[quote] For instance, on the console editions of Minecraft, you can set up a game simply by pressing a button to start the game and inviting your friends. On the PC, however, if you want to play a private game with your friends, you or a friend will have to set up a server, which will cost money, unless you use Hamachi or something like that. For many people, this is either extra money they do not want to spend, or just too complicated. [/quote] By citing the "difficulties" with PC, you actually highlight a potential strength - private servers. Aside from BF, I haven't seen games that allow players to run their own servers, and even then, you have to go through EA to do it. The difference between dedicated servers on PC vs console, (using shooters as an example) is that on PC, they tend to be run by the community themselves, whereas on console, you have to rely on the publisher/devs. Imagine if players could run their own servers on console - virtually every game could be dedicated servers, without having to rely on the companies to deliver it. [quote]Now on to my next point. Sure, the PC is much more powerful than consoles, especially in the graphic area. However, just because you can not play Crysis 3 with 'ultra' graphics on an Xbox 360 does not make the game any less fun to play. I personally do not measure how good a game is by the graphic quality, and I know many people agree with me. If the majority of people really cared about graphics so much, then games like Minecraft or Terraria would not be popular.[/quote]A game being more fun to play and having a better overall experience playing it, are not necessarily the same thing. Avatar is a decent movie, and I will enjoy regardless the platform, but if I have the choice of watching it on vhs or blu-ray, I'm going to choose bly-ray... if you're playing a game that is fun, your fun likely won't be compromised by the visuals, but if you were to play that same game, on "ultra settings," your whole experience would likely be improved. Fun is derived from the merits of the game itself. The experience playing it can come from outside factors - visuals, surround sound, screen size, etc. It's also funny that you say " I personally do not measure how good a game is by the graphic quality," yet this is the biggest debate going on in the console war since they launched, so regardless what you personally think, it appears the community, both players and critics alike, would argue that mindset. Finally, your examples of Minecraft and Terraria are nor accurate. Those games are designed to look the way they do, it is not a result of poor hardware running them - it is a conscious art design choice. A more accurate comparison would be if you could play Mass Effect on 2 different platforms, one where it looked like Mass Effect, and one where it looked like Minecraft, which do you think more people would choose? Ironically, much of the features that console companies have been integrating into their systems, are inspired from PC. The bottom line is this - virtually everything a console can do, a PC can do, plus more. A console is merely a dedicated entertainment device, whereas a PC is a tool.

Well put, but seriously, paragraphs in long posts. Also, good PC > Console Crap PC < Console Its twice as expensive to get a good pc vs a console, and most of us have toasters for a computer.