Wow, Tyler, long speech there buddy! Not that I disagree with anything you said.

In fact, the only thing I would add to your list is "Don't be a jerk by tying a game to an OS in a lame (and insulting) attempt to push sales." Yeah, we're all staring at YOU Microsoft. That was one of the most foolish things you could've done. No matter what some lackeys trying to cover their collective butts are telling you, you've shot your highly toted "Games for Windows" initiative in the leg with that bit of stupidity. You've alienated thousands (probably tens of thousands) with that stunt alone. Foisting off a 2+ year old console port on us and forcing us to use a (at the time) buggy OS that performed approximately 20% slower with games than XP?!? What were you smoking? Have you learned your lesson? I hope so, but I feel the loss of faith in "Games for Windows" may be irrecoverable.

To GrievousAngel: While I respect your opinion (especially the part about playing from your recliner. Hard to argue with that.) I DO take exception to your assertation that console gaming is "cheaper".

Oh, sure, the CONSOLES are cheap (well, about 40% cheaper than a well-built budget rig that can deliver equivalent graphics) but you pay the price when you buy the games. Go to any big store that carries games. Notice that on the average the same game for a console runs approximately 15 to 20% more than its PC counterpart? This is how console makers can afford to sell their consoles so low. They make the money back on the games themselves. If you only buy a handful of titles a year, then console gaming is indeed "cheaper". But if you buy more than a dozen titles a year (and most gamers do) then you end up paying far more in the long run.

Other than that, you are certainly correct that keeping up with all the latest PC technology is a pain-in-the-butt. But it's not necessarily more expensive.