Honestly if you look at it all, they both equal each other out and we both have very valid points either way you look at it.

You pose a great argument, but you have opened yourself to further arguement. I shall begin anon:
I hope you don't mind, but I will use quotes from your post as a way to isolate the arguement.

"Computers upgrade themselves constantly every 3 to 6 months"
They do? You mean throught firmware, yes? Maybe. Through hardware? Uhhh... The process takes money, and is not automatic. If you think your i7 core is going to "upgrade" itself, you got another thing coming.

"...that the 360 is still utlimate fail..."
Fail is not an adjective. It is a verb. To describe somthing as "fail", you need to say "The 360 has failed..." Thats not the point of the overall arguement, its just I hear a ton of trolls use that expression.
Ultimate is final, not best, by the way.

"...you do need a xbox subscription to play or even get onto play anything online..."
I was refering to the face that if you were to play an MMO on the Xbox, you had to sign in to its servers to play it, not Xbox Live. This can be seen with Final Fantasy 11.

"...know how to fix that damn Red Ring of Death which is why most people went for the PS3..."
Yeah, and the PC has the blue screen of death. And trust me, if it happens to you, you will be just as irratated as you would be if you had a 360. You think the Playstation 3 is any better? Let me tell you that it has the yellow light of death, and don't get me started on some of the issues that have happened because of a simple problem with the consoles internal clock, and how your trophys must sync with their servers.

"...2/10/73 - a commercial for the first home video computer game..."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnavox_Odyssey
1973 would have been correct if you lived in the UK.

Your whole fourth paragraph.
Then what would you do that was any different? People complain dispite not doing much to anything themselves. I do agree with you about Final Fantasy, but the features were roughly the same. Enjoyment came from how much you liked the game, not all the useless bells and whistles you seem to enjoy. You could even turn down the settings if you needed to so you can maximise framefate, but the game had always ran smooth for me. Voice chat overated? The same could be said of GSC, you know that?

"...but you wont have all the full functionalities..."
It actually comes down to this: Do I really need them? I don't think so.

"Computer Games there are ways to get them for free whereas console games it is nearly impossible even with some torrents available for them."
Dude, I thought you much better then a thief. If you want a game, pay for it. If you have paid for a non working copy, then torrent a copy that dose. If the game cannot be acquired by tangible means, like ROMS, then go for it. If the game is recent, please pay for it. There are some games out there I would like to see sequals for, and developers dont make games so that people could steal them. They make them so that they may feed their families.

As of now, I find that it is pointless to argue any farther for nothing is getting done. You are not convincing me, and vice versa. I still do think that it is cost effective to play on consoles more so then PC, but at this point, I dont care, because in five years, your alienware will be last generation serplus, as with todays consoles.

LOL...It figures someone would argue this topic but no matter, I was prepared ahead of time to toss grenades of knowledge that I had been holding back on into the frontlines. Yeah I will say consoles got the market cornered due to sheer power and graphics only but not entirely because for every one person that has a console there is also about a good 75%+ chance that they also own a computer as well. That wasn't my point though. My point was that computers aren't losing gaming or even going anywhere like many think and say they are. And your wrong, not sure about alienware or what cores he's running under the hood but i've got the new i7 quadcore on my laptop and i've been able to tweak and clocked GTA4 at a whopping 65fps and the game runs extremely fast and very smooth with absolutely no problems. Sounds like his alienware might be and older version. The new quadcore technology runs way faster especially if it's 64-bit like mine and i'm on a Laptop so I can only imagine what it could do on a desktop. So either way you have it, it's still pushing the envelope. Computers upgrade themselves constantly every 3 to 6 months therefore at the end of the lifespan of a console the computer is ultimately ahead by years but then that technology is taken and enhanced and moved to a console for that next-gen console's lifespan for the next 6 years and this cycle just repeats. So in theory, computers are always a step ahead of the game.

