publishing...

got the same mail and was pleasantly surprised by it :)

Other websites have pulled them up (Phoronix..) about if they are valid or not anymore because of Steam coming, I say yes of course they are they do Port games to Linux after all, games have to first be ported to be sold remember.

That post on Phoronix... I am not sure what his issue is with LGP but he has been coming down on them for while now, every few months he does this. The post made no sense, because Valve comes to linux that does not mean other publishers are irrelevant, Valve been on windows for ages, does not mean other publisher are irrelevant on windows.

The bashing Phoronix does of LGP and the mood he creates with it (if you read the posts, some people even feel LGP "must" go bust and that it would be a good thing) is simply bad and uncalled for and makes me wonder if there is a personal issue between Larabel and LGP.

LGP done a lot for linux gaming when nobody gave a damn, they spend a lot of time, money and resources porting games, maybe they not the newest games but that has more to do with other publisher not seeing a market and thus not letting LGP close to their windows source code to port.

On the good news side though, you can now follow LGP on Desura !!!

http://www.desura.com/company/linux-game-publishing so press the tracking button :)

One thing LGP has always been good for has been support of their old games. My only concern is that when they have released updates they have often bundled them with the new DRM system. I really hope that they remove that - I can not really cheer them on until they do.

LGP does also have the problem that it's competition has gotten stiffer. I mean, Desura is directly offering several titles that LGP has (Postal 2, Shadowgrounds, Shadowgrounds: Survivor) with updated Linux builds for far less than LGP is asking for, not to mention they ship without the ridiculous DRM measures. There is also the fact that Indie games and LGP are often in the same niche (since LGP ported a lot of older Indie games), meaning that they are facing a lot more competition from in-house Linux developers than they ever did before. They do have to up their game now. It is not just them playing in the sandbox anymore.

But I do agree that Larabel does tend to be a bit trollish - but he is like that about everything. :rolleyes:

One thing LGP has always been good for has been support of their old games. My only concern is that when they have released updates they have often bundled them with the new DRM system. I really hope that they remove that - I can not really cheer them on until they do. LGP does also have the problem that it's competition has gotten stiffer. I mean, Desura is directly offering several titles that LGP has (Postal 2, Shadowgrounds, Shadowgrounds: Survivor) with updated Linux builds for far less than LGP is asking for, not to mention they ship without the ridiculous DRM measures.

Ridiculous DRM? This is a joke?

"Some features includes:

LGP copy protection does not require internet connection to install or play the game.
This system does not require user to keep the disc inside the CD drive while playing games.

This system enables users to install the game on multiple systems (as there is not a limited number of activations), while also discouraging sharing by noting that any user who has access to the owner's LGP account credentials could potentially lock the owner out of their own game.

Owners of a game license can transfer the licence to someone else, download a replacement disc image and allow people to see that the licence is valid if they buy your game. Owners can retrieve lost keys and forgotten passwords. Buyers can check to see if they are buying a game with a valid license.[URL='http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linux_Game_Publishing#cite_note-38'][COLOR=#0645ad][39][/URL][/COLOR]"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linux_Game_Publishing

They never want make bad DRM for Linux. For example:

Some features includes:
copy protection require internet connection to install or play the game.
This system require user to keep the disc inside the CD drive while playing games.
This system enables users to install the game on only one systems (as there is a limited number of activations), while also discouraging sharing by noting that any user who has access to the owner's LGP account credentials could potentially lock the owner out of their own game.

Owners of a game license can't transfer the licence to someone else and they can't download a replacement disc image and not allow people to see that the licence is valid if they buy your game. Owners can't retrieve lost keys and forgotten passwords. Buyers can't check to see if they are buying a game with a valid license."

It's certainly less bad than some alternatives, but it's still DRM.

Oh, and to get back to the topic, I would gladly support LGP, but they really need to do a full 180 before I start throwing money their way.

Ridiculous DRM? This is a joke?

When I already own several of the games they sell with no DRM restrictions from another service, the joke happens to be on them. No matter how benevolent they try to make their DRM, it is still a bad practice and it did bite people who purchased LGP titles during their now infamous server outage. I personally do not find it to be defensible.

They do have to up their game now. It is not just them playing in the sandbox anymore.

agree, but that is something totally different then writing pieces about them still being invalid and create the mood he does where people fanaticly want LGP to go bust.

But I do agree that Larabel does tend to be a bit trollish - but he is like that about everything. :rolleyes:

its more then trollish, its like doing his best to make a company look bad or irelevant

It's certainly less bad than some alternatives, but it's still DRM.

but so is steam which we are all exited about :)

I love LGP and all they done for Linux gaming, but times have changed and they must evolve.
One thing I could not understand....why Ryan Gordon ported much more games than LGP (and newer games) ?
I think LGP should not be porting old games, but as suggested before try to port game that are in production and get funds from Linux sales (40% to them 60% to the developers- or something similar).
Posting good 10 year old games is a bad idea.

They don't have to license the porting and sales rights, that as it seems never covers the costs.
Also they need to choose games that are easier to port, games that use more Linux friendly engines.

I love LGP and all they done for Linux gaming, but times have changed and they must evolve.
One thing I could not understand....why Ryan Gordon ported much more games than LGP (and newer games) ?

Ryan often didn't make patches for older games.
He didn't ported commercial games to Linux PPC, Sparc or Alpha.
For example he ported Candy Cruncher only to Linux x86.

Me: Did you ported Candy cruncher to Linux Sparc and PowerPC?

Ryan Gordon: We had it running on PowerPC for the Mac OS version, but I'm pretty sure
I only dird the x86 version. (LGP probably had source code access and
added Sparc and PPC ports).
--ryan.

