When -more- and -bigger- aren't -better-

But would that really be so bad, to release a game that can easily be played on PC's that are a year or two back from the cutting edge? What is sacrificed from the consumers' gaming experience if he is offered a game that doesn't require several gigabytes of RAM? Or requires 32, 64, or 128 megabytes of video RAM? Or demands at least 4 GHz of CPU? Or the half-dozen high-powered benchmarks that inevitably requires the consumer to go through a process of tweaking one setting after another after he experiences one Crash To Display after another? What would be the cost to the consumer to be sold a game that did NOT offer millions of colors, tons of vibrant graphical textures, and basically every bell and whistle that the designers cram into a game just because it's available -- to those that can afford it?
Yes, there is technology out there that makes it possible for the PC to complete operations before you even think to ask the PC to do so. But, come on! Do I really need processes to be completed in one nano-second instead of two full-blown seconds? Do I really need to have 16 million colors instead of a mere 16 thousand? Do I really need multiplayer, with all of its associated additional programming requirements, when the truth is that for any given title, less than 20% of the consumers will ever use those multiplayer features? Why can't the developers sell me the basic game at a lower price (reflecting the less work involved in producing a game that doesn't bother with the multiplayer programming) and sell the multiplayer update to the people that actually want it?
Yes, it's true that there are some really awesome gaming rigs available to us -- but less than 10% of consumers actually shell out the many thousands of dollars necessary to stay abreast of the latest-and-greatest technology, over and over again, about every 12-18 months. The rest of us are usually getting by with PC's that are about a year or three behind the leading edge of the currently available technology. How ludicrous is it for companies to produce games that will probably work fine on the PC's of maybe 10% of the likely consumers -- at most -- and make the rest of us repeatedly update drivers, reduce all of the graphic settings, endure countless CTD's until we finally get a mix of settings that allows us to hobble along at half-speed?
Why, oh why, do we put up with this **bleep**???? Better than 90% of a manufacturer's revenue comes from customers whose equipment is incapable of taking full advantage of all of the really neat high-tech features they feel obligated to put into their games. Just so that those privileged few that can actually afford state-of-the-art equipment won't make the comment, "Your game sucks because it's using old technology!" On the other hand, they seem to have no problem dealing with complaints of, "I can't run your game on my PC because it keeps on crashing!" There, the answer is simple: "Maybe it's time that you invest in a newer video card."
The more I contemplate this situation, the more I keep coming back to memories of "Field Of Dreams": "If you build it, they will come." Except what I keep on hearing is, "If you make it, they will buy it." Or so the manufacturers seem to believe.