The last time I used arch, I ran an update and it broke my bootloader, meaning the next time I restarted it wouldn't boot at all.
Sure I could make a recovery USB and fix it, but at that point I was away from home, and just really needed to do the totally crazy thing of "using my computer to actually do work".
(To be clear, I didn't and I'm not recommending going back to Windows, just a more sane Linux)
But the usual way to install Linux nowadays is from a live boot, so you automatically have a recovery drive anyway. It's not hard to set up regular restore points with Timeshift or similar, either.
That said, I haven't had problems like what you describe in nearly 4 years.
Updates generally just work, on the balance of my experience and other available evidence. It's still unwise to schedule them at a time where a failure would be more disruptive than baseline, and it's still best practice to be prepared for a failure and not have to figure things out on the fly.
Yet, when you go online to refresh your memory on how to update your Linux installation, too many of the guides still say STEP 1: Back everything up because you may not be able to boot after you do this!
Year of the Linux desktop for sure
Windows isn't perfect in this respect by any means, but it sure seems like it handles updates a lot better than the distros that have been mentioned in this thread; in that Windows at least takes steps to examine your hardware first and to not apply updates where it's known something has fallen out of support.
Windows also, apparently unlike these mentioned distros, maintains a Last Known Good configuration so if an update does start causing failures, it can automatically roll itself back (or, at worst, can manually be rolled back). There are some distros that do similar, particularly immutable distros; but honestly this sort of thing should be table stakes to the point that if a distro doesn't do it, it should be laughed out of the room.
There is absolutely no acceptable excuse for any operating system to break itself in an update.
If you have a choice don't use nVidia either, but the bigger distributions do handle them well.
EndeavourOS is apparently Arch-based so I've got no useful suggestions for fixing there, sorry.
I'm not saying I'm reading these regularly, just that yes it's the expected way.
That's why there are myriad of distros.
If you check their news section, it's a reasonable number of notes, 13 for last year. I think it's fair to say it seems to work well if you are willing to follow their procedure and already know what you're doing.
When I was googling to fix in the moment, I unfortunately did not find the news page.
Buy full AMD in 2026, and you'll have no problems with games.
Also, Bazzite would have saved you from this.
Indeed. Arch-based distros ought to be managed by intermediate-advanced users. Linux Mint is better suited to beginners.
> but I really just want the PC to work for playing games without any issues.
If you decide to give it another go, and you have the means, I suggest using an AMD graphics card. Nvidia's drivers are notorious for being troublesome on Linux, and although they can usually be made to work (either by the user or by a distro developer), the drivers for AMD GPUs are much better integrated with the OS.
I switched to AMD a few years ago and have been very pleased with the results, both in games and in non-gaming tasks. (I don't use my GPU for LLM development, though, so I can't speak to the current state of things in that area.)
I probably chose the wrong distro for this but I really just want the PC to work for playing games without any issues. I don't use it for anything other than playing games so for my time I just went back to Windows 10 and will use that until apps stop working.