Starting with the final paragraph first, you're correct to a large extent. I'd counter though that it's not without reason that nearly every PC developer save for Blizzard has made a point of porting their games over to consoles now, and the vast majority of those developers have the console version as the bigger moneymaker. That rapid exodus tells me the PC gaming market wasn't exactly healthy at the time, certainly not for the AAA games, or it would not have been evacuated so rapidly.

I also question the assertion that the PC gamer is the most diverse, unless you're using the term in a completely different manner than I am. I've been heavily into console and PC gaming from an early age. Console gaming is largely a treehouse made up of little boys and young men; PC gaming was composed of an even smaller subset of the console gaming market, namely those old enough and saavy enough to navigate the additional hurdles of PC gaming. I certainly can't remember any girls playing PC games when I was growing up, and even now all the ones I know of who played PC games were concentrated on Facebook and Flash games. Telling a girl that I liked PC games certainly tended to prevent me from getting laid. The PC gamer was also relatively insecure, if the magazine articles were anything to go by: I lost track of how many "PC gaming will win the console wars!!!" articles I ran across in prior days.* It may have gotten remarkably smoother and easier these past two generations, but PC gaming's still a far cry from plug and play.

Perhaps you were referring not so much to diversity of gamers, but variety of game types? If so, perhaps you have a point: I concede there are more indie games on the PC than on any console, although I don't have sufficient data in front of me to judge how relevant, market-wise, this amounts to. I suspect it isn't much: "indie" is strongly tied to "small" in popular opinion for a reason. Or were you instead including mobile gaming and tablets in this category? If so, you'd have a point, as both ARE essentially PCs, albeit so radically different in approach and design from the traditional desktop that it almost feels like cheating to lump them together.

But my larger point is this: I can see no reason why the vast majority of today's gamers, if deprived of the conveniences of console gaming, would morph into PC gamers. Because we have reams of data showing that, if gaming decides to put up too many barriers to enjoyment, most folks just walk away and take up one of the thousand other entertain options available. And if ever there was a poster child for putting up too many barriers to enjoyment, it would be traditional PC gaming. Sure, maybe that's starting to change with the advent of the tablet, but those are relatively recent, and their offerings are noticeably different than the AAA games you ID'd. If console gaming wasn't there to support the PC developer, PC gaming would be quite different today. Not necessarily smaller: the clowns saying PC gaming was dying were obviously foolish from the get go. But the market would look different.

So...yes, I am assuming the bulk of console gamers would have stopped gaming instead of buying PCs. With ample historical data to support that conclusion.

*Ironically, I maintain PC gaming is closer to winning now than ever before, mainly because so many of its mainstays have set strong roots in the console scene. Take out Nintendo, and a lot of the best-sellers last generation were made by former PC-developers.

The massive AAA market couldn't exist as we know it with just PC because those games need to sell an incredible amount to even post a profit. They need as many sales on as many platforms as possible.

That being said PC gaming is indeed very strong right now, EA just released their financials and 23% of their revenue came from PC. That's nothing to scoff at by any means.

You sure? Because there are some pretty big AAA games exclusive to the PC with millions of gamers.

The problem is however that the PC is a *very* different demographic to consoles when it comes to games that gamers like, for instance on console shooters are all the rage, on PC, nothing touches the MOBA or MMO.

Converesly in countries such as South Korea (In-fact most Asian countries), PC *is* the dominant platform, there is a good reason why several PC exclusives are national sports over there and even get broadcasted on dedicated TV channels.

If everyone was limited to PC's then for AAA games to survive they would need to command a higher price. With a higher price and no pre-owned market, piracy would be through the roof and developers wouldnt sell anywhere near the amount of copies they do currently across all systems (at full price).

Steam sales and humble bundle sales would be higher, but the sales x price would still be lower than it is with consoles and so game budgets would decline.

Hardware prices, new and preowned would also go up since suppliers would have greater power and consumers wouldnt have consoles to go to as an alternative.

Dark Souls 2 sold probably more on PC as on PS3 or 360 first week in western countries if we look at 80k simultaneous players day one.

That's not AAA but PC sales would be obviously even better without consoles.

Games like Diablo 3 sold what? 8 millon the first 6 months or so?

I think some games couldn't live on PC but games like The Last of Us would have very good sales. But we have the same situation vice versa. Something like Starcraft would be never that successful only on consoles...

Well AAA games would be different, we would probably get a lot less single player ~10 cinematic experiences like most AAA console games are. But we would see a more in traditional PC genres. If consoles dissipated overnight I would imagine a lot of gamers would transition to PC (and mobile I guess) rather than give up gaming all together. That would also change the landscape of PC gaming a lot of course.

AAA games in the PC space (that aren't also on consoles) are mostly MMOs and Blizzard games at the moment. With a handful of F2P titles like League of Legends/World of Tanks etc plus arguably The Sims. And then we have a bunch of "not quite AAA" titles in the simulation, strategy and RPG genres. We would probably see growth in those types of games driven from the increased PC userbase of all the ex console refugees. There may also be a handful of console style AAA games but with only one platform and without first party backing they would be smaller in budget and probably fewer. Or possibly the big three might try and set up their own online marketplaces and try and drive adoption through store/client exclusives. Just imagine a Nintendo version of Steam with exclusive Nintendo games + 3rd party titles vs a MS one with their titles and a Sony one. MS failed with Games for Windows Live (partly because it was a pain in the arse and didn't work properly half the time) because they were more focused on Xbox and half arsed it, however I imagine if they put their full focus behind it and filled it with AAA exclusives like Age of Empires IV, Halo, Forza, Gears of War etc and executed on a client and DRM scheme as user friendly as Steam they could have a real go at it.

TL:DR I would say AAA gaming would most likely shrink from what it is now. But would mostly just change and transition to other genres and business models.

to me the more interesting question is: what direction will the majority games go in the future? will they be developed towards maxing out high end pc levels or will they be technical wise more simple to be able to run on mobile devices as well? because let's face it, the biggest crowd is on phones and tablets and if i'm right with my assumption and it's the latter one, is it really necessary to build high end pc's for most of the games in the future?

I see your point loud and clear...but I politely disagree with it. :)

Back in the day when SNES and Genesis were the norm and PC gaming was a mess, no one in the right mind would jump over to PC gaming if you took away their consoles. Today however these next gen consoles are as close to PCs as it gets in terms of features, interface and functionality. One could easily find a 500 dollar prebuilt CyperPower PC and buy it instead of Xbox 1 or PS4 and plug that in to their TV and call it a day. 

Honestly if it wasn't for Nintendo, I'd consider concoles to be dead. The other 2 players are already selling people PC's, its just that consumers havent realized it yet. 3 years from now with SteamBoxes, Windows 8 gaming and Android gaming streamlined, there will be very little difference between an X1 or a Windows 8 PCs when it comes to gaming.  

And in terms of AAA gaming, I would say history spoke loud and clear. You are right that sometime in 2006-7 game devs started focusing on consoles and made PC ports of games that were sub par to what was expected, if at all. Games like Crysis 2, Resident Evil 5 and many other console ports were shat on by the PC community.  Devs have since reconsidered this console first strategy and we have had some proper PC ports of games that would never even come to PC's before hand. Castlevania LOS for example or MGS Revengeance...these games would have never made it to PC 5 years ago. And as far as PC devs, they smartened up and gave us proper PC titles like Crysis 3 and Mass effect 3 while also giving a slightly watered down ports to consoles. 

But... if there was no consoles, then the console gamers would game on PC, this just transferring the revenue over to a different platform.
The question doesnt make any sense.