Psychonauts 2 releases to great reviews but the Linux support is delayed

Microsoft is actually pretty good at documentation and developer help too. It's not really a problem for them to release something new and have developers pick it up - indeed, it's often a selling point. So it's not too difficult for them to introduce a Windows-only bit of middleware, or a subtle change to DirectX, and games no longer work through wine.

The middleware, sure. But it takes time for something like that to achieve market penetration and start turning up in actual finished games. During that time, people may well be able to get it working in Wine.
The subtle change in DirectX . . . how do they do it in such a way that games no longer work in Wine, but existing games still work on DirectX itself? And how long will it take for the DXVK people to introduce a fix? Too much of that kind of stuff, and pretty soon you'll find a bunch of games work under DXVK in Proton, but don't actually run on Windows any more.

The $80 CAD price tag for it was already pushing me away but there is absolutely zero chance I pay that for a Windows game.

Like I said before, this is why I will not crowdfund or preorder. Another game promising Linux support turned eventually/maybe/probably quietly never.

I will crowdfund if they have a playable Linux demo and the price is $20 or less. At that point the trust is a little higher.

I'm not really concerned with it being worse for Microsoft, so much as not good for GNU/Linux.

It's a cause and effect situation, more people use Linux as their primary is directly "worse" to Microsoft than people using any other non-microsoft system, because at long term this decreases their market share. Not saying this is a threat for them, but it's worse than everyone stuck to windows like we have today.

Microsoft is actually pretty good at documentation and developer help too. It's not really a problem for them to release something new and have developers pick it up - indeed, it's often a selling point. So it's not too difficult for them to introduce a Windows-only bit of middleware, or a subtle change to DirectX, and games no longer work through wine.

It is, if those said changes results in the software being unfamiliar with the older versions like I've said before. They can't limit proton inside their DX API because wine doesn't use any of it, and changing the calls only for the sake of breaking it would result in regressions with native DirectX games too. The same is correct if they release a more restrict api to replace DirectX, because developers would stick to what they already are comfortable to work unless this hypothetically new api could be also way better than what they are used to.

So the best and safer way they can boycott other systems is hide behind patent-protected tech like Media Foundation, and this is worse than relying on open source conversion layer like wine.

The question on this comes down to who can move faster.

That's the beauty of the current situation: They can't "move fast enough" like old days because there's more people making it work. Older games won't be updated to being incompatible with Proton, New gimmicks from video cards developers don't have a reason to stick only to Microsoft tech because they're independent companies (even if they have started windows only like RTX).

Since Proton and DXVK, it has been looking rather more like with more effort (and money) and more efficient approaches, chasing the taillights is pretty dashed viable, and the Wine/Proton/DXVK/stuff ecosystem can actually move faster than Microsoft can.

You're correct: The main key here is money and we can thank Valve for that. Without them gaming on linux would be in the sorrow state that was before.

It will, however, slow innovation and adaptability in GNU/Linux gaming.

Interesting, which one of those of those are being jeopardized by Proton?

So the best and safer way they can boycott other systems is hide behind patent-protected tech like Media Foundation, and this is worse than relying on open source conversion layer like wine.

Microsoft doesn't really care for wine.

Microsoft cares for market share. So do I. If Wine gets us market share, or rather is a factor in getting us market share, everything else can follow. The Steam Deck makes this quite likely right now. On the other hand, if we don't get market share, GNU/Linux gaming and innovation in same won't be going anywhere much anyway.


Last edited by Purple Library Guy on 26 August 2021 at 7:14 pm UTC

GNU/Linux desktop has had virtual desktops for a very long time. I don't see many games taking advantage of that, or even trying to.

Now you made me curious! Got any ideas for this? Have any games used this?

Other than lacking of a more friendly and supported development environment on par with Visual Studio?

Not Proton's fault, for all the things against Microsoft I can have, I must recognize that Visual Studio / code is a very good ide.

Lack of focus in areas that could keep games running across distros, kind of like containers

Like Proton?

Lack of integration with desktop and features such as Twitch integration? (I like to shout out Hive Time here).

Inside the games you mean? Because OBS is already cross platform (amazing software btw).

How about streaming from main server into the living room? If you think that's covered by Steam, think again.

I failed to see how Proton has impact on this one

Simple tweaks to drivers along the lines of what is seen from control panels available to Windows users? Sure, most of that is pretty crap, but ideas do come out of much of it.

I agreed 100% on this one, but this is a problem of lack of standards between Desktop Environments (Aka "linux freedom") where a lot of developers expect that user will have a previous knowledge in terminal usage and tweaking things. Unfortunately "good defaults" is a topic criminally underrated on linux, but still no related to proton.

