Sorry, I meant it in an overall sense of power with things such as AI, physics, visuals, etc. Not only limited to visuals. Visuals aren't the only area video games need improvement, but I do feel like it's the only area people ever care to talk about.

I'm not going to comment on your thoughts on the cost of building a PC that's more powerful than the PS4/720 because I had a hard time taking your words seriously without laughing. Sorry. =) I think you're either expecting way too much out of the hardware of those systems, or you simply don't understand prices for computer hardware.

He's talking about the dev cost of making it look even better than it would on a PS4/720 for the PC version.  With such a small market, the extra art isn't worth it. The same applies to physics, AI, etc. The PC version won't be better than the console version even though the PC has more theoretical power.

As the PC has proven the amount of power doesn't always equate in better AI.  I will like to call upon Civilization for this example.  Civ has never been that graphic demanding (on par with what most Blizzard games require, CPU/GPU wise).  However, the AI in Civ series has barely improved since I started on Civ 3.  To be blunt: it must take huge generation leap to make AI actually decent.  AI in Civ is only harder on more difficult settings due to bullshit they give the computer opponents.  They trade more often with each other, given more start bonuses (more units), etc.  I can play Civ on hardest difficulty but they are only hard because they can build more units, research techs quicker, while somehow building buildings quicker than a real person (pretty much they cheat).  This isn't more difficult AI it is just being cheap.  When I catch up to them in techs (end game) and units I clearly rape their ass in any strategy even with the limit of only one unit per tile (Civ 5).  To put my post simple the more difficult AI is usually the the AI that cheats.  They aren't smarter they only benefit from excess gifts given by the programmers.  I love the Civ series but the computer AI is pretty much bullshit.

I just don't think anyone will have the budget to make games that require complexity (visual or otherwise) that goes beyond the PS4/720 for a long time, which I expect to be about 2TFLOP+ in a closed operating environment (though I suspect 720 will run Windows RT) fine tuned for gaming.

Not for a niche PC market.

Sure you can pluck down $3000 for a custom PC if you want, I just don't think you'll be getting a whole lot of bang for your buck. Maybe a handful of titles will make use of that. As 4K resolution monitors become more common, then sure. You'll probably start to see some seperation.

If it's really an issue about dev costs, then why do these imrpovements in the PC versions exist today?

PC versions tend to display better visuals, run smoother, and are capable of running more on screen than their console counterparts. I suspect that to continue in the future as it always has been in the past. For instance, the additional power allows the PC to run MMOs that consoles would be unable to, and allows PC versions of games to be vastly superior to their console counterparts when developers try (Battlefield 3 and Skyrim, for example).

It's not a world of a difference, but neither will the difference be between the Wii U and the PS4/720.

Also, there are other things to consider, such as control inputs and overall customizational abilities offered through the PC platform.

Anyways, I won't argue the point further. I just find it funny when the "HD console fans" brag about how awesome their platforms are and then turn a blind eye to the even more advanced PC market.

(Edited a bit to make things clearer)

So does this mean that while everyone bitched and moaned about them saying it, PS3 and 360 really did have "Next Gen" graphics?

One big reason PC versions look better is because there's an easy way to boost performance -- raise the resolution. PC games can run in 1080p, which results in a better image quality.

That's hard to get to again though because PC resolution has sort of hit a brick wall at 1080P. A 4K monitor costs as much as a car. So if you want to pay $20,000 for a monitor -- go right ahead, lol.

I think in virtually any reasonable context, any type of game that can be made under a budget of $100 million dollars will run on the PS4/720 for the next 3-4 years IMO. Just a hunch though. I think developers are going to have to really push themselves to max out the PS4 or 720, it's just reaching a level of maturity for graphics and performance, where sure you can probably go higher, but at some point the cost/return ratio of doing so just becomes unfeasible.

I kinda look at it this way

N64/PSOne = Toddler stage for 3D graphics

PS2/GCN/XBox = Adolescent stage for 3D graphics

360/PS3 = Teenager/Young adult stage for 3D graphics

PS4/720 = Adult phase/20 something

I think processing power with PS4/720 will hit a certain "maturity" point. Sure you could go beyond that, but where are you going? Avatar level graphics? Great. Where's the $200 million dollars needed to invest in that kind of project going to come from?

PS4/720 is where I think the processing power of a console reaches such a point that it can handle just about any type of artistic or gameplay (AI, enemies on screen, etc.) demand that a developer can come up with to a reasonable degree.

In general I think the desktop PC is dying anyway. Don't get me wrong, I have a pretty decent PC rig for video editing and I do some gaming on it, I have a GTX 570 and an i7 Pentium quad-core with a ton of RAM, so it smokes any console on the market right now.

Agreed, 100%

Recently I've been speaking with a friend of mine and a certain individual on this site, both of whom really know their sh!t when it comes to PC tech, and building the PC yourself, which obviously saves coin, you're still looking at likely over a grand for tech that could run, say, the upcoming Crysis 3 at its highest settings, even at 1080p/60fps.  No way are the new consoles from Sony and Microsoft going to be able to match that performance, and they really don't need to for what they're going for.

I don't think the PS4/720 will be far off from the PC version though, it's likely Crysis 3 is actually being made with the PS4/720 in mind, not the PC.

If the PS3 can run Crysis 3, I think the PS4 will absolutely smoke the PS3 version, book it. 

A closed environment with a minimal OS and hardware tuned to the grill for gaming makes a huge difference. A 2 TFLOP console can in effect operate like a 4 TFLOP PC GPU or better.

Engines will be supremely scalable so they will be able to run at many levels, hence the PS3/360 versions of C3.  And while I think that most people will be perfectly content - even impressed - with the performance from the PS4/NeXtBox I think there will still be a noticable step-up with the performance from a high end PC upon their release.