Dev wrote on Feb 11, 2012, 13:41:

Orogogus wrote on Feb 11, 2012, 05:37:
The anti-console argument seems to suppose that if there were no consoles, every console gamer would have a high end gaming PC, which seems like a grievously flawed premise. Without the console base, the sales base would be cut in half (being generous). How many PC-only games have pushed the limits of hardware? Witcher 2 is going to the 360. Maybe Civilization 5? Or Diablo 3 or Starcraft 2? It seems more likely that without the consoles providing additional income streams, there would just be less games period and the bar would be lowered all the way down to Facebook games and whatever Blizzard puts out.

No thats not my argument at all. My argument is that top end of PC gaming development (graphics especially) would be far more advanced without consoles. The PC edge would have been pushed further and faster.

That has nothing to do with every consoler buying a PC.

Even if that were the case it would be likely to be a $300 one, not a top end gaming one. Remember the days when it took $1000 PC to be a gaming PC? Nowadays a gaming computer can be built for $500 or less (in large part because its not needed to buy a top end CPU & graphics card to get high settings for most games on 720p type graphics, due in large part to consoles holding back the development).