Support us on Patreon
PayPalUpdate: The developer did change their mind and it's now on GOG for Linux. Update #2: The developer later pulled both GOG and Linux down.
Original article:
Supraland released for Linux on Steam on July 2nd and it just released on GOG today but it seems the Linux version will not be heading to GOG.
What is Supraland? It's a very highly rated first-person action and puzzle game, inspired by the likes of Zelda, Metroid and Portal. It's popular, with an "Overwhelmingly Positive" rating on Steam from over two thousands user reviews and from my time spent in the demo, I can see why as it was pretty sweet.
Speaking in their official Discord server, users questioned the developer to find out about a possible Linux release on GOG, since it's only available for Windows there currently. The reply was a little…unexpected:
Their further comments on it were a little more reasonable and understandable, mostly mentioning lower sales on Linux and again on GOG. Even so, that's a pretty naive and hostile attitude to take towards a store (GOG) and platform (Linux) both of which you only just started supporting.
After speaking to the developer myself, they said it was taken out of context (not that I see how, I followed the whole conversation personally). In reply to the same user who also posted this information on GOG, the developer said:
With the "for the sake of it" comment I was refering to a case of "I will only buy on gog because I want it DRM-free" but it IS DRM-free on Steam since forever. This ignorance and "for the sake of it" attitude made me a little angry.
I have not a single bad thought about gog.
They moved onto saying the Linux version performs poorly compared to the Windows version, saying it's better in Proton (which they also said slightly differently on the GOG forum and here too) so they don't want to give "a version that is inferior for reasons I cannot change". So, they're basically telling people on GOG to use Wine/Proton.
So for now, if you want to play the Linux version of Supraland, it's sadly Steam only. Although, going by their other comments it seems they're not confident on actually keeping the Linux version up.
Supra Games are also currently crowdfunding for Supraland 2 on Kickstarter, which is confirmed to be coming to Linux as well.
Article taken from GamingOnLinux.com.
Some you may have missed, popular articles from the last month:
The comments on this article are closed.
Quoting: x_wingThose restrictions aren't present in this game. i.e. it's a drm-free game.
Restrictions are present in their TOS. So developers telling you to ignore it doesn't change that. Steam doesn't want you to make backups. They just not always try to actively prevent it. That's not the same as DRM-free store which allows it.
Last edited by Shmerl on 11 July 2019 at 4:14 am UTC
0 Likes
Quoting: ShmerlQuoting: scaineIt's literally renting vs owning.
No, DRM is about restrictions. I.e. whether you are restricted in your usage after the purchase or not. Steam requires you to use the client to install the game. I.e. they don't sanction backups according to their terms of usage (except for using their own backup method, which again involves their client and etc.).
Whether they enforce it or not is already secondary. DRM-free store should not stop you from legally making backups. And they provide downloadable packages for such use case. DRMed stores quite explicitly avoid that, because they don't want you to back anything up.
I will argue that DRM are only the software restrictions that enforce this policy. If you are technically able to make back-ups, but are not allowed to do it by an agreement, it is not DRM. For example: copy protection in a disk is DRM; a label telling "it's illegal to copy this disk" is not. A law that prevents you from uploading a video file or a DRM takedown aren't DRM; encrypted media extensions are DRM.
But no, it's not renting vs owning, not even figuratively. It is about enforcing restrictions through invasive means, regardless of whether it is either "rented or owned" (neither is technically correct).
7 Likes, Who?
Quoting: eldakingI will argue that DRM are only the software restrictions that enforce this policy. If you are technically able to make back-ups, but are not allowed to do it by an agreement, it is not DRM.
It's not DRM from the standpoint of "breaking measures" i.e. violating anti-circumvention. But it's DRM from the standpoint of placing a restriction. For the lack of better term, DRM-free implies no such restrictions, and that means legal ways of backing up your purchases, not ones that violate the terms of use, while technically not breaking any software barriers. I.e. saying that game is DRM-free but to back it up you need to violate the TOS is not helpful. I don't call such stores DRM-free.
Last edited by Shmerl on 11 July 2019 at 5:08 am UTC
0 Likes
Quoting: eldakingIndeed, I would want to claim that the law or the label constitute ARM (Analog Rights Management).Quoting: ShmerlQuoting: scaineIt's literally renting vs owning.
No, DRM is about restrictions. I.e. whether you are restricted in your usage after the purchase or not. Steam requires you to use the client to install the game. I.e. they don't sanction backups according to their terms of usage (except for using their own backup method, which again involves their client and etc.).
Whether they enforce it or not is already secondary. DRM-free store should not stop you from legally making backups. And they provide downloadable packages for such use case. DRMed stores quite explicitly avoid that, because they don't want you to back anything up.