GNU/Linux desktop has had virtual desktops for a very long time. I don't see many games taking advantage of that, or even trying to.

Probably because right now developers don't see the necessity of it (and I'm personally skeptical about performance on this one). If you're talking about the security factor, then It's better not to depend on game developers on it.

Anti-cheat mechanisms that don't rely upon kernel level access.

True, but I don't think this one has a solution. They either would need to have access to your kernel info, to "make sure" you're not running cheats (intrusive) or running server-side verification (more expensive to developers). A non-intrusive anticheat on linux could be easily bypassed.

What about experimental driver features, API extensions? OpenGL had that for years. Vulkan has continued that. Not available with DirectX.

Again I agreed with you, and those are topics that need to be easy to use and some marketing on it. OpenGL lost the battle with DX because of the lack of standards, and Vulkan is now better, but needs to become easy to develop with first (which is a work in progress fortunately). In fact Proton is a consequence of this problem, not the cause.

Sparse texture volumes would never have existed without that, directly impacting games like Enemy Territory: Quake Wars, Rage, Rage 2, Doom 2016, Doom Eternal. Now granted they were all Windows games - but what would happen if you had a lot more people using OpenGL back then, and more using Vulkan now, on an OS where there are a whole heap more freedoms to experiment?

Bethesda games? lol
They're the perfect example of how even with the tech available, the company can simply choose to not support linux because of the lack of Market share. I think they're most likely to sabotage linux games than Microsoft (like they did putting Media Foundation on Skyrim SE).

But no, apparently that's all insignificant and "Proton" is the way forward, just do whatever Microsoft dictate. That should get you started on something to think about.

Proton is a consequence to Microsoft dominance, I agreed native technology will always be better but Proton is better than nothing (which was what linux had before in the game subject).

My point is people where not developing games for linux before (except for the Steam machines train hype that derailed), and still would not because of the lack of market share. More important that technology and money, Linux need more users and Proton is helping with that.

Going off topic, for which I apologise, but I figure this is interesting anyway!
[...snipped long and highly readable pos...]

Very interesting, thanks for sharing! Some real outside the box thinking, or perhaps outside the window?

I would actually love something like this for a game like OpenTTD. Real windows for all those little boxes of statistics and whatnots on a second monitor or workspace.

Incorrect. Games were developed, though not as profitable I'll grant.

If you're talking about open source games, while they're awesome as pet projects they can't be compared to mainstream hits. Money is necessary to make those games popular, by marketing it or by making developers dedicate to improve it.

More users alone gives you nothing if those users are still tied to whatever Microsoft dictate. That's what "Proton" is. Developers are not being encouraged to develop for GNU/Linux, quite the opposite, and that is the point. Everything I wrote above would see more attention with more native development. Something Valve, through "Proton", and directly said from them, is actively discouraging.

More users alone creates a market share to be explored. The reason you see more investment in an inferior platform like android/ios instead of desktop Linux is pure because of the quantity of users. The main reason Microsoft can "dictate" anything outside the company is because of their market share (the same reason Nvidia can jeopardize Wayland). So yes, more users is essential.

The worst thing that can happen if Linux has only technology without users is other platforms leeching their work and making people use it elsewhere, without contributing with anything like Sony does with BSD.


Last edited by BielFPs on 26 August 2021 at 9:14 pm UTC

So if we get in a state where wine / proton can 1:1 with native DirectX, without the need to rely on Windows, then their only choice would be port / open source DirectX, or sabotage using patent protected components Media Foundation, which is the case with this game.

Or they release DX13 and we can start all over again. I'm with mirv on this one. Going for DX on proton as the basis for Linux gaming is just keeping Microsoft in control of the pc gaming ecosystem.

My point is something like Proton is worse for Microsoft than for Linux gaming, and what I think it really need to happen is Vulkan to become more mature and easier to develop, in a way that developers can rely on without the fear of causing problems they don't know how to fix.

I'm not really concerned with it being worse for Microsoft, so much as not good for GNU/Linux.

Microsoft is actually pretty good at documentation and developer help too. It's not really a problem for them to release something new and have developers pick it up - indeed, it's often a selling point. So it's not too difficult for them to introduce a Windows-only bit of middleware, or a subtle change to DirectX, and games no longer work through wine.

