You dont need to know a thing about your comp to play games on it XD 99.9% of PC games can run on just about any PC with fairly simple settings. Most people can work out that changing graphics from Low to high means they get better. You dont have to go through list of settings. even crysis has a setting for just Low, Medium, High, very high. Even i could work that out when i was about 6 XDDDD 

You think the 12 million wow players all know what there graphics card is? heck i dare say some of them dont even know what a graphics card is.

Also if can genanly think of anything Nintendo have done in last 10 years that has truly totally revolutionised the gaming industry other than the 2 things i said i will make this face O_O The true revelation in gaming where the simple ones. Sony using disks for concol games. Microsoft bringing online to consols. yet both of them where done by PC waaaaaaaaaaaaay before. Hell if you wanna go realy deep you could argue that sega came up with the idea of wii more kind of game play. (even if they did it badly)

Oh and yet the wii from back in 2005 can play everything from 2010 in all its shovelware glory (im jking but it was was worth it lol)

I'm not saying PC gaming is dead but it isn't near the king.  People will brag and boast all day long how it's supiorer for a variety of reasons, but at the end of the day, the consoles are where it's at.

PC gets ports of real games but they're almost always afterthoughts, the real attention is payed to the 360 and PS3.  Unless you're releasing the next WoW expansion or you're Valve, there's simply a better chance to make money on the consoles.

You have a bigger audience (you can't count everyone that played WoW as your audience for...whatever the last big multi plat PC game was) and you have something that is infinitely more accessible on consoles.  WoW may have 12 million subscribers, Valve may have a huge audience, and Solitaire and Myst might be two of the biggest games ever but the simple fact is not many people buy PC games compared to console games.  That isn't saying there aren't big sellers like Starcraft II, but there's a reason PC games sell a fraction of what their console counterparts sell.

And then there's the problem of just running the game.  Ten years ago computers weren't that complicated when deciding if you could run a game or not, or at least they weren't complicated if you grew up around computers.  Now, they're just downright confusing to even people that are around computers all the time.  PC's may be able to showcase the best graphics but that comes at the cost of having about 5 billion different options.  Not only is it a pain to know just how well your computer will the game, it's also a pain to develop the game and test every hardware possibility.  In short, you just can't.  Developers have to hit the big ones and hope for the best for the rest.

And then there are console games.  If you have a Playstation 3, you can play any PS3 game.  You don't have to worry about any compatibility, fiddle with any settings, or worry about bad performance, it just goes.  You pop the disc in and everything is automatic. I can't tell you how many times I've had to deal with the head aches of an outdated driver, missing dll, bad install, some screwy process running in the background, or the myriad of other problems that arise every time a PC game is installed.  I seriously can't remember my last flawless PC game install.

If I wanted to play a PC games from 2007, I would have to jump through an insane number of hoops.  If I wanted to play a PC games from 2000, it would be a crap shoot if it works.  If I want to play a game from 1997, I probably just can't.  If I want to play a PS3 game from 2007, I can.  If I want to play a PS2 games from 2000, I can (since I have a backwards compatible PS3).  If I want to play a PS game from 1997, I just pop it in my PS3 and it works.

Consoles may not be able to do everything PC's can do, but what consoles lack they make up for in everything else.  If PC game isn't dyeing, it had been bedridden for years.

-edit-

Oh, and I forgot about the myth that building a gaming PC is cheaper than consoles.  You aren't going to build a gaming PC and buy all the software for less than $400.  If you do somehow manage that, you surely won't be going long without upgrading.  When you factor in the computer, mouse, keyboard, operating system, and whatever other software you want, a gaming PC is expensive.  A decent mouse, keyboard, and operating system alone will run you at least $250-300.  I would love to see what kind of computer someone could build for the remaining $150 to keep in check with console prices.

I'm not saying PC gaming is dead but it isn't near the king.  People will brag and boast all day long how it's supiorer for a variety of reasons, but at the end of the day, the consoles are where it's at.

PC gets ports of real games but they're almost always afterthoughts, the real attention is payed to the 360 and PS3.  Unless you're releasing the next WoW expansion or you're Valve, there's simply a better chance to make money on the consoles.

You have a bigger audience (you can't count everyone that played WoW as your audience for...whatever the last big multi plat PC game was) and you have something that is infinitely more accessible on consoles.  WoW may have 12 million subscribers, Valve may have a huge audience, and Solitaire and Myst might be two of the biggest games ever but the simple fact is not many people buy PC games compared to console games.  That isn't saying there aren't big sellers like Starcraft II, but there's a reason PC games sell a fraction of what their console counterparts sell.

And then there's the problem of just running the game.  Ten years ago computers weren't that complicated when deciding if you could run a game or not, or at least they weren't complicated if you grew up around computers.  Now, they're just downright confusing to even people that are around computers all the time.  PC's may be able to showcase the best graphics but that comes at the cost of having about 5 billion different options.  Not only is it a pain to know just how well your computer will the game, it's also a pain to develop the game and test every hardware possibility.  In short, you just can't.  Developers have to hit the big ones and hope for the best for the rest.

And then there are console games.  If you have a Playstation 3, you can play any PS3 game.  You don't have to worry about any compatibility, fiddle with any settings, or worry about bad performance, it just goes.  You pop the disc in and everything is automatic. I can't tell you how many times I've had to deal with the head aches of an outdated driver, missing dll, bad install, some screwy process running in the background, or the myriad of other problems that arise every time a PC game is installed.  I seriously can't remember my last flawless PC game install.

