There is no question that the latest graphics on PCs will always outshine the consoles after 2-3 years on their lifetime. On the other hand, the console graphics usually look considerably better when they are first released before catchup of the PC and look better for a long time than the average PC (not the new/high end PCs). The problem with gaming on PC is not only about price, but lack of smoothness and stability of the consoles. When you buy a console, you know that every game for it will run from day 1 till the end of its life.

A top of the line PC will outperform a console at launch. A console's hardware is usually set in stone about 12 months before launch. PCs don't play by those rules. Look at the hardware that was available in November of 2006... It absolutely annihilates the PS3.

A top of the line PC may outperform consoles at launch, only at a handful of games, for the 90% of the games, consoles are usually better looking. There was no game like "Virtua Fighter" in 1995 on PC (Quake was released in 1996) for example. Yes there were games as good looking as Gear of Wars, on Pc but most there were hardly any PC out there to run the game as smooth and stable as an Xbox360.

People forget something, who claim that a PC which is bought now will have a reasonable price and be much more powerful than the consoles. That's kind of true but confined to a very narrow outlook.

How is that confined to a narrow outlook? It's true. For $600, you can build a rig that will destroy any console out there.

You couldnt build a PC for $600 in 2005, which would destroy Xbox 360 or PS3 graphics! You now can after 2-3 years.

...

- Most games require huge installs, and many other tweaks, in order to start playing the game, you need to give extra effort and time.

PS3 games often require an install. It's been a long time since I've seen a game that didn't install and play, though obvious glitches with hardware do exist out there. I'm not denying that PCs are more complicated but I think you're playing it up a bit.

Installation on consoles is a new phenomenon, and exclusive to ps3 (as a requirement) and cannot be regarded as a general case. PC installations are a norm since the integration of hard discs on PC! Also the installations on PC is waaaaay more complicated and problematic. The console installations mostly consist of copy of the content only.

- You will have many problems on the way, some of them will be incompatible with your system due to some unknown freaking reason, system conflict, whatever.

Very rarely does that happen. But, it does, so I'll give you that. Again, the word "many" makes it sound like you have to driver-search and update for every game you buy. That's not the case.

It happens to me all the time and for the record, I almost have several so called PC certificates whatever, so please dont consider me an amateur or something. I just dont have the energy and time to patrol the system stability all the time!

- Let's just not forget the virus, spyware and other god darn problems!

Don't be an idiot and this isn't a problem. PERIOD.

I dont know who's being an idiot here! Can you tell me then why I have one Anti-Vir software, 1 firewall, 1 anti-spyware and various other system programs runnig simultaneously on my system? Without them, even surfing the internet is a huge risk. 4 of 5 friends of mine have some kind of virus or trojan in their computers!

- After a couple of years, there will be a significant number of games that you either cannot run or can run on very low settings, losing a lot of the graphics, smoothnees and gameplay stability.

If you spend your money wisely, your PC will run almost any game for up to three years and beyond, barring a monster engine like Crytek releasing that pushes even the newest hardware.

I am a very conservative but still tech nerd kinda person, so you can have faith on me spending my money very wisely. I do change computers every 2-4 years and I never throw them away, the old ones either serve for some other function (like documentation or entertainment etc) or are given to somebody else in the family, or recycled for the still functioning parts. Components are upgraded or added regularly as well. So I am kind of sure that I am wiser than 95-99% of the people out there in using, upgrading their machines. However, I still second my original opinion. This is why I always buy one or two video game consoles + a handheld system every 5 years or so, as an addition.

- Your PC which was bought on the same day of the 360's release almost never outshined its competitor. The graphics on the PC usually had little or no improvement on its life cycle due to the lack of optimization for your hardware, but they could possibility get even worse as you'd play future games at lower settings etc. The console graphics have improved considerably on the other hand as game developers had better optimizations for the specific hardware.

I didn't see anything on the 360 until Gears of War that trumped Half-Life 2 on high and Valve doesn't produce processor-eating engines. They're actually somewhat mild, really. When did HL2 release? 2004 IIRC. Over a year before the 360...

I personally dislike Half-Life graphics and they are nowhere near Gears of War or Resistance 2. Far Cry is another story but it wouldnt be justice to call it a game of its time, its requirements were beyond its time for a smooth gameplay.

- In Summary, PC graphics will outdo the console graphics only if you buy a new PC or make a hefty upgrade every one or two years.

Flat out untrue. If you spent $800 on a PC when the PS3 released, you'd still be able to play almost any game released (Mass Effect, CoD4, etc) on high settings and you'd probably be able to squeak out low/mid on Crysis, which still looks better than anything found on either HD console.

Why dont we talk about the time when Xbox 360 was released. I am not a huge fan of PS3 anyway, its price tag mostly comes from the bluray anyway. So you say a PC that cost $800 in 2005 will be able to play Crysis graphics smooth and stable, butterflies and flowers, with sunshine, you mean! A BIG LAUGHTER. My PC that I bought for like a $600-700 in 2005 cant handle it. I should've spent $200 more I guess!!!

This myth that PCs have to be upgraded every twelve months really needs to die. It's on the level of "PS3 has no games" at this point.

Its not that PCs have to be upgraded every 12 months, I stopped upgrading my PCs drastically. I never upgrade CPUs, too costly! Here is what I do!.

Half the way of its life (like 1-2 years), I merely add more a different graphics card after 1-2 years, some more Ram, some additional hard disc etc, without touching the main architecture, mainboard and CPU.

Then after like 4 years, I do change the whole system, recycling the usefull parts like ed with Ram, hard disc etc. I get two PCs, a new one with some parts recycled from the old PC, and an old one without recycled parts but packed with economic additions.

And just to quote a small bit of Rocketpig's post

Flat out untrue. If you spent $800 on a PC when the PS3 released, you'd still be able to play almost any game released (Mass Effect, CoD4, etc) on high settings and you'd probably be able to squeak out low/mid on Crysis, which still looks better than anything found on either HD console.

I spent about 700 on a PC christmas 2006, and I can play mass effect COD4, and bioshock fine and dandy, and they definitely have the graphical edge over their console counterparts on my PC which isn't very good at all by today's standards.

Huh?? Bioshock and COD4 on the PC is exactly the same as on PS360.

The only thing you can do on PC versions is to up the resolution a bit and add some AA/AF.

But the essence of the game is the same - polygons, textures, bump maps, HDR, shadows and so on. <----- these factors are vast amounts more important than resolution and AA.

I have a nice PC with a 24 inch 1920x1200 res screen, but in games like CoD 4-5, Tomb Raider: Underworld, Bioshock, Fallout 3 etc the PC version don't look significantly better even at higher res + everything at max.

And just to quote a small bit of Rocketpig's post

Flat out untrue. If you spent $800 on a PC when the PS3 released, you'd still be able to play almost any game released (Mass Effect, CoD4, etc) on high settings and you'd probably be able to squeak out low/mid on Crysis, which still looks better than anything found on either HD console.

I spent about 700 on a PC christmas 2006, and I can play mass effect COD4, and bioshock fine and dandy, and they definitely have the graphical edge over their console counterparts on my PC which isn't very good at all by today's standards.