Same here. I just recently replaced my Dual Core DDR2 DX9 setup which is ~5 years old and now I have a Quad Core DDR3 DX11 pc that runs my games on high - ultra. I can see myself upgrading once again in 3 years or more.

There's a plethora of PC games out there, fortunately...and I am missing out only on the console exclusives. Thankfully all consoles except the PS3 and X360 are playable on PC ;)

Why upgrade? PC gaming is fucking dead didn't you know?

For now.

I like my PC, I also own an Xbox 360 with about 80-90 games and a PS3 which I use soley as a Blu-Ray player.
However... Nothing can touch the PC when you're gaming in Surround Vision or Eyefinity with 5760x1080 resolutions bombarding your retinas with copious amounts of Anti-Alising and Anisotropic filtering, I have actually stopped buying Xbox 360 games now and instead only buy PC games provided it's not on Origin.
Eyefinity just makes everything incredibly immersive.

For those who have no idea what Eyefinity or Surround Vision is...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=68GslU5wejA

honestly you can get a ok gaming PC for like $600 yes allot more than a console still. If you don't demand high graphics you can play most games on medium for a long period of time with an OK rig, and a mid-range graphics card isn't too bad. A $200 card last me 2 years so far and can still play everything on mostly high settings

I know I already posted in this thread - but after a great day of diverse gaming on my PC, with everything from browser based indie games to a modded (for the better) version of Skyrim, I've got to say "bollocks" to this article.

If anything is holding gaming back in terms of evolving its the greater drive to succeed commercially vs risk anything new. A common issue but one, with yearly CoD re-skinning and code tweaking packs, that is getting really extreme IMHO.

You forgot the 5.1 SS

I still prefer console gaming though, but occasionaly blasting graphics to my screen like a mofo on my pc, is satisfying, and I can also do it with my controller, sofa & big ass tv

There's a pretty simple explanation really. With increased development costs that can literally wipe out a studio after one bad release, publishers generally don't want to take huge risks when it comes to new and untested IPs.

"risk anything new" and "succeed commercially" rarely go hand in hand. When they do, the inevitable response is to turn that new, successful IP into a franchise.

Developers that want to take risks typically go the indy route which can result in legitimate attempts to do something really new and innovative, to varying degrees of success, but on a budget. If that's what a gamer is really into, then I don't see why they would have a problem with the big buget, heavily marketed titles attempting to appeal to a broader audience. 

In the case of CoD, there's an even more simple explanation; each game keeps breaking its previous sales record as the most commercially successful game published. There is not a savvy company in business that would kill a golden goose laying egg just so they could look for another one. CoD will taper off when the sales taper off. 

You have a party comprised of Nintendo, Sony, and MS clicks just hanging out in their own circles and having a good time.

Then the PC guy crashes the party, starts talking smug, and the 3 clicks just want him to shut up and leave because nobody cares what they have to say.

Thats a PC gamer in our books. They arent part of the console war, they feel left out so while nobody cares, they like to jump in with their two cents.

Have your superior rig setup but I have the more socially acceptable option: consoles. That and im a gamepad gamer first and foremost :)

Why is he angry about pc gamers posting screenshots ?

Simple - because those screenshots make it painfully obvious that Microsoft claiming Kinect is like a release of new machine is just a marketing bullshit and the hardware inside is outdate and needs fast replacement.

Every fanbase has its share of morons, however I fail to see anything wrong with playing a multiplatform game on my PC in 1920x1080 and at 60fps. It's the same game running at greater graphical fidelity. I wasn't aware I should thrust upon myself a lesser visual experience simply because certain console owners are suffering from the apple and grapes paradigm/analogy.

"Evidently, it's high time we dug our heels in. Here's a neat little formula for you to chew on, PC snobs: the better games look, the fewer they'll become and the less interesting they'll be"

How he typed this out with a straight face is beyond me, more specifically the end of the statement. Certain developers will always attempt to push the envelope with graphics on the PC because they choose to do so. The same way in which EPIC and Naughty Dog attempt to push the 360 and PS3 to their graphical limits yet ensure that their games arguably pertain great core gameplay mechanics.

There is no knife to the throat of the developer to push graphical boundaries except in the most exceptional or specific of circumstances. There will always be a flow of innovative games no matter the platform, and no matter the graphical fidelity. Just look at upcoming games for PC next year. Barely any are pushing the graphical boundaries to new heights. This article is as moot as my post, this all should just be common sense. PC gamers just like to childishly brag, it seems they bragged enough to force this journalist into writing an equally childish retort.