You're half wrong.

BioWare worked on DA:O's PC version separately from the console version. DA2, they developed together and they were almost exactly the same game, hence part of DA2's awfulness.

I agree. You'll end up with a much better system for less money and you'll be able to upgrade it in the future on a component by component basis instead of handing over a bunch of cash for an entire computer. You can upgrade everything in a desktop setup, RAM and hard drives are about the only things you can change on a laptop. If anything becomes obsolete, you have to replace everything.

Like I said, everyone with Windows 7 or Vista has DirectX 11 installed because of the autoupdate.

You're making the incorrect presumption that everyone with a computer has an internet connection.

It isn't 1995 anymore. If a person can afford to buy Windows 7, then they can get internet.

To answer the question...Yes, console hardware is way behind the progress invested into personal-computing hardware (think Tilera or something). I am not sure that PC developers can fully use all of the new resources and tech yet though.

It's still good to see that minimum requirements don't exceed a dual-core yet, I guess the majority of computer users still run mid-range systems (or like me are still on Pentium 4...)

Is PC being held back technologically because of consoles? Yes.

Is BGS a multi-platform AAA game developer who wants to expand their player base and make a lot of money? Yes.

This is in no way suggesting that Skyrim isn't graphically impressive, because it is. However, the game could look a lot better if it was fully optimized to be the best it possibly could be solely on PC. No, I'm not talking about DX11 support. Just look at The Witcher 2 (PC only). It's a DX9 game, and I would argue it is the best looking RPG to date. Is it catered to a high-end gaming computer experience? Yes. However, CD Projekt Red made the best possible game they could without limiting, compromising, or catering to any certain demographic.

BGS took a different route by having a set limit due to the consoles. However, they improvised, streamlined, and completely overhauled their entire engine to make one of the most detailed and beautiful experiences on consoles to date. It just makes me wonder what BGS is truly capable of if they were to just make the most graphically impressive game they possibly could.

Until someone comes up with a superconducting material that functions at all temperatures, and not just at ?183 °C, desktops will always be superior to laptops when to comes to gaming.

Even if that doesn't happen, thirty years down the road, what's going to be a noticeable difference between the performance of the two, anyway?

There was a thread discussing this awhile ago and according to Steam's hardware statistics, 52% of their subscribers were using dual-core processors, with 32% using quads or higher. And they probably have a larger number of hard core gamers on their system, with more powerful rigs, than there would be in the general population.

Chances are that desktops will far outstrip laptops as far as performance goes. As video cards and processors become more powerful, they'll use up more energy and generate more heat, both things that you'll be able to deal with better on a desktop system. You're not limited by a battery with a limited charge and there's more ways of cooling off your system so that it doesn't overheat.

Maybe there will be tech 30 years from now that can keep a laptop as cool as a desktop?

From what I have seen I am more impress by SR than the Witcher 2, Skyrim is the best looking game I have ever seen artistically and only a step behind the top fps technically.

Possibly, but there's nothing on the horizon that I can think of. And chances are any technology that might be developed will no doubt require power, so you're still left with a major limitation in the form of battery life. So you can keep your laptop nice and cool, but you can only use it for 5 minutes at a time.

I couldn't agree more.

There's really no way around the battery/power issue is there? There's no future tech that could possibly remedy this?

The new Creation Engine is a lot more optimized, it will look & run a lot better then Oblivion did on 360. It will be the same game on PC that it is for console except yes it may load faster on PC, resolution can be set higher on PC, and option to use a keyboard & mouse. Im talking about a none peace of crap PC of course but a decent average PC.

Far as how it will look on console & run? It will run great, it will run better then Oblivion did and be better in every way, graphics, animations, gameplay etc. Its all optimization, better the technology & experience game developers have the better a game will not only look & play but how well it will run. PC will always look better then the console and unarguably run a game better over all, that is just a fact that is pointless to argue about. Once again im talking about a good PC that yes cost more then a console.

I agree. Its very doubtfull that without the succes of ob on the consoles bethesda would have upped the team to 100 devs or even kept going the tes route.

Yes, someone coming up with a superconducting material that functions at all temperatures. That will allow the development of batteries that hold a crap load of juice. But there's been no breakthroughs in that area since 1986.

25 years and still nothing? A breakthrough with that tech would be awesome.

I would say yes, building for consoles does detract from the potential quality for PC's. Not all computers can run the game like the best computers, and some might not even run it as well as an xbox 360, but the default starting "equipment" would be assumed to have better specifications.

I don't know about the rest of you, but I have this funny thing for my laptop called a power cord.

What I meant by my question is what, in thirty years when games may very possibly all be photorealistic unless the developers specifically intended for that not to be the case, will separate them by what we can actually see and notice? Graphically, why would there be any difference? Functionally, there's a certain limit to what we can see in a framerate, as well. What would effectively cause these fabled PCs of the future to be different in gaming... assuming heating issues aren't a problem... as is the case, now, really? When the software and hardware are advanced enough to make photorealistic games running at seemingly flawless fps's, what difference can we notice?

Yes, and that breakthrough only brought the functioning temperature up to ?183 °C, or the temperature of liquid hydrogen. There was alot of buzz about superconductors when that happened and I spent a bit of time looking into it then, and yes, the potential is amazing. It would revolutionize alot of things in our society if we could break that barrier.

but to answer the OP's question more directly, if a game is designed well enough on a good engine it could run so well on a console that you would have a tough time noticing the performance difference between a good PC & a console. PC's will always look better then console, they have higher resolution options, AA options, better graphic cards etc, but far as game performance goes that is all completely on how the game is designed. You can make Pac Man run like a pile of [censored] on a good PC, Crysis is a good example even now the best computers $ can buy will still not run that game flawlessly but they will run Crysis 2 flawlessly. Crysis 2 also looks better & is a better game period, its all in the game design.

Some games are designed on PC that use more % of the graphics card then anything else, then you have games that use more of the processor then the GPU etc. We are finally getting to where games are not using so much of the graphics card and that is helping console out drastically.

You mean aside from your laptop burning up and billowing smoke all around you? We're a long ways from having video cards that are capable of displaying the kinds of graphics you're describing, and when we do they will no doubt draw a lot of power and generate a lot of heat. I'm not sure if laptop systems will even be able to handle that kind of quality, aside from having to plug them into a wall. I suspect that they're pretty much at the limit of how much heat they can tolerate already, which is why manufacturers still stick in crappy video chips that are light years behind standalone cards.