So in other words you're just twisting the figures to suit your argument?
How do the figures look for 5 years- a reasonable life for a console, possible even an underestimate, by which time you'll have had to pay another $1200 to upgrade your PC again whilst your 360 is still playing it's games just fine and still looking great?
And it's not like people with an apparent ax to grind against PCs don't twist the numbers also. In my not to unusual circumstances Console gaming is not really much cheaper than PC gaming. In 5 years I will probably end up replacing the 360 and/or upgrading the hard drive (at 4-5x normal retail price) and possibly a Natal add-on ($100??). On the PC side I'll probably be spending $700-800 or so for a major upgrade (MB, CPU, RAM, GFX) in a year or so.
It's not as if a $1200 PC will even play the latest and greatest PC games. I bought a high end PC for double that (and yes, I used the cheapest possible source for components, I've been building gaming PCs years, I know what I'm doing) 18 months ago without a monitor as I already had one and it still wouldn't run Crysis in full detail at a reasonable framerate. It ran the likes of Spore, Warhammer Online and Dawn of War II fine of course, but you'd have to spend far more to get all games to run fine.
Never played Crisis, it seemed to be mostly a tech demo than a real game, mostly suitable for benchmarks. I will agree that there are a couple games that *require* the latest and gratest and then still won't play decent when released.
Again, you just don't get this problem with a console, it just works, and still nearly always looks better than the PC, even as the console hardware ages and drops below the spec of your average gaming PC, largely because it's a single gaming dedicated hardware platform and hence easier to optimize for.
It's not always easier, I've had DLC break games on the 360 and the consoles generally seem to take longer to get patches than the PC version of major titles because each patch has to be "certified" and even then the patches add new bugs and exploits like "infinite ammo" exploit in MW2 on the 360 which is funny as it apparently acts like a worm and anybody that joins a game with the hack get the hack also and can pass it on to other matches, or so I've read.
Now gearbox has been a bit better patching Borderlands on the consoles than the PC and the same probably can be said for other games.
There's realistically too many factors to do a sensible price comparison, you'd have to do it long term rather than cherry picking favourable stats like the life of the PC, rather than the life of the console. Mentioning 2 chat pads when most people use a headset and you can only use one chatpad at a time because the onscreen keyboard can only show one at a time doesn't exactly help your cause for providing a balanced comparison either.
I will agree that it varies alot depending on what you play ... I frankly only buy 2-3 PC games a year and so far the DLC for them has all been free. On the console side I'm buying 5-6 games (2-3 are new releases) plus another $20-30 for DLC for the games. Some may be fine with using their main TV for a display, myself it does not so that comes into the calculation. Some have stated here that they don't use Live Gold so it's possible for them that $300 + Games is all it costs for them. They apparently are on one end of the spectrum and I'm and some of my friends are on the other side.
We both have friends that use MSN, but don't have Xboxes that we like chatting with and the chatpad is much better than the OSK. My daughter and myself have our own favorite controllers and I got tired of having her unsnap the chatpad from mine and snap it on her controller and worrying about the connections wearing that I bought the 12Mo Live, Chatpad, Headset, PGR4 bundle as that was the best deal on two of those items.