I know consoles use 6 cores for games but getting this I will have good headroom if I multitask. I feel this is just not good time to invest on Intel since AMD has allmost everything in it's pocket, atleast not until I see how new games coming on next-gen consoles compare.

http://allforgamenews.com/2013/10/02/watch-dogs-pc-system-requirements-revealed-support-x64-8-core-2gb-vram-recommended So far watchdogs recommends 8 core setup allready, btw.

You're missing the point completely.
Watch Dogs can recommend an 8-core processor all it wants, fact of the matter is, even with Hyper-Threading disabled, my 6 cores is faster than AMD's 8 cores.
I can disable 2 cores and leave Hyper-Threading enabled, so it's 4 cores and 8 threads, it's still faster than AMD's 8 cores.

A Quad-Core Haswell with Hyper-Threading disabled is faster than the AMD FX 8 core chip under almost every circumstance, even when something uses 8 threads/cores.

But don't take my word for it:
http://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/698?vs=837

Fact of the matter is, you will not be less future proof with an AMD 8-core over an Intel Quad-Core, not in regards to hoping that games might use 8 cores in the future, even then they will still be slower.
The other part is, the AMD FX chips are also bad for playing older lightly threaded albeit demanding games like Sins of a Solar Empire or StarCraft 2 in comparison to Intel.

AMD is fine for price/performance, even then only if you have something like the motherboard already on hand so it's not an additional cost or in the lower-end you intend to overclock (As intel chips under the 4670K are multi-locked).

I don't think threads directly translate 1:1 with cores. I know intel has stronger singular core performance but I'm doubting they will still be better, or atleast not plain better as they are now. I don't want to put 200-300€ on something if 150€ CPU could potentially get a sudden performance boost.

And why can't threads directly translate to cores?
A program that splits off 4 threads will be allocated to 4 cores, Windows Schedular handles all that and it's actually very good at it.

Compared to Intel, the FX is slow, in the future? The FX will still be slow.
AMD hasn't been competitive with Intel in a long time, the consoles won't change that situation when games become more heavily threaded, just that the AMD FX will look slightly less anemic.

I do have a Phenom 2 x6 in my HTPC and an FX 8120 in my secondary gaming PC, I'm well aware of how good/not good they are in certain tasks, in encoding which can use all the cores on any CPU, the AMD CPU's do well. - They still can't touch an Intel Haswell Quad or Sandy/Ivy Hex core though.

I've provided heavily threaded benchmarks which uses all 8 cores on the AMD FX from a reputable source (And it still looses against the intel Quad) and you still discredit it, so I won't bother replying again.

I've seen arguments from both sides and I don't particularily disagree or agree with you. As I see it you could get a good CPU that could turn into a great CPU or get a great cpu that will stay great cpu but its noticeably more expensive.

http://www.shacknews.com/article/81179/amd-expects-performance-advantage-on-pc-due-to-console-partnerships

"Because it's our architecture there, it's easier to port the games. And because they're first developed on our hardware, there should be a performance advantage," he said. "They should run better on our hardware."