By adding a $100 to $150 graphics card to (pretty much) any modern PC you will be able to play any game that is also available on the consoles at near maximum settings at 1080p at 60fps or higher ... If you start looking at the high end gaming PCs that have multiple graphics cards and a top of the line CPU they are probably more powerful that the hardware Sony or Microsoft will use in their next generation consoles.

The problem (as has been pointed out) comes down to games, and from a business perspective it doesn't make sense to target high end PCs anymore. A little more than a decade ago, people were upgrading their PCs every 12 to 24 months and games were much cheaper to develop, so producing a game that targeted the top 25% of systems upon release  would soon be able to be played by most gamers; and you didn't need that many sales to break even or profit even if it only really sold well initially. To really push these systems to their limit, you would need to create a game that will sell in the 5 Million unit range (across platforms), and to do that without decent console ports at a time when people upgrade their PC every 4 or 5 years is not going to be possible.

With that said, I would expect to see more PC games that target higher end hardware in the near future. We're at a point where companies can complete games for the PC and (not too long after that) port them to next generation hardware at a time when game choices on those consoles will be limited.

It came out 3 years ago, when the Piracy excuse was as strong as ever.

And Crysis sold good for being a generic shooter with good graphics.

I love how before, people used to say that "only MMORPG's and facebook games do well on PC" when RTS games were declining due to most companies shoveling out crap like C&C4 and 4, and now after SC2, they say "only MMORPG and RTS games".

When has PC piracy not been rampant? I've been playing PC games for decades, and I can't remember a time when it wasn't amazingly easy to steal games ...

Now, with that said, PC games tend to have a higher margin per unit sold than console games because they don't have the licencing fees that are associated with console gaming; and (while I'm not positive) I suspect the publisher/developer tends to pocket the savings associated with digital distribution through Steam.

Bear in mind I said less. I wasn't implying there wasn't piracy. Over the last few years torrents have really exploded and fast internet is more accessible than ever. I know people who can't figure out how to update Windows, but they are experts at pirating.

So? Hasn't PC Gaming Revenue still been increasing? Last I heard, PC Gaming was the only platform to grow in 2009. And Steam has been growing 200% in 2010 so far, comparing 2010's first 9 months to 2009's first 9 months.

Also, Crysis sold 1 million in 45 days. Then it reached 1.5 million in like 5 months. Right now it's probably reached 2 millions, and walking to 3 millions (if it hasn't reached it already)

Not every game has to sell in CoD quantities to turn a very healthy profit. Crysis cost $22 million to make, including the engine which could be licensed to third parties and used in its expansion. Crytek did so well out of it they expanded by buying up several more studios. Compare that to other 'HD' developers who are continually turning in losses or meagre profits on much higher sales figures, and you'll see why the PC is still attractive to many of the savvier developers.

Oh, it's no conspiracy; DD is without any doubt the most profitable means of distribution for publishers.

By default, Steam matches current retail price on games. When not on sale, the price goes right back. Comparing server storage and e-billing costs with producing, shipping and stocking physical inventory is no comparison cost-wise. So sure, all games sold at retail price on Steam are far more profitable than a physical copy sold through any brick and mortar store.

That's really where the parity shift for PC gaming will happen, if it actually happens.

I think a lot of people thought Crysis was suppose to herald the "next generation" on PC as it was the game that forced a lot of gamers to do a significant upgrade (or gave them an excuse), but that was back in 2007 and instead of seeing more PC games that simply weren't possible on a console, we now have the sequel being developed to run on consoles and no one seems particularly eager to make the next big PC exclusive that requires a significant upgrade.

So in that respect, consoles are holding back PC developers. Those who want to reach the broadest commercial audience anyway.

Even developing a game they can port over to the next generation of consoles makes no sense currently since there's no set timeframe for them. A port of a game that was only playable on PC could end up being a year old or even older by the time the console port came out resulting in minimal sales for anything that wasn't a seminal title.

So it boils down to when a major licensed game development environment like Unreal Engine 4 or CryEngine 4 becomes available to developers. Both are going to be targeted for console use, so it's a question of if middleware developers are going to release them for PC earlier or simply wait for the next generation of consoles.

lol at Yerli.

Come back when you can show a PC game that looks better than Uncharted 2.

At this point PC is not even half a generation ahead of HD consoles. And after all it shouldn't, since this console gen is only 4 years old (PS3) - or 5 if you wanna count X360's very premature headstart - and it launched with the strongest and priciest hardware ever.

Usually a console gen is 6 years, so we won't even see PC hardware on that level until Fall 2011 at the earliest - and when speaking actual PC games we don't even have a powerful next-gen game engine publically shown yet (CryEngine 3 is current gen).