Go look at https://www.protondb.com/explore?sort=mostBorked. In the first 50 games, there are 5 that I play that appear to be completely unplayable on linux at the moment. Is it behind the times to prefer an OS where literally every single game I've played in the last year has booted with no issues?

Hypothetically if I were to switch back to linux as my main OS, I'd rather just dual boot windows than buy a console with an OS that is, in my opinion, even worse than windows.

It's hilarious that the excuse for needing Windows is to pretend that in this context that you would be using the game console as your primary operating system. That's what Linux is for. If the problem with Linux is that 20,000 modern games being supported isn't enough because you still need to play Fall Guys, which is a hilariously boutique thing to hang the whole legitimacy of Windows on, then your problem is better solved with a console than with adding Windows. The operating system was already accounted for. Amazingly, your preferred solution is to have the worse operating system and fewer games.

>Is it behind the times to prefer an OS where literally every single game I've played in the last year has booted with no issues?

You're copying the manner of my phrasing while turning it into a rhetorical question about a different topic, you're not being responsive to my point about it being behind the times to claim that Linux does not offer a thoroughly modern gaming experience.

I'm pretty sure that type of non sequitur response is exactly what the Onion was making fun of in its headline: "Hippie wants to tell you what the real crime is." The joke is the familiar feeling of hearing someone go off who clearly didn't pay attention to a word you said.

sorry to have bothered you