But still, this is why you target Proton. It seems "anti linux" and suboptimal, but its actually quite practical.
Whenever I do game on linux, I always use the proton versions anyway because they perform better than the native linux version, with the only exception so far being Minecraft.
Most of the issues users have with Starfield are the product of having a set incompatible software. Nvidia users often fail to run the game when their driver is too new. AMD users often fail to run the game when their driver is too old.
There's a broad range of issues like this in Linux land that are very difficult to track and understand. Users seem to understand that its a package management issue but have no clue how to fix it. So they end up reiterating pointless "rolling release bad" or "stable release bad" rhetoric.
And DIY maintenance on Arch Linux is part of the pitch (especially when running Nvidia drivers).
Distros that pitch themselves as gaming distros (like Fedora Nobara, Garuda, CachyOS) tend to offer a far superior out-of-the-box experience. Windows is in that category too, as Microsoft rather explicitly targets gaming more than, say, base Ubuntu or Fedora.
If you need to run new things, you are not the target audience for LTS releases and shouldn’t be using them. Don’t expect time-travel compatibility from the backported bugfixes that an LTS calls “updates”.
That doesn’t make Ubuntu LTS bad. If you have a box that you intend to set up in a closet and forget for three years, but still don’t want to turn into a glaring security hole in six months, Ubuntu LTS with updates applied automatically or over SSH is a good choice. (Granted, I happen to think Debian is a better choice, but reasonable people can disagree here.) Just don’t expect the latest shinies from it.
I think they should though!
Targeting native linux is very difficult. Simply testing the game on Proton would be orders of magnitude easier for the developer.
And these are game ticks, so it actually affects the rate you play the game rather than just FPS.