Valve puts up Proton 5.13-4 to get Cyberpunk 2077 working on Linux for AMD GPUs

Quoting: x_wing

Quoting: orochi_kyoAt least they give chance AMD Linux users to play the game, better than a middle finger, and as Pierre said, CDPR gave the game prior release to Valve to adjust everything for Proton, that is a good sign they take LINUX into account, better than the other 90% of companies outthere, including EPIC or the same Google.

Sharing a beta key doesn't mean anything (which may also be related to letting Steam test if their overlay is working as expected). Looking at how GOG has been handling the Linux status for their galaxy client says much more than this, so you're definitely giving them a credit for nothing. The fact that their game uses DX12 proves that Linux was never an option and we suffer the consequences of that decision mainly in the game performance.

Sorry, but you're being delusional. If you really think that CDPR deserves any credit for the work that Valve did, then you must do the same with Bethesda as we also got day one support with Rage 2.

I forgot Rage 2 was even a thing!

Did they choose DX12 because they could use nifty things like Ray Tracing, and Vulkan wasn't ready? Game looks amazing with all the features on, for what its worth.


Last edited by slaapliedje on 11 December 2020 at 7:09 pm UTC

Quoting: slaapliedjeI firgot Rage 2 was even a thing!

Did they choose DX12 because they could use nifty things like Ray Tracing, and Vulkan wasn't ready? Game looks amazing with all the features on, for what its worth.

Impossible to know. This game started development a little before DX12 and Vulkan was a thing, not to mention RT. If I have to guess, RT and DLSS is there because of Nvidia wallet. I doubt that CDPR didn't have the option to use Vulkan instead of DX12 at the moment they decided for DX12.

My point here is: lets be realistic, that the game works on Linux it's not a priority nor a concern for CDPR.


Last edited by x_wing on 11 December 2020 at 6:41 pm UTC

I believe Vulkan on Windows is still a bit niche and AAA companies are still tied to DirectX, I don't know why for certain but a few guesses could be due to their team experienced in DX or simply their engines are optimized for it throughout the years.

At the moment the only reason why they should go to Vulkan is for wider PC compatibility, not even the Nintendo Switch would be a good reason because even though it supports it, it still has its' own API. Unfortunately none of these large companies seem to be inclined in Linux support, save for Stadia (which as the DXVK creator recently pointed out, some of the Linux/Vulkan ports seem to be done by a 3rd party).

Another favor of DX12 atm is ray tracing. Mind blowing graphics aren't just art but also a huge selling point to many people. I have a few friends which refuse to play modern pixel style, 2D or even older games (such as Quake 1), if a game has great graphics then it's a sale.

Vulkan with ray tracing was finalized only a few weeks ago, so might be a while until we see a game ditching DX and using Vulkan's full potential.

Long story short, currently Vulkan is more popular with open source engines/projects and among the Linux ecosystem. Hopefully that will change/improve for the better.


Last edited by Avehicle7887 on 11 December 2020 at 8:54 pm UTC

new patch up
win version was downloading 1,5gb
linux version downloading 3,5 gb

game version 1.04

Quoting: x_wingThis doesn't makes sense. If ChromeOS sees a Linux distro as competence then I don't want to know how they see Windows 10 (or MacOS for the matter of same products type). The value of a Streaming platform is all the infrastructure you build in order to make it possible, not to mention that users like the idea of Stadia because they don't need to have the latest hardware in order to play games.

If CDPR would care about Linux we would already have the Linux port of CP2077. I fail to understand why this is so difficult to see and some people prefer to think on artificial/corporation limitations that are limiting them to do the release.

Stadia is Google's push for gaming. Google's main OS is ChromeOS, that powers Chromebooks. If Google decides to market Chromebooks as aggressively as they are marketing Stadia, who do you think it's detrimental for? Only Windows and Mac?

Quoting: Purple Library GuyBut desktop Linux doesn't compete with ChromeOS. Really, it doesn't. Someday in the distant future, it may, but not currently. They both compete with Windows and to some extent Mac. But ChromeOS is going after a segment of the Windows monopoly that is very distinct from the segment that sees any desktop Linux uptake.

How is it not? If someone decides to game on Chromebooks over Linux, they are then exposed to Chrome ecosystem (Which is whatever Google wants it to be).

Quoting: Purple Library GuyNobody who uses desktop Linux would, if desktop Linux were unavailable, say "I guess my second choice for doing that job is ChromeOS". And nobody who uses ChromeOS would, if ChromeOS were unavailable, say "I guess I'll switch to desktop Linux". Their second choice would be an iPad or something.

ChromeOS just like Linux is evolving. The potential for any kind of user to decide to use Chromebook isn't out of the equation. Good products and services with aggressive marketing could make somebody to go "Maybe I will buy a Chromebook", especially if they already are introduced to products like Stadia. Of course, I am talking about the future. Right now I have not seen Google market Chromebooks for gaming. I'd guess that it's because they are waiting for better timing, when Stadia popularity is much better and more polished.

