My Inspiration

• Antec 300 case
• Intel Core2Duo E8400 CPU
• Gigabyte GA-P43-ES3G Motherboard
• 4GB Super Talent DDR2-800
• Western Digital 1TB hard drive
• Samsung 22x DVD burner
• Antec Earthwatts 650 power supply
• Zotac GeForce GTX 260
• Windows 7 64-bit Home Premium

My Inspiration

• Antec 300 case
• Intel Core2Duo E8400 CPU
• Gigabyte GA-P43-ES3G Motherboard
• 4GB Super Talent DDR2-800
• Western Digital 1TB hard drive
• Samsung 22x DVD burner
• Antec Earthwatts 650 power supply
• Zotac GeForce GTX 260
• Windows 7 64-bit Home Premium

I agree with you and think this is a well thought out and intelligent post. High five.
Also, I'd like to point out that, while cost is often cited as a drawback to pcs, games on the pc are cheaper (especially in the enormous and very superb back-catalog).

PC gaming has been "dying" for the past two console generations

About a year after launch of a new console generation, any mid-level gaming PC can outperform the most advanced gaming console which is, by its nature, frozen in time. From that point forward (and often earlier) PC gamers can enjoy higher framerates, better resolution, more detailed textures, and a plethora of other technical benefits

Cost is often cited as a key barrier to entry in the argument of PC versus console gaming. By nature of the fact that PC hardware is constantly changing, the cost of a gaming PC that will compare to current consoles is always dropping. I'm in the process of retiring a PC that was put together for about $350--less than either my 360 or my PS3--which can run nearly any current PC game at a respectable framerate in 1080p. I'm running games which were released on both platforms (console and PC) at a resolution 50% better than the console counterpart.

Getting back to my recent PC purchase, a couple of friends requested I post my build. It is a very modest system by some standards (and I'm sure quite decadent by others). Here it is for anyone interested:

• Antec 300 case
• Intel Core2Duo E8400 CPU
• Gigabyte GA-P43-ES3G Motherboard
• 4GB Super Talent DDR2-800
• Western Digital 1TB hard drive
• Samsung 22x DVD burner
• Antec Earthwatts 650 power supply
• Zotac GeForce GTX 260
• Windows 7 64-bit Home Premium

Good post, pretty much everything you said in general is why I built myself a new machine a little over a year ago, December 2008.

" This also is untrue.  It can depend on the specific console release, but people seem very confused about this sort of stuff.  Within a year of the Xbox 360's release for example, the highest end gaming PCs money could buy were just catching up to the Xbox 360 on most technical levels, let alone the mid-level PC.  Still, it doesn't take long for this period to expire, but this point is mistaken all too often, to the point where uninformed or technically unknowing people have gotten the wrong impression.  "

Within less than a year of the 360's launch in Nov of 2005, ATI had already well surpassed the 360' s GPU with their own X1900 as their new flagship product.

The same holds true for CPUs, despite all the rumblings of the SPU/SPE design of the Cell, it just hasn't proved valuable in any market outside of the PS3.  It has been dropped as Blade Server offering by all IHVs and is only used in research projects in nested PS3 configuration due it's Sony subsidised cheapness vs 'proper' server grade implementations in rack mounted blades.

RAM is also another area where consoles never have been able to compete as they are typically limited in speed and volume in comparison to even low end PC offerings less than a year of their release.  DDR2 and 3 both outpace either 'next gen' console alone, even if we ignore their 1GB or less cost vs capability limitations.

The whole idea of consoles being more powerful than PCs is an artificial one dreamed up by MS and Sony marketing and has nothing whatsoever to do with reality.

"The 360's GPU is more powerful and has more features than the X1x00 series GPUs in almost all ways.  It is the direct precursor to the Radeon HD X2x00 series."
 

The Xenos is a nerfed R600 core with a direct pipeline to 10MB of fast VRAM (hence the free FSAA and Z collision detection/culled detail) on top of its baseline DDR3 256MB assigned UMA block.  It has a few more ALUs than an X1800  but can't make use of them in any useful fashion due to VRAM constraints.  There is not one 360 title that renders in proper 3-4 pass 3D space that uses 1080p and the majority are 640p/720p which is a definite reflection of the Xenos lack of fillrate and low VRAM ceiling.   It doesn't compete with even the baseline 2600, the x1900 and certainly not the nvidia G92.  Having powerful features is one thing but having the grunt to actually use them is another thing entirely.  The Xenos is pretty much all bark and no bite due a woefully nerfed fillrate and incredibly low VRAM ceiling.  The XBOX 360 ALU shaders are always forced into lower precision modes when compared with the same operations done on their PC equivalent ports.  Look at any recent ported 360 to PC title and you will see higher precision shader work happening on the PC version always.  I should know I have Force Unleashed, Saints Row 2 and GTA IV for both systems and in all of those cases the lighting models and shader precision are much less detailed on the 360. 

