Re: Loki files for banruptcy protection.

[Chris <chris@starforge.co.uk>]

Mads Bondo Dydensborg wrote:


> It also means, that they do not make a lot of money - which, in my eyes is
> sad. (Or is it a pity rather? English is not my first language, sad may be
> too strong a word?)

Their key market is ports. They write conversions of old Windows games and
try to sell them to a market containing a large number of people who dual
boot Windows. The same people who dual boot Windows mainly to play Windows 
games. The same games that Loki port, months or years after they were 
available on Windows. Ever heard the expression "Selling coal to Newcastle"?
In fact, the situation is worse - they are trying to sell the ports at the
same price as the original release, while the Windows version has had its 
price cut in half or more. Sure, Loki are doing more than ports now, but 
that's where most of their money comes from and where the big debts are.
Linux users may want native games, but how many of them are prepared to pay
twice the amount that it would cost to buy the Windows version (those that 
didn't buy it when it was released on Windows anyway)

There's a lot of talk about how Linux users refuse to pay for things. I 
expect it's true that Linux users refuse to pay twice the price for a game 
they already have. In my experience Linux users are quite prepared to pay 
for a product they believe to be worth their money, they aren't people you 
can sell any rubbish to, or peope you can overcharge very easily. Because of
this, ports, especially when playing the original is a reboot away, are
never going to support a company for very long. Especially given the greed -
and the immense license fees this reults in - of Windows publishers.

If Loki had been a company which got 100% of its income from selling 
Linux-only, original games. THEN I would be worried, but this is a long way
from being the case.

But on the whole, this is not a big disaster from my point of view. It's a 
setback, and it is a disaster for those who decided that Linux Gaming == 
Loki, but this may turn out to be a good thing. Loki have been a millstone
on the market for some time - talk to dealers, try to get them to take you 
seriously when you tell them that you aren't from Loki. Loki's domination of
commercial Linux gaming has resulted in a situation where anyone who tries
to set up commercially in opposition, or even along side, Loki is ignored
by distributers, sidelined by many groups and treated as some kind of 
abomination.

Yes, it's a shame for the people who work there. But I'm not going to mourn 
the death of Linux games simply because Loki have been 11ed. For one thing, 
Linux is like a hydra - you can cut off as many heads as you want, but 
unless you kill the community it will always come back. And this may end up 
making it easier for the small setups to get heard over the cries of Loki! 
Loki! Loki! from distributers.

All IMO&IME of course.

Chris
-- 
.------{ http://www.starforge.co.uk }-----. .--------------------------.
=[     Explorer2260, Designer and Coder    \=\ P: TexMaker, ROACH, site \
=[___You_will_obey_your_corporate_masters___]==[ Stack: EETmTmTRRSS------ ]