I would agree 100%, my current rig can run circles around even the PS3 and call it little girl names. However as the comment said PC gamers did this to ourselves with all the piracy. There are ways to fight piracy but most of them are such a hassle on the end user that it hurts sales just adding it in. Catch 22 ne1.

Man, I hope Crytek releases their free-to-play online FPS Warface out here.

Personally, I can't afford a set up just for gaming, so the affordable by comparison, and reliable console is my preferred method. Plus I prefer a controller to mouse and keyboard. (I tried one of those PC controllers but the *** never worked for me.)

I actually don't think it's a bad thing that the games are more reliant on content and creative expression. And, actually, I think that's what the consumer is more concerned about too. That what's really differentiates PC and Console games IMO; console games are focused more on polishing, immersion, and story, while PC games tends to be about pushing the envelope with tech, purer gameplay and less immersion, and lots and lots of content (many times free). Personally I prefer the way the consoles work. For example, I love Fallout 3 & New Vegas, but I am very aware aware that I am playing a game and can tell it's PC oriented. On the other hand, Bioshock, a console oriented title, has much less content, but is far more polished and immersive. I would compare the stories but... comparing Bioshock's story to anything short of a Bioware game is unfair :P

And that's one of the main reasons why PC gaming is never dead.

Maybe PC gaming is behind becaues it's ridiculous to expect gamers to shell out $5000 dollars for a gaming rig and then thousands more over the years upgrading it. That is way too much money for a decent gaming experience even if the econmoy was doing better. With consoles you invest a few hundred dollars and you can have almost the same experience you would on a PC, it's not really a difficult choice for most people. Hmm do I want to spend thousands on a device that will be obsolete in two years, or a couple hundred for a device that will serve my needs for the next five, six or maybe even more years?

Well duh, But I'll save the cash it'd take to cost me to get a working rig right now and just deal with a few lower texture resoultions and a few less polygons

Pc is better for people who are more hardcore and buy a lot of games, but for most people, console is the way to go. I have both though, so i am not going to take a side.

This is true now more than ever since current gen consoles have another 5 years before the next iterations come along. That is so long as MS and Sony stick to their 10 year life cycle promise.

Considering that you can be guaranteed games for your console will play on it, but have no idea how long your PC will be able to play the latest and greatest games, PC gaming will never be as successful as console gaming. It's far more costly and just not worth it to me. I haven't played a PC game apart from World of Warcraft in probably 3 or 4 years. I don't even own a desktop anymore, but I made sure to get a laptop with specs to be able to play Diablo III (which I doubt will be a resource hog anyway). PC game developers need to focus more on delivering a great experience, not mind-blowing graphics...the graphics are holding them back from tapping into a larger market.

But if they made this unhindered PC game, would it ever be profitable?

I agree, I have been into console gaming, but now im getting into PC Gaming, Its just has more fun into it than the consoles.

Who cares about a wee-bit leap in processing power in this age? Almost anything you could possibly imagine is already, well, possible. It's all about originality of idea that's going to sell things now, mixing different game styles of the past 25 years and choosing an art/graphics style that's appropriate. Just being "cutting edge" for the sake of it isn't going to look any better than it already does, until you get into full 3D gameplay AND visuals which is something no console/PC is anywhere near yet.

PC gaming isn't being held back by consoles; it's being held back by piracy.

They must be a pretty ambitious developer if they want to create beyond the limits of modern era consoles.

$5000 for a PC? Rofl. You are way way out of date on your info. I'm running black ops at max with 50-60fps on a $600 rig b/c consoles are holding PC dev back. $1200 will get a PC that will run ANY game on max settings at an acceptable fps. Bump up to $1800 and you'll get a rig that'll run everything smooth as silk. This is assuming you're willing to spend alil time googling 'how to build a pc' and spend 4hours assembling legos...instead of buying the propriety crap alienware gives you.

So many people pirate games, that a lot of developers are scared to make games for PCs. If people actually bought their games, maybe PCs would be more popular and get the respect they deserve. PCs, in their core, are better than consoles. My rig, which is a combo of crap I didn't pick out, my nerdy friend did, takes my PS3 to the cleaners. Unfortunately, I don't play games on it, not because I can't, but nobody else does.

What devs look at are the npd numbers that only count retail, not digital numbers like steam which has 30 million subscribers, in contrast to live's 25 mill and psn's 12.5 mill, this means there is a large untapped market out there that devs dont look at a lot. And piracy is much less prevelant now than before, look at valve and their stand on piracy, doesnt anyone wonder why they are in the top 2 for pc gamers. Also there is a lot of hype among the pc gaming crowd for the new witcher which is gonna do well because ever pc gamer i know is gonna buy it, because it gets rid of drm. Game dev's are looking at piracy the wrong way, i know people who had to pirate even though they bought the game (assassins creed 2) because of crappy internet, drm just gives pc gamers more reason to pirate. Also the cost myth is bs, all you need is 200 bucks to get a pc that trumphs a console and calls it a ***. If you prefer controller, then use a freakin 360 controller, there is nothing stopping you from doing that, You dont need to have the best pc to play games, thats just done by elitists who wants the best for good knows what (Blue ray porn) and since they are the loudest, everyone thinks it costs thousands to play on pc's, when all it costs turns out to be less than what consoles cost.

I think that he does have a valid point when it comes to developers' mentalities, but he fails to acknowledge that part of the issue is that console gaming is much more accessible to people than PC gaming is. There's no way in hell that my parents would pay the money for a gaming-quality PC, and I don't make any money (no, I'm not a lazy bum, I'm still in high school, so it's not like I have a choice), but they are totally willing to spend a few bucks for a much cheaper console. I'm not trying to say that console gaming is better, or that PC gaming is better (although, judging from what I've played at a friend's house, PC gaming kicks ass), but there is more than one angle to the PC vs. Console gaming conflict

PC gaming is definitely being held back by consoles and piracy. These companies have to make more money before they can spend enough to make games look Crysis and beyond.