You note that console games can use the PC's interface, and that PCs can use the consoles' interface. Yet the consoles' problems "will obviously be addressed in the future" (despite consoles being about as old as gaming computers) while the PC's problems "are insurmountable" (despite their proven ability to adopt consoles' interfaces).  Explain this contradiction.

You still overlook several other factors, such as interface, library, online integration, lower prices, ease of upgrading, lack of service limitations (it's an open platform), greater breadth of services, and more.

You also need to explain why the consoles' inferiorities are "guaranteed" to improve in the future, while the PC's are not.

Ebay, craigslist.

This has been the case since the Atari was released, but the PC is still going strong. If anything, the HD consoles' being lite-PCs only strengthens the PC's hand, as it is now getting games from companies that have hitherto shunned the system (Capcom, Square-Enix, etc.).

You also forgot about Blizzard.

These barriers are decreasing over time. It's easier to make a gaming PC today than it ever was: you don't have to program your own games, you don't have to set up special systems to play against others, you don't have to do anything other than pop in the disc and click "run." By contrast, the HD systems are raising the consoles' barriers to entry by introducing multiple SKUs (some of which can't do things the others can, a.k.a. the Arcade) and mandating previously-unnecessary things like patches and installations.

This factor cuts in favor of PCs.

This is a fallacy: again, I can direct you to threads that show how to build a PC that runs big games better than HD consoles do, and at a lower price.

Again, the trend has been to make PC games more convenient (games even auto-detect your hardware and set themselves accordingly now) and HD systems to be less so (installations, patches, and all the other ills that affect PC gaming).

I concede this, but again, it's becoming less of a problem with each passing year. As someone who's been gaming on his PC since the early 90's, I can tell you that having the "wrong" hardware configuration is less fatal than it ever was, and I expect that trend to continue.

Developers are retreating from their DRM experiment.

is the non-PC term for "LAN party." I'd also like to point out that, especially for FPS games, local multiplayer is tragically declining on the consoles. The consoles have an advantage still, but it's less than it used to be.

Many of the factors cited in favor of the consoles are becoming less important for the HD systems, as those systems are determined to become more like PCs. In the meantime, PCs are improving themselves to handle the problems you listed. The list would have been much more in favor of consoles had it been made before this generation, but four years into a generation with consoles having installations, patches, high prices, few third-party exclusives, and more online integration, it becomes harder to see the areas in which the PC is clearly inferior to its imitators.

That may be the "common" argument (although I'm certain interface, library, and tons of other features are brought up just as often), but it is not the only one. You are correct that, graphically, the uniformity of the consoles means that developers squeeze more out of them over a lifetime, but you overlook the fact that the graphic whores amongst PC gamers can easily purchase the hardware to do leagues better, while the vast majority of us are content with graphics on-par with the HD consoles. I can not think of a single PC+HD release this generation that looks worse on my average gaming PC than it does on an HD console, but I can name many that look better.

I've deliberately had a theme to my responses so far, but I haven't made it explicit until now: the negatives of PC gaming are the same ones that they have been for decades. Why would those same negatives bring the PC down now when the PC is improving in those areas AND the HD systems are adopting many of those same negatives?

That only applies to Team Fortress (at least from what i've seen)  And team fortress is on consoles too so that logic fails.

And having played Counter Strike and Halo 3 before, I can easily say they move about the same speed (I think counter strike is a little faster)  

You saying stuff like this just backs up my point that you have never played a console FPS...

Without quoting both you guys, I'll respond to all your points:

1. Which controls scheme is "better" for any given game IS subjective, and that is NOT a faulty argument. Some people prefer motion controls in games like Flower, but that is certainly subjective.

2. The problems I've outlined for the PC are inherant to the nature of the machine. Just like having inferior graphics on a console will probably always be true, due to the nature of uniform hardware and console life. The problems inherant to the PC might not be factually insurmountable, but they are part of the nature of the machine, and to fix them, you would have to change its nature.

You can change the nature of a console every 6 years or so.

3. Due to a consoles nature, you can make sure that every console carries your motion controller next gen. If you try to create that broad range of motion controlling content on the PC, you have to sell to a limited audience(those who went out and bought the motion controller). Thus, you won't, nor ever will, have games that uniformly require a motion controller on PC. It's about forcing people to use it. You have to force change. You can't force anything on PC.

4. Interface, library, online intigration, lower prices, ease of upgrading, and lack of service limitation, greater breadth of services, and more, are either subjective or untrue advantages of PC gaming. What is, "lack of service limitation" or "ease of upgrading?" Aren't those buzzwords for "user content" and "don't have to pay for XBL, nor adhere to its bannable issues?" Is this type of micromanagement really the best advantages we can come up with? Truth is, you've got graphics, and user content. IMHO. I didn't mention those others, because they're bullshit, imho. Define those. Nobody can understand precisely what's being discussed with such broad and undefined terms.