"According to Ryan C. Gordon. a game port is not all that difficult and a single developer can spend anywhere from 24 hours to 3 months making a port. Could you confirm this? What then is it that takes such a long time getting a Linux-port out of the door?
Ryans estimate is based on the fact that a) a lot of the games he ports are already using OpenGL so the hardest part of a port doesn't exist, b) most of the games he ports have a custom or non-existent network stack, and so the second hardest part of a port is a whole lot simpler, and c) he is a coding machine, better than most at what he does, and he has 10 years experience doing it. Not everyone has his skill level."
http://www.hardware.no/artikler/ryan_c_gordon_and_michael_simms/68450/4
LGP has many unpublished games for Linux. Three months ago I found empty PPC folder on CD with Knights and Merchants: The Shattered Kingdom for Linux.

I don't think that at 2012 they need to spend time and money on PPC, Sparc and Alpha.

Maybe they should choose easier games to port ?
If they see that the code is a mess and it's problematic, then port a different game.
I'm sure you can get all the technical details before you buy the porting rights.
Also as I've said before, use different porting/licensing approach.
Licensing an old game and trying to live of the sales is suicide.
Instead, try to release the Linux port closer to the release date of the game - and live of the % of Linux sales.
Hib anyone ?
Kickstarter ?
There are lots of opportunities out there, you need to evolve.

It's better that we get 3 Linux games a year from LGP, than zero.

I don't think that at 2012 they need to spend time and money on PPC, Sparc and Alpha. It's better that we get 3 Linux games a year from LGP, than zero.

This is truth.
However since 2001 to 2009 they spent time and money on porting games to Linux PPC, Alpha, Sparc and x86-64 instead porting more new games to Linux x86-32.

but so is steam which we are all exited about :)

Not about the DRM I am not. I am still loath to Steamworks and it is the main thing that gives me pause whenever I consider using Steam. This is why I am still very much in the Desura camp myself.

agree, but that is something totally different then writing pieces about them still being invalid and create the mood he does where people fanaticly want LGP to go bust. its more then trollish, its like doing his best to make a company look bad or irelevant

Possibly, though LGP is not the only the company Larabel does this to. I will submit that LGP is the one that has tried to do the most for Linux, so it is worse in that respect though.

This is truth.
However since 2001 to 2009 they spent time and money on porting games to Linux PPC, Alpha, Sparc and x86-64 instead porting more new games to Linux x86-32.

Actually x86-64 is good because it's current, many more people use it today than 32-bit.
I use 64-bit and anyone with 4+ GB of RAM (unless they use PAE Kernel ;)).
Any PC today is 64-bit.

Ridiculous DRM? This is a joke?

"Some features includes:

LGP copy protection does not require internet connection to install or play the game.

OK. I feel obligated to call you on this one. I was vocal about LGP's DRM when they announced it. After a while I bought one of their games with the DRM during a sale to see what it was like. For a while it seem ok as much as I wanted to dislike it. The annoying dialog every time I'd start the game, reminding me it was calling home, irked me every time I saw it. But I went ahead and bought a second game, X3 with the DRM.

Last May I was still playing the game. May 23 I tried to start the game and it hung. To try and debug it I fired up strace and discovered the game was stuck in a select() system call on a socket connected to 87.117.204.64. Whois said that address belonged to LGP. X3 is not a network game and this error was happening before the the DRM/call-home dialog. Since I couldn't spend the even playing X3, I used the time to write a nastygram to LGP. I'm using that email for reference now.

At the time of the failure I was also unable to reach the LGP website. That day I could not play a single player game I paid for because of a network problem. I think it also demonstrates that if LGP were to go down, I may not be allowed to play the games I've purchased. I believe that adding DRM was a poor choice on LGP's part and as much as I appreciate what they have done for Linux gaming over the years, I believe they deserve a black eye for that one.

But I thought that it doesn't require and internet connection....I'm sure I've read it somewhere...

I thought the whole point was you needed to be online to activate but after that you didn't need to do much? I thought it was only the initial activation it required the net for?

They really should remove their DRM completely though it doesn't do such a small company any favours.

But I thought that it doesn't require and internet connection....I'm sure I've read it somewhere...

You probably have read it. I know I have. After the initial uproar LGP started to say the the network was not needed. From http://blog.linuxgamepublishing.com/2009/02/27/answering-the-lgp-drm-questions

It is thanks to the discussions we had with the community that we took out the requirement to be online when yiou register, and the requirement to be online when you start the game.

When it originally came out they had said (http://www.linuxgamepublishing.com/press_releases/200806241.txt

Once the key has been verified on the LGP servers, and the password registered
then you are good to go, you never need to worry about the system again. It
will call to the LGP servers each time the game starts, to verify its
details.

They also said

Contingencies are made so that if no internet connection is available, the
game will never lock out legitimate customers.

I know first hand, those contingencies can fail. I believe the hang I saw was probably just a bug that resulted from some unexpected network condition. But I'm still very unforgiving in this case. This bug was in DRM code that serves no purpose other than to second guess if I deserve to run the software I've paid for. I will only really notice when it fails. OK, I sometimes notice the start up dialog and I'm insulted by it, but that could be removed and then DRM becomes at best a slow noop with bad failure conditions.

So any how, it will be nice if LGP can get going again. But the market has gotten bigger. If they keep their DRM in future products, I know it can fail and I have other choices now.

So any how, it will be nice if LGP can get going again. But the market has gotten bigger. If they keep their DRM in future products, I know it can fail and I have other choices now.

Essentially my thoughts on it - they are going to have to become more competitive and until they are I can not really support them. Remove the DRM and release a competitive product.