The difference between supporting the PS4 and supporting low-end PCs is essentially the drop in revenue you get from dropping one for the other. Rather, the established consumer base for PS4 would, apparently, outnumber that of the the former. But that's not even the point. The main crux of the reasoning I employed is that, the "impact" you get from dropping the low-end PCs over the PS4 is marginal at best.

Referring to an earlier point that many collaborate on, PC gamers tend to stay on top of hardware and software developments. To say that most gamers of this spectrum would lose out on developers dropping support for older legacy hardware is hardly true or even remotely as effectual compared to console phasing.

Dropping support on PS4 is different: this is a different consumer base. These players either purchased it for the solace that it would be supported for years to come or that they decided to avoid the apparent nuances of building a gaming PC. Whatever the premise or reasoning for obtaining a PS4, developers realize these reasons and commit to a console much more feverishly compared to lower-end PC's. The 2 are not alike when it comes to sales reductions in terms of hardware phasing.

It's easy to compare similar hardware technically, but the root of such hardware differs; in this case, the only reason hardware-scaling happens is because developers wish to innovate and go beyond previous set limits. They cannot do this with a console because of the aforementioned reason. They simple must deal with it and try to push the console in such a manner that still warrants a continued consumer support base.

Consoles will always hold games back; low-end PCs do, as well, but they never do so in the way consoles do.