Microsoft is and will remain in control unless and until game companies have the incentive to use something other than DirectX for developing their games. And like it or not, as things stand now, that incentive can probably only come either by Vulkan proving to be 10x more performant than DirectX (unlikely) or by the Steam Deck succeeding and thus Proton and Linux catching the game companies' shareholders' attention. So right now our only hope to increase our chances is to achieve 100% compatibility with the dominant game development SDK, which would be DirectX.

As for MS introducing some change into DirectX, DXVK and VKD3D don't depend on the official DirectX SDK but rather re-implement it based on the public spec, so as long as the world is publicly notified about the change (which it will be if game developers are expected to actually develop games that work with this new version) there can no longer be a vendor lock-in. The only thing DirectX can have to its advantage compared to Proton is performance (even WMF and similar extras are already being implemented in Proton).

It will, however, slow innovation and adaptability in GNU/Linux gaming.

Interesting, which one of those of those are being jeopardized by Proton?

Other than lacking of a more friendly and supported development environment on par with Visual Studio?

Lack of focus in areas that could keep games running across distros, kind of like containers (which haven't gained any traction yet for gaming)?

Lack of integration with desktop and features such as Twitch integration? (I like to shout out Hive Time here).

How about streaming from main server into the living room? If you think that's covered by Steam, think again.

Simple tweaks to drivers along the lines of what is seen from control panels available to Windows users? Sure, most of that is pretty crap, but ideas do come out of much of it.

GNU/Linux desktop has had virtual desktops for a very long time. I don't see many games taking advantage of that, or even trying to.

Anti-cheat mechanisms that don't rely upon kernel level access.

What about experimental driver features, API extensions? OpenGL had that for years. Vulkan has continued that. Not available with DirectX. Sparse texture volumes would never have existed without that, directly impacting games like Enemy Territory: Quake Wars, Rage, Rage 2, Doom 2016, Doom Eternal. Now granted they were all Windows games - but what would happen if you had a lot more people using OpenGL back then, and more using Vulkan now, on an OS where there are a whole heap more freedoms to experiment?

But no, apparently that's all insignificant and "Proton" is the way forward, just do whatever Microsoft dictate. That should get you started on something to think about.

--edit: and let's not forget about gametime, which came out of someone at Feral (at the time).

These all sound very nice, but you seem to be forgetting the simple fact that Linux is at best an afterthought for most game companies. No matter if you're in the right, you can't hope to dictate the market if you only control less than 1% of the market (and that's only if you include Proton-compatible games) and you can't hope to control more than 1% of the market if no one gives half a f*ck about you or your ideas or your needs (talking about Linux here).

It's like a poor Third World country in sub-Saharan Africa asking for voting rights in the UN security council, in order to promote a plan for peace and prosperity and Unicorns for the whole wide world. A noble cause, but what do you think would happen? I'll tell you what, same thing that would happen to Linux gaming if there were no Proton around. Again, like it or not, in the gaming world Linux is less than an afterthought for anyone that could potentially help it become something more than an afterthought... except Valve. We're freaking lucky we got Valve for free.

Unity3D beg to differ.

Fall guys and Cuphead (the 2 best known unity games) are windows only.

Loki games

bankrupt

but where do you think SDL came from? I was playing the original Unreal Tournament on GNU/Linux with r200 drivers. UT2004 had GNU/Linux binaries on the physical release discs.

1 game in 10000, which the company is now owned by a windows fanboy. (and proton supports SDL)

Android has a large market share....that Google control. More users alone does not promise anything. If Valve control a larger market (and let's face it, on GNU/Linux they've basically turned it into Steam/Linux) then they control it - and they are saying just make Windows games. Increase in users gives GNU/Linux very little in this case.

Valve doesn't control Linux, it controls steam (Which profit from both systems). People for some reason mistakenly forget it and paint Valve as some kind of "defender of Linux adoption".

and they are saying just make Windows games

Developers are already doing it for years without Valve need to tell them to. If you want developers outside of the linux bubble to support us, then it needs to convince them that it's profitable (with market share).

I do hope Proton is just a passing phase. It has had negative impact on native games. Throwing money at developers that don't care about Linux doesn't help much either. Throwing money at developers who develop native Linux games helps. At least it makes huge differences for the indies who support Linux.

Proton can increase Linux adoption, but if money keeps going to wrong places, we might have won a battle, but we are still losing the war so to speak. I would suppose people haven't heard about OS/2 and there's good reason for that. It wasn't able to compete with Windows just by being able to run Windows programs. For people who wanted to run Windows software, Windows was much better option as it for some reason was more compatible.

For people trying Linux for the first time, being able to run Windows games, but poorly is not really a good selling point. If they are curious and actually want to try out something different, they might find more reasons to stay.

