Yes it is.
For example, all the retail game stores used to sell only PC and Mac games, now they sell only console games.
PC gaming is certainly not dying or on its way out. Its a completely different market than console games with games that appeal to different people than those who play console games.
Plus those used games stores like Gamestop and such make truckloads of money off used games sales, which they don't allow for PC games, as well as accessories for consoles. So its natural for them to push console games more than PC games.
Plus PC game sales have mostly moved online. PC gamers are smart enough to know that buying a game online WITH shipping is generally cheaper than buying it from the store, plus there are various digital distribution systems out there (Steam is just one) that allow you to buy the game and play it nearly instantly.
Also, when I walk into Walmart, I see PC gaming section that is just as large as the entire console gaming section. When I walk into Fry's I see a PC gaming section that is actually larger than the console section. When I go into Best Buy I see two full rows of PC games, as much as the Xbox360, PS3, and Wii combined.
Computer processors are now less powerful and multi-core to reduce heat as they can't get them to go any faster, which doesn't lend itself very well to 3D game programming advances which very few functions in a constantly changing game engine can be passed off onto other cores and realize a performance gain.
Computer processors are less powerful now? Are you kidding me? The Core i7 desktop and notebook processors are the fastest CPUs on the market. They run circles around everything else. A 1.6GHz Core i7 notebook processor keeps pace with an old 2.53GHz Core 2 Quad processor. The 2GHz version mops the floor with the old Core 2 Quad. The Core i7 desktop CPUs tend to outperform the Core 2 Quad desktop series by double in nearly every benchmark. Computer processors are getting faster, not slower.
Look at GPUs as well. Look at the newest from ATI or even the now "old" GeForce GTX 295. Those two GPUs are wickedly fast.
X-Box uses three PowerPC G5 processors, the PS3 uses a (up to) 9 core Cell
processor. Lots of heat for lots of performance.
The Xbox360 does use a triple core PowerPC G5. The PS3 uses a single core PowerPC G5 as the main CPU and 8 co-processors dubbed "SPE", one is disabled for redundancy (so they can sell you a defective one), another is dedicated to the OS. So you have 1 main CPU and 6 32-bit co-processors.
Plus, as another poster mentioned, the original Core Duo, a mobile processor, was faster than the G5 clock per clock. When the Core 2 Duo was released in 2006 before the PS3, it already ran circles around the "Cell". Compared to modern PCs, the current game consoles are pretty weak.
Computers are trending for cooler and portable with integrated graphics, like netbooks.
The netbook segment is just one segment of the market. A netbook is always a companion computer too, never a primary system. Netbooks also have the highest return rate of any market. Why? Because people don't like how weak and pathetic the hardware is.
Computers are designed to do a lot of different things at once, a 3D console is designed to do one thing at once very well.
Yet gaming PCs always outperform gaming consoles.
A 3D gamin console can be had for a few hundred, it would take a few thousand for a good gamin PC even close to a console in performance. This means more people can afford a 3D gamin device, thus more games.
Absolutely not true. That couldn't be further from the truth if you tried to make it so.
As its already been pointed out, the original Core Duo and Core 2 Duos ran circles around the PS3's Cell and the G5 core in the Xbox360.
The GPU in the PS3 is also nothing to write home about. If you compare the specs of the "RSX" to the GeForce 7 line that its derived from, you'll see that its basically nothing more than a GeForce 7600 with a little bit of a speed boost thanks to a couple of GeForce 7800 features. The GPU in the Xbox360 has more in common with an ATI X1900 series (same generation as the GeForce 7). But both are now nearly half a decade old and beaten by low-end GPUs of today.
Basically, any Core 2 Duo system running at 2.5GHz or better with a GeForce 8600 GT will outperform the PS3.
The Xbox360's GPU is a bit more high end and would require at least a GeForce 8800 GT to outperform.
Right now you can easily build a PC for around $600 that will just kick the consoles around without breaking a sweat.
For $900 or so you can build a Core i7 system that will have no problem keeping pace with the Nehalem based Xeon in the Mac Pro and a GPU that puts its packed-in GT 120 to shame.
3D games need a fast/powerful processor and GPU, with a fast bus. The whole machine has to be equally fast. This produces heat, which requires elaborate cooling and makes it difficult to use in computers anymore.
Not even close to being true. The stock OEM heatsink and fan that ship with todays CPUs and GPUs cool the systems down just fine. The only time you will need more cooling is if you want the system to run cooler. But otherwise, the stock cooling solutions that ship with the parts work just fine.
PC games would have to have a traumatic graphical advantage to justify it's expense
What expense? For $500-$600 you can build a PC that will stomp the consoles into the ground. Plus that PC can make you money by being your work machine, if your job is computer related.
PS3 plays at 1080, and since one sits far away from the TV, even if the resolution was twice that it wouldn't matter as one's eyes couldn't see it. Only close up, like computer monitors, need higher resolutions.
Not even close to being true.
The vast majority of PS3 games are rendered at 720p (or lower) and scaled up to whatever resolution your display is set at. Some PS3 games are only rendered at 1024x640, like Grand Theft Auto 4. Only handful of graphically unimpressive games are rendered at true 1080p.
Also I can put together a computer for $500 too, if I use a pirated copy of a OS and trade my time and labor with some guy in China who eats a bowl of rice per day.
An OEM (full version) of Windows is only around $100. Time and labor? Takes 15 minutes to put together a PC, another 45 or so to install ALL software and drivers.
All things being equal, your going to be paying over $1000 for a decent 3D PC gaming rig and a $299 console with nearly the same quality is going to beat you in market share every time.
Again, not even close to true. PC gaming and console gaming are two very different markets. A $500-$600 PC will beat a console every single time in terms of performance and graphic fidelity as well as overall capabilities.
Video cards might be soon become obsolete too. Home builders could be going the way of the dinosaur for cheap, mass produced computers.
You can thank those home builders for the hardware we have today. If not for the speed war their overclocking in the late 90s sparked, we would still be stuck with slow as snail PowerPC and Pentium 4 chips.