Just as a side note, as a software developer myself I find the comments about needing a more powerful PC as a developer to be somewhat odd. If your code is well modularized only a small portion will need to be recompiled while you’re working on it, and the productivity gain from jumping from a high-end Pentium 4 to a bleeding edge system is fairly minimal.

Now I can understand justifying a higher end PC because of your job because it is what I am going to do, but there is really no need for one. Personally, I’m intending to create a system to run vmware systems on top of; and one of the VM machines would be for a development environment, a couple would be for staging, a few would be for testing, and another would be for web-surfing and email, and (about) the only thing I would do on the base system is gaming.

Several things here:
* I find it interesting how you get PC gamers on here arguing how Steam is the cure-all and a major reason why PC gaming rocks, when I remember years ago, you had PC gamers railing against it and saying how Steam is evil incarnate.  Yes, I go back to heavy PC gaming, and read usenet and forums there on PC gaming.

Times change and so has Steam. There were many problems with Steam when it was initially released. Valve listened to there customers and Steam has improved drastically. Just because people say it's terrible doesn't mean it stays that way.

* Here is a question regarding PC gaming vs console gaming: Which is easier to just jump into and play?  Want to know why console gaming is seen as a superior experience for some?  That is why.

Maybe, but then that doesn't mean it's a superior experience and this ease of use has largely been reduced as PC gaming becomes easier and easier to understand and get into whilst console gaming (not including Wii) is gradually becomming more complex. I end up defending PC gaming a lot on here for the simle fact that many are ignorant of how easy PC gaming has become and the plus points of PC gaming.

* Why is it, when I see a list of the most awesome PC games on the planet, by people on forums like this, they fall into a very narrow range?  I don't see the diversity as with consoles.  I see people hype FPS, and maybe some RPG stuff (Western) and maybe an MMO or RTS or maybe another title there.  As I see it, the diversity in the AAA category is smaller on PCs than consoles.

Most AAA games on consoles are also available on PC with superior graphics. If your talking about games with a AAA budget, then most are multiplatform anyway, but there are a whole range of  exclusive games from lesser known devs that give PC gamers a large variety of games types. The reason you see FPS,, TPS, RPG, MMO, Simulation and Strategy (Not just RTS, Turn-based, mixed, management, god-games as well) the most is simply because those genres are well-suited to PC. Check the PC board for more info on the full list of PC games.

I take it you've never tried running SQL Server 2005/08/10 and Visual Studio 2005/08/10 on a P4? I have and it's complete shite.

As for justifying a higher end PC, mine was distinctly middle of the range when I bought it.

* Steam's improved beyond all recognition over the years. In my opinion it's a superb service, offering the purchaser more than enough to outweigh its negatives in terms of DRM and outright ownership. Your point is a bit silly in any case- PC gamers aren't a homogeneous mass all with the same opinion. Some will always despise Steam and buy elsewhere, that's their prerogative and they're very much free to do so.

* In terms of what? For my wife, playing Farmville while chatting to her mates on Facebook is incredibly easy. For me, pre-ordering a game off Amazon or Steam and playing it on the day of release is just as easy. For my kids, bunging Lego Batman into the Wii is easier than having me install it on the PC. No one's denying that pick up and play on the console is very convenient, but these days the same is true of digital services on the PC. The old stereotypical PC gaming problems are long gone.

* A narrow range? You've got to be kidding, the sheer variety of games on the PC absolutely puts all consoles combined to shame.

Just as a side note, as a software developer myself I find the comments about needing a more powerful PC as a developer to be somewhat odd. If your code is well modularized only a small portion will need to be recompiled while you’re working on it, and the productivity gain from jumping from a high-end Pentium 4 to a bleeding edge system is fairly minimal.

Now I can understand justifying a higher end PC because of your job because it is what I am going to do, but there is really no need for one. Personally, I’m intending to create a system to run vmware systems on top of; and one of the VM machines would be for a development environment, a couple would be for staging, a few would be for testing, and another would be for web-surfing and email, and (about) the only thing I would do on the base system is gaming.

Several things here:
* I find it interesting how you get PC gamers on here arguing how Steam is the cure-all and a major reason why PC gaming rocks, when I remember years ago, you had PC gamers railing against it and saying how Steam is evil incarnate.  Yes, I go back to heavy PC gaming, and read usenet and forums there on PC gaming.

* Here is a question regarding PC gaming vs console gaming: Which is easier to just jump into and play?  Want to know why console gaming is seen as a superior experience for some?  That is why.

* Why is it, when I see a list of the most awesome PC games on the planet, by people on forums like this, they fall into a very narrow range?  I don't see the diversity as with consoles.  I see people hype FPS, and maybe some RPG stuff (Western) and maybe an MMO or RTS or maybe another title there.  As I see it, the diversity in the AAA category is smaller on PCs than consoles.

To be fair, he said in the AAA range. And although there are many different types of games on the PC, how broad is the AAA selection?