In short, yes. Because I only have performance issues, never compatibility issues. Which is funny because with some games, Intel HD chips will work more reliably than a brand new several hundred $$$ dedicated GPU.
vicklemos: Do you play your games on a modest laptop or on a hefty "all in one"?
Modest Lenovo
vicklemos: Do you like space saving, smaller and discrete devices? That's why Intel HD graphics are so important, right?
Yes, definitely matters to me.
15 years ago, I had a high-end gaming desktop PC with a fat ass 19" monitor and everything. Nowadays I use a cheap laptop. Smaller screen is better for eye fatigue anyway.
Space is also an issue. I live in a one room apartment which I'm perfectly fine with but I don't have space for a 3 monitor setup and a Godzilla tower or whatnot. Conserving electricity is also a factor because in Switzerland, electricity is expensive (just like everything else).
vicklemos: Do you play (play well) demanding games on medium settings or classic ones fairly well?
Depends on how well a game is optimized. I can play classic AAA FPS games up to about 2003 perfectly on full settings as well as many brand new indie games. My aging 2.2 GHz Dualcore, 4 GB RAM and Intel HD Graphics can also handle demanding 3D games from 2004 up until until 2012 but the more recent a game is, the lower I have to set the graphics for it to run in a playable way. XCOM Enemy Unknown is the limit of what I can run on this system. I even have to reduce the graphics for some newer indie games like Expeditions: Conquistador or Cognition GOTY for things to run smoothly.
vicklemos: I don't need state of the art cars, houses, electronic devices and the god above knows I don't need to play games like a pro. So that's why I'm a happy Intel HD user and don't intend to change! :)
I don't intend to change, either. For one, I simply can't afford it financially and I'm also not even remotely as crazy about gaming as I was 15 years ago. I spent $6000 on my gaming PC back then which was basically all my savings from summer jobs etc.
It's pointlessly inefficient to spend so much money on gaming. One could go the middle road as most people do but I decided to not half-ass things so I'm going the complete opposite way now. Low budget for hardware and software. $20 is the absolute most I'm willing to spend on any game, preferably it has to be $15 or less for new indies and $5.99 for classics. Definitely won't pay $10 for Wolfenstein 3D, I don't know what they were smoking.
With my cheap laptop I can play the majority of the GOG catalog with full settings. This laptop cost only about $300 and is about 3 years old. Of course I can't play demanding modern 3D games but by my backlog still has more than 220 games I haven't even installed and tried out yet so by the time I'm through with all these, I can buy another cheap laptop with integrated graphics that will run all the current AAA games. Even Witcher 3 will run perfectly fine on a low budget laptop 10 years from now.
Also, hardware has more staying power nowadays than in the late 90s / early 2000s. Back then, your new GPU etc was already out of date the moment you walked out of the store and you constantly had to upgrade system RAM.
With 4 GB RAM, I can play the vast majority of indie games even though my system is several years old. When I look at hardware catalogs, budget laptops still have only 4 GB. It seems like the hardware race in personal computing has slowed down considerably.
I expected my backlog to slowly decrease because I already have the essential classics and wouldn't be able to buy new games but they keep releasing more classics as well as indie games that run perfectly on this low end system. Meaning my backlog remains stable even though I massively curbed my game purchases.Thanks to cable internet, we now have access to a myriad of free games, abandonware and so on which all add to backlog.
Summary: As long as one doesn't need to play new AAA 3D games (and there's little reason one would need to), integrated graphics remain a viable option.