5. So, computer games have a robust used market? No they don't. I bought every game I've ever played on an HD console for under 20 dollars, or I rented it from Gamefly. Rent a lot of computer games?

6. The PC is lacking in high budget exclusive content this generation. Blizzard is certainly a boon, but mentioning them only proves my point. Just one company with 2 games a generation?

7. Technical barriers to PC gaming entry are still large, unless you pay out the ass. That's not arguable. They might decrease over time, but a console is plug and play, if you understand that meaning doesn't always mean you don't have to install a game. Technical barriers to entry mean that PC gaming isn't for everyone atm.

8. Entrance price on a PC that can run Crysis on high is about 500 bucks, assuming you build it yourself and pirate an OS. That's more expensive. Also, you can't rent the games, can't buy them used, and no one who is able to build a PC is going to go for the cheapest piece of shit they can possibly throw together that will play Crysis. I spend about 800 bucks on my PC and it's obsolete, won't play GTA4 worth ass, and will eventually need upgrading before the next set of consoles is released? It will, however, play crysis on very high. Crysis isn't a CPU centric game.

Also, how is the technical barrier to PC gaming low, if people have to build it themselves?

It's either expensive and complex, or very expensive, and easy.

Is that not true?

9. Developers are retreating from their DRM experiment and moving to downloadable content. Again, developers are starting to add mouse and keyboard support to console games. Fact is, DRM is a problem in PC gaming, and your article doesn't refute that, nor does it diminish it. It will always be a problem in one form or another. It is required to combat piracy. Perhaps the bigger problem is "piracy." You can just change is to "piracy" in your mind if that helps.

10. You can hook up several consoles all at once just like a lan party. You can't manya PC game via splitscreen, last time I checked. Lan part is not local multiplayer.

11. The PC had many, many more advantages over consoles 10 years ago, than it does now(exclusives galore, much, much better graphics), and it also had several disadvantages that are now fixed(crappy joystick options, stationary, ect).

12. In fact, once graphics reach photo realism, PC gaming will have almost no claim to superiority, assuming it doesn't fix some of its more serious issues. I mean, some games do have user made content on consoles. That doesn't mean that a console has a claim to user made content. Just like some PC games will have motion controls. Most won't though.

13. Console games are developed more efficiently to take advantage of uniform hardware over a generation. PC games require upgrades, as you've said. Sometimes, platform junking upgrades, like to the CPU.

14. The negatives of PC gaming have actually decreased(as I've stated, but the negatives of console gaming have also decreased drastically). However, you contradict yourself. You say the PC gaming problems inherant to the machine are just as temporary as the console problems inherant to the 360 and PS3. That's wrong. Every few years, you can reinvent a console. You can never reinvent the PC, and that's a negative, not a positive, my friend.

15. Console gaming has decreased its major faults drastically over the past 10 years. You've just said that most of the PC problems still exist.

Obviously, some of my points are dead on accurate and some are absolute bullshit, but you unfortunately scritinized every one. Pick the ones I'm wrong on, and it'll make your post seem more unbiased. I'm obviously not unbiased. I have had several bad experiences with PC gaming, and I find that I worry about my framerate more than I enjoy playing on this device. So, despite the PC elitism, I've chosen to stand up for my beliefs. Why are you biased towards PC gaming? Perhaps you explaining your side of things would help me understand your mindset in these debates?

From my experience I find PC new games drop faster then console used games especially for under $20.

I meant the Wiimote pointer and stylus controls, I apologize for the confusion.

1. Control schemes are not subjective. PC allows far more types of control than any console. PC clearly wins.

2. You make little sense. The fact is that PC is getting less and less problems than ever before, while consoles are getting more and more problems than ever, and that is a big damage to the notion that consoles are accessible.

3. If a PC gamer wants to play X game with a gamepad, they can go and buy a gamepad. If a Console gamer wants to play Y game with a Mouse+Keyboard, they can't. PC gamer have choice, console gamers don't.

4. Alright, I'll define.
Interface - PC allows for a more complex interface on games, there is no question about it. Compare the amount of information and interactivity available in a game like World of Warcraft and compare it to any console game.
Library - PC have far more games being developed than all Consoles combined. That is a fact, objectively speaking.
Lower price - PC games are atleast $10 cheaper than console games. The average retail PC game sold was $25, and that's counting game bundles as individual packages. The average Steam game is probably around $15. I bought 10 games on Steam for only $30 last time.
Ease of upgrading - Really?! You can upgrade PCs, you pretty much can't on consoles. Your argument is irrelevant when consoles even aren't included.
Lack of service limitation - Huh?! Just compare to what a gamer can do on Steam to what a console gamer can do...
Greater amount of services - Steam, Impulse, GOG,Gamersgate, Battle.net, Onlive, Gaikai, etc...