But large masses are not like that. Large masses use Linux because it's preinstalled on the device they bought. Which means that most of the money goes to developers who don't care about Linux if the device enables Proton by default. If it supports only native Linux games, it would largely rely on indies, which reduces the mass market appeal. So no easy wins either way. Though latter alternative would again benefit the indie developers.

But at least you can trust indie developers more to build the game on cross platform technologies right from the start. Some of them will try to do it after game has been already released and complain things being impossible. But can't win every time. Winning sometimes would be nice though.

To turn things on their head: if you're such a fan on Windows games, why aren't you using Windows?

Oh come on don't appeal to ad hominem, we're having a good debate

We started this conversation with your opinion that Proton is not good for gaming, and I gave my saying I disagree.

But I will tell you a secret: I am using Windows too. Not because of my choice, but because I currently working for a company that have some legacy .NET systems (before core/5), so I'm kind of stuck with windows for now (but my notebook is 100% Linux though). If I had something like Proton to work with it, then I wouldn't be using it in any way because I really prefer Linux nowadays.

I also made 2 of my friends migrate to linux, because they have weak setups but could play some games with proton, and they're loving it (they were using windows 7 before).

I doubt my case was the only one in the world, and I can guarantee you that I wouldn't have convinced them if wasn't for proton (and wine).

I'm telling you this because I think you're too worried about the direct impact of proton in native (treating as a permanent alternative to native software) that you're not seeing the potential of the long term benefit this can have in the Linux adoption, and therefore improvement.

The good thing is that common users doesn't care about windows either, they just want to use their favorite software in an easy way, and if Linux can offer it for them (proton or not), then it's good.

What possible benefit could that have in the long term?

Already said my opinion in the previous posts, and since this article is now in page 2 I end here.

Until next time friend!

Interesting analogy that I disagree with. GNU/Linux never asked for a seat at the table - the focus was never originally on increasing market share. It dominated the server market by simply being better, and was made better by being open for anyone to tinker with and improve. It was far more accessible to those who had the skills and wanted to create something, so it never needed market share.

GNU/Linux doesn't need market share in order to succeed.

"GNU/Linux never asked for a seat at the table"?

"GNU/Linux doesn't need market share in order to succeed"?

You may have never asked for a seat at the table, but most of the big companies and contributors behind Linux nowadays (even Linus himself I'd dare say) certainly desire one. Also, I believe you're confusing Linux as a tech made by the knowledgeable few for those of us that use computers as a personal hobby/passion, with Linux as a product made for the masses that use computers as a tool.

In a nutshell: ever since Linux left nerd-space (servers and workstations) and entered user-space (games and desktop/productivity apps) there is no such thing as advancement based on merit alone anymore. There's also marketing, public relations, politics, bottom lines, user experience/satisfaction... the works.

Furthermore....and this gets a rise out of people every time, but I'm not meaning to. Everything that people are crediting Valve for, on a technical side, existed before Valve got involved. DXVK was not started by Valve. WINE was not started by Valve. Mesa drivers and the massive improvements to them was not started by Valve. I'm not making light of Valve's contributions, but instead pointing out that all of this would still have been done without Valve. Valve are the lucky ones that the work was open source and could be invested in to give them what they wanted.

I get what you're saying, after all it's not like Linux and Wine were invented by Valve, but:

DXVK was started by a guy who from day 1 adamantly refused donations and help from third-parties on his GitHub, until it was publicly announced that he was being funded and supported by Valve.

Wine was a fantastic foundation but an incomplete and crappy end-product that could barely handle old DX9 games, let alone DX11 (which was already some 10 years old), until DXVK, and later Proton with all its included middleware, came along and completely changed the game. I agree though that without Wine being readily available to serve as the foundation, we wouldn't have seen such great progress in so little time on the modern gaming front.

Mesa drivers' and Nvidia drivers improvements' are IMHO directly, at least in (a large) part, the result of Valve lobbying in favor of Linux/Proton and nowadays the Steam Deck. If not for that we'd probably still be living in the BSD stone age.

And even though you didn't mention them, further improvements like WMF support and anti-cheat integration will be the direct result of Valve working on/lobbying for them. Anti-cheat in particular is a great example of a tech that we wouldn't be able to implement on technical merit alone, without at least a modicum of marketing/PR, because the obstacle is not the technology itself but the politics around it. Same goes for other stuff like Nvidia's Shadowplay, which are part and parcel of the modern gaming experience; it's not only about the game itself nowadays, it's also about the extras, and you can't get these without market share and thus a "seat on the table".