Also let me point out that the 360 is still utlimate fail because Microsoft still doesn't know how to fix that damn Red Ring of Death which is why most people went for the PS3 and hate xbox. On top of that, you're wrong again, not sure where you got that information but that is incorrect and you do need a xbox subscription to play or even get onto play anything online which is stupid because your forking out 60 bucks a game on top of 10 more just to play a game online, how stupid can you be and for what, just online trophies? It is a test to see who would actually willingly throw away their money as people tend to do. Also they pulled the plug on the original xbox's subscription for online services. And what you said about the OS, no that is true but it is STILL a computer under the hood no matter how you look at it and it always will be its just designed for gaming only.

As for your sidenote, yes that is true and your off by a year - From The Carol Burnett Show aired for it's release on 2/10/73 - a commercial for the first home video computer game - the Magnavox Odyssey. But the console was an ultimate fail due to lack of support for it and because many didn't quite understand its purpose which is why nobody or hardly anybody knows or remembers it unless your a heavy gamer. Atari later on took the lead and showed people what consoles were meant for.

As for your attempt to point out that mmo's are on consoles yes that is true but the effort for it is still light years off. About the only real success i've actually seen on it would be Final Fantasy. But the ideals and options behind them still lack what the computer can handle and create so it is just watered-down to simplify it and that comes at a cost of losing player enjoyment later on most likely. I never said that you couldn't do it, I simply said that it isn't realistically sound and I do agree that it is a waste of money to bother putting an mmo onto a console. Other MMOs unless they are FPS usually are all Fail and most likely will be. Heck, even RTS on consoles usually suck to be honest! I have yet to come across one on a console that has actually held my attention span. Same with FF, I played it but never really fully enjoyed it without hooking up a keyboard and mouse to the console and I found voicechat was overrated.

Lastly, No you don't have to modify your hardware on your console which is cool but you wont have all the full functionalities that you do on a computer nor will you see them anytime soon on a console not to mention that most Computer Games there are ways to get them for free whereas console games it is nearly impossible even with some torrents available for them. Not to mention that most games are originally designed on a computer and ported into console version because the consoles that create them simply cannot handle the design capabilities like they used to which has forced most developers to run the developing programs on computers and then hash them out onto consoles. If you think about it though, your spending alot of money either way whether it be on computers or consoles, games aren't getting any cheaper. I'd say in the end on cost's both the computer and the console are about even on costs.

If I were to place money on who would win in the actual market, it would have to be the consoles.
Lets get this out of the way first: back in 2006, if you wanted a computer that could run The Elder Scrolls VI: Oblivion at a solid 30 frames per second, you would have to shell out about a grand and a half just to do it. Even my friends Alienware today cannot hold 40 fps on it in maximum settings. But if you got an Xbox 360 for $300.00 USD, then you were able to go to town with it, get great graphics with the quality set to max on all areas, and have a solid gaming experiance that was honestly without shutter.

Second of all, there have been a numerous effort to put mmos on todays consoles, but the companies that have made the consoles usually don't allow this. I've always imagined that this is because the mmo would make it so that subscribers to the companies online services would not have to be so active on the service itself, but on the service the mmo is hosted on. Case in point: you don't need to have an XBox Live Gold subscription to play Final Fantasy 11 on the 360. It was never because you could never play it, it is because someone thought they would be loosing money in the process. Consoles today have operating systems just like computers. The files are stored differently then on a PC, and what you see on the screen is just a bit different. I even believe the operating system used on the 360 is a gaming version of Windows Vista. I could be mistaken, however.

And one last thought: you don't have to modify your hardward on your console. This cannot be said by computer players, however, as they keep shelling out more money for RAM and better graphics cards. So, I could live without the abilities of a computer for solid and long lasting gameplay. Is my 360 going anywhere? Nah. Will it for another four years? Probably not. Will rich gamplay still be an option? Oh, hell yeah.

And as a side note: The Magnavox Odyssey was the first home console ever built. It was made in 1972, I believe.