I will argue that DRM are only the software restrictions that enforce this policy. If you are technically able to make back-ups, but are not allowed to do it by an agreement, it is not DRM. For example: copy protection in a disk is DRM; a label telling "it's illegal to copy this disk" is not. A law that prevents you from uploading a video file or a DRM takedown aren't DRM; encrypted media extensions are DRM.
3 Likes, Who?
Quoting: GuestQuoting: TheSHEEEPYour argument is based on an eventuality that will simply never happen. You think police will kick down your door and arrest you for using a copy of a game you bought some time ago, but no longer "own"? Come on!What will never happen? That you close your account? That it gets closed? May be.
I'm just talking about legality issues. Some people care about that. You obviously not. That's your thing. It doesn't make my argument invalid, Steam is restricting the use of the software after having 'sold' it. This is DRM. You can ignore it, but neither deny it nor force others to accept it.
Valve would have a very hard hard time arguing in court that you violate any laws by using a DRM-free game without a Steam account since Valve does not hold the copyright to said game. AFAIK all they could do is see this as you violating the TOS and thus they are eligible to terminate your Steam account which is moot considering the basis of the question.
Actually the exact same thing should possibly be attached to the DRM games that Valve sells through Steam, even though they claim that you only license the game and not own it in their TOS they still don't hold the copyright to the game (only the publisher does) so their legal reach should not extend more than that they can terminate your account due to you violating the TOS. This however might play differently depending upon which country you live in and can ultimately only be solved once such a case is ever brought to court.
AKA if you terminate your Steam account and still play say Mass Effect 2 then only EA can bring you to court for violating copyright, not Valve.
3 Likes, Who?
Quoting: ShmerlQuoting: x_wingThose restrictions aren't present in this game. i.e. it's a drm-free game.
Restrictions are present in their TOS. So developers telling you to ignore it doesn't change that. Steam doesn't want you to make backups. They just not always try to actively prevent it. That's not the same as DRM-free store which allows it.
In the same way as restrictions are present in GOG TOS:
Quote3.3 Your GOG account and GOG content are personal to you and cannot be shared with, sold, gifted or transferred to anyone else. Your access to and use of them is subject to GOG’s rules which are set out here, as updated or amended when necessary.
So, based on your definition, should we still call GOG a DRM-free store?
More over, this scenario is worst with games that requires GOG services in order to have multiplayer content. I mean, GOG in the same way as steam can terminate your account which in that case would limit access to content of games you purchased.
Sorry, but we're playing the lawyers here and it has no sense. Being so strict with your rules will eventually force you to even close your current GOL user account... I can understand that you prefer GOG, but is completely stupid to keep saying that the only way to get "fully DRM-free" content is by using GOG.
3 Likes, Who?
Quoting: x_wingbut is completely stupid to keep saying that the only way to get "fully DRM-free" content is by using GOG.
That depends on how you look at it. Saying that the only way to get DRM-free content is by using GOG is indeed not true.
However, saying that the only way to keep getting DRM-free content is supporting GOG is pretty reasonable, since providing DRM-free content is literally GOG's mission. No other store made such effort to provide DRM-free content as GOG. So if I, as a user, want to get DRM-free content, using GOG is indeed the way to do so.
3 Likes, Who?
Quoting: RoosterThat depends on how you look at it. Saying that the only way to get DRM-free content is by using GOG is indeed not true.
However, saying that the only way to keep getting DRM-free content is supporting GOG is pretty reasonable, since providing DRM-free content is literally GOG's mission. No other store made such effort to provide DRM-free content as GOG. So if I, as a user, want to get DRM-free content, using GOG is indeed the way to do so.
Of course, there is "for the cause" argument too. But nobody gave that argument, we were debating about DRM-free content.
Again, is all about a store preference in the end.
0 Likes
Quoting: x_wingQuoting: RoosterThat depends on how you look at it. Saying that the only way to get DRM-free content is by using GOG is indeed not true.
However, saying that the only way to keep getting DRM-free content is supporting GOG is pretty reasonable, since providing DRM-free content is literally GOG's mission. No other store made such effort to provide DRM-free content as GOG. So if I, as a user, want to get DRM-free content, using GOG is indeed the way to do so.
Of course, there is "for the cause" argument too. But nobody gave that argument, we were debating about DRM-free content.
Again, is all about a store preference in the end.
I know, I just wanted to point it out, since I felt it is relevant to the discussion.
0 Likes
Quoting: x_wingIn the same way as restrictions are present in GOG TOS:
Nope. GOG only has regular copyright restrictions specified. I.e. you aren't supposed to copy what you bought to others. That's perfectly expected. GOG however allows you personal backups, which is one of the main points of DRM-free. So not the same at all.
Last edited by Shmerl on 11 July 2019 at 3:05 pm UTC
1 Likes, Who?
See more from me