It's certainly ain't a pretty sight, but unless publishers see a market, we are just going to go down the same road each and every time.
If it has good audio play back I'm sold. Although I suppose you could get USB sound card... Battery life might be a problem though. *urge to tinker rising*Specs:
ARM Cortex-A8 Superscalar CPU
TI IVA 2+
Imagination Technologies PowerVR SGX 530
2 SDHC card slots
WVGA (800x480) Touch Screen
Dual analog control nubs
Digital control pad and buttons.
OS will be an embedded Linux distro
Anyway what LGP needs is constructive criticism don't just say it's crap, offer a feasible solution for the problem.
If you really want to help linux gaming in general contribute to Mojosetup or another project that makes bringing games to linux easier with code/translations/testing heck even just donating some money to help cover the server costs.but, what should one do if one wants to help and thank LGP for their efforts, but doesn't enjoy those games that have been ported?
Last edited by Aradreth; 05-23-2008 at 01:31 PM. Reason: typo's and such
the "tanked" rationale was badly used by me, sorry
as i still don't see any game dev/publisher saying "we did not sell that many copies because the Linux gamers did not buy our game", repeating "Buying Windows titles won't help." ad nauseam as the only true answer to any question does not help anyone, and i feel attacked every time it is used as a response to my ideas about what can be done to get the dev/publishers to care about all their customers needs
my original post was full of unintended rage, as much as i respect what LGP's accomplised ( i have repeated this in my posts ) i know that in the end the copies sold for Linux are the ones that count, having a game that might not sell that good will hamper the future works of LGP
as for Sacred, i sure do hope the Sacred 1 port will open doors to Sacred 2, i'll try the demo anyway, i hope the Aug 2008 timeframe can be respected
Playback won't be an issue, I suspect. The only sticking point will be what the manufacturer (The guy responsible for the UK retail front for GamePark on the GP32/GP2X line...) does with it. Since it's intended by gamers for gamers, I suspect he's not going to be willing to shave too many pennies off his BOM on this one...If it has good audio play back I'm sold. Although I suppose you could get USB sound card... Battery life might be a problem though. *urge to tinker rising*
Keep that in mind when you think about these things. Try the demo and see if it tickles your fancy. If not, no harm done. But...spare everyone the rage and all. It does NOBODY any good. Yourself and the publishers included.
No problem- apology accepted.the "tanked" rationale was badly used by me, sorry
All I ask is that people choose their words more wisely when they go and comment on things.
Having "tanked" on Windows isn't at all a good or reliable metric for determining if a game is worth messing with. Nor is "this is a Diablo 2 clone with horses, etc.", really. Until you see the "cloned" game on Linux, it's not really a good metric, now is it?
Your words speak of someone of the same thinking that caused the debacle with Quake3 for Linux. You don't realize it. Most people don't when they do this.
When you comment on things "working fine on WINE", you're doing the same thing. Honest.
In the end, though, it causes the same set of problems and frictions- just as it did in 1999 for us.
The Linux publisher crowd DOES care about their customer's needs. Unfortunately, it still seems you're not seeing the problems that everyone, independent porter, publisher, etc. faces in this situation. We're only in an "okay" position right at the moment because of that little Q3:A debacle. The people that have the rights aren't the Linux publisher crowd, they're the Windows publisher crowd and if you're not buying Windows stuff, you're not their customer, period. They honestly do not care one whit right at the moment about you because to them, right or wrong, you and I are a teardrop in a giant sea. Getting them to see things better? What have I kept saying in this thread? Unless Valve actually magically makes it all work better (and they MIGHT just do that...) with Source and Steam coming to Linux- you're going to have to do it that way for a while yet because it's going to take a substantively large decrease in Windows title sales for them to pull their collective head out and see the demographic numbers for what they really are.as i still don't see any game dev/publisher saying "we did not sell that many copies because the Linux gamers did not buy our game", repeating "Buying Windows titles won't help." ad nauseam as the only true answer to any question does not help anyone, and i feel attacked every time it is used as a response to my ideas about what can be done to get the dev/publishers to care about all their customers needs
Moreover, everything you've come up with so far in this thread happens to have been tried, found to NOT work- because they all miss the point I keep bringing up. The game industry does NOT work in a manner that these things would do any bit of good. deanjo actually did do a bit of suggesting more suitable alternatives when I threw that challenge up at him in another thread. Getting people to tell us what you all want ported doesn't do a lick of good. We want the same things YOU all do in our hands (We like gaming and like doing it on Linux where things are typically better- else we wouldn't be doing this thankless work in the business... )- but as I, Aradreth, and niniendowarrior have all pointed out in this thread, it's not as simple as that. Not how the industry is framed in right now.
If you're unwilling to help out by buying what's available (and I'm not going to insist people buy stuff they don't want...) you might want to stop and think about how to end-run, in a realistic manner, the problem I keep stating over and over again to everyone that brings up this subject in any forum of this nature.
If not, I've already told you what will work. It's because of how things are structured in the games industry as a whole. Honest.
We have what we have to work with. Doesn't matter if it's LGP, Runesoft, Ryan, myself, etc. You're still missing that we have a limited say in what we can/can't get to port. Raging like you did on this one doesn't contribute anything to the situation and can actually muddy the waters.my original post was full of unintended rage, as much as i respect what LGP's accomplised ( i have repeated this in my posts ) i know that in the end the copies sold for Linux are the ones that count, having a game that might not sell that good will hamper the future works of LGP
It should. Michael Simms has gotten bit by announcements when we got rights a couple of times and he's more inclined to announce when the title's a solid beta these days. It would make sometime around that timeframe unless it develops a few narfy show-stoppers like Bandits has right at the moment.as for Sacred, i sure do hope the Sacred 1 port will open doors to Sacred 2, i'll try the demo anyway, i hope the Aug 2008 timeframe can be respected
The big take away from all this conversation should be that each one of these deals that LGP or Runesoft (or Ryan Gordon, or...) does leads to another, usually better, or much better one- so long as the deals at least bring break-even or better out of them. This is going to be the case for a while yet.
Last edited by Svartalf; 05-23-2008 at 04:27 PM.