Quoting: Purple Library GuyMeanwhile, on the technology level, ChromeOS pretty much is desktop Linux, so it's in Google's interest for desktop Linux as a technology to do well. And if they want to move ChromeOS up the food chain to be a non-toy OS, which to some extent they seem to, they'll have to use more desktop Linux technology. And as someone challenging the Windows desktop monopoly, it's somewhat positive for them if anyone else has some success in doing so--any reduction in the ubiquitous assumption that desktop == Windows is good.

ChromeOS is Google's Linux. What things it has with desktop Linux can change whenever Google likes it. I think Google has the reputation, money and products to challenge Windows even without desktop Linux. One of the biggest reason Linux market share is low is because of gaming. Google has little to no trouble there with many developers supporting Stadia, ensuring that games work on Chromebooks. Few if any are developing for desktop Linux, and if they do there isn't a guarantee that the quality of release will be good or that they will maintain it.

I assure you regardless of what ChromeOS has in common with Linux, similar to Android, the underlying principles of these platforms deviates to a small or bigger degree to what I love about Linux. I had to use LineageOS to get away from Google products and services for example. And these things can change if Google wants to, for better or worse. Stadia is another proof of that. "A place for all the ways we play". I like to play locally.

Quoting: Purple Library GuySo overall, I don't think Google have any reason to be against desktop Linux; if they had an opportunity to kneecap someone, both Microsoft and Apple would be far ahead of desktop Linux in their "to crush" list. And in a zero-sum game where kneecapping desktop Linux mostly would help MS and Apple (but not ChromeOS because different market segment), there's no way they'd be doing that. What I can see is Google, or the little Stadia bit anyway, pushing for exclusives period, so that no desktop version happens at all. But I don't think they have the market share in the gaming business to pull that off much.

Definitely, right now they don't have any reasons to crush Linux, just as it's beneficial for Linux platform to work with Stadia to overthrow Microsoft's tactics. But what happens when Stadia and Chromebooks become popular enough to point that Chromebooks market share outgrows Linux? Then ChromeOS will overshadow Linux and there will be three, not two ecosystems for Linux to contend with. If Google intends to leverage Stadia to increase market share of ChromeOS, they will undoubtedly get a reason to want to be against Linux. Linux may not be or become their biggest competitors, but it will be a competitor. Because why would people buy Chromebooks and use ChromeOS for gaming if Linux gives them a great option (that includes Stadia)? Assuming the scenario is that both Linux and Chrome has become much better for gaming, and Windows grip on gaming is slipping.


Last edited by Linuxwarper on 11 December 2020 at 10:04 pm UTC

Quoting: LinuxwarperStadia is Google's push for gaming. Google's main OS is ChromeOS, that powers Chromebooks. If Google decides to market Chromebooks as aggressively as they are marketing Stadia, who do you think it's detrimental for? Only Windows and Mac?

And how is this connected with your theory of the clause to not allow to use the Stadia work for a Linux release?

IMO, the fact that you have to buy a Chromebook in order to get ChromeOS shows that it is more a direct competitor to Windows/MacOS computers as one of the main problems of Linux distros is that they aren't widely preinstalled in the notebooks/desktop sold to the public.

Quoting: DerBrockennew patch up
win version was downloading 1,5gb
linux version downloading 3,5 gb

game version 1.04

For me, linux patch was 1,4 GB. Interesting.

Game version 1.04. Changelog, if anyone interested.

Quoting: x_wingAnd how is this connected with your theory of the clause to not allow to use the Stadia work for a Linux release?

They can leverage Stadia doing the heavy work and offer Chromebooks that are elegant and slim with modest but capable GPU and CPU for a good price, that you can do work and gaming on. If games aren't made available for local play on Linux (even for Chromebooks), desktop Linux will suffer while Chromebooks will not. Because Google seems to want a streaming only future and probably will base their Chromebook business based on that.

Quoting: x_wingIMO, the fact that you have to buy a Chromebook in order to get ChromeOS shows that it is more a direct competitor to Windows/MacOS computers as one of the main problems of Linux distros is that they aren't widely preinstalled in the notebooks/desktop sold to the public.

Yes, but Linux is a competitor too. Ultimately I don't think desktop Linux rivaling Windows and Mac aligns with what Google wants. You can go out and build your own PC and install Linux. You can also buy a premade PC from Google, Apple or Microsoft. If you buy a Chromebook, you are part of Google ecosystem, they benefit. If you buy a laptop or build your own PC and use Linux, you are within Linux ecosystem (desktop). Linux benefits.


Last edited by Linuxwarper on 11 December 2020 at 11:21 pm UTC

Quoting: einherjar*cries in NVidia*

it works also for NVidia btw.

I have completed the tutorial and the first mission (2h of gameplay so far). No critical bugs or issues so far on Nvidia RTX 3090.

Just the following remarks:

• The graphics with no RayTracing is abismal


• The framerate with no DLSS is criminal (20 FPS)

All the graphical settings (textures, shadows, etc.) can give me a gain of 3fps if I put everything in low. Honestly it is better than expected.

Online services don't work for me, and tbf I don't consider it a bug actually...

Here below a few screenshots:

Quoting: LordDaveTheKind

Quoting: einherjar*cries in NVidia*

it works also for NVidia btw.

I have completed the tutorial and the first mission (2h of gameplay so far). No critical bugs or issues so far on Nvidia RTX 3090.

So basically you shed only one two tears Hope it's fixed asap.