 
" The Cell continues to work its way into more consumer products.  Toshiba (who obviously has a vested interest) is putting them into next generation TVs.  Obviously it has been a very useful processor as extensively as it was used in super computers, even if that has recently begun to decline.  If FLOPs is what you want out of a CPU, no doubt you'll pick a Cell over any Intel or AMD CPU on the market to this day. "
 
Yeah man, the Cell is so awesome it's being used for shitty nettops, DNLA video to TVs and fridge internet access.  AWESOME TECH USED AWESOMELY.  AWESOME.  There are many cheaper OMAP and other cheaper SoC choices.  Toshiba are just trying to recoup some income from the R&D. 
 
FLOPS are pittance in comparison with Out of Order processing needs of general purpose CPUs.  Cell will be quickly oustripped in Floating Point Operations by the GT100 soon too and that card can even  do SCREEN RENDERING, x264 decoding and Dolby True HD audio.  Cell in the server space is dead.  

That I will give you.  Consoles always have small amounts of RAM, obviously they make up for it somewhat with much less overhead, but it has always been a limiting factor.
 
And that overhead just got blown out not too long ago on the 360 with the NXE.  That doesn't affect the games because they are always running in lowered detail compared to their PC versions.  
Consoles are built with profit solely in mind.  The offer buzzwords to attract nubs, simple as that.
 
I think you've really confused some things when you were listening to the marketing for your PC videocards actually.  The 360, for one, absolutely had a large edge over high end gaming PCs for quite some time. "

Bullshit. You really don't know what you're talking about.  Either you're posting as a griefer or you're just ignorant of the reality.  The XBOX 360 GPU had the edge on the midrange for a whole SIX MONTHS.   Show me one XBOX 360 that had features graphically which even a high end PC couldn't do a year after the 360's release.  You can't because they don't exist.

" @Diamond:  Umm sorry mate but Kameo was not a demanding game.  You're confusing good art design with shader processing limits.

Oblivion ran just awesomely on 7600GT in 1366x768 and I had all details tuned to max; draw distance, water, shadows and so on.  It looked a lot better on my PC and was a lot smoother then the 360 version.  Oh and I also used a lot of mods for it too which raised the ground texture detail, dynamic weather systems and NPC animals spawns way beyond the baseline, which all the 360 version was.

This is "PC is dead" thing is an argument propagated by people who don't play PC games. Its like if a Republican says a Democrat is ruining the country. You don't need to validate these people with a response, they're obviously clueless and just trying to rationalize the fact that they can't afford PC gaming(or they think they cant)  so they tell themselves its "dead" so they don't miss the PC versions of games that look so much better than console games that they're playing. They wanna pretend the PC-360 relationship isn't just like the 360-Wii relationship. They wanna pretend the PC doesn't exist so they lie to themselves.

Now if I were to play devil's advocate and give Diamond an idea of something vaguely resembling a legitimate argument, I would point out some devs like Rockstar and Bungie tend to do fairly poor ports to the PC so its not like the PC version of any given game is the best by default. But anyone who would argue its not the best looking by default, every time, is just playing the fool. But console focused publishers like Capcom and Ubisoft do pretty great PC ports, and Bioware, ID, Bethesda, Epic games, etc. being PC devs initially, obviously are optimizing their games for the PC and the PC versions of their games are prettymuch always far and away are the best versions as anyone who could afford to play them side by side would attest.

The Xenos is a nerfed R600 core with a direct pipeline to 10MB of fast VRAM (hence the free FSAA and Z collision detection/culled detail) on top of its baseline DDR3 256MB assigned UMA block.  It has a few more ALUs than an X1800  but can't make use of them in any useful fashion due to VRAM constraints.  There is not one 360 title that renders in proper 3-4 pass 3D space that uses 1080p and the majority are 640p/720p which is a definite reflection of the Xenos lack of fillrate and low VRAM ceiling.   It doesn't compete with even the baseline 2600, the x1900 and certainly not the nvidia G92.  Having powerful features is one thing but having the grunt to actually use them is another thing entirely.  The Xenos is pretty much all bark and no bite due a woefully nerfed fillrate and incredibly low VRAM ceiling.  The XBOX 360 ALU shaders are always forced into lower precision modes when compared with the same operations done on their PC equivalent ports.  Look at any recent ported 360 to PC title and you will see higher precision shader work happening on the PC version always.  I should know I have Force Unleashed, Saints Row 2 and GTA IV for both systems and in all of those cases the lighting models and shader precision are much less detailed on the 360.

 Yeah man, the Cell is so awesome it's being used for shitty nettops, DNLA video to TVs and fridge internet access.  AWESOME TECH USED AWESOMELY.  AWESOME.  There are many cheaper OMAP and other cheaper SoC choices.  Toshiba are just trying to recoup some income from the R&D. 
 
FLOPS are pittance in comparison with Out of Order processing needs of general purpose CPUs.  Cell will be quickly oustripped in Floating Point Operations by the GT100 soon too and that card can even  do SCREEN RENDERING, x264 decoding and Dolby True HD audio.  Cell in the server space is dead.    

