First we're talking about a potentiel market restricted to ubuntu users, the small portion that would give money for a piece of software.
Then we're talking about a game added to the ubuntu store when it was released in a pay what you want bundle.
Then again the dev is known for having a poor opinion of linux and its communities.
The port itself has a few bugs.
Not exactly the recipe for success here.
As an example, I'm a linux gamer, I own a copy of the humble bundle including super meat boy and after using it for a couple years, I for sure will stay away from ubuntu for technical, personal and ethical reasons. So don't expect my money showing up on the ubuntu store.
it's probably an interesting read except that being hosted on google's blogspot means it only display blank pages due to content being embedded in some javascript shenanigans.
Even a screenshot would be better than this.
Please move on to some actual html website that just works or rehost the content elsewhere before posting it here. Thanks.
Actually you don't, according to david pitkin it's the lack of age restriction in the ubuntu store that cause this game to be rejected.
Here's the quote:
Hi Edmund, let's figure the confusion out as soon as possible. There were some crossed wires with the Humble Indie Bundle 5 launch and Super Meat Boy plus the lack of age restrictions in the Ubuntu App Store for Issac but nothing more I thought : (
David Pitkin,Director of Consumer Applications at Canonical.
The THQ bundle was but an attempt to boost the stock value of the company by showing people had interest in the games before filing for bankruptcy.
It was real real sub par in comparison of other bundles, it was crippled by being windows only and steam only on linux, it had no bonus content and didn't feature anything fresh. Also developers of those games mostly didn't see a dime of this.
Erm, it only quotes one tweet from the other dev that actually doesn't add anything at all by saying that they still didn't get paid which was implied.
It also had (it's been silently rewritten) an outrageously sensationalist title and lack context and follow up you have in the original source.
Pirates is wrongly re appropriated term, but it certainly fits better to a company selling something belong to someone else without an agreement and keeping all the money than say someone downloading an audio track to preview it before buying if it's good enough (and available enough at a reasonable price).
Anyways there's no mention of piracy in the original statement.
It was not intended publicity, it's not as if they made a press release or something, it's just the answer to a question asked to the guy on a website that got picked up.
https://www.humblebundle.com/