What do you mean?  My PC is a few years old and is not even close to being on par with the PS4.  Personally, I don't even care that much about "graphics"--and, according to statistics, I'm pretty typical.

My PC cost $900 new.  Does that sound like a lot?  Regardless of being a gamer, I would have bought a PC that cost at least $400 in order to do other tasks, so the "gaming" part was really just an additional $500 at the most.  Does that really sound out-of-line with console gaming costs?  Especially when PC games are much cheaper?

When you say "PC gamers", it seems to me that you're only talking about a few PC gamers.  You're making assumptions that don't even apply across the board.

Personally, I split my gaming time between PC and consoles somewhat equally.  Some genres, like fighting games or hack n' slash titles, and a lot of action-adventure games, I prefer on consoles.  On the other hand, I wouldn't even think of playing a Bethesda or Dragon Age game on anything but a PC, not to mention extremely complex games like World of Warcraft.

I don't see any reason for elitism from either side.  Both have their fair share of positives and negatives.

I wouldn't say your opinion is controversial. I would just say most of it is wrong. Not many PC gamers are actually shitting on consoles. Some were just hoping the consoles would be stronger. My PS4 will arrive whenever amazon decide to actually send it even though I ordered it in May.

It is really funny how people underestimate mods, games such as warcraft three are alive to this day due to the amazing mods.

Many people have the argument that gameplay is more important then graphics when facing pc elitists, but many of the warcraft mods have better, more balanced and deeper gameplay then many AAA games out their.

People have made everything about graphics, resolution and fps with consoles which will never be able to compete with PC.

Yeah well pretty sure mobile gaming is beating that easily.

I mainly use my PC to play indie games that I buy during steam sales. Where is your God now.

Does angry birds rack in more then 1 billion hours per month, to put that into perspective the whole halo franchise has around 2 billion hours. Do mobile games have esports event at the staples center? Do mobile games have official gaming leagues, do mobile games have players who win more then 600k per year and tens of others within 6 digits.

They don't. 

Not that I care who plays what, because what I do with my money is none of your concern, and vice versa...but here's a few points I'd like to make.

1) If graphics aren't everything, why have developers sacrificed map sizes, and other game functionality, in order to increase the graphical acuity on console? And why haven't gamer's rejected such tactics?

2) Why do console games with perceived poor graphics, perform poorly?

3) Looking through the posts here on VG, there aren't many 'We're the PC Master Race, tremble before our might" posts...but near the very top? A thread clearly designed to illicit a response from PC Gamers.

This is merely observation, of course. But, it occurs to me that folks who only game on console, or, prefer console as their platform of choice for gaming, have just as many folks who like flaming/baiting others who have a different choice, and then feign indignation when a person who enjoys another platform takes the bait.

For me personally? There's far more to a game than how shiny it looks. Take Stalker, as an example. The graphics at the time were quite good, but what I found so enjoyable and amazing was the X-Ray (AI) engine coupled with the vast open world - which to be frank, is unparalleled - the attention to detail for the area surrounding Chernobyl, and that they made a very serious stab at a physics system (with regards to bullet behavior). To have a map that size, that is continuously interacting with itself, on it's own, whether you're there or not, is quite a feat to achieve. The AI so robust, that initially it had to be scaled back because the NPC's themselves would conquer the game before you could...is uncanny. Roving bands of mutated animals, wiping out outposts, even quest givers...you'd be out in the middle of nowhere trying to do something and all of a sudden 'Quest failed', you go back to the area where you got the quest, and everyone's dead, and the area populated with irradiated organisms.  The randomness in Stalker added a level of thrill that I haven't seen many games achieve (and personally, I hope it eventually ends up on console, because it's a fantastic series)

You're right, graphics aren't everything, but, gamer's haven't exactly been voting with their wallets against such tactics either. Games are still rated, and bought based in large part on how they look. I'm GLAD the new consoles have, if nothing else, a fairly robust amount of RAM. That's what was severely lacking in the PS3/360. It will give developers many new avenues to pursue without having to sacrifice in areas where we currently have a standard.

Either way, I hope everyone enjoys the new gen, and the gens to come...but maybe we could ALL stand to be a tad more civilized with each other and remember that every platform has it's less than stellar examples of human beings.

Now you're just changing the criteria for the meaning of "biggest" game.

First it was most active players, which Angry Birds is easily going to win with 1 billion total owners.
Then you compare a free to play game to retail games ? If CoD was free to play it would absolutely rape LoL. On the other hand if LoL costed $60 or even $40 it wouldn't even be near CoD or GTA or Mario Kart and probably several smaller ones (Halo, Gran Turismo, Elder Scrolls, Smash Bros. etc.).
Profit-wise it's definitely not the "biggest".

OFF TOPIC: is that Cara Delevigne in your pic? im just curious to know