You don't "have" to do anything. If you "want to" you can play a more modern game at better performance, but for most games to play them on the low end you can do it with a 3 or 4 year old card. It might not be the best graphics, but it would still work. Now when the upgrade is now much less than or slightly higher than a $100(unless you build a whole new PC, which you have no reason to unless your looking toward high end performance) then it is well warranted for another 3 or 4 years of games as well as able to play all your older games at modern fidelity. So might prefer to upgrade, but it is far from as bad as you may think.

PC by a country mile. Console gaming's fun enough, but it'd be the first to go if given the choice, it's too restrictive, too regulated and too expensive.

Everytime I try to walk away, they suck me back in.

Just a note:

The control argument is moot. Console games are beginning, and have the ability to in some cases, use a mouse and keyboard(just as the PC recently began using the console controller). The control issue is not insurmountable and will obviously be addressed in the future, and the problems that are being outlined here when referencing PC gaming, are insurmountable, and have being addressed for the last 10 years, to no avail.

In fact, with the inception of the motion controller, I would imagine the inferior control scheme could become a pro-console argument as early as next generation, when it comes to compatibility with games.

PC gaming has 2 arguments. Graphics, and user created mods. Both of which are difficult to obtain on consoles at this time, due to the nature of console uniform hardware, but both are inferiorities that are guaranteed to improve in the future.

You have two talking points here:

1. Graphics

2. User Created Mods

Console talking points vs HDPC gaming:

1. Used market

2. First party exclusives(explination:highly funded console exclusive innovations in software and hardware cross compatible across multiple games(trophies, Wii-Mote, PS-Eye, Balance board, LBP, Mario, Zelda, Killzone, Uncharted, Fable 2, Gears 2, Alan Wake, ect). There is no one dumping that kind of money into PC exclusive development, simply because there is no major interest to PC gamings sustained success, like MS, Sony, and Nintendo share in their IP consoles. Even Crytek has pulled a XIII on PC gaming, which is the final pillar.)

3. Technical barriers to entry

4. Entrance price

5. Convenience aka Plug and Play vs Hareware requirements/physical installation

6. Glitches/incompatibility due to nonuniform hardware/software

7. DRM and negative effects on expensive PC systems due to piracy

8. Local multiplayer

With the control argument being subjective, I don't see how anyone could consider PC gaming superior without resorting to library breadth, which extends mostly to past releases and roms, meaning the current releases, which are the important releases, are falling on the side of the console at this time. That said, library quality is also subjective.

I've been a PC gamer forever. LTTP is one of my favorite games of all time, but so is Ocarina of Time, and the SNES is no longer relevant. My current PC runs Crysis on very high.

The common argument comes down to PC entheusiast pretending better graphics = better game. However, PC gaming isn't uniform, and neither are graphics, so we often get a "PC game potential vs Console game uniform hardware result." In essence, you gain a lot more benefit from uniform hardware on consoles, than you gain from increased graphical performance on PC.

Right now, PC gaming has greater potential for graphics and content, but that is a tradeoff, and the sheer amount of negatives inherent to HD-PC gaming will likely relegate it to the back of the line in many eyes, this generation.

Uniform hardware is a boon for all developers, and is vastly undervalued by pro PC users. Non-uniform hardware sucks for game developers, and it sucks for gamers. Video setting options attempt to address this issue, and they do to some extent, but non-uniform hardware causes a number of technical issues not limited to the video settings and this is viewed as a major headache, and the cause of a number of issues with every PC game ever released.

Nonetheless, there are still hundreds of thousands (millions?) of 20 GB units out there, and developers DO have to take that into account when designing their games. It's a limitation. I'll come back to the upgradable part in a bit, because it's actually supporting my point.

At the time, I got mine at a sale for around $180. That's a fraction of what a 60 GB PS3 cost at the same time period. Nowadays, Newegg sells one for $99. That's still a fraction of what a Slim costs.

And yes, it's long since been "topped." It's already "obsolete." But you miss the point: it still runs every single retail release on high settings. My games still look as good as (and sometimes better) than most HD consoles games, and this is always going to be the case. The beauty of PC gaming is that what I have now is More Than Good Enough. If I want OMGBBQSAUCEAWESOME graphics that completely crush what the HD systems will ever be able to do, I can go to the store and buy the equipment right now. But I don't have to if I don't want to (and, in fact, I don't want to).

To boil it down a bit: what I have is already as good as an HD console; PCs just offer me the option to do way, way, way better.

Except I'm living proof that it's not expensive, and that you don't have to upgrade your hardware any more often than you do on consoles.

If you want, I can direct you to threads where people point out how to assemble a great gaming PC for less than what an HD console will cost you. Actually, ask Shio: he probably has a few dozen of those bookmarked.

That's unfortunate, but I can't hold it against you. That's a completely different reason than the one that started this conversation, though.

Completely incorrect. Every other point that's been raised in favor of PCs does not go away simply because you changed the controller and hooked it up to a bigger monitor. The only difference is that you're deliberately limiting yourself with a console controller (which is your choice and right, of course, but not something you can hold against PCs).

And I'm happy for you. Seriously. I don't really have any need to push you into PC gaming. I do want to point out though that many of the reasons you've given are factually incorrect, though.

One of the best "Hack and Slash" games I've  played in a long time is on the pc: "Mount & Blade"  Spent hours on that game and the best thing is it can run on low end PC.

I prefer consoles

I'll choose PC nearly every time for multiplatform games and generally prefer playing on PC than consoles. It more often than not looks much better and, in my opinion, controls much better, too.

KB+M and mods would be the defining reasons behind my preference... that, plus Blizzard are essentially exclusive to PC/Mac.

both.

consoles!
lots of JRPG games...

Ok I'll address some of these. You say control is subjective when it's not true. It's very well known FPS handles better with KBD than with analogs while platofrmers are handled far better with analog than KBD. So that is a faulty argument right there.

To your exclusive. Alright I'll give you those, call me when the consoles start getting Half Life 2 (proper ports), Starraft, Wracraft, Diablo, or just about any other game that actually revolutionizes gaming. Currently there hasn't been a SINGLE console game whch has moved the gaming entertainment forward, either graphically or gameplay-wise (I'm talking of genres outside of platformers and such since those are obviously better on a console, as I said earlier). No game has furthered shooters, in fact they make shooters worse with each passing title, no Strategy games have come out except Valkyria Chornicles, and that still doesn't come up against Total War 2 and other such titles. You get my point. Console games are copiers, not leaders, and sometimes bad at that.

Cost of entry. I'm sorry but for the price that consoles started off this generation (outside of Wii), I could make you a computer which would run games for the next 3-4 years, certainly any that came out for said HD consoles.Yes, now the ocnsoles are cheaper with all the price drops, however the parts for the PC are also cheaper, thus you can make an even cheaper PC with the same funds. The only thing that changes is the future hardware for the top blistering new games, which you don't have to play on highest to begin with.

Also I will be the first to tell you that Graphics =/= better games. Otherwise Crysis would be the best thing since the invention of a transistor. It's not, I also find World of Goo and Portal to be 2 of the few games worth playing in the past 3-4 years, neither of which is graphically impressive.