What I do 100% agree on, though, is that Valve is equally (if not more) lucky that Linux & Wine were there when it needed them in order to take advantage of them. In the end, if this whole endeavor proves to be successful, we end-users will be getting our gaming fix, hooray; Valve on the other hand will be earning tens of millions per year. It's clearly of more benefit to them.

But large masses are not like that. Large masses use Linux because it's preinstalled on the device they bought.

And then they cry (with good reason) when they find out the device they bought is more useless to them than a door prop, because they want to actually use their device for their use cases, not admire it for its technological prowess. And we get to explain to them why their new and shiny computer can't play their new and shiny games (not "Windows games", games, period). Oh, but Linux runs great on servers! Now that's important to Average Joe out there, don't you think?

Of course this all is hypothetical, because large masses don't actually use Linux, they use Windows and Mac and Android and iOS.

To turn things on their head: if you're such a fan on Windows games, why aren't you using Windows?

The answer is extremely simple: because we like Windows games, not Windows itself, and Proton has allowed us to finally ditch Windows while still being able to play Windows-only games. Do you really not comprehend how liberating that feels to someone who enjoys gaming but dislikes Windows?


Last edited by Nocifer on 27 August 2021 at 11:27 am UTC

The answer is extremely simple: because we like Windows games, not Windows itself, and Proton has allowed us to finally ditch Windows while still being able to play Windows-only games. Do you really not comprehend how liberating that feels to someone who enjoys gaming but dislikes Windows?

Is it liberating, though? You're playing Windows games. You're paying for Windows games. And, by definition, it cannot surpass whatever Microsoft do. Which means, as a product, it will always be behind Windows. Always. Valve don't care for that - the vast majority of their income is from games running on Windows, after all, they only care about Microsoft not strangling that income source.

It might have been able to be a case where this could have encouraged more GNU/Linux development, except for as I've mentioned before, that Valve are actually discouraging this. And yet somehow that's....liberating? My word for it is instead stagnation.

I don't totally disagree here, but I wouldn't say that it's irresponsible to start with Windows games. Going full native can be bit of harsh experience if you're used be able to play the latest FPS games. Worrying about long term health of the Linux gaming ecosystem can come later. Gaming is primarily about having fun anyway.

You may have never asked for a seat at the table, but most of the big companies and contributors behind Linux nowadays (even Linus himself I'd dare say) certainly desire one. Also, I believe you're confusing Linux as a tech made by the knowledgeable few for those of us that use computers as a personal hobby/passion, with Linux as a product made for the masses that use computers as a tool.

I'm not confusing this at all, but quite the opposite - GNU/Linux was never a product, and now it's being turned into one that many seem to think will compete against Windows...by relying on Windows gaming?

The answer is extremely simple: because we like Windows games, not Windows itself, and Proton has allowed us to finally ditch Windows while still being able to play Windows-only games. Do you really not comprehend how liberating that feels to someone who enjoys gaming but dislikes Windows?

Is it liberating, though? You're playing Windows games. You're paying for Windows games. And, by definition, it cannot surpass whatever Microsoft do. Which means, as a product, it will always be behind Windows. Always. Valve don't care for that - the vast majority of their income is from games running on Windows, after all, they only care about Microsoft not strangling that income source.

It might have been able to be a case where this could have encouraged more GNU/Linux development, except for as I've mentioned before, that Valve are actually discouraging this. And yet somehow that's....liberating? My word for it is instead stagnation.

Valve's problem is they don't want to ever take a balanced approach. They at first wanted to bring devs to their "Cocoa," to compare with the transition from Mac OS classic to Mac OS X, by making up a farce of a console concept. Then, when that didn't work, now they're the complete opposite like "well culturally devs love Windows so Proton as a porting tool FTW" which either way isn't the best idea. You can't go full on Carbon or Cocoa, the two must exist and coexist for ages, then Carbon must be killed or at least deprecated eventually. That said, if Proton is used right it can be an effective porting tool, just that it'll never be as optimized for a handheld as native, and can still reinforce bad habits if not done correctly.

Besides that though, in retrospect I don't think it's "M$" (at least beyond some rushing to release) or Proton that's behind Psychonauts 2's absence. After all, the game has been criticized for some launch bugs and it notably is missing a Russian translation too, which is mostly why those Metacritic user scores are so shockingly low despite praise on Steam. Clearly the game was pushed to a certain release date and while it hasn't hurt the game too much, it's led to compromise in availability like Linux. Probably Linux will be in by the time the Steam Deck launches anyways.


Last edited by RoundDuckKira on 31 August 2021 at 6:30 pm UTC