True in some ways, some people when building a PC for gaming spend the software cost of windows on extra hardware knowing they can just download the OS for "free" afterwards. Hasn't hurt MS stock price all the same but still crazy amount of pirated OS's out there.

Well, I guess I'm a second class citizen both IRL and when it comes to gaming

"Especially" doesn't mean that we're talking exclusively about this gen. Tachi puts it as if having the consoles secure this gen has changed something - so please, tell me what exactly has changed. But facts, not "may" or "maybe". I know piracy on PC exists, but has keeping the consoles secure really changed anything for PC? I believe not. Moreover, PC gaming is becoming more and more attractive and this trend is bound to strenghten as the gen grows older. And as Conina proved, the OP is simply wrong is his assumption that "especially this gen" PC gamers are an afterthought. I've been under the impression for months, that currently PC gamers get the best and console gamers are the ones that have to settle for an inferior product.

Now you're really stretching.

The "elephant in the room" is talk of piracy, since piracy-talk is usually avoided.
The OP's primary focus is on recent events, and specifically states "this generation".
Now, more than ever, game development cost are at a all time high with failures costing the closure of studios, even for titles that have not even been finished.

With the costs and risks so high, availability of pirated versions poses a serious issue, and even if you want to ignore the generation and timeframe specified by op and bring up past consoles, piracy on console is still significantly lower, even with all console platforms combined, than piracy on PC where even the people that DO buy their games, op in large numbers, to do so from key-sites and services that circumvent local vat and pricing rules by purchasing software keys originating from russia, undercutting the standard software pricing by a considerable margin.

Don't patronise me by trying to tell me how studios and publishers handle the issue of piracy, i've sat in enough studio and publisher meetings discussing such issues over the years to have a pretty strong understanding of the average publishers priotitizing when it comes to maximizing profits over loss through distribution risk assessment.

The bolded contradict pretty poorly in the same statement.

Simply put it like this -

GTA the original Launched on the PC Oct 1997 the Psone version of the arrived Dec 1997. PC 2 months ahead of Console launch

GTA4 PS3/360 Launch Apr '08, PC version Dec '08 Console version 8 months ahead of PC launch

GTAV Ps3/360 version of launched Sept '13, PS4/X1 versions launched Nov '14 and the PC version Apr '15. Console version out 19 months before PC.

Those are facts, dates set in stone which show PC going from launching ahead of console counter parts to years later, you getting an impression from that fact that PC gamers are the top prio for companies is dreaming. Is there the potential for a higher texture resolution in the PC version of the game 19months later? Sure, does that make the version that launched on the Ps3/X360 with meta score of 97% an inferior product 2 years ago... well again we return to dream land.

What? I'm stretching? Seriously, if you want to talk about a certain process that started in the past and claim that something is a given way "especially" now, it's absurd to say that we shouldn't compare the current situation to what was in the previous time frame. In fact such a discussion is absolutely pointless and impossible from the logical point of view. Moreover, you are doing it yourself with your argument about dev costs being higher than in the past, so why are you denying it to me?

I understand the costs are growing. Cool. I know that. But the bottom line is - has this influenced the situation of PC gamers? Has the release of secure consoles dealt a blow to the PC market? Was this a sudden gamechanger? The answer is NO. The situation you described hasn't changed a thing for the worse thus far. I see absolutely no negative impact that the 3 new secure consoles have dealt to the PC market. Previous consoles were cracked, current ones are secure and what? And nothing! That's what I'm pointing at. I can't see a significant number of games suddenly skipping PC, there is no sudden exodus. Conina already proved that DLCs are released on schedule. So what has the fact that current consoles are secure changed? Please don't tell me some sad stories from a dev's life, but give examples how this managed to change the market, cause I can see none. That is why I believe your whole rant is unfortunately pointless in this case, sorry. If a change doesn't have any real consequence, it doesn't deserve to be called "the elephant in the room" - all I'm saying.