If I wanted to play a PC games from 2007, I would have to jump through an insane number of hoops.  If I wanted to play a PC games from 2000, it would be a crap shoot if it works.  If I want to play a game from 1997, I probably just can't.  If I want to play a PS3 game from 2007, I can.  If I want to play a PS2 games from 2000, I can (since I have a backwards compatible PS3).  If I want to play a PS game from 1997, I just pop it in my PS3 and it works.

Consoles may not be able to do everything PC's can do, but what consoles lack they make up for in everything else.  If PC game isn't dyeing, it had been bedridden for years.

-edit-

Oh, and I forgot about the myth that building a gaming PC is cheaper than consoles.  You aren't going to build a gaming PC and buy all the software for less than $400.  If you do somehow manage that, you surely won't be going long without upgrading.  When you factor in the computer, mouse, keyboard, operating system, and whatever other software you want, a gaming PC is expensive.  A decent mouse, keyboard, and operating system alone will run you at least $250-300.  I would love to see what kind of computer someone could build for the remaining $150 to keep in check with console prices.

Do not underestimate the crappiness of peoples' PCs. You'd be surprised how many people use five year old PCs and laptops that were shit back then.

As for Nintendo's innovations, they have more to do with game design than true tech.

First of all, note the control systems for both the DS and Wii. There are a LOT of them. Depending on the game in question, Wii games from Nintendo have used traditional control schemes, NES style control schemes, and buttonless control schemes using the same Wiimote/Nunchuck combo, or even just a Wiimote. Therefore, a single system of input can fulfill a variety of roles without any two styles clashing.

This is a big deal. Traditionally, game design since the Atari era has been about giving the player as many ways to manipulate the onscreen events. The Wii's control scheme gives players exactly as many buttons as they need to play a game. This drastically reduces the learning curve.

The DS does a similar thing using its wide variety of input options. Players can use SNES style controls, simply poke at the screen with with the stylus, or use the stylus in one hand and the D-Pad with the other. Once again, this gives a variety of ways to control games without ever overwhelming the player.

Another innovation from Nintendo is the reinvention of extinct or obscure genres. Long story short, Nintendo took a weird route this generation. They assumed that every major genre had been created, and revisited them, investing resources in dead genres.

Think about the results this has had. Would 2D platformers have been reintroduced to the market if Nintendo hadn't been so sucessful using modern tech to power a 2D Mario? Could party games ever have been given new life without the creation of motion-based minigames? How could educational games have survived without the sucess of Brain Age? Would games like Farmville be as sucessful without Animal Crossing's leading the way?

By creating highly sucessful games in dead genres, Nintendo recreated entire markets. Today, we can actually have a debate about which platformer was best this year, simply because Nintendo proved it was a viable genre in this day and age, thanks to modern tech. In this sense, Nintendo is more of a pioneer than an innovater.

I won't deny the shovelware comment though. Shovelware sucks.

hand on sorry i just read a part i hadnt seen O_O if you wanna play a PC game from 2007 it will. if you want to play one 200 it will. Heck if you wanna play one from 1997 it will probably run about 300fps. I still play Half life 1 ^^ and final fantasy 7 (though that was a bad prot). You wanna play a ps3 game yh it will play any. wanna play a PS4 game in 5 years no it cant PC will still be able to play PC ^.^

Lol we all know PC gaming costs alot XD like i said PS3 is the cheapest option to get close to PC graphics but obnce you invest a good amount of money in a PC (i spent close to £2500) belive me playing crysis highest spec Q16x anit aliasing at maz resolution is something you will NEVER forget.

Also id like to point out that multi plat games always sell more on consol, doesn't make them better XD If you want to count all forms of games (so the wii's grand collection of shovelware and PC game on like FB) then PC totaly hits ass. There is no denying that PC exclusives often sell more than consol exclusives. If half life 3 ever comes out you can bet it will crush most consol shooters. Starcraft 2 is on tack to beat sc1 in few years so thats a shit load :P 

Also when regarding consol sales vs PC you just cant make a comparison. For example you look at half life 2 and see it sold 4 million which is stil an amazing amount. But that doesnt include the i dare say millions of people who have got it for steam. Alot of peole i know who are only just starting gaming are only just getting hl2.

One last thing PC graphics aint complicated. Already explained this to one guy XD If you want to delve into the realy complex stuff then yes it can make you shit bricks but with all game sincluding the power houses like Crysis there is an option for overall graphics. Just change it from Low - Very High.

Most people know what graphics are XD and most know that the closer to high the better. Job done. If someone doesn't have the brain power to work thta out i highly sujest they get themselves check out :P

And when i say king i mainly meen in 15 years time PC games will still be hitting the 5 and 10 million marl. PS3, xbox and expeshaly wii will not.

Yh you need to upgrade your PC but if you dont care about graphics then just keeping it upgraded to the amount anyone would need to sufishantly use the internet etc. 

There are some games that can easily be played, but most not-so-much.  I remember trying the headache of trying to play KotoR and KotoR II last year and it was just a nightmare.  For grins and giggles I tried Sim City 2000 and while I eventually got it to work, it was a nightmare too.  So saying can't may be going too far, but it sure isn't a pleasant experience.

Once a PC game gets to that no longer supported state, it just plain sucks trying to get it to run.

lol max setting max aa max texture filters and max resolution? what u got a 12 inch monitor? u wont run crysis everything max at 2560 with 40frames everything below will be a pain