Plus, while consoles developers tend not to be any smarter than "let's make a game where we shoot stuff!!!! Preferably foreigners!" and "let's not be sexist, put a woman partner with the hero. But give her as little clothing as possible.", the PC crowd seems to be "what ways can we stop our customers using our products this year?" and, of course:

Person 1: "So, digital download, that means we don't have to pay to make physicals discs, don't have to deliver to all the other shops"

Person 2: "You know what that means, don't you?"

Person 3: "We can lower the price significantly?"

Person 2: "..."

Person 1: "..."

Person 1, 2 & 3: "...LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL!!!"

Person 1: "Yeah, that was funny"

Well the problem is that they have to charge the same price for both their digital games and their retail copies. Games that don't have retail copies do in fact often lower their price significantly.

There may be PC gaming's lifeline right there:   in the economics.   PC games are downloadable and that makes them cheaper.   Console games are getting more expensive; no doubt about that.   The free market will establish an equilibrium at some point, and PC will still be in the game.    Of course, consoles will see that and start to offer download options, but they still have to advertise, and for that you need a web browser.   And managing disk space is not exactly one of a console's strengths.

As long as Ebay and used game stores are legal, console games could have an RRP of the equal of £60 nowadays and we'd still be paying 50p - £20.

When you say "the same" you just mean that they share the same core design. That you think RTSs made 10 years ago and those that got released this year are the same just shows that you don't understand the progression of games'n'gameplay but it also gives people the impression that you're just after new, cool things. That makes you a casual gamer that would like Kinect, Playstation Move and such gimmicks.

I am not a casual gamer, and I love Kinect.

Nothing really has to give at all.  There are games made all the time that work on integrated graphics and games made all the time that require a beefier machine.  Developers target what they want to target, as they always have.

You are talking hardware, and I am talking software. Right now, there is almost no difference between the games that are played on notebooks and the games that are played on desktops. That's why "gaming" notebooks are expensive and trying their best to match desktop abilities while keeping them portable. That's plain and simple too. Plain and simple, portability has nothing to do with it. If i want to play Civilizatoin V on my notebook or Civilization V on my desktop, Civilization V is no more portable for one or the other, but can scale down certain qualities to fit less powerful components. This trade off you speak of is just a myth, a myth that isn't even original and naysayers have been beating their drums for the better part of a couple of decades now with the same mantra.

What does the underlined part mean?

I was at GameStop when Modern Warfare II was new and there were mothers with their spoiled kids that wanted MW II for the CONSOLES!

I just wanted to tell them to get computers but then again computers aren't <insert disc'n'play>....

8 years ago, PC Gamer or was it SuperPlay said the average gamerage was 24. I was surprised