There's an aspect that the article managed to imply but I think it warrants more thinking because it directly affects a lot of people, myself including: that people cannot afford to pay for a "gaming PC".

Well, I thankfully might afford it, but how could I justify the cost? I have a laptop which works very well and is my daily workhorse for everything, including gaming. But it has Intel onboard graphics. Spend something north of a thousand bucks of hard currency (even more costly in my country) just to play Baldur's Gate 3..?

This means that I can do almost everything on it except playing some games. This is because most recent games would require a quite good discrete GPU to be even playable on lowest settings (e.g., achieving something like 25 fps on low settings on 720 fps). In fact I think this is a quite stupid move by game companies, by imposing such artificial constraints on which machines can play their games and locking out millions of PCs and thus a similar number of potential users.

Seeing those games, I don't see them as being specifically advanced or better looking in their lower settings as to justify imposing such artificial barriers of entry.

To be clear, I have no problems with games being all the graphically advanced they want. They can have Ultra settings with double advanced real-time ray tracing with three parallell RTX 6000 cooled by liquid nitrogen, by all means. But don't put those stupid gatekeeps locking out onboard GPUs and thus millions of potential players from all over the world.