Game FEATURES and PLAYABILITY.

Here's an example: Battlefield 1942.

BF required me to upgrade my PC when it came out. When I finally got it working decently, I found that the 'revolutionary large maps' and 'revolutionary ability to control vehicles' was no more revolutionary that tribes outside of it's 'many years newer' pc requirements... not to mention its graphics and game play were pretty much sub-par compared to tribes.

Upgrading PC hardware to move from playing something 2d sprite like DOOM to something 3d polygon like QUAKE is perfectly acceptable. Upgrading PC hardware to move from simplistic 3d polygons and textures like QUAKE to something with far more complicated polygons, 3d effects, better textures, revolutionary environment, and new game play like BIOSHOCK is also perfectly acceptable. When games come out, and the only outwardly noticeable difference from everything else on the market is the title's name, yet it requires massive hardware upgrades, then that is failure, and that market deserves to die.

Game titles shouldn't drive hardware requirements. Outside of Portal, something I can play on my xbox 360, and I don't have to upgrade every 6 months to continue to play new titles, I haven't seen anything new from game makers other than new requirements for my machine to somehow be better to play the same dumb first person shooter remakes. Oh, need I mention that now days you even need a pretty kick'n system to play what amounts to MUDS? Yes, please die. While you're at it, make mouse and keyboard style FPS navigation a standard and supported option on consoles -- the claw is not acceptable. That would be gaming Utopia: A supported console that worked for a few years and continued to play the latest titles while also offering a control system that leveraged something other than my fine motor control abilities of the digits that spend 8 hours a day inaccurately whopping the damned space bar.