Disclaimer: Bottom two paragraphs are first for the TL;DR version.
My computer is good but was never intended for gaming and if you're not gaming, you can comfortably run anything off your i5's built in GPU for example. You'd be surprised.
So is the real cost of PC vs consoles now a days just the price of the graphics card for many? It was for me, I would have had a PC anyway for the work I do. For me, next gen gaming only cost me £120 (Palit Storm X Dual GTX750Ti).
In the interests of fairness, consoles gamers like to consider the entire costs of a computer when comparing the prices to consoles. But is this really correct anymore? Especially with APU designs.
They often refer to the Steam survey which implies the average PC gamer is still using Dual Cores or whatever. But doesn't that imply that most PC gamers buy a PC for other reasons first? And most PCs can game to some degree without requiring expensive extra parts.
Surely it's only the enthusiasts that buy and build a PC purely for gaming, having the latest parts.
The only thing you need a graphics card for, is gaming these days, unless it's somehow helping you with a professional application.
I understand a graphics card on its own isn't going to game, but this is a perspective from the other side.