" What would be better for the consumer and in turn better for the health of the PC game industry is for PC game developers to design games for a defined PC specification for a longer period and maximize the capabilities of that hardware instead of always raising the bar and expecting the customer to buy new hardware to keep up."
This is where you are missing the point. Even if developers did this, the game still would not run on an integrated intel chip. Integrated intel chips are about 5 years behind the technology curve. In order for your analogy to hold up, that integrated chip bought today would not only have to play every game out when it was purchased, but play every game to come out for your accepted life cycle, ( around five years from what I've read based on the fact that you have zero quams with new consoles arriving ). The damn chip is negative 10 years according to your own life cycle. I can't reiterate this enough... This is NOT about games having a broader target hardware range. This is about a chipmaker intentionally misleading consumers and causing the industry as a whole to suffer for it.
This comment was edited on Jul 15, 00:32.