Actually, I was thinking "publisher issues" rather than "lead dev control freak", although WW has by his own admission been responsible for at least part of the lobotomization of Spore. However, I still believe that the EA marketing people bear the brunt of the guilt.

What's your point here really? Besides just admitting your fanboyism. Hehehe.
Because Nintendo fanboys would never admit it, but many of them consider themselves just "gamers" who have a diverse taste in all videogames since they had a Gameboy, NES, SNES, N64, Gamecube, and Wii.
What's with this need to feel a sense of superiority because you've always followed a certain platform. That seems to me like a closed minded way of thinking. Instead of just embracing the idea that creativity and innovation can come in many forms.
But concerning your argument about gamers' connections to their platform of choice. Actually having a physical unique gameset and physical storage medium will invoke a deeper attachment feelings than some intangible data on virtual drive space ever will. Hands down. All you need to see is the familiar two toned grey blocky box with red lettering on its flip up cartridge slot cover and all the memories start pouring back.
It's kind of like having an actual girlfriend that you can touch, smell, and fuck versus sitting in your dark room illuminated by your monitor screen on which images of beautiful perfect female creatures doing things you'll never engage in with them because you're an unemployed sexually repressed headcase who blames all his inadequacies and lack of accomplishments on his tramatic childhood and just wishes that everyone else in the world was DEAD!!! Er... sorry, I was projecting a bit there.
But anyway, PC games rawk! Peace.

fuNgOO, what I am saying is far from fanboyism - surely you can see that! Where have I said 'Nintendo is crap'or 'Sony is crap'. that's what makes a fanboy. Maybe the problem is IQ is not high enough with many gamers who don' get out often enough to really be able to tell a fanboy from someone just discussing differences without putting anyone down ! :)
I can just see in 10 years console gamers signing petitions and voting 1 on Amazon because Halo 17 wasn't going to have guns....! My absolute best argument for how PC gamers are different is G.O.G. and the hoo-ha over Fallout 3 not coming from Interplay or being isometric!

Never thought you did. I only liked to show you that console gamer can also be avid nostalgics.
PC Gamers refer to people who play on a PC. People however who play on a Mac, will not likely refer to themselves as a PC Gamer.
PC is a specific system, although it has no single manufacturer, regardless of it's type it is still based on the same principle. That's why PC gamers define themselves as such, they play on a PC system.
For people who play on consoles they will also first refer to the system they play on, hence an xbox or a playstation gamer. Of course you have the extra factor of branding when looking at these systems, but with pc's it is also present in a similar way...in this case the OS one is using or sometimes hardware they prefer.
When we deal with fanboys however it's much more about the personal value they attach to their choice, than any objective statement on the system they are using. That is also the reason why it is so hard to have a decent discussion with a fanboy. While you might be eager to discuss the specific of something, they will be blindly defending their personal value attached to it.
I used to be a fanboy in my early teens (11-16), but then I discovered that any system (even a microwave after decent amounts of alcohol) has it merits and that one would be a fool to ignore them. I will however persist till the day I die in my opinion that the Xbox had the worst overall hardware design one could imagine and that the PS3 looks like a black refrigerator (Sony one hint. Do not ever release it in white).

This is a reply to UK_John:
I don't agree. I know many, many people that still have their older systems. Plus why do you think Backwards compatibility was such a big issue with the PS3? People wanted to play their older games. The ps2 is still selling (143,000 unites in sept, not sure about oct) and one of the backbones of the wii's success is the virtual console and the fact it can play game cube games. Let's not forget that some of the best selling games on the PSP (Sony's handheld) and the Nintendo DS are re-released older games that can work on newer platforms..
Wait.. like GOG? hmmm. I wont even go in to sales of those consoles compared to the 5 million downloads of DOSbox.
And talking about keeping older systems around? I know there are people out there that have older computers to play DOS Games, but they aren't *that* many, or else a site like GOG wouldn't exist. I would bet tehre are more console gamers that have held on to their NES', dreamcast's, ps1's, etc, then you have PC gamers hanging on to old PC's "just to play the old classics." I Know that i personally had a NES, GENESIS, Genesis CD, SNES, an atari, and a colecovision....until rain ruined them all (just soaked them on, dagnabit.) One of the reasons I think the WII has sold so well (35 million consoles as of october) is because of the Virtual Console and the backwards compatiblity with the Gamecube. Heck the wii is one big emulator for older games for me. I have 2 new wii games; the rest are virtual console games and gamecube games. (YOu know..since I lost my original equipment.) And what is so cool? It playes games from most of the older systems. They don't just release "popular" games either, they release those niche games that everyone might not like, but some did. (Spelunker for the NES anyone?)
I think what you said is a generalization about console gamers, one that continues to be accepted for some reason.
The thing is people like playing older games, even if your primary platform is a PC or a Console, or (as in my case) you play both. People have an attachment to their history, regardless. It may be when you stabbed your first nazi in the back in Beyond Castlewolfenstein for the PC/computer based systems or found your first hidden block on the first level of Super Mario Brothers for the NES.