And that overhead just got blown out not too long ago on the 360 with the NXE.

I don't know a lot about the technical side of this kind of stuff, but I know that I personally like knowing that when I thrown down 300-400 dollars for a console purchase that console is guaranteed to run every game released for it, giving me 5 or so years of uninterrupted gaming, where I don't have to worry about upgrading hardware.  I feel like some companies that develop for the PC try to really push the limits, and for people like me who only want to get a new PC every 5 years (less often than that if I can) end up not being able to play some PC releases because my hardware just doesn't cut it.  I'm sure I could find ways to custom build more powerful machines for cheaper, but honestly, I prefer playing games, and consoles let me do that efficiently and for generally cheaper than any PC I've bought.
 
Also, I just have to say that console controllers have been around for a while.  They are pretty sophisticated and developers have learned how to use them well for pretty much every genre, so people who refuse to give up their mouse and keyboard should just give it an honest try.  I'll give you RTS though, if you want, that still is much better on a PC.

I love the PC.  It's a secret, dark love that I dare not let see the light of day.   Even with my passion, I have to admit that PC gaming has been on the decline over the past few years.  It's downfall is heralded from this recent story:
 
 4.1 million copies of Modern Warfare 2 pirated
 
Even if that's not a 1-to-1 pirate-to-sale ratio (which Activision surely will see it as), it's a huge amount of money lost for Activision to theft.  A loss you don't even get to count against your profits on your taxes (if legislation was passed that allowed this deduction, PC gaming would be back instantly).  Quite simply, as we've seen broadband penetration go up, we've seen the success of the PC platform decrease because of the easy of pirating games.
 
But your point on the importance of digital distribution should not be overlooked.  It's convenient for the consumer and incredibly cost-effective for the producer, a true win for both parties.  If not for pressure from retailers on publishers, prices would be closer to the steam holiday sale prices year-round.  The trade-in market is much smaller for digital distribution, with only a few hubs where people can trade games compared to retail chains that make their profits off of trade-ins.
 
The future is really bright for PC gaming (in terms of number of shaders in use).  The 360 and PS3 have embarrassingly little RAM available, the single biggest oversight of the HD console generation.  Now that we're finally off of fuzzy CRTs, texture quality, which has always been important for PC gaming (exemplified in the Max Payne "photo-realism" textures hype from 2001) has now become extremely important for consoles, and they cannot compete with the open amounts of RAM that can be used for textures on the PC.  As this console generation continues to be artificially extended by the recession and the motion controller rebirth of both consoles, the Moore's Law inspired lead will continue to grow.
 
One last good sign for the PC.  The 360 over the holidays just hit 2.2 million concurrent users (Sony still hasn't released.  Steam on the other hand has more than 2.5 million concurrent every day and steam only has an estimated 70% of digital distribution market share.

@Diamond: A large contributing reason to why consoles seem to have bafflingly good performance for the price/timeframe has a lot to do with the fact that they are on a fixed platform. The amount of optimization that developers can do with a fixed platform (not to mention millions of dollars, several years, and support from the OEM themselves) is quite significant. Although the 360 (and PS3) hardware was very good for the time, the reason PC had to play catch up was due in large part to the differences between developing on a fixed platform and a variable platform. I would say that even today games like Uncharted 2 give the average gaming PC a run for its money, and with sheer hardware power out of the picture (since the current cards easily outperform the GPU's in consoles several fold) the effects of optimization are made even more dramatic.

The single reason why consoles stay ahead for a short amount of time is that the PC both in terms of hardware and software releases gets ARTIFICIALLY held back.  End of story.  Any fool who wishes to argue this point is welcome to.

Digital distribution has definitely bolstered the PC gaming market. Steam should be commended at least in part for innovating in this area, but also all the indie developers who make their games available for cheaper costs. I would much rather buy Zeno Clash for 20 dollars or World of Goo for 15 than, say, Army of Two 40th Day for 60 when they all provide roughly the same amount of content (insofar as "content" can be quantified). PC gaming is very much a culture, more so than the consoles inspire. Very specific types of games find their homes and flourish on the PC, where they would surely fail on the consoles (low budget strategy games and RPGs come to mind). Probably because the format has been around for ages and it's fans know what they like at this point.

 I would have posted a reply earlier, but I have been sick.
 

@SeriouslyNow:

" This is "PC is dead" thing is an argument propagated by people who don't play PC games. Its like if a Republican says a Democrat is ruining the country. You don't need to validate these people with a response, they're obviously clueless and just trying to rationalize the fact that they can't afford PC gaming(or they think they cant)  so they tell themselves its "dead" so they don't miss the PC versions of games that look so much better than console games that they're playing. They wanna pretend the PC-360 relationship isn't just like the 360-Wii relationship. They wanna pretend the PC doesn't exist so they lie to themselves. "

" PC gaming will always be the Master race, even in dark ages such as these. We just sit back and watch them fight amongst themselves. When the time is right we emerge from the shadows to stomp the console peasants back into the dirt where they belong! "