So true. PC's do have a mountain of games compared to Mac's current little hill, comparitively speaking. But like Willis says, by 2005 almost all popular hit titles will be ported to both platforms, and probably near simultaneous release-dates as well (if Unreal 2004 was any indication of things to come).
While even mediocre PC's can adequately play many PC games, it seems only the really high-end Macs (read: recent G4's or any G5) can even dare to turn an eye towards the newest Mac titles. But if money was no oject, and price was nothing but a number (I said price, not age, Mr. R Kelly!), I think Mac's are awesome and there is NO PC that can do better. Only match it, at best. Oh, and PS2 or XBOX? I have both, and they can both stay home. They're weak sauce and lack gameplay depth, options, and their graphics are dated. Just look at Rainbow Six, for example. About 75% of the pre-mission planning is simplified. Whether it's because the game doesn't have enough space or because the game companies don't think console gamers are willing to spend that much time strategizing, I don't know. But fact is, computers will always have a leg up on gaming, and as of now, Macs and PCs are tied in that arena when it comes to sheer performance and spittin out raw frame rates.