That's the kicker... All PC's can game. Sure you might not be able to play Crysis on your netbook... However the game library is incredibly vast spanning decades and multiple platforms via emulation, with thousands of titles that you could probably play.
If a device is determined to be a "gaming machine" or not via the number of games available, then PC would beat the consoles hands down, no contest, regardless of the hardware in use.

With that said... To get a gaming PC is actually fairly simple. - Any decent pre-built quad-core equipped Desktop machine with 4gb+ of ram will do fine as a "base". - Then all you need to do is drop in a new decent graphics card (And in some cases a better PSU) and you could probably run every title out there.

Well, if they kept Crysis 2 on Steam it may have sold better on the PC. But the amount of hate over Origin is incredible. If they want more sales on PC, that would be the first thing I would be changing.
I bought Crysis at Retail and on Steam, Great benchmarking game at the time. (Although my PC creams it now.)
Yet, never touched Crysis 2 because it was on Origin.

PC Piracy is a big problem, but not as big as publishers make it out to be.
If they release a game at a price point that gamers are willing to pay on a service they prefer, then they will get sales.
Plus if you look at Steam, a game that is even 10 years old could suddenly hit the top of the best selling charts with a price reduction, that's a a large recurring sales boost without the developers having to do anything, that kind of thing just never happens with a console where games are usually released then fall into obscurity.

That's probably exactly what happened. 

Crysis was a slow burner by only being playable on a small percentage of gaming PCs when it debuted, which may have been highly impressive when it came to visuals back in 2007, but not so impressive when played on anything that wasn't a decent gaming PC. Now that type of GPU power is a lot more common by the simple merit of being far more affordable thanks to advances in hardware. 

So Crytek's response to that was to try and tap the lower spec market, and naturally, the largest lower spec platforms would be consoles. CryEngine 2 was specifically coded with consoles in mind.

Crysis 2 seemed like it was designed specifically to look as good as possible by restraining the field of play as much as possible from the fully open world design with huge draw distances in Crysis to a far more tunnel/linear design. 

The end result is that they were probably expecting a lot better sales than what actually happened. 

The thing is, I'm not even sure if I'd blame console development or the console audience (it's not like the PC audience favored the game that much more if it only sold between 500k - 1m) for not being more receptive, even with the marketing and hype because it's entirely possible the game just wasn't that good. 

I bought it; it was all right, but I had little desire to play online and pretty much lost the desire to even finish the campaign. And that's as someone who played the original quite heavily and enjoyed Warhead even more. Has me wondering how much of that was simply because the game really looked good.

That's not true. Exclusive console gamers lose out on a massive and fun genre, RTS, while it's cusin, TBSs, are harder to controll without a pointing device, and it shows on the consoles in the gameplay options. There are also preccious few Point and Click games, again controller related reson obviously.

I don't get the dislike and FUD that is spread around about games running on different types of hardware. It's the same industry and advances on all fronts are benefition all of us, whether one is a console exclusive gamer and thinks Tactics Ogre is the best TBS ever, or an exclusive PC gamer and thinks Devil May Cry surely probably is not that great.

Devil May Cry 3 and 4 came out on PC 

I think its pretty cocky, though he says if next generation isn't PC. He doesn't likely know.just how powerful next generation consoles are actually going to be. IGN reported 6x the 360's power but within months that has raised to 10x the power and then hinted at even higher. If we are to believe the likes of Epic then next generation machines will be able to outrun or at least be on par with the latest and greatest gaming PC's.

The 360 was able to handle all the latest PC games when it was released. The PS3 was state of the art for about two year

I know THQ and EAGames have both publicly stated that WiiU can run the latest PC games top of the line. My guess is WiiU will launch this winter on par with current PC's (normal ones not high end gaming ones like alien ware). Nextbox and PS4 will probably launch more powerful then any affordable gaming PC and likely remain state of the art for a year or so after launch. I am pretty confident that if a current PC or even a 2013 newer PC can handle CryTek's new game then the PS4 will too.

Though genie right in one thing. Crytek has always focused on PC and PC is technically always going.to be the next generation because consoles have five year life cycles (at least) but PC's can last as few as one month before a new game comes out and the latest PC can't play it at full capacity! In that sense Crytek will always be working on the next thing.

Outrun the greatest of PC's? Impossible for a console. For starters consoles don't run graphics cards where the graphics cards power consumption is higher than the Xbox or PS3 itself. - Not to mention that a PC can have multiple graphics cards working in tandem to draw images greater than 1080P which is now a lowish resolution these days.
I've heard it many times in history how the latest and greatest console will dethrone the PC, it's never happened, PC's evolve far to quickly for a console to ever keep up.

Most Alienware systems aren't even high-end. It's more mid-range, and seriously overpriced.

Also, 1 month before a PC can't play a game at full capacity?
My old PC is about 5ish years old. - It has a Core 2 Quad Q6600 overclocked to 3.6ghz, 8gb of DDR2 ram, All I have done to it is drop in 2x Radeon 6950 2gb cards in crossfire, which allows me to run Battlefield 3 at maximum at a 2560x1440 resolution. On a 5 year old PC. (The Radeon 6950's came from my main gaming system that I upgraded to twin Radeon 7970 3gb cards.)
Sad part is, that 5 year old PC is probably going to be faster than the next gen consoles by the current leaked specifications, certainly leaves the Wii U in the dirt especially when it comes to Direct X 11 effects.

I think you underestimate how well a PC can stick around and play the latest and greatest games if you choose a decent system to begin with.
I could have probably stuck with the two Radeon 4890's in crossfire that it had before which might have handled Battlefield 3 without Tessellation perfectly fine, and those cards are about 3-4ish years old.

But please, do yourself a favour and don't spread the fud on how consoles are going to be faster and more graphical than a PC, I don't see consoles running games in Eyefinity or 3D eyefinity or even with 8x Anti-Aliasing in 3D eyefinity ever.

PC gaming will be ahead of console gaming as far as power is concerned. This is obvious and not such a great thing to boast. Lets see how the games get, because consoles had better games this gen imo and it's going to get worse unless PC learn to do something with all that power.

Too bad they make shitty games... I do like that they outsource their engines and tech though, that way they can actually be relevant to the market.