Pretty much all this but to add some corollary:
Moore's Law: Frequently misinterpreted to imply "computers get twice as fast every 2 years" when that's not the case.Those doubled transistors are benefiting us now with more cores, additional functional modules, more memory, etc instead of meaningfully increasing our individual CPU speed BUT that takes *work to redesign how we create software to make use of that additional hardware instead of "My thing runs fast now because its on faster hardware".
I think the authors of this article are basically making the same mistake in the gaming space. They got those fireworks for free just because the hardware was improving. Not saying they didn't have to update the code but there was a lot of the same "laziness" so-to-speak of relying on the improved hardware to do the heavy lifting in ways that didn't require massive evolution in the games themselves.
Not trying to denigrate the whole industry but the author of this article and probably the big studio people behind it don't understand that. Sorry we took your easy hardware wins away. Now you have to learn some new tricks to keep people buying your new products AND if you're only a hardware company then guess what: welcome to the PC world where sure a decade or 2 ago you could maintain a 3-year upgrade cycle because you needed the next generation to keep up. I now have a laptop from 11 years ago which does far more than like 95% of the population would ever need it to do and now the only reason I need to upgrade it is because I need a GD Thunderbolt Port that you can't "add" and TPM 2.0...
If our current hardware is limiting what games can do.. great. Better hardware is coming down the line.. OR maybe engineers can remember what it was like to squeeze every ounce of performance out of limiting hardware?? But as you say the next evolution in games is *better games* not higher tech specs.