You're misinterprettying the statement apples and oranges.

A better analogy would be console games and PC games are both video games, rock and country are both music, and apples and oranges are both fruit.

In other words their the same type of thing, but also vastly different.

Like you said, what you play on doesn't matter, it's what you play. And that's where the main difference between the two lies.

The type of games that each excels at are vastly different from one another, and I think that's likely the main reason so many people only play one or the other.

I really only like Platformers, action rpgs (zelda), japanese rpgs (final fantasy), fighting games and sports games. Consoles have a clear advantage in this area so I have no need of PCs.

For someone else that only likes RTS, FPS, MMORPGs, Sim games, American RPGs (baldur's gate). etc. will likley have no need of a console as PCs have a clear advantage here.

Of course their is overlap, and many genre's that are fairly balanced between the two like racing games, but these aren't likely to influence whether some one plays one or the other (or both) as they can get these games on either platform.

So basically, it would seem to me that for someone to play both they would have to have pretty broad gaming tastes, which a lot of people don't. Look at the top ten lists for a brief, unscientific example. One thing I find interesting is that you would think a large chunk of hardcore gamers would play both. However I'd consider most people that post on a message board about games to be hardcore and from this and other boards on the nets it would seem that the majority are console only, with the next chunk playing both and the smallest chunck playing PC only. I guess perhaps their are Hardcore gamers, Hardcore console gamers, and Hardcore PC gamers.

Anyway, in addition to the "what you play" difference, you also have the "atmosphere difference" between playing games on each platform. This is especially evident in multiplayer gaming. It's a lot different playing online in a desk chair than with buddies huddled around the TV. I'm not saying one's better than the other, (as that's just a matter of personal preference) just that it's a clear difference between the two platforms.

I am still amazed when I go back and mess around on my SNES how far the graphics advanced from begining to end. Take a look at most any game from the early years, and take a look at Donkey Kong Country. Man, they squeezed everything they could out of the processor for that game. I have wondered why we don't see that kind of leap from begining to end of a console like we did with that. Truly amazing difference.

I agree. Games at the end of a consoles life span blow away those at the beginning. But the advance from year 1 of consoles life span to year 5 isn't as great as the advance made in PC game graphics in that same period.

I don't think that is as true anymore. No Dreamcast game ever looked better than Soul Calibur. They seem to be pushing the limits right now almost at launch. Halo still hasn't been topped on the Xbox.

I don't think we will see the big jumps in quality we did in the cartridge era over a consoles lifespan.

To be fair the DC had a truncated life span and wasn't super well supported during that brief span.

The PS2 is a better example. Games like The Getaway look a heck of a lot better than the jaggy crap like Tekken Tag that was out at launch. The new PS2 Splinter Cell screens are impressive as well.

But I agree that we won't see as big of jumps as we did in the cartridge days, but there will still be jumps for most games.

As for Halo, Bungie worked closely with MS during the development of the X-box and likely had a head start on other developers in terms of knowing how to best utilize the X-box's power. Still I expect Halo 2 to blow it away, anything less would be a dissapointment.