+ Higher Resolution and better Graphics
+ More FPS in all games
+ Games cost less
+ Online MP for free
+ Mods for free
+ Steam-Sales
+ A lot of indie titles

- Some games delayed
- Some games console exclusives only

So the answer is NOPE ! :)

Nicely picked dates, but we all know that analysing such a long timeframe is pointless in such a young industry. How about this.

GTA IV - released late, an absolutely atrocious port that people hated and felt like they are being treated like crap and a real afterthought - and rightfully so.
Red Dead Redemption - PC community received the middle finger and never got the game at all.
GTA V - late, but far and away the best version of the game, much better than what current gen consoles got.

You want to know why PC version of GTA V came out so late? If you think it was because they don't care about PC gamers, then you are in a dream land. This policy was as simple, as it was briliant. Release the game on previous gen, sell millions. Port an enhanced version to current gen, sell millions again, including many double dippers. Later on enhance the game even more and release it on PC, yet again giving people incentive to double or even tripple dip. Briliant. Do they treat PC gamers as an afterthought here? I beg to differ. They are simply taking advantage of the fact that they can max out previous consoles, later on max out current gen and after that put the game to even next level for the PC and still have people buying their game. If they released all versions at the same time, people would choose their preferred version and call it quits. But Rockstar is aware of the strenght of its product and knows that this way they can get people to double or tripple dip. So I disagree that this is an example of a worse situation for PC gamers, quite on the contrary! Considering the policy that Rockstar had previous gen (RDR...), this is a massive step forward and shows much more respect for PC gamers.

@the underlining - OK. Look at the fact that MS was advertising The Witcher 3 for Xbone using the PC version of the game. Clearly shows who gets the best product. That's a fact Also the post of Conina is full of facts. Now your turn

And youre still trying to attach the "elehant in the room" comment to the topic in general.

Cannot make it any simpler to you.

When a developer choses to "test the waters" with their title on console first, prior to bringing it to PC, for whatever reason, that directly impacts pc-only gamers.
When a developer or publisher discusses the simultanious release of a game on both PC and Console, a long discussion is had over the releasing timing, and the pros and cons of staggerng the release, since the availability of a PC version has the potential to impact console sales, if a gamer is faced with the option of paying $60 for a console game, or $30-40 for the PC version, or lastly, paying nothing and torrenting it, a large number will opt for the latter, each and every major publisher does research into piracy, both console and pc, either themselves or through contracted third parties, and the results of that research and can often does directly effect release timelines, planning and major directional tasks such as choosing to develop a pc version in-house of contracting third parties to handle the porting work.

Again, even when consoles last generation were ALL comprimised and piracy was possible on the Wii, 360 and PS3, the ratio of pirate versus paying player was significantly lower than that of the pirate versus paying player for PC, outlandishly so.

The issue of piracy on the PC is one of the major contributing factors to the reason WHY PC games are generally priced lower than their console counterparts, so trying to argue that piracy on pc and the lower piracy, or lack or piracy on consoles does not play a major role in developers and publishers choices for preferential treatment is just flat out broken logic.

The very fact that development teams and publishers hold meetings to conduct risk assesment for PC versions alone directly underlines the fact that piracy and the existance of a more secure console ecosystem does, definitely play a deciding role in how PC-only gamers are accomodated.

And really, if you'd STILL like to tell me otherwise, shoot me a PM because discussing this here is getting extremely boring.
And if possible, go sit in on an actual risk assetment meeting from a major publisher before doing so.

To be clear on that, don't expect further replies from me on the topic, i've far better things to do with my time.

They get most AAA games at the same time PS4 and X1 do but for a much cheaper price, and then they get the chance to play it with better framerate/resolution.

I don't see why they are second class only for a few delayed games like gta v (and even that game has the best version available on PC as of now) and some shitty ports that end up being fixed by the community itself and in the end again pc gets the best version of the game.

I also like that you bring up the payment mods subject, they tried to abuse the community and the community sent a clear "don't fuck with us" message, meanwhile console community's been paying for online gaming since X360 came out.