It's interesting that their official virtualization support (in the demo) is Parallels.
I've stopped doing that years ago. No need now - if you want to play Windows games, buy a PC - it's a lot cheaper.
Especially – and funnily enough – in business contexts, where you need to run software which are each only available on either Mac or Windows, but not both.
I used Parallels for a while, and it was great, but then we kind of standardized on VirtualBox at work. It was okay.
But then our dev environments got too big to run on laptops, so now they're all cloud-hosted VMs. We still run Docker (which uses a VM under the covers for Mac) but that uses Apple's Hypervisor framework and isn't really "user-facing" virtualization.
Perhaps it's just to temper expectations then. If the performance or user experience isn't comparable to what today's users expect, it's probably better not to celebrate that use case.
Nobody who has ever attempted to use it would claim this.
Or at least that's what I hope ;-) I'm relying on running x86 Windows and Linux within Parallels in addition to native MacOS Apps to do my daily work, which involves compiling and testing x86 binaries for these platforms, so whether this virtualization thing actually runs x86 OSes transparently is an absolute make-or-break feature for me to continue my usage of the MacOS platform for work.
Not all packages are available in ARM flavors.