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

Do you understand what subjective means? It means that I can't prove motion controls are better than joysticks, and you can't prove mouse and keyboard is better than motion controls, and any combination you want to come up with. RTS and FPS are not the only genre of videogame, and even if they were, it would still be subjective. Period. I could say that Big Mama's House 2 is better than the Godfather, and I wouldn't be wrong, because it is subjective. Right? If you want to get into opinions...well, most people don't like when I do that.

I can prove it.  A mouse is more accurate than motion controls.  A mouse tracks movement with greater precision.

As for mouse vs joystick (especially for FPS):  A mouse is positional based while a joystick is velocity based.  A mouse is more accurate to use simply because it is simpler. 

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.

Consoles are more accessable to the HD gamer than PC. No one agrees with your assertion that they are not. No one.

You are right, consoles are easier to use.  Not easier to fix however. 

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.

The PS3 has the ability to hook up and play games via mouse and keyboard. That said, if I want to play X game with the Wii-mote on the PC, I cannot. If I want to play with the PSeye or the 6 axis on the PC, no games support it. I agree that currently the controls are better on PC for 2 genres, and equal in all others. This isn't a deal breaker, and in the future, it will likely change. Either way, the control argument is subjective, and non-factual.

Once again, the control argument is factual, not subjective.  Most games on the PC supports an XBOX360 controller, and nearly all support keyboard & mouse.  Almost all games on the PS3 require the dual shock and very few support playing with the keyboard & mouse.  No Wii-mote for the PC, but I think that is why many PC gamers are also Wii gamers. 

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...

Miscommunication here. Those things I listed were from another post about the pros of PC gaming.

Anyway, PC gaming isn't cheaper than renting, renting isn't allowed, and in general, it's much cheaper to buy any console game used, than PC game.

Can't rent PC games, true.  I remember a time when we could, but those days are long gone. 

Also, you are spinning numbers and facts, when they don't necessarily have the result a common person would assume. For instance, when you say that PC gaming has more games in development for it, those games are from independant developers, and they aren't comparable to any of the top exclusives being developed by Sony or nintendo. The PC has no barriers to entry for developers, so those user created games are counted to boulster the numbers. In truth, the PC has many less exclusive core games now than ever before.

There is so much spin here, it's impossible to counter it all, but that's your posting style. Spin everything, and hope the person your arguing with doesn't have any truth to refute you with.

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...

I've seen the games you link off steam. They are equivelant to PSN games and/or are 10 years old. Again, spinning the numbers.

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.

Sure, it has far more "big budget" games than any other platform because it's been around for 50 years. However, it doesn't have more upcoming big budget games. Try posting that list against a 2010 only exclusive list for the PS3 or 360.

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.

I built a high end PC for 800 dollars. I know how much they cost.

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.

GTA4, plus many other HD games, are a mess when they come out on PC, and on the 360, you didn't even have to buy a new console to play it.

GTA4 is a bad example to use for PC ports.  The developers really screwed that one up. 

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.

Publishers are retreating, or they "will" retreat?

My answer, "No they won't." They'll probably just stop making games on PC, which is just as likely. We're already seeing games on 360 getting scrapped, and Crytek creating a HD console engine.

Pirating on the consoles is just as rampant as on the PC.  It's just not as publicized.  Soon the developers will realize this.  In fact, on a console the developers are dependent on Microsoft/Sony/Nintendo to solve the problem.

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.

Tell that to the 40 million users of Hughesnet satellite internet. Also, no, the internet will never replace splitscreen multiplayer, and trying to diminish it, is simple marginalization.

You see, the console can do split screen multiplayer, the PC can't.

Once again, PC good for online multiplayer and Wii good for local multiplayer.  I personally like local multiplayer. 

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.

They have uniform hardware, plug and play, first party development, cheaper price, less hassle, used market, rentals, and connected online mode, motion controls, and cross game support and achievements.

More HD large exclusive games, less piracy, no drm, less barriers to technical entry, and in general easier more user friendly user interfaces.

The comparison is funny because as each generation goes by, consoles become more and more like specialized PCs. 

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.

In the mean time, we can argue over insignificant differences in graphical power, verses monumental price and hassle required to achieve that difference.
 

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.

Console gaming requires no upgrades. Tell that to the people who saw that the recommended specs for GTAIV suggested a quad core processor.

If you don't like the framerate or graphic quality of a console game, you are stuck.  If you don't like the same things on a PC, you have the option to upgrade.  Whenever I finally get a new graphics card in my PC, I am going to whip out a couple of older games I was waiting to play in better graphics.

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.

Exactly how is PC in constant improvement, and consoles arent?

Innovations are often done on the PC first.  Graphics are constantly getting better on the PC, where with consoles you have to wait for the next generation. 

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

I thought it was piracy, which nearly killed the PC gaming industry, cause developers like Valve to go mulitplatform, many other to go out of business, and which caused DRM.

See point above.

lol, all of those games made there ways to the Xbox through sequels.

Can you please name some games whose sequels are not showing up on one or both of the HD twins?

lol, all of those games made there ways to the Xbox through sequels.

Can you please name some games whose sequels are not showing up on one or both of the HD twins?

That was what I was thinking.  So speed is a moot point because consoles have them too.  And the auto-aim feature is very subtle, you still need skill to do good.  Its just that multiplayer console games take longer to get good at because they have a much higher learning curve.

And i've played the only true FPS series I ever needed to play....Halo...

That was what I was thinking.  So speed is a moot point because consoles have them too.  And the auto-aim feature is very subtle, you still need skill to do good.  Its just that multiplayer console games take longer to get good at because they have a much higher learning curve.

And i've played the only true FPS series I ever needed to play....Halo...

So many points to argue in this thread.

Developers think that the mouse and keyboard are more accurate.  Valve added auto-aim for the orange box on PC.  I also mentioned in another post in this thread about mouse = positional based & joystick = velocity based.  Mouse is more accurate because it is simpler.

I won't say Halo is a bad game.  I will say you are severely limiting yourself if you like FPS but have only played Halo.  There are a lot of good (cough-better-cough) FPS games than Halo.