This is a debate that's been going on as long as there have been consoles and PC's.
BTW If your doing star trek versus star wars, I'd early star wars anyday :D

Some valid points but when you look at the interest in retro gaming on the various console Live services I would say that's part of the revolution against modern shallow corporate gaming. It is a recent demand in response to a fairly recent change in gaming (over the last 5 years or so). So the fact people are going to these Live services for retro gaming show they don't have the original.
I only bought Fallout 1 and 2 here because I had problems getting my originals to run on my PC. Every other game I want to play that is available on G.O.G. I have. I have Giants and Sacrifice, I have Fallout Tactics, I have Freespace 1 and 2 I have Operation Flashpoint, I have Ghost Master, I have Jagged Alliance, I have Gothic, etc etc. So I don't need a Windows Live to give me access to them. I would suggest that if console gamers had these older consoles and games still, there wouldn;t be such a growing demand for more and more retro games on these live services - even 8 bit ones! :)

What makes a PC game??
The Ministry of Gaming AKA Minigame....
Innovation Is Failure
In other news, we are at war with Eurasia. We have always been at war with Eurasia...

Ladies and gents, I give you... the analogy that Should Not Be. *shudders*
Anyways, I think traditionally speaking PC gaming has been characterised by a more active, more demanding type of player. After all, PC players have to put in the effort to get the damn thing running. But in return they just expect more from their games. Better graphics, user made content, internet compatibility, expansion packs, and so on. By contrast, console gaming is passive. You get the game, you play the game, you enjoy the game.
Now of course the lines are blurring. Law of diminishing returns with regards to graphics and computing power means a gaming PC's advantage in graphics is becoming increasingly irrelevant. Online gaming and distribution have become well established, extra and user-made content is taking steps. Slap in keyboard and you're there. Personally, I'm a relative latecomer to the PC "scene" and am currently a PC only gamer through convenience as opposed to ideological reasons. Can consoles come to equal the PC? Well why not? Look forward to it I say.

I'd consider myself a hardcore PC gamer. In the past 5 years I've probably bought 5 PC games for every 1 console game I've purchased.
To me what makes a PC game is one that feels right with the mouse and keyboard. Some games just feel natural with that control scheme. The thought of playing games like Half-Life 2, Starcraft or Fallout on a console just doesn't strike me as right.
Granted, there are plenty of games that control well on both PC and console, Halo for one, but there's something about the level of precision and sensitivity of the mouse and keyboard that I like better. This is key in RTS games and even the notion of a Console RTS strikes me as a foolish endeavor. Starcraft on a console? Sounds like a disaster (actually, it did come out on the Nintendo 64).
Also, modding figures in a lot into the identity of a PC games. In fact, there are quite a few PC games that arose out of the modding community, namely Team Fortress and Counter Strike.
Those are the two main things I look for in PC games, precision tailor made for the PC and some kind of modding community behind the game.
And this is a totally different subject but the latest consoles are very similar to PC computers in terms of hardware, it's really only the software that differentiates them.

