I'm a firm believer in the value of PC gaming. Undoubtedly, a gaming PC is more expensive than its console competitiors, but no console to come out yet has been able to adequately emulate the multifunctionality of a PC. Also, one only has to look atGamespot's comparison of Xbox 360, PS3, and PC graphicsfor proof that PC graphics generally far outpace those of their generation's consoles. Why, then, if they can offer a superior gaming experience, and can do far more than just play games, have PCs not caught on as the primary game system?

Fragmentation. Fragmentation is that thing that everyone was worried would happen to Android handsets, where a relatively open platform eventually gets so many competing programs with so many different protocols that consumer's are left totally unable to figure out what's necessary and what's not. Fragmentation isn't much of a problem for consoles. All Xbox 360 games run the same basic software, with the same types of files, on the same hardware. The same goes for Wii games or PS3 games. And network gaming is similarly simple, as every game connects via the same system (for the console, that is). PCs have been plagued with problems with standardization since they've become widespread...

Early on, in the days of Commodore systems, when every OEM had its own different operating system, games were fragmented. A PC game either ran on your Commodore, or on my Apple. There weren't any standards at all, because PCs were pretty new technology. Then came Windows, and PC games finally had a common

---Not Finished Yet