Quoting: CyrilSo I suppose with that they can achieve it without negative impact on performances. I know nothing about Hyper-V, but it seems it's available on Linux, isn't it?
If yes, anyone have tested it?

Hyper-V is Microsoft's own thing. The Linux equivalent is KVM. Plus other VM solutions like VMWare, VirtualBox, and so on.

QuoteOn a console, the user don't notice it, it works OOTB. But with a PC, I'm wondering if setup VMs etc worth it... Maybe it can be pretty simple, I don't know.

VMs are very worthwhile for some loads. The scalable computing things like AWS, Azure, and so on use VMs: when you want another instance you fire up another VM image. Plus they're portable, so you can take your VM snapshot to a different machine and just start it up there, since the hypervisor exposes the same interface to the software regardless of the hardware. So you can do resilience stuff and load-balancing stuff pretty readily.

Then you've got containers, like Docker, Kubernetes, snaps, and Valve's Soldier, that provide isolation and sandboxing, but aren't a VM. It's a sliding scale of abstraction.

So it's definitely worthwhile for some people to set it up, but whether it's worthwhile enough to be able to pause a game so that someone gets round to doing that, I couldn't say. It's the kind of thing that Valve could do, for the same reasons as Microsoft do, if they were to release a new version of the Steam Machines, or it's something that Canonical could do to extend their snaps and cloud stuff, or it's something that Google could do to extend Kubernetes and Android stuff, or anyone else with an itch to scratch. If they wanted to, and could find the motivation.