+1
No other platform can tolerate innovation, experimentation and failure like the PC. In the time between innovative console releases like Frequency and Katamari, we have dozens of indie, shareware or open source classics like Gish, N, and Karoshi.
There are no barriers to publication, which is a feature that doesn't exist in ANY other major gaming platform (and, for this reason, the PC conveniently acts as the proving ground for many of the titles in XBox Arcade, WiiWare, etc.).
Another feature exclusive to PC games is moddabilty - the ability to pick up someone else's game and extend it further with your own ideas (the concept that spawned Counter-Strike, Team Fortress, and several other A-list games). And if that's not possible... you can use the game's data files and write a completely new engine to work with them (ScummVM, Exult, D2X, etc.)
Thirdly, simulations are nigh-on impossible with anything other than a PC. Not only does a PC have the 100+ buttons and multiple axes required to operate a flight simulator, but the PC architecture means you can even build your own cockpit to play in.
Finally, PC games are able to cater for demographics which most consoles can't reach (games for children, puzzle and casual games for the non-gamers, or web-games for people who don't have a computer of their own), so there are plenty of titles in each category. PC games also have a unique ability to have runaway successes with gamer demographics that weren't previously known to exist (The Sims, Bejeweled).
PC games are continuing to innovate and differentiate themselves - it's just that now we need to look at indie developers or smaller publishers (Garage Games, Stardock, Strategy First) to push the envelope, instead of the publishing houses we used to rely on.
My question is, what makes a console game "exclusive", besides big buckets of cash?

It's worth of note that while there exist barriors on the Xbox 360 platform, a majority of the usual ones have been lifted with the community games aspect (although it mostly consists of a bunch of throwaway shooters and puzzle games that already exist on PC), consoles are becoming (thanks to microsoft) a much better place to be innovative.
and as far as what makes console games exclusive, well in the case of the Wii, the controller, although you can connect the Wiimote to the PC using bluetooth, if Ninty didn't use BT, you'd be screwed.

A good story. Many games have shiny graphics, but if they don't have a good story, it might as well be in the bargain bin for all we care.
(A little) controversy. Games that break the mold that stands out from Generic Shooter X with a Duke Nukem-level of political incorrectness, GTA-level of "Screw the rest of the world, I wanna make a game I want to play" mentality will almost always propel it to the top of the charts.
Replayability. Multiplayer gaming is wonderful, since you can play it over and over and over and over again without getting bored. Singleplayer is harder, since you need to put a lasting impression on the gamer with good AI, graphics, story (see first point), et al. Why do you think people bought The Sopranos on DVD after watching it on HBO and recording it on TiVo? It's a classic. Games like Call of Duty 4/Crysis, while great games when it came out, it's just not a replayable game. Games like Duke Nukem 3D, Bioshock, Fallout 1/2/3, and X-COM (not the spinoff) are examples of games you'd play over and over.
So, yeah. That's my two cents.

T he main thing I get annoyed with when it comes to Console ported games on the pc is the controls often not tightly suited/made for a mouse and keyboard (IE Dead Space) or the general UI and text, etc made for a tv and not a high resolution pc (IE Oblivion).
Then there's the games that don't offer the tweaking and options to turn things up like you'd expect to be able to in a pc game.
Then there's the horrid, horrid, horrid ports like Resident Evil 4, which was virtually unplayable on a pc without mods and tweaks. They gave the pc market the PS2 quality textures/movies and not even the higher quality Gamecube version, which was basically a slap in the face.

The worst example I've ever seen of this, was Gears Of War. I installed it, played it for about 20 minutes, and promptly uninstalled it again. It was obviously a straight port from the XBox360. The control scheme probably works very well for a gamepad (although I could never imagine playing any modern 3D shooter with one of those), but with a mouse and keyboard, it feels horribly restrictive. It felt somewhat like one of those table hockey games, where the players slide along predefined grooves in the playing field. When you're used to playing 3D shooters on a PC, where you can generally go whereever you like, whenever you like, it seems a bit like going into combat with your legs tied together and one arm in a sling.
An example: I run up to a low wall, no more than 2 feet high. I want to jump over it and keep on going. What do I have to do? In any slightly decent PC shooter, I'd press the jump button and be on my way, but nooo. "We know you don't have too many buttons on your controller, so here's what you do. You stop in front of the wall in exactly the right place, and press the handy 'Action' button. This will make you take cover behind the wall. Then, you push forward and press the handy 'Action' button again, which will make you jump over the wall".
I have more than 100 goddamn buttons in front of me. Couldn't they at least have made one of them jump?