5. I bought almost 50 games in the past 12 months, and still have all of them. I only bought 1 full-priced game, and I must've spent around $200 for all of them (50 games!). I recently bought 10 games on Steam for $30, and before that I bought 3 awesome games for $5 on Steam, and before that...

6. Warhammer Online, Age of Conan, Aion, Spore, Sims 3, Wrath of the Lich King, Crysis, C&C 4, Diablo 3, Starcraft 2, Guild Wars 2, 1701 AD, Dawn of Discovery, Football Manager, Empire Total War, Dawn of War 2, etc... PC has far more big budget games than any other platform. Also, it's cheaper to make a game on PC, so the "big budget" issue is actually irrelevant.

7. Technology is cheaper and cheaper. Nowadays there aren't even Desktop PCs above $1000 unless you buy overpriced Alienware crap. Hell, Laptops are now cheaper than the Desktops of 5 years ago. PCs now have a higher life cycle than consoles.

8. A $400 is enough to play Crysis on High, including the OS... GTA 4 was a messwhen it came out, very unoptimized, but now has become much better with patches. Funny you talk about GTA4, because it is known that PS360 run GTA4 comparable to the low settings of the PC version LOL.

9. Publishers are retreating from their DRM experiment because it is pointless and only hurts their sales. Pirates will keep being pirates, while consumers will be hurt by DRM, that's why they're retreating from DRM.

10. I'm currently at a friends' house, and we have 3 PCs connected playing Heroes of Newerth. The thing is that internet connections are so strong today, and most PCs now are laptops, that we don't even need LAN. Consoles, on the other hand, are still very retarded in terms of online connectivity, yet are losing many co-op support from developers.

11. The thing is, now consoles are pretty much PC-lite, and compared to PC they falter in much more ways while having little advantage over the PC. PC will keep winning share over them if this keep going.

12. When photo realism sets in it will only be good for PC gaming because tech will be so cheap that consoles no longer are relevant in terms of "cheapness" since even the cheapest PC would be able to play the games awesomely. Infact, with Onlive you only need to buy their $100 micro-console to be able to play the lastest PC games.

13. PC games require less and less upgrades, and I believe that gaming PCs now have a bigger life cycle than consoles. Hell, my brother's almost over 6 years old PC is still used to play many of today's games.

14. PC is in constant improvement, and everything that's happening on consoles has already happened on PCs years ago. Motion controllers? Bah, that's already been invented on PC many years ago. The next big thing will be stuff like Onlive and Gaikai, which I doubt will see on consoles for many years.

15. PS360 are now PC-lite and have only gained more problems. The biggest problem of the last 5 years in gaming industry? RROD.

To add to shio's post, which I completely agree with.

@ZenfoldorVGI

#10.  Did you just say that LAN is not local multiplayer.  I laughed at that.  Do you know what LAN means? Local area network.  When you hook multiple consoles together like in a Halo party, do you know what you just formed?  LAN based multiplayer (No joke, you just formed a LAN network).  LAN is local multiplayer.

#2 (I know I go out of order).  You mentioned problems inherent to the machine.  How about the disk drive/ hard drive being inherent problems on a console.  Devices with moving parts are highly subject to hardware failure, no matter how well you make them.  This is why old cartridge based systems have a longer life than disk based systems.  On a PC, if you disk drive fails, you can buy a standard inexpensive disk drive to replace it.  The installation process is simple.  Can you say the same about consoles?

Of course, digital distribution will probably make disk drives obsolete soon.  I could apply the same argument to the HDD.

#7 One poster proved you can make a PC more powerful than the XBOX360/PS3 for 350$ without pirating the OS.  It is difficult to compete with XBOX360/PS3's price because Microsoft/Sony tends to sell their consoles at a loss.

That's really a shame.  I hope you can overcome this worry eventually. 

There are a lot of great games that will be waiting for you when you do.

You do realise that on consoles they have to help you out with auto-aim features in pretty much every FPS due to the inadeaquote nature of the analog sticks. That's real skillful. At least on PC you know that when you pull off that head-shot within the split second of time you have that it's down to your own skill and not down to luck or the auto-aim feature having to help you out.

If everyone is using the same control scheme then you need to be ridiculously quick and actually skillful to compete. When I play on consoles, even on games I rarely play in multiplayer, I tend to do relatively well, relatively quick. On PC, it takes me much longer to become competitive due to the speed, skill and precision of everyone else.